House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
Every death of someone who is homeless is one too many. That is why we are determined to end rough sleeping altogether. We have committed £100 million to the rough sleeping strategy, and we are spending over £1.2 billion to prevent and reduce homelessness.
Preet Kaur Gill
Official figures released by Office for National Statistics just before Christmas shockingly revealed that 597 people died homeless in England and Wales in 2017—an increase of 24% over the last five years. With further cold weather expected, will the Secretary of State back Labour’s £100 million-a-year plan to make cold weather emergency accommodation available for every rough sleeper in every area?
James Brokenshire
As I said before Christmas, these figures are hugely shocking. As I have already indicated, one death is one too many. That is why we are committed to taking action across the board; I pointed to the £100 million rough sleeping strategy. At times like this when we have colder weather, we have also allocated an extra £5 million over and above some of our additional work with short-term capacity to support councils to ensure that we are actually giving the help that is needed to some of the most vulnerable in our society.
Rosie Duffield
This week I spoke to the Hepatitis C Trust and my local homeless charity, Porchlight, who highlighted rough sleepers as a significantly vulnerable group in terms of alcohol and drug dependency. What steps are the Secretary of State and his Department taking to help homeless people to access mental health and addiction services?
James Brokenshire
The hon. Lady is right to highlight the issues of mental health and addiction, with a much higher proportion of people who are rough sleeping having those particular needs. That is why in the NHS long-term plan there was the commitment for an extra £30 million designed specifically for health support for rough sleepers, because sometimes access can be really difficult. We are determined to ensure that that type of support is able to be provided to rough sleepers.
Anna McMorrin
We know that homelessness is getting worse. According to Shelter, 36 new people become homeless every day. One way to address this is to make more social housing available. To do that, England should be suspending the right to buy as we have already done in Wales. Does the Secretary of State agree?
James Brokenshire
I do agree that we require more social housing. That is why we have our affordable housing programme. We have also already taken off the restrictions on councils in England to enable them to borrow to build a new generation of council homes. [Interruption.] I would just point out to Opposition Members, with regard to some of their comments, that this Government have built more council houses in their time than in 13 years of the last Labour Government. But we know there is more to do and we are committed to doing it.
Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
Homelessness is rising, and that is why we need action to stop it reaching the peak levels that we saw under the last Labour Government. What progress is being made to ensure that all councils—not some, but all councils —are taking the preventive approach envisaged in the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017?
James Brokenshire
I agree with my hon. Friend about the Homeless Reduction Act—a really ground-breaking piece of legislation very much emphasising a preventive agenda to prevent people from becoming homeless at all. Local authorities have received an additional £72.7 million to implement the Act, and the homelessness advice and support team has been providing support. But we need to ensure that more is done and we will certainly be reviewing the implementation of the Act by March next year.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
It is often alleged, perhaps anecdotally, that a disproportionate number of rough sleepers are people with a military background, perhaps suffering from drug or drink abuse or from post-traumatic stress disorder. Does the Department have any statistical method for checking whether that allegation is correct? If so, there would be things that could be done with the armed services as well as through the Department.
James Brokenshire
I can assure my hon. Friend that we are working with the Ministry of Defence on support that can be provided to veterans who need our help and backing because they have ended up, for whatever reason, on the street. He is right to say that we need better data, and that is what we seek to achieve.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Of the 600 homeless people who died last year, 85% were men, one third died of drug overdoses and 10% died from alcohol poisoning. Will the Secretary of State ensure that those groups and factors are specifically prioritised in order to tackle this issue?
James Brokenshire
I am pleased to say that our rough sleeping strategy is intended to give that prioritisation, through work not only by my Department but across Whitehall. My hon. Friend is right about that need, and that is what we are determined to provide through the strategy.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Centrepoint estimates that local funding for Bath and North East Somerset Council would need to double to deliver on new duties for homeless young people under the Homelessness Reduction Act. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether he will bring forward proposals to ensure that post 2020 Homelessness Reduction Act funding is based on the level of local demand for homelessness support?
James Brokenshire
As I have indicated, we will conduct a review of the implementation of the Homelessness Reduction Act and look at evidence about local authorities’ pressures and needs. I want to ensure that the Act is implemented well and that we are preventing people from becoming homeless.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
To deal with homelessness, we need to deal with the housing shortage. Will my right hon. Friend join me in applauding the work of North West Leicestershire District Council, which has overseen the construction of more than 1,000 new homes in the last 12 months, including the first council houses to be built for more than 30 years? Does he think it is a coincidence that we again recorded no rough sleepers in the district over the last 12 months?
James Brokenshire
I commend my hon. Friend and his council for the work they are doing to build the homes that our country needs. Of course it is about the supply of affordable and social housing, which is why we are taking steps across the board to get people building.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
Last year, nearly 600 people died homeless in this country. The Secretary of State was right to admit, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), that this is truly shocking. In a country as decent and well off as ours, this shames us all. We cannot stop homeless people dying if we do not grasp the reasons why it is getting worse, so why does the Secretary of State think that the number has risen in the last five years?
James Brokenshire
I share the right hon. Gentleman’s understandable and rightful concern about the number who were shown to have died and the increase in rough sleeping. I have certainly not hidden from that or from the challenges and responsibilities that we have as a Government to look at the complex issues that lie behind this. We also need to look at what we can do in terms of other issues, such as social policy, where changes have been made, and to look at the evidence, to ensure that we are making a difference and eradicating rough sleeping, preventing people from becoming homeless and ensuring that the most vulnerable are well supported.
John Healey
The Secretary of State is a decent man, but that was an answer of sheer irrelevance. People are dying on the streets, and the Government are ducking the hard truth that their decisions on hostel funding, on housing benefit, on social housing investment and on protections for private renters are the root causes of the homelessness crisis. With the first widespread winter snow forecast this week, there are still areas of this country where no extra emergency accommodation will be available. Will the Secretary of State think again? Will he save lives this winter and make Labour’s plan the country’s national plan, with £100 million for extra emergency accommodation for every rough sleeper in every area as the temperatures are set to hit zero?
James Brokenshire
I take the issue of rough sleeping, ensuring that lives are saved and that steps can be taken to provide further accommodation and support, extremely seriously. It is one of my priorities. It is why the rough sleeping strategy looks not only at accommodation, which of course is important, and we have taken steps through our rough sleeping initiative, with additional accommodation and additional support workers out there as a consequence, but at issues of health, addiction and mental health. That is why I am determined to make that difference; and our rough sleeping strategy will make that difference and will make rough sleeping a thing of the past.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
UK Government Ministers meet the devolved Administrations regularly to discuss EU exit matters, and the UK shared prosperity fund has been discussed several times in those conversations. Discussions have also been held by officials with their counterparts in the devolved Administrations and key external stakeholders.
Stuart C. McDonald
On 15 November, we were promised details of the replacement for EU structural funds, but more than two months on, groups across the country still have no idea what funding will be available to them after next year. Will the Secretary of State at least assure the House that the Government on this occasion will respect the devolution settlement, and that the Scottish Government’s role in delivering the structural funds will not be subject to a power grab?
James Brokenshire
The Government will of course respect the devolution settlements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and we will engage with the devolved Administrations to ensure the fund works for all places across the UK. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the guarantee that has already been given for structural funds through the 2014 to 2020 allocations, and we will certainly continue to discuss those issues with the devolved Administrations and others.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
It is incredibly important that the UK Government do not confine their engagement in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to the devolved Administrations. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that, in developing the UK shared prosperity fund, they will engage fully with businesses and third sector organisations in those three nations?
James Brokenshire
We are intending to move forward with the consultation on the UK shared prosperity fund, which will allow everyone to be able to participate—obviously with the devolved Administrations, but with other stakeholders too, as I have indicated—to ensure that this fund is well structured, delivers on the new arrangements for our priorities as the UK as we leave the EU and ensures that those funds are well used.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Has the Secretary of State taken cognisance of the recommendation of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that the UK Government should at the very least match the £2.4 billion a year that communities across these islands currently receive as a result of EU structural funds?
James Brokenshire
We will look very carefully at the representations we receive. Obviously, the UK shared prosperity fund is designed to tackle inequalities between communities by raising productivity following our departure from the European Union, harnessing those opportunities and making sure that we have a new fund—according to our own priorities—that is easier to administer and therefore better able to deliver.
Alison Thewliss
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. For the period 2014 to 2020, Scotland received €476 million from the European regional development fund and €465 million from the European social fund. We are losing this because Scotland is being dragged out of the EU against our will. Will he commit today to matching this at the very least, and will he devolve the shared prosperity fund in full to the Scottish Government?
James Brokenshire
Obviously, we will consult widely on the UK shared prosperity fund. We still have the spending review to be conducted later this year, but we are determined that, as we leave the European Union, we will have these new funding arrangements in place to deliver for all of our United Kingdom, to raise the sense of opportunity and prosperity, and to make a success.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
Since 2010, over 500,000 people have been helped into home ownership through Government-backed schemes, including Help to Buy and right to buy. Our recent evaluation of the Help to Buy equity loan scheme found that 58% of people using the scheme were under 35 years old.
Robert Courts
As well as challenges, the Oxfordshire Cotswolds garden village provides a real opportunity for us to have the affordable starter homes that for so long have been lacking in places such as West Oxfordshire. What are Ministers doing to provide district councils such as mine with support to provide the housing mix that our area needs?
James Brokenshire
I warmly welcome the plans for the homes in the Oxfordshire Cotswolds garden village. My hon. Friend asks about supporting local authorities, and I would say to him that we have abolished the housing revenue account borrowing cap. That, alongside the £9 billion affordable homes programme and the revised national planning policy framework, empowers local authorities to deliver the right mix of homes for their area.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
When young people find themselves homeless, they are often sofa surfing and living in risky accommodation because of the lack of council homes. Living in a rented room is more affordable than renting a private flat. Will the Secretary of State say what steps the Government are therefore taking to protect vulnerable young people seeking housing accommodation in houses in multiple occupation?
James Brokenshire
As the hon. Lady will know, we have raised standards on fitness for human habitation in legislation that was supported across the board, and improved the support to ensure that we have a stronger, more positive private rental sector market. Conversations are continuing, and I recognise the point that she makes about raising standards and ensuring that the sense of opportunity is firmly in place.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
For many young people, the biggest obstacle to getting into the housing market is the value of the land. What discussions will the Secretary of State have with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about grading agricultural land to see if we can utilise some of the less good land for house building? [Interruption.]
James Brokenshire
Yes, firmly in Cornwall. The national planning policy framework is about empowering some of those local decisions and choices, in Cornwall and elsewhere. I am continuing to discuss how we can have that additionality—that positive benefit that we can unlock from our national environment through our planning work—with colleagues at DEFRA and others across Government.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
The Government’s Help to Buy scheme has undoubtedly helped many families on to the housing ladder, but it has also driven many other families off it by pushing up the market price. How do the Government respond to research that suggests that the net impact is at best neutral and probably negative?
James Brokenshire
No, through our schemes more than half a million households have been helped into home ownership through Help to Buy and right to buy. The number of first-time buyers rose 82% between 2010 and 2017, and we have seen the first sustained rise in home ownership among 25 to 34-year-olds in 30 years. That is a positive step forward, although we know there is more to do. It is through initiatives such as Help to Buy that we are making that difference.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) knows all about houses as a whizz kid estate agent. Let us hear from the fellow.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
If you are ever thinking of moving, Mr Speaker, do let me know.
Councils across North Yorkshire, such as Richmondshire and Hambleton, are delivering more affordable housing to purchase through the category of discount market sale. What plans does the Secretary of State have to roll this policy out nationally?
James Brokenshire
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the veritable skills he clearly has in so many different areas, and on championing this particular course of action. It is right to recognise that we have delivered more affordable homes in the last eight years than there were in the last eight years of the last Labour Government. It is the sort of schemes that he identifies that are helping to make that difference, and we are examining carefully how such initiatives can be rolled forward.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
The average mortgage for today’s 27-year-old on the Government’s living wage is more than half of their pay packet, but the Government are still allowing “affordable” to be defined as up to £450,000. Why do the Government not take a leaf out of Labour’s book and support our first-buy homes for which mortgages are no more than a third of average income?
James Brokenshire
I will take no lectures from the Labour party, given that when it was in government it saw house building fall to levels not seen since the 1920s. We are taking various steps to see more homes built and to ensure that people can get on the ladder to fulfil their dreams. That is something that we as a Government are committed to doing.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)
We are undertaking a review of local authorities’ relative needs and resources to develop a new, more transparent funding formula that will be fit for the future. We are making good progress in collaboration with the sector and recently launched a consultation that will close on 21 February.
Henry Smith
This financial year the Government have granted Crawley Borough Council more than £700,000 for homelessness reduction, and this coming financial year it will be more than £800,000. However, the leadership of the council are complaining about a lack of capital funding for a homeless shelter when it has reserves of more than £21 million. Can I have an assurance from the Department that local authorities will be asked to properly deploy their resources to help the most vulnerable?
Rishi Sunak
The people of Crawley are lucky to be represented by someone who had a very successful career in local government. My hon. Friend is excellently well placed to know that any council should look at using its excess reserves first, rather than refusing to invest in local services or unduly increasing the burden on hard-working taxpayers.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) has just been on the receiving end of a charm offensive, in case he had not noticed.
Damien Moore
Does the Minister agree that funding is often better distributed through town councils? Will he condemn Sefton Labour councillors who voted against Southport having its own town council?
Rishi Sunak
This Government support communities that wish to take greater ownership of local decision making. I encourage my hon. Friend and Southport residents to formally petition the council to undertake a community governance review. That will ensure they have the opportunity for their views to be properly considered.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Getting back to helping the most vulnerable, in the consultation document, the Secretary of State proposed to remove deprivation completely as a means of allocating resources from the foundation element of the formula, the non-care element, and rely totally on per capita allocation. Does the Minister not accept that people in the most deprived communities are more likely to use public transport, more likely to need the help of a housing officer and more likely to use council leisure facilities because they cannot afford those in the private sector? If he will not reinstate deprivation as part of the formula, does he accept that the whole review will become known as the very unfair funding review?
Rishi Sunak
This is a consultation, and I would be happy to receive informed opinion from the hon. Gentleman, the Chair of the Select Committee. I would point out, however, that the funding formula covers broadly universal services used by the majority, if not all, of a council’s residents. As we disclosed transparently in the consultation document, population is by far and away the most important factor driving the need for those services. Deprivation was shown to account for less than 4% of the variation in spend in the area.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
South Cambridgeshire District Council, deprivation rank 316, has seen a spending power cut of just £21.85 per household this year compared to 2010. Knowsley Council, deprivation rank two, has seen a spending power cut of £1,057 per household, while Hackney, deprivation rank 11, has seen the largest cuts in spending power of £1,406 per household. How is that fair?
Rishi Sunak
I have some figures, too. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to take account of the fact that the spending power per household of the most deprived authorities is today 23% higher than those that are the least deprived.
Andrew Gwynne
There are lies, damned lies and statistics. The Minister cannot get away from the fact that poorer areas are poorer on his watch and that health inequalities are widening on his watch. The situation is set to get worse as he seeks to continue with his reverse redistribution, shifting funds from the poorest communities to some of the wealthiest. Will he now agree, in the interests of transparency, to Labour’s call for the National Audit Office to independently scrutinise the fairness of his so-called fair funding review before it is implemented?
Rishi Sunak
I do not think that I heard a rebuttal of the statistics I outlined. It is clear that the Government are supporting people in every part of the country. We are providing £1 billion of extra funding to deliver social services and a real-terms increase in funding for local government in the next coming year.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Mrs Heather Wheeler)
We have been clear that owners and developers should protect leaseholders from costs. As a result of our action to date, owners and developers have made a commitment to fund the cost of remediation, or have had a warrantee claim accepted, for 80 buildings so far.
Dr Offord
Although that is indeed admirable for those leaseholders, my constituents in Premier House in Edgware are still being told by the freeholder of their building that they must pay for the removal of the dangerous cladding. That has resulted in thousands of pounds of costs for legal fees and safety measures, and it has rendered their properties unsaleable. Will the Minister assure me that the Government have a plan B for leaseholders who are held liable for costs? Will she advise me when my constituents can reasonably expect their situation to be resolved?
Mrs Wheeler
My hon. Friend will have to excuse me for speaking with my back to him.
My hon. Friend works tirelessly to support the residents of Premier House in Edgware on the removal of cladding. I understand that that case will be brought before a tribunal at the beginning of April. The Government have made it clear that we expect building owners in the private sector to protect leaseholders from remediation costs. A growing list of companies, including Barratt Developments, Mace Group and Legal & General, are doing the right thing and are taking responsibility, and I can announce that Aberdeen Asset Management and Fraser Property have also joined that list. I urge all other owners and developers to follow the lead of those companies. I will consider all other options if they do not do so.
Mr Speaker
The growing phenomenon of Ministers reading out great screeds that have been written is very undesirable. A pithy encapsulation of the argument is what the House wants to hear.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Last week, the Minister told me that the Department is keeping pressure on Ballymore Ltd, following the Secretary of State’s letter of 19 December, for which I am grateful. However, the leaseholders have now received an offer from Ballymore saying that the bill is £2.4 million for fire safety work. They can have half a million pounds off, but they must pay the rest. That offer is only open until 31 March. What more can the Department do to help my constituents? Time is clearly running out.
Mrs Wheeler
I am not reading from any notes, Mr Speaker.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that very useful information. If we can see the letter, we will take the matter forward.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Mrs Wheeler
It is a pleasure to be able to face my hon. Friend; I apologise to hon. Members behind me.
The Secretary of State has written, and we are awaiting the outcome to that. As soon as we get a reply, we will be in touch directly with my hon. Friend.
Mr Speaker
I beg your pardon; I am getting ahead of myself. I call Neil Coyle.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)
Local authorities have been given access to more than £46 billion for the forthcoming year. That funding is largely unring-fenced, so councils can spend it on children’s services as they see fit. I am pleased that the number of local authorities whose children’s services are ranked good or outstanding is continuing to increase.
Neil Coyle
More than 50,000 British-born children with parents legally in the UK are denied access to central Government support under pernicious Home Office rules. Councils are then forced to step in to provide emergency support through children’s social services. London councils spend £53 million on that, and there is no recourse to public funds. Last year, my council spent £6.5 million. When will Ministers end their wilful blindness to the penury that the policy causes and stand up for councils in the face of this blatant Home Office cost-shunt?
Rishi Sunak
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We engage with the Home Office regularly to deal with the funds for unaccompanied asylum seekers and other such people. I am happy to realise that issue in the next of my regular meetings with the Immigration Minister.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Permitted development rights have been a disaster for my consistency of Harlow, as London councils have socially cleansed their residents and sent 400 troubled families to our constituency. We do not have the resources to look after them in the way they should be. Will my hon. Friend look at permitted development rights, undertake a review and ensure Harlow Council has the resources it needs to look after those 400 extra troubled families?
Rishi Sunak
I will be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that issue. Of course, vulnerable children must be housed appropriately and looked after, but we should ensure that that is done as closely as possible to where it makes sense for their communities.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was frantically trying to think of a question when you called me just now. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The number of children in need is up, the number of looked-after children is up and the numbers of child protection plans and child conferences are up, yet the Government grant has gone down. This year, children’s services face a £1 billion funding gap—£3 billion by 2024-25—and the Local Government Association, the Children’s Commissioner, Action for Children and our councils have all warned that children will be at risk. So where’s the money?
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Gentleman should know that last year £1 billion more was spent on children’s services than when we came into office and that the recent Budget announced an extra £420 million that could be spent on children’s services. Government Members are, however, concerned with outcomes, not just the amount of money we plough into things, which is why the Department for Education is working closely with the best-performing areas to spread best practice across the country.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)
Ongoing discussions before the autumn Budget led to the Government announcing £420 million of additional funding for highways authorities to fill potholes and carry out other works. The Conservatives: the party of filling the many potholes, not the few.
Mr Hepburn
The national problem of potholes has been caused by this Government and their 50% cut to local government funding for tackling it. While the new money is welcome, it is a drop in the ocean. North-east councils alone need £1 billion to sort out their pothole problem. Will the Minister press the Chancellor for more?
Jake Berry
Cycling UK estimates that it costs an average of £53 to fill a pothole, so the money announced at the last Budget in the north-east alone is enough to fill over 400,000 potholes. Rather than complaining about it, perhaps it is time those north-east councils got on with it.
Mr Speaker
I want to hear about the pothole situation in Huddersfield. I call Mr Barry Sheerman.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Potholes are not a joke for cyclists; many are killed on our roads every year. The roads in Britain are becoming more dangerous, and our very good record in road safety is being lost to other countries. Is it not about time the Minister talked to the Home Secretary and others not only about potholes but about the number of police on our roads catching people who break the law?
Jake Berry
I am about to pick up my new bicycle tomorrow, so the issue of potholes is close to my heart. The Government are working cross-departmentally to tackle the problem, which is why we have created this £420 million fund—to fill potholes up and down the England.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing (Kit Malthouse)
We constantly review the construction levels of all types of new homes.
Liz Twist
The Government’s pledge to replace homes sold under the council right to buy scheme has been a failure, with only one home being built for every four sold. Why should anyone believe that things will be different when it is extended to housing association tenants? Is it not time to suspend right to buy?
Kit Malthouse
There are plenty of signs that the Labour party is detaching itself from its historic supporter base, but one of the saddest is its inability to grasp the aspiration of working families to own their own home. The concerted attack on one of the most popular policies of the past 30 years—the right to buy—is a very sad spectacle. I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that the one-for-one replacement policy has not been sufficient to provide the number of social homes the country needs, and we are reviewing that policy at the same time as taking the cap off the housing revenue account and allowing councils, which frankly were induced out of council house building by the Labour Government, to get on and build the new generation of social homes.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Our excellent Housing Minister will know that parishes and towns with neighbourhood plans in place will have 15% more houses built as a result. He may also be aware that they are quite cumbersome to put in place. Does he have plans to make them easier to deliver, and will he hear representations from my parishes of Ticehurst, Robertsbridge and Salehurst about how they can be delivered a lot faster?
Kit Malthouse
I was wondering who my hon. Friend was referring to then—I thank him for that compliment. As somebody who represents a beautiful part of the country, he has long been a champion of local people ceasing to be victims of the planning system and taking control of it themselves, and he is quite right that neighbourhood plans are the way to do that. From my own experience in my constituency, I have been concerned that they take some time and effort to put in place. We are reviewing what we can do to smooth their passage, and we have some funding available to assist in that, but I would be more than happy to meet him and take representations from him and his constituents.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
City of York Council has presided over a net loss of social housing, and, according to a report published today by Centre for Cities, its level of house building has been one of the worst in the country. We have a serious housing crisis. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that our Tory and Liberal Democrat-controlled council builds the housing that is so desperately needed in our city?
Kit Malthouse
As I hope the hon. Lady knows, we have set aside significant resources to help councils achieve their housing aspirations. We will be helping with infrastructure and providing other assistance to help them over the line. Critical to that, however, is ensuring that they have a local plan. I am sure that the coalition that is in control of City of York Council would welcome the hon. Lady’s participation in their creation of such a plan, rather than her antagonism towards it.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Mrs Heather Wheeler)
The Government are committed to ensuring that park home residents are better protected. We have set out a range of measures to review the park home legislation and tackle the abuse and financial exploitation of residents. New legislation will be introduced when parliamentary time allows.
Helen Whately
Residents of leisure park homes in my constituency appear to have been mis-sold their properties by rogue site owners, and they are now vulnerable to exploitative charges and intimidation. Will my hon. Friend consider extending the provisions of the Mobile Homes Act 2013 to give leisure home owners more rights and protections, and will she take a broader look at the mis-selling and misuse of leisure homes?
Mrs Wheeler
My hon. Friend has been a thorough champion on behalf of residents of leisure park homes. The situation is iniquitous. The Mobile Homes Act applies to residents of sites with residential planning permission, but leisure home owners are protected under consumer rights legislation. My Department is working with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which is responsible for consumer issues, to better communicate those protections to leisure home owners. I look forward to meeting my hon. Friend shortly to discuss the matter again.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
The Minister for Housing (Kit Malthouse)
As many Members will know, my mantra is “More, better, faster”, and we are very keen to accelerate the delivery of housing. Across England, house building is at its highest level in all but one of the last 31 years. We are going further by streamlining the planning system, creating more certainty for developers and local communities and looking at the recommendations of the build-out review conducted by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin).
Daniel Kawczynski
There have been some real delays in the Shropshire planning authority. What is the Minister doing to give Shropshire Council more resources so that it can attract more and better-qualified staff to streamline the planning process? This is starting to be a real problem.
Kit Malthouse
I applaud my hon. Friend’s impatience to build more new homes in his constituency. He recognises that the next generation of Salopians would welcome the provision of those homes as soon as possible. We have already given local authorities a 20% uplift in planning fees, and we have consulted on further resources in the past, but I have given a public commitment that if it becomes clear that resources in planning departments are a constraint, we shall be more than happy to talk to our Treasury colleagues about what more can be done.
Chris Davies
I commend the Secretary of State for publishing last year’s updated national policy planning framework, but may I encourage my hon. Friend to consider new ways to speed up the planning process?
Kit Malthouse
It is always a pleasure to be greeted by impatient Members who, as I say, want more housing for the next generation. My hon. Friend is right: we need to constantly examine the effect of the planning system on the production of new homes. As he says, we issued a new planning framework back in July. We are carefully assessing the impact of those policies, but if my hon. Friend has useful and constructive suggestions, I shall be more than happy to hear them.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The Government’s expansion of permitted development rights has caused multiple problems across the country. Such developments make no section 106 contributions towards new social housing. There are reports of homes of appalling quality, with children forced to play in car parks on industrial estates, and of homes in some areas being used only for short-term holiday lets, while developments in other areas are causing the loss of valuable employment space. Last week, the permanent secretary confirmed to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee that the Government had undertaken no evaluation of this policy. Will the Secretary of State call time on the policy, so that a full evaluation of the impacts can be undertaken?
Mr Speaker
Order. There seems to be a competition between what I would call parliamentary essayists today. That was an extremely eloquent essay—very erudite—but we could do with a paragraph.
Kit Malthouse
We will not call time on a policy that has produced tens of thousands of homes for people who need them. We are aware that there have been some difficulties with properties converted under permitted development rights, but we are not entirely sure that local authorities are using the tools at their disposal to make sure that standards are maintained. However, as I said earlier, we keep all our policies under constant review and I would be more than happy to look at specific situations if the hon. Lady wishes to raise them.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Bristol was one of the sites for the first ever council houses built under the Addison Act 100 years ago—in Hillfields in my constituency. We are now building council homes again, but nobody from the Department has been prepared to come for our centenary celebrations this year—you have turned down the invites. May I ask why?
Kit Malthouse
The main reason is that I am impatient to visit and the hon. Lady will be pleased to know that if all goes to plan I will be there on Thursday.
Mr Speaker
Well, there is time for a keen sense of eager anticipation to build up before the hon. Gentleman arrives.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend the Minister pay tribute to the work of Homes England in its support for Mid Sussex District Council in providing the key that will open the development of 4,000 new houses in Burgess Hill? Will he see what further work Homes England, in its very constructive approach, can adopt to deliver more new housing?
Kit Malthouse
My right hon. Friend is to be admired in displaying yet more impatience for homes to be built, and he is right that the newly revamped Homes England is an impressive and entrepreneurial organisation which is using its skills to unlock sites across the country. In the six months that I have been in this job, I have been impressed by its work and I am now busy touring sites, as I was in Poole in Dorset, where it is applying its skills and industry to unlock precisely the kind of problem that he talked about.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
There is a three-year period for a one-to-one replacement to start at a site, but what is the average time for completion of one-to-one replacements? Of the one-to-one replacements that the Government say are in progress, how many are actually occupied?
Kit Malthouse
I am afraid I am going to fail the hon. Gentleman: I do not have that precise number at my fingertips at the moment. But I am more than happy to write to him about it. He will know, however, that we have consulted on changes to the one-to-one replacement policy and we will be coming forward with a response, and hopefully improvements, soon.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)
The Government fully support the Parking (Code of Practice) Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight). It will create an independent code of practice for private parking companies and deliver robust accountability, providing a much better deal for motorists.
Giles Watling
I was pleased to support and sit on the Committee for the Parking (Code of Practice) Bill, which my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire so expertly steered through Parliament, but parking scams have been operating in Clacton for many years and it is literally driving my constituents around the bend; they want a solution. When this Bill completes its journey and receives Royal Assent, how quickly can it be implemented?
Rishi Sunak
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on the Committee and for highlighting his constituents’ problems. I am pleased to tell him that I have already placed a draft outline of the code in the House of Commons Library and as soon as Royal Assent is achieved a full code will be issued for formal statutory consultation.
Rishi Sunak
The current system is one of self-regulation and, sadly, the behaviour of some rogue operators using questionable or intimidating practices means that change is required and we must act. The new code will mean consistency and higher standards for parkers and will ensure that rogue operators are driven out of business.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
My constituents—particularly disabled constituents and those, for example, attending hospital appointments—also suffer from punitive cowboy parking operators. What efforts can be made in the code to give special protection to them?
Rishi Sunak
These are exactly the kinds of things that the code of practice will cover, and I will be delighted to receive representations from the hon. Lady as the code is developed.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)
The Government regularly publish analysis of the impact of changes in funding on households of different income. Next year’s local government settlement sees a real-terms increase in funding and beyond that there is a range of council tax support schemes to assist those with low incomes.
Dr Huq
Up until now, Ealing Council has ring-fenced child and youth services, but seven of its 13 libraries and 11 children’s centres are on a hit list for community management, which many see as the slippery slope to closure. The council says that it has been forced to do that because it only has 36p in every pound that it used to have. Will the Minister help to match up social enterprise buyers with these services, which help so many low-income families? Better still, when will the Government properly fund local authorities, as the age of austerity is meant to be over?
Rishi Sunak
Not to rehash the fact that local government will receive a real-terms increase in funding next year, it did not escape my attention that at Ealing there are non-ring-fenced reserves sitting at the council of more than £100 million.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Having campaigned for it, I am delighted that the Secretary of State has approved a new business rates retention pilot from Northamptonshire that is anticipated to lever in an additional £17 million for local services. What difference does he believe this will make for frontline services in the county?
Rishi Sunak
I am delighted that Northamptonshire will benefit from the new business rate pilot. Of course, that money can be used by the councils, working together to invest in the future prosperity of their communities. Beyond that, it promotes cultural change to ensure that all local areas have a stake in the economic future of their community.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Rishi Sunak
I welcome the cross-Government work on this issue. As the House knows, a couple of years ago the Government announced the £15 million annual tampon tax fund to support women’s charities. There are no current plans to provide extra money to local authorities, but of course the Government keep that under review.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)
Working with Sir John Timpson before the Budget, we set out the action plan to support the transformation of high streets. That included a business rate discount of some £900 million for eligible retailers and a £675 million future high street fund.
Clive Efford
I am grateful to the Minister for the answer. I recently visited a new start-up in my high street that runs escape rooms and panic rooms—I commend them to the Prime Minister. They do not qualify for small business rate relief and will not qualify for the retail discount as they are deemed a leisure business. Is it possible that small business rate relief can be extended to such innovators on our high streets to ease the pressure as they start up their businesses?
Jake Berry
The point is that big or small, all rate reliefs benefit the entire high street. Healthy high streets are busy high streets, and businesses of whatever type benefit from people visiting them.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Mrs Heather Wheeler)
The severe weather emergency protocol provision ensures that people sleeping rough are provided with emergency shelter during cold weather. Alongside the £30 million rough sleeping initiative funding for 2018-19, we have launched a £5 million cold weather fund to help authorities to provide additional emergency and longer-term accommodation this winter.
Nic Dakin
I thank the Minister for that answer. New Life Church, together with North Lincolnshire Council, is providing temporary support for people in really bad weather. Good work is also being done locally with the Forge project. What will the Government do to ensure that such projects continue into the future to help homeless people?
Mrs Wheeler
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that excellent supplementary question. The straightforward answer is that I would urge all councils that have not applied before to apply to this new fund and we will see what we can do for north-east Lincolnshire.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
Local councils will play an important role in supporting communities as we leave the EU, and I am committed to working with them to ensure that they are prepared to respond to any Brexit scenarios. I can therefore confirm that local authorities will receive an extra £56.5 million to help them with their Brexit preparations and to help deliver essential services and keep residents well informed. We also remain in close contact with local councils through our rough sleeping initiative to support some of the most vulnerable in our society and help them to get the support they need.
Yesterday, Members across the House remembered Holocaust Memorial Day. I had the privilege to attend the incredibly moving national commemoration of those who lost their lives in the holocaust and subsequent genocides. Those dark events of the past call on us all to confront racism, bigotry and hatred wherever it may occur and to stand up for tolerance, reconciliation and stronger communities.
Lyn Brown
Councils in deprived areas such as mine are desperately scrambling to find the funds to meet their needs while facing almost double the spending cuts of the least-deprived area. The Minister says that this is about population, but London is home to 16% of the population and has suffered 30% of the cuts. This Government still favour wealthy areas over poor ones. Is that because they are mostly Tory areas?
James Brokenshire
The hon. Lady should look at the settlement that we have provided, which involves an extra £1 billion for local government across the board. Indeed, it represents a real-terms increase that is intended to make a real difference to how we support councils to meet pressures and challenges.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)
Embedding residential communities on our high streets is part of the future health of the high street, and I will with pleasure meet my hon. Friend and representatives from his constituency to take the discussions forward.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)
I share the hon. Gentleman’s passion for ensuring that councils have adequate early intervention services. I have been championing the troubled families programme since I arrived in this job, and I would be delighted to hear from him and others about how best to ensure that a successor programme is available to councils.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
Jake Berry
We absolutely support the role of rural post offices, particularly as a hub at the heart of our communities. That is why the most recent Budget cut business rates for most small post offices, and through our support for “Pub is The Hub” we have helped post offices move into people’s locals. Pints and parcels, Mr Speaker.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Rishi Sunak
It was a pleasure to meet the hon. Gentleman and his constituent, who made a powerful and compelling case for Government action. I am pleased to tell him and all campaigners that we will outline the consultation before the Easter recess to take this important measure forward, and I look forward to his contribution.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
The Minister for Housing (Kit Malthouse)
My hon. Friend is continually effective in bringing the issues of his constituency to this House. He will know that I am unable to comment on a specific neighbourhood plan, but I confirm to him that planning policy is clear that planning done through neighbourhood plans should be safe and should take coastal change into account.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Jake Berry
How typical it is of the Labour party to measure success only by what is put in. We believe in the northern powerhouse, which is about creating a growing northern economy. We have created 200,000 jobs since 2010, we have created an historic mayoral devolution deal, including across Liverpool, and foreign direct investment in the north is growing at twice the national rate. Our approach has grown the northern economy by £22 billion in two years; the approach of the last Labour Government grew it by £4 billion in three years.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
What steps is the Department taking to help to ensure fire safety in buildings, particularly those with a residential sleeping risk?
James Brokenshire
I note my hon. Friend’s experience of this, and we are working carefully across the board to implement the Hackitt review to ensure that building safety standards are raised. Indeed, we are currently consulting on approved document B. We are looking at continuing experience and, if there is experience from Scotland, we will certainly reflect on that, too.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Today’s Centre for Cities report is absolutely devastating, highlighting that cuts have fallen hardest on deprived communities in the north of England—including Liverpool—that are enduring the highest poverty rates. It is very disappointing to see the Minister grimacing and laughing, because this is a very serious matter for the communities we represent. Does he agree with the conclusion of the Centre for Cities that the Treasury review of public spending, which is due for the autumn, must find extra funding for all councils if authorities are to remain sustainable?
Jake Berry
Issues of future funding are, of course, for the Treasury. As someone who was born and bred in the city of Liverpool, I delight every time I visit to see that this Government’s mayoral devolution is driving Liverpool’s economy in a way that we have not seen for a generation.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
Will the Housing Minister extend his motto to “More, better, faster, safer” by introducing a requirement for carbon monoxide detectors in all new homes that have gas-burning appliances?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend is to be applauded for the constant pressure he keeps up on the Government on safety issues. He is right that we are looking at the introduction of carbon monoxide detectors. We have gathered evidence, which we are looking at, and we will be coming forward with a response shortly.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
We had two debates in the Chamber last week on dangerous cladding, which shows the incompleteness of the Government’s response. Can we have a comprehensive strategy from the Government this year that deals with all types of building, all types of cladding and all types of landlord?
James Brokenshire
We provide regular updates that specify the work taking place through the remediation programme to deal with this very serious issue of combustible cladding. The hon. Gentleman will well know the work that is in place, both in the public sector and in the private sector, but I underline to him the urgency I attach to this and how I am not keeping anything out of consideration in making sure that people are safe and feel safe.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I understand the desire to build a lot of new homes, but I share the concern of many of my constituents that this could lead to large housing developments of identikit houses. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to enable small builders to bid for smaller areas of development? That would support our excellent small builders and encourage a more beautiful built environment.
James Brokenshire
I recognise and appreciate my hon. Friend’s championing of good design and the sense of place and space, which is something the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission firmly intends to achieve. We have specific funding to support small builders so that we can have a strong, diverse economy in housing.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
The Local Government Association chair, Lord Porter, recently said:
“We are unanimous that deprivation should be in”
the foundation formula. Why does the Secretary of State disagree with his Conservative colleague?
James Brokenshire
As the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) said, we are consulting on the fair funding review in setting out that new arrangement for local government. As he has already set out, that is a means of ensuring that spending is felt effectively and fairly across the country and there are different ways of doing that.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
On council tax and rent to be paid during the migration period of universal credit, will the Minister confirm that local authorities will be asked to take into account these exceptional circumstances and provide leeway when tenants fall behind on payments?
James Brokenshire
We are working closely with colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions on the implementation of universal credit, issues relating to housing and the connection that local government has on the frontline in the delivery of these issues. We are therefore ensuring that this will be done effectively, as my hon. Friend appropriately says.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Today, it has been revealed that Barnsley is the local authority hardest hit by Government funding cuts. Can the Minister really justify targeting cuts on the poorest in society?
Rishi Sunak
This Government are committed to ensuring that every resident in this country gets the funding they need to have the services they deserve. The upcoming fair funding review is based on transparent, simple analytics and I am happy to hear from any colleagues if they disagree with the numbers.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Residents across my constituency and beyond are extremely concerned about the Rivenhall incinerator development, which was originally approved by the last Labour Government. With revised planning applications being considered, will the Secretary of State listen to my constituents and act by calling this application in?
James Brokenshire
I note the way in which my right hon. Friend is championing her constituents in her customary powerful and passionate way. She will understand, on the issue of calling in, that this is quasi-judicial and I am therefore unable to comment. However, I note the way in which she has championed the cause.
Mr Speaker
The fact that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Thelma Walker) served with distinction as a headteacher and the fact that she has been waiting so patiently are, in my judgment, not unrelated.
Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can the Secretary of State tell me whether any assessment has been made of the number of homeless people who have a history of special educational needs that may not have been appropriately supported in the past?
James Brokenshire
I recognise the hon. Lady’s own experience in raising that issue, some of the background, some of the challenges and some of the issues that may have led to someone falling through the gap and ending up on the street. We are determined to get better data and better analysis, so that we can provide more targeted help. That is precisely what we are committed to doing through the rough sleeping strategy.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Residents of Goxhill in my constituency are mindful that the village needs to expand and that new homes are needed, but does the Minister agree that local authorities and planning inspectors need to be mindful of the fact that there must be a limit on new homes in villages?
Kit Malthouse
Goxhill is lucky to have such an assiduous representative in my hon. Friend. I agree with him that we need to balance the aspiration for new homes for the next generation against the need for sensitive and appropriate development. I urge him to work with the residents of Goxhill to put in place a neighbourhood plan, which would mean that they would no longer be victims of the planning system, but its bosses.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will know that the battering of Birmingham next year will be all the more severe for his decision to rule out access to the council’s reserves. Birmingham’s MPs have written to him to ask for a meeting. When he finally wrote back, he refused to meet. May I say to him that he can take these decisions but it is incumbent on him to front them up to Members of this House?
James Brokenshire
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am happy to meet him and his colleagues because, obviously, I am focused on ensuring sustainability and stability in the finances in Birmingham. We took that decision carefully and in a considered way, but I recognise the points he makes and I am happy to meet him.
Venezuela
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Venezuela.
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
Last week, hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans took to the streets to protest against Nicolás Maduro’s continued presidency, after deeply flawed elections last May and his unmerited re-inauguration earlier this month. Those demonstrations were the latest of many that have taken place over the past two years, and represent what can be interpreted only as a cry for change in a country that has been rendered destitute by Maduro and his cronies. Venezuela is becoming a state that is run by cartels and criminal gangs. We know that it harbours groups such as the ELN—the National Liberation Army—that threaten to destabilise Colombia’s hard-won peace agreement, and increase the threat of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons and drugs. The bomb attack in Bogotá last week was perhaps a recent example of just that.
Last Wednesday, on 23 January, Juan Guaidó, the president of the Opposition-controlled and democratically elected National Assembly, condemned the illegitimacy of Maduro’s regime and declared himself, under the Venezuelan constitution, the interim President. Within 24 hours, regional countries from the Lima Group and the Organisation of American States, along with the United States and Canada, had declared their support, recognising Mr Guaidó as the interim President. The EU also issued a statement saying that the voice of the Venezuelan people could not be ignored, and called for new credible elections to take place.
On 24 January, the Foreign Secretary made it clear, in a statement made in Washington ahead of his meeting with US Vice-President Pence, that we no longer regard Maduro as the legitimate leader of Venezuela. On Saturday, I attended an emergency UN Security Council meeting in New York, where I said that we believe that Juan Guaidó is the right man to take Venezuela forward and that we will recognise him as constitutional interim President if new elections are not announced within eight days. This is a position shared by the French, German, Spanish and Dutch Governments. On 26 January, the EU also called for the urgent holding of free, transparent and credible presidential elections in accordance with international democratic standards and the Venezuelan constitutional order. We are in close consultation with our EU and international partners on this issue, and the Foreign Secretary will discuss Venezuela with EU Foreign Ministers later this week in Bucharest.
The UK and our partners cannot and will not stand by and allow the tyranny of Maduro’s regime to continue. He has caused endless suffering and oppression to millions of his own people. He has grossly mismanaged the economy for his own benefit, and his regime stands accused of serious crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court. Alongside others in the international community, we must urgently help to pave the way to a brighter future for the Venezuela that Maduro has so culpably ruined. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States and other allies in saying that the National Assembly and its president, Mr Juan Guaidó, are best placed to lead Venezuela to the restoration of its democracy, its economy and its freedom.
Mike Gapes
Venezuela should be one of the richest democratic countries in South America and the world. It has the largest proven oil reserves of any country, with 297 million barrels—more, even, than Saudi Arabia. It also has an educated population and large areas of arable land, yet today there is mass poverty and the economy has collapsed under the rule of the United Socialist party. The daughter of the late President Hugo Chávez, María Gabriela Chávez, is the country’s richest woman, with an estimated worth of $4.2 billion.
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation says that there are 4.1 million people with malnutrition in Venezuela. The Catholic charity Caritas says that 41% of Venezuelans are now feeding on waste in markets. There is a shortage of medicines, including vital antibiotics for children, and blood banks are collapsing. Two thirds of buses in Caracas are out of action because there are no spare parts. An estimated 1 million people have sought refuge in neighbouring Colombia.
The economic collapse, as the Minister says, is a direct result of the corrupt, incompetent, kleptocratic regime of Nicolás Maduro. The Democratic Unity Roundtable coalition won the National Assembly elections in November 2015. It is a centre-left alliance, including two Socialist International member parties, the Popular Will and A New Era. It won 112 out of 167 seats, and that should have led to the end of 16 years of PSUV rule, but it did not. Maduro refused to co-operate and doubled down on his repression, and the country continued its economic collapse. The rigged presidential re-election has rightly been criticised by international observers. The decision by National Assembly president Juan Guaidó to be declared interim President is correct—it is a game-changer. So far, as has been said, that has been recognised internationally by many countries, and to that list, I add Australia and Israel, which have also done so recently.
The people of Venezuela do not need the weasel words of a letter to The Guardian, from assorted Stalinists, Trotskyists, antisemites and, apparently, dead people, and also from members of Labour’s Front Bench. What they need is our solidarity with the legitimate, elected, social democratic president of the National Assembly: interim President of Venezuela, Juan Guaidó. The European Union has called for credible elections, but Nicolás Maduro has already rejected that. What humanitarian assistance will we give to people in Colombia? What steps will we take within the UN? What further action can we take with the European Union? And when will our Government recognise Juan Guaidó as the President of Venezuela?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. These are most serious matters. I know that the hon. Gentleman will take it in good heart when I say that he is deeply versed in the history of Stalinism and Trotskyism, as many Members of the House can testify, because they have heard him expatiate on the subject, usually one to one, over many years, but I notice that he did manage to include in his oration two or three questions right at the end. The normal form in an urgent question is to make a brief commentary followed by a series of inquiries. I have a sense that he was perhaps slightly more interested in what he had to say to the House than in what the Minister might have to say to him, but we shall see.
Sir Alan Duncan
May I profoundly thank the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) for enabling this urgent question to be discussed today in the House? I also thank him for his knowledge of, and passion and concern for, Venezuela, which we admire. They are, I can tell, widely shared across the House, except in some corners of it, which is, I think, to be deplored.
The hon. Gentleman is right that Venezuela should be pretty well the richest country in Latin America. It used to be, and it could be still. He painted an accurate picture of the human misery that has been caused by what he describes as the corrupt, incompetent and kleptocratic regime of Nicolás Maduro.
The National Assembly, which was elected, is legitimate, but as soon as it won and had a majority against Maduro, Maduro trumped it with the fake election of a Constituent Assembly, which he deemed, against the words of the Venezuelan constitution, to be more powerful than the National Assembly. The world knows that the National Assembly is legitimate, and the Constituent Assembly, and hence the subsequent flawed election of Nicolás Maduro, is not legitimate. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, we should all be saddened that, in our midst, there are people who still seem to have sympathy for the regime of Nicolás Maduro despite what it has done to poor people. It has made them not just poorer but destitute, and, in many cases, has forced them to flee. Let the signatories of that letter in The Guardian today be pinned on every wall as a list of signatures of shame.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I pay enormous tribute to my colleague on the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), whose voice of clarity in this House has been missing for some time on the question of Venezuela. I also pay tribute to the Minister, whose work at the United Nations in co-ordinating a joint response against tyranny has been so essential. Does he agree that those Members who side with the despots and the dictators against the democrats and the free people should be ashamed of themselves? This is appeasement. This is wrong: it is a crime and it cries out for justice. Thank God we have the Minister in his place, and no one else.
Sir Alan Duncan
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, he has been following the situation closely, as have all members of that Committee. I am pleased to say that I am not the only one who is doing what he says. The entire Government are, and I sense that our view is shared by many Opposition Members.
We have clear opinions about what the plight of the Venezuelan people is, but some say that our concern is based on a colonial mentality. It most certainly is not; it is based on genuine concern for the plight of millions who have had their faces driven into the dirt by Maduro. The steps that may have to be taken are based on law, and we are looking at the legitimacy of their Government, not just our view of the state of the people.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) for securing it.
Last Saturday, I condemned Venezuela as one of those countries where democracy has ceased to function in any meaningful way. Sadly, what we have seen over the past week has simply confirmed what I said then. The political, economic and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela is totally dire and will get ever worse as long as the Maduro Government continue to ignore human rights, free speech and the rule of law. What the Venezuelan people need instead is a Government who respect the rule of law, and uphold human rights and democracy—a Government who understand the scale of the crisis they face and who have a clear plan to resolve that crisis. Judging by their record in recent years, the Maduro Government fit none of those descriptions.
I also believe that it is a mistake in such situations simply to think that every problem will be automatically solved by changing the leader, let alone the kind of US-led intervention being threatened by Donald Trump and John Bolton. Instead, if we all genuinely believe in resolving the crisis in Venezuela and in restoring peace, democracy and stability, I hope that the Minister will agree that our chief priorities should be encouraging all parties to engage in dialogue, working towards a peaceful resolution and, ultimately, allowing the Venezuelan people themselves to decide the way forward through the holding of new free and fair elections.
The Minister will be aware that, across the Caribbean sea in Honduras, there were similar violent protests this weekend against another repressive, authoritarian Government who abuse human rights and jail their opponents. But our Government do not criticise them; instead, they sell them arms and surveillance equipment. Only two months ago, they sent them what the Foreign Office boasted was
“the most senior British trade mission in…years”.
Will the Minister tell us why this double standard exists and why the Government are not consistent in their condemnation of all Governments who abuse human rights?
Sir Alan Duncan
May I, at the very least, welcome the right hon. Lady’s condemnation of the Maduro regime? In that, at least, we find common ground, which I hope can be shared across the House. I am only sorry that it is not even shared across her own Front Benchers, as it is quite clear that the sympathies of the shadow Chancellor are at odds with the tone of her contribution to these proceedings.
This is not just about changing the leader, as the right hon. Lady put it; it is about applying the proper constitution of Venezuela, which is why the legitimate claimant to the presidency has been very careful to describe himself as the interim President, which is exactly what is stated in the constitution. On the back of that he, like every right thinking person, is calling for prompt fair and free elections so that the people of Venezuela can properly elect the leader they want to govern them.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
The catastrophe that has befallen Venezuela under Maduro—cheered on, incidentally, by the Leader of the Opposition, his chief lieutenant and various other Poundland Lenins—has led to the ruin of a nation. Does the Minister agree that we must take the greatest care that such ruin never happens here?
Sir Alan Duncan
I certainly share the opinions of my right hon. Friend in all senses. The sympathies of the Leader of the Opposition with the likes of Maduro are very distressing. Clearly, in terms of his sentiment, he finds himself more in line with Cuba, China and Russia than he does with all democrats across the world.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) for bringing this urgent question to the House and the Minister for his statement.
We would like to reflect the calls of the Minister and of Federica Mogherini that democracy cannot and should not be ignored. There is a desperate need for free and fair elections. We condemn the violence and we condemn the regime carrying out the violence. That has also been condemned by Amnesty International, and we would do well to reflect on its remarks. Venezuela should be a wealthy country, yet so many people have been left in dire poverty.
Let me say to the Minister—I am glad that he reflected on this, as did the hon. Member for Ilford South—that we cannot ignore the humanitarian situation and the millions of refugees, with 1 million, as the Minister rightly said, in Colombia alone, which is going through its own peace process at the moment. How are we working with our European partners, in particular, and what is our long-term strategy in terms of free and fair elections and standing up to this regime? Will the Minister set out his response to the unfolding humanitarian crisis, as some humanitarian organisations are concerned that that has been lagging a little bit in the past?
Sir Alan Duncan
May I thank the hon. Gentleman for—if I may put it this way—the responsible nature of his questions and observations? I had a very extensive conversation on Friday evening with High Representative Federica Mogherini on exactly his question. We obviously want to see the maximum possible unity between the views of the Lima Group, the Organisation of American States, the United States and the EU. The EU, of course, has many citizens living in Venezuela and therefore has a direct interest in the plight of that country.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, those who have left Venezuela are in staggering numbers: well over 1 million have gone to Colombia; well over 1 million to Peru; nearly half a million each to Ecuador, Argentina and Chile; and 180,000 to Brazil. This is the biggest movement of population we have ever seen in Latin America, certainly of those caused by one person’s bad government rather than some kind of drought, famine or natural disaster. As I said, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will speak at length to EU colleagues in Bucharest on Thursday, when he will be at the Gymnich meeting, and we will do all we can to make sure that there is unity of approach should the eight days not be met with a promise of having elections from President Maduro.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
Our thoughts must be with the people of Venezuela at this extremely difficult time, and they must also be with our embassy staff. Caracas is already a very dangerous capital. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that everything will be done to ensure their safety? Furthermore, will he look at reinstating the Foreign Office budget that allowed regional ambassadors to meet in the region at least twice a year so that they can come up with a better co-ordinated response? This budget was cut and I believe that that should be revisited.
Sir Alan Duncan
My right hon. Friend was a very distinguished Minister for the region when he was himself in the Foreign Office, and he knows an enormous amount about the subject. I can assure him and the House that I have been in regular contact with our excellent ambassador in Caracas, Andrew Soper. I am confident that, certainly at the moment, their wellbeing is fine and that they are not under threat. That must remain the case, of course. In terms of the budget, we are of course looking at where we will be when we leave the European Union, and Latin America is a very important focus for many of the bilateral and regional relationships that we want to develop and enhance.
Graham P. Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I was appalled by the letter in The Guardian this morning, but more importantly, it was factually incorrect. America still buys 500,000 barrels of oil a day from Venezuela and props up the economy. It could withdraw from that, but has declined to do so because it would have an impact on the Venezuelan people.
I am concerned about the 4 million migrants, half of whom are children. I think that Members will be deeply concerned about their welfare, because they are destitute and struggling in the countries that the Minister has named. I have written to him many times since we came back from the summer recess about what the United Kingdom is doing. We are organising nothing; we are not involved in anything. Ministers come to the Dispatch Box with warm words, but it appears from the replies that he has given to me that our aid programme is no more than £10.2 million. When are the Government going to step up to the plate and look after these vulnerable people whom we should be looking after and caring for?
Sir Alan Duncan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his concern for those who have fled. We have to recognise the extraordinary generosity of the neighbours of Venezuela, who have had to take these people on. Our scope to do an enormous amount is limited, in that we have to work largely through multilateral organisations, as this is not an area in which the Department for International Development has had much historical involvement. We cannot just turn that on a sixpence, as I well know from my time in DFID, but the UK always steps up to the plate when it comes to helping people who are in trouble. Most of all, we should applaud countries such as Colombia that have welcomed well over 1 million refugees and ensured that they have been able safely to escape the perils of remaining in Venezuela.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Though frightful for Venezuelans, this does serve as a powerful object lesson, does it not?
Sir Alan Duncan
In many respects, indeed it does. One always has to be aware of my right hon. Friend’s very short and pithy questions. It is always better to just say, “Absolutely, yes; he is quite right.”
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) on securing the urgent question. Maduro is presiding over a corrupt regime after rigged elections and is inflicting misery on his own people. He has no legitimacy. While the shadow Foreign Secretary suggests that recognising the democratically elected president of the National Assembly, Juan Guaidó, would be interventionist, does the Minister agree that these exceptional circumstances merit such an approach if no free and fair elections are forthcoming, not least because of the intensity of the human tragedy that is unfolding and the rigged elections that the presidency of Maduro is based on?
Sir Alan Duncan
I totally agree with the hon. Lady. What the Venezuelan people have had to suffer at the hands of Maduro is beyond contempt. Across the Floor of the House, we all believe that it is very important to champion human rights. I remind those who think that it is appropriate to support Venezuela at the moment on the one hand, and then on the other believe that they are also champions of human rights, that it is Venezuela’s neighbours who have referred not only the person but the entire state, for the first time ever, to the International Criminal Court, citing 8,000 extrajudicial executions, 12,000 arbitrary arrests and 13,000 political prisoners in custody. If people want to champion Venezuela, they are also championing that, and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I have been listening carefully to these exchanges because I visited Venezuela quite frequently until about 10 years ago. I remember it as a very attractive place with a rapidly emerging economy and a reasonably democratic constitution. Does my right hon. Friend share my slight trepidation and sense of powerlessness about exactly what the United Kingdom and our various allies are going to do? When he is consulting with the United States and the European Union, will he advise against just imposing more economic sanctions, which will cause even more poverty to the population of Venezuela, probably without moving the Maduro Government unduly? Will he consider targeted sanctions aimed at shifting the military elite, who are obviously solely responsible for keeping this dreadful Government in power? Will he consult not only the European Union and the United States, but friendly countries in the rest of Latin America? Governments such as that of Colombia will be the best guides to what might be done to change something in this completely failed and disgraceful regime.
Sir Alan Duncan
As usual, my right hon. and learned Friend offers the House some very wise advice and guidance, and I am able to say yes to pretty much everything he said. First, when it comes to sanctions, it is important to target individuals rather than cause increased pain to the citizens of Venezuela. On the other hand, most of the money that goes in gets stolen anyway and goes to the elite, so although one might think that sanctions would in normal circumstances often cause more damage to the country, they in fact do more broadly target the elite.
When it comes to talking to Venezuela’s neighbours, that is exactly what we in the Government and I personally have been doing for well over a year. The Lima Group, which is championed, as the name suggests, by the Foreign Minister of Peru, have been acting very closely together, and they are the ones that have been very tough on Venezuela—in some cases, removing ambassadors and calling for early elections and the removal of Maduro—and we are talking to them. It is from Venezuela’s regional neighbours that we perhaps take our most detailed steer and guidance in knowing how to approach this very difficult issue.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
The Maduro regime has clearly been a disaster for the people of Venezuela, with the humanitarian catastrophe, as we have heard, and the appalling abuses of human rights documented by Amnesty International and others. I agree that pressing for fresh, free and fair elections must be our priority, but may I urge the Government to tread carefully in how we get there? Let us be honest, United States interference in Latin American countries has a pretty tragic and troubled history. Surely it is best for us to pursue the correct objective of seeking fresh elections via negotiation and mediation first.
Sir Alan Duncan
Yes, I think pressure is also needed to bring about those elections, which is why countries across the world are working very closely together. I think the unity of opinion among such a broad collection of different regions—America, including Canada; the EU; and the immediate neighbours—has the same view. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should be cautious, because the narrative of US interference in Latin America can stir up counterproductive voices. At the moment, what we want to do is solve the problem, rather than relive some of the difficulties of decades ago.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
It is only two weeks since the BBC 2 film “Revolution in Ruins”, on the legacy of Hugo Chavez, was broadcast, previewing what became worse with Maduro. Will my right hon. Friend invite the socialists who had the letter in The Guardian to come and see him to get them to explain whether they think things went wrong because of the personalities of Chavez and Maduro, or because of the policies and practices followed by those two Presidents?
Sir Alan Duncan
Tempted though I am by my hon. Friend’s suggestion that I should meet the signatories, it is a temptation I will choose to resist. Instead, I might send them the speech I gave in Chatham House last November about Venezuela so that they can learn a little bit more about history than they could perhaps impart to me.
Mr Speaker
Put it in the Library, if it is not there already. [Interruption.] Very good.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
When I visited Venezuela in 2009, I was shown around a theoretically brand-new hospital, which was meant to be fully operational. Those showing me around must have thought I was a complete and utter idiot because every ward I went into had exactly the same patients—they were scurrying around from one ward to another. The truth is that the Venezuelan Government have lied for years and years to their people and to the outside world, particularly Russia and China, and the people who are feeling the damage are the poor children on the streets and the parents who are unable to feed their children because there is nothing in the shops.
My biggest fear is what this may do to Colombia, however, because the peace process is very tender and Iván Duque’s election is not necessarily moving towards restabilising it. Could the Foreign Office in this country perform a very useful function in working with the Spanish Government to try to bring security and stability to Colombia, which is facing such an enormous influx from Venezuela?
Sir Alan Duncan
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. One of the reasons why the United Nations is interested is that this is not a domestic issue for Venezuela; it has regional and therefore international implications. One of those implications, as I said in my opening response, is that Venezuela is harbouring some of the elements who would undermine the peace process in Colombia. He is absolutely right, and he has a long-standing interest in and has supported the Colombian peace process. We need to understand that process fully and to realise that these matters are linked. Therefore, solving the problem in Venezuela can significantly help with the challenges, which are increasing, in Colombia.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
It is seven weeks since one of my hon. Friends wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the chairman of the Bank of England about the gold being held on behalf of the central bank of Venezuela. I followed that up with letters to the Governor, the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the first letter sent to a foreign Head of Government by interim President Guaidó was to the Prime Minister on 26 January about the gold being held on behalf of the central bank of Venezuela? The president of the central bank of Venezuela is unconstitutionally appointed, because he has not been approved by the national assembly. What are our Government going to do?
Sir Alan Duncan
I am aware of the letter, and, for the benefit of Members, if they do not know already, I confirm that the Bank of England holds a significant amount of Venezuela’s gold under a contract. The answer to my hon. Friend is that this is a decision for the Bank of England, not the Government. It has to make the decision on this, and no doubt when it does so it will take into account that many countries across the world are now questioning the legitimacy of Nicolás Maduro and recognising that of Juan Guaidó.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Why does this matter to the streets of Harlow? It is because 50% of cocaine shipments come through Venezuela. If there is a new regime there, will the Government work with it to stop cocaine reaching our shores and affecting the millions of people on hard drugs?
Sir Alan Duncan
My right hon. Friend is right. This has significance across the world because large amounts of drugs are trafficked through Venezuela. Of course, one cannot tackle that problem with the Government of Venezuela because they are party to that inappropriate drug trafficking themselves. Therefore, the solution for the streets of Harlow when it comes to Venezuela is to deal with a legitimate Government who are prepared to tackle the problem head-on in Venezuela.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
After a proper ballot and, hopefully, the election success of Juan Guaidó— whose party, incidentally, is a member of the Socialist International—Venezuela will still face an existential crisis, with the Maduro legacy of economic meltdown, a collapsing oil industry, hyperinflation, food shortages and 3 million citizens in exile. Should not the UK, the EU and the international community be preparing a Marshall plan for the reconstruction of Venezuela?
Sir Alan Duncan
One of the tragedies of Venezuela is that it has massive resources of its own. If only they were properly used, invested in and managed, no Marshall plan would be necessary in the way the right hon. Gentleman suggests. The country would be able to take advantage of having some of the greatest oil reserves in the world.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for North West Leicestershire is poised like a panther about to pounce. Let us hear the fellow.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
It is the only way to be noticed, Mr Speaker.
I welcome the urgent question. For too long, the House has stood by and watched Venezuela, which should be a prosperous country, slip into tyranny and destitution. Did my right hon. Friend hear the comments made on the radio by Ken Livingstone, the former Labour Mayor of London? He said that the reason for the problems in Venezuela was that the Marxist regime, when it seized power, did not execute enough people.
Mr Speaker
This is all very well, and I look forward to hearing the Minister of State, but it is fair to say that he has no responsibility for the pronouncements of Mr Livingstone, and is probably pleased not to have.
Sir Alan Duncan
It is always a pleasure not to even have to let the name pass my lips. However, it allows me to echo what I said earlier today—those who support the regime and make excuses for it, instead of focusing on the absolute degradation of human life that it has created, bring shame on themselves.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
The Venezuelan economy has been crippled by US sanctions. The first UN rapporteur to visit the country for 21 years is quoted as saying that US sanctions on the country are illegal and could amount to “crimes against humanity” under international law. Former special rapporteur Alfred De Zayas said that the US is waging “economic warfare” against Venezuela.
The issue is that there is a real danger. Venezuela is divided. There is no doubt about that. The truth is that millions support the Maduro Government and there is huge opposition to it. Intervention from the United States could precipitate a civil war and lead to a humanitarian catastrophe. Will the Minister explain why there are the double standards? Is it that he wants to facilitate another humanitarian catastrophe, as we are seeing in Yemen with British arms? Does he want to see the same in Venezuela? Does he not support the self-determination of peoples around the world, rather than intervention from western powers?
Sir Alan Duncan
My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) referred to “Poundland Lenins”. I have just seen in this House one who is not even worth a penny, let alone a pound. I recognise when I see it, as do Members on the Opposition Benches, unreconstructed ideological nonsense—he is a throwback and he brings shame; indeed, I am astonished he has even been prepared to show his face in this House today. If he wants self-determination I can offer it to him: it comes from legitimate elections in Venezuela when the Venezuelan people can determine who shall run their Government.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
It takes a special kind of socialist incompetence to turn a country with the largest proven oil reserves in the world into one where 90% of the population live in poverty and 3.5 million citizens, 10%, have fled to neighbouring countries. The Minister has quite rightly insisted that there be full, fair and free elections in that country. What role will the United Kingdom play in ensuring that the elections are fair?
Sir Alan Duncan
When it comes to elections, we often offer very substantial advice and assistance to ensure that electoral registers are properly drawn up, and that the conduct of elections is properly monitored and financed. In this case, I hope it will be far more than just the UK taking an interest. I hope there will be a global effort to ensure that, together across the world, we can help to rescue the country from the tyranny it has been facing from Maduro.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister not agree that the hundreds of thousands taking to the streets in Venezuela and the millions fleeing that country are not doing so because of some grand Trump-oil conspiracy, but because they are starving? They are starving and they are suffering because of Maduro’s corrupt communism. Would it not be better if those who have been hailing that discredited ideology took this opportunity to apologise and admit they were wrong?
Sir Alan Duncan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good sense and for his sense of humanity in analysing what is going on in Venezuela. I noticed that, as he said what he said, he cast a glance at his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson). It astonishes me that some of those who are so unreconstructed, who are nothing more than throwbacks to an old communist era, bleat about the poor and are then happy to support someone who has done nothing other than make poor people poorer.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend as shocked as I am that the average Venezuelan lost 10 kg of their bodyweight in 2018 as a result of this regime?
Sir Alan Duncan
As the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) said, there are very many in Venezuela who are absolutely starving. This could be the richest country in Latin America, yet it has been reduced to poverty and destitution by the regime. Many are starving and many of the Venezuelans who are not are those who have managed to escape the country and go to generous countries next door.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
May I start by putting on the record my disgust at the fact that Baroness Massey, my friend who sits in the other place, had her name wrongly attributed to the letter in The Guardian this morning? That is a disgrace, as indeed is the letter. Every right-thinking Member of this House should unite in condemning the Maduro regime and call for his removal. Once that has happened, we will need significant support for Venezuela to organise free and fair elections. I know the Minister addressed this point earlier, but will the UK take a lead in ensuring that all necessary global support is given to Venezuela? It will be one of the biggest challenges faced by a country coming out of a dictatorship for many, many years.
Sir Alan Duncan
The Government absolutely recognise that Baroness Massey’s reputation is intact. We fully acknowledge that her name was wrongly put on that letter, and we in no way associate her good reputation with the other signatories.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that it will take a lot of international effort to replace the corrupt electoral practices with ones that can be trusted. I will speak to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, and it will be absolutely central to the Foreign Office’s policy for Venezuela that we do all we can to assist in the holding of free, fair, trustworthy and properly democratic elections as soon as possible.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) on securing this urgent question, and I support the Minister’s words.
Since the 1530s, the indigenous nations and peoples of both Americas have suffered untold cruelty due to the political elites that have ruled them. When a legitimate, democratic Government returns in the future, will the UK Government, through the United Nations and other support agencies, support the immediate return of those indigenous peoples to Venezuela and ensure that the land that is rightfully theirs is given to them?
Sir Alan Duncan
One of our hopes is that most of the many millions who have fled to neighbouring countries will want to return. Venezuela is not like Syria, where the infrastructure has been completely flattened by conflict. We will design plans with our allies and partners, and I hope that many of those millions will want to and will return to their homes and livelihoods in Venezuela.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his very strong answers and his determined stance on TV last night—well done! We all endorse that. A Venezuelan teacher who was fleeing across the border was interviewed on the TV news last night, and she said that her teacher’s wage could buy only 12 eggs because of the inflation under a communist regime. Does the Minister agree that that is indicative of the shocking state of Venezuela? Shame on Sinn Féin for its unsurprising, disgraceful support of a system that put President Maduro in place with no hint of a democratic process! This House must send a strong message, and that dictator must not be endorsed.
Sir Alan Duncan
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is one of those rare moments in history when a country’s inflation must be measured in millions of per cent. It is almost impossible to get one’s mind around that extraordinary statistic.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about my appearance on television. Normally, I appear much more on foreign television screens, and therefore am much better known and popular abroad than at home.
Mr Speaker
We are grateful to the Minister and all colleagues, led by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), in this important matter.
Teacher Recruitment and Retention Strategy
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the teacher recruitment and retention strategy.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
Last year, we recruited more than 34,500 trainee teachers into the profession—more than 2,000 more than the year before—but the growing number of pupils means that we need even more teachers at a time when we have the most competitive labour market on record. Today, the Government launched the teacher recruitment and retention strategy, outlining our priorities ahead of the spending review. First, we are creating the right climate so headteachers can establish the right culture in their schools. Secondly, we are transforming the support for early career teachers. Thirdly, we are building a career structure that remains attractive as teachers’ lives and careers progress. Fourthly, we are making it easier for great people to become teachers.
At the heart of the strategy is the early career framework. Developed with teachers, headteachers, academics and experts, and endorsed by the Education Endowment Foundation, it underpins what all new teachers will be entitled to be trained in at the start of their career, in line with the best available evidence. The early career framework will underpin the fully funded two-year package of structured support for all early career teachers, including additional time off-timetable for teachers in their second year and fully funded mental health training.
By the time the new system is fully in place, we anticipate investing at least an additional £130 million every year to support the delivery in full of the early career framework. This will be a substantial investment, befitting the most significant change to the teaching profession since it became a graduate-only profession. In addition, the recruitment and retention strategy outlines how the Government will create the right climate for headteachers to establish supportive cultures in their schools in which unnecessary workload is driven down. This includes consulting on replacing the floor and coasting standards, with Ofsted’s “requires improvement” as the sole trigger for an offer of support.
The recruitment and retention strategy, including the early career framework, has been developed closely with the sector. Its publication marks a crucial milestone for the profession, as well as the start of a conversation between the Government and the profession about how best to deliver on the promise of this strategy.
Angela Rayner
The publication of this strategy is a credit to the school leaders, teachers and trade unions who have campaigned for years on this issue. Any serious attempt to tackle the workforce crisis, however overdue, is welcome, but today’s words must be matched by actions. Perhaps the Minister could start by acknowledging the scale of the problem. He has missed his targets six years running, and teacher numbers are declining as pupil numbers are increasing. Can he confirm that between 2016 and 2017 the number of full-time equivalent teachers in our classrooms fell by over 5,000?
The Minister mentioned the £180 million of funding, but at least £42 million of it was announced back in December 2017. How much is new money? The framework talks about
“at least an additional £130 million pounds a year”.
Is that new funding from the Treasury, or is it being taken from other education spending, and if so, where from? Has the Treasury committed to this funding in the upcoming spending review, and does the “at least” mean that more money will be available if needed?
The concept of the new framework is welcome and long overdue, but can the Minister guarantee that every new teacher will be able to benefit from it? Specifically, will academies also be required to offer the additional time off-timetable for newly qualified teachers in their second year? For many schools, timetabling makes part-time work challenging. Where will they find the additional staff needed to make job shares work? Has he made any assessment of the number of teachers this could keep in or bring back into the profession?
On initial teacher training, how will the Minister ensure that smaller teacher training providers, such as school-centred providers, will not lose places? He pledged a review of teaching schools. What issues will this address and how will it be carried out? The strategy suggests that their functions will be taken on by multi-academy trusts. Will other schools be excluded? Will the strategy offer something for more experienced teachers? His most recent pay deal means that 250,000 teachers—the majority, in fact—are facing another real-terms pay cut. Can he confirm that today’s strategy does nothing to stop continued real-terms pay cuts in our schools? Surely he can acknowledge that teachers need more than the offer of part-time work.
Finally, the teaching workforce crisis cannot be separated from the years of cuts to pay and education budgets. Our teachers do invaluable work every day raising our next generation, and I thank them all. I hope that the Government will start valuing them with more than just warm words.
Nick Gibb
I do not really know how to react to the hon. Lady’s tone. This is a very effective recruitment and retention strategy, which has the support of the sector, and I should have thought that she would want to support it as well. The concept and structure of the strategy were driven by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and the details were developed by officials and by me in close consultation with the profession, the teachers’ unions and academics. I do not regard that as a matter for criticism.
The hon. Lady asks whether the £130 million is new money. It reflects what we think schools will need to support a 5% timetable reduction for early-years career teachers, for mental health training and time and for the training programme. The Government are clear that they are committed to that funding, and it is new funding. It does not include the £42 million teacher development premium.
The hon. Lady asks about more experienced teachers. As she will see when she has a chance to read the strategy, it includes support for non-leadership career pathways for teachers who want to remain in the classroom. There will be a teacher development national professional qualification to enable them to enhance their careers without necessarily taking on leadership positions. We shall be announcing a procurement tender for initial teacher training providers and others.
The principal challenge that we face in teacher recruitment is the fact that we have a strong economy, with record numbers of jobs and the lowest unemployment since the 1970s. We are competing with other professions, such as commerce and industry, for the best graduates in our economy. A strong economy is not a challenge likely to face any Labour Government. Whenever Labour is in office, it damages the public finances, damages the economy and destroys jobs, whereas the Conservatives repair our economy, take a balanced approach to the public finances and create jobs—millions of jobs.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I strongly welcome this announcement—particularly amid the Brexit fog—and I welcome the work that my right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State are doing. Has either of them considered the idea of establishing local teacher training colleges in areas of strong deprivation, possibly linked to further education colleges, to encourage people in those areas to take up teaching?
Nick Gibb
The purpose of the phased bursaries that we have piloted with maths in particular is to stagger the payments of those bursaries after three years. For those training to teach maths, there is a £20,000 bursary, followed by a £5,000 payment after three years and a further £5,000 after five years. In areas where there is a record of recruitment challenges, or areas of deprivation, the £5,000 figure becomes £7,500. There is a range of other measures intended to incentivise people to train in the areas to which my right hon. Friend has referred.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, welcome the new strategy, but it is long overdue. We have been raising these issues in the House for a number of years, and the Minister, and other Ministers, seems to have been in denial about what is causing them. That has been echoed in some of the Minister’s comments today. Tackling teacher recruitment and retention is not about a growing economy; it is about pay, workload and job satisfaction, so will the Minister now address those three key issues in a more strategic and substantive way than we have seen them addressed thus far?
Nick Gibb
We have been addressing those issues. For instance, we started to deal with workload in 2014. The workload challenge produced 44,000 responses identifying the top three issues: excessive marking work, data collection and lesson preparation. We addressed those with some workload review groups, and accepted their recommendations. This strategy, however, includes more measures to deal with workload. For example, the new Ofsted framework will include tackling teacher workload as an element of the leadership and management judgment that schools will face.
We are also doing more to ensure that the culture of schools is right. We are changing the accountability regime. There will not be a “football manager” approach. We are consulting today on replacing floor and coasting as triggers for support for schools with the simple “requires improvement” judgment of Ofsted. We have been engaged in a range of measures since 2010, and we are taking a strategic approach to these issues as well. I think that if the hon. Lady reads the strategy, she will find that it addresses all her concerns.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Does he share my hope that this new strategy marks the end of excessive marking and data entry, so that our teachers can spend more time doing what they came into the profession to do, which is teach, and not be overburdened by administration?
Nick Gibb
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Department and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State take very seriously the issue of tackling excessive workload. Teachers in this country work eight hours a week above the OECD average but work the same number of teaching hours as the OECD average. Those extra eight hours are spent, as my right hon. Friend said, on things such as excessive data collection and excessive marking. We have been addressing those issues, and this strategy continues to address them including through a new approach by Ofsted.
Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)
I appreciate that the strategy announced today is urgently needed to address the growing crisis in our schools, but should the Government not be taking time to recognise why there is such a dire need for a recruitment and retention strategy, and is it not a fact that stripping schools of resources and inflicting years of pay cuts have left teachers demoralised by the current regime in our schools?
Nick Gibb
The hon. Lady will know that we are spending a record amount of money on our schools: £43.5 billion by next year. Every local authority is seeing an increase in funding for every pupil in every school in the country. The School Teachers Review Body recommended a 3.5% pay rise for teachers on the main pay scale, and we have accepted a 2% pay rise for teachers on the upper pay scale and have agreed a 1.5% pay rise for headteachers on the leadership pay scale. We are funding that through a teacher pay grant over and above the 1% already budgeted.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
I welcome the fact that this plan has been co-signed by all the teaching unions. What measures will the Minister put in place to support rural teachers, particularly in underfunded areas such as mine in Cheshire, where they often face additional hurdles around accommodation and transport?
Nick Gibb
As I have said, we are taking a number of measures to tackle areas that have suffered particular historical challenges in recruiting teachers, including rural and coastal areas and areas of deprivation. The evidence suggests that within those areas different schools face different challenges, so it is often a school-level challenge, but we do have measures in place to direct funding particularly to areas of challenge, and we are rolling out this strategy to areas, including the north-east, Manchester and Bristol, that we know face particular social mobility challenges.
Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Is it not the case that to reduce workload in any significant way we simply need more teachers and more support staff in schools, so does the Minister agree that until the Treasury commits to a long-term plan that includes a significant real-terms increase in the education budget, the most he can hope for is to make marginal improvements?
Nick Gibb
Teaching remains an attractive profession. There are 450,000 teachers in the profession. Last year, we recruited 34,500 teachers, which is over 2,000 more than the year before, and that year we recruited more teachers than the year before that. We accepted the recommendation of the STRB of a 3.5% pay rise for teachers on the main pay scale. We added an extra £1.3 billion of school funding, which we announced in the summer of 2017. The Chancellor announced an extra £400 million in his Budget for small capital projects. We have announced an extra £250 million recently for special needs funding. And we have issued a pay grant to fund the pay increases over and above the 1% that schools will already have budgeted.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
May I put on the record my thanks to all the teachers in Redditch, who give all our young people such a great start in life? I, too, welcome this strategy, and note in particular the comments from the body that brings people from other professions into teaching as well as the support for the early career framework. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will continue to use best practice to attract the best people into the teaching profession?
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The early career framework is built on best evidence of the approach to teaching. It is a welcome framework and focuses on those issues that teachers need to be trained in to be effective as teachers. I was struck by how different it is to enter into the teaching profession compared with other professions, such as chartered accountancy. There is a lot of support in the first few years of training to be an accountant, once one is in work. In the teaching profession, there is a steep learning curve in those early years, and we have been concerned about the high drop-out rate in the first few years of people’s careers.
The strategy seeks to give more support to teachers in those early years, because it is not just a recruitment strategy; it is also about increasing retention of those highly able people so that they stay in the profession—a profession they almost certainly love when they come into it, and which they can be driven out of by excessive workload and a lack of support.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Having done both that job and this one, I can absolutely agree that starting out as a teacher is harder than starting out as an MP. Although I welcome this strategy, which is long overdue, it does nothing to stem the real reasons why teachers are leaving: the toxic culture created in large part by this Government, the reduction of children to data points, and cuts to school budgets that have spread teachers’ good will as thin as it can get. The strategy will not fix that. We need to tackle the core issues, for example by abolishing Ofsted and putting in place something that teachers absolutely trust and by increasing massively the amount of high-quality professional development. What are the Minister’s plans to tackle the real reasons why teachers are leaving in the first place?
Nick Gibb
I agree with some of what the hon. Lady says. Data collection has been a burden and there has been an over-obsession with data and its collection. Ofsted has made it very clear in the new framework that it will not be seeking that data; it will not want to see any internal assessment data on the progress that pupils make. It will be looking at the wider curriculum and more substantive issues when schools are inspected.
The hon. Lady is right about workload, and both I and the Secretary of State take that very seriously. That is why we had the workload challenge in 2014 and why we have taken a series of measures to reduce both workload and data collection. We have a data collection toolkit and we have a leading academic from the Institute of Education looking into the question of data collection to try to get rid of some of the unnecessary data collection points that she mentions. Ofsted has just published its new framework for consultation, and that has landed well with the sector. When the hon. Lady has a chance to see it, she will see that it focuses on those things that really matter to a child’s education.
On CPD, one aim of the recruitment and retention strategy is to create a more diverse range of options for career progression, including a new teacher development national professional qualification—[Interruption.] I think I have said enough, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
I have known the right hon. Gentleman for 33 years and I must say that he has a mildly eccentric approach to these matters. Nobody could accuse the Minister of State of excluding from his answer any matter that might at any stage to any degree be judged to be material—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) has not stood, but I have just been advised that he has been twitching. Let’s hear the fellow.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
As I said in October 1990 when I raised the question of leadership with the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher—especially mentioning Peter Dawson, who had run Eltham Green before becoming general secretary of the Professional Association of Teachers—the culture that good heads can set, followed by other senior teachers, can bring people in not just to teach first but to teach second, bringing the experience of their own careers to expand our schools and academies. They can do a great deal of good for children across the country.
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Headteachers play an important part in creating the right culture in schools, and the Government have a role to play in helping headteachers to create that culture. We want schools to acknowledge that we live in a strong economy with low levels of unemployment and a competitive jobs market so schools, like other employers, will need to be more flexible in their recruitment approach to allow more professionals to come into the profession on a part-time or flexible basis. We had a flexible working summit last year, because we want to encourage people to teach more flexibly.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
It is good that the Government finally accept that there is a recruitment and retention problem, but when does the Minister hope to wake up to the budget problems that are causing neglected repairs, reduced swimming and music lessons, curtailed extra-curricular activities and insufficient teaching assistants, particularly for special needs children?
Nick Gibb
We acknowledge the cost pressures on schools. As I said before, we are spending record amounts on schools, but there are of course increased pressures. We are asking schools to do more. Standards are rising, more children are reading more effectively earlier, we have better maths teaching, and more young people are taking at least two science GCSEs today than several years ago. That is why we are helping schools to tackle budget pressures, including through buying schemes for energy, insurance, computers and so on. We are also helping schools to balance their budgets when it comes to deploying staff. Tackling workload will be an important part of easing the cost pressures on schools.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
I welcome this strategy. Two primary schools in the villages of Breachwood Green and Redbourn in my constituency have talked to me about the specific challenges they face because they are small rural schools. Will the Minister explain how the strategy will help to deal with such problems? Will he also meet with me to discuss the specific issues in those particular primary schools?
Nick Gibb
I am happy to discuss funding issues relating to particular schools with my hon. Friend. Small schools receive a fixed sum that helps to deal with some of the fixed costs appropriate to such schools, and there is also the sparsity funding element of the national funding formula. The formula is geared towards helping small or rural schools, but I appreciate that they will face cost pressures, and we are helping schools to tackle them with a range of measures.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
After talking to school leaders in Bristol South, I challenge the Minister on whether the money is sufficient to support them in delivering on the commitment. Given the existing large burdens on headteachers, what will he do to support the middle tier of teachers into becoming headteachers and future leaders?
Nick Gibb
We are investing in new and existing leadership qualifications and will do so disproportionately in more challenging areas of the country. As I said before, we are also developing our new national teacher development professional qualification for teachers who want to rise but do not necessarily want to go into leadership positions.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I welcome the intention behind the strategy, but I would like it to contain more than warm words. What measures will the Minister put in place in high-cost areas that do not receive outer-London weighting and where there is severe pressure on schools?
Nick Gibb
The national funding formula contains an area cost adjustment that takes into account the cost pressures of employing both teachers and non-teachers in such areas. This strategy involves £130 million of new funding, because we strongly believe that we want teachers in the second year of their careers to have time off- timetable so that they can develop their teaching skills with support from a mentor and teacher training programmes.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
It is welcome that the strategy finally acknowledges the need to tackle excessive workloads for teachers if we are to bring the recruitment and retention crisis to an end. Given that secondary school pupil numbers are set to rise by 15% in the next decade, can the Minister guarantee that the funding that our schools need to implement the strategy will be provided quickly and effectively?
Nick Gibb
The funding will be provided when the strategy is fully rolled out in September 2021. We are rolling it out earlier, in September 2020, to Bradford, Doncaster, Greater Manchester and the north-east—I think I said Bristol earlier, but I actually meant Bradford. The strategy will be fully funded, and £130 million has been agreed with the Treasury despite the fact that it goes into the next spending review period.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I very much welcome this long overdue strategy. There is some evidence of burnout for teachers in mid and later career. Is the Minister looking to see which academy chains and local authorities perform well in teacher retention and which perform less well, and is he learning appropriate lessons from that?
Nick Gibb
As I mentioned earlier, the new Ofsted framework will be looking at things like teacher workload, as part and parcel of the leadership and management judgments made about a school. The Government take teacher workload extremely seriously, which is why we set up the three review groups to look at data management, excessive marking and lesson preparation. We have accepted all the recommendations of those three review groups.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
By definition, the most experienced teachers are the most expensive. One of the reasons for poor retention is that schools, particularly smaller primary schools, have to lay off those teachers because they cannot afford them within their budget. Will the Government look at how we can keep those teachers teaching, as they are the best because of that experience?
Nick Gibb
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The national funding formula is distributing funding across our schools system in a far fairer way than in the past, and this recruitment and retention strategy should ease the cost pressures on schools. We have also introduced a teaching vacancy website, which is a free resource to enable schools to recruit free of charge, as the profession has been calling for a long time.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Now that the Minister has acknowledged the scale of the recruitment and retention crisis, will he commit to funding the 3.5% pay offer in full? No ifs, no buts: in full.
Nick Gibb
We have already said that we are funding the pay rise to which we have agreed. The 3.5% is being funded, over and above the 1% that schools have already budgeted. That is what the pay grant is all about, and we are distributing over £500 million this year and next year to fund that pay rise.
Point of Order
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As a result of being moved on to universal credit, some disabled people lose out on vital premiums, including the severe disability premium. I have tabled multiple written questions asking how many severely disabled people have been naturally migrated or moved on to universal credit since June 2018, and the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work has responded that the information could be provided only at a disproportionate cost. That is despite information having been provided for the period between May 2015 and February 2018.
This information is of national importance, as the Government have tabled secondary legislation to backdate payments for severely disabled people who have lost out on these vital premiums as a result of moving on to universal credit. Mr Speaker, can you advise me on how I can obtain this information from the Department for Work and Pensions and ensure that it is published?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her courtesy in giving me advance notice of her intention to raise this point of order. It is understandably frustrating, disconcerting and irritating for an hon. Member not to receive substantive replies to the questions that she or he has put, so I understand and empathise with her. It is an experience that I often had as a Back-Bench Member. The words, “Can be provided only at disproportionate cost” were always, at the very least, disappointing.
My advice to the hon. Lady is that she should make the short journey from here to the Table Office, where she can be advised as to the avenues open to her to try to extract the information. That may be through the reformulation of questions, it might be by pursuit of a debate, or it could be by use of other means to ensure the public provision of the information she seeks. The distinguished staff of the Table Office are always keen to help and, if she beetles across to the Table Office, I feel sure that they would be keen to do so.
Bill Presented
Drone (Regulation) (No.2) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Peter Bone, supported by Esther McVey, Gordon Henderson, Jonathan Lord, Philip Davies, Henry Smith and Steve Double, presented a Bill to require drones to be marked and registered and to broadcast certain information electronically; to place restrictions on drone flight near aerodromes; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 8 February, and to be printed (Bill 325).
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 28th January 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill 2017-19 View all Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 297 / Noes: 234 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I should inform the House that I have not selected any of the reasoned amendments that appear on the Order Paper.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Concern over uncontrolled immigration was at the heart of the debate in the run-up to the European Union referendum. The result left no doubt: people in the UK want control over our borders. They want a fair system that works for the entire UK, that attracts the brightest and the best from around the globe, and that allows access to the UK based on what someone has to offer, not where they come from. Leaving the EU means just that. For the first time in more than 40 years, we can deliver this by putting control over who comes to the UK firmly in our hands. Ending free movement is the first step, and that is what the Bill delivers.
This is not about closing our doors—far from it. That is something I would never allow. We will continue to be an open, outward-looking and welcoming nation, because immigration has been invaluable to Britain. Immigrants to this country, such as my own parents, have been essential to the success of our society, culture and economy. They have powered—indeed, they have often created—many of our businesses. They have helped to deliver vital public services. Their experience has brought new perspectives and expertise, stimulating growth and making us the tolerant, outward-looking nation we are today. Far from slamming the door on immigration, the end of free movement will be a clear path to a fairer immigration system, helping us to welcome the most talented workers from any country while cutting net migration to sustainable levels.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
The Home Secretary is giving a good account of why immigration is good for this country. Does he think that people who voted leave voted against free movement of labour as a policy, or against immigration?
Sajid Javid
For many people who voted leave in that referendum, immigration was one of the big, key issues. Many of them would have wanted, first, to see immigration coming down to more sustainable levels. It was certainly my experience that many of them wanted us to end freedom of movement and reform the process so that we could have more control over our borders.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I am sure that the Home Secretary, like many of us in the Chamber, has received emails from people expressing concern about how the health service will get labour from abroad—from Europe or wherever—and asking what protections British nationals abroad will have. Those people also perform a function at work in the various countries that make up Europe, so what protections will they have, as a quid pro quo on this?
Sajid Javid
There are two issues there. First, on protections for British nationals working in other parts of the EU, we very much hope that other EU countries respond in the way we are doing—we are guaranteeing EU citizens’ rights whether there is a deal or no deal. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the importance of immigration to our public services, including the health service, which I just referenced a moment ago. That will very much be retained under the new immigration system.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
Is not the crucial balance to strike between people’s ability to come here in search of work rather than for a specific job, which is what has caused so much tension in constituencies such as mine, and our ability to make sure that we do all we can to attract the vital skilled labour that the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) mentioned, such as nurses and doctors?
Sajid Javid
I very much agree with how my hon. Friend describes the issue. This is about putting the UK in control of who comes to the UK, so we can be certain that that will benefit our economy and society.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
The Home Secretary makes a good case for the importance of a firm but fair immigration policy, but does he accept that when we implement such a policy, it also has to be civilised? With that in mind, does he intend to do anything about the national shame of the 10,000 migrants in holding centres in this country?
Sajid Javid
I assume that my right hon. Friend is referring to detention centres. He will know that detention policy is not covered by the Bill, but he asks an important question and I want to make sure that I answer it. Our policy makes it absolutely clear that detention should be a last resort in respect of immigration control. Some 95% of individuals who are subject to removal are managed in the community—I know that my right hon. Friend would approve of that—and if anyone is detained, it is absolutely a requirement that we must be certain that there is a reasonable prospect that they can be removed in a reasonable time. Despite those protections, I have also tried to make sure that we are doing all that we can, which is why I welcome the work that has been done independently through the Shaw reports. We are trying at all times to see what more we can do further to improve the policy.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is deep concern on both sides of the House about administrative detention in excess of 28 days. Under the leadership of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who chairs the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), and the right hon. Members for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) will seek to amend the Bill, at the appropriate stage, to stop people being administratively detained for more than 28 days.
Sajid Javid
I welcome the raising of this important issue, because it is important that we constantly look into how we can improve our detention policy to make sure that at all times it is seen as fair and compassionate. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has raised this issue, his concern about which seems to be shared by other Members. If it would be helpful, I would be happy to discuss the issue further with my right hon. Friend and other right hon. and hon. Members who are concerned about it. It is important that we continue to look into the policy and see what more we can do to improve it.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
How can we talk about fairness and compassion? My Bridgend constituency office takes on very few immigration cases; most of the immigration into Wales comes from England. Where I have problems—despite the English—is in cases in which my constituents have married abroad and cannot then get their partners and children back into the UK. One of my constituents, Mr Jenkins, has been told that his wife will have to leave when their youngest child reaches their 18th birthday. How can that be fair and compassionate? How can I tell EU citizens in my constituency to trust the new legislation when we do not even know what it is?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady refers to the policy on family reunion or bringing spouses to this country. The rules, which include a minimum income requirement, are the will of the House. They are what the House has previously decided in legislation, and I think it is fair to have rules on bringing spouses from abroad into this country and on family reunion. That is right, but it is also right that we constantly review the rules to make sure that they continue to be fair at all times.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
A part of being fair is dealing with matters promptly. When the former Labour Government were in power, about 15,000 people who were here illegally were dealt with every year and returned. That number fell to 5,000. Does my right hon. Friend aim to improve those numbers so that we actually deal, fairly and quickly, with people who are here illegally, rather than detaining them for a very long time in the sort of circumstances that were described earlier?
Sajid Javid
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I think that the 5,000 number to which he refers is with respect to foreign national offenders only. When it comes to removing people from this country, or deporting them because they are here illegally, the number is, I think, a lot higher, but his point is important, and we need to make sure that we properly enforce the rules that we have in place.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Are we not already conflating issues in a way that clouds the whole of the immigration debate? There are people who come here primarily to work who are legally entitled to do so either because of our membership of the European Union or because they have the requisite visas. There are people who want to come here to work but do not have a right and often enter illegally, and then there are those who, in escaping the terrors of war or some other horrors, quite rightly seek asylum in our country. It is important not only to draw these very distinct differences between them but, in any event, to treat everybody fairly and with dignity.
Sajid Javid
I agreed with every word that my right hon. Friend just shared with the House. She reminds us that there are different parts of and different routes within our immigration system, and that we should always try not to conflate them. I very much welcome her intervention.
It is also important that we get the tone of the debate right, which is why my message to the 3.5 million EU citizens already living here has also been very clear. I say, “You are an incredibly valued and an important part of our society; we want you to stay. Deal or no deal, that view will not change. Our commitment to you is very real. We have listened to your concerns and we are, for example, removing the fee for the EU settlement scheme.” There must be no barriers to those who want to stay, and I urge other EU countries to follow suit and to waive any fees for UK citizens.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
Some people have already paid that fee. Will my right hon. Friend reassure everyone by confirming that those who have paid the fee will be reimbursed?
Sajid Javid
Yes, absolutely. Anyone who has paid the fee under the scheme will be reimbursed in full.
Sajid Javid
I will make some progress and then give way later.
Given the concerns that were raised in the referendum, we must control immigration to make it fairer and more sustainable. We wanted to ensure that our proposals were based on the very best evidence, which was why we commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee to review the impact of European migration on the UK’s economy and society. It was clear that, with free movement, we could not guarantee that we would maximise the benefits of immigration, so it recommended a system that was focused on skilled workers. We heard that, and our White Paper, which was published before Christmas, proposed a skills-based system welcoming talent from around the world, with no automatic preference for the EU.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
May I caution the Home Secretary about setting too much store by the Migration Advisory Committee? For years, as he will know, I have been talking to various Immigration Ministers—they come and they go—about trying to get fishermen from other parts of the world to work on boats on the west coast of Scotland. Northern Irish Members and Members on the east coast of Scotland have been talking to them about that as well. The advice that comes back is that fishing is not a skilled business. If it is not skilled, can I get some of these guys from the Migration Advisory Committee to go and work on the boats so that they can understand the business? The point is that we need people to come, but they are not coming, because the Secretary of State is setting too much store by the Migration Advisory Council.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman that he is down on the speaking list—save something for later.
Sajid Javid
Mr Deputy Speaker, I think that that was the hon. Gentleman’s speech, so you can take him off your list.
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Let me emphasise that the evidence that the MAC has considered is reflected in its recommendations. He will know that, in our response in the White Paper, while we have very much based things on the evidence presented, there are still things that require further engagement before we design and settle on exactly what the future system looks like.
We also asked the MAC to review the position of international students. It recommended that there should continue to be no limits on the number of international students we welcome to study in our country, and that will of course remain our approach. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation has strongly campaigned for, we will continue to be an open and welcoming country for international students. Our word-class universities will continue to be able to attract global talent, and we will make it easier for the brightest and best graduates to stay and work here.
Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary just confirm for the record that the Government are formally dumping their commitment to a net migration target—to reducing migration down to the tens of thousands? If I am wrong, will he at least confirm that international students will not be included in that ridiculous target?
Sajid Javid
There are no targets in our White Paper, which sets out our approach to the future immigration system. That said, we are still very clear, as I have already set out, that we must continue to work to bring net migration down to more sustainable levels.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Would the Home Secretary just clarify the exact position of students? He only half answered the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) regarding international students, and he knows my hon. Friend’s commitment to excellent tertiary education here in the UK.
Sajid Javid
I am happy to clarify that there is absolutely no cap on student numbers. There is no limit on the number of students we wish to welcome into our country.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State share my concern that the rhetoric that has built up around migration is already having an impact on student recruitment? The University of Nottingham tells me that there has been a significant drop-off in recruitment, particularly at postgraduate level. Is not his policy simply exacerbating those problems?
Sajid Javid
I am sorry, but I do not accept the hon. Lady’s point. The current number of international students in this country—I believe that the figure is more than 450,000—is the highest we have ever had, so the facts do not bear out the hon. Lady’s comments.
This Bill is fundamental to our future immigration system. First, it will end freedom of movement. All related EU legislation that is retained in UK law under the withdrawal Act will be repealed. This will make European economic area and Swiss nationals, and their families, subject to UK immigration rules. Like people from other countries around the world, they will need permission to enter and remain in the UK. In place of that, we will introduce a new system that will level the playing field by ending preferential treatment for EU citizens. It will mean that everyone will have the same opportunity to come to the UK, regardless of where they are from.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
As the Home Secretary is well aware, the soft fruit industry is vital to my constituency. Will he therefore assure me that our future immigration policy will also take account of seasonal labour?
Sajid Javid
I can give my hon. Friend some assurance. I know that she has welcomed the pilot for seasonal agricultural workers that we have already announced. Once we have had the pilot, we will look at how we can incorporate such a scheme in the future immigration system.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend when he says how valuable all the people who are already here under free movement are, because they all have to be self-sufficient when they are here and they are all doing vital jobs. I also agree with him when he says how valuable international students are, and that we have no wish at all to see any reduction in bona fide students coming here from Europe. What I do not quite understand is which of these vital and valuable categories of people he intends to reduce the numbers of in the future, given that he keeps repeating the slogan, “Ending freedom of movement”. What is the policy point of changing our present arrangements if they have brought such valuable people to this country over the past years?
Sajid Javid
I am very happy to answer that question. First, our new system will allow us to help people to enter the UK based on their skills and not their nationality, so it is going to be their skills that will count. My right hon. and learned Friend also questioned how, in that case, by still welcoming the people with the skills, and the students, that we need, we will reduce net migration to more sustainable levels. The answer is in the approach that has been set out in the White Paper based on the evidence from the Migration Advisory Committee. The MAC clearly says in its evidence that if we have a policy that is focused on skills and not nationality, and focus more on high skills than low skills, that is consistent both with meeting the needs of the economy and reducing net migration down to more sustainable levels.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
Farmers in my constituency, particularly dairy farmers, have for many generations welcomed EU migrants who have come to work on their dairy farms. They are worried that the £30,000 cap will affect their ability to recruit. Will the Home Secretary outline whether he plans to look at the amount that the cap is set at?
Sajid Javid
I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that the final threshold for the high skills determination has not been set yet. As we set out in the White Paper, we recognise that the recommendation from the Migration Advisory Committee is £30,000, but we will be engaging thoroughly over a number of months to determine what the actual threshold should be so that we can be comfortable that it works for the economy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sajid Javid
I will give way once more, to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), and then make some progress.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I am glad that the Home Secretary is looking at the £30,000 threshold, but does he accept that the salary may not be commensurate with the skill level, and that what is important is that we look at the skills needs and do not set some arbitrary figure as a proxy for that?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady will know that there is already such acceptance in the current immigration system for non-EEA migrants. For example, within the current system there is a shortage occupation list—a system that we will keep in place going forward—which recognises that in some cases where there is a shortage, we need to change the salary threshold. There will be flexibilities built into the system going forward, and a lot of that is explained in the White Paper.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sajid Javid
I will make some progress and give way later.
Secondly, this Bill will protect the rights of Irish citizens. We are very proud of our deep and historic ties with Ireland. When free movement ends, Irish citizens will continue to be able to come to the UK to live and work as they do now. British and Irish citizens have enjoyed a special status and specific rights in each other’s countries for almost 100 years. The Bill will preserve rights that Irish citizens currently have in the UK—the same rights that British citizens enjoy in Ireland. This includes the right to work, to study, to access healthcare and social security benefits, and to vote. The only exception is where an Irish citizen is subject to deportation exclusion orders, as now, or to an international travel ban. Our close ties with Ireland will remain. Our historical bond is unbreakable. The Government have always been firm in their commitment to preserve the long-standing common travel area arrangements. This Bill reaffirms our intention to preserve our special relationship and to continue to stand side by side with Ireland after we leave the EU.
Thirdly, the Bill gives us the basis to build a legal framework for the future immigration system. It includes a power to make amendments to primary and secondary legislation that become necessary after the end of free movement. This will enable us to ensure that UK legislation remains coherent once we leave the EU. It means that we can align our treatment of EU and non-EU migrants depending on the final design of the UK’s future skills-based immigration system, and that we can accommodate any trade deals that we agree with the EU and with other countries.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
The Home Secretary talks about aligning treatment of EU and non-EU citizens. It currently costs £1,220 to apply for leave to remain whereas it costs only £120 to administer that service. Will he at least commit in this Bill to stop profiteering from people’s immigration status?
Sajid Javid
No one is profiteering from charges that come through the immigration system. In fact, those charges currently do not even cover the full cost. The rest of the cost is covered by general taxes.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I wonder how the Secretary of State will align things for the economy of the highlands, where a full 20% of the economy is based on tourism and unemployment is traditionally low. How can that be reconciled with the threshold he is introducing for workers’ wages? What does he say to people who are running businesses in the tourism industry across the highlands and islands?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman will know that immigration is a reserved matter, but it is very important that we engage with all nations, regions and communities. As we develop the new immigration system set out in the White Paper, I will ensure that that engagement happens and that we set up a system that represents the needs of the entire UK.
Fourthly, in addition to immigration measures, the Bill will allow us to adapt our benefits system as we leave the EU. It will enable the UK to change the retained social security arrangements for EEA and Swiss nationals. British people living abroad will also benefit. The social security powers in the Bill will allow amendments to the retained EU social security co-ordination regime. That will help us to deliver effective support for UK nationals abroad, including pensioners living in the EU. The rights of EU nationals already resident in the UK will be protected, but the powers will allow us to rapidly respond to the outcome of negotiations and to provide reassurance to those who are affected. Any future changes using those powers will be subject to normal parliamentary procedures.
This Bill is just the beginning of our future border and immigration system. We plan to phase in that system, to give individuals and businesses time to adapt. Of course, if we leave the EU without a deal, there will be no implementation period, but we will continue to deliver on the referendum result and end free movement. The automatic right to come to the UK will stop once the Bill is commenced. We will not hesitate to take back control of our borders.
As set out in our no-deal policy paper, which I will publish later today, we will also introduce transitional arrangements to minimise any disruption. Copies of the policy paper will be placed in the Library of the House. This will ensure that we take a practical approach and that the UK stays open for business. Under the arrangements, EEA and Swiss nationals will be able to come here for up to three months without a visa. They will continue to use e-gates, as they do now, and they will not face additional checks at the border. They will be allowed to work temporarily but will need to apply for leave and pay an application fee if they want to stay longer.
We plan to grant them three years’ leave, subject to identity, security and criminality checks. That will give us the time needed to run our EU settlement scheme for EEA and Swiss nationals who are already living here and ensure that there is no sudden shock to UK businesses as the future system is put in place. But the leave will be strictly temporary. It cannot be extended, and those who wish to stay will need to meet our future immigration requirements.
The transitional period will last until 31 December 2020, when our EU settlement scheme closes, and from that point on, businesses will be expected to check that EEA citizens have an immigration status before allowing them to start work. Let me be clear: this policy does not apply to those here before exit day, whose rights to live and work here in the UK will be protected by the EU settlement scheme. We want them to stay, and we value them hugely.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Ind)
I thank the Home Secretary for giving way; he is being very generous. What is the Government’s estimate of the economic cost of these changes? Why does he think it is worth damaging the economy, with the effect that this may have on jobs and livelihoods?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have set out an economic analysis of the deal and exit from the EU, including in a no-deal scenario. I point him to that.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Does the Home Secretary recognise that ending freedom of movement is a huge loss for many people—not just for businesses and for our economy, but for families and friends here in the UK now? Will he actually own up to the fact that, as we should be reminding people, ending freedom of movement means that the freedom of movement for young people in this country to visit, stay and work in other countries will be massively reduced—we are shrinking our young peoples’ opportunities—and that if our goal is to reduce immigration, this is perverse because immigration from non-EU countries is actually going up while immigration from EU countries is going down?
Sajid Javid
I think the hon. Lady and I will have to agree to have different points of view. I respect her view, but I think one of the clear messages from the referendum result was that many people felt we needed an immigration system that is designed in Britain and built in Britain and which is designed specifically to meet the long-term needs of our economy and our society, and that is what we have set out in the White Paper. The independent work by the Migration Advisory Committee—the analysis it has done by looking at the immigration systems of other successful industrialised economies—shows that it is not necessary to have freedom of movement or something similar to freedom of movement in order to have a successful country and society.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
First, as the daughter of Irish immigrants who came here to rebuild England after the war, I welcome the Home Secretary’s comments on the common travel area. That is hugely welcome, because it has been a source of great concern.
The Home Secretary has just used “Britain” as opposed to the United Kingdom. Earlier today, I met businesses and civic society from Northern Ireland that are already losing people from Northern Ireland who are going back to their country of origin or, indeed, moving a few miles south. Who is he talking to in Northern Ireland to address some of these issues, and what are his Government now doing about that in the event of a no-deal scenario in only 60 days’ time?
Sajid Javid
As I mentioned following the question from the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), it is important that we have an immigration system that represents the needs of every part of the UK, of course including Northern Ireland. In developing the White Paper, we have already talked to people from Northern Ireland—businesses, elected representatives and others—and we will continue to do so as we finalise the policy set out in the White Paper. Over the coming year, we will have a year-long engagement that will include every nation, every region and every community in the UK.
We are planning on the basis that, deal or no deal, from 2021 the future immigration system will be in place. It is right that we deliver on our promise to the people of the UK and that we legislate to end free movement, but if the future system is to be truly fit for purpose we must also learn the lessons from Windrush. We must put people first and make it easier for them to navigate the system. This work is under way, and we have already commissioned the Law Commission to review the existing immigration rules. I welcome its work to find ways to make them more accessible, and I look forward to receiving its recommendations later this year. They will help to inform the next stage of our future system, developing new immigration rules to set out that approach.
The proposals outlined in the White Paper have already prompted some debate. I have said that they are the starting point for a national conversation on what the future system should be. We will be discussing the detail with businesses, organisations and community representatives across the UK during this year, and I look forward to those conversations progressing. We are listening and we are taking our time to ensure that we get it right, but there can be only one end result. We must deliver what the British people asked for: exiting the EU and seizing this once-in-a-generation opportunity to redefine our immigration system. This Bill is a key part of that process. It ends freedom of movement and it gives us full control, building a fair and sustainable system that people can count on. It is a system fit for the welcoming and diverse nation we all love, and a system designed in the UK for the UK. I commend the Bill to the House.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
This is an important debate, not least because issues around migration lay at the heart of much of the debate on Brexit. I would make the following point to Ministers. To the extent that they continue to confuse migration in general with the specific issue of freedom of movement, they are not helping the clarity of the debate.
During the recent debate on the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill, the Home Secretary said that he was
“determined to continue to have an immigration system that welcomes the very best talent from across the world, helping us to build an open, welcoming and outward looking post-Brexit Britain.”—[Official Report, 11 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 700.]
If only that were the case. The truth is that the Bill, the immigration White Paper and the accompanying media narrative play to some of the very worst aspects of the Brexit debate. In the process, the Bill risks doing irreparable damage to business, the economy and society.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
On the basis of what my right hon. Friend has just said, with which I very much agree, can she confirm that the Labour Front Bench will vote against the Bill tonight?
Ms Abbott
I can only thank my hon. Friend for her helpful intervention. She will have to wait for me to complete my remarks.
Let me quote:
“The new immigration system must command public confidence and support the economy. These proposals would achieve neither. The proposals don’t meet the UK’s needs and would be a sucker punch for many firms right across the country”.
Who said that? It was not a Labour MP but the Confederation of British Industry.
One example of how the Government, far from seeking the best talent, will potentially make it harder for industry and the public sector to recruit the best talent is the suggested salary threshold that the Home Secretary has put out to consultation. He has spoken about
“focussing on high skilled migration not low-skilled migration”.
But he is actually proposing an income-based system. It would allow derivative traders, private equity investors and merchant bankers in, but it would exclude nurses, social care workers, scientific researchers and many more. Salary is not a proxy for the level of skill, and a salary-based immigration system will not work for incentivising high-skilled migration. For example, many science research roles have starting salaries of around £22,000, and the 1% pay cap imposed on the public sector has held down wages in public sector science in particular. A salary threshold is wrong in principle and setting it at £30,000 would have an extremely damaging impact on science and public services.
The Home Secretary has pointed out that a salary threshold currently applies to non-EEA migrants, but we would argue that we should not be levelling down at this stage, but assuring fairness all round.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
I read my right hon. Friend’s article in the Morning Star on Saturday, which said that “The…Tory Immigration Bill will deepen the exploitation of workers.” We are not abstaining on the Bill this evening, are we?
Ms Abbott
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for quoting from my article in the Morning Star. I am not sure if that is the first time he has read that paper, but I will expand further on that issue in my remarks.
I now turn to the very serious issue of the proposal for new 12-month visas. Nowhere is this flouting of the right to family life more blatant than in the case of the proposed new category of temporary workers. They will only be allowed to come here for 12 months at a time, without the right to bring their families, and perhaps then be deported. Do the Government not realise that their 12-month visas will be attractive only to the most desperate workers? It will potentially lead to huge churn in the workforce, and create a category of second-class workers with no rights who are open to unscrupulous exploitation in the growth of the informal economy.
We oppose the creation of a two-tier workforce. That would have the effect, which some incorrectly claim freedom of movement does, of lowering wages and rights for all. Workers should have rights as workers and not be prey to some of the most unscrupulous employers. There is a genuine need for temporary workers in a certain number of sectors, such as agriculture and some aspects of the hospitality industry. We appreciate that the Government are piloting a new seasonal agricultural workers scheme, but there is no requirement for this type of insecure temporary work to become the norm across the economy. It should not become enshrined in a widely cast law.
Let me turn now to the flimsy nature of this proposed legislation. This may be one of the flimsiest pieces of proposed legislation on a major issue that I, and many others, have ever seen. Worse than that, it is supplemented by a whole slew of Henry VIII powers that the Government and the Secretary of State intend to grant to themselves. It is easy to demonstrate just how undemocratic those powers are. The Government claim they are a tidying up exercise and no new powers will be granted or exercised. However, our current immigration system is so untidy that it has the capacity to ruin lives—indeed, it frequently does ruin lives. If this were a Labour Government attempting to grant themselves these powers, we would be denounced for making a constitutional power grab and mounting a coup, to coin a phrase. We will be opposing the assumption of these sweeping powers without tying them to specific policies. We will not be offering a blank cheque, which the Government can redeem at any time they are in trouble and are tempted to whip up anti-migrant sentiment as a distraction. We on the Labour Benches also say that the Government need to accept the recommendations of the Law Commission. We need to simply and clarify our existing immigration system first before changing anything in relation to EU citizens here.
Moving on to the question of freedom of movement, the Labour party is clear that when Britain leaves the single market, freedom of movement ends. We set that out in our 2017 manifesto. I am a slavish devotee of that magnificent document, so on that basis the Front Bench of the Labour party will not be opposing the Bill this evening.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ms Abbott
I remind Members that I have spent almost all my political career trying to help individuals deal with the excesses of an unfair immigration system. They would not be amused by seeing and hearing Members turn that into some kind of parliamentary game.
The Labour party reserves the right to reconsider its position on this proposed legislation when it comes out of Committee. There is no question but that freedom of movement can work. My parents came in the 1950s when there was effectively freedom of movement between the United Kingdom and the colonies. More recently, freedom of movement has worked well for key industries in the UK such as science, telecoms, heritage, aviation and the public services—in particular, the NHS. For many young people in particular, the removal of freedom of movement will be an absolute loss.
The Home Secretary risks being accused of complacency on the subject of EU citizens. There is still a great deal of concern among EU citizens about what the reality of the registration system will be and about whether the Government are equipped to register millions of EU citizens effectively, and there is uncertainty among not just EU citizens themselves but their employers.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. I do not wish to launch any type of personal criticism of her, as she has actually been making an extremely coherent, root-and-branch criticism of the Bill, and she has an excellent record on these things. The problem is that we are meant to be debating whether this House of Commons should approve the Second Reading of a Bill. She has denounced it from beginning to end but says that the official Opposition do not intend to vote against it. That makes the proceedings quite absurd.
The right hon. Lady is in the same position as the Home Secretary, who could think of no reason why any group coming under existing EU law should be reduced, except that we have to say that we are against freedom of movement. All the right hon. Lady can say to explain her Front-Bench colleagues’ extraordinary decision—I suspect it was not hers—is that they must be seen to be saying that they are against freedom of movement. That is no way to legislate, and it demeans her speech.
Ms Abbott
I am loth to disagree with the Father of the House, but he will be aware—more than any other Member, because he has been here longer—that this is not the end of our deliberations on the Bill. As has happened many times before, we will see how it is amended in Committee before we take a decision on how we vote on Third Reading, which will be the end of the deliberations.
One thing we hope will be addressed when the Bill goes into Committee is indefinite administrative detention. I was a Member of Parliament when immigration detention as we now know it was introduced. When some of us queried the lack of due process surrounding it, we were told not to concern ourselves because people would be detained for only short periods immediately prior to being deported. Now we have a monstrous system where people are held in administrative detention for a year or more. Ministers insist that detention is not indefinite, but if someone is in a detention centre, cut off from their friends and family, with no idea when they will be released, it certainly feels like indefinite detention to them.
It has long been my view that we should end indefinite detention, and the Labour party’s commitment to ending it was set out clearly in the 2017 manifesto. I welcome the fact that Members on both sides of the House are coming round to that point of view. One can only hope that the Bill is amended along those lines in Committee.
Ms Abbott
Before I bring my remarks to a close, I have a few questions to ask Ministers. First, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, when will the Government actually implement the Bill and repeal free movement? Does the Secretary of State accept that there is some lack of clarity about the position of Irish citizens? [Interruption.] Conservative Members are laughing about the position of Irish citizens, but Irish citizens have come to Opposition Members to express their concerns about the current lack of clarity.
Ms Abbott
Will the automatic deportation regime imposed by the UK Borders Act 2007 also now apply to Irish citizens? Do the Government accept that ending free movement for EU citizens would also end free movement for other groups of UK workers, including UK scientists, and limit their ability to work on pan-European research projects? Do they accept that, unless each EU country legislates otherwise, British citizens travelling to EU countries will be immediately treated as third country nationals, so they will lose their free movement rights?
Several hon. Members rose—
Ms Abbott
In conclusion, the Home Secretary said in the debate on the withdrawal deal:
“Concern over uncontrolled immigration from the EU was a major factor in the decision to leave the EU.”—[Official Report, 11 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 698.]
Who whipped up that concern? Could it have been the political party that introduced completely bogus immigration targets—targets that have never been met, were never intended to be met and were just a vehicle for anti-immigrant sentiment and targets that the current Home Secretary seems unwilling to stand by? Could it have been whipped up by the “Go home” vans? I saw them driving through my constituency in east London, and I have to tell the Home Secretary—in case he is not aware—that they represent a low point in our migration policy, having been designed to intimidate and strike fear into the hearts of people who were here perfectly legally.
Or was the concern whipped up by the introduction of the hostile environment? I would be the first to say that some of its elements were introduced under a Labour Government, but the majority were brought in post 2010, when the current Prime Minister was Home Secretary, and I voted against the legislation. As a consequence of the hostile environment, sick people were denied cancer treatment, which horrified the public when they read about it for the first time, and people were evicted from their homes because they could not get the benefits they were entitled to. People were detained—I met women detained under the hostile environment on my visit to Yarl’s Wood last year—and deported, and people who had gone home to the Caribbean for a holiday—
Sajid Javid
The right hon. Lady will know that the historical review of what has been known as Windrush shows that almost half those affected were under a Labour Government. This Government have apologised for their role. Does she want to take this opportunity to apologise on behalf of the previous Labour Government for their mistakes?
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Home Secretary should not be trying to score political points on what is quite a serious issue and that it is not for her to apologise for what a past Labour Government did? We are talking about what this Government have done in relation to the Windrush scandal and the hostile environment policies they introduced.
Ms Abbott
Rather than trying to score the political points, the public would want the Home Secretary to move much faster in sorting out the Windrush scandal and to look further into its effects, because persons from the Caribbean were not the only Commonwealth cohort affected. Unless the Home Secretary moves faster and with more will, other cohorts of persons from all parts of the former British empire will be treated in the way in which the Windrush persons were treated.
Ms Abbott
Above all, the consequence of the Windrush scandal was that a whole generation of people who came here after the war to what they thought of as the mother country, to rebuild that mother country, were humiliated and degraded. I think that that generation and their relatives and friends would appreciate a more serious contemplation of this issue in the House tonight.
Ms Abbott
We will wait to see how the Bill emerges from Committee, but I say to Ministers who are sitting there smirking that literally millions of people in this country have been detrimentally affected by poor immigration legislation—not just under this Government, but under previous Governments—and want to see reform. We will not be supporting the Bill tonight, but we will be watching to see what emerges from the Committee stage.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I must say to Back Benchers that we will start off with a nine-minute limit.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
One of my early speeches when I was a new Member of Parliament was made during a debate on immigration, facilitated by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames). You may well have been in the Chair at the time, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wanted to speak in that debate because immigration had been prevalent in the run-up to, and during, my 2010 election campaign, and it continues to be of interest today.
In that speech, just over eight years ago, I focused on the fact that our British sense of tolerance and generous manner, which had welcomed many to our country for hundreds of years, had been overstretched and taken for granted during uncontrolled immigration under the last Labour Government. I referred to the impact of mass eastern European immigration in my own constituency—particularly in the two most deprived wards, where at the time tensions ran high and social divisions deep. The years since have passed with highs and lows, but, although integration is undoubtedly better, there remain enormous challenges, including the stretching of public services, the sudden change in population, and the perceived unfairness that free movement bought entitlement to welfare and housing structures that others did not have.
However, the debate, then as now, was balanced and constructive. There was overwhelming warmth towards, and appreciation of, the hundreds of thousands who come to the UK from across the European Union and the rest of the world to work in all sectors, including our health and social care services. I think of the phenomenally hard-working staff at my two local hospitals in Maidstone and Medway, the seasonal agricultural workers at the Chapel Down vineyards in Aylesford, and the workforces in the manufacturing, construction and warehouse hubs around Larkfield, to name but a few.
There are many settled European citizens in my constituency who have paid their taxes, worked hard, contributed to society in a variety of ways and brought up their children, and are now supporting grandchildren; it is for them in particular that I welcome the Government’s decision to scrap the fee for those seeking settled status. It is a symbolic but important announcement, which shows that we appreciate them and what they have brought to our country.
I support the Bill because it will enable us to deliver a future immigration system that is right for our country, not one that suits the political ambitions of the European Union. Although the Bill itself will not set out the specifics, the immigration rules will. The Government have rightly noted that they need to command the confidence of the public and reflect the wider economic, social and political context of immigration.
I think that we are all to blame for the public’s loss of faith in the immigration system. I shall try to put this as sensitively as possible, but we have allowed asylum seekers and refugees to be confused with economic migrants: we have allowed people to think that they are one and the same. We must have a grown-up conversation, one that is sensitive but sets a respectful tone, and one that discusses what our population should be in the future and what constitutes a balanced migration approach. I am confident that the immigration rules will enable that to happen.
I absolutely respect the fact that there are very important matters to be covered this evening. What has been said so far has demonstrated the breadth and depth of the issues surrounding immigration. I thank all the organisations that have sent us briefings for the debate, and I hope to be able to sweet-talk the Whips so that I can sit on the Bill Committee and have a chance to consider some of those issues in more detail. To be honest, I did not expect to be the first Back Bencher to be called, and I assumed that all the important points would have been made earlier. I do not want people to think that I am being shallow in raising one rather niche issue relating to immigration. We talk about talent. Given that you can take the girl out of the sports Ministry but cannot take the sports Ministry out of the girl, I am sure many Members will not be surprised to learn that I want to make a brief point about the connection between the future immigration rules and football.
Because we are friends, and because I have no doubt bored the Immigration Minister to tears with sports stuff over the years, I know she understands that football is not just about people running around on a pitch kicking a ball; I know she “gets” the fact that the Premier League and the English Football League bring a phenomenal amount of money to our economy. That success depends largely on Premier League clubs’ having the access that they require to world-class talent both on the pitch and in the dugout, while allowing our home-grown talent the opportunity to play with and for the world’s best, day in, day out. The impact of that is clear from England’s most recent World cup results—and ours was the only national team 100% of whose players came from their home league.
Other European leagues are licking their lips in the belief that Brexit will present them with a recruitment and competitive advantage over the Premier League, and that, post-Brexit, the Premier League will have to work within an immigration system that presents hurdles to the recruitment of the world’s best talent, both within the EU and outside it. The last thing that Brexit should be is a gift to leagues that, despite already having far fewer visa requirements for players, have so far been unable to match the popularity of the Premier League on equal terms. I recognise that those principles can be applied to any employer in any sector, but I hope that the House will generously forgive me for raising that issue here, given I am no longer in a position to do so behind the scenes as a Minister.
This important Bill takes forward the will of the people as set out in the referendum result on 23 June 2016. I wish that I could raise far more of the important points that have been made, and I look forward to hearing other Members’ speeches. I also look forward—hopefully—to sitting on the Bill Committee.
Anna McMorrin
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I wanted to make this point during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott).
I disagree with the hon. Lady. The majority of people do not want this immigration crackdown, which will damage our economy and harm our communities. The Bill goes against our values of openness and inclusiveness. I want a country based on fairness and tolerance, but the Bill provides for neither. That is why I will vote against it, and I hope that Opposition Front Benchers will, too.
Tracey Crouch
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am pleased that I was able to give way to her so that she could make her point, which was well made. Members in all parts of the House will have strong views on this issue. I was going to say, before the hon. Lady completed her final sentence, that if she wished to vote against the Bill, she would not need the permission of her Front Bench to do so.
This Bill is needed, regardless of whether we have plan A, plan B, or no deal. I look forward to supporting my Government—and, indeed, my friend the Minister—during its passage.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is always nice to start with a note of consensus, so let me say that I agree that we need an immigration Bill and I welcome the one solitary clause in relation to Irish nationals. Sadly, that is where the consensus ends. Let me say unequivocally that the Scottish National party opposes the Second Reading of the Bill.
There is so much wrong with the UK immigration system that needs fixing, but this Bill will not fix anything; in fact, it will make things much worse. The UK immigration system is built on the flawed twin pillars of a ludicrous net migration target and an obnoxious hostile environment policy exposed in all its nastiness by the Windrush scandal. That scandal is yet to be adequately and fully investigated or resolved. Meanwhile, the chief inspector of borders and immigration points out that the Home Office makes no effort to measure the effects of the hostile environment, but we know that turning NHS workers, landlords and bank staff into border guards has had terrible implications for too many people. This Bill does not end the ludicrous net migration target or the hostile environment; instead it will see more people ensnared by both.
We have the disgraceful situation of being alone in Europe in insisting that indefinite detention is perfectly okay simply for immigration purposes. Report after report flags up the terrible effect it has on detainees, yet there is nothing in this Bill to fix it.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman is making excellent points about indefinite detention. Does he agree that one reason why the Government and Conservative MPs argue for indefinite detention is that they claim that otherwise there will be a pull factor and more people will come in? Actually, that has been disproved: academic studies show that there is no pull factor in this, so there is no need to have indefinite detention.
Stuart C. McDonald
There is absolutely no need for indefinite detention and the fact that we are the only country in Europe that has to have it shows that every other country manages perfectly well without it. Basically, it is an affront to democracy and the rule of law. It is a human rights disgrace and the Bill should be used to scrap it altogether.
We have among the most anti-family immigration rules in the world, splitting up partners, spouses and parents from children if the UK sponsor cannot meet the £18,600 financial threshold.
Drew Hendry
My hon. Friend might recall the family who ran the village shop in Laggan in the highlands, the Zielsdorfs. The shop they ran was a vital component of the community and well loved by the community, but they were deported to Canada by this Government under the current rules. Does my hon. Friend also agree that even under the current rules the Government cannot even support our armed services personnel to be put together with their families, as raised by me in Prime Minister’s questions this week in the case of Denis Omondi and Ann in Kenya?
Stuart C. McDonald
I saw my hon. Friend’s question to the Prime Minister and it gave yet another horrendous example of the types of family these immigration rules are splitting apart.
Some 40% of the total population is not able to meet the financial threshold set out in the immigration rules, but that proportion is significantly higher for women, ethnic minorities and certain communities across the country. Every week we hear stories such as the one referred to by my hon. Friend. These rules are wicked, but this Bill will result in their application to hundreds of thousands more families in future. Some 500,000 UK citizens currently live here with an EU partner or spouse. That gives an idea of how many future relationships will be impacted in the years ahead. Rules for other families are just as outrageous. This Bill does not end these anti-family policies; it will destroy more families.
We put families with children on “no recourse to public funds” visas, increasing the risk of exploitation and cost-shunting on to overstretched local authorities. Again there is nothing in the Bill to fix that, but more people will end up with “no recourse to public funds” visas. The UK immigration system has become ludicrously complicated and is characterised by poor decision-making and massive expense and bureaucracy. Those who seek to challenge decisions so that they can access their rights struggle because appeal rights have been swept away, while legal aid has become a rarity in England and Wales. The Bill will leave even more people subject to poor Home Office decision-making but without the means or procedures to challenge that effectively.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the objective of Tory immigration Bills is to achieve two things: to stop people coming to this country, and to make life as miserable and difficult for the poor souls who have managed to make it here? Does my hon. Friend also agree that with this Bill they have triumphed in both respects?
Stuart C. McDonald
My hon. Friend is spot on. So much of this is about immigration theatre; it is about the politics of immigration and being seen not to stand up to those who are anti-migrant—almost trying to be seen to be hard on immigration for electoral purposes. It is a disgrace.
Caroline Lucas
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point. I want to take him back to the threshold figure of £18,600, because it is so unfair, so unequal and so unjust. That is not even the minimum wage, so it deliberately splits up families, depending on the wealth of one person in that family. The Supreme Court says it has a particularly harsh effect on citizens who have lived and worked abroad. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is cruelty and callousness at the heart of this Government’s policy?
Stuart C. McDonald
I absolutely agree. We could spend many hours debating, and highlighting the flaws of, so many of the features of the family migration rules. Another is the fact that this threshold only takes into account the earnings of the UK sponsor; it does not take into account, for example, the potential earnings of those who want to come and join their family members here. So these rules achieve absolutely nothing but keeping families apart—families split apart and destroyed.
Our asylum system also urgently needs important reform: to fix and extend the “move-on period” that forces newly recognised refugees into homelessness and poverty; to end the poverty support rates for asylum seekers and allow them the right to work; and to respect the vote in this House on the Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill to extend family reunion rights.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Does my hon. Friend agree that the fundamental point is that those under a certain age who have been designated as refugees should have the same rights as people over that age, and it is very nasty not to give those rights to children in particular?
Stuart C. McDonald
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the UK is once more an outlier in terms of the refugee family reunion rules it has in place. Sadly, the Bill does not mention asylum at all, and gives us little chance to address those issues.
These and a million other things need to be fixed, but this Bill does not do that; instead, it provides the Government with a big blank cheque to extend many of these flawed features to hundreds of thousands more people, each and every year.
On EU nationals who are already here, although scrapping the fee for settled status is welcome, much more needs to be done. The Home Secretary says he is listening, but the biggest concern just now is what happens in the event of no deal. Unilateral promises from the Government are fine so far as they go, but promises can be here today and gone tomorrow and, being unilateral, they are no help to the UK in Europe, nor do they have the force of international law. That is why MPs across the House have repeatedly urged the Government to seek to ring-fence the deal on citizen rights so that they can be guaranteed once and for all sooner rather than later. But the Government have shown absolutely no interest so far. We should use the Bill to try to make them at least attempt to secure such a deal, and we should use the Bill to enshrine the rights of the 3 million in primary legislation so that they cannot be changed in the blink of an eye via immigration rules.
Other questions remain. Why are there differences between the positions of EU citizens in a no-deal scenario compared with if a deal is agreed? Why are there to be settled status appeal rights if there is a deal, but not if there is no deal? Why are the appeal rights not in the Bill? Why are voting rights not protected? Why are the 3 million to be refused physical documentation despite calls from the Exiting the European Union Committee to make that available? Where is the clarity about rights for Surinder Singh cases, and the different rights of carers from Chen, Ibrahim and Teixeira case law?
Perhaps most significantly of all, we still do not know anything about what will happen to those who fail to apply for settled status in time. Why should there be such a severe cut-off date? It is inevitable that hundreds of thousands will not apply in time: many children; people who have been resident for many years; those who think having a permanent residence document is sufficient; people who struggle with language or technology; vulnerable and exploited people; people who were born here and do not think they need to apply—the list goes on. We must also remember that in a recent British Medical Association survey, 37% of EU national doctors were unaware of the scheme. That does not bode well.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
When Conservatives are on the stump or going around the country, they always talk about getting rid of red tape and taking the Government out of the centre of people’s lives. Right now, through this sort of legislation, they are putting massive amounts of red tape in people’s lives and putting Government right in the middle of people’s lives. Where things are currently going seamlessly, they want to introduce a ramping up of bureaucracy. That is shocking.
Stuart C. McDonald
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the Bill will catch hundreds of thousands of people into one of the most horrible bureaucracies that the Government have managed to create, and we should have absolutely nothing to do with it at all.
All the people—inevitably, hundreds of thousands of them—who fail to apply in time for the EU settled status scheme will be cast into the hostile environment, and that will make this a Windrush crisis writ large. The Bill creates that danger, but provides no clarity on, or protection from, the danger it creates.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. Does he appreciate that many of my constituents will be EU nationals whose partners are non-EU nationals, and that that causes double the uncertainty for those families, who now do not know what the position will be?
Stuart C. McDonald
That is a fair point. That is the Surinder Singh route, and we still need clarity from the Government about what happens to people in that position.
One part of UK immigration policy continues to work pretty well: free movement. I would hope that continuing free movement would answer many of the questions I have just posed, but the Bill seeks to ditch it. An end to free movement will make the UK poorer economically, socially and in terms of opportunity. Ending free movement means ripping up mutual rights to live, study, work and enjoy family life across Europe, depriving future generations of the extraordinary opportunities that ours have enjoyed.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill, apart from being appalling, is premature, given that we do not know what will happen in the Brexit debate? There may be a public vote; we might stay in the EU; we may have a Norway model; we may have free movement. Why are we prematurely legislating for a position in which we will not get free movement when we do not know the future?
Stuart C. McDonald
The hon. Gentleman is spot on, and I shall come on to that point in a minute. It is premature, because it is tying Parliament’s hand on not just the future relationship, but the question of oversight of the future of the immigration system.
Free movement has been fantastic for people in this country and across the continent. As all the research shows, it has been good for our economy and for our public finances. That is true for Scotland and for the UK as a whole, and we will not support a Bill that brings those benefits to an end.
Drew Hendry
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way yet again. He makes a point about free movement’s benefits to Scotland, and has it not been even more important for the highlands where, decade after decade, we have seen our population decline? Free movement has helped to arrest that situation and to turn it round to a point where we have a healthy population in the highlands, although we actually need more people there as well. Is it not the case that this is a “one size fits no one” policy as far as the highlands are concerned?
Stuart C. McDonald
My hon. Friend is spot on, I will come to the particular importance of the free movement of people for Scotland in a little while.
The other advantage that retaining free movement brings is, as the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) said, that it opens up the possibility of different future relationships with the EU. The relationship that my party would prefer is, of course, continued EU membership, but the Prime Minister’s red line means that not only membership but other close relationships are not possible. If Parliament is serious about having a proper say on the future relationship, it should reject this Bill.
It is not only Parliament’s say on our future relationship with the EU that the Bill could diminish, but our say on the future immigration system. The Government launched their White Paper just a day before introducing this Bill. Their consultation has a year to run. Why would Parliament give the Government a blank cheque to introduce any system by subordinate legislation at this stage? We should be moving in the opposite direction; we need a totally different approach to how immigration laws are made. There have been thousands of changes to the immigration rules since 2010, but they are not noticed or understood, never mind debated, in this Chamber. There is no other public policy area in which such important changes attract so little scrutiny. Parliament must start getting involved in how we operate and design our immigration system.
The Bill is dominated by totally inappropriate Henry VIII clauses. This is about not only the incredible breadth of powers that are sought to change legislation, including primary legislation, simply because Ministers think that that is appropriate, but even the type of statutory instrument procedures. Why are “made affirmative” clauses the order of the day?
It is especially important not to give the Government a blank cheque on future immigration policy, given what their White Paper tells us that they will do with such a blank cheque. There has been a lot of talk about division in the country, but at least the Government have brought a broad coalition together in opposition to many of their White Paper’s proposals. Business organisations, trade unions, universities, charities and non-governmental organisations are all hugely concerned. Extending the bureaucracy and huge expense of tier 2 to EU employees is understandably unpopular, even if some tweaking around the edges is proposed.
The proposed retention of the £30,000 financial threshold has sparked incredulity, as it would mean that 80% of EU workers coming to the UK would no longer qualify. Some 60% of jobs at the so-called intermediate level would not make the grade. Technicians in our universities, medical research charities and the NHS would struggle. Nurses, paramedics, junior doctors and social care workers will be implicated. Hugely significant sectors will find it impossible to adjust, including retail, food and drink, and hospitality. Housing and infrastructure targets will be totally unachievable. Such a financial threshold fails to recognise the need to recruit right up and down supply chains.
The proposals for stop-gap, temporary one-year workers’ visas are, frankly, totally unacceptable. The Government say, “You can come to work, but don’t bring your family. You’ll have no recourse to public funds, and however well you do and however much your employer wants to retain you, you’ll need to leave again for at least another year.” That is an astonishing way to treat people, and such short-term schemes, under which people never develop support structures and have only a short period of employment to pay hefty recruitment and visa fees, are known to significantly increase the chances of exploitation. They are hopeless for integration—so they involve exactly the type of migration that the public are most frustrated about—and they are expensive for employers, who have to start again each year with a brand new recruit.
The White Paper is pretty much silent on the self-employed, which is again a matter of huge significance for certain industries in which self-employed contractors fill key roles. Universities have again criticised the failure to come up with anything approaching a sensible and competitive post-study work offer. If this is even roughly how the Government want to use the blank cheque provided by this immigration Bill, we should not be even remotely considering letting them near it.
Let me try once again to wake the Home Office up to the fact that this Bill, and the White Paper proposals that accompany it, would be a disaster for Scotland, both socially and economically. The White Paper proposals look set to result in an 85% reduction in the number of EEA workers coming to Scotland. Scottish Government modelling estimates that real GDP in Scotland will be around 6.2% lower by 2040 as a result of a Brexit-driven reduction in migration than it would have been otherwise. That is a fall of almost £6.8 billion a year in GDP by 2040, and a fall in Government revenue of £2 billion.
We need people to come, not additional hurdles to stop them coming.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he recognise the particular problems faced in the western highlands of Scotland, where there is a depopulation crisis? Urgent action is required, yet the Government have turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the needs of rural Scotland time and again. Even after an offer by Argyll and Bute Council to host a pilot scheme to test a regional immigration policy, they absolutely refused to do that. Will he join me in calling for the immediate devolution of immigration policy to the Scottish Parliament, because a “one size fits all” policy cannot and will not work for the whole UK?
Stuart C. McDonald
I am happy to support my hon. Friend in that call. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), he makes an important argument about rural Scotland.
If the Government were to succeed in reducing net migration to the tens of thousands, it is projected that Scotland’s working age population would decline by 4.5%, or 150,000, between 2016 and 2041. It is time that the Home Office engaged with these concerns. So far it has veered between platitudes about the useless Scottish shortage occupation list and total disinterest in the issue. I ask the Home Office: please, look at the analysis that has been done and proposals about how a differentiated or devolved system can work—not just from the Scottish Government but from academics such as Christina Boswell, Sarah Kyambi and Eve Hepburn. Look at what think-tanks such as the Institute for Public Policy Research are saying; see what works internationally in Canada, Australia and other countries.
Whatever our differing views on Scotland’s constitutional future, migration and demographics must be recognised as huge issues for the future of Scotland. The total lack of interest from the Home Office is just shocking. If it fails to start engaging and addressing the issue, there is no better illustration of why we need decisions on immigration to be in Scotland’s hands.
For all those reasons, the Bill must be refused a Second Reading. For such a short Bill, it risks remarkable damage. We will all be poorer if it passes. We say no to terminating our mutual rights to free movement and no to giving the Government a blank cheque to implement a disastrous alternative policy. We say no to extending the hostile environment and anti-family policies, and no to damaging Scotland’s future. For all those reasons, and all the reasons set out in the reasoned amendments tabled by the Greens and the Liberal Democrats, as well as that tabled by the SNP, the Bill must be refused a Second Reading.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Each of our lives—all lives—is characterised by change and challenge. We attempt to rise to the second and cope with the first. How successful we are in that depends on context, individuals and circumstances. What is absolutely certain is that the familiar touchstones of enduring certainty, by accentuating what we know, affirm our personal sense of belonging and communal notion of identity.
In trying to build a society in which the things that unite us are greater than any which divide us, mass migration proves difficult simply because of its scale and the difference it makes. When communities quickly change beyond or nearly beyond recognition, people find it hard to cope. That was precisely why the people decided to say, as expressed through the referendum, that they wanted no more of free movement, and that was what the Home Secretary and shadow Home Secretary drew the House’s attention to. Of course, that was not the only thing that the referendum was about but, emblematically, what people saw as migration “out of control” became a proxy for not being able to command their own future and not being able to govern themselves.
Free movement has that problem at its heart. The idea that people can come here at will, regardless of need and of what they do when they get here, and can choose where they go and what their life is like thereafter, seemed to be at odds both with immigration policy before, which was based on applications, visas, needs and specificities of various kinds, and with what the people who are here already feel is fair and reasonable.
Pete Wishart
The right hon. Gentleman is correct that immigration was the cold beating heart of the case for leaving the European Union—there is no doubt about that. However, he is just making a traditional, right-wing Tory speech on immigration, saying that immigration somehow changes communities and drives down wages. Does he have even a shred of evidence to support all these lazy, right-wing Tory views about immigration? We have never seen any evidence.
Sir John Hayes
I do not mind being called a traditional Tory, but I am not so keen on “lazy”. If I am articulating that view and if it reflects a view that is held by many of my constituents and a large number of other people, I am doing the House a service.
Sir John Hayes
I will give way in a second.
Trevor Phillips, the founding chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, argued that there is a liberal consensus not to speak about such things. There is what he described—I do not know whether I am being unfair, but perhaps the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) matches this description—as “touchy”, “smug”, “complacent” and “squeamish” unwillingness on the part of bourgeois liberals to address the issue. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is a bourgeois liberal, but I do know that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) is, and I will happily give way to her.
Caroline Lucas
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way with the customary courtesy that we all appreciate so much—Hansard could perhaps put “sarcasm” in brackets there. To address his point, of course he needs to respond to his constituents, but would he accept that his constituents may have reflected such a view back to him because of things such as the poster put up by Nigel Farage during the referendum campaign that actually showed Syrian refugees while implying that that was something to do with freedom of movement being out of control? Perhaps he would be doing his constituents more of a service if he based his arguments on evidence, and the evidence, time and again, is that freedom of movement does not reduce wages. We need a Government who are willing to enforce a minimum wage. I wish this Government would do that, but that is not the fault of freedom of movement.
Sir John Hayes
To be clear, I started this contribution by saying that change and challenge were part of every life. Change is inevitable and constant, and advanced societies of course have people coming and going to and from them. Indeed, that has been the case in our country for a long time, but the level and extent of net migration into this country over recent years have been unprecedented. If we look at the numbers, over the past 10 years, roughly speaking in net terms, 250,000 migrants have entered Britain each year.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)
Contrary to what the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) says, as a first-generation immigrant, I know that it is wholly inconsistent to say that immigrants have not changed this country or communities in any way whatsoever. Sometimes there is positive change, and sometimes there is negative change—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman shakes his head in disagreement, but I am merely repeating his words. Does my right hon. Friend agree there are both positive and negative changes, and that we want more of the positive and less of the negative?
Sir John Hayes
I do agree, and part of that is about scale. Part of that is about the absorption of new peoples, about building the kind of common sense of identity that I called for, and about ensuring that what we share is more important than that which divides us, as I also said a few moments ago. If we are to build that kind of social cohesion and that civil harmony, it is important to recognise, as my hon. Friend says, the consequences of immigration, where they are both positive and less so. Many communities across Britain felt at the time of the referendum—using that as an expression—that some of the changes were not positive. That is partly because free movement tended to bring people to particular communities in the east of England, including in my county of Lincolnshire, and other similar places, so that the number of people who came was not spread out evenly. People were often concentrated in small towns that changed very radically very rapidly, and it is the extent of that change that causes some of the concerns that I have attempted to amplify.
Brendan O’Hara
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that those of us in areas that have had a positive experience of immigration should continue to have the right to have that experience? Will he therefore back our call to devolve immigration to the Scottish Government so that we can continue to have that positive experience of immigration?
Sir John Hayes
I take the view that this is our sovereign Parliament, that Home Office policy should be made here, and that the Government govern for the whole of our kingdom. That may seem a bit unconventional to Scottish nationalist eyes, but it is certainly my view. As I recall, it was also the view of the majority of Scots when their opinion was tested in a referendum, so let us move on from the idea of devolving this policy.
As I said, the figures speak for themselves. There have been unprecedented levels of mass net migration for a decade. Of course, the fact that most of those migrants came from outside the EU goes back to the point made quite persuasively by the shadow Home Secretary, which is that this debate must be contextualised. We need to talk about migration as a whole, rather than simply immigration from the EU. Nevertheless, in the views of many, free movement became a totem for the kind of lack of control of our destiny and our borders that the EU embodies.
Stuart C. McDonald
What I did not do in my speech was to set out alternative ways of addressing some of the concerns that the right hon. Gentleman is raising, such as by investing in public services in communities where there has been migration and in integration strategies, and through proper labour market enforcement of standards and wages. Those are ways of addressing community concerns without the whole country having to cut off its nose to spite its face by ending the free movement of people.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman is right that growing the population significantly creates great pressures on health, housing, roads and schools. He is right that public services struggle to respond to population growth of the kind that I have outlined, and it is time that we had what was described earlier as a grown-up debate about population growth, and its effect on the provision of public services and how they are funded.
However, the point that I really want to make is that the Government have only partly responded to that public call for tougher action. Returning to the figures that I quoted earlier when I challenged the Home Secretary, the number of failed asylum seekers removed from this country has fallen from 16,000 in 2005 to just 5,000—despite what the Home Secretary said, that figure does not include the returns of foreign criminals, although I understand that he made a genuine mistake in that respect—and the number of overstayers returned has dropped from 31,000 per annum to about 21,000 per annum. We are perpetually failing to deal with such matters as effectively and efficiently as we ought to, and that is actually rather unfair to the individuals concerned, because they sometimes end up in unacceptable conditions, whether in housing, in detention centres or wherever. It is actually fairer to deal with these things quickly, as previous Governments clearly did to a greater extent—I do not say that with any great relish.
It is also important to understand what this new White Paper is likely to lead to. There is a real risk that the focus on low-skilled migrants, and certainly on the one-year limit, may mask immigration figures. There is an argument for seasonal workers. The seasonal agricultural workers scheme is to be welcomed, and we should extend it to horticulture, but those workers tend to go home. They do not settle and they are not migrants; they are people who simply come to work.
Let us build an immigration system that is fair and that reflects public understanding of the need to build communities that cohere. And let us build a shared sense of Britishness; that should be at the heart of what the Government do.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) made a wide-ranging speech, but I will address the narrower, more specific issue raised by the right hon. Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) in their interventions on the Home Secretary, which is the question of immigration detention.
This Bill repeals the law relating to free movement, thereby bringing EEA nationals and their families within general immigration control and requiring them to have leave to enter and remain under the Immigration Act 1971. The Government told the 3 million EU citizens who are here:
“You are our friends, our neighbours, our colleagues. We want you to stay.”
The Government said that they only have to register, as they are existing residents. I do not doubt the Home Secretary’s sincerity on that, but it is, of course, exactly what was said to people of the Windrush generation. Everyone now acknowledges that terrible mistakes were made by the Home Office and that people who have been here for years were wrongfully detained as illegal immigrants.
If we are to subject 3 million EU citizens to our immigration system, it is right that we should now ask ourselves whether we have learned the lessons of the Windrush cases so that we do not repeat those injustices on EU citizens. We do not want the new level playing field to be a detention centre.
I have the privilege of chairing the Joint Committee on Human Rights and, following our inquiry into immigration detention, we are clear that two problems need to be addressed. The first is the lack of independence in decision making on detention, and the second is indefinite detention.
If a person is suspected of a crime, they cannot be detained by the Government; they can be detained only by the police, who are independent of Government. If the police want to continue to detain a person beyond 36 hours, they have to bring that person before a court, which is, of course, totally independent of Government.
But if the Home Office suspects a person of being in breach of our immigration laws, there is a complete absence of independence in the decision making. A civil servant—nameless, faceless and behind closed doors—just ticks a box to detain them. The first that person will know about it is when someone bangs on their door in the early hours of the morning to bundle them into an immigration enforcement van and take them to a detention centre.
With no independence in the decision making, and with no scrutiny or accountability, mistakes are inevitable. Those we get to hear about are probably only the tip of the iceberg, but we do know that £21 million was paid out by the Home Office in just five years to compensate for wrongful detention, and terrible mistakes are certainly what happened in the Windrush cases.
It is routinely said those people were unable to prove their residence here, which is not the case for the detainees we saw. We looked at their Home Office files, which the Home Secretary was good enough to release to them, and it was not that there was no evidence of their residence here. There was masses of it, including records of national insurance contributions going back to the 1970s. If there had been any independence in the decision making, these people would never have been detained, yet they were detained not once but twice. The papers in their files were ignored, and the pleas of their families were swept aside.
After the right to life, the right not to be unlawfully detained is one of the most important human rights. It should not be the case that a person has fewer protections from wrongful detention as an immigrant than they would if they had actually committed a crime. We should ensure that, in future, no one is detained unless the decision is taken independently. The Home Office should make its case, but someone independent must take the decision if a person is to be deprived of their liberty. The Joint Committee on Human Rights will table an amendment to that effect, and we hope the Government will agree to it.
Another deplorable aspect of our immigration system, to which EU citizens are now to be subject under this Bill, is that there is no time limit on detention. A person is taken from their home or workplace, and they have no idea whether they will be in the detention centre for a day, a month or a year. Evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights identified the indefinite nature of such detention as one of its cruellest aspects.
The criminal justice system imposes time limits at every stage, from first bringing a defendant before a magistrate to the sentence that sets out their time in prison, but the Home Office can hold a person in immigration detention indefinitely. The Joint Committee on Human Rights agrees with the right hon. Members for Sutton Coldfield and for Haltemprice and Howden, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and my right hon. Friends the Members for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) that there should be a time limit of 28 days on immigration detention, and the Joint Committee will table an amendment to the Bill so that if a detainee is not deported or released by then, they should be brought before a judge where the Home Office can apply for just a further 28 days. We hope the Government will accept an amendment on detention that I believe has widespread support in the House, including from the SNP—we have heard from the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) is a leading member of our Joint Committee—and the Lib Dems, and I know the DUP has long complained about indefinite detention.
This is not a party issue. It seems to be the Home Office versus everybody else. The Labour Government should have ended the scandal of indefinite detention when we were in office, but we did not, and I am now happy to apologise for that—it is something we should have done.
Geraint Davies
I support my right hon. and learned Friend’s amendment, and she may be interested to know that a Swansea resident, Otis from Congo, was ripped from his bed on the Thursday before Christmas and was due to be sent back to Congo, where he had previously been tortured, on Christmas Day. He was detained for 21 days and, luckily, following our intervention he is now safe and sound back in Swansea, but does it not show that, if the system is used as it currently is, people who have a case, and who are in jeopardy if they are taken back, can be taken from their bed, kept indefinitely and then just carted away?
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
Building on what the right hon. and learned Lady said, I formally indicate that the DUP will give serious consideration to what I think is a positive and worthwhile proposal that will be a step forward in affording constitutional norms, which we take for granted, to those who only want to live in this country and build a life alongside us.
Caroline Lucas
The right hon. and learned Lady is making a powerful case. When I finally got into Yarl’s Wood, what came over to me from my conversations with the women I met is the mental torture, the arbitrariness, of not knowing why they had been taken. Although I respect that she is trying to get a majority for a particular timeframe, which is why she has chosen the 28 days, does she agree that, if we were not trying to make that compromise, there is an argument for ending indefinite detention altogether, without any timeframe?
Ms Harman
But the point is that it would not be indefinite—it would be finite. It would be for up to 28 days, and then with the possibility of a further 28 days—the cap would be there, with no more days after that. Perhaps I could talk to the hon. Lady about this further.
Here in the UK we pride ourselves on our commitment to human rights, so how is it that indefinite Home Office detention has been a feature of our system for so long? I suspect one reason is that immigration detention used to be used for a very small number of people—exceptional cases. In 1993, there were only 250 detention places, and for the most part many of them were not full. Now, 27,000 people are detained every year, with 7,000 of them for more than 28 days. I am very encouraged by the Home Secretary’s offer to meet us to discuss a way forward on this. I am grateful to the Immigration Minister for the evidence she gave to the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Unaccountable, arbitrary, indefinite detention is a human rights abuse. It is a cruel anomaly in our system, and I hope the Government will use the opportunity of this Bill to end it. They will have then done something that the last Labour Government should have done and did not, as was rightly pointed out by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
It is a great privilege to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), and I warmed to many of the points she was making. It is long overdue that we address the issue of indefinite detention.
I very much welcome this Bill as an important step in taking back control of our borders as we leave the EU. It is important that we deliver on this promise we made to the British people. Unfortunately, too many Members of this House seem to be reneging on promises they made to the British people at the last election. It is essential that we deliver on this promise to end the free movement of people and take back control of our own immigration policy. Beyond this Bill, which is just one step in that process, leaving the EU provides us with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reset our immigration policy.
As we do that, it is vital that we are able to have a grown-up, mature and constructive debate about immigration. We have to avoid the polarisation that too often takes place, where people are either labelled as being for free movement and immigration, or against it and seeing it as a bad thing, because the reality is that it can be both good and bad. It is clear to me that, on balance, immigration has been good for our country. It is a very positive thing for our country, and we have heard many hon. Members make the point about the benefits of immigration to our economy. It has also been good for our nation in the wider context and has largely contributed to our being the richly diverse nation that the UK is today. But we also need to acknowledge that for some communities immigration has been a mixed blessing. If we do not listen to and acknowledge the legitimate concerns of communities who have seen the negative impacts of free movement affect them, we do the positive case for immigration a disservice.
There are some parts of our country and some communities where people feel that uncontrolled immigration has had a largely negative impact on their communities. It has brought about sudden change to the make-up, culture, nature and identity of those communities, and they see that as something that has been taken away from them. Although we should not be shy, as I have not been, in speaking up for the benefits that immigration has brought to our country, neither should we avoid addressing the challenges it has also created in some cases.
Sir John Hayes
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the public concerns about mass migration. In every poll taken, about 75% of people think immigration should be reduced and are concerned about the growth in population to 70 million over the next few years. Indeed, many think the Government should be going much further than reducing free movement and should be cutting immigration per se.
Steve Double
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention, as he makes the good point that many UK residents believe that migration has to be brought under control and that the numbers need to be reduced. In leaving the EU, we have that once-in-a-generation opportunity to reset our immigration policy and manage it in a way that is right for our nation.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend was talking about the benefits of immigration, and I could not agree more with him on that. Does he agree that the problem is not so much immigration, but administration? He rightly says that in many communities where there has been more immigration public services have been put under strain. The Migration Advisory Committee report outlined that funding should have followed that level of migration. Does he see this as an opportunity for us, as if public money were to follow the levels of immigration, it could benefit some areas that have had high levels of immigration and some that require immigration, such as certain areas in Scotland?
Steve Double
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the point he makes, which was exactly the one I am coming on to. In being able to take back our own immigration policy, we are provided with the opportunity to manage it in a way whereby the Government can ensure that any of the impact of large numbers of people moving into different areas of our nation can be addressed by investment and finance being put in place to support the services. We will be able to manage the number of people coming into our country in a way that does not put that undue pressure on public services. Many of the negative impacts, sometimes perceived and sometimes real, can be handled in a much better way and, thus, we will be able to extol the virtues of the positive elements that immigration brings to our country while managing some of the negative perceptions that people have.
As I said, I very much welcome the Bill as a first step towards resetting our own immigration policy. I want to say a few words about the immigration White Paper that the Government produced, and I am glad to see the Immigration Minister on the Front Bench, because I am sure she will not be surprised at the points I am going to make, as I have made them to her many times. I do, however, want to put them on the record. There is much to be welcomed in the White Paper, in developing a fair system that no longer discriminates between where people come from, but assesses people on the basis of their abilities and what they will bring to our country. That absolutely should be welcomed. But as I have listened to businesses in Cornwall, I have heard about a number of elements of the White Paper that cause them concern, and I wish to highlight those here today.
We very much welcome the pilot scheme for seasonal agricultural workers. It is good that the Government acknowledge that this sector has a particular requirement for seasonal migrant workers that we need to make sure we are able to meet. The latest figures from the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly local enterprise partnership state that there are about 7,000 migrant workers working in our agriculture and food sector in Cornwall. Many farmers rely on migrant workers. My own father-in-law, who at the age of 89 is still farming on the Isles of Scilly, keeps making the point about how vital his seasonal workers from eastern Europe are to making sure he can pick his flowers and get them to market. It is vital for our farms that we continue to be able to meet that seasonal requirement for labour. The pilot scheme is therefore very much to be welcomed, as is the Government’s acknowledgement of the need of that sector.
The agriculture sector is not the only one that relies heavily on seasonal workers. In Cornwall, the tourism and hospitality sector, which is even bigger than our food and agricultural sector, has exactly the same requirement for seasonal workers from overseas. They are needed to come to man the hotels, bars, restaurants and the tourist resorts in Cornwall to make sure that those businesses are able to continue to function and provide the services for the many, many thousands of tourists who come to Cornwall every year. So I urge the Government to look beyond the agricultural sector and to other sectors that have a particular requirement for seasonal workers. I welcome the steps that have sought to address this need through the 12-month low-skilled work visa, but I urge the Home Secretary and the Government to look at this again, because we clearly have a balance to strike here. At the moment, in this country, we do not have an army of people waiting to take up these jobs.
We have almost full employment, so there is a need to make sure that we have the workforce that our businesses, particularly those that require a heavily seasonal workforce, need. I am concerned that the 12-month low-skilled visa will put additional costs on businesses, in terms of the need both to keep recruiting staff every year and to keep retraining them every year. I am not convinced that it will help to meet the requirements of many of our businesses, so will the Government look again at what more we could do, particularly to help the tourism and hospitality sector?
Like others, I have concerns about the £30,000 threshold for skilled workers. A salary threshold is a fairly blunt instrument for identifying the skilled workers we need. That is particularly true in an area like Cornwall: when the average wage in the constituency that I represent is only around £18,000, that £30,000 threshold is unrealistic and will mean many people will be unable to come and work in businesses in Cornwall.
Geraint Davies
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that most graduates who come out of British universities cannot expect to earn £30,000 in their first year, although many can? The threshold is ridiculous.
Steve Double
I agree that the limit needs to be looked at, particularly on a regional basis, and ask the Government to consider whether we need regional variations to the threshold. A policy that works for the south-east of England almost certainly will not work for places such as Cornwall and other parts of the country where average wages are so much lower.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
In the north of Scotland we have similar issues relating to hospitality, care, food and farming, but does my hon. Friend not agree that these issues are spread throughout the United Kingdom, and while the issues may be regional, we have to recognise that although London may have a higher salary level, the rest of the country may have a lower level?
Steve Double
My hon. Friend makes the point well. The Government do need to exercise some flexibility on this issue, particularly in respect of some of our public services, because we really do need workers to continue to come here. Particularly in health and care, that £30,000 limit is probably not going to meet the needs.
To sum up, I ask the Government to look into two things in respect of introducing a new immigration policy. First, we must ensure that we give enough notice and time for businesses to readjust to whatever the new regime is going to be. There must not be a sudden change and they should have plenty of time to plan, adjust and prepare for the change. Secondly, we really need to make sure that any policy is flexible enough to respond to the needs of our economy and to the different levels of employment in the country over a period of time. We must make sure that our policy responds to the needs of the economy. I welcome the Bill and will support it as a first step, but we need to make sure that we take this opportunity to reset our immigration policy and get it right for the future.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
This Bill is yet another power grab by a Government who are intent on riding roughshod over Parliament, and who view scrutiny as something to fear rather than a fundamental resource of democracy. Parliamentary scrutiny is there to enable a better, more effective, evidence-led approach, but it requires the appropriate powers to do that. The Bill does not allow Parliament to analyse, query and question the Government. Instead, it gives them sweeping powers to impose the immigration system that they set out in their White Paper or, indeed, any other whim that may take their fancy. We do not know what Home Office Ministers will do, and parliamentarians will be unable to challenge them when they do it. Having said that, we can have a good guess. Under the stewardship of a Prime Minister motivated more by ideology than facts, the Government have decided to stick with arbitrary targets and have looked to appease unjustified and unsubstantiated anti-migrant sentiment.
For Members from all parties, but particularly those on the Government Benches, I wish to outline a few key findings from the Government-commissioned Migration Advisory Committee report “EEA migration in the UK”. The report found no evidence that migration reduced wages, employment opportunities or training opportunities for UK-born citizens. Furthermore, it included strong evidence that EEA migrants have a positive impact on productivity, pay more in taxes than they receive in welfare benefits and consume in public services, and make a larger contribution to the NHS, in terms of both money and work, than they receive in health services.
As it stands, EEA nationals who want to come to the UK will be faced with our existing, creaking and failing immigration system, which is simply not fit for purpose. We know the damage that the Government’s hostile environment has caused for individuals and families throughout the country, and the Bill will push more people into this unjust position.
Geraint Davies
Is my hon. Friend aware of reports that have shown that on average migrants contribute 35% more in tax than they consume in public services? Will the new restrictions not mean higher taxes and lower services for the rest of us?
Preet Kaur Gill
I thank my hon. Friend for contributing to my previous statement.
The Bill will remove the rights of individuals and families without guaranteeing that sufficient rights are put in their place. If the Minister and the Government are serious about protecting people’s rights, will they put those rights in legislation?
I wish to raise a few other concerns. The first is the proposed £30,000 minimum salary threshold, which will also apply to migrants from the EU27. According to the 2018 annual survey of hours and earnings, the average earnings for a full-time male in the west midlands are £30,231, so just over the threshold. Meanwhile, the average earnings for a full-time woman are £24,030. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the inequities of a policy that would disproportionately impact women and shut them out of the possibility of coming into this country? Will he commit to conducting a comprehensive gender impact assessment of all policies in the white paper?
In the light of the plans for a salary threshold, my constituents are concerned that we will see staff shortages in our NHS and care sector worsen.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
My local hospital in Croydon already struggles to recruit nurses, and we have struggled to recruit social care workers. The arbitrary £30,000 has no correlation to the skills that we actually need in our economy. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill will get us nowhere and really should go back to the drawing board?
Preet Kaur Gill
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, on which I am about to expand. Staff shortages in our NHS and care sector will leave our loved ones waiting longer in hospital corridors to see a nurse. As my hon. Friend has just pointed out, we must ensure that we have nurses and care workers. We must ensure that our NHS and our care sector have the people that they need with the right level of skills. That is why I cannot support the Bill on Second Reading. Does the Secretary of State agree that equating pay and skill undermines the desire for an immigration system that, to quote the Prime Minister’s foreword to the December White Paper,
“welcomes talent, hard work, and the skills we need”?
The second concern I wish to raise is about indefinite detention. As it stands, there are no limits on the length of time a person can be held in immigration detention in the United Kingdom. Anyone who has met those who have faced indefinite detention will know the pain and harm it causes. With the Bill potentially expanding the number of EEA nationals liable for detention, will the Government listen to the range of voices asking for an end to indefinite detention?
Finally, on the social security element of the Bill and the immigration White Paper, the latter proposes a more restrictive system for EU citizens’ entitlements, including longer waiting times before entitlement, so what guarantees will the Secretary of State give to protect EU citizens? With the EU likely to reciprocate any new restrictions on social security entitlement, what does he say to the more than 1 million UK citizens living in the EU who will have to face confines, or even become ineligible?
We in this House have a tendency to view issues as intrinsically good or bad, so I call on Members from all parties to reflect on a vital section of the MAC report that says that
“the impacts of migration often depend on other government policies and should not be seen in isolation from the wider context.”
I hope the Government heed that advice.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)
I mentioned earlier in this debate that I was speaking as a first-generation immigrant. Immigration is an issue that is very close to my heart. My personal experience, especially through my immediate family and relatives, has been not from an EU perspective, but from a non-EU perspective. One good thing about the Bill is that we are no longer focusing on nationality, but, really importantly, on skills and ending this form of discrimination. I know that, in the future, most of the red meat will be coming with the immigration rules, so I shall speak on the substantive points in the Bill.
One of the primary reasons that I supported the withdrawal agreement was because of the reciprocal guarantees on citizens’ rights. As leaving the EU is such a huge fundamental change to this country, it is only right that we have clear rules and that we think very carefully about what the new regime will be like. Quite clearly, this is a country that welcomes migrants; the numbers speak for themselves. For every British citizen who is in the EU, there are four EU citizens in this country, so we know that this is a country that welcomes immigration—that is just EU migration, let alone migration from the rest of the world. One huge challenge has been the language that we use to discuss immigration and, in particular, freedom of movement. I thank the Home Secretary, who is no longer in his place, for taking a lot of the emotion out of this debate, allowing us to focus on the logic, the reason and the substantive issues.
One Opposition Member—I cannot remember their name—talked about negative media rhetoric and about the language that is used to talk about migrants. I think that a lot of that starts from this House. It comes not, as Opposition Members may think, from the language that is used on the Government Benches, but from the whipping up by the Opposition of things that are not necessarily to do with immigration, so that they can get good headlines. I ask to Members to look, for example, at how the shadow Home Secretary conflated illegal and legal migration in her opening statement when she was talking about those “Go home” vans. This is not in any way an endorsement of that sort of technique, but it was quite clear that those things were used to talk about illegal migration. This constant conflation of legal and illegal migration is one of the things that whips up the rhetoric. It starts from here and ends up going out there.
The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who is not in his place, intervened on his colleague to say that Tories do not want to see anyone coming to this country at all. That is completely ridiculous.
Mrs Badenoch
No, I will not give way. I want to make this point.
The same people who say that we on these Benches do not want anyone to come to this country will also complain that we are letting in more non-EU migrants such as me and my family.
David Linden
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I just wanted to remind her of some history. It was the Conservative party that, in an election, had huge billboards saying, “Are you thinking what we’re thinking?” That was the kind of rhetoric that was whipped up by this Tory party, so I will take no lectures from her on that point.
Mrs Badenoch
In that case, nor will I take any lectures from Scottish National party Members. We can see from their sparkling racial diversity just how much they care about immigration. As someone who came to this country as a first-generation immigrant, I have seen at first hand both the positives and the negatives of immigration. There are not enough people who are willing to speak the truth on the subject.
Mrs Badenoch
No, I am not interested in joining any nationalist party, but I thank the hon. Gentleman whose constituency I forget for inviting me to join. The fact is that if we are to have a calm debate about immigration, what we need are facts and figures, not smug self-righteousness, which is all that we get from those on the Opposition Benches.
I will continue on the topic of free movement, which is what this Bill is about. We all have different constituency experiences, which will have an impact on this discussion. I have had many positive discussions with Conservative Members. For instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) talked about positive impacts in relation to immigration in his constituency. I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) talk about some of the difficulties that his constituency has had. We have both positive and negative experiences.
What creates the problem is when Members on the Opposition Benches, and perhaps some on these Benches, feel that only they have the best intentions and that anyone else who speaks with concerns is speaking from xenophobia and racism. That is absolutely wrong. We cannot think the very best of ourselves and the worst of anyone else who is not in our party, or who is not sitting on our side of the House. I am very, very willing, even as an immigrant, to hear arguments against immigration, because I know that immigration is a global issue. It is not a UK issue. Every single country in the world is talking about it. It is completely crazy for us to have this discussion as if it were a UK-only issue, or even an EU-only issue, and believe that no one else has the experience to be able to speak on it.
From the perspective of my constituency, immigration has, perhaps, an indirect effect. The north of my constituency has a huge biotech and pharmaceutical industry, and many of the arguments that people make there are very, very similar to those that have been made by SNP Members and by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and others, about the need to ensure that we continue to have a strong relationship with the EU—that is something that I support. Speaking as someone who was a former London Assembly member, I have also seen how immigration has an indirect effect on those of us outside London. My Essex constituency has seen a huge rise in house prices and house building, which is having an effect on its population in a very significant and profound way. It is not because loads of immigrants are coming to take on our jobs, but because lots of people who migrate to London raise prices and take up housing there, causing a push-out effect on other parts of the country, which we do not get the resources to deal with. As was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham), who is no longer in his place, we should be looking at trying to reduce the impact of negative consequences on places such as Saffron Walden and Uttlesford District Council.
Sir John Hayes
The point that my hon. Friend is making, and her willingness to tackle what Trevor Phillips described as the “liberal delusion” about the problems of mass migration, are important in respect of housing, because immigration is the single biggest driver of housing demand.
Mrs Badenoch
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. We need to look at what is actually happening and to think of an immigration system that will work for the very north of our country as well as for the very south. There will not be a one-size-fits-all approach. I am very willing to listen to arguments from Opposition Members about how much they need it, but they also need to extend the same courtesy and not pretend that everyone on this side of the House, including people like me who grew up in Nigeria, are racist. That is completely mad.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The hon. Lady talks about the UK’s one-size-fits-nobody migration policy. Like other countries such as Canada and Switzerland, does she support decentralising or devolving the issue, or is she still of the mindset that we must hold things centrally in London, and that London knows best?
Mrs Badenoch
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point, and I can see why he is making it. I am not someone who supports devolution, and I do not think that that would necessarily solve the problem. [Interruption.] I am talking about the devolution of this issue. We have a national border, so devolving national border issues to specific places will not solve the problem, but I take his point.
Social security co-ordination is another reason why I support the Bill. Those of us with long memories will remember that this very matter was one reason why former Prime Minister David Cameron went to the EU to seek a negotiated change to some of these things. Perhaps if we had been able to resolve this issue, we would not be having this debate now.
We can do better. We should be asking ourselves more questions around migration. On free movement, is it fair, for instance, for us to absorb all the youth and young people from southern Mediterranean countries and not to give back? We do not talk enough about brain drain, for example. We do not talk enough about villages in eastern Europe that are losing all their young people. Migration is not going two ways. Not enough people from this country are going to eastern Europe. We talk about going to France and to the Netherlands—
David Duguid
On that point, my hon. Friend talks about the brain drain from eastern European countries to here, but does she not also recognise that the economies of many of those countries are improving to the point that people from those countries no longer wish to come to the UK? They want to stay at home and develop their careers there, which is why we need this Bill to extend our reach beyond the EU.
Mrs Badenoch
My hon. Friend is right. There is no one-size-fits-all picture. There are lots of different things happening in lots of different places, and piecing together the pieces of this complex picture will give us the solution.
Mrs Badenoch
I am afraid that I cannot take any more interventions because I am running out of time.
We can and should do better. We need a moral migration policy that is right for everyone—not just the migrants coming in, but those going out. We should also be looking at the polling numbers. It is not a coincidence that attitudes towards migration are more positive than they have been for a very long time, and that is because we are tackling people’s concerns not about immigration, but about uncontrolled, open-borders immigration. It is difficult to control free movement, but people want to see more control. It is not a coincidence that now that we are tackling the issue, we are seeing concerns about migration fall. That is why I am very happy to support this Bill.
Anna Soubry
Can we just make it very clear that we do control our borders? The last time that I went overseas on holiday, I had to show my passport and so did everybody else.
Mrs Badenoch
Perhaps I was a bit too loose with my words. I am not saying that there is no control whatever, but that people want more control and do not feel that free movement is enough control.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mrs Badenoch), who gave an impassioned and well-delivered speech, almost all of which I disagreed with.
This Bill has taken its time to arrive. And now that it is before us, it is a disaster waiting to happen. Right the way through, it is based on an assumption made by the Prime Minister in her Lancaster House speech that what 17 million people meant when they voted leave was that we needed to end freedom of movement, not just for EU citizens in the UK, but for UK citizens throughout the European Union. I am 100% certain that 100% of the 52% did not mean that, but the Government’s assumption that they did is essentially why the red lines set by the Prime Minister have left the Government in a position where they are incapable of delivering any form of Brexit that does not wreck the British economy. If the Prime Minister wanted more time to reconsider her position, reconsidering those red lines would be the wisest thing she could do. If she then reached across to the other side the Chamber, she might well find reasonable people on the Opposition Benches who are prepared to listen to her.
The Bill abandons freedom of movement. With a slash of a pen, the rights of people in this country will be drastically reduced. British people, young and old, will lose the right to travel freely, to study overseas, to make friendships in other countries and to build careers. I am afraid that the Minister and the Home Secretary are both young enough to live long enough to have history judge them very harshly for this Bill, and they should be warned in advance. There are people who have made their homes here, and 3 million of our neighbours and colleagues are being told, not very subtly, that they are not wanted here. Britain is surely much better than this.
Alex Sobel
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that EU citizens living here who are trying to get settled status and do not have access to a computer can only apply on an Android phone? The Government cannot even make their software available for iPhones, which many people use. How can this give us any confidence for a future immigration system for EU citizens?
Tim Farron
I am deeply worried about that. The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point that I am just coming to. The settled status scheme has been rolled out just this month, and with it has come the grotesque sight of families who have built their lives in the UK being forced to register just to carry on with their lives as normal. As the hon. Gentleman has just stated, every glitch in the technology—every moment that the computer says no—will have a devastating effect on people who should feel welcome here. Research estimates that one in 10 EU citizens could fall between the gaps and never be registered at all. People will get the wrong status as a result, which means more problems for them and massive problems for the Home Office years down the line. Mark my word: this is the beginning of a Windrush mark 2.
What will replace freedom of movement? Well, this Bill does not even really tell us. We have to guess, and businesses will have to guess. The Bill is silent on the very issue on which it is supposed to be legislating. It just extends powers to future Governments to do as they please—any future Government with any intentions, without any security or scrutiny from this House. Are we really supposed to trust the Home Office, no matter its future leadership, to do whatever it pleases on this vital matter—the very Department that brought us the Windrush scandal, with British citizens kicked out of their jobs and homes, and even locked up in detention cells, and that brought us the hostile environment of harassing immigrants in their homes, workplaces and even when they went to their local A&E?
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman, with typical straightforwardness, is making a case for the perpetuation of free movement. He believes in freedom of movement from the European Union, but presumably he does not believe in freedom of movement from New Zealand, Canada, Australia or the West Indies, which he has just spoken about. What is it about Europe that is different from those countries that have such historic ties with the United Kingdom?
Tim Farron
The right hon. Gentleman does not believe in freedom of movement of any kind whatever. I assume that he is a free-market Conservative. If he believes in the free movement of capital—in fact, if he believes in the free market at all—not to support the free movement of the people who are the backbone of any free market is absolutely ludicrous and does not stack up.
There is nothing in this Bill about Britain’s proud record as a humanitarian leader—nothing on helping people who have been persecuted around the world for who they are, what they believe in or who they love. I would have thought that the Home Office wanted to talk about how Britain is at its best when it looks after people who come to us, ask for our help and seek safety and sanctuary. I remain deeply affected and humbled by meeting parents in refugee camps who took appalling risks to shield their children from horrific danger. Many other Members have seen the same terrible sights, and we know what it means to those people to know that Britain is a safe haven. Yet the Bill is totally silent on this matter. Perhaps the Government do not want much scrutiny of their record on refugees.
Let me tell the House what this Bill could do if it were to follow Britain’s proud humanitarian tradition. It could let people work. At the moment, asylum seekers are barred from working. They cannot even earn to take care of their own families, and that makes it harder to integrate and harder to play a part in their own communities and economies—the very things that help every community to thrive. Let us fix this. If asylum seekers do not get a decision after three months, let us lift this ludicrous ban, and let them work and contribute. The Chancellor might be more interested than the Minister, given that this would bring a net gain to the economy of around £40 million every year. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), whose Asylum Seekers (Permission to Work) Bill, which is before the House, calls for exactly that.
The Government’s Bill could also ensure that we do not lock people up indefinitely, as has already been mentioned by one or two right hon. and hon. Members. At the moment, immigrants can be detained with no idea of when they might be removed or released. This is unacceptable, unjust and un-British. At the very least, let us set a 28-day deadline on how long someone can be detained.
This Bill could also make sure that families are united, not separated. I have a private Member’s Bill, the Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill, before this House that would reunite refugee children with their parents. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), who is sitting in front of me, also has a Bill—the Refugees (Family Reunion) (No. 2) Bill—which has the same aim, but has a greater chance of getting passed. Why have the Government not accepted the proposal offered by either of us?
The failures of this Bill affect the local as well as the global. Last week, this House celebrated, with great gusto, Cumbria Day—a proud day for us all. But it masks a reality, which is that people in my constituency only earn roughly £20,000 pounds a year on average. Yet last year’s immigration White Paper suggests that we ban all migrants who earn less than £30,000 because apparently they will not have sufficient skills. The Government say that this would not have an impact on areas such as mine, but they have refused to say how they reached this conclusion, so let me attempt to draw the Government back into the real world, if that is possible.
The hospitality and tourism industry in Cumbria employs more than 60,000 people. It contributes £3 billion to the economy every year. It contains the Lake district and much of the Yorkshire dales. Outside London, we are Britain’s most popular tourist destination. About 10,000 of this vital industry’s workers in Cumbria are from outside the UK. My constituency has low wages, and it is a disgrace that over 2,000 local children are living in poverty, but it has only 270 people registered as unemployed. There is no untapped pool of local labour waiting to fill the thousands of vacancies this Government will force on our industry. It does not take a genius to work out that if we stop people working in the UK if they are on less than 30 grand, if the average wage in tourism is nowhere near that and if the local workforce is not big enough, we will damage, if not destroy, that industry by imposing these restrictions. It does not take a genius to work that out, which is quite useful given that this Government are singularly lacking in genius.
This Bill is heartless, but more than that, it is witless. We will oppose the Bill tonight. It is an awful Bill, which makes it all the more stunning that Labour’s Front Benchers will not oppose it.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). Indeed, I will be following him into the No Lobby this evening, because I, too, will be voting against this Bill.
It is a funny old world when—
Anna Soubry
No, no—I have only just begun. I will give way in a moment.
It is a funny old world that we live in when, faced with this Bill, Her Majesty’s Opposition—the Labour party—find themselves in the bizarre and, I would argue, appalling position of abstaining on it. What shame they bring on a formerly great party.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
I want to give the right hon. Lady some breaking news: apparently Labour has U-turned on its abstention and is now going to oppose the Bill. Is that right?
Angus Brendan MacNeil
My goodness, we have breaking news in the Chamber: “Wait and see.”
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he addresses his remarks through the Chair, not directly to the Front Bench.
Anna Soubry
I am not going to reply to the hon. Gentleman’s intervention because there is nothing for me to reply to, but I am sure we will all be enlightened later.
This is a very serious matter. I object to this Bill, and I will not be voting for it. First, I happen to believe in the free movement of people, and I have yet to hear anybody advance a single argument why the free movement of people has been anything other than good for this country—not one solid argument advanced. Secondly, the Bill does not provide the surety to EU citizens already living in this country that it should. Thirdly—many would say that this is the most important point and main failing of the Bill—it contains Henry VIII powers giving unbelievable, and simply unacceptable, powers and measures to Ministers.
I want to nail a few lies, not told in this place but put about in common parlance. We are told that in June 2016 the will of the people was to reject the free movement of people. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) nods, but that is not true. Of those people eligible to vote, 37% voted for us to leave the European Union. Even with my poor maths, I can see that 63% of the people of this country—in other words, the will of the people—was actually for us not to leave the European Union and not for us to abandon free movement. Those are the facts. That is the will of the people—the 63% who we never hear about. Ever since that referendum, we have had put about almost a tyranny of mistruths and myths. It is a shame on every politician that nobody has ever really stood up and spoken the truth of this matter. The majority of people in this country did not vote to leave the European Union, and they did not vote to end free movement. In any event, although 52% of those eligible to vote did vote for us to leave the European Union, one cannot extrapolate from that, on the basis of no evidence at all, that immigration was the overriding feature that led them to do so. In my constituency—the vote that was recorded was actually for the borough, which is larger than the constituency—we reckon that about 52% of those who voted did vote for us to leave.
Certainly in Broxtowe, and I think across the rest of the country, people voted for a variety of reasons. It is true that immigration played an important part. I think that one of the darkest moments in this nation’s history was when Nigel Farage stood up in front of a poster that showed a long line of people who had certain features in common. First, they were mainly men. Secondly, they were fleeing war, rape and terror, seeking refuge in a safe place. Oh yes, they all had brown faces as well, quite remarkably. The other feature of that long line of people, who had the headline above them, “Breaking point”—we all know what the dog whistle was in that headline—was that it had absolutely nothing to do with our membership of the European Union, if for no other reason than that we are of course not a member of Schengen.
Make no mistake about it: fears were undoubtedly fuelled and prejudices were undoubtedly preyed on by the leave campaign wrongly to make a phoney case to the people of this country that somehow by our leaving the European Union there would be a dramatic decrease in the number of migrants in our country. It was a great lie; a great con. The overwhelming majority of people who come to this country come here to work—they are givers, not takers. Therefore, if we want to reduce immigration, there is a very good way to do it—we trash the economy. We make sure that there are fewer jobs for these people to come to our country to fill. [Interruption.] Ah, Brexit, of course: whichever way we cut it, it will mean that our economic prosperity and the number of jobs available will be reduced. Perhaps that is actually the cunning plan.
I get irate with and frankly appalled by Conservative Members who should know better, because the truth and reality is, as I say, that people come here to work. What are hon. Members actually saying when they say, “Reduce the number of migrants.”? Send them home: is that what they are saying? No, of course not, because we need these people to work, not just in the fields of Lincolnshire, in our care homes or in our NHS, but throughout every stratum of industry in every piece of our economy. We need these people. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) reminded us, this is a two-way process, because people in our country—my children and the grandchildren I hope to have—benefit, or would have benefited, from the free movement of people, but our country has benefited from immigration for centuries. I am saddened to the bottom of my boots that for so long we have never made the positive case for immigration in our country. Not surprisingly, we have found ourselves in the situation that we are in, where mythology, rhetoric, misinformation and downright lies have been spread by all manner of people to support their own ideological, short-term vision, with absolutely no foundation and at a real cost for our country and its future.
I am appalled and ashamed when I meet people with brown skins who were born and bred in this country—probably some of them more British than I am, because my great-grandfather was an immigrant—and who tell me that since the referendum they have been pointed at by people and asked, “Why haven’t you gone home?” I met one such constituent only the other week, who, when someone said that, turned round and said, “Well, actually I am on my way home, to Nuthall,” which is a place in my constituency. How many of us have heard from friends, from our constituents or from people we just come across with Polish or Slovakian accents who have been asked, “Why are you still here?” or have been spat at on public transport? This is not a country that I recognise. This is not a country that I feel proud to be a member of. I take the view that this is not our country. I also take the view that the majority of people in this country are good and they are tolerant, but too many of them have been told these lies.
It is now absolutely up to each and every one of us to stand up and make the case for immigration and to tell the truth about immigration. As I say, it is not just about the huge positive benefits for our economy—I think the last Treasury analysis showed something in the region of £4 billion extra going into the Treasury coffers—but it is for the culture of this country as well.
It is funny when people talk to their MP about immigration and say, “We’ve got too many of these immigrants,” and we say, “Do you mean the people running the Chinese takeaway, who have been here for decades?” and they say, “Oh no, not them.” We say, “Well, what about the people of Asian origin who are running the corner shop?” and they say, “Oh no, not them”. When we have that discussion and debate with them, we can make the case, because we are inherently a good and tolerant people.
As we have seen in many parts of our country, in any circumstances where there is a sudden influx of people—I am not being rude or disparaging about students—whether it is students or migrant workers, if we do not get the resources right, there will be people who are somewhat pickled off. But that is not a problem of immigration; it is a failure of this place and of local authorities, because it is a failure of resources. Most importantly, it is a failure of people to stand up to dog-whistle politics. I say to my party: if we pass measures like this Bill, the people of this country in time will not forgive us, because this party will become totally unelectable—and rightly so.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who said so much that I agree with.
The Secretary of State said earlier that immigration was the issue of the referendum and that we must have a fair system. I agree that we must have a fair system, although I dispute the premise of the first part of his statement. I believe that our immigration system should be based on rules that are grounded in human rights; that value the contribution of migrants and allow them all to work, including asylum seekers; that do not put desperate people in desperate conditions; that are operated by well-trained, skilled and adequately resourced staff; that give a warm welcome to those fleeing war and persecution; and that show those who have already made their homes here that they are still properly and warmly welcome. We need a system that values our European neighbours—not with platitudes, but with a real practical understanding of the nature of their lives.
Thangam Debbonaire
I am aware of the time limit, so I am afraid I will not give way.
This immigration system’s design should have learned and inwardly digested the lessons from the Windrush system. It should have involved the nation—leavers and remainers, those concerned about immigration and those concerned that it treats neither long-term legal migrants nor newly arrived people fleeing persecution well—in discussing what a new immigration policy should be and how it should operate. I want that system, and this is not that.
There is a real risk that we are putting people who have legally made their lives here through an undignified, barely tested process of applying for the right to remain here—people who have contributed to their communities, raised children, worked hard, paid taxes and helped their neighbours. This is in the wake of an immigration scandal in which other people who had legally made their lives here, contributed to their communities, raised children, worked hard, paid taxes and helped their neighbours were made to feel unwelcome and told to go home. Some lost their jobs or homes and suffered great hardship. Forms were lost, time and money were lost, and hearts that felt British were truly broken.
A constituent of mine whose life has been here for decades but was born in another EU country said to me at the time of Windrush, “We, the EU 3 million, are going to be the next Windrush generation.” There is no sign in this Bill or the White Paper that the lessons of that scandal have been learned and that my constituent can be reassured. The Home Office, which my staff and I deal with daily on behalf of constituents, has many compassionate staff, but it is already struggling. It is buckling under the strain, and we propose to add 3 million more people to the system.
The Home Secretary says that this is the start of a national conversation about our immigration system. The start should have been years ago. As the result of the EU referendum has so many times been identified as closely tied with concerns about immigration, surely this conversation should have started in 2016. If not then, why not in 2017 or perhaps 2018? We should have talked about this in more depth than simply trotting out platitudes about valuing people who have made their home here, when so much pain has been caused to so many who have made their homes here.
There should have been honesty about the mutual benefits of reciprocal movement of people who live, work and study across the EU—I declare an interest: one of those is my husband. There should be honesty, not lies, which is what we were fed during the referendum campaign. We should discuss how we want to welcome people, who we want to welcome and why, and we should do that in a way that is informed by our country’s history, our way of life and our knowledge that those two things have always been intertwined with migration. We should talk about the consequences of migration policy for jobs and for our care homes, universities, creative industries, aerospace sector and tech, digital and IT companies. We should have been discussing this as a country. This Bill should have been introduced in the concluding stages, not the starting stages, of a national debate.
When people’s worries about immigration—whatever their motivations—are not dealt with, there are serious consequences. People who think that there should be more controls grow resentful if they feel their concerns are ignored, and they feel alienated from a political system that they rightly think should serve them. They may feel that they are labelled as racists, which they may also feel is unfair, and that does not help their feeling of alienation. This is a context in which the far right benefits. It is not a context in which good immigration policy is created.
My constituents in Bristol West often write to me about migration. They never tell me to help refugees or Windrush victims or EU citizens less. They tell me to fight harder, and I always will, but they also do not feel that the system is working. They campaign to stop indefinite detention of migrants. They campaign to keep all EU citizens not just here, but here and welcomed. They are losing trust in our system. Nobody is satisfied except the far right, who see opportunity in the frustrations of those who feel that the system is not working for them.
Reasonable people, including the Immigration Minister and the Home Secretary, would agree that if we were fleeing war or persecution in this country, we would expect a safe welcome in another. We would probably go to the nearest country, but we would understand that it might need to run a programme of resettlement to a third country if numbers were large. We would hope not to be put in such dire circumstances that we felt forced to leave the first safe country, as so many people do from countries around the Mediterranean to flee to us, a country that people see as a sanctuary—something we should be proud of.
If that country could not or would not help us or left us unable to live, work or provide for our families—the circumstances that so many people in Libya and other countries find themselves in—we might also be so tempted. We would not expect to be put in substandard, unsafe accommodation paid for by the taxpayer or be prevented from getting a job. We would expect to contribute. We would not feel it was right that we were kept on a subsistence allowance, yet left with the blame for a system that is rooking the taxpayers as well as not serving us.
Our asylum system is flawed. In a report published in 2017, the all-party parliamentary group on refugees, which I chair, put forward many recommendations that I beseech the Home Secretary and Immigration Minister to look at again. We should end indefinite detention, and I am glad to hear vocal cross-party support for ending it, which I hope the Government will take heed of.
This Bill could have dealt with all these issues, but it barely touches the surface. The Bill fails. It fails to provide a route for planning a fair, efficient, good-value, humane and caring system that those who voted leave and those who voted remain can believe in. It could have provided the framework for an immigration system that we could all put our trust in, but it does not. Instead, it creates huge powers but provides no clarity. The White Paper could have given that clarity, but it does not. It misses by a mile the vision and values that our country’s immigration system should have been built on—British values of tolerance, openness and fair-mindedness.
This Bill could have been the nourishing meal that gave us what we needed to get through the economic woes of Brexit, which I still hope we will not have to suffer. Nobody will be satisfied. Everybody will cry for more. I would despair, but I want to keep hope that the Home Secretary and the Immigration Minister will reflect on what has been said around the House today and seek to amend the Bill themselves. Leave voters deserve better, remain voters deserve better, and our country deserves better.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
As I have said on more than one occasion, we have already had a people’s vote and the people voted to leave the EU. My constituents in Stoke-on-Trent South were particularly clear when they voted by 70% to leave. One of the key reasons for doing so was a desire to take back control of our own borders.
Last year, Parliament passed the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, under which the same rules and laws apply on the day after we leave the EU. That currently includes the EU’s rules on free movement, and Parliament must legislate to bring free movement to an end. Without this Bill, the EU’s free movement rules would continue to have effect after we leave. Were that to happen, it would be completely unacceptable and we would have failed to address our constituents’ legitimate concerns about EU immigration. We need to pass this Bill to deliver the firm but fair and efficient system that my constituents want, regaining control of our own borders.
Jack Brereton
No. I have to make some progress.
I know from the many conversations I have had with my constituents on the doorstep that a significant number voted to leave primarily to take back control of our borders and to secure the chance to reform our immigration system. People in regional towns and cities felt that Brussels was far too remote and technocratic to realise the practical local consequences of continent-wide free movement, especially the impact of increased pressures on local services, school places and housing. That was squared against a feeling that the EU had delivered very few beneficial improvements in local residents’ quality of life, particularly outside the M25.
There has been a feeling that my constituents were not allowed to talk about their genuine concern about the impacts of immigration and that, if they did talk about it, they would be ignored, pilloried or shunned. They certainly do not feel there is anything wrong in believing, given our unique history with Ireland, that Irish citizens should enjoy more rights here than, say, citizens from south-east Europe. People voted to end free movement for EU citizens outside the common travel area because it did not work for them and they wanted to regain control.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Jack Brereton
No. I want to make some progress.
Freedom of movement did not result in tangible improvements to my constituents’ own quality of life and future prospects, even as it improved the quality of life and future prospects of those who found themselves entitled to move freely here. Free movement in practice worked instead as a mop for clearing up the EU’s chronic unemployment problem, suppressing wages here in exactly the kind of communities that I and other hon. Members were elected to represent.
Sir John Hayes
The chairman of the Migration Advisory Committee has made exactly that point—
Sir John Hayes
Will the hon. Gentleman listen? The chairman made exactly that point. He said that the policy of free movement tends to perpetuate a low-skill, low-wage economy. That is precisely what we have ended up with, with a consequent displacement of investment in skills, in automation, in technology and in recruitment.
Jack Brereton
I totally agree with my right hon. Friend.
Certainly, Stoke-on-Trent South has some of the lowest average wage levels in the country, and we need to continue to build on the work we have been doing in government to ensure people take home more.
Jack Brereton
No, I am making some progress.
My constituents want London-based policy makers to focus on doing what it takes, across every nation and region of the United Kingdom, to prioritise the employment and lifelong employability of the British people. Of course, where there are clear and urgent shortages of British candidates, such as in our NHS, rightly migrant workers can add skills to our economy and make a significant contribution. It is positive to see the caps for non-EU migrants coming to work in the NHS lifted. The Home Office has always been clear that the future immigration system will be based on engagement and evidence, and that by putting the skills and talents of migrant workers at the heart of the future system, the UK can continue to attract the brightest and the best from across the world when it is necessary for us so to do.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman talks about skills, but in fact, with salary thresholds, we are talking not about skills but about salaries, and the two things do not connect, particularly where wages are far lower—outside the south-east. A skilled or university-qualified person in Scotland can easily earn under £30,000, which is the threshold that has been set.
Jack Brereton
I thank the hon. Lady for that point. Although I do not totally agree with what she has said, some parts of the country, including my own—
Jack Brereton
Will the hon. Lady let me finish my response? Some parts of the country, and certainly my own, do see differential wage levels, and having lower skills certainly does have an impact on that.
We need to ensure that there is more of a commitment in the longer term that any such shortages will be addressed by properly equipping the British people for such roles, particularly in traditional, proud manufacturing employment. This is exactly what our industrial strategy is designed to address, and we need the right immigration and social security co-ordination to work alongside it. Delivering on that rebalancing of our economy will be hugely important in ensuring that traditional working-class communities, as in Stoke-on-Trent and across the country, are no longer ignored.
Anna Soubry
Could my hon. Friend tell us what percentage of people in Stoke are migrant workers and, when free movement from the European Union ends, which countries people will come from to replace those EU workers? Will they come from Bangladesh, and is that what his constituents voted for?
Jack Brereton
I think what we in this House are saying is that we want to regain control and ensure that we have a fair system, whereby anybody coming to this country is in the same system and is judged on merit, not on which country they come from. At the moment, the current system is not a fair one. It prioritises some European countries within the EU, and places such as the Commonwealth, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and America are not receiving the same priority.
If we do not deliver immigration reforms as we take back control through Brexit, there is a real danger that some people will, in exasperation, turn to those who have demonstrably exploited their grievances before. It is concerning that we see a rise of extremist views, stirred by populists on both the far left and the far right. As I have stressed in the House previously, it was not easy to see off the British National party in Stoke-on-Trent, as we have had to do, and I will not be cavalier in assuming that the threat has gone away. We must ensure that our democracy remains relevant and responsive to all our communities if we are to see off future extremist threats.
Ending free movement is a major change in our immigration law. It is a change that people voted for and we must deliver it, just as we must deliver Brexit itself. Inevitably, given the scale of the task enabled by this Bill, much of the delivery will take the form of consequential amendments to be made by secondary legislation. It is work that must be done. The Bill contains the necessary powers to get the process under way, and I will very happily support it tonight.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I was only going to make a couple of points, but as I have listened to the debate, the number of points has grown. I shall kick off by correcting, or perhaps taking on—I do this on migration quite a lot—the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mrs Badenoch). I was very disappointed by the remarks of the hon. Lady, who is not in her place, and the sort of reverse dog whistle when she looked at the SNP Benches. She should be aware that the first ethnic minority Member of the Scottish Parliament was Bashir Ahmad of the SNP, that the first Government Minister in the devolved Scottish Government was Humza Yousaf of the SNP, and that the first Muslim woman from Scotland to be an MP was Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh of the SNP. I merely put that on record so that people such as the hon. Member for Saffron Walden do not repeat that sort of nonsense again.
This immigration debate is an interesting one. It is not a debate about what we want or what we could do; it is a debate about what we can stop, what we can control and what we can limit, and that is very disappointing. There is actually something really akin to the Soviet central planning of the 1920s onwards: we have Soviet tractor statistics. That is really the sort of theology that is driving this current Home Office—centralised planning and red tape, with Government at the heart of people’s lives and building bureaucracy where there is no bureaucracy at the moment. All the time, what the Government will do is increase the work in MPs’ offices up and down the country as a result of the nonsense we are going to have.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the historical point. In response to what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) said, does my hon. Friend recognise, as I do, that freedom of movement was actually brought in to replace the extremism of Soviet communism and Nazism? It is one of the greatest achievements in history—economically, diplomatically and culturally. Is it not a great shame that people such as the hon. Gentleman can see it go so easily and cheaply?
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Absolutely. When people mix together, rub shoulders and talk to each other, they learn quite a lot from each other. They stop fearing each other and stop believing the demagogues who are telling them all sorts of nonsense about the other.
We will not just see more work in our own MPs’ offices, but add anxiety and angst to people’s lives because of the nonsense that will come before us. What is all this based on? It is based on a voodoo referendum. The question was about leave or remain, but it quickly became akin to slaughtering a chicken, looking at its entrails and claiming that the people meant us to leave Euratom, that the people meant something on standards and tariffs, that the people meant something on the customs union, or that the people meant something on the single market. It is claimed that the people meant something else again on migration and freedom of movement, and on the European Court of Justice. It is nonsense, but people draw all sorts of conclusions. This is voodoo politics based on a voodoo guff referendum that we had a couple of years ago.
Alison Thewliss
I am almost loth to interrupt my hon. Friend because he is making some excellent points. He mentioned the increased casework for MPs’ offices. My surgery on Friday overran by an hour and 10 minutes, all because of Home Office problems. Does he agree that the Home Office cannot cope with the additional 3 million people, and woe betide anyone else in the system at the moment?
Angus Brendan MacNeil
My hon. Friend’s point stands for itself and is well made. As we are dealing with further voodoo from the Home Office, let me say that the problems that we have at present are based on voodoo thinking. Part of it was “Take back control”, but when we are dealing with the Home Office, no one is in control, least of all the Home Office itself.
The Bill is based on Soviet-style central planning and a desire for tractor statistics, but it does not take account of what we really need. I have raised one of the most important points with the Home Office time and again. It is said that we are in control and we do not have free movement, but if we need people to come and work on fishing boats—people from outside the European Union want to come here, their Governments want them to come, our local authority wants them to come, fishing organisations want them to come and our communities want them to come; indeed everybody wants them to come except somebody in an office in London—we are told it cannot happen. The Home Office in London says no, and boats are tied up.
Christine Jardine
The hon. Gentleman’s constituency, like mine, depends a lot on EU immigrants. In my constituency it is in the education and health sectors, and he has mentioned fisheries. Does he agree that the Home Office needs to think about allowing people who come here as asylum seekers to work earlier and to make a contribution to the economy, rather than robbing them of their dignity?
Angus Brendan MacNeil
That is correct, and the point has been well made by many MPs. If it was not for the voodoo thinking of the Home Office, and if normal people were allowed to decide this, that would be happening, to everyone’s benefit.
I introduced a private Member’s Bill on refugees, and I would have thought that this Bill would be an opportunity for the Home Office to extend the same rights to people who have already been given refugee status and are under the age of 18 as it does to those over the age of 18. Again, we have voodoo arguments and nonsense thinking from the Home Office about why it should not do this. There is an opportunity. The Home Office could end the need for my Bill if it wanted to, and it is disappointing that it does not.
We are happy in Scotland, but we need more people. Switzerland has 26 cantons. Half the visas of people going into Switzerland are divided between the 26 cantons, and the other half are centrally controlled in Berne. Switzerland can manage to do that, but the UK cannot, because of voodoo thinking and a desire to keep control where the Home Office does not need control, thereby creating problems and messing up people’s lives unnecessarily. That is our lot, given that we are stuck with the Home Office as it is.
Migration is good. I will repeat that for anyone who is in any doubt: migration is good. I live on a small island in the Outer Hebrides and our construction industry is just about driven personally by a guy called Pawel Kochanowicz. He is a young man who came to live on Barra, and he works day in and day out. Such people are welcome, and the more like him, the better.
Stephen Kerr
After 12 years of an SNP Government in Scotland, and when other parts of the United Kingdom have a net increase in immigrant population, why is it that Scotland’s population does not really move?
Angus Brendan MacNeil
If the hon. Gentleman looks at the part of the UK that became independent 96 years ago, he will see it now enjoys five to six times greater growth. When a country controls all the levers of the economy, it finds that things improve. If a country is scared of responsibility and outsources it to someone else, it should not be surprised if its economy is in reverse. If the hon. Gentleman wants to take control of his life, he should follow the SNP’s route, as the example is there of Ireland, of Iceland, of Norway and of many other countries. What is he scared of? He is scared; that is his problem. He uses migration to make cheap political points on the back of mismanagement by the Home Office and the Government in London—he should be ashamed of himself. I am grateful to him for giving me that row; I particularly enjoyed it.
There are many benefits to migration, and it goes both ways. I have cousins who live in New Zealand. I have Maclean cousins in Cape Breton in Nova Scotia and MacNeil relatives in Vancouver. We have all benefited from the movement of people and, if they are watching, I say a quick hello to them. It is great to use the House of Commons for that opportunity.
My relatives have contributed to New Zealand, Canada and many other places. Other people have helped our country—I gave the example of Pawel Kochanowicz from Poland. The hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham), made a more sensible intervention earlier when he said that the problem was a lack of resources. We need dynamic resource allocation to make sure that when populations grow, we get more housing, schools and hospitals, rather than people being blamed. As one of my hon. Friends said to me earlier, those people should be seen as strivers and as aspirational, but when the Home Office get hold of the situation, they are seen as a problem. There is no need for that.
Indeed, the Home Secretary himself conceded that the people who came here under free movement were good—that the students were good and everything was good. They were helping our economy. They were paying more tax than they were taking out. The Government are actually better off having people from other countries here paying more in, because people from this country tend to take out more than we put in. That is why the UK has had a deficit since 2001—a black hole. It has not paid its own way in all those years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) suggested that we should perhaps take responsibility for migration away from the Home Office and give it to the Treasury, because then we might get some of the sense and logic that the hon. Member for Saffron Walden talked about in her speech. She is in no danger of promotion in the Tory party if she keeps talking about sense and logic, but she can take her own risks. We need to see this happen. An Immigration Minister said to me, “But we have the manifesto commitment on the one hand and the economy on the other.” I will spare that Minister’s blushes, but we know what Bill Clinton said about the economy. It is important that we look after the economy, and daft, voodoo-based Conservative election promises should be thrown in the bin with all the rest of the voodoo thinking that we have seen from the Home Office and the Government on something that is an opportunity. Migration is an opportunity, and the Bill should be an opportunity to do things, not to stop things.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I beg Members’ indulgence for a few moments as I bring some sad news to the Chamber. A former Member, Sir Reginald Eyre, who represented Birmingham, Hall Green between 1965 and 1987, has passed away at the age of 94. He was very proud to represent Birmingham, having been born there in 1925. His father was a transport worker and his mother was a shopkeeper.
As a young man, Reg had a great time cycling around the city at night putting out tracer fire laid down by the Luftwaffe, and occasionally dancing on unexploded bombs for a dare. He spent the second half of the war as a midshipman in the north Atlantic and the Mediterranean. He would speak movingly of how, when he was not yet 20, he was in the Royal Naval College in Greenwich and told to go home, put his affairs in order and say goodbye to his loved ones, because the chances were that he and his friends would not be coming back. I like to think that he was delighted that, some 70 years later, he stood in the same place to give his only daughter away in marriage—to me, in fact, as he was my father-in-law. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
After the war, Reg went to Cambridge—the first man in his family to do so—and then became a successful midlands solicitor before entering the House in a by-election in 1965. He served his country and party with great distinction. He was a Minister for the environment and for transport—he took great joy in having broken one of Livingstone’s London transport strikes. He was a vice-chair of the party, and he was also a Whip. Under different circumstances, I might be at home with my family at the moment, but from the great beyond I can hear his voice saying, “There’s a vote tonight. Don’t you dare, old chap. Don’t you dare.”
While serving in this place, Reg went on a trip to Kenya. There he met a beautiful young actress called Anne Clements. Anne was and is some decades his junior, but it was the start of a wonderful and happy marriage that lasted the rest of his life. On leaving this place, Reg went back to Birmingham and became chair of the Birmingham Heartlands Development Corporation. He was extraordinarily proud of the opportunity to breathe new life into our great second city. He leaves a great legacy behind him.
Reg was one of those people whom everyone automatically warmed to and everyone instinctively liked. He was very proud of his country and particularly proud of his city. He was proud of his party and proud of this place, but most of all he was terribly proud of his wonderful wife and his wonderful daughter. All of them, from country to family, had very good cause to be proud of him, too.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am sure I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that that was a very warm and loving tribute. Our condolences to you and your family.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I, too, want to send my condolences. Maybe it is convenient that I am speaking after the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), because I was born and raised, and both my children were born and raised, in Birmingham Hall Green. I am sure I express the feelings of everybody in Birmingham when I send massive condolences to the Member and his family. It does not matter what path we tread, we are all human in this place. Any man who loved the city that I love has my full and utmost respect. Best wishes to his family.
I want to say a massive thank you to Members who have spoken throughout the debate about their support for Birmingham. They may not have noticed it, but many Government Members have been encouraging more spending in areas where there is high migration. I thank those Conservative Members who have suggested that Birmingham needs more resources. Perhaps the Minister could explain to me why so many of those resources have been cut when they feel that way about areas with high migration. It sticks slightly in the craw of a person who grew up in Birmingham to listen to people, who do not live among migrants and who do not live in diverse places, talk about how difficult it is for communities who have to live in places of high migration. Well, it is not difficult. It is not difficult at all. It is a total pleasure to live among migrant communities. My husband is very concerned. He believes he may be the only person in the entirety of Birmingham not to have heritage elsewhere that allows him a passport in these testing times. Pretty much everybody in Birmingham is from somewhere else. My Irish heritage has never felt closer to me than in these testing times. It is for my city that I stand here and I want to defend migration.
Actually, I am not just standing here and saying, “I really love living in a diverse place.” I have real concerns about the Bill. I have spoken many times to the Immigration Minister about the real, deep-seated concerns I have about immigration: certain misuses of spousal visas, situations where we are not preventing problems such as forced marriage, and other issues that really need to be addressed. I see some of the worst elements of our immigration system, both on the part of the Home Office and on the part of the people who wish to abuse it. I am not here to say that everything is perfect, everything in the garden is rosy, and that we should just open our borders and let everybody in. I am not saying that for a second. But what worries me most about the Bill are the powers that will take away the scrutiny of this place.
I will tell a little story, which Ministers have heard before and maybe the House has heard before, about how the scrutiny of this place makes a difference to our law—although we need to go much further. My constituent who rang the police to tell them that her husband had threatened to kill her ended up in Yarl’s Wood. She was not taken to a place of safety; she was taken to a place of detention. I am incredibly proud of her. She was one of the brave women who, with Southall Black Sisters and Liberty, asked for court action, as a result of which the Government have now stated that a firewall must be put in place between victims of domestic abuse and the detention system. However, what we are being offered currently is not good enough and we are about to extend it to millions more people, so we have to get it right. I will, through the various channels in this House, be seeking special immigration status for women and any victim of domestic and sexual violence. I am sure the Minister will want to work with me on that. But without that scrutiny, without people like me in this House standing up and telling these stories, those laws would not be changing.
My deep worry is that the system proposed in the Bill will not be independent enough. Let us be honest. Those on one side of the House have far less experience of working with the immigration system and its pitfalls than those of us on the Opposition Benches. I imagine that I do more immigration casework in one day than some Conservative Members do in an entire year. It is only right that this place is the place of scrutiny for immigration. That should not be abandoned and given over in Henry VIII powers.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful speech. We have heard the Government offer certain guarantees and protections in relation to the Henry VIII clause, but it is this place, with its broad and vast experience and its very different Members, where real life experiences can and should feed into Government policy, so that we do not risk damage in the future that will take months if not years to put right.
Jess Phillips
Absolutely. It is the best thing about this place and our democracy. We should be really, really proud of it. It is genuinely responsive. Migrant communities who live in my constituency sometimes come out door knocking with me. They cannot believe that I am walking around the streets knocking on people’s doors. They are like, “Gosh, in my home country, you’d be driving past in an SUV with blacked-out windows.” It is one of the best things and that is why this place should have to scrutinise every fundamental change that happens to our immigration system.
I want to make a point that has been well made in the debate. The idea of a £30,000 limit providing a sense of what skill base there is is absolutely flabbergasting. The only job I have ever had that paid me more than £30,000 is the one I am doing right now. That is not unusual for people who live where I live. It is not unusual for people in Birmingham Hall Green, Birmingham Yardley or Birmingham anywhere. I was considered to be skilled and to be high management in the jobs that I did, and I did not earn that much money. It has been pointed out that there needs to be a massive equality impact assessment of how the £30,000 rule is meted out, because obviously men earn more than women and we need to know whether it will have a discriminatory effect on women workers. What about part-time workers? Will the £30,000 be pro rata? If somebody was only earning £5,000 but were only working one day a week, would that count as £30,000? How exactly will that work and how will it be fair to women? The idea that ordinary people are not skilled—we have to be careful with this language—and the idea that my constituents are not skilled because they do not earn over £30,000 is frankly insulting. It is insulting on every level to our care workers, our nurses, our teachers—there are so many people who do not earn over £30,000. I really think that that needs to be revisited.
Perversely, since I was elected I have met many people who earn way more than £30,000 and have literally no discernible skills, not even one. I met none before—I thought I had met posh people before I came here, but I had actually just met people who eat olives. I had no idea of how posh a person could be. Waitrose is apparently not the marker for being really, really posh. There is a lovely Waitrose in Birmingham Hall Green; it is the one I like to frequent. I have not necessarily met such people in this place, although there is a smattering. I would not let some of those very rich people who earn huge amounts of money hold my pint if I had to go and vote while in the bar, because they would almost certainly do it wrong.
I want to speak up for the ordinary people of Birmingham Hall Green and Birmingham Yardley, who are incredibly proud of the migration to their country, and are proud that people want to come here. Those people are skilled, and we should care much more about them than I think sometimes we do.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). I was not going to mention this, but it now seems appropriate: my mother, Sheila Lillian Harman Kerr, passed away on Thursday evening. She was a daughter of Birmingham, so I have a bit of Brum inside me. Members may not be able to discern it from my accent, but a bit of Birmingham lingers in my heart. I feel she might be smiling at the fact that I am following such an excellent Member of Parliament for Birmingham and someone who represents someone who was a servant of the city of Birmingham.
I rise to support the Second Reading of this Bill on a key matter relating to our departure from the European Union: control over our borders. I thank Ministers for their decision to scrap the charges for the settled status process for EU citizens. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) for the very significant part he played in bringing that about. I know how much that means to people in my constituency. It is very important that our actions in government match our words. We must send a clear message to our family members, friends, neighbours and colleagues who have come to this country from the European Union, and to whom this country is now home, that they are a vital part our community. They enrich our lives and play a hugely valuable part in our economy, and I deeply regret any suggestion from any source to the contrary. Members of this House owe it to their constituents and the reputation of this House to measure the way they express themselves about such matters, and in interventions they make in debates about our departure from the European Union.
I have several points to make about the Bill. The first is about the university sector, and the University of Stirling in particular. In a report for Destination for Education, KPMG calculated that every international student recruited to a British university brings a net positive economic contribution of £95,000 in total. For the academic year 2015-16, that was estimated to be worth £20.3 billion. We are talking about a major British exporting success. I am proud of the UK university sector’s global standing, and I am proud that the University of Stirling is consistently highly rated as a destination of choice for international students. Stirling loves its international students and welcomes them with open arms.
Our world-class university system is the envy of the world and an unrivalled source of soft power influence in the world. I do not believe that student visas should be subject to any kind of cap, and I was encouraged by the Home Secretary’s remarks on that matter. We are competing with other English-speaking countries. By making it more difficult to access British universities than those of our competitors, we are doing ourselves no favours. We are in danger of losing market share in a growing global market. International students applying for bona fide courses at bona fide institutions should be allowed to come here. After all, they will support themselves.
We need a visa system that reflects an unabashed bias towards attracting and retaining talent, including newly qualified international graduates and postgraduates from UK universities. Why on earth would we not want such talent to stay in the United Kingdom to the benefit of our economy and the public good? As with other issues that we examine in this House, we must look for the balance of fairness. It is not fair or right to expect an international worker, graduate or postgraduate to earn more than £30,000 per annum, and to say that they qualify as skilled labour only on that basis. That would be a terrible mistake. The average graduate salary in Scotland is in the region of £21,000. Instead of rigidly fixing the system to a formula based on notional taxation contributions, we should look at earnings potential and social contribution.
We must be fair to businesses of all sizes. I ask hon. Members to consider how difficult it is for a small business to sponsor an international worker for employment in the United Kingdom. I worked for a global businesses before coming to this House, but what works for a big business does not necessarily work for a small business. The test of what is good for our economy is not how a global corporation copes with an imposed process, but how it works for a small business with limited resources.
I say this to the Government: beware of a one-size-fits-all approach to skilled labour. I would have thought that it is stating the obvious to say that what works in London and the south-east will not be right for other parts of the United Kingdom, so we must build flexibility into whatever policy we apply. The variables must be weighted to ensure that skilled labour can be attracted and retained in all parts of the United Kingdom and all scales of business.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
I rather suspect the hon. Gentleman will not agree that immigration should be devolved, so let us park that to one side. What role should the devolved Governments have in setting UK immigration policy?
Stephen Kerr
I have long said in this House and outside it that the best way forward for the people of Scotland is for Scotland’s two Governments to work closely together, and I have made suggestions about how working together might be interpreted in a constitutional machinery sense. I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I think it is important that Scotland’s Governments work together on this issue.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
I am extremely grateful for that. Will the hon. Gentleman explain that point? What should the devolved Governments’ role be? Should they get to set student numbers or have different salary thresholds?
Stephen Kerr
I do not think we should be talking about student numbers at all. The Home Secretary said earlier that there should be no cap on student numbers. It is important that we establish a constitutional process whereby the Governments of Scotland work together and talk and listen to each other.
David Linden
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He knows how much respect I have for him. The Immigration Minister is on the record as saying that she would not grant the Scottish Government powers that she would not grant to Lincolnshire County Council. Does he support her view on that matter?
Stephen Kerr
I have made it clear what I think should be happening in how Scotland’s two Governments work together.
Stephen Kerr
I will not give way again, because I am now using my own time.
A lot more must be done about seasonal workers. It cannot be said often enough that a rigid system for seasonal workers will cause untold damage to the rural economy and to sectors such as hospitality and tourism, both of which are vital to my Stirling constituency.
We must also be fair to everyone and enforce the laws that we pass in this place. Will the Minister enlighten me about how we check and measure that people are leaving the United Kingdom? That should be straightforward enough in this data-driven age. It would help us not only to secure our borders against illegal immigration but to support those who may be able to remain but have outstayed their current visas. I have casework to that end.
Leaving the EU allows us to have a non-presidential—non-presidential? That may be as well, but it would allow us also to have a non-prejudicial immigration system that does not simply allow free movement for people from the EU but opens us up to the wider world of talent—to skilled workers, to knowledge workers, to compassionate workers, to people who would make a welcome contribution to our society. Stirling is open to business, to students and to people from across Europe and the world, and I want to see that continue well into the future.
I hope that Ministers will appreciate that we have challenges to meet in my part of Scotland. Stirling is the most beautiful place in these islands to live and work, with doorstep access to Scotland’s great cities and the wilderness beauty of the highlands, and we have secured an exciting city deal that will help us to explore the full potential of our local economy, but we need the ability to attract people to come and make their homes and their living in our communities. The SNP Government do not help much in that regard by making Scotland the highest-taxed part of the UK.
I will undoubtedly support the Second Reading of the Bill tonight because I fully support its purpose, but further down the line, when other measures come about resulting from the White Paper consultation, I will of course do what I feel is in the best interests of our country and my constituents.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who from a lifetime of experience is in the right place on this issue.
The nature of a country and the values that underpin it are often reflected in the rules of its immigration system. On that basis, the United Kingdom could be seen as hostile, expensive, often offensive and demeaning, and overly restrictive. That is not the type of country I wish to help to lead from this House. Our immigration system should be fair, both to those who wish to come here and those already here, and should strike a balance between rights, restrictions, contributions and rewards for those who wish to come and be a part of our great country.
At a time of rising populism, the Bill was an important opportunity for the Government to set the right tone, but on that measure they have failed, not least because the Bill is remarkably light on detail, instead giving Ministers wide powers to make up the rules as they see fit. It gives the House no insight into what they seek to do. It fails to recognise either the positive contribution migrants make to our country or the positive bottom line for UK plc; it fails to recognise the rights of British citizens living in the EU—in greater numbers than EU citizens in Britain; and it fails to recognise the different types of immigration, whether they be those who come because we need them, those who come to contribute, or those who come seeking asylum. Nothing in the Bill sets out what type of country we seek to become—what type of country we wish to be—and that is a grave missed opportunity.
The Bill offers little hope to people in Bristol North West, whether the hundreds of doctors, nurses and social care workers at Southmead Hospital, or the migrant labourers in Avonmouth working in our warehousing and logistics business, or the people I meet in my constituency surgery week in, week out, including, sadly, victims of modern slavery—I know the Government have done great work on that, and I pay tribute to them and look forward to the conclusions of the review of ways of strengthening the support victims receive—or its scientists, researchers and technology entrepreneurs.
A recent report by the Science and Technology Select Committee, on which I sit, noted that collaboration across disciplinary and geographical boundaries was the foundation of scientific and technological endeavour—one this country has a proud history of leading and no doubt wishes to lead in the future—but also highlighted the overly restrictive tier 1 visa system for exceptional talent and how difficult the tier 2 system made it for employees and employers who want and need to be here to come here. It also dealt with long and short-term stays for the purposes of research and collaboration on innovation. We are failing to be able to bring the best scientific teams and technological minds to our country at a time when we need them not only to fuel our own GDP and economic success but to secure our position in the world as a leader in science and innovation.
I have a few questions that I hope the Minister will respond to when she sums up, although some have been asked already. First, in respect of the many nurses and social care workers and other low-paid workers, including scientists and innovation and tech entrepreneurs in Bristol earning less than £30,000 a year, are the Government not confusing vital skills with pay, and pay with value? The value that many of our low-paid workers, whether in healthcare or other settings, add to my constituents is hugely valuable but may not be reflected in their pay. We should be saying in this country that we welcome their contribution to creating a fairer, more open and more tolerant society, but instead we are saying that they do not earn enough to have the right to be here.
Secondly, is it right that amendments to immigration policy should not be debated on the Floor of the House? I understand that the Government have given themselves this power in the Bill, but surely the Minister will today confirm that they will none the less bring those matters to the House, both for debate and in the interests of their own accountability. Thirdly, there has been some concern about EU citizens who reside in this country for valid reasons other than exercising their treaty rights and whether they will be protected as part of the transitional arrangements if we leave the EU. I hope the Minister will clarify that distinction. She says “when” we leave the EU. I am hopeful that we will not be doing so.
Darren Jones
I thank my right hon. Friend for that.
Fourthly, in response to the report by the Science and Technology Committee, which I recommend to all right hon. and hon. Members, I hope the Minister will say how she and her Department will seek to meet the requirements I mentioned in order that we might stay at the forefront of international collaboration on scientific endeavour.
Lastly, I assume the Government will not admit it, but this is a prime opportunity to set out what type of country we want to be, whether Brexit happens or not; to say to people around the world who Britain is and what their experience will be here; to say to people who live in this country what values we expect of our communities and what we will not condone and that xenophobia is not welcome, regardless of what people felt they could and could not say as a consequence of the leave campaign; to set out afresh a new, innovative, welcoming and fair immigration system that brings to life the values that supposedly represent the Treasury Bench’s intentions for this country. Instead, it is a failure on all the measures I have set out, so I will happily not be supporting the Bill this evening.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones). I am reminded of a trip we took together last year to the United States when one of the last things we did was visit the State of Massachusetts’ refugee and immigration programme. It had some interesting ideas for both supporting refugees and making them valuable members of society, including by finding them jobs. We might want to learn from that.
Let me start by expressing an interest in the subject of immigration, as the husband of an immigrant, but an immigrant from outside the European Union. Before I came to the House, my wife and I began to be experts in the immigration process. My wife, who is from Azerbaijan—outside the EU, as I have said—is often surprised by how easy it has been in the past, and, we hope, will be in the future—indeed, I am sure that it will be—for EU citizens not only to stay here, but to continue to come here to work. I welcome not only the Bill but the 12-month consultation with business and services throughout the United Kingdom, which should set the country on course for a truly fair immigration system that reflects the country’s priorities.
Let me also compare my view with that expressed by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) at the beginning of his speech. Scottish Conservative Members share an understanding of the issues faced in Scotland by industries such as fisheries and agriculture, and the problem of the shortage of skilled labour at home and its availability overseas. We may simply differ in regard to the solutions that we envisage.
In June 2016, 17.4 million people in the United Kingdom—including, it is estimated, the majority of voters in Banff and Buchan—voted to leave the European Union, and there can be no denying that a desire to take back control of our borders was one of the many reasons for that vote. In 2017, along with other Members, I was elected to represent the people in a Scottish constituency on the basis of a manifesto that had pledged to respect the referendum mandate, which included an end to free movement, and I believe that the Bill delivers on that promise. I also believe that it marks another necessary step towards a new immigration system: a system that we control, a system that is fair to people from all countries, and a system that is skills-based and tailored to our economy, society and public services.
Stephen Kerr
Does not every major social attitudes survey that has ever been conducted in Scotland indicate that the attitudes of the Scottish people towards immigration are not remarkably different from those of people in the United Kingdom as a whole?
David Duguid
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the wide range of opinions on immigration across the United Kingdom, across Scotland and across my constituency, and, no doubt, his own.
The vision of a future skills-based immigration system tailored to our economy was set out in the UK Government’s December White Paper, which I welcomed as a strong basis for our future immigration system. One of the challenges that we will face as we implement that system is ensuring that it works for all sectors of our economy—both public and private—and for parts of the country with high unemployment and those with low unemployment alike.
I am happy to say that Banff and Buchan is an area with low unemployment, and there is good reason to believe that more jobs will come to the area in the years ahead. As home to the great fishing ports of Peterhead, Fraserburgh and Macduff, among others, the constituency stands to gain from Brexit as we leave the common fisheries policy. If we embrace that sea of opportunity, Banff and Buchan will be on course to gain thousands of new skilled jobs in fishing itself, in seafood processing, and in other sectors such as maritime engineering, and those jobs will in turn lift the wider local economy in hospitality and other public services. That, combined with our already low claimant count, is why it is so important for Banff and Buchan that we get our future immigration policy right. We can only make the most of the golden opportunity that is on the horizon if the key sectors of our local economy have access to the labour that they need, and the labour of which there are shortages.
I should make it clear that I am not calling for those sectors to have unrestricted access to cheap low-skilled labour. The fisheries sector wants to be able to rely on local labour and is willing to work substantively towards that goal, but we are not there yet. The Scottish White Fish Producers Association has estimated that, much as we want to reach a point at which we are, if not totally unreliant on foreign labour, much more reliant on local labour than we currently are, that could take up to 10 years.
In the short and medium term, the fisheries sector will need to employ a significant amount of migrant labour if it is to keep going at its current level, let alone make the most of our taking back control of our waters. Like other sectors, it is increasingly looking outside the EU for skilled and experienced crew, and for skilled—or at least competent—workers in our seafood processing facilities. If anything, free movement, historically—combined with the basic need to limit net migration—has made it more difficult for labour from non-EEA countries to be hired. The end of free movement, as provided for in the Bill, gives us a chance to rectify that by creating a more level playing field.
The UK Government have engaged with me, and with many of my colleagues on both sides of the House who represent coastal constituencies, on this issue, and I am grateful for that. I look forward to engaging with them on it further after the Bill has been passed. I am confident that our future immigration policy will help the fisheries sector in Banff and Buchan, and the wider local economy with it, to make the most of what Brexit has to offer. To achieve that, we must lay the groundwork first, and that is why this Bill is so important. This is what the vote to leave the EU was about; it was not just about immigration, but about control in the wider sense—the ability of this country and this Parliament to control and decide our own immigration policy; not to end immigration, but to ensure that our businesses and services can source the skills they need. This Bill provides a great opportunity for Banff and Buchan and for the United Kingdom as a whole, and I will support it as a means towards taking that opportunity.
I want to conclude by reminding my right hon. Friend the Minister of concerns I have raised previously regarding the level of skills that are considered “skilled” for immigration purposes. I would also welcome further discussion around the detail of salary levels, which has been mentioned by other hon. Members. The Migration Advisory Committee has suggested a £30,000 level for guidance, but I would welcome the opportunity to discuss that further, and as I said at the start of my speech, I particularly welcome the 12-month consultation process that the Department will be taking with businesses and services around the country.
In summary, I support this Bill.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
First, may I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to research support I have received in my office for work on immigration matters? May I also say upfront that I strongly endorse the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and the support she has from a number of other right hon. and hon. Members around the House for taking action on indefinite immigration detention, which I think we can all agree is an obscene reflection on our current system?
It has been a pleasure to hear so many Members from around the House speaking so positively of the contribution and value immigrants have brought to our country over so many years, and it is true in my constituency, too: we are proud to be home to so many diverse communities, and I hope that the message that has gone forth from the House tonight to those who are here now or who might be considering making their home here in future is, “You will be welcome; you will be valued members of our community; and we will make sure that during your time spent in this country, you will be looked after well and can be happy.”
This Bill is very light on detail, yet it offers very wide powers to Ministers to implement all sorts of potential changes via immigration rules. While I appreciate that that is the way that many immigration changes are brought in already under our present system, the Bill’s ending of free movement represents a seismic change in our system that I believe—and I think this belief is widespread—ought to be subject to careful parliamentary scrutiny.
We also know that our existing immigration system, which is presumably to be transplanted across in some degree to EEA nationals in future, is already flawed, and we have rightly heard tonight about Windrush. I would also highlight the recent DNA debacle, which we do not want to be replicated for future immigrants coming to this country, as we fear.
We are pleased that the Government have asked the Law Commission to look at how immigration rules might be simplified, but it seems premature or, indeed, inconsistent to ask it to do so while asking us to give powers to Ministers to make ongoing changes that the commission will not be able to take account of. The Henry VIII powers in this Bill are very inappropriate in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, especially in the light of the direction of travel laid out in the White Paper and in particular, as we have heard again and again tonight, the very significant concerns about the £30,000 income threshold to assess whether a migrant has the skills to mean that we would want them to make their home here. As we have heard tonight, income is not commensurate with skills, and qualifications are not commensurate with the skills we may need across a whole range of sectors. I hope that the Minister has heard the widespread concerns around the House and will look again at that threshold after tonight’s debate.
I want to echo comments made, including by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), the shadow Home Secretary, about the Government’s proposal for short-term work visas. These have some place in an immigration system, but on a large scale they will be inefficient for employers, create insecurity for individuals, damage family solidarity since family members will not be eligible to come in with those on short-term visas and damage community cohesion and integration. I particularly say to the Minister that there is a serious risk of the exploitation of vulnerable migrant workers on these short-term visas, as well as the risk that they will undercut UK workers if unscrupulous employers choose to take advantage of this system.
We will need strong protections at the very least to support a short-term workers visa scheme, yet today our labour market inspectorate is not well resourced. Indeed, Focus on Labour Exploitation tells me that we are at about half the global benchmark of inspectors to workers—it should be one inspector for every 10,000 workers. FLEX calculates that, given that benchmark, businesses face inspection on average once every 500 years. There is great concern about Ministers’ ability to make immigration rules that might increase the vulnerability of those workers without full parliamentary scrutiny.
The Bill will allow Ministers to change rules on social security co-ordination, which is important in facilitating employment mobility. That is good for the economy and for individuals, but it is also a matter of fairness to individuals who have contributed and who have expectations about their entitlements going forward. I hope that the Minister will categorically rule out any possibility that the Government would in future unilaterally withdraw the ability to aggregate and passport pension and social security rights in the event of no deal or after the transition period.
I also want to express concerns for those who do not or cannot regularise their status, including some of those applying for settled status, or those who might become irregular in future, perhaps as overstayers. The current rules on income thresholds are particularly damaging for families, creating a risk of poverty and homelessness. In a number of debates about our Brexit plans over the past years, I have highlighted particular concerns about the wellbeing of children. Again, I underline that issue for the Minister tonight. The Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium has particular concerns about children, because both EEA and non-EEA children might become subject to rules under which they have no recourse to public funds, creating huge hardship and, as we have heard, shunting costs to local authorities, which will have to pick up the pieces as a result. I hope that tonight the Minister might commit to relaxing or at least looking at relaxing the exceptional circumstances criteria set out in the 2012 immigration rules changes, so that families with dependants under the age of 18 have access to the public funds they need.
There are also concerns about the cost of regularising one’s status and the complexity of the process. There was a welcome U-turn on fees for applying for settled status earlier this month, but the system is still complex. We have to be worried when the Home Secretary has spoken about the 90% success rate for those going to the beta testing phase—even in a relatively limited control group, 10% of cases cannot easily or readily acquire settled status. There is great worry that that ratio might increase in future as more vulnerable individuals make their applications.
I am concerned about exceptionally high fees and repeat fees for those who will not be applying for settled status, such as those who might arrive in future and will then go on to the 10-year path to citizenship. Will Ministers reconsider the impact of that, particularly on children and young people?
What advice are the Government offering to families to ensure that applicants can achieve the highest form of status to which they are entitled? For example, a child with a claim to British citizenship should be able to make that claim in their own right and not be expected simply to be reliant on the lower settled status that might be available to their parent. That leads me to ask the Minister about information and advice, and to ask her to consider the importance of ensuring legal aid and appeal rights.
I do not welcome the Bill tonight. In many ways, it will be bad, especially for the most vulnerable in our country. It will have worrying equality impacts, as we have heard from a number of colleagues, and it leaves the future very uncertain for EEA and UK nationals alike. In those circumstances, I look forward to voting against the Bill because it does not give our country and the individuals living in it now and in the future the rights and good will that they deserve.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Immigration is an enormously sensitive subject, and it is important that we pick our words with sensitivity. I often sit in this place listening to foreign affairs discussions about countries that millions of people are fleeing—we were talking about Venezuela earlier—and I remember how lucky we are to live in a country to which people want to come, not one they want to flee. We are lucky to live in a country in which people have had freedom and where our history has given us freedom. In many European countries, people remember what it was like not to have freedom. Under communism in Poland, people were not allowed to leave the country. In East Germany, people in Berlin were not allowed to cross the wall, even to visit a family member.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) said earlier that we needed to stop freedom of movement to counter extremism. However, is it not the point of freedom of movement to put into the past the kind of extremism that built the Berlin wall?
Vicky Ford
Let me continue my point. Under communism, people were trapped in a prison in their own country, and to many across Europe, especially eastern Europe, freedom of movement is a deeply cherished right and we must remember to respect it in our own language.
How did we get to where we are today, when so many people in the UK feel that freedom of movement is not right for us? For me, there were two huge errors in our history. The first came under the Labour Government in the early 2000s when 10 new countries joined the EU and the then Government vastly underestimated the impact of migration and did not introduce transitional controls. I remember the impact on many towns across the east of England, which I represented as a Member of the European Parliament. I am thinking of towns such as Wisbech, Thetford and King’s Lynn, which saw a huge influx of people, putting real pressure on local services.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Will the hon. Lady therefore support the reintroduction of the migration impact fund, which was designed by the Labour Government to do just what she describes?
Vicky Ford
Sadly, the fund did not have the necessary impact at that point, but I would support measures to reassure local communities in which we see migration. Having knocked on many doors and spoken to many people, that was one of the key reasons why so many people voted leave in the referendum—not necessarily in other places, but in those towns.
The second error happened during David Cameron’s negotiations with the EU. He tried to explain the impact that migration had had on those communities, but for one reason or another, the EU leaders gave the perception—whether it was real or untrue—that they simply were not listening and were not prepared to try to help introduce some of the reassurances that those communities needed. We are where we are today because of those two errors.
The vast majority of people who come to our country work hard, pay taxes and make huge contributions to our communities and our society, and we are stronger and better as a result. Post Brexit, it is vital that we continue to be a country that welcomes and values those who want to come here. I will support the Bill tonight, because we need to reassure communities that we listened to the message from the referendum, but we must have a migration system that works for people who bring skills, talent and sheer hard work.
I want to talk about four sectors: the NHS and social care, science and research, universities, and tech. I come from a medical family. Both my parents were doctors; my sister is a doctor; and I am married to a doctor. One in 10 of the doctors in our hospitals and across our health service come from other countries. Yes, we will train more in the future, and I am delighted that the first of the next generation of medical schools has now opened in my constituency of Chelmsford, where we are already training 100 new doctors. However, we cannot forget the contribution made to our health and social care sectors by those who have come from other countries. A lot of those people are not on high pay, and the suggested salary threshold will risk cutting out and excluding some of them, so I ask the Minister to look at that.
This is not just about salary. I often hear people ask, “If I come and do extra qualifications here, will I be able to take those qualifications back to another country if I then choose to move?” Issues such as the mutual recognition of professional qualifications are important when discussing our immigration system and our ongoing relationship with Europe.
David Duguid
I apologise to the House for bringing my wife back into the conversation, but, as she is a qualified midwife and general nurse from outside the EU, one of her frustrations is with the impossibility of her qualifications being recognised. Does my hon. Friend welcome at least the potential of the Bill to recognise such qualifications?
Vicky Ford
I am delighted that my hon. Friend raises that point. One of my reasons for voting for the withdrawal agreement is that in the future partnership discussions, in black and white, is the continued mutual recognition of professional qualifications. That level of detail on such issues is so important. Yes, we must continue to welcome those with training and real skills, so we must make sure those skills, as well as the individual, can be moved.
I am a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which has done a huge amount of work on the future of the visa and migration system. This country has world leaders in science research, and we are a world leader because people come here from all over the world. We must make sure that we remain open to the best brains and the best talent, but that does not just mean the top professors; it also means skilled lab technicians and PhD students, and we need to make sure our visa system works for them, too.
Mobility is important. Scientists need to be able to move from country to country. I often give the example that people who work on the British Antarctic Survey will, by definition, not be spending 12 months of every year in Britain. They need to go to Antarctica. Scientists often need to go backwards and forwards to work and study, so a fixed regime that says they have to stay here for x number of years and cannot move backwards and forwards does not work for them.
Bureaucracy was raised by a previous speaker, and scientists need to be able to act fast. A post-doc who has been offered a two-year or three-year grant to get their research done does not want to hang around for six months to find out whether they have their visa. They will go to a country that will make the decision faster, so we need to make sure that we can act quickly. And when we are welcoming scientists, we must make sure that we also welcome their families, who will want to come with them, and we must have a policy to encourage that.
I was touched by what techUK told us before this debate. The UK tech sector is growing two and a half times as fast as the rest of the economy, and one in five of those working in the sector was not born in the UK. They are young, highly talented and highly mobile, and again the salary threshold may not be a proxy for skills in this area.
I am lucky to have a university in my constituency, and our universities are thriving and exciting places to be. Nearly one in three of our academics, and nearly one in every two of those on research-only contracts, was not born in the UK. Again, if the £30,000 threshold were to be agreed—it is not finalised—it may not be the right proxy for talent, and the universities have repeatedly made that point.
We need to make sure that we continue to have overseas students, who add so much to our universities, and I would like the Minister to consider the arrangements for post-study work. In Australia, for example, a student can stay for two to four years after their degree. If we want to compete for talent with countries like Australia, we need to give students more time.
My final point is that I am not one of those who says that the Government should be rushing into decisions on this. I do not blame them for taking time to get this right, as they need to take the time to consult. We need a system that rebuilds trust and confidence in parts of our country where people feel let down by the previous system. I want to make sure we have a system that is the best in the world and that we look at experiences from other countries. I want to end up with a system that welcomes people with skills and talents, welcomes people who want to come here to work hard and welcomes people who have come here to flee horror. That is the message I would like to leave the Minister with.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
When I consider the whole issue of immigration in this country, the first thing that comes to mind is thwarted opportunity—squandered opportunity. I am reminded of Billy Connolly’s eulogy at Jimmy Reid’s funeral. He was talking about the conversations he used to have with Jimmy Reid, with one wonderful anecdote being about driving past a high-rise tower block. Jimmy was saying, “Think about this, Billy. When you look at all those windows, imagine that behind each of them is a world champion horse rider or a Nobel prize winning chemist. They are all there. They are all there with that potential, but they will never realise it because they have never been given the opportunity to achieve it—because society has determined from their youngest years that they will never realise their inherent potential to be as good as they can be and to realise their talents.”
That is a question of not only poverty, but our immigration system. The same dynamic plays out. Tragically, it is often a function of people in poverty finding the wrong scapegoat—the wrong enemy—for their situation. The perennial problem of labour versus capital is the root cause of many of the tensions in our society today and many that caused this country to vote to leave the EU. Unless we understand those reasons and those underlying dynamics, we will fail to address those tensions.
Before I was elected as a Member of Parliament, I had a tangential involvement with immigration in this country—many people do, as they do not have many day-to-day dealings with it—but I remember one case that came close to home. I was working in the shipyards on the Clyde, having joined after graduating from Glasgow University. My starting salary was just £24,000, which is far below the £30,000 threshold. Many people of all sorts of nationalities—Australians, Canadians and Malaysians—were graduates working in the shipyards on the Clyde. One colleague had been awarded a PhD in unmanned underwater vehicles by Queen’s University Belfast, and she was a fantastic researcher. She also happened to fall in love at the same time with a Brazilian man who lived in Dublin and was studying there. She was in the invidious position of having to choose between her career in Glasgow and getting married to her fiancé.
Mr Sweeney
Yes, perhaps she ought to have done.
The Home Office told my colleague that because her fiancé was resident in Dublin, he could not come to live with her in Glasgow. They had to move away to Brazil in order for him to apply to come to live in the UK, even though they had both been living in Ireland. What a bizarre anomaly that is! It is just one example of the absurd situation—the Kafkaesque nightmare—that many people encounter. As a result of that situation, my colleague had to go to work in Dublin. She left her job on the shipyards on the Clyde: another example of potential lost to the industry on the Clyde and to Scotland.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Of course if the Brazilian gentleman had become a full Irish citizen, he would have been able to move through the common travel area without hindrance. There is a question here, and it is one the Scots Tories do not like. They do not want Scotland to be able to contribute to common travel area migration in the way that Dublin and the London Government can. Does the hon. Gentleman support the Scottish Government’s having the same rights to enable people to become citizens as the Irish Government have, and having them freely move within the common travel area, which is not a problem?
Mr Sweeney
One interesting and more laudable aspect of the Bill is that it does seek to maintain a common travel area. I recognise that there are many issues with the Bill, which is why I will not be supporting it. I will certainly be going through the Lobby to vote against it.
One of the fundamental issues with the Bill is the lack of flexibility and the rigidity of the system, of which the £30,000 is merely one example. I have talked about my personal example, but I also think of many of the people I know from university, including junior doctors who start on a salary well below the £30,000 threshold, or other people I know from other countries around the world who will not meet that threshold. It is an entirely arbitrary and utterly absurd threshold that will destroy potential in our country. That is one reason why, if the Bill does go into Committee, I will be looking to support amendments that remove the threshold, so that we can have a skills-based system rather than an arbitrary salary threshold.
There are also severe problems with the 12-month visa scheme, and there are all sorts of issues relating to the protection of workers’ rights, which are another fundamental root cause. It is not a question of immigration undermining wages and working conditions in this country; it is the fact that organised labour has been under systematic assault by this Government for many years. That is what has driven down wages and why wages have stagnated. The power of organised labour to bargain collectively in this country has been systematically undermined by this Government. That is the root cause and the heart of the problem. It is not about immigration.
The swathe of Henry VIII powers that the Government seek to usurp from Parliament in favour of the Executive is extremely sinister and unacceptable. If the Bill receives its Second Reading tonight—I hope it does not, but it may well—that must be challenged in Committee.
The whole notion of an arbitrary cap on migrants panders to the worst sort of stereotypes and ought to be stopped. We cannot have a system that imposes such arbitrary limits. It is simply nonsensical from any sort of economic development perspective. Indeed, an arbitrary cap militates against any effort to try to improve the country’s prosperity.
I wholeheartedly support the proposal by the Mother of the House, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), to introduce a 20-day limit to immigration detention. I deal closely with this issue in many constituency cases. The idea that this is the only country in Europe with a system of unlimited detention is absolutely shameful. The Government should accept my right hon. and learned Friend’s amendment without any Division and incorporate it into the Bill.
It would be a great gesture of good will and a great example of this country’s humanitarian tradition if we sought not to have arbitrary detention. In the past year, more than 10,000 have been detained in this country without limit. They can only count the days up; they cannot count the days down. Some 70% of those people are detained not because there is any sense that they have committed an offence; they are being detained entirely arbitrarily and it is an extremely distressing situation for many of them to be in. The system needs to be changed.
It is about not just the economic aspects but the opportunities denied because of our asylum system. Think of the huge talents thwarted. I have met doctors, surgeons, lawyers and chemists in my constituency who are all denied the opportunity to work in or contribute in any meaningful way to our society, because under our current asylum policy they are not able to work so are kept in limbo for years at a time. It affects not only the adults but those who came here, often as infants and small children, who have grown up as second-class citizens. There are very frustrated young adults in our society who have been denied the chance to go on holiday with their friends or to get student tuition. They have been denied any kind of meaningful recognition in our country.
I have confronted the appalling reality in my past 18 months or so as an MP. I have had to deal with more than 100 asylum cases in the past five months alone because of the Home Office’s failures to expedite those cases efficiently. I find it tragic when 18-year-olds are unable to take up a place to study law at university in Glasgow because they cannot get student finance because their immigration or asylum status has not been determined, or when champion boxers who want to represent Scotland internationally are unable to go abroad to fight in competitions because their asylum status has not been settled. That is shameful and a squandering of human talent and ability. That they are denied that chance is a collective loss to everyone in our country. It needs to be addressed urgently because it is a shameful situation.
The “move on” policy came into sharp focus in Glasgow last year. With the existing asylum contracts coming to a close in 2019, we learned that Serco, which had the asylum accommodation contract in Glasgow, was seeking to move on asylum seekers at a much faster rate than usual. We saw the prospect of mass destitution in Glasgow, because more than 300 potential evictions were going to happen. It is clear that the “move on” policy needs to be addressed. I would support measures to extend the period to give asylum seekers the right to assess where they are at the end of a process and to consider their right to appeal, without the threat of being turfed out on to the streets. That is especially true for those in particularly vulnerable situations when they have no recourse to public funds. If they are survivors of domestic abuse, care leavers or have dependants, it is shameful. We cannot be in a situation where they are reliant on charities to support them in the face of destitution. I just find that, in our country, that just cannot be acceptable. I hope that most people in this House recognise that appeal for basic dignity.
We face an economic challenge in Scotland, which we tried to address in previous years under a Labour Government through the fresh talent initiative. The initiative was successful in reversing Scotland’s historic population decline. From 1801 to 1901, the Scottish population grew by 180%, but from 1901 to 2001 it grew by just 10%, which was a huge demographic challenge for Scotland. The current immigration policy of this Government threatens to undo all that hard work to reverse Scotland’s population decline.
Having worked in Scottish enterprise, promoting initiatives such as the ScotGrad scheme, which has brought in international graduates and foreign language students to help promote Scottish exports abroad, I can say that the policy is a real threat to the future economic prosperity of this country. We must oppose this Bill for a number of reasons—reasons to do with thwarted opportunity, basic human dignity and economic opportunity. The Bill’s approach is totally wrongheaded. We need a new system rooted in economic opportunity, in human dignity and in the ability to grow our collective potential as a country.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) spoke in great detail and with great skill about the many deficiencies of this Bill. I want to focus on just one: ending freedom of movement.
Since 2016, we have listened to those who wish to rip Scotland from the European Union speak triumphantly about the prospect of ending freedom of movement. They speak of this as if it is a victory that will benefit the people of this country. In truth, we cannot measure what will be lost. We will lose countless opportunities, relationships, stories, and human experiences that would have been worth just as much to us culturally and socially as the billions of pounds that our EU membership generates every year.
I know that this will be hard to believe, but, by the end of this week, I will be one birthday away from my 40s. [Interruption.] It is the truth, yes. A clear majority of Members in this place are clearly older than I am. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) is clearly one of those. I am angry about the impact that ending freedom of movement will have on my generation and on those of older generations, but that anger is as nothing compared with the rage felt about the impact that this will have on younger generations—those who overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU, or who were left voiceless due to this Government’s opposition to giving the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds.
I equate the situation to the support that the Tory and Labour parties gave to the various versions of tuition fees at university. They were happy to accept all the benefits of free tuition and the unburdened opportunities that it afforded themselves, but are now happy to pull up the ladder of opportunity behind them. So it is with EU membership and freedom of movement—it is selfish, self-defeating and utterly, utterly senseless.
Gavin Newlands
On the words “utterly senseless”, I give way to my hon. Friend.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
I hope to make some sense with this thought, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thinking of the generational shift, does my hon. Friend think, as I do, that, in the past, the waters and the skies of Europe were filled with warring air forces and warring navies, whereas now they are filled with easyJet, Ryanair and low-cost airlines, and with people not thinking twice about darting across the continent, opening up economies and opening up people’s minds? Is it not the case that only the historically illiterate would cheer the ending of such a diplomatic channel?
Gavin Newlands
As usual, far from being senseless, my hon. Friend makes his point with force and alacrity, as is befitting of a budding statesman. I could not agree more—[Interruption.] I think that I have perhaps gone too far with that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We had to listen to vacuous calls for reductions in the number of EU citizens making their homes and their lives here. We saw the Eurosceptics’ de facto leader stand in front of Nazi-inspired political advertising that cynically equated desperate refugees fleeing war-torn areas of the world with EU citizens. Those Eurosceptics lied about money for the national health service and they lied about Turkey joining the EU. Some even promised that we could stay in the single market and yet still somehow end freedom of movement.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
There is one other point that we do not often hear. I am somebody who benefited from freedom of movement, which gave me career and educational opportunities. Why should anybody in here have the right to take away those opportunities for those who come after us?
Gavin Newlands
I could not agree more; my hon. Friend makes a very sensible point.
As I was saying, these are all monumental and unforgiveable lies. Perhaps the remain campaign should have challenged them more effectively. Perhaps the national media were too complacent to hold the liars to account, or—more likely in the case of the Daily Mail, the Daily Express, The Sun and others—were actually complicit in those lies. Perhaps people like me, who opposed Brexit, could have been better at telling the real story of the benefits of EU membership and the privileges that we should never—but perhaps did—take for granted.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that it is an absolute tragedy that the UK came at the bottom of the list of EU countries that were able to give a positive view of the EU, and that it is only in the last year or two that newspapers in the UK have been reappointing EU correspondents?
Gavin Newlands
My hon. Friend makes a good point.
When confronted with these alternative facts as portrayed in the media and by some hon. Members here, who can actually blame some people for agreeing to what amounted to a quick fix? The difference between the attitude and actions of the Scottish Government and the Westminster Government following the referendum in 2016 was stark. Immediately after the result was announced, the First Minister of Scotland gave an open-hearted address to EU citizens and the message was crystal clear—“We want you to come to Scotland and we want you to stay”—whereas the Tories spoke of bargaining chips.
Scotland rejected the false promises, the hate-filled rhetoric and the lies. We did this because something greater is being offered in our country. In Scotland, the largest party has been proudly in favour of immigration and freedom of movement. Some politicians in this place are scared to follow this example, but it can be an easy argument to win; they just have to make it. I say to the Leader of the Opposition and some on his Benches that politicians are here not merely to follow public opinion, but to lead it—to persuade and debate the merits of a policy, not to cower meekly in the corner desperately waiting for 29 March to come and go. That is not leadership. It is a total abdication of responsibility.
Freedom of movement is the greatest achievement that we have reached together in the European Union, and it is the single greatest reason why we must remain members. Programmes such as Erasmus allow for an unprecedented exchange of ideas between the students who populate Europe’s rich universities. Millions of people from the UK’s constituent nations, including many Scots, choose to retire to quiet lives on the Mediterranean and millions of others travel across the continent, taking in Europe’s vast cultural heritage. Others have built careers abroad in every conceivable field, allowing us to advance every aspect of our shared society.
Just before the withdrawal agreement, I made a call on social media for people to tell me their stories and experiences of freedom of movement. During the withdrawal agreement debate, I raised the story of Ivan and his family. Ivan was born in Spain, studied in Italy and has worked all over Scotland in Scotland’s NHS. He met his Irish wife, who then went on to work in Denmark. They have had two daughters born in Scotland—one with an Irish passport and one with a Spanish passport, but both indisputably Scottish.
I have other constituents with similar experiences. My constituent Emma Hendrie is a 21-year-old student who studied for a semester at Ghent University in Belgium. Once her fellow students got past her apparently strong Paisley accent, she became lifelong friends with people from Europe and beyond. Alison Hughes lived in the Netherlands on two different occasions, which was a great experience for her children and her family, who got to meet other children from all over the world. Mark Harold emigrated to Lithuania in 2005 to work on music projects, and stayed for many years. Mark was eventually elected to the city council and is now the night mayor of Vilnius; he is the only non-citizen to have sworn on the Lithuanian constitution. Sandra and Steve Murray wrote to me to tell me their story of making a new home in a small village on the French-Spanish border that is populated by Spanish, French, German, Dutch, Belgian, English, Irish and Swedish people, as well as people from many other nations. Their only wish was that the UK would adopt the Scottish view that we all want the same things—peace, equality and opportunity.
This is what we are about to lose. How can we in this place rip this from our young people, who voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU? How can we rip Scotland out of the free movement area when the Scottish people overwhelmingly voted to continue to have this freedom? My message today is this: I understand that millions of people across England are disillusioned with politics and are yearning for something better, and I am sorry that there is no major party that can help them at this point. I do not blame them for their anger; I am often angry about the situation myself.
Gavin Newlands
I would give way but I am conscious that others want to speak, and I am coming to the end of my speech.
Scotland does have an alternative: Scotland voted to remain. I hope that colleagues across the House will reject this Bill and ultimately give people a chance to have the final say. I also reiterate that immigration powers must be devolved to Scotland so that we can get on with building an open and welcoming immigration system that works in the interests of Scotland. However, it would seem that Scotland’s interests are now wholly incompatible with those of the rest of the UK. That leads to the only clear solution—to become like every other normal country and secure our independence so that we might forge that better future.
To conclude, perhaps on a note of consensus, we have just marked Robert Burns Day, so I would like to ask hon. Members to reflect on some words from Scotland’s immortal bard—not “parcel of rogues”, although rarely would that particular verse have been more apt, but this:
“For a’ that, an’ a’ that,
It's coming yet for a’ that,
That Man to Man, the world o’er,
Shall brothers be for a’ that.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I commend the hon. Gentleman on his excellent poetry. I am terribly sorry but we will have to reduce the time limit to six minutes.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
As this debate approached, I reflected on one of the first experiences I had when I first stood for election in 2017. It was at a hustings—although they seem to be a dying art in election campaigns, they are still a very important aspect—and I remember being challenged by a guy in the audience about what my party’s policy on immigration was. I gave a very full-throated argument in favour of immigration and why we need it. After the hustings was over, he came up to me and said, “Look, before the public meeting tonight I was intending to vote for you, but because you are so pro-immigration, I can’t.”
It was probably that experience that led me to reflect on how we managed to get into a situation where immigration has become such a hotly contested issue. There is an argument that during the Brexit referendum, leadership on this issue was completely absent from the main political parties. I believe that immigration is fundamentally a good thing, and that if politicians talked about it more, we would be less likely to be in this position. There is a degree of hypocrisy when we speak to some of our constituents. When we talk about immigrants, that means people who come here from Europe, but when we talk about people going to live in Spain, we call them expats. People will complain, “They don’t speak our language when they are on the streets of Glasgow,” but when I go on holiday to Gran Canaria or Tenerife, I do not often hear many British people speaking Spanish, so there is a degree of hypocrisy there.
On the issue of hypocrisy, I want to address very directly the absolute mess that the UK Labour party found itself in this afternoon. The shadow Home Secretary opened the debate by saying that Labour would abstain on Second Reading. It took 135 miles for Jesus and Paul to walk the road to Damascus, but today it took an hour and 35 minutes for the Labour party to make a U-turn on its position. That shows the absolutely nonsensical position that the Opposition have found themselves in—and it is the same with Brexit. If someone is trying to ride two horses, eventually those two horses will give way. What we saw today is the very beginning of that for Labour, and its Members should reflect on that.
We have to be very, very upfront about the benefits of immigration, because if we are not, there will be major challenges coming down the track for us, in terms of not just our economy and our public services, but social care. We know that the number of people with dementia will have increased by about 40% in 12 years’ time, and that means more people in care homes. It is a sad thing, but the vast majority of people that I went to school with do not like the idea of going to work in care homes—of wiping people’s bottoms or serving meals. If we do not confront the reality of our ageing population, we are going to have a very serious problem with regard to our current argument on immigration.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. It is not simply about providing labour; it is also about the taxes that these immigrants will pay, which are needed to fund the social services that so many people rely on.
David Linden
Absolutely. My hon. Friend almost anticipates my next point. We have an ageing population, and people are going to have to be looked after. People will live for longer and we will need others to fund the tax base that pays for their pensions, so there is absolutely an economic argument for immigration as well.
As I was preparing for this speech, I reflected on the fact that we begin the sitting day in the House of Commons with a prayer in which the Speaker’s Chaplain says:
“May they never lead the nation wrongly through love of power, desire to please, or unworthy ideals but laying aside all private interests and prejudices keep in mind their responsibility to seek to improve the condition of all mankind”.
We stand here at half-past 2 and pray that to God. We say, “Let us take decisions not just to please people but for the right reasons.” In reality, we find ourselves in a position politically in which we are not leading anymore—we are reacting to public opinion.
I make no apology for the fact that I took a very pro-immigration stance at the hustings that night. Tonight, with a German surname, I will walk through the No Lobby and vote against the Bill because I believe in the free movement of people. The sooner that Members get to grips with the challenges coming down the track and the benefits of free movement, the better, because we have serious challenges, and any vote for this Bill would be a seriously retrograde step.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
It has been interesting to listen to the debate, and particularly to speeches from Conservative Members who have said, “We’ve got to get rid of free movement of labour,” but then in the next breath said, “But we really like the EU workers in the agricultural sector,”, or “We really need them in the horticultural sector in my constituency,” or, “We really need them in hospitality, tourism, construction and care homes.” We have started to see the complete inconsistency of the Government’s and the Conservative party’s argument on this critical issue.
There is only one way in which Brexit will reduce immigration, and that will be if it creates the mother of all recessions, which I think it can. People come to this country to work. The vast majority come to contribute, pay taxes and work in different sectors in our constituencies, making this country great, as they have done over the decades and centuries. To say that they should be treated in the way in which this Bill would treat them is frankly outrageous.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) that, given the need for the people whom this Bill dismissively describes as low-skilled, if we allow them to come here for a year but then ask them to stay away for a year, after which they might be allowed to apply again, we would not attract anyone to work in sectors such as care and public services?
Sir Edward Davey
The hon. Lady is right. The notion of a temporary 12-month work visa for these people is abhorrent. How can we expect someone to go into the care sector and make relationships with the residents in a care home when they have to go after 12 months? How can we expect such people to integrate into the local community? How can we ensure that their training and productivity increases, which apparently we need to do? It is a nonsense approach to these so-called low-skilled workers, and I think that will be shown to be the case during the consultation on the White Paper.
It is argued that the 2016 referendum gave the okay and the mandate for ending the free movement of labour—it absolutely did not. That was not on the ballot paper. I accept that immigration was an issue, but I asked the Home Secretary at the beginning of the debate whether he thought people were voting on immigration or on free movement of labour. Many people did vote on immigration—not necessarily the majority, and not even the majority of leavers—and it was an issue, but the idea that the referendum came down to free movement of labour is nonsense.
It is worth remembering what some of the Conservative Brexiteers were saying at the time. Daniel Hannan MEP, one of the leading Tory Brexiteers, said the day after the referendum result:
“Frankly, if people watching think that they have voted and there is now going to be zero immigration from the EU, they are going to be disappointed.”
He also said:
“The idea of staying within a common market but outside the political integration, I think that is feasible”.
For his punchline, this arch-Conservative-Brexiteer said:
“It means free movement of labour.”
When we are told that the referendum gave a mandate for this Bill, it is simply not true, and the House should not stand for it, because many Brexiteers, including one of the chief ones, said during the referendum that it did not. If we want to protect our communities, our businesses and our economy, and to ensure that our sectors that are crying out for workers get them, we have to reject the Bill.
Let me take the House through three sectors. The first is the NHS. We know of the lies told about spending on the NHS, but what about the fabric of the NHS—the people working in it? There are 10,000 doctors who are EU citizens working in our NHS, and 20,000 nurses and 14,000 clinical support staff. In the past two years, we have had a net loss of 5,000 in the number of nurses from the EU. When we are looking at nursing vacancies of 41,000 in the NHS, how is the Bill going to help the NHS? Do you know what, Madam Deputy Speaker? Just to show that the Government are totally inconsistent and totally incoherent, on page 84 of “The NHS Long Term Plan” there is the wonderful phrase:
“The workforce implementation plan will set out new national arrangements to support NHS organisations in recruiting overseas.”
You could not make this nonsense up, and the Government should be ashamed of themselves. I think about my own constituency. When I talked to the management at Kingston Hospital, their No. 1 concern was this issue. It was not waiting times in A&E or resources, but their staff, the people who are leaving and the people who will not come here because of the nonsense in this Bill.
Let us move on to social care. EU workers already account for 5% of the total adult social care workforce in this country, which is about 1.6 million people. There are 110,000 vacancies up and down the country. How are those going to be filled? Do the Government think that people will be attracted by this nonsense? I am afraid that, again, it is a real let-down of the British people. The British people will feel betrayed when they realise what has been done in their name.
Let us take the construction industry. The Prime Minister is lyrical about the number of houses we need to build, and she is right, but 10% of construction workers in the UK at the moment are from the EU—84,000 of them—so how are we are going to build the 300,000 homes a year that we currently need if they are not made welcome? I think this is just shocking—a huge mistake.
Interestingly, I think the Government are completely behind the opinion of the British people: opinion has been changing. A recent poll said that 74% of British people are in favour of free movement within the EU. That is not a mandate for the Bill—quite the contrary.
Time is against me, so I will just end by saying that not only is getting rid of free movement of labour a huge historic mistake, but the Bill is a historic mistake. There are so many things wrong with the immigration system—there are no limits on detentions and there is a ban on asylum seekers working, and there is the complete incompetence and incoherence in the Home Office, as I see in my two surgeries every week when I meet people who are the victims of that incompetence—and there is so much to be done, but the Bill does nothing to solve those problems. The immigration system is not fit for purpose, and the Bill will make it worse and unfair. It is bad for our society and bad for our economy, and MPs from both sides of the House should reject it tonight.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I guess I should declare an interest. My partner is Hungarian, my neighbour is Czech and my lodger was French. American Express has its European call centre in my constituency. I helped to push and worked on the legal base of Erasmus+. I have lived in Belgium and worked in Berlin, and I am an EU citizen with EU rights. At this critical time in our country’s history, it is of course disappointing, but not very surprising with this Government, that the Bill represents another colossal stealing of those rights from many EU citizens who might not happen to be here on the right date or at the right time.
There are many problems with the Bill. It removes the right of EU citizens to enter the UK without the leave of the Secretary of State. Even if the process will be “simple and easy”, it fails to address honestly the open border in Northern Ireland; we will, of course, end up having a diverging EU immigration policy within the island of Ireland. It fails to give assurances against the exorbitant fees that we currently charge many people coming to the UK, and that we might now charge EU citizens. It fails to give reassurances to visitors who may come to the UK but want to change their status, and it might mean that they have to do the same ridiculous run around that non-EU migrants have to do when they have to leave the country of reapplying through a different immigration system and come back in. The system is currently farcical for non-EU migrants, and the Bill will introduce that farce for EU citizens as well. The Bill moves us to a race to the bottom on migration issues, rather than seeking the best, and that is the problem with it.
I want to draw particular attention to clause 4, which will give Henry VIII powers, allowing the Secretary of State swathes of power to make determinations without oversight by this place. Have we learned nothing from Windrush or the disregard with which the Government treat many migrants? I would not trust this Government—in fact, I would not trust many Governments—with the right to decide on immigration without being fettered by Parliament. How is it appropriate that the Government, who have shown themselves to be so inept, should give themselves these swingeing powers? They cannot be allowed to deny EU citizens their rights in this way.
Of course, things have got so bad generally with immigration. When I write to the Immigration Minister about immigration issues, she does not bother writing back to me; she gets a civil servant in the liaison team to send me a bog-standard, pro forma letter. She will not even engage on the issue. That is what the Minister has come to, and that is what the Government have come to—dispassionate about individual issues, worrying only about the number on the visa or the number of migrants. It is wrong, but now they want to extend that system to others.
My constituents speak of injustice. Last month, a man who had worked here for 20 years—he has an NHS pension and two medical businesses—was rejected for permanent residency by the Government. He was an EU citizen, but despite spending £1,000 on an immigration lawyer to fill in the paperwork, the Government said that the right boxes had not all been ticked. We will appeal that decision, and we will be successful, but he had 23-odd years of national insurance payments. The Government could have looked that up instead of worrying about which boxes were ticked. The Government do not worry about the people when they are what matter.
Many people have lived in the UK for much of their lives, but spent three or four years away working. A German citizen, for example, might have been raised and schooled here but spent the last four or five years out of the country. They will now have to fulfil all the immigration checks, even though they see Britain as their homeland. I was granted EU citizenship in 1992, as were most of us. My brother was born an EU citizen. I fail to see why people who were born with citizenship rights should suddenly have them taken away. If we have to go down this route, we should at least say that everyone who was born before exit date will continue to have EU citizen’s rights for the rest of their lives. That is the only fair thing to do when people are being deprived of their rights.
The other danger is the huge costs we are seeing. It can cost an employer and employee £8,000 if they are coming from outside the EU, with the NHS surcharge alone being £2,000, even though the person will pay taxes and contribute to the NHS. It costs only £127 for the Home Office to process the application, yet the charge for leave to remain is £1,220—a profit of 1,000%. It is disgraceful. The Minister is frowning, but those figures are from the Home Office.
We must vote down the Bill tonight because it is wrong in principle and wrong in practice, and we must stand up for what is right.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to make some concluding remarks in this debate and to follow the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) that outlined the problems for EU nationals. I will be joining him in the No Lobby, because the powers the Bill would give to Ministers are far too wide. It feels rushed, and the slogan of ending free movement has become a theme tune for the Conservatives. Apart from that, we have actually seen quite a lot of consensus across the House on the key question of the £30,000 threshold, and I welcome that. In fact, I welcome the tone of the debate, which has been very positive. So many Members, in press interviews and elsewhere, have been calling for the subject of immigration to be debated in a responsible and measured way.
The key areas of the economy mentioned by many Members were farming, food processing and fishing. I would just mention that while fishing is worth about £1.8 billion to the economy, fashion is worth £35 billion. We must put the various sectors into perspective. The other huge sector is the NHS, which many Members mentioned. My own hospital, the Whittington hospital in the west of my constituency, which most of my constituents use, has a 12% to 15% vacancy rate, put down almost entirely to fears over Brexit and uncertainty.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
We have exactly the same issue in my constituency. We have a very large number of NHS workers from the EU who make a significant contribution to our local community. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point and I fully concur. I also support the point she makes about key industries. There are a whole range of other industries in west London and the Thames valley, including IT.
Catherine West
My hon. Friend represents an area with a university. So many universities have contacted Members with concerns relating to science and technology. The fact is that many people coming through—perhaps not top professors, but people who are technicians or those coming over on the PhD route—may not be earning the £30,000 that the Bill would require of them.
I want to be positive and say that we have an opportunity to put some things right. The Mother of the House, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), has put forward an excellent proposal to end indefinite detention and to bring us in line with European justice systems. Many of us have visited detention centres, for example Yarl’s Wood. The excellent work of Bail for Immigration Detainees and other voluntary sector groups shows that introducing proper procedures and stopping indefinite detention will lead to the speeding up of casework. Instead of having people languishing without any proper legal aid provision and individuals effectively falling off the radar of the Home Office, we would have a system where people’s decisions were made much more speedily.
Secondly, we have an opportunity to put right the anomalies that led to the Windrush scandal. Thirdly, we would have an opportunity to lift the ban on asylum seekers working, which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) mentioned. Preventing asylum seekers from working results in the most incredible loss of human potential. They just sit around, not able to fulfil the key things they could contribute.
I was very pleased to hear the Home Secretary mention a more welcoming approach to students. In a written question, which I believe my office has already sent to him, I have asked him to confirm the exact detail. I understand from his initial remarks earlier this evening that he will be more generous, but we need reassurances for our tertiary education system.
In conclusion, I want to make some final points about the issues I have with the Bill. It appears that, following all the Brexit debates we have had and the various votes the Government have lost, the Government are still repeating the same mistake of giving Ministers incredibly wide powers and not really consulting with Parliament quickly enough. There is the nature of the Bill being rushed and the nature of the slogans around free movement. Finally, there is the short-term visa problem, which we know from hon. Members who have spoken could lead to the possible exploitation of those who are successful in attaining such visas. We need to look much more carefully at the evidence on visas. If short-term visas do lead to exploitation, what evidence do we have from other immigration systems that they actually work?
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for your indulgence in allowing me to speak despite not being in the Chamber for the whole of the debate.
Mr Speaker
The House has been delighted to hear the hon. Lady. I say that without fear of contradiction.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
We have heard passionate speeches from Members on both sides of the debate. By my count, 27 Members have contributed. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) raised the niche but important issue of immigration in football. I thank the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), and I hope he will continue to work with us in Committee.
A new immigration system must not damage our economy and our society. My speech will cover the four broad areas that Labour’s objections to the Bill fall into.
Afzal Khan
We will be against. Is that good enough?
First, the Bill is not a blueprint for a new immigration system, but a blank cheque. It contains broad Henry VIII powers that would allow the Secretary of State to amend both primary and secondary legislation. That point was made by my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) and for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who drew on her constituent’s awful case to highlight the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. The White Paper on immigration is not a final draft; it is out for a 12-month consultation. In any case, the Government are not tied to doing what is in the White Paper. The Secretary of State could use the powers in the Bill to introduce an immigration system that is entirely different from anything that has been discussed without parliamentary oversight or scrutiny.
If the Government go with what is in the White Paper, that would spell disaster for our economy and our society. Their own impact analysis points out that the plans would reduce GDP and would have a cumulative fiscal cost of between £2 billion and £4 billion in the first five years. The suggested short-term visa route would open the door to widespread labour abuses, creating a second class of migrant worker and enormous inefficiencies for businesses. That point was made by the hon. Members for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) and for Stirling (Stephen Kerr).
The Government’s plans have come under fire from their allies, as much as from their critics. The CBI described them as a
“sucker punch for many firms right across the country.”
The TUC called them
“a disaster for every worker”.
The British Chambers of Commerce accused the Government of leaving businesses with their “hands tied”. We will be looking to put sensible limits on those powers in Committee to ensure Parliament has a say on our future immigration system.
Our second big concern is about social security co-ordination. The Government already have the power under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to ensure continuity in social security in the event of no deal. In fact, the Department for Work and Pensions has already tabled a series of negative statutory instruments that do just that. As the Government admit in the explanatory notes, the powers that they are asking for in the Bill would enable them to bring in a new approach to social security. That is a massive overreach and is entirely undemocratic. At least we have an immigration White Paper that indicates the Government’s thinking. We have no idea what they plan to do on social security.
The third issue relates to EU citizens in the UK. Despite the Government’s warm words about how much they value the contribution of EU citizens and want them to say, there is nothing in the Bill that protects their rights in primary legislation. More than 3.5 million EU citizens in the UK have spent two and a half years under a cloud of uncertainty. The Government have already started rolling back on their promises—for example, not to deny settled status to EU citizens who have not been exercising treaty rights, despite the Prime Minister’s guarantee that that would not happen. Basic fairness to those who have already moved between the UK and the EU, as well as our ability to attract talent in the future, rely on our getting this right.
Fourthly, the problem of accountability and transparency goes far beyond the Henry VIII clauses. The Tories have made it harder and harder to live as a family in this country, and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) made the powerful point that the income threshold disproportionately affected women. The most stark and tragic illustration of this was the Windrush scandal. Let us be under no illusion: the cause of the Windrush scandal was the hostile environment. If we are to avoid a repeat of Windrush for EU citizens, the hostile environment must end. A system cannot be transparent if it is incomprehensible and inaccessible to the average person. The Government must simplify the immigration rules, follow the Law Commission’s recommendations, bring back legal aid and restore data protection.
We find the Bill a missed opportunity to address the moral and humanitarian failures of this Tory Government towards refugees and asylum seekers, as set out emotively by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire). There is nothing in the Bill, and very little in the White Paper, on refugees and asylum seekers. At a minimum, we must bring an end to indefinite detention and fix refugee family reunion. I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and the right hon. Members for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for their cross-party work to end indefinite detention.
In conclusion, on immigration and social security, the Government have not done their homework. They have come to Parliament asking that we grant them extensive powers without any idea what they might use them for. We are not willing to grant the Government such broad powers to introduce as yet unknown rules on immigration and social security. Listening to the debate, it has become clear that Ministers’ intentions are even worse than we had expected, so we will be voting against the Bill on Second Reading.
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
We have had a good and thorough debate this evening, and many wide-ranging issues have been raised, some of them even included in the Bill. I remember a couple of weeks ago nodding in agreement when the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) spoke of the importance of tone and language when discussing immigration. She was right then, and she was right today, and I thank all Members who have spoken thoughtfully and carefully on this topic in this debate.
The views expressed in this debate demonstrate the interest in the future borders and immigration system and the importance of getting it right. We have also heard from across the House of the great contribution that immigration has made to our society, culture and economy, and the Government value that contribution very much. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was generous in giving way in his opening speech, and indeed the debate has drifted some distance from the contents of the Bill, but I want to reflect on the contributions of as many Members as possible.
The end of free movement will allow us to build a system that recognises and maximises all the benefits of immigration, and we will continue to welcome talent from every corner of the globe under the future system.
Caroline Nokes
I will come to some of the hon. Gentleman’s comments in due course.
At this time, we must be an outward-looking, global nation, and as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary indicated, over the next 12 months, we will speak to a range of businesses and organisations across the country. The right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington raised the specific issue of Irish citizenship and deportation. Of course, the UK has always had the power to deport or exclude Irish citizens, but in the light of the historical, community and political ties between the UK and Ireland, along with the existence of the common travel area, the approach since 2007 has been to consider Irish citizens for deportation only where a court has recommended deportation in sentencing or where the Secretary of State has concluded that owing to the exceptional circumstances of a case the public interest requires deportation. This approach is to be maintained.
Coming to Back-Bench contributions, it seems fair to kick off with my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who mentioned football at length. Of course we welcome the contribution made by sports people to the UK. Our current visa arrangements are designed for elite sports people and coaches who are internationally established at the highest level, and whose employment will make a significant contribution to the development of sport. To support the sector, the Home Office works with recognised sports governing bodies to agree on an objective set of criteria against which elite sports people will be assessed. My hon. Friend made clear the importance of the premier league, not only to our society but to our economy, and I am absolutely committed to working alongside the Football Association and the premier league to ensure that that continues.
The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) spoke about detention, and specifically about indefinite detention. That issue was also raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). The hon. Gentleman will be aware that 95% of those who are here without immigration leave are in the community, and I am sure that he will welcome the current Yarl’s Wood community pilot scheme. We are working with 12 women who would otherwise be in Yarl’s Wood to ensure that they are being supported. There is, of course, an automatic bail referral requirement for people who have been detained for four months, and we are now piloting a referral after two months. That will provide the judicial oversight for which so many have called.
The right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham spoke passionately about detention. It is seldom that I say this, but I greatly enjoyed the opportunity to appear before her Select Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, a couple of months ago. We had an interesting and challenging discussion about detention, and I hope I convinced her and her Committee that we are thinking very hard about the issue. It is right that we work to make the correct decisions, but detention remains part of our immigration policy. It is important for us to work on the immigration bail pilots and, of course, on detention in the community.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) spoke about the conventional view that we should have one immigration policy for the whole United Kingdom, and I absolutely agreed with what he said.
Caroline Nokes
I am sorry, but I am not going to give way. I am conscious that I am very time-limited.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) made a point very early in the debate about fairness and language, and about the importance of not conflating asylum with immigration routes. She was, of course, absolutely right. I sometimes find it hugely frustrating when people conflate the terms “asylum seeker” and “refugee” and “economic migrant”. I have said before that we must be careful with our language, and the Home Secretary responded to my right hon. Friend’s intervention with an important observation about language and tone.
I am well aware that there are strong and passionate views about immigration on both sides of the House. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) for saying, quite rightly, that we needed to have a mature and constructive debate, but he was also right to draw attention to issues in certain sectors of the economy. With that in mind, we are having a year of engagement on the White Paper, talking to representatives of different industries. My hon. Friend referred to agricultural workers in particular, but also mentioned the hospitality and tourism industry, which is so important to his constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mrs Badenoch) spoke about migration from a non-EU perspective, and said that it was a global issue. She is absolutely right, and in the discussions that I have had with EU representatives—and, indeed, in my discussions last week with French representatives in Calais—they were keen to emphasise that migration could not be seen in isolation. We must look at the root challenges, and work together. When we leave the EU, we will continue to work with our friends and neighbours on the other side of the channel.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) said that we were making immigration policy with the slash of a pen, but he was far from correct. I would argue that he was whipping up scare stories when he tried to convey the message that the Government had said that EU citizens were not welcome. That directly contradicted the messages given in the House time and again by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and indeed by me. We want our EU neighbours, friends and colleagues to stay, and we have not only made the settled status scheme as straightforward as possible, but—as the right hon. Gentleman will now know—have made it free.
The right hon. Gentleman also spoke about asylum seekers having the right to work, and went so far as to suggest that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was more interested in the subject than I was. I would like to reassure him that just this morning I had a meeting with Stephen Hale from Refugee Action on this subject, and indeed on 24 October last year my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) held a debate on this subject in Westminster Hall, to which he did not contribute.
It is important that we look at the NHS, and several Members, including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), spoke about NHS workers—nurses and care workers—and it is important that we continue to work with the Department of Health and Social Care to make sure there are sufficient routes into the NHS for those who contribute so much. I am very conscious that there are now 4,000 more EU workers working in our NHS than in 2016, and the hon. Lady will remember that last summer we lifted doctors and nurses out of the tier 2 cap threshold.
The hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) spoke about Refugee Action. She will know that I have a great deal of time and respect for her and the issues she has raised, and I hope very much to continue learning from her and the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green); they often come as a tag team to give me a very hard time, but they do so with such charm and determination that I am sure we will continue to engage effectively with them. In the same way, through our engagement process we will continue to listen to businesses large and small, sectors like the universities, the National Farmers Union, the Royal College of Nursing and the CBI, which we have been doing to date, because of course the conversation on immigration has not simply started over the course of the last few weeks, but has been going for well over a year.
The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil)—he knew I would get to him eventually—has spoken at length about voodoo politics. I have tried to take a positive out of something that everyone has said, and, given the headache I took tablets for earlier, I am sure he had his pins stuck into a voodoo doll of me. To add a little bit of levity, however, he would like to hold up Switzerland as an example of how individual cantons can run their own immigration policies, and indeed they can, but I gently draw his attention to the case of Nancy Holten, a vegan anti-cowbell campaigner who twice had her application for a Swiss passport refused by a referendum—we all know how keen we are on those in this place—and I am far from convinced that that is an effective immigration policy.
I am running out of time, but I would like to mention the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), who spoke so movingly about his father-in-law the late Sir Reginald Eyre. As for the words of a Whip ringing in our ears, “There’s a vote; don’t you dare”, well, apparently Her Majesty’s Opposition have decided that there is a whip and they do dare.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) has on many occasions had fairly brutal conversations with me and has raised some very important cases, which I will continue to work with her on; she does not shy away from tackling the difficult. She raised the issue of Henry VIII powers and the immigration rules. Of course, historically since the Immigration Act 1971 the immigration rules have been used to firm up immigration policy by Governments of all parties, and we will undoubtedly continue to do so, but if anybody thinks these do not get scrutinised, I would point them to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), who always gives me a very hard time whenever immigration rules make it to a debate in Delegated Legislation Committee.
I fear that I have reached the end of my comments. I welcome the remarks about Rabbie Burns—a little bit of Scottish poetry always goes down well—and I reinforce the message that this has to be an immigration policy for the whole United Kingdom. We have set out powers that will enable us to make amendments to primary and secondary legislation, but that is crucial in ensuring that we align the treatment of EU and non-EU nationals and that UK law can operate effectively.
Let me conclude by thanking the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) for raising the tone of the debate. She spoke carefully and thoughtfully, and that makes a huge difference. We want an immigration system that works for the whole UK and we will be continuing the engagement. We will also phase in that system, recognising the importance of giving individuals, business and, indeed, Government, the time to adapt. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Business of the House
Business of the House (Today)
Proxy Voting
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
We now come to motion 6 on proxy voting, which we will debate together with motion 7. Before I call a Whip to move motion 6, I should inform the House that I have selected amendment (d) to motion 7, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). The amendment will be debated together with the motions. I am referring to amendment (d), appertaining to miscarriages.
At the end of the debate, I shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings. I hope that this is helpful to colleagues. First, I shall put the Question on motion 6, after which I shall call the Leader of the House to move motion 7 formally, and then the hon. Member for Shipley to move his amendment (d) formally and put the Question on that—the Question on amendment (d). Finally, I shall put the Question on motion 7, either as amended or, as the case may be, in its original form on the Order Paper.
I should make it clear that if amendment (d) is agreed to, I shall ensure that the additional requirement relating to miscarriage is incorporated into the pilot scheme and duly authorised as soon as possible. I must emphasise that this would not delay the immediate implementation of the scheme in the form that has been made available in the Vote Office. I call the Leader of the House to move motion 6.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
I beg to move,
That this House:—
(1) reaffirms its resolution of 1 February 2018 on baby leave for Members of Parliament;
(2) endorses the Fifth Report of the Procedure Committee, HC 825, on Proxy voting and parental absence;
(3) accordingly directs the Speaker to prepare a pilot scheme governing the operation of proxy voting for Members absent from the House by reason of childbirth or care of an infant or newly adopted child, pursuant to the recommendations in the Committee’s report, this resolution and the temporary Standing Order (Voting by proxy for parental absence);
(4) directs that a scheme prepared in accordance with this resolution and the temporary Standing Order (Voting by proxy for parental absence) shall be signed by the Speaker and the leaders of the three largest parties in the House before it is published, and that it shall enter into effect for a period of 12 months when the Speaker takes the chair on the sitting day after the day of publication;
(5) directs that any amendment of a scheme in effect by virtue of paragraph (4) above shall take effect when the Speaker takes the Chair on the sitting day after a proposal signed by the Speaker and the leaders of the three largest parties in the House is published; and
(6) directs the Procedure Committee to review proxy voting arrangements within 12 months of the commencement of a scheme established by virtue of this order.
This debate follows much discussion of the issue of baby leave and the use of proxy voting over the past year. I would like to start by thanking all Members from right across the House who have helped to bring us to this point. In particular, I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and his Committee for their helpful and rapid response to last February’s debate. Their report has provided the means for us to implement these changes and to demonstrate how Members are helping to bring Parliament into the 21st century.
I also thank the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), and the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). They have both been strong champions of proxy voting and have consistently supported and promoted the many issues that affect women in this place.
I pay tribute to the collaborative way in which you, Mr Speaker, have worked with the Clerks to ensure that, should these motions pass, the proxy voting scheme can be operational from tomorrow. I am grateful to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the SNP’s Westminster leader, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), for quickly reviewing and authorising the details of the scheme that is the subject of this evening’s decision. Over the past year we have seen two full debates, a Select Committee inquiry, three urgent questions and many other deliberations in the House on this issue, and in my opinion quite rightly, too. Throughout that time, we have seen strong support for the changes before us today.
I am sympathetic to the issue that the amendment seeks to address. A miscarriage is a distressing time for any individual to have to go through. However, those suffering such distress may well prefer to do so in private, via the anonymity of the pairing system rather than the transparency of a proxy vote, during what is always a personally devastating period. Whether the amendment is passed is ultimately a decision for the House.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The proxy voting in the motion is voluntary—it will not be compulsory for somebody to take a proxy vote. If somebody wished to keep such a matter private, they would still be able to under my amendment. It would just mean that if somebody wished to take advantage of proxy voting after they had had a miscarriage, they would be able to do so. I am not sure that it would breach a confidentiality if the person concerned did not want it to.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is absolutely right in the point he makes. I think I just acknowledged that myself.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
I am pleased to hear that the Leader of the House is sympathetic to the amendment on miscarriage. As somebody who suffered a miscarriage during the 2015 general election, I think it would have been physically impossible to have come into Parliament to vote at that time. Could the amendment extend to male colleagues, who are often there to support their partners at times of miscarriage? We perhaps do not often talk about the role of the expectant father in such cases.
Andrea Leadsom
I am very sympathetic to all the proposals around the sadness of miscarriages. Having had two myself, I have some personal experience of the matter. Nevertheless, I draw all Members’ attention to the fact that we are here to debate and agree proxy voting for baby leave, subject to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), on the basis of a pilot scheme. The Procedure Committee will come back to this issue at the end of the one-year pilot scheme, when there will be an opportunity for all Members to put forward their views.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I note that amendment (a), tabled by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), has not been selected for debate, but does the Leader of the House not agree that, whether it is considered in the pilot or afterwards, looking after a partner who is terminally ill is an equally valid reason for getting a proxy vote?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady makes an important point. As I say, we have debated the issue in this Chamber on a number of occasions, which is why we plan to focus on a pilot scheme. Towards the end of the one-year pilot, we can look again at whether the issue should be restricted to baby leave or expanded.
I acknowledge that Members have wished to bring in slightly different or additional changes to our voting system, but I definitely do not think that anyone could accuse us of having rushed into the reforms we are proposing. Members will, I hope, be reassured that bringing in proxy voting as a pilot scheme means that any outstanding issues can be addressed during the 12-month review.
Let me reiterate that ensuring that every baby has the best start in life has been a personal priority for me for many years. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that this Government do all they can to allow new parents to spend that vital early time with their babies. I am therefore delighted to be able to bring forward these motions, and I urge all Members to support them.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for bringing forward the motions and for listening to the concerns of hon. Members by expediting this particular process.
Mr Speaker, you will recall that you commissioned the report “The Good Parliament”, from Professor Sarah Childs—she is actually listening to the debate—way back in 2016. She cited the issue of proxy voting and said that that would make this a good Parliament. We have had two debates and two urgent questions on the matter. The House expressed a view in favour of establishing a system of proxy voting when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) first secured a debate in the House on 1 February 2018, so we are moving quite quickly—it has taken a year to get the system into gear.
As I set out from the Dispatch Box on 18 July and 13 September 2018, and on 22 January 2019, the Labour party supports the principle of proxy voting for parental absence. I, too, thank the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and members of the Procedure Committee for taking evidence and producing its report “Proxy voting and parental absence” on 15 May 2018.
The Committee recommended that the scope of the scheme
“should be broadly equivalent to statutory provision for maternity and paternity leave.”
That was similar to the Clerk of the House’s memorandum, which identified
“caring responsibilities limited to mothers of young infants”
to cover a category of Member who might qualify for a proxy vote.
The motions are about the implementation of proxy voting for Members absent by reason of childbirth or care of an infant or newly adopted child. The scheme is not, at this stage, intended to be extended to other reasons for being away from the Chamber. The Procedure Committee’s report flagged up the fact that the Parliaments of Australia and New Zealand also have this process—the two processes work in slightly different ways, but they work nevertheless.
I will not go into individual cases, but it is clear that a system of proxy voting for parental absence should be in place as soon as possible. The breakdown in the pairing system and Members having to vote while heavily pregnant have made this a necessity, and it is right that there can be such certainty. Right hon. and hon. Members want to cast their vote and want that recorded. The Leader of the Opposition, who is committed to a modern Parliament, has signed the certificate. I am pleased to say that he was the first of the three main party leaders to do so. I pay tribute to the Clerk of Divisions and Elections, who managed to get the certificate ready to be signed by you, Mr Speaker, in the first instance.
I think that it is helpful to set out what actually happens. To get a proxy, Members can either provide a certificate of pregnancy or a matching certificate to you, Mr Speaker. No further validation is necessary. The maximum duration of a vote by proxy is six months for the biological mother of a baby, or for the primary or single adopter of a baby or child, and two weeks for the biological father of a baby, the partner of the person giving birth, or the second adopter of a baby or child. Eligible Members will need to specify in writing to you, Mr Speaker, the dates on which the absence shall begin and end within these maximum durations, and name the Member who has agreed to carry her or his proxy vote. You, Mr Speaker, will issue a certificate and cause it to be entered in Votes and Proceedings. Members can change who their proxy is, end their period of proxy voting earlier or cast a vote in person by providing a written notice to you, Mr Speaker, as soon as possible, or, at the very latest, by the end of the previous sitting day.
Members casting a proxy vote in a Division will inform the Division Clerk at the appropriate desk and the Tellers at the doors of the Lobby. Members can cast their vote in one Lobby and the proxy in the other, and may cast a proxy without casting their own vote at all. The result of Divisions in Hansard, both online and in its printed edition, will note votes cast by proxy, including the Member who cast the proxy vote. I know that one hon. Member has already signalled to you, Mr Speaker, that she intends to cast her vote by proxy, and she will be able to do this at the end of today, certainly in time for tomorrow’s votes. The new system is set out very clearly and I thank the Clerks for drawing it up.
If the House agrees to motion 6 and the temporary Standing Order, will the Leader of the House confirm—although I think that she has done so already—that the system of proxy voting will be in place by tomorrow? Will she also outline the timeframe for the Procedure Committee’s review and confirm when the clock starts ticking on that review? I hope that it is from today so that we have the full 12 months for it. It is right that this House accommodates everyone who wants to carry out their caring responsibilities. Members who work hard to fulfil their duties on behalf of our constituents deserve always to have their voices heard in our good Parliament.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Just before I call the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), I should just mention that the shadow Leader of the House referenced Professor Sarah Childs, and I wish to record that the great professor is watching over us.
There will be a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. The right hon. Member for Basingstoke has generously signalled to me that she intends her speech to be shorter than that, but she has up to five minutes.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
May I start by offering my congratulations to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on the arrival of her son? I am sure that we would all want to send our best wishes to her.
I will also begin by referencing a certain Professor Sarah Childs, because it was her report in 2016 that concluded that the House of Commons had in the past “lacked the institutional will” to address issues of representation and inclusion. I am sure that Professor Childs will join us today in recognising that things have changed and we have started to consider these matters in a great amount of detail. I pay tribute to the Leader of the House and the Mother of the House, who have done so much on this issue, as well as the Chair of the Procedure Committee and many more who have made today’s events possible.
May I gently suggest to Members that while we can be celebratory, we can also challenge ourselves to do much better? Members have to take responsibility for the modernisation of this place. The piecemeal approach that we are taking to modernisation has driven many of the amendments to the motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), although only one of them has been selected. We need to be better at shaping our vision for the future of what this place should be in totality, rather than simply focusing on one issue at a time. We need to make sure that we do not exclude anybody from standing for election to this place because of their gender, disability, race, religion or sexuality. As an organisation, we have not yet grasped the bigger role that we have to play in picking up the picture that was so eloquently painted by Professor Sarah Childs in her report, which has also been discussed in “The Good Parliament” guide and at the Speaker’s Conference in 2010.
Mr Speaker, you have had a pivotal role in driving forward change in this place, but your enthusiasm for change cannot completely take the place of Members’ support for that change. We cannot simply do this in a piecemeal way. We need to ensure that important questions such as that raised in the intervention of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford)—whether the measure should be extended to people with other caring responsibilities, particularly for terminally ill family members—are answered before we go much further. If we want a more representative Parliament, with people who have real-life experience, we have to be able to accommodate the needs of that group and we need to encourage those people to join us.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has stated publicly that the House of Commons may well be in breach of its public sector equality duty to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation. The Women and Equalities Committee believes that we have a role to play in providing more scrutiny of the way in which the House of Commons proceeds on equality issues, so I am pleased to tell the House that we have decided to set up a Sub-Committee to look specifically at the scrutiny of equality in this place—yes, holding ourselves as parliamentarians to account over every aspect of the working of this place so that we turn those wonderful words into practice not just in the future, but now. That is a hugely important part of our job. We are the custodians of the future not just for British business and British institutions, but for Parliament itself. We have to live up to those expectations and deliver now.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller). I very much look forward to her continuing work on and interest in this issue. If anybody can drive through this agenda, it is she and her Committee.
We very much welcome the motions and hope that this will be the very last word on the tortuous process of delivering proxy voting in this House. It is almost unbelievable that it has taken so long. It is almost a year since the first debate, when the House expressed a will and a view that proxy voting should be a feature of our voting arrangements. I have no reason to doubt the Leader of the House’s commitment to this; in fact, I know how solid her commitment is. She has been very sincere and championed this through the House in the course of the past year. I just hope that she has managed to get her Whips Office fully on board with all this now. I really hope that there will be no other kickback from any Whips Office in this House and that we are able to properly deliver this.
As we have heard, the Procedure Committee was charged with bringing forward a solution and designing a way in which that could happen, and that has been duly discharged. I, the Leader of the House, you, Mr Speaker, and the shadow Leader of the House—she has promised to be my proxy if I ever require one, but I gently say to her that I do not think that is going to be necessary—all gave evidence to the Committee. The motions practically replicate everything that was suggested and recommended by the Committee, and this is the way forward.
It has to be said, however, that it has taken a couple of crises for us to get to this position. The first involved the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) and the breaking of the pairing system back in July last year, and then there were the terrible and appalling events around the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), who had that dreadful experience with voting a couple of weeks ago. Let us not kid ourselves that there has been only natural and good-natured progression, because it has taken a couple of such incidents before this has happened.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we have to get past the point where we are making policy as a result of being shamed? We had to be shamed into doing this. There were so many debates, and the Leader of the House herself said that she might look at it when we moved out of this place while it was being refurbished. A lot has changed since then, and it is great to see progress, but we cannot let things continue like this.
Pete Wishart
I totally agree. We should make proper plans and make sure that we have the right arrangements in place. I do recall those comments by the Leader of the House, but I will be kind to her—I think that she has played a part in ensuring that this is delivered and made a reality, along with many Members.
We have to conclude that the pairing system has totally and utterly failed this House. The 19th-century “nod and a wink” approach that we had to deal with such arrangements really now has to come to an end. We never, ever trusted the pairing system. We have never participated in any pairing arrangements during my time in the House—almost 18 years—and they must be totally and utterly abandoned.
It is a welcome fact that the motions have been debatable—that was the right way to go. When these proceedings were first proposed last week, there were concerns that somebody might attempt to vote the motions down or talk them out. I welcome the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). I used to gently chide him when he was a new Member, calling him “Dinosaur Jr”. He is now a fully fledged member of the dinosaur community, but his interest just goes to show that even dinosaurs may change their horns. I accept, in the sincerest way, that he has now come forward as a fully fledged, proper member of the community of change in this House. We will support his amendment tonight.
It is great that Professor Sarah Childs is with us tonight, because it was her report that first set out some of the agenda items we needed to look at. We have to make this place a good Parliament. We have to address some of the byzantine ways in which we do our business in this House. I go on and on about the voting Lobbies. They are now thoroughly dangerous and we have to do something about them properly, so let us start to look at that. This is a good start. I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) has already signed the certificate. We will now get this process in place and I welcome it very much.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Thank you for selecting my amendment (d), Mr Speaker. There seem to be two things that we need to concern ourselves with today. The first is whether we agree with proxy voting, and the second is whether we agree with proxy voting on the terms in the motion.
I am rather sceptical about proxy voting for a number of reasons, not least that if debates in this place never changed anybody’s mind or made better legislation, we would have to question why we bother having them at all in the first place. That is a clear part of our role as MPs. What Ministers say at the end of a debate can affect a Member’s vote. Reassurances from Ministers can make a Member take a different line, and that has happened on many occasions.
I am also sceptical because I am not entirely sure that this will deal with the lack of trust in the pairing system. What if the proxy votes the wrong way? What if there is a breakdown in communication? What if the designated proxy is unable to vote, for some reason? This does not mean that there will be none of the same problems with proxy voting as there are with the pairing system. We should not believe that this will be a flawless system. Given that the will of the House is clearly that we should have proxy voting, it is surely incumbent on us to try to make the rules the best we can, and this motion is lacking in a number of areas.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I do not share my hon. Friend’s scepticism, but I do share his attention to detail, and that is lacking in his amendment. He will know that my private Member’s Bill dealing with stillbirths is going through the House of Lords at the moment. I hope that his amendment would extend to women who have suffered stillbirths, who would not be covered by the definition of miscarriage at the moment.
Philip Davies
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I accept his support in that spirit. If we are going down the route of proxy voting, we have to make sure that it is fair for people in every circumstance. That is the point I want to make. That is why it is important that people who have a serious illness, who are not covered by the motion, are included. Why is the primary carer of someone who is seriously ill less deserving of a proxy vote? Why is someone whose close relative has died less deserving of a proxy vote than those mentioned in the motion? People who have suffered a miscarriage should equally be covered, and I hope the Government will accept my amendment.
We have to look at why fathers and mothers are being treated so differently. The Women and Equalities Committee report, “Fathers and the workplace”, which I think was a unanimous report of the Committee, said that limiting the statutory period to two weeks for fathers is
“particularly inadequate in certain specific circumstances, such as where the mother or baby is ill or has been born prematurely.”
I agree with that report of the Committee, on which I serve. Members of the Committee seem to have been distinctly lacking in arguing for that to be included in the terms of this motion, despite recommending that every other organisation in the country should abide by it. They seem to think that it should not apply to the House of Commons but should apply to every single other organisation.
We have to look at where proxy voting applies, and I hope the Procedure Committee will consider all these things. I do not think that proxy voting should apply to private Members’ Bills, for example, which it does in the motion. Hardly anybody turns up for private Members’ Bills, so it would be rather absurd that someone who never turns up for them on Fridays and never had any intention of doing so will all of a sudden be able to vote in proceedings on them.
The Report of Bills is not really suitable for proxy voting. You might recall, Mr Speaker, that there are sometimes 200 amendments tabled to a Bill on Report in different groupings. We do not know on the day of the vote which ones will be selected for debate or which ones will be voted on. How on earth can a Member give an informed opinion on 200-odd amendments that day when they do not even know which ones are being voted on and which ones will be selected for debate? We should be very wary about extending proxy voting to the Report of Bills.
I must say that there is something distinctly lacking in one of the motions compared with the one in the Procedure Committee report. The Government have missed out one key plank, which I have sought to reinstate, of the report’s proposed motion. It states:
“The Speaker may make provision for the exercise of a proxy vote insofar as it is not provided for in this Order.”
That had in mind something like miscarriages, which is why I have tabled amendment (d).
Equally, the Procedure Committee report says:
“There is an inherent risk to the House’s reputation of Members away from the House casting votes as if they are present in the Chamber and actively following debates. For example, it would be unthinkable”—
the word “unthinkable” is underlined in the report—
“for a motion on committing military personnel to armed conflict to be carried on the basis of proxy votes.”
Yet that has not been excluded from the motion on proxy votes: sending troops to war will still be covered by proxy votes, despite the Procedure Committee saying that that would be unthinkable.
I hope that the Government will accept my amendment (d) as a modest step forward in trying to make this procedure fairer to everybody, irrespective of their circumstances, and I hope that the Procedure Committee will look at all these matters in the round when this comes up for review.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
It is obviously a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who gave a characteristic speech. I recall my suggestion during the urgent question, when I said that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) might be seeking a pair for this evening and I thought the hon. Gentleman might have been up for that, but he is here instead. What I would say is that even a stopped clock is right twice a day, so while I disagree with much of what he said, there are none the less some good suggestions for progress in some of the amendments he has tabled.
I am delighted to be here for this debate, as I am that we are having this debate and that we have this very good news. I again thank the Leader of the House for her dogged work behind the scenes, those from the Procedure Committee and the Women and Equalities Committee, and of course the Mother of the House and everybody who has helped to make this happen, which is so important.
I am particularly happy that, tomorrow, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn will be able to vote by proxy. I think she is probably still awake—she has a small baby, so I reckon she is still awake right now—so I would just say, “Tulip, we are so happy for you. Tomorrow, enjoy little Raphael and making sure your constituents are represented at the same time.” Indeed, I hope that this will go on to be useful for other hon. Members. I know that, with the hon. Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) and for Fareham (Suella Braverman), many more babies are due to be born, and I think this is going to be a really positive step.
One thing I did agree with the hon. Member for Shipley about was the importance of fathers. In the urgent question last week, I was particularly moved by quite how many men stood up and talked about their experiences as dads and MPs, and about the guilt that they feel. I do hope, given that this is a pilot, that that is an issue we can return to as soon as possible. I just think it is not right in the 21st century for us to leave men out of this and say that two weeks is enough; it is not. Dads are incredibly important, which is why we introduced shared parental leave and why we should make sure this applies to men as well.
The hon. Gentleman has tabled an amendment, which seems to command support, about miscarriage, which is also incredibly important. I am fortunate in that I have not experienced miscarriage, but we have heard from hon. Members who have. However, I have had scares involving heavy bleeding. In fact, on one occasion when I was pregnant with Gabriel, I was in the House in the evening, I had just had something to eat and we were due to be voting late on Brexit, and that was when I started to bleed heavily. Anyone who has been pregnant will know how that feels: even though it is not uncommon, the fear strikes that something is going wrong, particularly in the first trimester.
I telephoned my midwife, who advised me to go to accident and emergency, and I went across the bridge to St Thomas’s. It became clear that, by the time I was seen, I was going to miss the vote on Brexit, so I had to contact my Chief Whip and, in doing so, tell him I was pregnant. I had not announced it to anybody yet, so it was not necessarily the circumstances in which I wanted to do that. I was kept in overnight as it happened, and I had a scan and everything was fine—do you know what, I was so delighted that that was the case—and the rest of the pregnancy was good, but that is a not uncommon experience. It is not one where a proxy vote would necessarily made a difference, but I share that because these are the types of experiences that people have when they are pregnant.
I know there will be so many other experiences like that that others have had, which is why a modern workplace ought to be able to accommodate and understand the types of things that people are going through. Of course it did not help that I inevitably received criticism from constituents for not having voted in that Division. I said that I was unwell, but that was not good enough and people still said that I should have been there. If someone has not announced she is pregnant, and in particular if she is worried about having a miscarriage, she really does not want to suddenly tell the world about it.
I hope that we will in future be able to extend this provision to other categories. My right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) has spoken movingly about his first time in Parliament when he was caring for his terminally ill first wife, and others have had similar experiences. In the future, bereavement and other circumstances should be covered, so that this place can be a genuinely modern Parliament.
Mr Speaker
It would help if colleagues could shorten their speeches somewhat, but I am guided by colleagues.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I will follow your advice to keep it brief, Mr Speaker. Indeed, this is not an obviously family-friendly time to have this short debate, although as the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) said, many a new mother may be awake doing an evening feed.
I support the motion. I know that women all around the Chamber have been waiting for this moment, to receive the reassurance that when their time comes to give birth, they will not have to worry about coming in to vote or about pairing arrangements. There will also be women watching this debate who will at some time in the future follow in our footsteps and want to know that Parliament is a family-friendly place to work, and that it is possible to come here and be a parent—a good parent. I am often asked by women thinking of standing for Parliament, “Does it work?” I say emphatically, “Yes. It does work to be a Member of Parliament and a mother, it does work to be a Member of Parliament and a father.”
I say that, but my children are a little bit older—they are six, eight and 10. I cannot imagine what it would be like having a baby as a Member of Parliament and thinking that you might have to go in to vote. Of course, as others have said, we have the pairing system, and that has worked well for many people, but it is not foolproof. It does leave you with a level of uncertainty and it also means you cannot represent your constituents in the way you would like. The time has come to move on, and we have the proxy voting proposals that have been worked through carefully so that we can have this pilot.
I, too, feel that the proposals do not go far enough. I would like to see us doing more for dads beyond the two-week period. I have spoken to colleagues who have come in to vote in the weeks that their wives were giving birth, not knowing whether they would be able to get back in time for the birth. I remember when I was in the three weeks leading up to my due date asking my husband not to travel for work, because you never know when the baby will come.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Just as a point of information, we should be mindful that there will be women who will be married to, or have partners who are, women so the impact will be not only on fathers, but on mothers whose wife or partner is giving birth.
Helen Whately
I completely agree, and in fact I was trying to make sure I used broad enough language.
We must make sure that we are thinking of dads and, in future, two weeks may prove not to be long enough. We must also think in the future about people who are seriously ill or have caring responsibilities for someone who is seriously ill. That is very much for the future. Let us get on with what we can do now. I fully support the introduction of proxy voting now.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
My baby was born on 14 April 2017, and four days later the Prime Minister made the announcement outside No. 10 that she was going ahead with a snap election, contrary to what she had said before Easter. Nothing can really legislate to prevent a general election from being called when someone is in that position, but we were perhaps overly optimistic about the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.
From July to December 2017, I was absent for the vast majority of votes in Parliament. I came in for a handful of votes, and I want to take the opportunity to put on record my thanks to both Whips Offices. There has been some airing of the problems that others have had in this debate, but some people are new to the party as I do not remember them taking part in the two debates and several urgent questions we have had. There is a bit of what-aboutery going on.
Let me be clear about why pairing is not enough. I want the right to have a baby and be able to represent my constituents. That is the simple answer. A second part of the answer is that some of us are suffering and have suffered reputational damage just for daring to have a baby and wanting to be a Member of this House. I was branded by a national newspaper as having the second-worst voting record in Parliament. I was not asked before the publication of the article why that might be the case, so I did not have a right to reply. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) was branded as one of Britain’s laziest MPs in one of the tabloids, although it did print an apology.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
The hon. Lady and I were on the same Select Committee. Does she believe that being on maternity leave ought to be recognised for those serving on a Select Committee? I, too, was attacked by people locally for looking as though I was missing when I was simply on maternity leave.
Emma Reynolds
We have to think about all these issues. I think the Leader of the House has made the right decision to pilot the scheme on the basis of the detailed recommendations of the Procedure Committee, but we do need to look at these issues. We were lucky, being on the same Select Committee. In a way we paired each other on many votes, but that was just a coincidence. We need to think about other roles in the House, but let us not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
For me, any system is better than pairing. For example, a proxy voting system that does not let me express an opinion on a Friday, when I probably would not be here anyway, is fine thank you very much. A proxy voting system that says if we vote on military intervention I would have to come in and I would not have a proxy vote on that occasion is also fine by me, thank you very much. Anything that is better than having my name trawled through the mud because I have been off for six months and nobody has asked me why is a move in the right direction. We have to iron out some of the difficulties in the pilot, which will take place for a year. I do not think for a minute that after the pilot this progress will be rolled back. I hope it will advance.
I would like to say something about the role of fathers. We have legislated in this Parliament for shared parental leave. The Procedure Committee looked at that in its recommendations. In the pilot, we are going to have six months for mothers and two weeks’ paternity leave for fathers. Once we have had this pilot, we should look at extending it. It is a crying shame that so few dads take up shared parental leave. If an hon. Member were to take that leave and set an example, it would send a very strong signal to dads out there that it is culturally and financially okay to do so. I know there are many barriers preventing dads from taking up leave. As an aside, I would like to thank my husband for taking shared parental leave early, so that he could help me to fight an election campaign. I also thank his employer for letting him do so at short notice. We made use of it and I urge other dads to do the same.
Finally, I would like to say huge thanks to you personally, Mr Speaker, for your commitment to this, to the Leader of the House, to the shadow Leader of the House, to the Chair of the Procedure Committee and all its members, to the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, and, above all, to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who pushed this issue when it was not a popular thing. People were saying, “What about this, what about that and what about the other?” My right hon. and learned Friend, the Mother of the House, with her characteristic determination, just went through with it and kept on going. She has brought so many people on board. Tonight, we are sending a strong signal to young women up and down the country that they can be an MP and combine that with being a parent, so please come and stand. Sending that strong signal is what tonight is all about.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I commend the Leader of the House and the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for pursuing this proposal. I also commend the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), who is not with us but will perhaps be the first gainer from it.
This proposal is overdue. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) who wants radical change quickly, I am an incremental reformer of the House because reform of the House has unexpected consequences. This proposal, however, is overdue. It is overdue because pairing is obsolete. As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) made plain, in today’s politics being absent is not good enough. Whatever the real reasons, the public will not forgive us for not being there, so it is absolutely necessary that we put this measure in place and keep it after the year is up. I have no doubt that that will be the outcome.
There will be issues, some of which my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) raised. His concerns are not always popular in the House, but some of them are real. Quorum will be a serious issue on Fridays and so on, so we must deal with that. I agree entirely with his amendment on miscarriage. That should go nem con, as it were. He raised the issues of serious illness, irrespective of who the Member is, of being a primary carer for somebody who is seriously ill, and of the death of a close relative. The public will see it as necessary that we address those issues to maintain the fairness of this proposal. It is important that, in the public eye, we maintain the view that this is a fair and sensible proposal. I say to the Leader of the House that, although there will be a one-year review, I hope we will look at those issues before the year is up.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Like my right hon. Friend, I strongly support these proposals. To support the immediate point he is making, two years ago today is the day that I went into hospital, and as some Members know, I was in a coma for 11 days, during which time I missed the Second Reading of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, which attracted the kind of criticism that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) referred to. Although it is difficult to know quite how I could have appointed a proxy in those circumstances, does my right hon. Friend agree that we must ensure that, when people are ruled out of participating in parliamentary affairs, they can still represent their constituents?
Mr Davis
My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is important, in this context, that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater—that is a terrible metaphor, now that I think about it. The simple truth is that we must retain our ability to do our job in a way that the public accept is fair, sensible and effective.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. Having three children, I fully support this move to help with maternity, but I want to make the case for people with relatives who are seriously ill or have died. At the moment, it is unbelievably stressful, because one has to wait to be with that person to see whether somebody on the other side of the House is also in the same boat so one can be paired.
Mr Davis
That is the last intervention that I will take, Mr Speaker, because I will finish in about 10 seconds.
This is a massively important issue and I hope we will carry it nem con tonight, but we must understand that this will not be the end of the reform. It will lead to a series of reforms that are right and proper for this House and will improve our Parliament.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. It is heartening that so many colleagues from both sides of the House have waited until 11 pm to participate in this important and historic conversation. There is a historical perspective on this. Members may not be aware that until 1868, according to “Erskine May”, Members had the opportunity to have a proxy vote in the House of Lords, and there were also proxies in our medieval Parliament, so in fact we are reinstating an age-old tradition.
To bring us back to the present day, it is just a few weeks until the arrival of my second child. A colleague said in jest that I am sitting here in self-interest. Let me be very clear that this change cannot come quickly enough for my constituents and for what we can and should be doing on behalf of the country.
If this motion does not pass tonight, I will continue to do what I did last time. When I had my first child, I came back to the House for some urgent votes. Colleagues might recall seeing me sitting in the Lobbies breastfeeding my baby when they were less than three or four months old. I did so until 11 pm one evening in the Tea Room. That is not the best environment for a new-born, although I would do it again if I had to. At this critical juncture for our country, it is important that no Member on either side of the House should have to make that choice and be here only for certain votes.
I echo the point that colleagues have made about the example we set. We legislate for maternity and paternity rights, and in 2019 we should be leading by example. The fact that we rely on an informal pairing system that depends on the Whips is not acceptable. I also echo the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds). I did an interview on television earlier, although I will not embarrass the presenter who made this just about mums. As has been said, this is not just about mothers; it is about dads, too, and I hope that after this year-long trial we can make further strides to extend it beyond the two-week paternity leave—important though that is—to cover shared parental leave. Having secured that in the House, we should be leading by example and having it here too.
In conclusion, I thank the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House, your good self, Mr Speaker, and the Procedure Committee for being impatient that this has taken so long. There have been steps on the way that have urged it along. We should not have to choose between our responsibilities as Members of Parliament and our responsibilities as parents. The two really can go hand in hand. If we are serious about making this a place that welcomes people of all ages and backgrounds and about encouraging people to consider standing for public office, and particularly if we are serious about addressing the gender imbalance we still see, this move will make a really big difference. I hope the House supports it tonight.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
As Government Chief Whip, I had responsibility for managing the pairing system, so it is a matter of some regret to me to listen to the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), as I have done previously, and talk about her experiences and how she and other Members lost confidence in the pairing system. I would rather that confidence had been regained, but given that it has clearly not been, these proposals are welcome and I support them. I also welcome what the hon. Lady and others said about extending the provisions to cover shared parental leave. We have legislated for that arrangement for those outside the House; it seems to me that, if we are making provision inside the House, we should do so on that basis.
My final point is a note of caution. Perhaps this is to be built into the review mechanism, but transparency cuts both ways. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) said about the criticism she received for not appearing to be doing her job when she was quite properly absent from the House, but I would caution that pairing can sometimes be valuable in allowing Members to be absent for reasons they do not wish to be transparent about. I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) explaining his absences. If a Member is ill, they may wish to be transparent about it, but often Members cannot be here because of family circumstances—children, parents or other family members—and we should be conscious of the need to enable them to be absent in a way that does not force either them or their family members to put into the public domain the reasons for their absence.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
It is important to stress that no one has to take a proxy vote; it will always be voluntary, and Members could continue with the pairing system. Like other Members, when I was on maternity leave, the campaigning group 38 Degrees emailed my constituents and said, “Where was Rachel Reeves?” The answer was I was on maternity leave with a very young baby, but it did not bother to check its facts. Many of my constituents thought I had just not bothered to turn up.
Mr Harper
The hon. Lady’s experience just confirms what I have thought for many years about 38 Degrees and the way it campaigns against Members. I have always found that robust pushback and setting out the facts to my constituents have been very helpful. I take her point seriously. I would caution only that as we look at the results of the pilot, we should bear in mind that there are many circumstances in which colleagues may need to be absent, sometimes for reasons that they do not wish to share, and that no one in any other workplace would ever have to make public. I want us to ensure that we do not implement a system that makes it more difficult for people to keep private things that should remain private.
Just in practical terms, if the pairing system is to work, we need enough colleagues who are not here to be available to pair with. The hon. Lady was right to say that no one would be forced to use the proxy voting system, but if we end up with proxy voting it will become increasingly difficult for pairing to proceed, and colleagues may therefore find that they are forced to use the system in circumstances where they do not wish to draw attention to the fact that they are not able to be here. That is the only cautionary note that I wanted to add to the debate. I am very supportive of the specific proposals.
Mr Speaker
Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Bury North, I must emphasise that I want the Leader of the House to have the chance to wind up the debate no later than 11.14 pm.
James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
I am delighted to add my voice to the call for proxy voting. Just two months into my new job as a Member of Parliament, my wife gave birth to our fourth child, Bobby. As a relatively new MP and a modern dad, I expected a modern Parliament, but, 36 hours after our son’s arrival, I had to be here on a heavy three-line whip. My wife and I were in the delivery ward facing an early inducement, as Nikki had a high-risk pregnancy and gestational diabetes. The knowledge that that process would last for days and would quite possibly clash with the vote, and my need to be present for both, brought an edge to the room that was frankly unhealthy. The fact that such a dilemma reached the delivery suite demonstrates, I hope, what an inflexible parliamentary process we have, and why this place must change.
Last night, over dinner, in anticipation of my speech this evening, my wife admitted that she had had a cry with the midwife about it. It seems that without modernisation, our fundamental role as MPs serving our towns must be pitted against our fundamental role in life as husband, wife, mum or dad. Parliament is steeped in tradition, but at times it seems impossible to move. We cannot deny the force of the arrival of life, thank goodness, although I suspect that otherwise some might try.
A work-life balance is an important attribute for every workplace, including Parliament, and that should include remote or proxy voting in special circumstances. The issue is raised in “New Brooms”, a book produced by the Fabian Society, which includes contributions on reform from 10 of my Labour colleagues from the 2017 intake. Tonight marks an important step as we think about how to implement ideas for reforms that speak to the country—as my colleagues have said—and strengthen our democracy, make Parliament more effective for those whom we are sent to represent, and make our place of work resemble those that the people we represent would recognise.
The urgency of the need for reform has never been starker than in recent times, with a minority Government, knife-edge votes and a breakdown in some of the traditional agreements such as pairing. There is too much process and not enough product here. Daily life for the many will not improve while we shuffle about with such reforms. This place needs to be better and work better for those whose lives we are here to make better, and so to be best for our towns and country. Proxy voting can be the first through the gate in the next generation of reforms to this Parliament, and I give it my full support—as a dad.
Andrea Leadsom
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Bury North (James Frith). What a fantastic way to end our debate: a speech about the importance of dads. Sometimes there is something on which we can all agree, and the importance of dads is one of them.
I share the pleasure of many Members at the fact that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) will—we hope—be able to use the first proxy vote tomorrow. It may be the first time since the 19th century, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) mentioned, but it certainly will not be the last. This is fantastic news for Parliament, and it is something that we can all get behind in our attempts to make ours a modern workplace to which more people from more diverse backgrounds, of different ages and at different stages in their lives, will feel proud to come to represent their constituents.
I hope that all Members will support these motions, and prove that when we really get together we can do great things.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House:—
(1) reaffirms its resolution of 1 February 2018 on baby leave for Members of Parliament;
(2) endorses the Fifth Report of the Procedure Committee, HC 825, on Proxy voting and parental absence;
(3) accordingly directs the Speaker to prepare a pilot scheme governing the operation of proxy voting for Members absent from the House by reason of childbirth or care of an infant or newly adopted child, pursuant to the recommendations in the Committee’s report, this resolution and the temporary Standing Order (Voting by proxy for parental absence);
(4) directs that a scheme prepared in accordance with this resolution and the temporary Standing Order (Voting by proxy for parental absence) shall be signed by the Speaker and the leaders of the three largest parties in the House before it is published, and that it shall enter into effect for a period of 12 months when the Speaker takes the chair on the sitting day after the day of publication;
(5) directs that any amendment of a scheme in effect by virtue of paragraph (4) above shall take effect when the Speaker takes the Chair on the sitting day after a proposal signed by the Speaker and the leaders of the three largest parties in the House is published; and
(6) directs the Procedure Committee to review proxy voting arrangements within 12 months of the commencement of a scheme established by virtue of this order.—(Andrea Leadsom.)
Proxy Voting (Temporary Standing Order)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
Voting by proxy for parental absence (Temporary Standing Order)
(1) A Member may, by reason of absence from the precincts of the House for childbirth or care of an infant or newly adopted child, arrange for their vote to be cast in accordance with this order by another Member acting as a proxy (a proxy vote).
(2) A proxy vote may be cast:
(a) in a division in the House, in Committee of the whole House, or in any legislative grand committee, in relation to the business specified in paragraph (3) below;
(b) on business specified in paragraph (3) below recorded in a division under Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions), and
(c) in a ballot cast in an election under Standing Order No. 1B (Election of Speaker by secret ballot), Standing Order No. 2A (Election of the Deputy Speakers) and Standing Order No. 122B (Election of select committee chairs).
(3) Subject to paragraph (4) below, a proxy vote may be cast on all public and private business of the House.
(4) No proxy vote shall be cast in a division on any motion in the form specified in section 2(2) of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.
(5) No proxy vote shall be reckoned in the numbers participating in a division for the purposes of (a) Standing Order No. 41(1) (Quorum), and (b) Standing Order No. 37 (Majority for closure or for proposal of question).
(6) A proxy vote may be cast only if the Speaker has certified that the Member for whom the vote is to be cast is eligible under the terms of this order and the Resolution of the House of Monday 28 January and if that certificate, including the name of the Member nominated as a proxy, has been published in the Votes and Proceedings.
(7) A vote cast by a proxy shall be clearly indicated as such in the division lists published under the authority of the House.
(8) This Standing Order shall lapse upon the expiry of the proxy voting scheme established under the terms of this order and the Resolution of the House of Monday 28 January.—(Andrea Leadsom.)
Amendment made: (d), after paragraph (7) insert:
“(7A) The Speaker may also make provision for the exercise of a proxy vote for Members who have suffered a miscarriage.”—(Philip Davies.)
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Ordered,
Voting by proxy for parental absence (Temporary Standing Order)
(1) A Member may, by reason of absence from the precincts of the House for childbirth or care of an infant or newly adopted child, arrange for their vote to be cast in accordance with this order by another Member acting as a proxy (a proxy vote).
(2) A proxy vote may be cast:
(a) in a division in the House, in Committee of the whole House, or in any legislative grand committee, in relation to the business specified in paragraph (3) below;
(b) on business specified in paragraph (3) below recorded in a division under Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions), and
(c) in a ballot cast in an election under Standing Order No. 1B (Election of Speaker by secret ballot), Standing Order No. 2A (Election of the Deputy Speakers) and Standing Order No. 122B (Election of select committee chairs).
(3) Subject to paragraph (4) below, a proxy vote may be cast on all public and private business of the House.
(4) No proxy vote shall be cast in a division on any motion in the form specified in section 2(2) of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.
(5) No proxy vote shall be reckoned in the numbers participating in a division for the purposes of (a) Standing Order No. 41(1) (Quorum), and (b) Standing Order No. 37 (Majority for closure or for proposal of question).
(6) A proxy vote may be cast only if the Speaker has certified that the Member for whom the vote is to be cast is eligible under the terms of this order and the Resolution of the House of Monday 28 January and if that certificate, including the name of the Member nominated as a proxy, has been published in the Votes and Proceedings.
(7) A vote cast by a proxy shall be clearly indicated as such in the division lists published under the authority of the House.
(7A) The Speaker may also make provision for the exercise of a proxy vote for Members who have suffered a miscarriage.
(8) This Standing Order shall lapse upon the expiry of the proxy voting scheme established under the terms of this order and the Resolution of the House of Monday 28 January.
Mr Speaker
The Leader of the House signalled this, but for the avoidance of doubt and the sake of clarity, following the decision of the House on motions 6 and 7, as amended, I wish to make a brief statement.
As has already been alluded to during the debate, the pilot scheme that I am directed to prepare has been signed by myself, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the parliamentary leader of the Scottish National party. The scheme, colleagues, will be published this evening and will therefore indeed have effect from tomorrow.
I also confirm that I expect my first certificate of eligibility to be published in the Votes and Proceedings for today, enabling a proxy vote to be cast tomorrow.
Business without Debate
School Exclusions and Youth Violence
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to bring this extremely important debate to the House. As I hope that the Minister and other hon. Members are aware, I am chair of the cross-party Youth Violence Commission. I established the commission in 2016 as a response to an alarming increase in deaths among young people in my constituency, in London and across the country. We published our initial policy recommendations in July 2018.
I have called many times in the House for the development of a public health policy to tackle violence, and I was pleased that the Government and the Mayor of London committed to that approach at the end of last year. The commission is now working hard to ensure that those words turn into action, and I am pleased that the Mayor of London has established a violence reduction unit similar to that adopted in Scotland to develop this approach. I am still waiting to see what the Government are doing. As part of its ongoing work, the commission is starting to flesh out some of its individual policy recommendations. I would like to use the debate to focus on recommendation No. 4 from our report, which is about boosting support in schools. More specifically, I will be examining the relationship between exclusions and violence, and the role of pupil referral units and alternative provision.
This is in no way intended to be an anti-PRU debate. During my time with the commission, I have seen some brilliantly run PRUs that achieve great outcomes for many of their students. However, I believe that we need a radical re-think of how funding is organised so that we can prevent the need for PRUs in the first place.
I hope that the Minister has had time to read the commission’s report for himself, as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) clearly had when she responded to my Adjournment debate on the role of youth services in tackling violence. I was pleased to see in today’s press that she continues to stand up for vulnerable young people by criticising her Government’s delay in introducing a law to make it illegal for sports coaches to have sexual relations with 16 and 17-year-olds in their care.
The number of pupils being permanently excluded from schools is on the rise. Between 2012-13 and 2016-17, the number increased by 67%. Referrals to children’s services when gangs are identified as a factor at assessment rose by 26% between 2015-16 and 2016-17. During the same period, hospital admissions for under-18s who had been assaulted with a sharp object rose by 20%.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Lady has brought an important issue to the House for consideration. The stats show that 72% of parents think that when their child is excluded from school they are at risk from youth violence. This suggests that there is real concern among parents about the problems that follow exclusion from school. Does the hon. Lady agree that that concern must be addressed to ensure that there is life and a place to go after exclusion?
Vicky Foxcroft
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Therein lies one of our problems: when kids are seen to be excluded, they are not only excluded from school; they can sometimes feel like they are absolutely excluded from society as well.
To go back to my point about figures and statistics, I believe that this is incredibly concerning, particularly given that the Government’s own serious violence strategy recognises school exclusions as one of the risk factors for involvement in serious violence.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing the debate and her generosity in giving way. Analysis was done of 60 serious cases of youth violence in Croydon, and in every case, that child was outside mainstream school. We also have in Croydon a situation that is mirrored elsewhere: some schools seem to exclude huge numbers while others tend not to exclude at all. The disparity makes it clear that something has gone wrong, so does my hon. Friend agree that we need to consider what Ofsted and other organisations can do to try to stop so many exclusions happening in certain schools?
Vicky Foxcroft
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. The work in Croydon has been fantastic at identifying the need to follow the evidence, and the evidence clearly points to the link between school exclusions and youth violence. It is important that we continue always to follow the evidence.
I know of 10 young people in my constituency who have been killed as a result of youth violence since I was elected in 2015, and we know about those cases only because they have been reported in the press or the families have contacted me. It should not come as a surprise to Members that certain groups of children are more likely to be excluded and end up in alternative provision settings. According to the Institute for Public Policy Research’s 2017 report “Making the Difference: Breaking the Link Between School Exclusion and Social Exclusion”, excluded pupils are many times more likely to come from a vulnerable background compared with the general student population in England. They are 10 times more likely to suffer from mental health problems, seven times more likely to have a special educational need, four times more likely to qualify for free school meals, and twice as likely to be in the care of the state.
What about the outcomes for those young people? The commission’s research has shown that it is difficult to separate out pupil referral units from data on all alternative provision settings, which include those that provide education for children who cannot attend a mainstream school for other reasons. However, the data that we do have makes for depressing reading. In 2016-17, only 4.5% of children educated in alternative provision settings achieved a 9-to-4 pass—an A to C in old money—in GCSE English and maths. By comparison, of the mainstream school population in England, 72.4% achieved a pass in English literature and 70.7% in maths.
Reintegration into mainstream education may also be used as a measure of success. However, the Education Committee’s 2018 report “Forgotten children: alternative provision and the scandal of ever increasing exclusions” suggests that it
“is often not a possible outcome for pupils, with some schools being reluctant to reintegrate pupils.”
Although some PRUs provide support for pupils who are reintegrated, that does not apply across the board. When pupils are reintegrated without such support, schools can struggle to keep them in school, and they are likely to return to alternative provision. Once they leave the pupil referral unit, the picture remains bleak.
A 2012 Ministry of Justice study found that 42% of prisoners reported having been permanently excluded from school, with the figure rising to 63% for temporary exclusions. That provides a stark contrast when compared with the less than 1% of the general population in England who end up in prison. The same Education Committee report found that 94% of year 11 pupils from a mainstream or special school go on to sustained education or an employment or training destination, compared with 57% from alternative provision. That has had the knock-on effect that pupils from alternative provision face limited choices when they leave education.
Of course, it is not inevitable that pupils who have been excluded will go on to become involved in serious violence and crime. However, we cannot ignore the link between school exclusion and social exclusion. Once children and young people are permanently excluded, it is difficult for them to re-enter mainstream education. That means that they are more vulnerable to grooming by criminals and to becoming the victims or perpetrators of violent crime.
What are pupil referral units costing us? The answer is not entirely straightforward. Each place receives £10,000 of central Government funding, but that is topped up by local authorities to varying degrees, depending on each individual’s need. In answer to a written question, the Department for Education told me that it estimates the average per-pupil cost of alternative provision, including PRUs, to be £17,000 nationally. By way of example, the average cost of a place at Abbey Manor College, the PRU local to my constituency, is £18,000, which is £1,000 a year more than the average cost of a place at a private school in 2018, and almost three times the cost of a state secondary school place in the same year.
As part of our research, the Youth Violence Commission held five evidence sessions. At the third of these we heard from experts, teachers, practitioners and, most importantly, young people themselves about the vital role that education can play in the prevention of youth violence, but what shape should that role take? Our interim report made five recommendations in this area. The first, and perhaps the most important, was for a long-term aspiration of zero expulsions from mainstream education and a reallocation of funding away from PRUs towards support and earlier intervention in mainstream schools. In order to achieve that, schools must be properly incentivised to keep pupils on their books.
The launch of Ofsted’s consultation on its new framework for the inspection of schools and colleges offers some hope that things may be starting to move in the right direction. The proposals aim to address concerns that education has become too narrowly focused on exam results, and schools that push out less able children—a practice known as off-rolling—could now risk being punished by inspectors. However, it is clear that a great deal remains to be done if we are to achieve this necessary shift in focus.
The Youth Violence Commission’s report also recommends an overhaul of the way in which careers advice is delivered in schools to ensure greater inclusion, greater emphasis on high-quality sex and relationships education, and better integration of support services such as school nurses, social workers and mental health professionals.
Once we had our recommendations, we needed to test them on the professionals. Earlier this month I met representatives from five teaching unions. I have to admit that I had expected some push-back against the commission’s recommendations. Teaching, as we all know, is already a demanding and stressful job, and I feared that the unions would view the recommendations as putting more pressure on their already overworked members. Well, I am pleased to report that I could not have been more wrong. I learned that there is huge appetite and enthusiasm for teachers to be able to do more to help vulnerable pupils. However, they simply lack the time and resources.
Four main strands came out of our discussion, the first of which is that we need to learn from what worked in the past. In 2002, the Labour Government set up the behaviour improvement programme as part of their street crime initiative. The programme targeted 34 local authorities that had some of the highest crime rates, and worked with two to four secondary schools in each area and their feeder primaries. The programme’s behaviour and education support teams provided a full range of specialist support to vulnerable pupils.
The same Government’s “Every Child Matters: Change for Children” agenda was launched in 2003 to promote the wellbeing of children and young people. Ministers wanted to ensure that every child had the support that he or she needed to stay healthy, to be safe, to achieve economically, to make a positive contribution to society and to enjoy life. That is not unreasonable, as I am sure the Minister would agree.
Healthcare practitioners, social workers, early years practitioners and other agencies shared information about vulnerable children. The child was central to their plans, and partners regularly worked with them in an attempt to achieve the best possible outcomes. Sadly, the coalition Government brought those programmes to an end in 2010.
Secondly, the union representatives suggested that pupil referral units should play a greater part in early intervention and prevention. In the past, PRUs engaged in inreach work with mainstream schools to try to prevent exclusions from happening in the first place. Unfortunately, that is no longer happening due to funding cuts, which mean that PRUs are able to perform only their statutory minimum duty.
I made an intervention on last week’s Adjournment debate secured by the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) on funding for pupil referral units to raise this point about funding for inreach work. Although the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), went some way towards addressing it, I hope that the Minister for School Standards might be able to give a fuller response today.
The third point that came out of the consultation meeting was the need for inclusive accountability. It was suggested that schools should be held accountable for every student who walks through their doors in year 7. Although that might cause some problems with schools refusing to take perceived “problem” pupils in the first place, it would address the problem of off-rolling in GCSE years in an attempt to improve results. This clearly links with the proposed changes to the Ofsted framework I mentioned. Finally, the unions highlighted the need to build resilience in young teachers, especially regarding how to cope with behavioural issues and violence. Behaviour management should be a higher priority in teacher training programmes. At present, trainees are given inadequate guidance on how to support and manage behaviour.
In conclusion, I am asking the Department to consider conducting a fundamental review of how funding for alternative provision is best spent. As I stated earlier, the Youth Violence Commission’s findings ultimately point towards achieving zero exclusions, but we note that this is a long-term goal and that smaller steps need to be achieved along the way. Primary school teachers frequently tell me that they can identify which of their pupils are likely to be involved in future violence. The current system is failing too many of those children and simply has to change.
I will finish with a few words from one of the young people who attended our evidence session:
“I didn’t get a lot of support at school. I just got moved from place to place and I didn’t have a mentor to be able to talk about my problems with. I basically grew up in prison—I went when I was 15.”
I hope that the Minister agrees that that is categorically not the outcome we want for our vulnerable young people and that he will be able to address some of the points I have raised.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) on securing this debate and on her speech, and I pay tribute to her for her work as chair of the Youth Violence Commission.
Over the past year, too many young people have lost their lives as a result of violence, including 14-year-old Jaden Moodie just a few weeks ago. Tackling this issue is a priority, and we know the impact of these tragic incidents is devastating for both the families and friends of those concerned. This is not a matter that can be tackled in isolation, which is why the Serious Violence Taskforce was established by the Government in April 2018. Chaired by the Home Secretary, it brings together cross-party MPs, police leaders, local government and the voluntary sector with the aim of ensuring that sustained and decisive action is taken against violent crime.
The Government’s serious violence strategy, published in April 2018, signals a step change in the Government’s approach. It is focused not solely on law enforcement, important as that is, but on a multi-agency approach across a number of sectors, such as education, health and social services. Early intervention and prevention are at the core of the strategy, which is why the Home Office has established the early intervention youth fund. Through the fund, 29 local projects in England and Wales have been awarded a total of £17.7 million over two years to divert children and young people away from violent crime.
Schools play an important role in the safeguarding of pupils. Schools and colleges, including alternative provision, to which the hon. Lady referred, have a statutory obligation to safeguard and promote the welfare of their pupils. The Department has clear guidance in “Keeping children safe in education” and “Working together to safeguard children”. They set out what schools and colleges should and must do to implement their obligations, and how agencies should work together to ensure the welfare of children. The Department has worked with the Home Office, the police, Ofsted and the Health and Safety Executive to produce new school security guidance, which makes explicit reference to the serious issue of knife crime. We have also created a resource for teachers, so they can raise awareness about the dangers of knife crime among young people. This complements the national knife crime media campaign that has been launched, #knifefree, to raise awareness of the consequences of knife crime.
Equally crucial in safeguarding children and young people is the role of social care. Evidence from joint targeted area inspections of local authorities, health and police has shown that children who have grown up neglected are vulnerable to exploitation as adolescents. That is why the Department is improving the quality of children’s social care services, including through an £84 million investment in strengthening families and protecting children, as well as establishing a new national response unit to help local authorities to support vulnerable children at risk of criminal and sexual exploitation, including through county lines and other forms of gang involvement and sexual exploitation.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) on securing this Adjournment debate and on the tireless work that she has put into driving forward the work of the youth violence commission. Does my hon. Friend agree that education, local government and health all have a part to play in diverting young people away from serious violence, and that although the Ministry of Justice makes the savings when we divert young people from prison and criminality, we should look into some way to recycle the savings back into those areas of Government upstream of the problem, so that we can keep young people safe and out of trouble?
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is why the taskforce was established in the first place: to make sure that we were not operating in silos and that those sorts of funding issues did not prevent the action that we know needs to be taken.
Children who need help and protection from social care—those with a social worker—not only lack safety and stability but often have very poor educational outcomes, including being more likely to be excluded than other pupils. The children in need review aims to understand what works to help those vulnerable children to reach their potential.
Let me move on to the important issue of pupil behaviour and the related matter of school exclusions. The Government are committed to ensuring that all teachers are equipped with the skills to tackle the serious behavioural issues that compromise the safety and wellbeing of pupils and school staff, as well as the low-level disruption that too often gets in the way of effective teaching. It is vital that all schools are safe and disciplined environments. There is more to be done, though, which is why the Government are investing £10 million to create behaviour hubs to facilitate the sharing of best practice in classroom and behaviour management. We have also strengthened teachers’ powers to discipline pupils. Teachers can now take action on poor behaviour that takes place outside of school. We have also clarified teachers’ powers to use reasonable force, they have stronger powers to search pupils for items that could be used to cause harm or break the law, and they can now issue same-day detentions.
Parents also have a fundamental role to play and are often well placed to support schools with the early identification of any problems that may be influencing a child’s behaviour. The special educational needs and disability code of practice, for example, sets out that schools should work with parents to identify any underlying problems that might be related to behavioural issues. Any form of violence in schools is unacceptable. Schools’ behaviour policies should set out how poor behaviour, including incidents of violence, are dealt with. Should the incident constitute a criminal offence, the school should of course report it to the police.
All children have the right to a school environment that is safe and conducive to education, and the Government and I fully support headteachers in the use of exclusion where it is warranted. Exclusion on any grounds other than behaviour is unlawful, but it is for the headteacher to take the decision based on the evidence available and the need to balance the interests of the excluded pupil against those of the whole school community. There has been in recent media coverage some misinformed conflation of fixed-term exclusions with permanent exclusions. The statutory guidance on exclusions makes it clear that, in all cases, a decision to permanently exclude a pupil should be taken only in response to a serious breach or persistent breaches of a school’s behaviour policy, and if allowing the pupil to remain in school would seriously harm the education or welfare of others in the school. But exclusion from school must not mean exclusion from education. When a child is excluded, suitable full-time education has to be arranged from the sixth school day of exclusion.
There are differences in exclusion rates between schools, between different local authority areas of the country, and between pupils with different characteristics, despite all state-funded schools in England operating under the same exclusions framework. That is why last spring the Government launched an externally led review of exclusions practice, led by our former colleague Edward Timpson, which is due to be published shortly. This will examine the factors that drive those differences, and also explore and evaluate best practice for those where the disparities are less significant.
Regarding the potential links between exclusions and crime, which the hon. Lady mentioned in her opening remarks, it is correct that children who have been excluded from school are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system. A recent study found that 23% of young offenders sentenced in 2014 to less than 12 months in custody had been permanently excluded from school prior to their sentence date. However, while there is some correlation between exclusion and crime, we do not have evidence to suggest a causal link. What we do know is that there are children who face difficult circumstances, where complex and multiple vulnerabilities can damage their outcomes, falling behind others from the early years onwards. Of pupils in 2016-17, approximately one in 10 needed a social worker over the previous six years. Of these, 35% also had special educational needs, 42% also claimed free school meals, and 17% faced all three disadvantages. The compounding impact of these children’s vulnerability on their educational outcomes can be entrenched by poor experiences in education, including exclusion.
The Ministry of Justice did publish some analysis last June that looked at the educational background of young offenders who had committed a knife offence, and it was not possible to identify whether there is an association between exclusions and knife possession offending. Although a higher proportion of offenders had been persistently absent or excluded from school, only a very small proportion committed the knife possession offence shortly after being excluded from school. Around 74% of offenders committed the offence more than one year after being permanently excluded.
As I have said, exclusion from school must not mean exclusion from education. Alternative provision is the system that is in place to educate those pupils who are unable to attend mainstream school. This could be for a variety of reasons, be they behavioural or following on from exclusion. There are some excellent examples of alternative provision that not only have high standards for behaviour, progress and attainment, but have strong interventions in place to support their pupils at risk of involvement in crime. For example, London East AP —LEAP—has an ethos of high expectations on pupils’ results, outcomes and behaviour. It does not accept an excuse culture among staff and pupils. That type of alternative provision is not necessarily widespread across the country, and we are determined to make sure that every alternative provision setting is as good as the best in the country and that the best practice is shared. That is why we are taking forward an ambitious programme of reform of the AP system over the coming months and years, which we believe will deliver sustained improvement.
As we set out in our vision document published last March, our objective is to make sure that the right children are placed in the right alternative provision, that they receive a high-quality education and that they achieve meaningful outcomes after leaving alternative provision.
In conclusion, I want to assure the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford that this Government are determined to do everything they can to break the deadly cycle of violence that devastates the lives of individuals, families and communities. In doing this, it is vital to develop a truly effective, multi-agency approach to tackle the root causes of violence. We must continue to work together, so that every young person is safe and free to fulfil their potential, away from violence.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Storage of Carbon Dioxide (Amendment and Power to Modify) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
(5 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Storage of Carbon Dioxide (Amendment and Power to Modify) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone.
I will first give the Committee a bit of background. As we approach EU exit, my Department is working extremely hard to ensure that our energy and climate change legislation continues to function effectively after exit day. The draft statutory instrument would be in place whether there was a deal or no deal. The best way to show its importance is to draw the Committee’s attention to paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 of the explanatory memorandum. To save everyone the trouble of looking, they essentially say that we want the Government to have the option to deploy carbon capture, usage and storage—CCUS—at scale during the 2030s, subject to the usual caveats about cost. We need to ensure that the regulatory regime for the geological storage of CO2 remains functional following our withdrawal from the EU. Without the statutory instrument, we would not have an adequately functioning licensing regime, as outlined in paragraphs 7.2 to 7.5 of the explanatory memorandum, and that would prevent projects in areas where the Storage of Carbon Dioxide (Licensing etc.) Regulations 2010 apply from proceeding.
There is now broad international consensus that CCUS is vital in helping to keep increases in temperature at or below 2°. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has set out many estimates that will help us with that, including the view that it could be up to 140% more expensive to meet the 2° target without CCS—an additional $12 trillion. In our clean growth strategy and last November’s CCUS action plan, we have set out a desire to rapidly progress CCUS and have a scaled deployment by the mid-2020s, with the option to deploy more extensively into the 2030s, but we must have a functional regime for the storage of CO2 to ensure that the deployment is adequately met. It is of note that our aquifers, primarily those offshore, are considered to be among the most structurally sound and accessible for CO2 storage in the world, so it is hugely important to get this right.
In 2009, the EU introduced the CCS directive, which established the first legal framework for the environmentally safe geological storage of CO2. We implemented those requirements in the Energy Act 2008 and in subsequent regulations, and the draft SI will mean that that framework can continue to function when we leave the EU.
I will make three brief points about the details of the draft SI. First, it corrects references to the UK as a member state and removes obligations to consult with the European Commission, ensuring that we can continue to issue licences and permits as a sovereign nation. Secondly, it gives the Secretary of State a new power to update technical requirements relating to storage site characterisation and monitoring in the light of technological or scientific progress. The power can only be used to reflect such progress, but it is an equivalent power to that currently held under the CCS directive. Thirdly, the draft statutory instrument will ensure that there continue to be robust monitoring and safety standards for CO2 stores, consistent with current legislation.
The draft SI applies amendments in respect of devolved matters to varying degrees, but the Committee will be pleased to know that we have sought and received formal consent from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to introduce the regulations. We have, of course, consulted extensively with the Oil and Gas Authority, as both our licence-granting and permitting body and our regulator.
The amendments in the draft regulations will have no adverse impacts on and place no additional burdens on existing CCUS projects, including Project Acorn, which we have been pleased to co-fund and which was recently awarded a CO2 licence by the Oil and Gas Authority. The changes will ensure that the UK continues to have a robust, effective and safe regulatory regime for storing CO2, which is a vital component of supporting the progress of CCUS in the UK.
I will not detain the Committee by talking about why CCUS is so important and why the UK is in the lead in advancing this technology, but it was striking at the excellent global conference that we co-organised with the International Energy Agency in Edinburgh last November that we had possibly the most senior array of CEOs, Energy Ministers and general commentators involved, who welcomed the fact that we were driving it forward.
To conclude, we are committed to supporting the development of CCUS, but to do that we must have a fully functioning regime for the safe and permanent storage of CO2 in the UK when we exit the EU and become a sovereign nation. The amendments proposed in this SI provide for just that. I therefore commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I cannot resist commenting on the interesting circumstances: with the extension of SIs, we are going into different Committee Rooms, and I am used to having a rather closer relationship with the Opposition Front Bench than I have this afternoon.
Dr Whitehead
Sorry, with the Government Front Bench—the Minister usually has a closer relationship with the Opposition Front Bench. That does not mean, of course, that we shall be particularly far away from each other on the proposals in the SI this afternoon.
Essentially, the SI transposes three sets of regulations that underpin different aspects of the UK’s regime for carbon dioxide storage, including the regulations that should be adhered to, the circumstances of termination of licences that should be adhered to and the access for infrastructure. Those matters are contained in different sets of regulations, all of which stem from the EU carbon capture and storage directive. Obviously, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, we would not be a member state as defined by the directive. Therefore, it is necessary to secure the effect of those regulations without referring to our being a member state. As the Minister said, it is very important that we do maintain the effect of the regulations.
I would like the Minister to confirm that in her opinion—this is certainly my opinion—the changes made in today’s SI merely serve that purpose and do not do anything to the substance of those three SIs. My understanding is that their substance remains exactly as it was.
Claire Perry
I am very happy to clarify that the hon. Gentleman’s understanding is correct: this is simply a transposition exercise.
Dr Whitehead
I suppose that I could be a little curmudgeonly by saying that it would be rather nice if we had some carbon capture and storage to put into those regulations. We do not at the moment, so in a sense nothing will actually change with the regulations coming on stream, inasmuch as there is nothing that will be regulated or licensed, or indeed terminated, by the transposition of the regulations. I hear what the Minister says about the intentions for carbon capture and storage in the future. I hope that it will indeed proceed rapidly, after its previous setbacks, and that the regulations will be necessary sooner rather than later.
I do not have any particular cavils or quibbles with either the intention or the practice of what is being done today. Indeed, I very much support the idea that we must have a good, solid carbon dioxide storage licensing and regulation regime. That is what there has been previously and what there should be in the future. The draft regulations will ensure that that is the case, so I am very happy to inform the Committee not only that we do not wish to divide the Committee, but that we support these changes.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone.
Obviously, the SNP supports carbon capture and storage, and likewise we will not seek a Division. We are still a wee bit bitter about the £1 billion that has been pulled, but it is good that the Government say they want to be a global leader in the field. The Minister mentioned an action plan, but can she confirm that there is a clear pathway, in terms of Government funding and a programme, to reach that large scale by 2030?
The Minister said in response to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, that the regulations do not make any change of substance. Perhaps it is just the way it is written, but will she clarify something in paragraphs 2.1 and 7.2 of the explanatory memorandum? It states that the instrument
“addresses failures of retained EU law to operate effectively”.
Does that relate just to the need to incorporate EU law into UK law, or have the Government identified deficiencies that the draft regulations will rectify? If so, what are they?
With respect to Brexit, is there any cross-collaboration and research across the EU that could be put at risk?
Claire Perry
I shall try to answer some of those questions. It is a delight that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, who is always scrupulous in his scrutiny of every SI, can find no reason to detain or divide the Committee. It must be worth proceeding with this matter on a cross-party basis.
The hon. Gentleman, like the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun who represents the SNP, made a point about action. I think it is fair to say that we have accelerated our actions substantially in the past year in a way that does not overburden taxpayers or, indeed, consumers with extremely high costs for the deployment of the technology. In fact, we have tried to set out targeted amounts of funding. I announced £45 million of innovation funding at the conference in Edinburgh, and we have had high-quality bids to the extent that we are considering increasing that funding pool. We have been setting out clearly how we want to go forward and deploy at scale on an individual site basis. That has been the target of the £170 million of industrial decarbonisation money that we set out through the industrial strategy, which essentially requires CCUS to be fundamentally in that mix.
That has been the real acceleration. It is not just a matter of thinking about CCUS as part of the decarbonisation of power generation, because of course people say, “Well, just find more renewables.” It is about embedding it in the decarbonisation of industrial activity, which is so much more difficult to do. We look forward to seeing the bids that come forward for that funding.
It is also worth pointing out that there are only 22 at-scale CCS plants operating globally. Sixteen of them rely on the CO2 that is extracted for enhanced oil recovery, which does not feel like a carbon reduction process to me. It is striking that very few Governments have been able to deploy it at scale, including our good friends in Norway, because it has been perceived to be too expensive and just about the decarbonisation of energy. However, I am struck by the quality of the projects we have coming forward, including Pale Blue Dot Energy’s Acorn project, which is starting to look at decarbonisation on a cluster basis.
Of course it is not just domestic action that we are taking forward. We are a lead partner in the Mission Innovation taskforce, which is looking at CCUS on a global scale, and we are the largest donor of overseas development assistance to global CCUS projects. We are trying to put our money where our mouth is and to focus on this technology.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun queried the deficiencies referred to in the explanatory memorandum, but they are not deficiencies in the current drafting of the law. The deficiencies will arise, for example, through the reference to the UK as a member state on our exit from the EU. The intention is that the existing regulations can continue to apply as intended. As the hon. Member for Southampton, Test said, the SI essentially transposes the existing regulations to allow us to maintain the relevant regulations on exit day.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Environment (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Environment (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Mr Hosie, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. This is the first of the affirmative statutory instruments concerning the environment to be considered before the UK leaves the European Union, following the result of the 2016 referendum and Parliament’s subsequent agreement.
In line with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the draft regulations simply make technical, legal amendments to maintain the effectiveness and continuity of UK legislation that would otherwise be left partially inoperable, so that the law continues to function as it does today following our exit from the EU. The draft regulations will also prevent the automatic incorporation of EU legislation into our national law where that would be inappropriate. This SI, like others, is quite lengthy and makes many adjustments, but I assure the Committee that it represents no changes to policy and will have no impact on businesses or the public, although I draw Members’ attention to two voluntary EU schemes on eco-labelling and environmental management.
The draft regulations do four main things. Part 2 amends three cross-cutting environmental Acts. Part 3 amends three cross-cutting environmental statutory instruments. Part 4 refers to appropriate savings. That is a legal term, which is nothing to do with finances or budgets but in essence allows us to retain existing directions and regulations made under the Environment Act 1995. Part 5 prevents some EU environmental regulations and decisions that are either out of date or will have no further function once we have left the EU from being brought into UK law automatically by the operation of the withdrawal Act.
The Acts dealt with in part 2 make reference to our obligations as an EU member state and to EU legislation. We need to change or remove those references because they will either no longer work legally or be inappropriate after our exit. Where we change such references, we often refer instead to “retained EU law” or “retained EU obligations”. Those terms are defined in the withdrawal Act.
Regulation 2 includes amendments to references in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to obligations under EU law, replacing them with references to retained EU law and retained EU obligations. Regulation 3 adjusts powers in the Environment Act 1995 to make directions and regulations for the purpose of implementing EU law so that they refer instead to retained EU obligations, with appropriate savings detailed in part 4. There are also amendments to the power for appropriate agencies to impose charges in relation to retained EU law.
Part 4 saves existing directions made under the Environment Act 1995 so that they continue to apply notwithstanding the changes to the relevant powers set out in part 2. Those directions can, if necessary, be varied or revoked in the future. That will ensure, for example, that ministerial directions made for the purpose of implementing obligations of the UK under EU treaties, such as the recent air quality directions to local authorities in England, remain valid following our exit.
Returning to part 2, regulation 4 adjusts the power in the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 to make regulations under section 2 of that Act by substituting references to retained EU obligations for existing references to the UK’s obligations under EU treaties, and by replacing the provisions that allow relevant directives to be designated from time to time with provisions specifying in the Act a closed list of directives in connection with which regulations may be made. Part 2 of the schedule to the draft regulations revokes domestic designation orders for England that are redundant in the light of those amendments to the 1999 Act.
The amendments in part 2 of the draft regulations have the same extent as the provisions they amend. For example, only some provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 apply to Northern Ireland, and some apply to Northern Ireland only for specified purposes, whereas section 113(5) of that Act, which is amended by regulation 2(4), specifically concerns Scottish Ministers and extends to Scotland only. I do not pretend that this is straightforward, but I assure the Committee that our lawyers have been through this with a fine-toothed comb.
Part 3 of the draft regulations amends three cross-cutting environmental statutory instruments: the Contaminated Land (England) Regulations 2000, the Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006 and the Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) (England) Regulations 2015. These instruments make similar references to EU law as are contained in those Acts and need amending for the same reason. They apply in England only. Devolved Administrations will address similar issues separately in devolved legislation. The draft regulations make no changes to either the policy or its impact on businesses and the public. The statutory instruments will continue to operate substantively as they do at present.
Directly applicable EU legislation is a type of EU legislation currently in force in the UK that applies without further legislation by our Parliaments, and includes EU regulations and decisions. These will automatically be brought into our national law by the withdrawal Act as part of retained EU law. However, in some cases that will not be appropriate. When we are no longer a member state, the UK will no longer be allowed to authorise participation in the EU’s eco-management and audit scheme—EMAS—and the eco-labelling scheme, with existing EMAS registrations and eco-labels granted by UK bodies no longer being valid. Business participation in both schemes is voluntary. Businesses holding existing EMAS registrations and eco-labels will still be legally able to sell their products to EU member states and can apply to join these schemes through other member states offering the service.
The EMAS regulation establishes an eco-management and audit scheme. As I said, business participation in the schemes is voluntary, and only 17 UK-registered organisations are involved in it, while a similar International Organisation for Standardisation scheme has more than 16,000 UK-registered participants. The eco-label regulation establishes another voluntary scheme under which producers, importers and retailers can choose to apply for an EU eco-label for their products.
To avoid any confusion for businesses wanting to join such schemes in the future, we deem it appropriate to stop these regulations and decisions being brought into UK law, as set out in part 1 of the schedule to the draft regulations. As I said, it will be open to companies to re-register through other member states that offer the service. However, we have also committed, through our resources and waste strategy, to consider a domestic eco-label scheme. Information notes on EMAS and eco-labels have been published and circulated, to inform businesses both of the decision not to immediately set up a new eco-label scheme in the UK and of the fact that organisations currently registered with the scheme can continue to be registered through EMAS Global or another EU27-competent body.
Further EU decisions referred to in the schedule include EU environmental action programmes, which are the overarching policy statements that set the EU’s objectives for the next several years. These EU decisions are either already out of date or will serve no ongoing purpose after we leave the EU. These changes apply to the whole of the UK and have been agreed between the Governments of the four nations. A series of other decisions mentioned in the schedule are on implementing decisions for the EMAS and eco-label schemes, which will be redundant after we leave the EU.
While the House continues to decide the next steps on the way the country leaves the EU, the amendments in the draft regulations are an essential element of ensuring that UK law continues to operate smoothly when we actually leave. They do not represent a change in policy, and the regulatory impact experienced by businesses and the public will not change as a result of their adoption.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. The Minister and I are here to discuss the statutory instrument that will make provision for the regulatory framework in this area after Brexit in the event that we crash out of the EU without a deal.
As several of my Back-Bench colleagues have done, I want to point out our challenge in ensuring proper scrutiny of the sheer volume of legislation passing through Committees. Secondary legislation ought to be used for technical, non-partisan, non-controversial changes, because of the limited accountability that it allows for. However, the Government continue to push through contentious legislation with high policy content via this vehicle. The frustration that we must spend time and resources creating a framework that might never be used is a point that has already been made in Committees. Public money has been spent on planning for what should not be viewed as a potential eventuality.
As a result of the reckless approach by the Prime Minister and her Government, statutory instruments that are being passed in Committees may well disappear on 29 March 2019. Alternatively, they could represent real and substantive changes to the statute book. As such, they need proper and in-depth scrutiny. Equally, in the event that the Government allow a no-deal scenario to materialise, we must bear in mind the stress that financial markets will be under. Statutory instruments must also be considered against that backdrop.
I understand that the devolved Administrations have been consulted on this particular SI and are content that there is no divergence in policy. In future, how will the UK and devolved Governments work together to ensure high standards across the four countries so that every citizen has full access to environmental justice that is not prohibitively expensive, as the UK is committed to via the 1998 Aarhus convention? Unlike a great many SIs that the Government are hurrying through this place, the measures contained within this particular SI are not contentious, as colleagues in the devolved Administrations have said. What we have here is an SI that, in fact, does much of what the Minister said: it does not make great changes.
Although we have great concerns about the SI process and using that legislative mechanism for many of the SIs that are being introduced—the Minister knows, because we have discussed it, that one of my particular concerns relates to the REACH regulations—we do not intend to oppose this particular SI, because it does not make great changes. However, we urge the Minister to take back to her colleagues in the Government our deep concerns about the way this legislation is being used.
Dr Thérèse Coffey
I thank the hon. Lady for setting out those points and also for acknowledging that we are doing what it says on the tin—not quite Ronseal-style, but she gets my drift.
I recognise the concerns that many hon. Members have about secondary legislation potentially being a back door for significant changes. I assure the hon. Lady that, through the transparency statements we sign, I have to make sure that I am in line with the ministerial code. The statement that I make to Parliament must be absolutely accurate. I give her the assurance that that is the case, and I hope that all my fellow Ministers in Government will do so. We have somebody here from the Whips Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North—
Dr Coffey
My apology. It is important; my hon. Friend is right—and he can take back the message that the hon. Lady has shared with us today.
In terms of access to environmental justice, we absolutely honour the Aarhus convention and will continue to do so. We see that already in existing procedures with our own UK courts today. I hope that the hon. Lady will be assured by what we have laid out in our draft clauses, which are out for pre-legislative scrutiny, with regard to environmental governance in the future.
As for how the UK and devolved Governments will work together to ensure that we have a coherent approach to environmental standards, it is the case that we have worked together as a group of four nations. At times it has been challenging to get agreement to every part of an SI, and it is perhaps one reason why it takes a bit longer than people would like. We have also respected the parliamentary processes in the other nations, making sure that appropriate scrutiny can be undertaken, but it is our intention to work towards a common framework for a number of different regulations. Nevertheless, I make the point that we absolutely respect the devolved approach, and where other nations’ Governments want to do something different, then we will respect that. Having said that, my understanding and experience of Ministers from the other Governments is that there is a lot of common ground and that we wish that to continue in order to have an improved environment.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Airports Slot Allocation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 1 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Airports Slot Allocation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.
The draft instrument will be made under the powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and will be needed if the UK leaves the European Union without a deal in March. As with several other statutory instruments, it is a small and technical, but important, piece of legislation. As hon. Members are aware, the Government remain committed to leaving the EU with a deal that has been approved by Parliament. On 21 January, the Prime Minister set out her plans to deliver that deal. Although the Government strongly believe that leaving with a deal is the best outcome for the UK and the EU, it is our duty to make reasonable preparations for all scenarios, including by ensuring that there is a functioning statute book, irrespective of the outcome of the negotiations.
The instrument is an important part of those preparations and ensures that there will continue to be a well-functioning legislative and regulatory regime for aviation, including for the allocation of slots at congested airports. “Airport slots” refer to an air service’s right to use a bundle of facilities at airports—for example, runways, stands and terminals—for landing or take off at particular dates and times.
At congested airports where the demand for slots exceeds the available infrastructure, EU regulation 95/93 sets out the process for available slots to be allocated fairly and transparently. It sets out the conditions that must be met for the airport to be considered as having its schedules facilitated or subject to slot co-ordination. Factors that should be taken into account when designating an airport as slot co-ordinated include:
“When air carriers representing more than a half of the operations at an airport…or the airport authority consider that capacity is insufficient for actual or planned operations…or…when new entrants encounter serious problems in securing slots”.
The EU regulation specifies that any decision that an airport should be subject to slot co-ordination should be taken following thorough capacity analysis and consultation with airport users, including air carriers, airport authorities, air traffic control authorities and passengers’ organisations. The airports in the UK currently designated as fully co-ordinated are Birmingham, London City, Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton, Manchester and Stansted. Bristol airport is partially co-ordinated for the summer season.
The EU regulation also sets out that slots should be allocated in a neutral, non-discriminatory and transparent manner by an independent slot co-ordinator appointed by the relevant member state. Airport Coordination Ltd, the UK-appointed slot co-ordinator for UK airports, has performed that function for some time.
Under the EU regulation, slots can be allocated on the basis that the air carrier in question has held the slot in the previous season and has demonstrated that it used the slot for at least 80% of that season. Any remaining unused slots are returned to what is known as the “slot pool”, alongside any newly available slots. Some 50% of slots in the slot pool are available to new entrants. The regulation also makes provision for member states to reserve certain slots for essential domestic services, such as public service obligations.
Under the EU regulation, it is possible for slots to be exchanged between air carriers or for a carrier to transfer a slot to a different route or type of service, with the exception of slots allocated to new entrants, which may not transfer or exchange slots for the first two seasons. Finally, the regulation contains provisions for reciprocity to ensure that Community carriers that request slots in non-EU countries are treated fairly.
The draft instrument makes minor changes to ensure that, once the UK has left the EU, retained EU regulation 95/93 continues to function correctly alongside the domestic Airports Slot Allocation Regulations 2006, which were made to implement the EU regulation. Most of the changes that the instrument makes are to ensure that the scope of the retained regulation is correct—for example, by amending article 1 to reflect the fact that the retained regulation will apply only to airports in the United Kingdom after exit day; by removing references to “community law” and EU treaties; and by removing or amending references to “member states”, which will no longer include the UK after exit day.
The EU regulation confers certain functions on member states, such as designating the airport as having its schedules facilitated or co-ordinated, and appointing a schedules facilitator or airport co-ordinator. These functions were conferred on the Secretary of State by domestic implementing regulations in 2006. This instrument corrects the EU regulation, so that when it is retained in UK law on exit day, these functions will be conferred on the Secretary of State in line with the implementing regulations. Other roles for EU institutions, such as the European Commission’s role in carrying out investigations, are removed or replaced.
The instrument also makes corrections to some of the definitions contained in the EU regulation, for instance substituting the definition of a Community air carrier with a definition of a UK air carrier. The EU regulation defined “new entrant” for the purposes of allocating slots from a slot pool as air carriers requesting slots for scheduled services between two Community airports, where at most two other carriers operate that route. This instrument amends that definition to allow for continuity, so that the regulation retained in UK law captures both air carriers requesting slots for passenger services between two UK airports and carriers requesting slots for services between a UK airport and an airport in a European economic area state.
The EU regulation provides that a proportion of slots can be reserved for public service obligations—PSOs. The SI amends the definition of a PSO in line with the corrections already made to provisions in EU law on PSOs through the Operation of Air Services (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018. This means that instead of being open to Community air carriers, qualifying air carriers will be eligible to operate PSOs in the UK. This will include UK air carriers and carriers from other countries that have cabotage rights in the UK—that is, the right to fly between two points in the UK. As is currently the case, any PSO can only be limited to one carrier by the Secretary of State after a tendering process has been followed. This change has no effect on the PSO routes already operating in the UK, which I know will be of interest to Members.
On reciprocity, this instrument amends the provisions in the EU regulation so that instead of ensuring that Community carriers requesting slots in non-EU countries are treated fairly, the provisions ensure that UK carriers requesting slots in countries other than the UK are treated fairly with respect to the allocation of slots at that country’s airports. The instrument therefore sets out that it is the Secretary of State, rather than the European Commission, who may wholly or partially suspend the operation of the retained regulation 95/93 in relation to air carriers from a non-UK country. The EU regulation currently provides for that action to be taken through a regulation and this instrument transfers that function to the Secretary of State, who could carry it out through regulations following the normal negative resolution procedure.
Finally, this instrument makes some minor changes to the 2006 implementing regulations, for instance removing the requirement for co-ordination committees at airports to invite the European Commission to meetings. It also makes a change to annex 13 to the European economic area agreement, which requires parties to the agreement to inform the European Commission about serious difficulties encountered by UK air carriers in obtaining airport slots in third countries. This provision will not apply to the UK after exit day when it is no longer a party to the EEA agreement, and so will be removed by this instrument as it is redundant.
We are continuing to work to achieve a positive future relationship with the EU and a deal that has the support of the House, but we are also continuing to ensure that the UK’s legal framework for aviation and the allocation of airport slots remains operable in a no-deal scenario. I commend this instrument to the Committee.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
It is always an absolute pleasure and privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.
We are supportive of the instrument, so I will keep my remarks brief. As the Minister alluded to, the regulations we are discussing are among the many aspects of EU law that will fall into UK law under the Government’s European Union (Withdrawal) Act. The principal changes in the instrument remove references to or the roles of the EU, the European Court of Justice and other bodies in relation to airport slot allocation. The instrument will ensure that UK carriers, which will no longer be Community carriers when we leave the EU, continue to operate under the same conditions and to have the same access as before. It transfers all the current rules of the slot allocation system into UK law, and binds us to international conventions, such as the International Air Transport Association’s world slot guidance.
As I said at the outset, the instrument is necessary, although I understand that the Scottish National party’s spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, may have some difficulties with it. If the matter is pressed to a Division, Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition will abstain.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The instrument uses powers under the withdrawal Act to ensure that the retained EU law functions correctly after the UK has left the EU. However, this Delegated Legislation Committee is a missed opportunity, as once again the UK Government have failed to provide key protections for Scottish airports and flight routes. Indeed, the SNP was unable to support the third runway at Heathrow because the Department for Transport was not able—or perhaps not willing—to specify the number of Scotland to London flights it would protect, beyond a vague commitment of around 100 extra per week under public service obligations. The Minister himself has spoken about the lack of a formal guarantee of public service obligations for the flights of greatest benefit to Scotland, and the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark), a Tory MP, has pointed out that Heathrow’s international success has undoubtedly squeezed out domestic routes.
I ask the Minister why, after two years of promising that an aviation agreement was imminent, the Secretary of State for Transport eventually admitted that talks have not even begun. I also ask whether the Minister has seen the latest briefing from the Airport Operators Association regarding its concerns about a no-deal Brexit, and whether he would care to comment on that briefing. The SNP recognises that a well-designed Heathrow expansion plan would provide significant benefits to Scotland’s economy and connectivity. However, we cannot support anything that short-changes Scotland’s passengers, its airports or its economy, as the lack of protection for Scotland’s airports in this statutory instrument would.
Jesse Norman
I am happy to respond to the concerns raised by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. She has said that the instrument is a missed opportunity to support Scottish airports; unfortunately, that is a misreading of the secondary legislation. The only purpose to which the legislation can be put, under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, is to transfer EU legislation—suitably corrected—into UK legislation. The question of whether to approve any future legislation that might affect those terms is a further decision for Parliament; all that can be done under this piece of law is to “lift and shift”, which is what this instrument does. In my remarks, I made it perfectly clear that nothing has been done through the instrument that could in any way affect the public service obligations from which Scotland benefits.
The hon. Lady raised the matter of discussions. The Department and the Government have always been engaged, ready and willing to have discussions about the terms of an air services agreement. The concern has not been on our side; the concern has been about what position the EU wishes to take. I am sure that the hon. Lady will be reassured that many of the moves that have been made over the past few weeks have been positive ones, notably the declarations that there will be overflights over EU states, that there will be a 90-day period of visa-free access, and that security checks and other measures will not be replicated in the aftermath of Brexit.
The hon. Lady asked a question about the briefing from the Airport Operators Association. I am afraid that I have not seen that briefing, so I cannot comment on it, but I invite her to send it to me if she would like.
Patricia Gibson
The Minister has said that he has not read the briefing from the Airport Operators Association, but does he understand the very serious concerns about the prospect of a no-deal Brexit, for which we seem to be preparing today?
Jesse Norman
If I may say so, those concerns are no more than the concerns we within the Government have expressed about the need for a deal, and that is what we are pressing for. As we have said repeatedly, we support a deal and are pressing for one. We invite the hon. Lady’s party to support a deal, which it has so far failed to do. The fact that the deal is being impeded in part by the votes of her own party casts her comments in an ironic light. However, that has not been the problem; the problem has been on the other side of the equation.
The hon. Lady raised the issue of whether Scotland is being short-changed by this legislation. In fact, the exact opposite is true: the interests of Scots are being fully protected within the legislation, and we would expect them to remain so.
I am happy to answer questions, as I have done so far. This is an important and small, but technical, piece of legislation that we need in order to continue to prepare for Brexit, and I commend it to the House.
Question put.
Draft Floods and Water (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Floods and Water (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. This is the second of the affirmative statutory instruments on the environment to be considered as the UK leaves the European Union, as provided for by the result of the 2016 referendum and as subsequently agreed by Parliament. In line with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the regulations simply make technical, legal amendments to maintain the effectiveness and continuity of UK legislation that would otherwise be left partially inoperable, so that following our exit from the EU, the law will continue to function as it does today. As the Committee will see, this statutory instrument and others are quite lengthy and make many adjustments. However, I can assure the Committee that those adjustments represent no changes of policy; nor will they have any impact on businesses or the public. We have also worked with the devolved Administrations on this instrument, and where it relates to devolved matters, they have given consent.
Part 2 of the SI makes operability amendments to four Acts. Those amendments mainly replace the words “EU obligations” with “retained EU obligations” to reflect the fact that such obligations will be retained in domestic law after EU exit. Regulation 4 also addresses the use of the term “environmental objectives”, which is defined in the water framework directive. The amendments define that term by reference to our domestic legislation that implemented the water framework directive, rather than the EU directive itself.
Regulation 2, regarding the Water Act 1989, applies to England and Wales only. It changes “an EU obligation” to “a retained EU obligation”; similar changes to the Water Industry Act 1991 and the Water Act 2014 are set out in regulations 3 and 5 respectively. In regulation 4, similar changes are made to the Water Resources Act 1991, and under the definition of “environmental objectives”, to which I referred, we specifically mention the two river basin districts that cross the border between England and Scotland. That issue is tackled in further detail in part 3 of the SI, in regulations 10 and 11.
Part 3 amends technical deficiencies in several pieces of secondary legislation, and I will highlight the key types of amendments. Regulation 6 amends the Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations 1989, which apply to England and Wales only. It places an obligation on the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to report every three years on the implementation of regulations, which reflects current reporting to the European Commission.
Regulation 7 amends the Urban Waste Water Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 1994, which apply to England and Wales only. It changes references to EU law to references to “retained EU law”, and includes a requirement for relevant environmental reports to be published by the Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers.
Regulation 8 deals with water fittings regulations, which extend and apply to England and Wales. That amendment removes automatic approval for plumbing systems and water fittings with EU or European economic area markings, but ensures that those products can still be approved if they meet the equivalent UK standard.
Regulation 9 amends the Drinking Water (Undertakings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2000, which extend to England and Wales. It changes the word “implement” to “implemented”, to reflect the fact that there will be no future requirements to transpose EU directives after exit.
I have already referred to regulations 10 and 11 regarding the cross-border river basin districts. Given that article 10 of the water framework directive refers to other directives that are already transposed into domestic law, there is no need to use article 10, as it has no impact on ongoing regulation. Our lawyers have devised this way of making sure that we do not have even longer, and even more, SIs than are necessary for regulation. If we did not omit article 10, the ongoing chain of cross-references in regulations would mean we had to make considerably more changes, and make other SIs even longer.
The Water Industry (Special Administration) Rules 2009 are amended by regulation 12. Rule 123(2) is omitted, as it refers to the EU regulation on the service of judicial documents between member states, which will no longer apply. The special administration regime is an insolvency regime specifically created for water and sewerage companies. It is a reserved matter, but the regime only applies to England and Wales, as Scotland and Northern Ireland have different water industry structures.
The Water Resources (Control of Pollution) (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) (England) Regulations 2010 apply to England only. They are amended by regulation 13 to allow products such as silos and slurry tanks that are of equivalent standards to the British standards to be installed, wherever they are manufactured.
Regulation 14 amends the Incidental Flooding and Coastal Erosion (England) Order 2011, which applies to England only. It changes the definition of “environmental objectives”, so that it relates to the domestic UK legislation that implemented the water framework directive, rather than to the directive itself.
Regulation 15 amends the Bathing Water Regulations 2013, which extend to England and Wales. The amendments correct cross-references to the bathing water directive that would be deficient on exit. A requirement is also included for the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to publish a report each year containing information about the bathing water season.
Similar amendments to deal with cross-references to EU legislation are made to the Nitrate Pollution Prevention Regulations 2015 by regulation 16. These regulations apply to England only. An obligation is also placed on the Secretary of State to publish reports on the implementation of these regulations.
Regulation 17 amends the Flood Reinsurance (Scheme Funding and Administration) Regulations 2015. This is a reserved area, so the regulations cover all the United Kingdom. A minor technical amendment is made to the reference to the scheme administrator’s obligation arising from directly applicable EU legislation. This will instead read as the obligations arising from retained direct EU legislation.
Regulations 18 and 19 refer to water supply and private water supplies regulations, which apply to England only. The amendments fix cross-references that are deficient. An obligation is also placed on the Secretary of State to produce and publish reports on drinking water quality.
Regulation 20 amends the England and Wales regulations that implement the EU water framework directive for operability. It replaces the term “EU instrument” with the term “retained EU law”. These amendments cover England and Wales, reflecting the fact that the two countries share a single set of regulations implementing the directive. The Welsh Government agreed to this approach. The Committee will recognise that the instrument makes operability corrections to regulations on the water framework directive, such as those governing the cross-border river basin districts between England and Scotland.
Just as with regulations 10 and 11, proposed new schedule 5 to the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017 instrument makes a series of modifications to the water framework directive and two other connected directives, so that references to those directives continue to work properly after EU exit. This process includes modifying references to member states and to EU legislation, and omitting redundant articles, such as one referring to the European Commission resolving issues between member states.
The two sets of water abstraction regulations mentioned in regulations 21 and 22 extend and apply to England and Wales. The changes in regulation 21 reflect the changes made by the EU exit SI amending the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Changes in regulation 22 fix cross-references to terminology used in the water framework directive to make it operable.
In part 4, there are technical amendments to several EU decisions. The amendments to and revocations of these decisions and other EU decisions extend and apply to all the UK; they have been drafted in liaison with the devolved Administrations, and with their consent.
Regulation 23 removes a provision about the entry into force date of the EU decision on symbols on bathing water signage. Regulation 24 removes a similar boilerplate provision in an EU decision on equivalence of microbiological standards. The substantive content of these decisions will be part of retained EU law on exit.
Regulation 25 amends the EU decision on the values of monitoring system classifications for water quality. This decision is amended so that references to obligations on member states in that decision are read as a reference to the appropriate Minister or regulator in the United Kingdom.
Regulation 26 concerns the EU decision on establishing a watch list of substances for monitoring in water. The watch list contains new substances that are of concern for water quality. Once several years’ data is collected on these substances, they may be placed on the priority substances list, and their presence in water would have to be tackled to meet water framework directive objectives. A United Kingdom watch list will be preserved; the instrument simply removes references to “Union-wide” monitoring.
Regulation 27 revokes three decisions. An EU decision establishing the list of priority substances to be monitored in water is revoked. These are substances considered most harmful to the water environment. The decision only inserted into the water framework directive a revised list of priority substances that has already been incorporated into domestic law through the implementing water framework directive regulations.
The EU decision to establish a list of monitoring sites to form a network for monitoring water quality will also be revoked. Most member states, including the United Kingdom, set up those sites some years ago, and the United Kingdom will no longer need to provide that list to the European Commission. The EU decision on formats for reporting to the European Commission under the urban waste water treatment directive will be revoked too, as the UK will no longer report to the Commission. All those proposed revocations were drafted in agreement with the four nations of the United Kingdom.
I emphasise to the Committee that the instrument addresses technical deficiencies in floods and water legislation to ensure that it continues to operate effectively when we leave the European Union. It does not introduce new policy, and preserves the current regime for protecting and improving the water environment.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I am only disappointed that there are no cameras in the Committee Room; the people who normally watch proceedings on parliamentlive.tv can only listen, and will miss out on the lovely little dogs that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South has on his tie, and the lack of jacket of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. Hopefully my carefully chosen water-themed jokes will get belly laughs from Members, rather than just smiles. [Interruption.] Thanks for the laughs.
In all seriousness, the purpose of the statutory instrument, as the Minister says, is to preserve and protect the existing EU policy regime, rather than introduce new policies. The Minister told us that all she is doing is transposing EU law into UK law, deleting “Europe” and inserting “UK”, and deleting “EU Commission” and inserting “Secretary of State”, and that we have nothing to worry about. The Opposition fear that that is simply not the case. We have seen with the Fisheries Bill that sometimes one thing is said, and another is done in practice, such as removing the date for achieving maximum sustainable yield while adding new objectives.
With today’s SI, we believe that the Government are again trying to pull the wool over our eyes. I am concerned, as are many environmental groups, that Ministers are picking and choosing, as we feared, which protections to keep and which to bin. We intend to vote against the motion, because the SI does not prevent a roll-back of environmental protections. It also lacks detail on transparency, impact assessments, reporting, governance and consultation.
I am concerned that we are being asked to wave through SIs at break-neck speed as we approach Brexit. They are starting to look a bit like a bad Brexit mash-up; pieces of EU legislation are left in or out at the Minister’s choosing, and many SIs are put together along vague themes, as we see today. The Opposition have serious concerns about the scale and pace at which the Government are ramming Brexit legislation through to minimise scrutiny. Since June 2018, 343 statutory instruments have been laid before Parliament. How many does the Minister expect to be completed by exit day on 29 March, and how many does she expect will relate to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs?
The SI deals with both flooding and water legislation. The typical length of an SI is 19 pages, yet this one is 27 pages. This single SI seeks to amend four pieces of primary legislation and 17 pieces of secondary legislation, and to amend or revoke five EU decisions. The Water Industry Act 1991 alone is 279 pages. We have only up to 90 minutes to scrutinise the changes made by the SI. I fear that the Minister is trying to cram too much in for consideration.
For the record, Labour believes that there is insufficient time for proper scrutiny of the SIs that the Government are introducing. We do not have time to review the SI line by line, and we cannot table any amendments, as many environmental stakeholders have asked us to. The Government expect us to wave through hundreds of such hurried SIs. We are expected not to make a fuss. If we asked for more time for scrutiny, we would somehow be accused of trying to block Brexit. Far from it. There is a deep irony: Brexit was sold to the country as a way of taking back control, but at every stage the Government have tried to thwart parliamentary scrutiny, and have loaded Committees such as this with a majority, even though they do not enjoy one in the House.
I worry whether the Minister has enough time in her schedule to review carefully all the SIs that her Department is seeking to introduce. I know that her colleague the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has two Bills as well as all his SIs. The Department has a considerable work load that risks SIs being accepted by the House without proper scrutiny. The hon. Lady should be prepared for me to ask a series of questions, and I am glad to see that she has her pen out already. I fear that she might not be able to answer some of them, and if that is the case I would be grateful if she and her officials prepared the answers and wrote to me.
It is the inconsistencies in the SI that worry me most. Greener UK has raised technical concerns about the wording, and I am sure the Minister is familiar with those. It is concerned about the compliance rules, which have been removed inconsistently. For example, measures required under the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017 will no longer be in compliance with article 10 of the water framework directive, which covers issues such as the implementation of emission controls, emission limits and best environmental practices. At the same time, references to directives, such as those on integrated pollution prevention, urban waste water treatment, and protection against water pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural run-off have all been removed, seemingly without explanation.
Are arrangements for consulting non-governmental organisations in advance of the publication of SIs in place, and have they been used for these regulations? That process is meant to prevent such inconsistencies and omissions from creeping in. Does the Minister feel that those pre-scrutiny arrangements are working well for SIs? If so, how come so many inconsistencies need to be raised at this point? Will she publish the consultation feedback from the relevant bodies and the devolved Administrations that she mentioned earlier?
The key question Members must consider is whether the regulations enable a roll-back in environmental protections and set us up to fall behind current, and any future, EU standards. Lord Gardiner of Kimble, the DEFRA Minister in the Lords, said last week, as that House considered the SI:
“We will retain our rigorous parliamentary scrutiny and strong domestic legal framework for environmental protection, but we want to go further.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 January 2019; Vol. 795, c. 687.]
However, there is no requirement on the Government to transpose future European directives after exit day.
On water regulation, we have benefited over the years from robust EU regulation, which has helped drive up the quality of our drinking water, bathing waters and groundwater, something I know, as a Plymouth MP, from the improvements in quality we have seen in the far south-west. It is vital to hold on to those benefits for the future and not allow standards to fall back.
My noble colleague in the other place, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, rightly said that the EU had saved the UK from
“our reputation as the ‘dirty man of Europe’”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 January 2019; Vol. 795, c. 686.]
If we do not keep pace with Europe’s environmental legislation we risk reclaiming that title, and the dirty man of Europe runs the risk of becoming the sick man of Europe.
I have a number of concerns about the SI that represent roll-back in environmental protections, and I would be grateful if the Minister could address them. The Water Resources (Control of Pollution) (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) (England) Regulations 2010 are amended to allow products that are of an equivalent standard to the British standards to be installed. The amendments align our legislation with World Trade Organisation principles. Does she agree that moving from EU regulation to WTO principles would potentially be a downgrade for keeping pace with our EU standards in the future?
The SI applies to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Can the Minister confirm that it preserves the current devolution settlement and that all those devolved Assemblies have consented to all parts of the regulations? Some powers are extended to the UK and some to Great Britain. Can she set out what happens where there has been application to other parts but not to Northern Ireland, to ensure that we have complete coverage of the topics after the SI comes into effect?
I am concerned that insufficient care has been taken in the drafting of the document, which is, I believe, in part due to the sheer volume of work that DEFRA officials are confronted with. Proposed new schedule 5, part 1, paragraph 13 says to omit “Community, local and national” from paragraph 2, annex 4 of the water framework directive. However, that paragraph of the water framework directive says, “Community, national or local”. Does the Minister believe that the order of the words is important, and can she say what legal effect the different order and co-ordinating conjunctions may have?
In part 4 of the same schedule, paragraph 27 revokes a number of decisions, including EU decision 2455/2001, which establishes a list of priority substances in the field of water policy, Commission decision 2005/646 on the establishment of a register of sites to form the intercalibration network in accordance with directive 2000/60, and Commission implementing decision 2014/431 concerning formats for reporting on the national programmes to be implemented. Why has that legislation been retained only to be revoked, and what will replace those elements if nothing is offered in return? I understand revoking intercalibration and Commission reporting, but revocation of decision 2455/2001/EC on establishing a list of priority substances in the field of water policies appears to hack away at important rulings on water substances. Some stakeholders have raised concerns particularly about that element. Will the Minister confirm what consultation has taken place to ensure there is no roll-back of protections that will undermine environmental quality in that respect?
On the impact assessment—or lack of—the SI’s explanatory note states:
“There is no, or no significant, impact”,
but two points down it states,
“we expect it to have no impact”.
Is it no impact or no significant impact? If there is no impact, what assessment has taken place to establish whether it is no impact or no significant impact?
The note states that no impact assessment has been prepared to establish whether there is an impact or not. If there has been no impact assessment to establish where there has been no impact, can the Minister establish whether there is no impact or no significant impact, because the two things are different? It would be interesting to understand whether a pre-impact assessment has taken place to establish whether an impact assessment were necessary, because no impact and no significant impact are indeed two separate bits. This is the moment when Members are not supposed to smile—they are supposed to guffaw. [Laughter.] Thank you very much. However, a serious point is raised in terms of what level of pre-scrutiny has taken place to establish the measures in this SI.
The note also states that
“no review clause is required.”
Perhaps the Minister will think again about that, given the pace and scale at which these SIs are flying through our Parliament. This single SI seeks to amend four pieces of primary legislation and 17 pieces of secondary legislation, and there is no review clause and no sunset clause for review.
I also want to press the Minister on an odd choice of wording. Why does part 1 of proposed new schedule 5 state:
“Article 10 is to be ignored”,
and not omitted? That choice of language is used throughout the SI. It is the same for articles 12, 15, 24 and annex 1. Will she set out, especially for those listening at home, the difference between “omitted” and “ignored”? What does it mean for the courts, regulators and future Ministers? It is the same for paragraph 30 in part 3. Why are the articles to be ignored and not omitted? What is the Minister trying to bring about with that different use of language?
Paragraph 15 in part 1 states:
“Annex 6 is to be read as if Part A were omitted.”
What is the difference between something being omitted and something being read as if something were omitted? Why not simply omit them? Paragraph 14(e)(ii) states that annex 5, section 1.4.1, is to be read as if
“points (iv) to (ix) were omitted”.
Why does it not say they should be ignored?
In part 3, regulation 30 states:
“Article 6(1)(c) and (2)”
of the environmental quality standards directive “are to be ignored”. Why are those to be ignored and not omitted or read as if they were omitted? The detail really matters. I am tired of Brexit soundbites. I am talking about the detail of getting Brexit right. It is on those aspects of the difference in language that complications with the implementation and reporting of this SI could be caused in future legal cases.
Environmental stakeholders and colleagues in the other place have raised legitimate concerns about the lacklustre proposals that this SI sets out for reporting on transposed regulations. Part 3, paragraph 11(3)(d), states that
“the report is published in such manner as the Ministers consider appropriate.”
Can the Minister provide an example of what format she would consider appropriate in relation to that paragraph, and what criteria she would deem appropriate?
In part 3, on the Private Water Supplies (England) Regulations 2016 and “Reporting 21A”, what guidance has the Minister received to keep reporting on the quality of water for human consumption at a maximum of three years? Why not two or four?
In part 4, what additional funding will be given to the Environment Agency, the National Resources Body for Wales, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, and Northern Ireland’s Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to cope with the new demands? The Opposition welcome the fact that the draft SI introduces specific reporting requirements into domestic legislation and provides for reports to include the results of quality assessments and description of any measures taken or proposed to be taken. Frankly, we have concerns that the measure makes no provision for the reports to be reviewed or for any failures to be identified and addressed, as is currently required by the European Commission. That is important.
Environmental stakeholders have highlighted that the UK can grant several derogations under the directive. The draft statutory instrument provides for derogations to be decided and granted by the Secretary of State alone. At the moment, the Commission reviews such decisions and determines whether the application is valid, but there is no equivalent review process in the instrument—only a requirement to publish the grounds for the notification. Unless the Minister can suggest otherwise, that is a lowering of environmental oversight. The Opposition doubt that the mere act of publishing the reports will be sufficient to match the current level of scrutiny. We suggest that the statutory instrument, or a future one, should include a requirement for reports to be reviewed and assessed.
The statutory instrument also revokes the agreed format of reports for the European Commission on the urban waste water treatment directive. Will that be just an administrative change, as the Minister suggested, or will it change how data is transferred between devolved Administrations in the United Kingdom, or between us and our EU friends in relation to pollution controls across boundaries, or the system that UK regulatory bodies and commercial entities have invested in? In our view, the lack of reporting is too open to interpretation by the Secretary of State and by those preparing the reports, and it could contribute to reduced quality and less effective monitoring and scrutiny of important environmental commitments.
The statutory instrument contains examples of specific reporting requirements, such as regulation 7(3), which introduces regulation 12A into the Urban Waste Water Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 1994 for situation reports every two years; regulation 15, which introduces regulation 15A into the Bathing Water Regulations 2013 for annual reports; and regulation 16, which introduces a new requirement to the Nitrate Pollution Prevention Regulations 2015 under regulation 40A for an implementation report every four years.
When we considered the Fisheries Bill in Committee, the then Minister quizzed me at length about why we were proposing an amendment of six years. That was a good question and I would like to turn it back to this Minister. Why are there different lengths of time for reporting? Have any changes been made in transposing them into the statutory instrument?
Environmental stakeholders have expressed concerns about the future reporting of the provisions. Is the Minister aware of those concerns? The statutory instrument has been through some form of consultation, but how far into the process was that—pre or post drafting? What changes did she make to address the valid concerns of stakeholders that have been expressed to me and, I am sure, to her?
When the statutory instrument was considered in the other place, Baroness McIntosh of Pickering expressed concerns about who will review the reports. Due to the lack of time, her question was not answered by the Minister there, so I would be grateful if this Minister set out her answer to that question. The baroness rightly said:
“although these reports are being made public, the draft statutory instrument makes no provision for these reports to be reviewed if any failures emerge from them. Such failures would currently be addressed by the European Commission…what body will deal with any future…failures?…What mechanism will there be to make sure that these are reviewed?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 January 2019; Vol. 795, c. 681.]
It is up to the Secretary of State to indicate only what he or she deems an appropriate form of report and there is no requirement for any flaws to be dealt with subsequently. In the other place, Baroness Young said:
“The Government are not just filling in their own report card—they are designing their own report card”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 January 2019; Vol. 795, c. 683.]
I could not have put it better myself. The lack of proper scrutiny of the reports is deeply worrying.
There is a real danger of a governance gap in this statutory instrument and many of the others that the Government are introducing. We are hurtling towards exit day on 29 March without the appropriate mechanisms in place for 30 March, as the statutory instrument may come into UK law before we have the new environmental regulator that the Secretary of State has announced. Does the Minister have a contingency plan for the gap between those two events? How does she plan to bridge the gap between us being released from the EU Commission’s oversight and the setting up of the new Office for Environmental Protection, especially in relation to the reports that I mentioned?
The instrument mentions the cross-border Solway Tweed river basin district and the Northumbria river basin district, with which I am sure we are all deeply familiar. Lord Gardiner of Kimble said,
“we have consulted with the devolved Administrations on the instrument, and they have given consent where appropriate.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 January 2019; Vol. 795, c. 678.]
As well as the devolved Administrations, what was the feedback from local councils on the draft instrument?
I also read in the debate in the other place that various environmental NGOs and others were given sight of the draft instrument before it was laid before Parliament. Peers asked if there was any opportunity to bring parliamentarians into this process, to which Lord Gardiner said that pre-laying scrutiny of statutory instruments by interested MPs was an “interesting and legitimate point”. Will the Minister consider adopting this sensible proposal, given the scale and pace at which the Government are pushing out these SIs? Every little helps, and given the mess that the draft SI is in, every little bit would certainly help it.
A common thread in the tidal wave of rushed SIs is the loss of the independent scientific expertise currently provided at the EU level. We are all aware that the Secretary of State is tired of experts, but important issues, such as the setting of water quality standards and acceptable nitrate levels, as well as advice on what is technically feasible and not disproportionately costly, depend on the advice of experts. It is crucial that this expertise remains robust and independent in the future, to avoid our risking not only an incorrect application of the law but the adequate protection of environmental standards.
For example, the water framework directive requires that any changes to standards, values, substance lists and best environmental practices should be made only in the light of expert advice. To what extent will UK law be meaningfully interpreted if we do not have those supporting mechanisms? What additional funding will be provided for scientific expertise following the loss of our access to EU scientific expertise, and does the Minister have any plans to increase science funding in that respect?
At the moment, we have access to Europe-wide research and analysis to shape our decisions on such things, but that will not necessarily be available to us in future. That point was made very well by my noble Friend Baroness Jones, who stated:
“While I do not doubt the expertise within our own scientific community, there are issues about the considerable extra workload, in terms of depth and quantity, that we will be placing on our own scientific advisers.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 January 2019; Vol. 795, c. 687.]
I echo those concerns. What steps are being taken to ensure that scientific advice will be of the same technical and authoritative standard after we leave the European Union?
Opposition Members share concerns about unexplained changes to the UK’s legal framework. The draft SI sets out which aspects of key EU directives will continue to apply in future. Some key provisions have been retained, such as regulation 3 of the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017. However, some parts of the directives that the UK must comply with are not considered in the draft instrument. While some of these removals are understandable, the reasons for other omissions are less obvious and even appear arbitrary, according to stakeholder feedback.
For example, measures required under the 2017 regulations, as well as specific regulations on Northumbria and the Solway Tweed river basin districts, will no longer need to comply with article 10 of the water framework directive, which requires our taking a combined approach in establishing and implementing emissions controls, relevant emission limit values and, in the case of diffuse impacts, controls including, as appropriate, best environmental practices. The reason for that is unclear. We are concerned that specific references to several highly relevant directives have been removed without explanation, including on integrated pollution prevention and control, urban wastewater treatment and the protection of water against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources. Will the Minister explain on what basis elements of EU law have been retained or removed?
Unfortunately, time does not allow me to go into details of the eel management element of the draft instrument. However, I know that Members of all parties will be concerned about recent media reports of coked-up eels that have absorbed the cocaine that goes into the River Thames. That was not included in the draft instrument, but we forgive the Minister for that inadvertent oversight.
The Opposition have serious reservations about approving the draft instrument. I expect Government Members to vote for whatever they are told to, so I appeal not to their better judgment, but to that of the Government Whip, from whom they take their instructions. Because the Government have a compliant majority on the Committee, the draft instrument will probably be voted through; from the looks on the faces of Government Members, many just want the Committee to end. However, it should not be, as it is messy, open to serious concerns and does not adequately answer the concerns of stakeholders that I have set out.
We are worried about the Government’s cavalier approach to transposing current EU legislation. The SI attempts to do too much without careful consideration of the detail. It is only to be expected, given the Government’s sometimes cavalier approach to exiting the European Union, that we have such a messy SI in front of us. The Opposition find that this process of picking and choosing parts of EU law to keep and bin has been arbitrary. We have ended up with a pick-and-mix bag of laws that does not match the current standards of EU laws. That concern is shared by stakeholders. The draft SI falls short of preventing a roll-back on environmental protections. It falls short on transparency, in its impact assessments and on reporting, governance and consultation, and it lacks clarity on what is being changed or transposed. On behalf of those environmental stakeholders who have got in touch with the Opposition, I say that the SI is not good enough, so the Opposition will not support it.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
It would be remiss of me not to remind the Committee of the significant announcement that the Prime Minister made on environmental standards last Monday. She made clear in detail that she and her Government had agreed to accept the amendment in my name and that of several of my colleagues. Environmental standards were a significant part of that amendment. It required the Government to ensure that we have environmental standards at least as high as the European Union’s, and to bring back to Parliament any change that could be considered a future enhancement of European Union standards. Under the amendment, it is for Parliament to determine whether this country should adopt those changes into our law.
It is a little bit chicken and egg, not in relation to Brexit, but in relation to the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The Prime Minister’s acceding to our request was not merely good words from a Prime Minister. Whichever Prime Minister it is, my experience is always that good words and good intentions are not sufficient; let us see the ink on the Bill to demonstrate what those words mean. The Prime Minister made it crystal clear that that amendment would be incorporated into the withdrawal Act when it reaches the House. That will guarantee that we will compete, having left the European Union as an independent country, on the basis of the highest standards.
The three areas we identified—I anticipate a fourth on equality—will be incorporated as well. They were workers’ rights in terms of employment law, health and safety and environmental standards. I therefore look forward to hearing from the Minister how that very appropriate move by the Prime Minister will affect her consideration, not least of engagement with the trade unions once we have left the European Union to ensure that third parties can be assured and that the Government are robust and quick in ensuring that at all times and in all matters, we compete as a free and independent country and as the best in Europe, rather than the cheapest and worst in Europe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
It is a pleasure to respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman wants to get into politics, and I am sure that the Labour Government in Cardiff will be disappointed to hear that the Westminster Labour Opposition have decided to vote against the SI to which the Welsh Government had consented and participated in drafting. I hope he will consider that carefully when he has the conversation with Lesley Griffiths to discuss their approach and why they do not believe the assurances given by the Welsh Labour Government.
I am conscious that a number of different words and terminology are used in the SI. I do not pretend to be a lawyer; I rely on my lawyers for that. I am pleased that we have got them here today to help answer many of the questions that the hon. Gentleman asked, but there are some procedural points for Parliament. First, the explanatory note states that
“no, or no significant, impact…is foreseen.”
I challenged my lawyers about it, but that is the wording that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments stipulates for such instruments. I wanted to remove the words “or no significant”, so that the wording would read “no impact”, but the procedures of both Houses did not allow me to take that approach. Further examples of wording decreed by the JCSI will continue to arise in every statutory instrument that we lay before Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman asked for clarity on some other legal elements, particularly with respect to the words “omitted” and “ignored”. The Government have adopted the drafting approach of using the word “omit” in reference to UK regulations that we are amending, but “ignore” in reference to EU directives that we are modifying. It would not surprise me if hon. Members wanted even more clarity, so I am happy to send a note to Committee members to set out the matter in more detail. The draft regulations use legislative wording in a technical format to ensure consistency; I will not pretend that every piece of legislative phrasing will necessarily be what we would use in general speech.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about stakeholders. I have to say that the document from Greener UK and Wildlife and Countryside Link was brought to my attention only today. Our reading room system, which is also available online, is open to a number of stakeholders, including stakeholders from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so that they can see our statutory instruments and comment on them. No stakeholder made any comment about the draft regulations, so the concerns raised today by the Opposition come as news to me, but I hope to address them.
The hon. Gentleman spoke in detail about how there will be no requirement to transpose future EU directives. He described that as a problem with the draft regulations, but the point is that we are leaving the European Union, so we will not be subject to future European directives as we have been before. It will be for this Parliament to decide what changes and enhancements to make to our environmental standards.
I assure the hon. Member for Bassetlaw that the draft regulations are not about trying to roll back or do different things; they are about ensuring that the law that we have today will still work on the day after we leave.
With respect to scientific expertise, updates and so on, it is fair to say that the United Kingdom has a strong record of contributing to EU-wide research. It is my understanding that the research used by the Commission is publicly available, so it will be open to us to use research shared across the European Union about any changes made, as well as research available domestically. I do not think that there will be an extra onus on advisers beyond what there is today. We work with other member states of the European Union when we are considering making changes to regulations, and I expect that that will still be the case.
The Greener UK briefing—which, as I say, was not presented to the Government with any questions in advance of this Committee—refers to article 20 of the water framework directive, which permits certain technical annexes and articles to be adapted by the European Commission based on scientific and technical progress. The concern has been raised that such powers will somehow no longer be in place. The power will be transferred to the Secretary of State and to Ministers in the devolved Administrations in a future DEFRA cross-cutting statutory instrument that will be entitled Transfer of Functions (Environment Directives) (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments). That instrument will be made under the affirmative procedure, but we deem that the functions that it transfers—including the function in question—are not time-critical for day one. We would be aware today of any changes that the European Commission proposed to make through the European Parliament and the European Council. No such change has been proposed at this stage; therefore, that function does not need to be ready for day one. We believe that laying the SI before Parliament in April will give us the powers and functions necessary for the future.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport referred to WTO rules. I assure the Committee that this is about WTO rules that say, “You cannot treat one country differently from another.” The SI is about making that change. As it stands, standards in the United Kingdom are the same as in the rest of the European Union. We are bringing over those standards, and it will be for the United Kingdom to decide what standards are appropriate in the future. I remind the Committee that there are a number of differences, albeit not in this case, between us and most of the European Union, such as the way we treat electricity and our plug system. That does not mean that we will make big changes going forward, or would make them for the WTO.
I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is right about insufficient care in drafting. I believe that we have covered the points that he made on the intercalibration network. The reality is that that work has already been done. It will not be done again; we do not see the need. As I said, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and directors on behalf of the Northern Ireland Administration agreed to revoke that decision, as well as to make some other changes.
On different levels of reporting—on whether reporting should be every three years, five years or two years—the point is that we are not changing what we have to do today. If we decide in the future that we want to change the reporting cycles, we can, but we will not do it through this legislation. We will bring over what we have to today, and that will become the requirement from day one.
I do not think that there is a need to introduce a review clause, or a sunset clause for review of any of the regulations. That would add unnecessary uncertainty—and, by the way, I would then be in contravention of what statutory instruments are allowed to do under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, which allows me to make regulations only so that the system is operable, not to introduce new conditions. We are not trying to change stuff for the future; we are actually trying to keep it the same.
On the governance gap, the hon. Gentleman will be conscious of the draft clauses that the Government have tabled. So far, only in England is a proposal in place for a similar body to the European Commission in terms of scrutiny and powers. Other Governments will have to make their own decisions. Although Northern Ireland is interested in consulting on having an office for environmental protection, alongside that for England, we have not been advised by either the Welsh or the Scottish Government that they would like to do the same as us.
The hon. Gentleman asked why the amendment to annex IV of the water framework directive omits the words “Community, local and national” from the annex. The annex states:
“The summary of the register required as part of the river basin management plan shall include maps indicating the location of each protected area and a description of the Community, national or local legislation under which they have been designated.”
Such a description is required because that information would be pertinent to the European Union; it is not necessary in our domestic legislation.
I understand what the hon. Gentleman said about derogations. It is important to state that the Commission does not decide about a derogation; my understanding is that it will give advice. The Secretary of State will take over any function that the Commission has in relation to derogations; as now, they will continue to make decisions on derogations by considering the evidence against specific criteria. Those criteria are being brought into domestic law through the SI, both for drinking water and for nitrates. The basis for decisions will remain the same.
On drinking water, the United Kingdom has used derogations in the past. In England, the last one to be granted was in 2006 for a period of one year. I believe that it is fair to say that the UK has extremely high-quality drinking water, and we can meet all the standards in the drinking water directive. For that reason, we do not intend to use, or envisage using, the derogative provision in the future. With regard to nitrates derogations, the Secretary of State is required to publish on a regular cycle an explanation of why they have been allowed. For drinking water, the water supplier must publish the information; that will continue.
In my opening comments I went into some detail about why we have made changes to article 10. I explained to the Committee that the directives linked to article 10 have already been brought into UK law. I also explained to the Committee that if we do not do it this way, we will have even longer SIs, and more of them, to deal with those cross-cutting references. We believe that it is straightforward—I appreciate that not everybody is an environment lawyer—to make these changes. Greener UK did not raise this point with the Government before it published its concerns just a couple of days ago. I am very happy to take those away and explain to it why what we have done absolutely keeps our current obligations in our transposed law.
Luke Pollard
The example the Minister has just given sums up perfectly the concern that environmental stakeholders have about the volume of SIs coming out. Perhaps the Minister could reassure stakeholders that there will be additional scrutiny of future SIs, in order to give them, the Opposition and parliamentarians the chance to review properly what is being proposed.
Dr Coffey
As I say, the reading room—the pre-legislative procedure—is deliberately open to stakeholders. I shall take away the hon. Gentleman’s request for pre-access for Members of Parliament; I am not aware of that being the normal procedure, but I am very happy to check that. In essence, stakeholders did not share any of these concerns with the Government, even though they saw the regulations a week before they were laid before Parliament, which is why those concerns came as a surprise.
It is important to state that the reports that we will publish will be exactly what is provided for in current legislation. On formatting, we must recognise that the Commission puts forward proposals for 28 EU member states; we will be reporting on something that is fit for the United Kingdom. As for other nations in the UK, my expectation is that when we try to agree common frameworks, which we are starting to do, we will have regard to each other in how we go about reporting on different elements. At the moment, no change is required; the regulations just stop us from having to change our reporting in future if the European Commission decides to do something for the EU27, should we not think it necessary to change our reporting format. This will kind of ensure that we are not locked into certain aspects of the EU’s operational activities when we are no longer part of it.
I hope that I have answered a number of questions from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. I am conscious that the legal wording can get rather technical, but I believe that the regulations do exactly what they say on the tin: they bring over the regulations that are required to ensure that the day after exit, things operate just as they did the day before—no more and no less. Otherwise I would have been breaking the Ministerial Code when I signed the transparency statement. There is no change in policy; the regulations are simply technical. I therefore encourage the hon. Gentleman to reconsider voting against the regulations. I point out that the Labour-run Welsh Government and the Scottish Government, run by the Scottish National party, have both endorsed this SI.
Question put.
Draft Carriage of Dangerous Goods (Amendment) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 9 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 Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Carriage of Dangerous Goods (Amendment) Regulations 2019.
Good evening, Mr Bailey. This is not the first time that I have served in Committee in front of you, and it has always been a pleasure.
This statutory instrument amends the Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Use of Transportable Pressure Equipment Regulations 2009, which regulate the transport of most dangerous goods in Great Britain by rail, road and inland waterway. The amendments made by this instrument strengthen our emergency preparedness and response arrangements for the transport of radioactive material and will bring Great Britain in line with the highest international safety standards. It implements the emergency preparedness and response requirements of the Euratom basic safety standards directive of 2013.
The instrument also contains provisions unrelated to emergency preparedness and response that were included to avoid the additional burden on parliamentary time of having three separate instruments relating to the transport of dangerous goods. One of these reintroduces provisions on the control of so-called volatile organic compounds resulting from the storage of petrol and its distribution from terminals to service stations. It corrects an unintended revocation of guidance for the design and construction of petrol tanks in respect of the control of such compounds. The other simply updates a cross-reference in the Transfrontier Shipment of Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel Regulations 2008.
Before I explain the changes in detail, it might be helpful, as a reminder to hon. Members, to say a few background words about the Government’s position in relation to the safety of radioactive materials. The safety and security of those materials on sites or in transport will, I hope it goes without saying, always remain the highest priority for Government. The UK has well developed emergency response arrangements and we are committed to taking account of international standards. It should be pointed out that the risk of a radiation emergency is extremely low and that risk has not changed, but robust arrangements must be in place for radioactive emergencies, however unlikely they may be. The directive that I mentioned gave the Government an opportunity to review and update Great Britain’s existing emergency preparedness framework in the light of the new internationally recognised safety standards, which build on work done by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Although we will be leaving the EU and the Euratom treaty, the Government remain wholly committed to the highest standards of radiological safety. My Department held a joint consultation with the Ministry of Defence and the Health and Safety Executive on the changes made by this instrument. Last October, we published our response to the consultation, and I am happy to report that the proposals received broad support. Respondents recognised that the changes would strengthen Great Britain’s emergency preparedness and response arrangements for radiological emergencies. They welcomed the fact that the proposals align with IAEA best practice and the highest safety standards.
The amendments made by this instrument are as follows. We have broadened the definition of “emergency” to include risks to quality of life, property and the environment. That takes a comprehensive view of the effects of an emergency. We have also updated the principles and purposes that duty holders are to have regard to when drafting emergency plans, to ensure that the plans are flexible and proportionate. We are including in the regulations a definition of “emergency worker” and comprehensive requirements as to the training, equipment and medical surveillance that employees with roles under an emergency plan must be provided with. We are also expanding the requirement regularly to review and test emergency plans, including with a new requirement to take account of lessons learned from emergency exercises at national and international level.
For civil nuclear transport, the competent authority in Great Britain, which is the Office for Nuclear Regulation, will have a duty to provide information to the public about the nature and effect of a potential radiation emergency. This ensures that the general public have access to information about what to do in such an emergency.
The regulations will introduce a national reference level and require the carrier and consignor of radioactive materials to ensure that the emergency plan prioritises keeping radiation exposure below that level. The regulations also include a duty to provide a handover report to assist the transition from an emergency exposure situation to the recovery phase.
Part 2 of the regulations makes a technical update to a cross-reference in the Transfrontier Shipment of Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel Regulations 2008; and part 3 reinstates a previously revoked provision that implements an EU directive on volatile organic compound emissions resulting from the storage of petrol and its distribution.
The regulations will apply to England, Wales and Scotland; Northern Ireland will separately update its own version of the regulations with similar changes. The changes will affect all operators that transport radioactive materials by road, rail and inland waterway in Great Britain. The impact on business of the changes will be minimal. The main burden will be costs associated with familiarisation with the amendments and making any revisions to emergency plans. We calculate that to be a relatively minor, one-off cost. The other two changes included in the instrument—those on volatile organic compounds and trans-frontier shipment of radioactive waste—are purely technical and will not have any impact on industry.
In August 2017, the then Secretary of State for Defence agreed that although it is not legally obligated to, the Ministry of Defence will, where possible, comply with the emergency preparedness and response elements of the basic safety standards directive. Where Defence has exemptions, derogations or disapplications from applicable health and safety legislation, such as this legislation, it is committed to maintaining departmental arrangements that produce outcomes that are, so far as is reasonably practicable, at least as good as those required by UK legislation.
I look forward to hearing what hon. Members have to say about the proposed changes.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I have to notify the Committee that the credit that I might have had for speaking briefly should be applied to my speech on the SI that we debated earlier. I will not be brief on this legislation, because there are really serious issues with it.
I appreciate the purpose of the legislation. Unlike with other SIs that we have debated, the purpose is not simply to transpose what was already in legislation to a circumstance in which we are no longer in the EU. Indeed, the SI that we talked about earlier was a straightforward transposition of material that had already been in legislation. It was simply a case of noting that we would no longer be a member state and therefore the regulations should apply in exactly the same way, but with those provisions.
This SI places certain elements arising from Euratom directives into UK legislation. In so doing, it makes a number of provisions that I think we ought to look at very carefully. Before we do that, I have to raise two particular concerns, one of which I think is probably fatal to the legislation as it stands. The first issue that I would like the Committee to at least note is that this is actually the second time that this instrument has been laid. An instrument was laid on 13 December and was withdrawn, and a second instrument, with precisely the same title, was relaid on, I think, 20 December. This is a very minor point, but there may be some confusion as to which version we are talking about today, because version 1 is still up on the internet. I hope that we have version 2 before us this afternoon.
If we compare version 1 with version 2, which is in front of us—the version that was relaid just before Christmas—we see that although there are minor changes, such as to a date in a piece of earlier legislation, there is also a major change. The first version stated that an impact assessment would be available, but in the second version there is no mention of an impact assessment. That has disappeared between 13 and 20 December. Was there ever an impact assessment? If there was, why was the second version of the SI amended to indicate that there was none, and if there was not, why was it referred to in the first version of the SI? There is a bit of a mystery there, and it is quite important: if there is an impact assessment, it ought to be before us today.
The second issue, which is far more procedurally serious, is that the SI makes an amendment to the Transfrontier Shipment of Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel Regulations 2008. The part of the SI that that amendment appears in is not a particularly crucial one, but it is nevertheless important: it places within the 2008 regulations an annex from Euratom regulations, which contains a variety of values that are important to our current proceedings. Members might ask, “What is the problem with that?” The central problem is that when we met last week to discuss the Transfrontier Shipment of Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, we agreed to a change in those regulations—we all agreed to it; there was no opposition. That change, among other things, revoked the Transfrontier Shipment of Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel Regulations 2008, so we are discussing amending regulations that we have revoked. The transposition of that annex into the new regulation will have no force at all, because the 2008 regulations no longer exist.
There are provisions about the amount of time over which revocation takes place, but I have consulted on this issue, and it appears the objective position is that we are trying to amend something that has been revoked, although it is not clear whether that affects the whole of the SI or only one part of it. In any event, we are seeking to put through on an unamendable basis a piece of legislation that is manifestly defective in its drafting. Mr Bailey, I seek your guidance as to what the procedure might be under these circumstances: whether we should go through with this statutory instrument—pass it through and out the other end, then think about it subsequently, knowing that we have passed into legislation something that is defective—or whether there are remedies available at an earlier stage in the process.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is raising a fundamental point about what we are doing this evening. Does he think it would be appropriate for the Minister to clarify on a point of order whether we are trying to amend something that does not exist, or whether the guidance that we have received from my hon. Friend—who is highly regarded in these matters, and who will have done his research—is in some way, shape or form in error?
Richard Harrington
I am not trying to flatter the shadow Minister, but I work with him a lot and listen very carefully to what he has to say. Usually, the answers to his questions are extremely complex and I have to do my homework to understand them. However, in this case, my recollection of last week—I will ask my officials for clarification—is that the Transfrontier Shipment of Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 were for the event of no deal only. Therefore, I do not believe his point is relevant; perhaps we will discuss that, but that is my understanding. It is a very constructive and, I am sure, well-researched point, but I think it misses the no-deal point—heaven forbid there is no deal.
Dr Whitehead
The citation and commencement of the regulations that we passed last week stated that they will come into force on exit day, whenever that is. Although that is when the SI will come into force, the revocation applies from when it is made, so it carries forward into legislation. That does not alter the fact that, although another SI will come into force on exit day, we are seeking to amend something that does not exist. Both statutory instruments come into force on exit day, regardless of whether there is no deal or a deal, because they have been made properly through the parliamentary process. If we pass these draft regulations, that is what will happen.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse for his intervention. We ought to think very carefully about whether we are able to proceed with these particular draft regulations, in the absence of a definitive view that, given what we know now, they are not defective and can be voted on and put in legislation.
Richard Harrington
It seems to me that last week we debated draft regulations, but they have not yet been made. That is why, respectfully, I do not think the hon. Gentleman’s point is valid.
The Chair
Order. I have sought advice on this point, and my understanding is that we can proceed.
Richard Harrington
If I may intervene again, Mr Bailey, I am certain that is the case, but if the shadow Minister wishes to have a meeting I will be very happy to put his mind at rest. It would involve going into details with lawyers and so on; I do not think I can do that now. Irrespective of what happens with the SI, I owe him that courtesy and will be very pleased to do that.
Dr Whitehead
I thank the Minister for that offer; I am sure I will take it up. Thank you, too, Mr Bailey, for your guidance on whether we could proceed. I thought we probably could. Nevertheless, what we end up with will not simply fall because it is contingent legislation; when exit day comes upon us, it will be defective because it amends something that no longer exists and therefore has no force. At the very least, it will be necessary to consider whether further legislation needs to be put into place to correct that before exit day. That is the minimum I would expect under the circumstances. It cannot just be brushed under the carpet; it is a serious issue relating to the force of the proposed legislation. Obviously, if we sit together and knowingly make legislation that does not work, we can at some stage be held accountable for that. Therefore, we need to take the matter very seriously.
Richard Harrington
If that were the case, it would be my responsibility and that of the Government, and not the responsibility of the hon. Gentleman, who has made his point very clearly.
Dr Whitehead
I thank the Minister. I personally take the view that we are all in this room together making this legislation and we all have an equal responsibility for making sure that it works, regardless of whether we are members of the Opposition or of the Government. My comments are made in that spirit, not in the spirit of opposition, because I want the legislation to work as well as possible.
Dr Whitehead
I have not yet come to the substance of what I am going to say, but I will give way.
Richard Harrington
For the record, I accept that comment in the spirit in which the shadow Minister made it. I did not think for one moment that it was a political point. He has made a very valid point and I hope I have answered it, but I accept the fact and take responsibility for that.
Dr Whitehead
I thank the Minister for that point. I think I have voiced my concerns in the best way I can, so perhaps we should move on to discuss the rest of the SI.
My other substantive point is about the status of exposure to radiation. The regulations list two ways in which an emergency worker may expect be exposed to radiation. The Minister has rightly stated that the regulations include a central new element, which is the definition and identification of “emergency worker”. That is someone involved in the carriage of radioactive and hazardous materials—typically the driver of a vehicle that is transporting nuclear waste and other material. The expectation set out by the regulations is that the employer of that emergency worker has to ensure that they have the necessary information and training in the event of an emergency. The emergency could be one of a variety of things, such as the vehicle developing a leak or breaking down, or the danger of exposure to radiation, potentially as a result of an accident, and the emergency worker should have the training and knowledge required for such circumstances.
Regulations 8 and 9 set out the dose limits to which an emergency worker may be exposed—the limit that emergency planning should ensure is not exceeded. Regulation 9 focuses on reference levels and states that the dose should be kept below 100 mSv, which is the measure of radioactive intensity to which someone is exposed,
“or the emergency specific reference level if applicable.”
Regulation 8 states:
“Regulation 12 of the 2017 Regulations”—
meaning the overall limits—
“does not apply to an emergency worker, where that emergency worker…is engaged in preventing the occurrence of a radiation emergency; or…is acting to mitigate the consequences of a radiation emergency.”
It continues:
“An emergency worker may be exposed to an effective dose not exceeding 500mSv whilst they are undertaking the activities set out in sub-paragraph (1).”
We therefore have a picture of a general reference level of 100 mSv, although over what period is not specified—nor is the period that the 500 mSv relates to—which can be exceeded under the circumstances of an emergency being realised.
If members of the Committee are still with me, which I am sure they are, they will know that the reference level should refer to the Ionising Radiations Regulations 2017, which set out the maximum dose to which employees over the age of 18 should be exposed. For the purpose of regulation 12, schedule 3 to those regulations sets the limitation as,
“100 mSv in any period of five consecutive calendar years subject to a maximum equivalent dose of 50 mSv in any single calendar year”.
That is subject to exceptional circumstances. The normal anticipated dose for employees and trainees of 18 or above is 20 mSv in any calendar year. In using the definition of someone being an emergency worker, we appear to have substantially exceeded the reference levels set out for employees in the 2017 regulations.
Secondly, the instrument sets out that, in emergency circumstances where that level is understandably exceeded, if someone is engaged in preventing the occurrence of a radiation emergency—that is, if a lorry driver is really grappling with the circumstance that has arisen in that nuclear emergency—the level should not exceed 500 mSv. The Minister stated that that is in line with more recent IAEA guidance about restricting the exposure of emergency workers.
Indeed, the guidance in the IAEA regulatory arrangements is that the other values may be exceeded in emergencies and that the actual level is 500 mSv, but let us look at the circumstances under which that guidance applies. It states:
“This value may be exceeded under circumstances in which the expected benefits to others clearly outweigh the emergency worker’s own health risks, and the emergency worker volunteers to take the action and understands and accepts these health risks”.
That is classified under life-saving actions, or actions to
“prevent severe deterministic effects and actions to prevent the development of catastrophic conditions that could significantly affect people and the environment”.
The category is set out for Chernobyl meltdown-type arrangements, where someone, having been fully apprised of the circumstances, knowingly volunteers to put themselves in a life-threatening situation and literally puts their life on the line through life-saving actions or large actions to deal with a nuclear emergency and the environmental concerns that may arise from it.
Those are not the emergency worker arrangements set out in these regulations—the two do not match. Either the regulations have simply drawn the exposure values too highly, or they have not taken account of the circumstances under which those exposure values might be contemplated. In drawing up the emergency worker arrangements, the draft instrument never covers that particular point raised in the IAEA regulations. It simply mentions possible radioactive nuclear carriage emergencies for which someone could receive training. It does not state that they must agree to take the action or should understand those health risks, unless general training and action is somehow regarded as someone signing away their life and health on each occasion that they drive a nuclear truck.
The draft regulations are completely inadequate in dealing with the proper safety arrangements for people who transport nuclear materials, and actually open the door to a great deal more exposure for those people than I think any of us would regard as reasonable in such circumstances. I appreciate that there are circumstances of nuclear emergency where that exposure may be necessary in order to take action to deal with it. However, those circumstances are not laid out in the draft regulations. In coming to its conclusions, the IAEA envisages an entirely different series of circumstances regarding the possible level of exposure.
The draft instrument ought to be taken away and redrafted, not only for the reason I have suggested—because it does not work—but because it does not appear to have a firm grip on the circumstances, or the escalation of circumstances, that might be necessary to deal with levels of nuclear radiation exposure. Unless the IAEA guidelines are properly written into the draft instrument, we will simply allow various people to put themselves in much greater danger than they sign up for as emergency workers. We should not easily contemplate signing that away.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I have a few brief questions. Paragraph 11.1 of the explanatory notes to the draft instrument says that the Office for Nuclear Regulation will publish guidance, following an informal consultation in 2019. Why will there be such a lag until it publishes that guidance, and why is it only guidance, not statutory guidance?
The following questions are probably more basic or high level and touch on what the shadow Minister outlined. Paragraph 7.3 of the explanatory notes tells of the national reference level of exposure being 100 mSv over one year. How was that exposure level defined? Why do the notes say that that is a cumulative exposure level over one year, yet the reference to one year is not included in paragraph 9 of the schedule?
How does the Minister see emergency plans working if there is a spike towards the end of that one year, taking workers over the 100 mSv exposure level? What guidance needs to be given or action taken if there are several spikes? For example, it is one thing to set the level at 100 mSv over a year, but what if there are a series of spikes of 30 mSv each at one time? That seems to me to be a more dangerous exposure than a 100 mSv exposure over one year. What cognisance has been taken of routine, year-on-year exposure to 100 mSv? It seems to me that a long-term, cumulative effect must increase the cancer risk associated with radiation.
As the shadow Minister touched on, why will emergency workers be allowed to be exposed to that massive spike of 500 mSv? Workers at Chernobyl were relocated at 350 mSv, so why are we saying that our emergency workers can be exposed to an even greater level than what happened at Chernobyl?
Jim Fitzpatrick
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I rise to make two brief points. The first is in respect of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun about dosage levels and exposure. The mention of measurements takes me back to the drills we carried out and the advice we were given during my time in the fire service. My hon. Friend, who has done his research about this measure, raised concerns about dosage levels, and that makes me concerned, too.
Secondly, I accept the Minister’s generous offer to accept responsibility should there be a problem with the basic nature of this measure, in the light of the discussion we had about whether it is valid. His integrity is well known. However, as silence is assent, we would have some responsibility were we to say nothing about it.
Therefore, on both those counts, were my hon. Friend the shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent—as our Whip, he is the other half of our leadership team—to recommend that we should vote against the measure, the Minister having failed to persuade them otherwise in his winding-up speech, I would feel obliged to follow their recommendation.
Richard Harrington
I thank the hon. Members for Southampton, Test, for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and for Poplar and Limehouse for their contributions. I will try to deal with the majority of their points.
I certainly respect the point made by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse that the Opposition may feel it necessary to vote against the measure because, as the shadow Minister argued, it is invalid because it is contradictory. I fully respect that point, particularly given the Whip’s guidance. As you will know from your long parliamentary experience, Mr Bailey, one tends to do what Whips advise one to do, and that is particularly true in the case of the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent. I will try my best briefly to dissuade them.
First, I will try to put to bed the point about the impact assessment, which was mentioned in the first version of the draft regulations but not in the second version. I think the difference was between the versions published on 13 December and 20 December. The decision was taken not to carry out an impact assessment simply because it was viewed as de minimis. There is a de minimis threshold of £5 million. The instrument makes no changes that would involve a significant impact on business, charities, voluntary bodies or the public sector, so we decided not to carry out an impact assessment. That was quite within the rules. I apologise for the confusion, but we had to take a decision, and that is what we decided. Hon. Members may disapprove of that, but there is no impact assessment because the impact is de minimis. It is not the case that there was one and we did not like it so we thought it should be hidden.
I think I answered in interventions the point about contradictions in the legislation. That may or may not be acceptable to the Opposition, but there is no point in my repeating it.
I turn to the point about dose limits for emergency workers’ exposure to radiation. I think everyone shares the intention of ensuring that that does not happen, but if it does the rules are very clear. The whole thing really is very complicated. It is certainly true that planning for an emergency scenario is very different from planning for a normal work scenario. The 500 mSv limit applies only in the circumstances set out in paragraph 8(1)(a) and (b) of the schedule. I do not think the IAEA was thinking only of catastrophic scenarios; I think it was generally allowing for lawful exposures with the intention of reducing harm. That is a very relevant point, but it is very complicated.
I am afraid I gave up physics at the age of 16, for the very good reason that I had failed my exams in it, but the dose limits in the Ionising Radiation Regulations 2017 apply generally to work with radiation. Paragraph 8(1) of the schedule disapplies them in the case of an emergency, because they could cause the employer to commit a criminal offence in dealing with such emergencies. That is why it sets a reference level appropriate to emergencies.
Dr Whitehead
I have given my speaking notes to Hansard, so I have to do this from memory, but does the Minister consider that the regulations as they stand give effect to what is in the IAEA definition of exposure to radiation—the knowledge and understanding that is required, and the informed consent that must be given if that high level of radiation is to be permitted under those circumstances? I cannot see anything in the regulations that says that, and I would be interested if the Minister could point me to anything in the regulations that requires that informed consent to be provided for under those circumstances, as is set out in the IAEA regulations.
Richard Harrington
I consider my response satisfactory and I am prepared to write to the hon. Gentleman on the specific point he brought up. He did very well without his speaking notes.
Returning to the 500 mSv reference level, it transposes an EU directive and brings us into line with international standards. Those might not be the right standards, although we think they are, but it is certainly absolutely in line with them. It is meant as a reference level for planning purposes, and reflects an upper limit. It does not mean that that level is acceptable or normal, but it gives an upper limit. The goal in any emergency plan is, of course, to minimise exposure—that is the whole purpose of the draft regulations—but regulations must set a ceiling, and the definition of an emergency would include doses far below that level.
Repeating the point that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, the SNP spokesman, made, the levels are intended to apply to an emergency situation. Any operator regularly exposing the public to nuclear emergencies would face other sanctions from the appropriate authorities. It is not just these draft regulations that would be relevant in such a case.
I hope that I have explained the points that were brought up by Opposition Members. Despite those points, I certainly in every way commend the draft Carriage of Dangerous Goods (Amendment) Regulations 2019 to the Committee.
Question put.
Westminster Hall
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Cervical Cancer Smear Tests
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 225767 relating to lowering the age for smear tests for cervical cancer from 25 to 18.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Before I move to the substance of the debate, I want to say a little about the woman who started the petition, Natasha Sale. She died on 28 December last year. She was 31 and left four children. I have spoken to her friends this afternoon, and I think Natasha must have been a remarkable person, because it takes a remarkable person to decide, when they have a terminal diagnosis, that they will use their time to help others rather than to bemoan their fate. That is what Natasha did. In her petition, she said that
“it’s too late for me but it’s not too late for the next generation”.
I thank her family and friends, who encouraged people to sign the petition to get the debate today. I particularly thank Natasha’s family, who have kindly said they are happy with the debate going ahead. That, too, takes courage, and I am grateful to them.
Cervical cancer is something that all women fear. Like breast cancer, it strikes at the heart of how we see ourselves and how we define ourselves as women. Because of that, screening programmes have been introduced in this country. In fact, screening is changing so that women will be tested for the human papillomavirus before they get cervical screening, because most but not all cervical cancers are caused by HPV. Screening is currently on offer only to women between the ages of 25 and 64. Those between 25 and 49 are called every three years and those from 50 upwards are called every five years, yet the reasoning behind that offer is perhaps not often understood. Before the age of 25, not only is such cancer very rare, but changes in the cervix are very common. A test can produce false positives and lead to unnecessary treatment and anxiety for women.
Nevertheless, there have been repeated calls to lower the age of screening, not only in this petition, but in others, including one we received previously. In response, the Government would rightly say that the UK National Screening Committee has looked at the evidence and decided that there is no real evidence to support reducing the age of screening. Their reasoning, which is valid, is that one in three tests below that age will produce a false positive; and that, when people are given unnecessary treatment, there is a risk to future pregnancies. I hope the Government will publish the evidence on the risks of getting cervical cancer at that age and the risks from screening so that women can make an informed decision. They should publish that in a way that can be understood by people who, like me, are not doctors or scientists. The evidence is often couched in scientific jargon, which conveys very little to most of us. That is the first important thing that we want to do.
Even with that evidence published, there will always be some cases, and cases in young women can be very tragic. They can lead to the loss of a young life, and often leave children without their mother. Because the disease can be so devastating, in 2008 the then Labour Government introduced a programme of vaccination against the most virulent forms of HPV for all girls from the age of 12. In fact, for that first cohort, we vaccinated up to the age of 18 to catch up. Those who were 18 at the time will now be undergoing their first screening. If as expected the rate of cervical cancer in that age group drops, it will have been well worth while.
When the programme was introduced, I well remember MPs getting a lot of letters from parents saying they did not want their daughters vaccinated—it still happens—because they somehow saw it as encouraging promiscuity. That is not what vaccination is about. It is about vaccinating girls before they become sexually active. I hope parents will think about the risk they are putting their daughters through if they do not have the vaccinations.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for presenting the case in the petition. While the vaccine has been shown to lower incidence of cervical cancer, does she agree that cervical screening should take place as a matter of urgency, initially for those who are sexually active? The average age when sexual activity begins is 15.6 years across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Does she agree that people cannot be allowed to wait 10 years for a first cervical smear? It must be addressed immediately.
Helen Jones
I will answer that point in a moment, because it is important that we look at the evidence. There will always be some cases, even among women under 25. We can never eliminate the risk completely. When that happens, it is important they get the right treatment. That is why in 2010 guidelines were published for GPs to ensure that young women who presented with abnormal symptoms were offered screening and referred on to a consultant if necessary. That does not always happen—I will come on to that in a moment.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I apologise that I cannot stay for the whole debate. What monitoring is done of GPs providing that screening, including for women over the age of 25? I had a smear that presented as abnormal. I had HPV. I went to my local GP and asked for my smear test that I was required to have and was told that they did not do smear tests. What monitoring is being done to ensure that all GPs are adhering to the guidance and their duties under the legislation?
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend makes a very good point and I will be asking the Minister to look at that. Our first problem is getting people through the door. If there is something wrong with us, it is natural to think either that it will somehow go away or that it might be cancer—we kid ourselves that, if we do not get a diagnosis, it is somehow not happening. We need to have much more publicity to encourage young women to report to their GP if they have abnormal symptoms. After all, it might not be cancer and they might be reassured. Equally, if it is cancer, the sooner someone gets treated, the better their chances of survival. I do not think that that message is always getting through, particularly to younger women.
The other problem is that the rates of people attending screening, even among those who are eligible, are falling. In the last year for which I have figures, only 69.1% of eligible women attended their screening appointments. That is down from 73.7% in 2011. In practice, that means that 3.5 million women in this country have not been screened in the past three and a half years. That is very worrying. Even more worrying is the fact that 1.7 million have never had a test. Some 345,000 have not had a test in the past 10 years. What is more, there are significant regional variations in the rates of screening. For instance, for those aged between 25 and 49, the rate of screening in London is 61.6%. In the north-east, it is 72.9%. Among over-50s, the rate in London is 74% and in the east midlands 78%. We need to look closely at those figures and find out why women do not attend. It is no use getting into the blame culture. We need to ask the right questions. Are they frightened, for example? Are appointments not at convenient times? Are there particular groups of women who do not turn up for screening? It is probably a mixture of all three.
I was sent some very interesting information from Jo’s Trust, who asked a group of young women in a survey why they did not attend for their screening. Seventy-one per cent. said they were frightened of the test and 75% said they felt vulnerable. A whopping 81% said they were embarrassed, which is a particular factor for young women who are constantly bombarded with air-brushed photos of what they should look like and what their bodies should be like, so they suffer from a lot of body consciousness. Despite the fact that doctors and nurses keep repeating, “We don’t care what you look like, we are not interested in what you are wearing, we do hundreds of these tests”, the message is not getting through. It is therefore important that tests are conducted in a supportive environment.
Interestingly, in the same survey, 67% of the women said they had felt they were not in control of the test and 68% said they would not discuss their fears with a doctor or a nurse. That particular problem applies to survivors of sexual assault: 72% are put off going for their screening or do not go at all. It is vital that women are screened in a supportive environment where they get the chance to discuss any fears they have with a practitioner beforehand.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I apologise for not being able to be here for the whole of this absolutely critical debate. Cervical screening uptake in Wales is at an all-time low. More than a quarter of women did not attend their cervical screening in the past year. Importantly, last September, Wales became the first nation in the UK to provide high-risk HPV testing as the primary cervical screening test across Wales. It leads to more sensitive and specific tests, more certainty for patients and more appropriate referrals to colposcopy services, faster treatment and then faster discharge times. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Helen Jones
Yes, and I hope those tests will be rolled out across the rest of Britain.
On the problem of women getting access to screening services, time and again they report that they ring their GP for an appointment that is then weeks ahead. Someone I met recently told me that, in her case, it is months ahead. It can be as much as 10 weeks. All are offered appointments at times they cannot attend, perhaps because they work shifts—that applies particularly to younger women who are more likely to be in insecure employment and therefore not eager to ask for time off.
I do not know why we persist in this, but very often the comments on screening give the impression that someone is saying, “These stupid women are not going for their screening.” Actually, there is a problem of access. I remember when we had mobile breast cancer screening units that came to a place of work. I got my blood pressure tested in the middle of Warrington shopping centre because the hospital had a programme to encourage people to go for testing in case they were at risk of vascular disease. Why can we not do more to take cervical screening to places where women are? Why can they not be screened in the workplace, for example, where groups of women are much more likely to say, “Come on! We will all go together”? It is not beyond the wit of man to arrange that.
Helen Jones
I will give way one more time and then I must make some progress.
Jim Shannon
Constituents have expressed concerns to me on two issues: first, that it is very painful; and secondly that it is embarrassing. When it comes to giving peace of mind to ladies going for cervical cancer screening at whatever age, it is very important that the doctors and GPs are involved at an early stage to put their minds at rest. The importance of cervical cancer screening cannot be underlined enough, but the ladies need to be assured of not having the pain and embarrassment, which is a big task for the NHS.
Helen Jones
The hon. Gentleman is right. Women need to be assured that they will be treated sympathetically, whatever their age. All of us who have been to screening know that sometimes it is fine, but sometimes someone is a bit ham-fisted and it is not fine. It is better than getting cancer.
Another issue needs tackling: when women under 25 present with abnormal symptoms such as abnormal vaginal bleeding, they are not always treated according to the guidelines. In fact, they are frequently not treated according to guidelines. There are plenty of examples of younger women going to their GP with symptoms and being told they are too young for cervical screening, and plenty of examples of women going time and again and, as one lady told me earlier, being fobbed off. The problem is that GPs do not see a lot of cases and cervical cancer is therefore not the first thing they think of. The Government must do more to alert GPs to the possibility of cancer to get early diagnosis and ensure that people are referred to consultants where necessary.
Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady that GPs and others must take the concerns of young people under 25 seriously. I recently attended a pensioners’ parliament in Northern Ireland and many women over 64 spoke of the difficulty of being taken seriously when they go to the doctor. The vast majority of deaths from cervical cancer happen to those over 50 and many of those over 64. Is that not also an issue that needs to be addressed? Those women feel that they are being left behind.
Helen Jones
The hon. Lady makes a good point. We need people to realise that women know their own bodies and know if something is wrong, so people must listen to what they say. There are too many examples of women having to pay for a private test before finding out they have cervical cancer. If it is not diagnosed early, there is a chance it will become terminal. If it is diagnosed early, the chances of survival are much greater, so we need to ensure that people are diagnosed early.
On the question of whether the age for screening should be reduced, I am not convinced at the moment. The scientific evidence does not support it, but I hope that the Government will keep it under review. If the evidence changes, we need to change what we do. Sir Mike Richards is undertaking a review of cancer screening and is due to report by Easter. I hope he looks at the issue. Ministers must ensure that they get the best advice and they have to proceed on that advice. We have to remember that, rare as it is, in 2016, 15% of women diagnosed with cervical cancer were under 30, and last year, 12 of those who died were under 30. We can and should do much more to prevent such deaths by ensuring that women are screened where necessary, even if they are under 25. If they have indications that require them to be screened, they should be. We must ensure that we promote the HPV vaccination programme, which is one of the best things that has been done in recent years. I say to parents who worry about it, “Don’t put your daughters at risk. Get them vaccinated.” We have to do much more to convince them that vaccination is the right thing. We have to do much more to make screening accessible and easily available to women, and it must be done in a supportive environment. Let us be honest: it is a bit like a sausage machine when we go to the GP, precisely because health workers are screening all the time. To them it is not at all unusual, but it is to the people who attend; that is the difference.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I hope that, like me, the hon. Lady will support the Public Health England awareness campaign that is about to start, which will try to tackle all the misunderstandings about screenings, and to overcome the feelings of fear and embarrassment that she described so well.
Helen Jones
The hon. Gentleman is right, and it is not before time to have such an awareness campaign. However, it is no good having one unless we ensure that screening is easily available and that people are treated well when they go. That is vital, because one bad experience can put a woman off ever going again, which is not what any of us want.
Natasha started the petition because she wanted to raise awareness of the symptoms of cervical cancer, and to ensure that other women did not suffer as she had suffered. That was a remarkable thing to do, and I hope that today’s debate, which I know her MP, the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), would have liked to have attended—unfortunately, she has to be in Committee elsewhere—will go some way towards doing that. I hope the debate will open up the dialogue on how best to get women screened, and when they should be screened, and I hope that the Minister will commit to keeping the age of screening under review, so that, if the scientific evidence supports screening earlier, that is acted on.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to follow the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) in this important debate. I thank the petitioners, as it is good to have the opportunity to discuss such an issue in open debate. I think that all Members will get the strong impression that there is agreement across the House for what is being proposed.
I will start with the Public Health England campaign, which I mentioned when intervening on the hon. Lady. I agree with her that it is about time we had such a campaign, and that it will have a hard job. On the one hand, it has to tackle issues concerning the women themselves—the enormous misunderstandings about the screening process, and the fear and embarrassment that surrounds it. There is not just fear about the illness; anything to do with cancer creates fear, so there is an enormous amount to overcome.
However, I suggest that the Public Health England campaign should also look at the other side. The Minister has heard us talk strongly today about the impact on GPs, and the way in which they have to handle the issue and make facilities available. It would be very good to have something in the campaign that targets GPs, making those points to ensure that testing happens in the right place, at the right time and in the most effective manner.
The hon. Lady also mentioned inoculation against HPV, which I support. I am pleased that we are now inoculating young boys against it as well, as that makes a very big difference. Those who have talked to medical professionals in this area will have heard stories about the number of people who develop cancer as a result of HPV. It is very good to have such inoculations, and to be able to support the campaign.
Like the hon. Lady, I am not yet convinced that the age for screening should be reduced. Around the world there has seemingly been a general trend to increase the starting age of such programmes. I think the American Cancer Society recommended that the age for cervical screening go up from 18 to 21, which is interesting. The reason she and I believe that the screening age should not be reduced is the false positives that are created. No one wants to be put in the situation of having a false positive test. It is not about the waste of money, but about the concern that a false positive creates for an individual. I am not yet convinced that the age should be brought down but, like the hon. Lady, I call on the Minister to look very carefully at it, to keep it always in his mind, and to keep reviewing it.
I think that Scotland has increased the age at which women go for their first smear test from 20 to 25. That, too, is an interesting reflection of the way things are going, and builds upon the difficulties in dealing with this matter. However, I thank the hon. Lady for presenting the case, and the petitioners for bringing it, and allowing us to discuss it in the way we are doing.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Roger. I am hugely grateful to the friends and family of Natasha, and all those who signed the petition, for enabling us to have the debate, which is much needed.
HPV accounts for 99.7% of cervical cancers. It also accounts for cancers in boys. I would like the Minister to seriously consider rolling out the vaccine programme to boys as well. I cannot think of any other inoculation programme where we inoculate only half the population. It seems a bizarre approach to trying to eliminate a reasonably common form of cancer.
I will build on what my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) said about the fears. As soon as I started tweeting about this matter, people replied saying how dangerous the vaccine was. I am sorry, but the evidence does not support that. It is an insurance policy for people’s children, and I urge parents to look at the evidence, rather than the scaremongering on Facebook and Twitter.
HPV is a sexually transmitted virus. As my friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, unfortunately children start having sex, on average, at 15.6 years of age. Legally they can have sex from the age of 16. I am sorry, but to me it does not make sense to have a gap of nine years, knowingly, between when children are likely to become sexually active and be exposed to a sexually transmitted disease and when they have any screening.
When I started talking about this issue a couple of weeks ago, two of my friends came to me and said that their cervical cancer was picked up when they were 21. They were incredibly fortunate in one way: because they had a history of cancer in their family, they were on the programme for high-risk people, so it was picked up. I am very concerned about the people who are not on that programme and for whom it does not get picked up. If two of my friends had this cancer at 21, I am sure that many others are at risk, and will have cancer that is not picked up until it is too late.
The smear tests are not fun and can be embarrassing, but at my GP they have changed. They now use a small brush that is nowhere near as uncomfortable. I say to the Minister that there are ways of minimising the discomfort of such tests. Turning to my personal experience, I have always gone for my smear tests. After one test, I received the letter we all dread, saying that there were some abnormalities and asking me to go back for a biopsy. When I did so, lo and behold, it was confirmed that I had cancerous cells.
I did not have any symptoms. If I had had the symptoms, I would probably have put them down to something else, because they are irregular bleeding, discomfort during sex and back pain—I am 49, so I suffer those quite a lot anyway. [Laughter.] Those are not abnormal symptoms at any age, even at a younger age—I look to the women in the room. If I had had those symptoms, the last thought on my mind would have been, “Oh, my goodness; I might be at risk of cervical cancer. I must go and do something about it.”
I was lucky that it was picked up really early, so I had simple day surgery and did not require any further treatment. Two weeks ago I got the letter saying that I was six months clear, which is just wonderful. I want everyone to know that feeling, and that is why I am so grateful that the petition was put forward and there are campaigns, and why I am so concerned that the number of women going for smear tests is dropping.
The figure cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North that 1.7 million women have never had a smear test chills me, but there are often very good reasons why women are not going. A lot of it, for the women I speak to, is due to past sexual violence or childhood trauma. I ask the Minister to look at the guidance that goes out to GPs. If a women has never been for a test, or has missed a number of appointments, instead of assuming that she is being difficult or that she cannot be bothered, is it possible to put something in the chase-up letter that says, “We understand that this can be very difficult, so here is the nurse you can talk to, so we can minimise some of the trauma and the worry that going for a smear test might create”?
These are simple things that we can do and that can change lives. I am very supportive of lowering the age for smear tests, for the reasons I have outlined, but I also think that we owe it to young women to give them the best protection they can possibly have.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to speak in this debate. I was supposed to be with you and others at the Council of Europe last week, but I was not there; I was having a biopsy done, because I had had an irregular smear. It was an uncomfortable and painful experience, but it was largely made better by the fantastic doctors at St John’s Hospital in Livingston. I will get the results in three to four weeks—hopefully they will be all-clear.
It is very important that those of us who have a voice use it to speak out and encourage young women and people in the trans community to have their smear tests. I had a really fantastic conversation last summer with people from Jo’s Trust, who spoke passionately about the work they are doing with members of the trans community.
I want to pay tribute to some of the organisations that work in the area, including a charity in my constituency called the Michelle Henderson Cervical Cancer Trust. Michelle Henderson was in the year below me in high school; I did not know her well, but we occasionally attended the same house parties and I knew her to be an incredibly bright and vivacious young woman. In October 2010, at age 26, she was diagnosed with cervical cancer. She died on her 28th birthday in October 2012. Her father is the famous football player Willie Henderson. Michelle set up the charity not long after she was diagnosed, and Willie has continued her incredible work in her memory. A couple of years ago I did the 120 km last leg of the Camino de Santiago to raise money for that incredible charity.
Too many women are dying young. Many of us feel that we must listen to the health professionals; we absolutely must, but we must also consider the individual cases of those who, like me, had irregularities picked up early on, well below the age at which cervical smears are now being carried out in Scotland, England and the rest of the UK.
The hon. Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Warrington North (Helen Jones) mentioned victims of sexual violence. I want to pay tribute to the work of My Body Back, a project set up in August 2014 by Pavan Amara that supports women who have experienced rape or sexual assault to take their bodies back again. It runs specialist services and recently opened a clinic in Glasgow that includes a cervical screening and maternity clinic. That work is so vital, because for women who have been victims of sexual violence it can be a harrowing experience to have to go and have a smear done. The fact that the design of speculums has not developed or changed in decades, if not longer, says something about the care that is given to women’s health.
I was diagnosed with HPV—for the rest of the world, let us remember that that presents itself as genital warts—in my late teens. I had intercourse with a man—I was not out at that point—and the condom broke. He was good enough to get in touch to tell me that he had contracted HPV, not from me but from a previous partner. That was an experience that I have lived with ever since. It has been a source of deep shame, because it means that no medical professional has ever been able to tell me whether my irregular smears—I have had many over the years, and much treatment for pre-cancerous cells—were directly related to that experience.
The positive part of the story is that a few years after my experience, and after I was given the all-clear, I was contacted by a big health conglomerate that was developing a vaccine to stop HPV and asked me to give my cells. I was happy to do that, so I spent a couple of years travelling back and forth to clinics, giving my cells and blood. My unfortunate experience—the experience of many women the length and breadth of the country, and not something we should be ashamed of—led to my cells being used to develop the vaccine that is now given to many women and young girls across the country. That is something I am very proud of.
I had not planned to speak about my personal experiences today, but I figure that those of us who have a voice should use it. Cervical smears are at an all-time low. There may be an element of complacency because we are wiping cervical cancer out, but—as my doctor reminded me the other day as she was peering over me while doing my colposcopy—the vaccine protects against only three strains of HPV, which, like all viruses, has a habit of mutating. We must say to every person who should be getting their cervical smear how vital it is, and we must listen to them about their real and genuine concerns.
As the hon. Member for Warrington North said, the terrible shaming of women’s bodies in the media plays a key part in why women and girls feel that they cannot come forward. We must remind them that our bodies come in all shapes and sizes, and they are all beautiful. The only way to prevent this terrible disease from killing more women is to make sure that we get out there, talk about it and encourage them to go for their cervical smears.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, particularly under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. It is great to be in a Parliament in which women are prepared to stand up and share some of the most private, intimate things about their lives—probably things they have not told their mothers—in a forum such as this.
Hannah Bardell
I just want to say that, when I went to the sexual health clinic in Edinburgh, my mother came with me. She was the only person I trusted—and, yes, until today there were only a handful of people in my life who knew that story.
Jenny Chapman
She sounds fantastic—how lucky you are.
We are now in an age in which women can stand up in Parliament, as I do not think they could even as recently as 2010, when I was first elected, and talk about the cost of Tampax, smear tests, their sexual history—
Jenny Chapman
And mesh, as my hon. Friend never stops reminding me. That is a good thing—a wonderful thing—and I am really proud to be part of it.
When I saw that this debate was taking place, I asked for the data for Darlington, because I wanted to see where we stood. I was anticipating the same thing I normally get when I compare health data for the north-east with the rest of the country, but I was pleasantly surprised: take-up is better in the north-east than in most places in the UK, which is a very interesting fact. Part of it, I think, is about the stability of communities and the ability to access services that are themselves stable. They do not tend to move around too much and GPs tend to serve for longer. Although there can be many problems with access to services, it appears that, in this regard at least, women in my constituency are availing themselves of the opportunity to get tested at a higher rate than women in other parts of the country. That is very welcome.
Looking at the data on Darlington, I notice that the participation rate among 25 to 49-year-olds is fairly steady at about 74% or 75%. The take-up among older women—those aged between 50 and 64—has gone down by 2% in the last year, which seems to be the case in other parts of the country as well. I welcome the discussion about testing young women under the age of 25, but we should be mindful that we might be sending the message to older women that they do not need to worry. Take-up is perhaps dropping off more quickly among older women than among those in other age groups due to embarrassment, indignity and all of that. At the risk of oversharing, the only smear test I have ever had—where I really did not care happened not long after I gave birth to my second child. That was not an issue at that point. However, I am mindful of the fact that older women are not taking part in the way we would wish. Some of that is obviously about the indignity, but also there is a lot of misinformation and misconception about cervical cancer.
I have heard it said that once a person is no longer as sexually active as they might have been earlier in their life, or does not change partners quite so often, they are somehow at less of a risk or no longer need to be so concerned about cervical cancer, and their need for a test is therefore reduced. I have heard people say that, if they are in a same-sex relationship, they do not need to have a cervical screening test. There seems to be an association between sexual activity and a risk of cervical cancer. I do not know where that has come from or why it persists—my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) referred to it when she talked about vaccination. That kind of misconception seems to apply to older women as well. If the campaign mentioned by the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) takes place, it is very important that they take the opportunity to get those messages right, too.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) made a very helpful point about women who have been victims of sexual abuse. They have a very special and entirely understandable concern that is not taken into account by the blunt approach that service providers can take. More thought needs to be given to that. Disabled people might have additional needs when accessing this test, and I am absolutely certain that not every setting will be able to cater for those needs in a way that enables a disabled woman to have the test with the dignity and sensitivity that we would all expect.
The declining participation in smear tests is a trend that should ring an alarm bell for Ministers, and I am sure it does. This is a red-flag dataset. It is great that we have the data—it is fantastic to debate something with clear information, and when we can see good-quality data over time and get a good idea of what is happening in different parts of the country. We must use that to nip this problem in the bud before it gets even worse. From people I have spoken to, access to this service is one of the principal reasons, along with all the other things that we have talked about, why women are not participating in increasing numbers and why we are seeing those numbers decline.
The GP patients’ survey last year found that 28% of patients found it “not easy” to make an appointment over the phone to see a nurse—up from just 19% in 2012. We have had many debates in this place on the difficulty in accessing GP services, which I know the Government will want to grapple with. It is affecting these women. A smear test is a very easy thing to want to put off. Someone might get round to making that phone call, but if it does not quite work the first time, it is tempting not to get round to it again for some weeks or probably months.
The work that Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust has done is absolutely phenomenal—what a tremendous organisation. It is really impressive. Its data, stories and the way it puts those across in a manner that everybody can access and understand are fantastic. The trust found that one in eight women find it difficult or impossible to book an appointment for their smear test, which just cannot be right. It might be the case that women should be encouraged to access services not through a GP, but through a specialist clinic where they could access contraceptive services at the same time. That is now available in Darlington—it is also open in the evenings and is a very good service, which might be one of the reasons participation rates in my constituency are holding up relative to other areas of the country.
Obviously I take the point that the age of screening must relate to science, but I wonder whether this is a situation in which we might be able to prevent some of the misconceptions and anxieties about pain, which does not need to happen, or a lack of dignity, which there does not need to be if screening is done sensitively. Young women can have a good experience if they are encouraged to have a test at an early age. Perhaps we need to give some thought to positive early experiences of smear tests to increase participation rates among women over 25.
We need to consider an awful lot about access to the test and cervical cancer generally. This is an important part of it and I congratulate everybody who signed the petition and put it in front of us. We have an opportunity to do something that would make the lives of my constituents and everybody else’s so much better and safer. The Minister is listening and thinking hard, and I know he wants to do right by the people who signed the petition.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to take part in a debate in which there have been so many thoughtful and personal contributions. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) on her detailed opening. I tried for some time to secure a debate on this subject, in order to raise the concerns of my constituents and others who were denied smear tests because they were under 25 and so did not receive a diagnosis of cervical cancer. My hon. Friend raised the case of a young lady who died of cervical cancer around Christmas. She believed that had she been allowed a smear test earlier, the cancer might have been caught at an early age.
My understanding of the campaign under way at the moment is that it does not necessarily aim to extend access to smear tests to all women under the age of 18; it argues, more simply, that a smear test should be carried out when a doctor believes it is necessary. I know of the case of a young woman, Lucy, who lives in a constituency neighbouring mine. She had a history of cervical cancer and so was given a smear test, but the lab did not even test the sample and destroyed it because she was under 25. She went on to develop cervical cancer—it was detected when she went for a private smear test. I am happy to report that it was eventually cured, but not without the difficulties of treatment.
My constituent Sophie wrote:
“I’m 23. I have two children (aged 5 and 16 months). When I was 17, I fell pregnant with my first son and my midwife asked for a smear test a few months after I gave birth, as I was suffering from abnormal pains in my pelvis area. My sister had been diagnosed with cervical cancer that year and my nan sadly died from it a few years before”—
So there is a family history. Sophie went on to say:
“I wasn’t given one, due to my age. Three years ago, I was suffering from pain again and they refused a smear, again due to my age, but used a cotton wool bud for a swab. This came back with abnormal cells and I was given antibiotics to clear these up and take the pain away. The doctor advised me if it carried on I would develop cervical cancer and may not be able to have further children. However, he did not refer me for a smear.
I had my daughter in June 2017 and still suffer from strange pains and, again, my midwife asked my doctor to refer me, but my age has always been a massive problem. I’m 23. I have two kids. I’m a law student, and it’s always in the back of my mind that, due to my previous abnormal cells, which they didn’t look further into, and my family’s history, I could potentially have cancerous cells I don’t know about, which would completely ruin and change my babies’ lives.”
Sophie concluded:
“I totally back you, Chris, with this, and hope that this legislation is changed. It’s totally against women’s human rights and discriminatory in age.”
The proposal is that women under the age of 25 should have access to cervical smears if they are needed. Objections to the proposal suggest that smear tests that are done too early might be inconsistent and inaccurate, and throw up false positives, as other hon. Members have mentioned. The campaign is not about testing all young women by extending the testing programme to 18 to 24-year-olds; it is about allowing a test only when the circumstances require it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North talked about the current regulations, which she believes are not being implemented. The regulations behind the 25-year age limit are now 13 years old, and they have not been reviewed in that time—my hon. Friend therefore asked the Minister that they be reviewed. The Smear on Demand campaign has prepared an extensive research paper that shows that the initial figures used 13 years ago to justify the 25-year age limit may have been incorrect, as they related only to when patients were diagnosed with stage 1B onward, as opposed to stage 1A. Many of the high-profile cases that we have heard about today were initially diagnosed with stage 1A. The campaign looked at figures for women under 28. The number of women diagnosed with stage 1A is highest in those aged 25—the figures start only at 25 and are not collected before then.
The smear test is supposed to be a preventative measure, but women can access it only at 25. It makes no sense to remove the possibility of prevention for the lower age limit. I do not think that it is in dispute that 25 is a good age at which to start routine smears, but when a doctor believes that a woman under that age needs a smear test, it should surely be allowed on the NHS. The campaign is not asking for all women under 25 to be tested; only those for whom that is recommended by a doctor. Some 99.7% of cervical cancers are treatable, because cervical cancer goes through three stages of pre-cancer, which means that it can be very slow growing. Currently, a smear test is the only cancer-detection test available that can detect pre-cancers.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to prevention in the NHS strategy that he recently presented to the House. I also welcome his commitment, which he gave to me in the main Chamber, to asking Mike Richards to look into the issue. I have not yet heard from Sir Mike, but I am sure that he will soon be in touch following the Secretary of State’s commitment. The House is currently dealing with some very difficult, intractable and divisive issues. This is not one of them. It is an easy issue for which a Minister can perhaps change the regulations and direct that if a doctor believes that a young women under the age of 25 has symptoms that require investigation, they are investigated. That is a minor change that could have major consequences. In these difficult times, I urge the Minister to apply some common sense and grab that chance with both hands.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank everybody who signed the petition and all the women who have come to listen to the debate. I know that getting down to London can be quite tricky—I say that because I come from Hull—so I thank them all for coming.
I agree that having a smear test is not pleasant, but I think that we would all agree that it is crucial. While we are in a sharing mood, I will share a little bit with you all as well. I too had abnormal smear tests and was found to have pre-cancerous cells when I was in my early 20s. I had just finished university and decided to move to Leeds to spend time with my sister. It was fine, because I had the biopsy and—they had to remove the cells—went through the various bits and pieces of the operation. Since then I have been on a yearly recall, so I have had so many smear tests. Every time I ask whether I still need to be on a yearly recall, they say, “We’ll let you know,” and then the following year I have to go back. I am due to go back again, so this debate has prompted me to pick up the phone and arrange that.
I did not take my mum with me to that procedure, because unfortunately she was unable to come, so I took my sister, who is five years younger than me —I was only about 21 or 22. The experience of coming in to watch terrified her; she was there to offer me moral support, but I found myself reassuring her throughout my operation, saying. “Don’t worry; it’s fine. I’m perfectly okay.” I think that we should be a bit more open and honest about these things.
We should also do the brilliant thing that we all do when we get a little embarrassed: laugh about it, because it can actually be quite comical. As I said, I have had so many smear tests, and when my friends are worried about them, I joke about the ridiculous, small piece of blue towel that is meant to preserve our modesty. The midriff is hidden by the piece of blue towel while all the rest is exposed to the world—that is funny. It was also quite funny when, not long after being elected, I was lying there and someone asked, “Are you our local MP?” I said, “Oh, yes. I am.” We then proceeded to have a conversation about how I was finding life at Westminster. I said, “Well, slightly more comfortable than this, thank you very much!” We should find those things funny and we should laugh.
While I am in the sharing mood, I have a little tip for all the women out there. If, like me, they suffer from a hidden cervix—apparently mine is quite shy—a towel or cushion under the bottom lifts it up so it comes into view. That is a little bit of health advice while I am here.
In all seriousness, there is a growing problem. In Hull, the figure for women having smear tests has dropped to only 73.1%—that is a huge fall. The figure is slightly higher in East Riding, at around 78%, but that is nowhere near the 80% for which the NHS is aiming. I echo the words of all hon. Friends and hon. Members who have spoken when I say that the Government need to conduct some kind of survey to find out why. Is the problem, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) said, that women associate smear tests with sexual activity? Do they think that they have no need for one? Do their working hours mean that they are not able to attend tests? Let us find out and make life that bit easier for all of them.
We know, when looking at the NHS cure rates, that 92% of those whose cancer was detected are cured. That is wonderful. I cannot possibly say what would have happened to me had mine not been removed—I do not know. I am here today, all is well, and I will book my next smear test. Some 66% of all those diagnosed after developing symptoms are also cured. We need to do more to push that message out to people and get rid of the myths. I absolutely support what my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) said in his beautiful speech about the importance of reducing the age to 18 under a doctor’s advice.
I have been involved in a campaign for teaching menstrual wellbeing in schools, on the education side of the issue, because I am not sure that everybody understands what the abnormal signs or symptoms are. I became involved in the campaign through my support for the charity Endometriosis UK, but I think that removing the taboo around periods, smear tests and so on would also help a lot of people. We must start talking in schools about menstrual wellbeing, what normal and abnormal periods are, and what normal and abnormal symptoms are. If we start to have that conversation, we will give people the language and ability to talk about the matter without feeling really shy and saying, “I’ve got a problem with my—I can’t say the word.”
We should be able to talk about it, which reminds me of a brilliant story. When I was doing a radio show for my campaign on vaginal mesh, I spoke to the show’s producer before I was due to speak live. He said, “We’re very supportive of the campaign, but it’s a breakfast show, Emma, so could you not say the word ‘vagina’?” I therefore spent the entire interview talking about problems with “mesh” that was “in” women’s bodies. We need to dispel all of that nonsense and shyness and start being a little more open, and I implore the Minister to work with the Schools Minister in support of my call for menstrual wellbeing to be taught in schools.
Hannah Bardell
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady about how, for some reason, we cannot talk about parts of our bodies at that time in the morning. In the same way, I still find it incredible that adverts for sanitary products depict women’s period blood as being blue rather than red. I do not know about anyone else, but I have never bled blue in my life.
Emma Hardy
Perhaps that is the royal family only. The hon. Lady is absolutely right. For years I was convinced that if we used Tampax, it would suddenly make us fitter, more active and able to roller-skate—[Laughter.] Sorry, we are descending into farce.
On a serious note, I ask the Minister, please, to look at what my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North said about lowering the age to 18 when doctors give a recommendation. I also ask him to support my call for menstrual wellbeing to be taught in schools, and to have a wider survey into understanding why people are not attending tests, so that we can do something to change that for the future.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am grateful to be able to speak in the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for introducing it, and I welcome everyone in the Public Gallery. Natasha’s friends and family who are here have definitely brightened up the gallery and this debate, and we are grateful.
I pay tribute to Natasha Sale, a brave young woman who organised the petition that we are debating. As we heard, she was diagnosed with metastatic cervical cancer before passing away on new year’s eve last year—a 31-year-old woman who left behind four children. It is incredibly sad to hear that she never got to see this moment through, but I hope that, by having the debate, we pay tribute to her tenacity and her commitment to ensure that it was heard. On the petition webpage, she wrote:
“If I can do anything with my life I want to make this change happen, it’s too late for me but it’s not too late for the next generation of young ladies.”
That is a truly brave statement. I am only sorry that she could not make it to see the campaign debated on the Floor of the House. We are, however, very grateful to have all those present in the Public Gallery.
Natasha’s bravery and selflessness to the last in the face of that horrendous disease is truly humbling and should be commended by all. In doing so, we must also recognise the commitment of her family and friends who continued her endeavour to reach more than 100,000 signatures on the petition, which is a feat in itself. In raising awareness of cervical cancer through their campaign and by encouraging women to take smear tests, they have undoubtedly already saved lives.
Breaking the taboo is so important in the fight against cervical cancer. This debate should serve not only as a motivation for every young women who is scared to get regular check-ups and to see their GP, but as a reminder—I am sure it has reminded many of us present—never to be too busy to do the same.
Contributions from hon. Members in all parts of the House are most welcome, and it is always a pleasure to have men speak in these debates because, as the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) rightly pointed out, for too many years in this House such issues as this one have been seen as women’s issues. They are not women’s issues, because every man has a mother, a wife, a daughter or a sister, so the discussion should be had by everyone. It is therefore most welcome to have had those contributions.
I will summarise some of the contributions. The hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) raised cases from his constituency and others, especially that of the young woman who, sadly, died around Christmas last year because she was denied access because she was under 25. That she is not here at this point is a great sadness. The hon. Member for Darlington highlighted how the debate should be part of everyone’s agenda, not only on behalf of their constituents but to raise awareness that it is not just a women’s issue. I also join the calls of the hon. Members for Warrington North and for Henley (John Howell) for the Government to keep the matter under review.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) brought a bit of light-heartedness to the debate. As harrowing and awful as this is, it is important to find a way to laugh. I found myself in a similar position and, up in stirrups, someone telling me, “Oh, that’s where I know you from”—easily the strangest time to be recognised, and a little bit weird. None the less, I had gone to have my smear test.
The hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle and for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), and my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) gave very personal contributions. The House is always richer when people share such experiences and give voice to the many more people who do not have a platform. I am grateful to each and every Member who shared in their contributions—they were deeply personal, but we appreciate their honesty and candour.
I also pay tribute to Jo’s Trust, especially because it has actively sought to ensure access to GP services. That is particularly important not only in England but in Scotland, so that people know they can access such services.
Cervical cancer is the most common cancer in women aged between 25 and 35 years old. I find myself in that bracket, so I use this opportunity to encourage every young woman in Scotland: please, have your smear test done if it has been a while or you have never done it. Now is absolutely the time, with about six women in Scotland diagnosed every week—please, do not be scared. Go and have that done. It is so important.
We know that smear tests are the best protection against that form of cancer. A test is not the most comfortable or nicest experience, but it has to be done, because when tests are done, they are estimated to save about 5,000 lives each and every year across the UK, and to prevent eight out of 10 cervical cancers from developing. Despite that remarkable fact, however, the most up-to-date figures show that, as we heard, only 73% of eligible women accept the offer of a test—but, ultimately, that means that 27% of eligible women do not, and they miss out on a potentially lifesaving trip to the doctor.
I have heard some of the reasons why people avoid participating in the tests, as the hon. Member for Warrington North also told us. The test might be said to be intrusive, offensive, scary or gross but, although it is not a pleasant experience, that is not a reason not to have it. While it is true there are more fun things than getting a smear test, the same can be said about a number of other routine check-ups. I do not particularly like going to the doctor or the dentist, but doing so is important.
Clearly, more work has to be done to encourage the take-up of screenings among certain groups of the population. As we heard, evidence shows lower participation in cervical screening among young women living in areas of deprivation, women with a learning or physical disability, black or minority ethnic women, and lesbian and bisexual women—the myth among those women, myself included, was that they should not have to have a smear test because they are sleeping with someone of the same gender. As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston rightly highlighted, the test is also for those who are trans. It is easy to assume that this is a women’s issue, but it is an everyone issue.
In Scotland, we are working hard to ensure that all those at risk see the importance of attending cervical screenings through public awareness campaigns to tackle the fears that people might have about having a smear test. The contrast remains apparent between the least and most deprived areas, however: 78% of women who live in the least deprived areas attend their smear test, whereas only 67% took up the offer in the most deprived areas. Ultimately, those in the most deprived areas are least likely to attend. I hope the Minister recognises those figures and looks at what the Government can do to raise awareness in those areas. That proves that we have so much work left to do.
In Scotland, we are introducing tests for HPV within the routine smear test to allow for earlier detection and more effective treatment. Health Scotland has produced a toolkit to help GPs, practice nurses and practice staff to optimise uptake, reduce barriers and ensure that women make an informed choice about cervical screening. Despite those efforts, according to a recent study, 72% of young women said that they had delayed a test or never went for screening because they felt embarrassed. I do not know about anyone else, but I dread to think that the notion of “dying of embarrassment” could truly be the case. I hope we can do more so that young women know they should not feel embarrassed and ashamed. We must do more to encourage women to get further screening. If we break the taboo, we will save lives.
We should use the opportunity of World Cancer Day on 4 February to raise awareness and to encourage women to come forward. We should use the House as a platform not just to speak about Brexit—I am sorry to mention that word—but to tackle the issues that affect women so much.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for introducing this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I, too, pay tribute to Natasha Sale, who started this important petition. As others have said, it is so sad that she did not live to see this debate take place. Her family, I am sure, are very proud of her.
I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate: the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), and my hon. Friends the Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), for Darlington (Jenny Chapman), for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), and for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), whose speech was excellent and we will not forget any time soon. I thank the hon. Members for Livingston (Hannah Bardell), and for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley), who spoke on behalf of the SNP. It has been an excellent debate with very good contributions and lots of sharing. I am a classic oversharer, but I will try to resist the urge. Finally, I thank the 167,000 people who have signed the petition so far.
This is a very timely debate, because Cervical Cancer Prevention Week concluded only yesterday. The age to start screening is a very emotive issue. Every year in the UK, more than 3,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer. As we have heard, 15% of those women are under 30. Last year, 12 of those under 30 died from cervical cancer. The number of cervical cancer deaths has fallen in recent years, but it remains the most common cancer in women aged 35 and under. That is why I welcomed preventive measures such as the introduction of the HPV vaccination, which was offered to adolescent girls in secondary school.
My daughter was one of the first to receive the vaccination when she was 13. I was very pleased to give that permission; I would not have hesitated for a second to give it, although as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North said, a number of people do not give permission. That is very concerning; genuine concerns will have led them to that decision, but we must do what we can to allay their fears. We heard about the catch-up programme at the time, to ensure that all girls up to the age of 18 were vaccinated.
At that time, I looked extensively into this policy area, following a campaign by Washington constituent, Claire Walker Everett, and her family. Claire led the campaign before her untimely death at the age of 23 in 2008, and her family continued it for some time afterwards. I called for a further catch-up programme to address what I called the “seven-year gap”, so that women between 18 and 25 could be vaccinated until they were eligible for smear tests. I said that the gap would close each year until almost all under-25s had been vaccinated, as is now the case. That was 10 years ago, so that gap has closed. Many of those first vaccinated are approaching 25 and are eligible for a smear test, so we should have a whole generation of young women and girls who mostly have been vaccinated against the HPV virus, to help protect them from cervical cancer.
The vaccination programme has been very successful on the whole, with a high national uptake of around 85%. However, I have previously raised with the Minister the significant regional differences in the uptake of the HPV vaccination, which need to be addressed. The lowest uptake for the two doses is in Stockton-on-Tees, at 48.3%; the highest uptake is in East Renfrewshire, at 95.6%. That is curious, and flies in the face of the screening statistics cited by hon. Members, which show that the north-east reached higher rates than others. Perhaps the differences are in pockets rather than whole regions.
I therefore ask the Minister what steps he is taking to investigate and address the regional inequalities in HPV vaccinations and screening. How do the Government ensure that the HPV vaccinations are taken up by the vast majority of girls? Otherwise, the reassurance of my earlier statement that a whole generation of women and girls approaching 25 have been vaccinated falls short in certain areas, which is extremely concerning. Cervical smear tests are available to women aged 25 to 64, yet cervical screening is at a 21-year low. Last year, it was discovered that more than 40,000 women had missed out on crucial information about cervical screening appointments and test results. Has the Minister made any assessment of the impact that has had on uptake? Can the Minister give assurances that this issue has been solved?
According to Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust, which I commend for its tireless work and campaigning, one in four women across the UK do not attend cervical screenings. That proportion increases to one in three among those aged 25 to 29, when they are first eligible for screening, and to one in two in some of the most deprived regions in the UK. That decline can be for a host of reasons, such as fear or embarrassment.
I pay tribute to TV shows that show the medical equipment involved in a smear test; the “Victoria Derbyshire” show even showed a smear test live on the show on Friday, in an attempt to address those reasons. There was no wincing or obvious cries of pain, so it will have been reassuring to someone who has not had one, although I am sure some viewers complained that it was not suitable daytime viewing. Aside from doing more of that, will the Minister tell me what steps he is taking to increase take-up? Additionally, what steps is he taking to educate women on the need for cervical smears and what the tests are for? I understand that some women believe that a cervical smear will also detect ovarian cancer—as he knows, that is not the case.
As I mentioned, most women under the age of 25 have received the HPV vaccination, giving them excellent protection from the HPV virus. That means that the reason that once may have existed to lower the screening age no longer does. However, I say again, that reason falls down in low take-up areas. Additionally, I worry that lowering the eligibility age for a cervical smear test to 18 would cause additional problems and worries for young patients, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North detailed so well in her excellent speech. False positives are more likely in younger women, as they often undergo natural and harmless changes in the cervix that a smear test would identify as cervical abnormalities. In most cases, those abnormalities resolve themselves without any need for treatment.
Treating false positives as cancer can damage the neck of the womb, which can cause a woman to give birth prematurely in any future pregnancies. In women under 25, therefore, the risk is deemed to outweigh the benefit. However, as my hon. Friend said, women should be provided with that information, to make judgments for themselves. Wider education should start in school; my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle called for that to start as early as possible, to tackle the fear and embarrassment as soon as possible. I also believe that much more research should be done on the age so a decision can be made that is best for all women.
Cervical cancer is very rare in women under 25, with under three cases per 100,000 women. However, every such case is an awful ordeal for the woman and her family, and sometimes it becomes a tragedy, as it did in the case of Natasha Sale. That was also true for Claire Walker Everett from Washington in my constituency, who died at 23 and whose case first brought this issue to my attention, and more recently for Amber Rose Cliff from the neighbouring Sunderland Central constituency, who died in 2017 at the age of 25. If a young woman has abnormal bleeding or symptoms that she is concerned about, she should be taken seriously by her GP and offered a smear test as soon as possible as part of the health investigations into what is causing her symptoms.
I believe that is part of current guidance and best practice, but we have heard clearly that that guidance is not always followed. That was the case in the short life of Amber Rose Cliff. Between the ages of 18 and 21, she went to the doctor around 30 times, complaining of worrying symptoms and asking for a smear test, only to be told 30 times that she was too young and sent away. When she was 21, her mum paid for her to have a smear test privately. The results were devastating. It was cancer, and the cancer had spread. She died just four years later, aged 25. Young women should not be excluded from a valuable screening service just because of their age if they have symptoms, as Amber obviously did. GPs should be aware of cervical cancer symptoms and know that they should refer young patients who present with such symptoms for smear tests as part of wider investigations.
With all I have said in mind, I conclude that the age for cervical smear tests should remain at 25, on the condition that further research and debate is conducted and tests are offered to those under 25 who present with symptoms. The Government must also ensure that preventive measures such as the HPV vaccination are taken up as fully as possible, and that women who are eligible for a cervical smear test attend their appointments when they are invited or as soon as possible thereafter. I know the Minister cannot drag them all there personally, but I look forward to his response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Brine)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger—I shall refer to you again in a moment. I feel somewhat outnumbered, along with the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), but I am rather used to that, having chaired the all-party parliamentary group on breast cancer for five years with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). We were often referred to as “Steve and the girls”.
I completely endorse the point by the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) that this is not a women’s issue. Natasha, whom I will come to in a moment, had four children—two of each. It is very much a boys’ issue for them, as it is across the board. [Interruption.] We may have heard the B-word only once during the debate, but I could have sworn I just heard something from outside. I must be imagining things.
It has been a privilege to be part of this debate. It is only right that I start by expressing my sincerest condolences to the family and friends of Natasha Sale, who tragically passed away in December. I know I speak on behalf of all Members present when I say that our thoughts are with her family and friends. Anybody who has lost a loved one to cancer knows the pain and anguish that the family are experiencing due to Natasha’s loss. As somebody who has fought and lost more than I have won, I am one of those people. In some of the coverage of Natasha’s death, I saw a quote from Amanda Scott, her best friend, who said:
“God only takes the best”.
I thought that was a lovely quote. We have heard that many times before, but I was interested in how that was reported.
As the Minister responsible for public health and cancer, cancer prevention and early diagnosis are vital priorities for me. I am delighted to see Natasha’s army here today. I saw the pictures on the bus on social media this morning, with some interesting hand signals—I must ask them about that. It is very good to see them all here. I hope they know, as Members know, that I will continue wholeheartedly to support the efforts of the NHS and Public Health England, which I hold to account, and of all our excellent cancer charities, which work as part of team cancer to prevent cancer and reduce the number of families who have to go through what Natasha’s family is going through.
There have been so many interesting speeches. Luckily, for once I have time to touch on a number of them, if not all of them. I was very interested in the point made by the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) about the data showing that take-up is better in the north-east than almost anywhere else. I was interested in what she had to say about the reasons behind that. The NHS as a system too infrequently talks to Members of Parliament, who know their areas better than most. I will ask Sir Mike Richards to contact her, perhaps along with the hon. Member for City of Chester, who is obviously still waiting for an introduction. I am very happy to facilitate that. Her other point was about access, which many Members mentioned. I will ensure that her very good point about disabled women is fed into Sir Mike Richards’s review, and I encourage her to raise that with him when she sees him.
[Ian Austin in the Chair]
I will come to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), who introduced the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, because many of the points she raised will come up in my speech. I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Henley talked about the “Be Clear on Cancer” campaign and the new Public Health England campaign that will be rolled out next month. He mentioned the role of GPs in those campaigns. “Be Clear on Cancer” is a public-facing campaign, but elements of it relate to GP education, which I will come to. He often makes very good points in our debates, and I thank him for raising that topic. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) also mentioned GP understanding, which I will touch on.
The hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) made a very personal speech. She said she is awaiting results, and I think I speak for everyone when I say we wish her well. We will be thinking of her, and our fingers are crossed for her. She made a point about the trans community, which I had not heard mentioned in this context. NHS England has published clear guidance for trans men—people who have changed from female to male. Trans men who still have a cervix and have not had a hysterectomy remain entitled to screening. If a trans man is still registered with their GP as a female, they will continue to receive invitations for screening. If they are registered as a male, they remain eligible for screening but will not automatically be invited. The guidance makes clear that trans men need to request screening from their GP. I thank her for raising that point, which is another that I want to feed into Sir Mike’s screening review.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) made a brilliant speech, as always. She should be on the stage. The rather unconventional advice surgery she talked about may not catch on, but I enjoyed hearing about it. We constituency MPs all dread somebody saying, “I’m sure I know you from somewhere.” She talked about education, particularly in schools. Public Health England has a range of materials aimed at providing teenagers and their parents with information about things such as the HPV vaccination programme. She will know that the Department for Education is also working on new relationships and sex education guidance. Its consultation closed in November. That guidance, which will include input from Health Education England, will be published in the first half of this year.
I took the Teenage Cancer Trust and CoppaFeel!—a breast cancer charity with possibly the best name of any cancer charity—to see my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards at the end of last year. We were very keen to make the point to them that we must improve awareness in schools of health, bodies and particularly cancers, but in a balanced way that educates children about warning signs without frightening the life out of them. I think we have struck that balance, and I think Members will be pleased when they see that guidance rolled out in the first half of 2019.
Helen Jones
Will the Minister tell us whether that guidance includes educating young girls about the need to go for smear tests? Some of Natasha’s friends have forcefully made the point to me that if we do that, it may encourage girls to go for smear tests when they reach the age for screening.
Steve Brine
I cannot tell the hon. Lady that, but I will find out and write to her and other Members who in the debate. It is not my policy area—obviously I am not the Minister of State for School Standards—but it is a good point and it would seem logical that that is done in consultation with the Department of Health and Social Care and with Health Education England.
To go to the heart of where I want to start, the hon. Member for City of Chester talked about a constituent being refused a smear test. He said that it would be simple for a Minister to change the regulations and said that this was an example of the system not doing what we direct it to do. As the shadow Minster said, the system should already do that. It would not be appropriate to go into individual instances, but it is important to understand that cervical screening is a screening test and not a diagnostic test. It aims to detect abnormalities of the cervix that if left undetected may develop into cancer, so it is preventative. Cervical screening is not appropriate for women with symptoms, but if women of any age, including under-25s, have unusual symptoms or abnormal bleeding, they should consult their GP immediately and they should be treated under the NHS and initially offered a speculum examination in accordance with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance for primary care. If that is not happening and if that were one of my constituents, I would be taking that up through the procedures that the hon. Gentleman will know about as an experienced constituency MP. I think that is clear.
The hon. Gentleman also touched on the petition. To be clear, the petition is entitled:
“Lower the age for smear tests from 25 to 18 to prevent cervical cancer.”
He is right to raise the point about women requesting that. We do not often hear about “Liberating the NHS: No decision about me, without me” in the House these days, but it is still very much alive. I would encourage him to take that case up, as I would encourage any other Member who runs into that issue to do.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
Will the Minister address the issue of self-screening kits for HPV in his remarks? I am sure he will go on to talk about them. My interest is at the other end of the spectrum, with women aged over 64, but it is pertinent to young women, aged 18 to 25, as well.
Steve Brine
Indeed. If the hon. Lady is not satisfied with what I say now, then please come back and we will make sure that she gets more information after the debate. Self-testing for HPV is an emerging area of medicine. It is not in the same place as the fecal immunochemical test for bowel cancer, but it is an emerging and exciting area of policy. I echo all the positive words that have been said about Jo’s Trust, Jo herself and Rob Music, who runs that charity.
Members will be aware that the NHS offers cervical screening to all eligible women aged 25 to 49 every three years and to those aged 50 to 64 every five years. The screening is designed to detect abnormalities of the cervix at an early stage so that women can be referred for effective treatment. It is important to remember that the purpose of population screening is to reduce mortality and morbidity from cancer and other conditions—that is why we do it—in people who appear healthy and have no symptoms, by detecting conditions at an earlier, more treatable stage. Hence prevention is better than cure.
The purpose of any screening service is to maximise the chances of healthier outcomes and, by association, minimise risk of harm to the whole population. With this in mind, the UK National Screening Committee considers the evidence on whether population level screening should be offered and makes recommendations to Ministers. It is not Ministers who make this stuff up, and nor should we. Using research evidence such as pilot programmes and economic evaluation, the NSC assesses the evidence for programmes against a set of internationally recognised criteria. It is important that these recommendations are made by experts based on the best available evidence, and not by politicians.
On this basis, in 2012 the UK NSC recommended that women should be invited for their first cervical screening at the age of 25. This recommendation was based on evidence that showed that the majority of women below this age would receive little benefit from being screened and treated, which can lead to unnecessary treatment, as we have heard from hon. Members. It is very rare that cervical cancer occurs in women under 25 —as the shadow Minister said, there are fewer than three cases per 100,000 women. That is no consolation to someone who, like Natasha, is one of those three who pays the ultimate cost. I am only setting out the facts as they are.
Younger women often undergo natural and harmless changes in the cervix—it is part of their physiology—and screening could identify those as cervical abnormalities. In most cases the abnormalities resolve themselves without any need for intervention. The recommendation picked up by the NSC in 2012 concurred with a major review by the Advisory Committee on Cervical Screening undertaken in 2009, so the advice goes quite a long way back. The hon. Member for Warrington North asked me whether the NSC would publish its evidence on the decision to screen from the age of 25. The NSC publishes minutes of all its meetings and the full rationale behind any recommendations. However, I will ask Public Health England and the UK NSC to publish any relevant evidence used by the NSC in reaching its conclusions and on which they based their recommendations that is not already in the public domain, which I hope she will be pleased to hear.
I will talk about HPV primary screening. Every life is precious and we cannot be complacent in continuing to do all we can to prevent cancer—those who know me know that I am not complacent. Therefore, we are modernising the cervical cancer screening programme by introducing the detection of human papillomavirus as the primary test in the NHS cervical screening programme. I can confirm that this will be implemented across England by 2020. Cancer Research UK estimates that, when fully implemented, HPV primary screening could prevent an additional 600 cases of cancer every year. As we have heard, almost all cervical cancers are caused by HPV, which is a very common sexually transmitted infection which is linked to the development of the disease.
In addition to changing the primary test in the cervical screening programme itself, I want to highlight that vaccination against HPV, introduced in 2008 under the previous Government, is now routinely recommended for all girls aged 12 to 13. In England and Wales the first dose is offered in school year 8. The programme aims to prevent cervical cancer related to HPV infection and the best way to do that is to vaccinate girls and young women. We are fortunate to have achieved good uptake of the HPV vaccination in adolescent girls since 2008.
The first cohort of teenage girls to receive the HPV vaccination in year 8—those born in September 1996—will turn 23 this year and become eligible for routine screening in two years’ time. It will be of intense interest to all of us to see what impact the vaccination will have on the number of abnormalities detected through routine cervical screening and we will be monitoring this very carefully. I will be watching it like a hawk, as Members would expect. We have already seen that the vaccine has led to a reduction in HPV infection in young women and we anticipate a fall in the numbers diagnosed with cervical cancer at the age of 23 to 24 this year.
Boys have received a level of protection from the girls’ vaccination programme over the last 10 years and we have had debates in the House about that. I referred to the previous Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), because he led a debate in the House about HPV vaccination for boys and there was a lot of debate about it. A lot of people said that the boys get herd immunity and therefore they do not need the vaccination programme. Again, I am led by the evidence and the advice that I am given, but my personal view was that I did not agree with the herd immunity argument. I was pleased that I agreed with the advice and from September 2019, all boys aged 12 and 13 will also be offered the HPV vaccination against HPV-related diseases, such as oral, throat, penile and anal cancer. I know the hon. Member for Rotherham wanted to hear about that. That will help reduce the incidence of HPV infection circulating in the population.
It is worth saying that, although HPV infection is the primary cause of cervical cancer, many other cancers, such as head and neck cancer, will be seen a long way down the line. Without wishing to be indelicate, I am told that the popularity of oral sex means that HPV vaccination will have a big impact on the incidence of oral cancers. As the dental Minister, I often hear from dentists that that is a growing problem, so I am pleased that we are able to make a positive policy response, which has been well received.
As the hon. Members for Warrington North and for Rotherham said, there are plenty of people who disagree with HPV vaccination. Whenever I speak on the subject— I can feel the tweets landing in my inbox as we speak—I open myself up to the responses of those who vehemently disagree. All I can say is that I think they are wrong and that that is what the evidence suggests. This is a free society and they are of course entitled to that opinion, but we base policy decisions on the evidence. That is where we are. What I have said about the HPV vaccination for girls, and now boys, is important, but I reiterate the message that it is still important for women who have been vaccinated to attend their cervical screening appointments when invited. It does not turn people into Wonder Woman.
The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West asked me what we are doing about education for young adults on HPV vaccination, and regional variations in uptake, a point that she has raised with me before. NHS England works in close liaison with Public Health England to deliver the HPV vaccination programme for girls, and in future for boys, and closely monitors uptake rates. It sends me regular reports. Local NHS England commissioners have access to those uptake rates in their area and, in due course, so will MPs. They work with providers, schools and healthcare professionals to improve coverage, sharing best practice where relevant. It became clear to me when looking at the information that there are variations, which is a concern. I made my concerns about regional variation in vaccination uptake clear to the NHS and have had meetings with NHS England and Public Health England on a number of occasions—twice in recent months—asking for additional action to increase uptake across England. I want them back in my office on a regular basis to report to me. That somehow seems to stimulate them.
I am pleased that the NHS long-term plan featured involving local co-ordinators to encourage uptake. That came out of those meetings along with various other commitments to improve vaccination rates, not just for HPV but across the vaccination piece. That includes requiring CCGs to ensure that all vaccination programmes are designed to support a narrowing of health inequalities. They know that I remain on their case. If the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West would like to continue the conversation on that with me, I should be pleased to hear it.
The review that the Secretary of State has asked Sir Mike Richards to carry out has been mentioned. Cervical cancer affects many women and their families, and screening can help to prevent many people from developing cancer each year. It is obviously important that women take up their screening appointments to help spot abnormalities. However, with uptake only at about 75%, we know that we need to make it easier to book appointments and more convenient for women to attend them—that point about access came up a number of times in the debate.
I met Mike recently and said that I have an app on my phone that tells me when my car is due for a service and lets me book a local appointment at a time that suits me. We do not embrace that kind of no-brainer technology enough in healthcare. We have to embrace modern technology to ensure that screening programmes are fit for the 21st century. The Secretary of State and I feel passionate about that, and it should offer greater ease of access. Doing that will, I am sure, improve uptake rates. That is one key reason why we are considering comprehensively how our current national screening programmes can be improved, particularly in the light of recent issues that could affect public confidence in screening and lower uptake.
Professor Sir Mike Richards will be leading a review of all three cancer screening programmes, which of course includes cervical screening. His review will report in the summer and will specifically assess the strengths and weaknesses of the individual programmes. It will also address, as I have just outlined, how the latest innovations can be utilised and integrated with research to encourage more people to be screened, and to make it easier for them to do so. That point was raised by many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Warrington North. I met Sir Mike a couple of weeks ago to discuss the fact that his review clearly needs to set out how we can bring our screening programmes right up to date to make them fit for the people who use them. I await his recommendations with optimism. Mike ran screening programmes in the Department of Health and Social Care before the passing of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. He has great experience and credibility within the system, which is important. We have great optimism about his work.
We must do more to raise awareness not just of the importance of taking up screening, but of how to recognise the potential symptoms of cervical cancer. Breast cancer awareness campaigns have been phenomenally successful in that kind of work. In her petition, Natasha said that she wanted to make a difference to the next generation of young women by raising awareness of the symptoms. I have seen the videos online of her little girls—they are heartbreaking. Natasha certainly raised awareness of the symptoms of what is a terrible disease. I believe she has already made a difference, highlighting how vital it is for women with symptoms to contact their GP as soon as possible. Indeed, it is 10 years since Jade Goody, who also took on the fight to raise awareness, sadly died of the illness. We shall, with the permission of Jade’s family, use the anniversary to help raise awareness of the importance of screening, and of taking up appointments. In the aftermath of Jade’s sad death attendance rates rocketed. Obviously that has waned. We will, in Jade’s and Natasha’s honour, make the most of the 10-year anniversary to save other women.
Jenny Chapman
It is encouraging to hear what the Minister says, and his comments about the legacy of Jade Goody and others. It is a tremendous thing that they have left to us, with the campaigns we have benefited from. However, is there not, up to a point, cause for concern in that the examples being used are younger women, which could reinforce the misinformation about the need for younger women to be more concerned about cervical cancer—and therefore for older women to be less concerned? Sometimes I wonder whether the prominence given to the examples in question may create an issue for another group of women.
Steve Brine
The hon. Lady makes a good point, and there is always a danger with public awareness campaigns, even down to the models, actors and actresses used in the advertising campaigns, with presentation and positioning. I take the point, and Public Health England, which works on such campaigns for me, will also take the point the hon. Lady raises. I assure her it will be sent a copy of the debate.
A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Henley, who is no longer in his place, have raised the matter of GPs. Guidance for GPs has been developed and published, specifically aimed at improving the primary care of young women who present with gynaecological symptoms. That guidance, produced by a multidisciplinary group, including professionals, patients and the voluntary sector, and endorsed by the relevant royal colleges, offers clinical practice guidelines for the assessment of young women aged 20-24 who present with abnormal vaginal bleeding. GPs are continually made aware of the symptoms of cervical cancer and the need to refer women under the age of 25 for further investigation. From today’s debate, it sounds as if we have further to go, but we knew that, of course. As part of the delivery of essential medical services under the National Health Service (General Medical Services Contract) Regulations 2004, GP practices must offer consultations and, where appropriate, they must also offer physical examinations for the purposes of identifying the need, if any, for treatment or further investigation and, if needed, referring the patient onwards as soon as possible. The hon. Member for Rotherham made an excellent point about understanding the history of trauma that some women on their lists had had. Obviously it is a subject that she has a lot of experience of in her constituency; I thank her for making that excellent point, and I will ensure it is fed into the Mike Richards review.
I have mentioned the “Be Clear on Cancer” campaign a couple of times, and said that Public Health England will work to raise awareness of this disease through that campaign, which we have run in partnership with Cancer Research UK since 2011. It has covered many different areas and is scheduled to promote the uptake of cervical screening from next month.
While we are still on the awareness point, in the 2016 Budget the Government announced that Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust, which does so much good work in this area, as has been said, would be a beneficiary of the tampon tax. It received £650,000 in funding to kick-start a campaign to get closer to eradicating cervical cancer. I take part in many of these debates and talk about cancer, as does the shadow Minister. One third of cancers are preventable and two thirds of cancers are just bad luck. With some cancers, we are nowhere near, but this is a cancer we can get rid of. This is a “bad” that we can eradicate. That is why we are so determined to get it over the line.
Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust ran a campaign on eradication in 2017 and 2018; it was a wide-reaching awareness programme, with a specific focus on groups where there is a higher prevalence of non-attendance of cervical screening: interestingly, that is women from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, women from disadvantaged backgrounds—a point already made—and women in the 25-to-29 and over-50 brackets. The funding enabled the trust to provide targeted education and information to those groups and to produce a body of evidence on the barriers to screening and how to overcome them.
The trust found that some young people do not attend appointments because they are embarrassed; that finding received a lot of press coverage and came out in Prime Minister’s questions last year. Others do not think the test is important, and yet more do not think they are at risk because they lead healthy lifestyles. One in four do not attend their screening appointment, and that needs to change, so this is important work.
From talking to Rob from Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust, I know that one thing they found on the roadshows when they were testing this work in 2017 and 2018 was the importance of talking to women’s partners and the role partners can play in reminding, or nagging—whatever word we choose to use—women about taking up their screening appointments. Last week, the trust led their annual cervical cancer awareness week, with an event here in Parliament. The aim is to help as many people as possible to know how they can reduce the risk of the disease, and to promote that among their constituents.
The #SmearForSmear campaign reinforces the message that smear tests prevent 75% of cervical cancers, so while they may not be pleasant, as we have heard, they are important. I was pleased to support them myself, as most of the Health team did, at the event in Parliament last week, and I thank all hon. Members who took part; I know Jo’s Trust found it helpful. As Natasha’s Army says—this is such an important message—we need to support all young women to “lose the fear, take the smear”.
If I may try to draw my remarks to a close, this Government—as did the previous Government, and as will the next Government—recognise that cervical cancer is a devastating disease, and we are committed to providing well-managed screening programmes based on the most up-to-date, peer-reviewed evidence. Cancer is right at the heart of the NHS long-term plan, which was published on 7 January, and I am very proud of that fact. The plan sets out a comprehensive package of measures that will transform cancer diagnosis and treatment across the country over the next 10 years, a decade in which patients can expect to see vast improvements in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cancer. The aim is to see 55,000 more people surviving cancer for five years in England each year from 2028. That is quite an ambition, but we will get there.
Cervical screening saves an estimated 5,000 lives a year, and the Government are committed to continuing to do all we can to prevent cancer and ensure early diagnosis, which is often rightly called cancer’s “magic key”, so that more families do not have to go through these personal tragedies, as the Sales have done. We are up for the fight. I thank everyone for taking part.
Helen Jones
I thank the hon. Members who have participated in this debate. I have learned more about some of my colleagues than I ever thought I would. I cannot compete with their stories of recognition; the only thing that happened to me was after I had had a smear test, which did not show abnormal cells but was a bit dodgy for various reasons. I was waiting in hospital for an exploratory op, and everyone was being very, very careful about not saying who I was, until the porter came in to take me to theatre and proclaimed loudly across the ward: “You the MP then, love?” God bless Warringtonians.
We have heard a lot of useful comments in this debate about the need to look at variations in the take–up of screening, including variations between regions; about the need to find out what is going right and what is not; and about the need to be careful how we communicate with women. I had a letter following a mammogram that began, “Do not be alarmed.” As I told the person in charge of screening, who happened to be someone I had gone to primary school with, that is immediately very alarming. People often do not think about what they are sending out in letters.
We have also heard about the need to ensure that the guidance on young women presenting with abnormal symptoms and how they should be screened and treated is put into effect. I hope the Minister recognises the concern around the Chamber that that guidance is not always being followed; when it is not, it can have disastrous results. We have heard about the need to review the evidence on what should be the best age for screening and to keep that evidence continually under review.
We have heard about the need to counter any resistance to the HPV vaccination programme. There is now a lot of false information about vaccination programmes going around on social media and the internet, and it needs to be countered, not by us as politicians, but by doctors and clinicians who really understand the value of vaccination. Like the Minister, I will probably get a lot of angry tweets and emails after this debate, but we must ensure that the evidence, not false information, is what leads us. I am glad to hear that the Minister takes this matter seriously—I am confident that he does—and I hope we will make further progress in the coming years.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 225767 relating to lowering the age for smear tests for cervical cancer from 25 to 18.
Written Statements
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Teacher Recruitment and Retention Strategy
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Damian Hinds)
Teaching remains a popular career choice for many. We recruited over 2,000 more trainee teachers for the 2018-19 academic year than in 2017-18, continuing the positive trend we saw the previous year. However, the growing number of pupils of secondary age means that we need even more teachers. This is at a time when we are losing more teachers from the profession than we can afford to, and are operating in the most competitive labour market on record.
To address this, the Department for Education has developed a teacher recruitment and retention strategy. Building on extensive quantitative and qualitative evidence, the strategy was developed collaboratively with teachers, headteachers, representative bodies, teachers’ unions, initial teacher training providers and leading experts.
At the core of the strategy is the understanding that there are no great schools without great teachers. No other profession is as important to the fate of the next generation or as uniquely rewarding as teaching. The strategy outlines four key areas where focus, investment and reform can have the biggest impact on improving teacher recruitment and retention.
Priority One: Create the right climate for leaders to establish supportive school cultures
At the heart of this will be reforming the school accountability system. In particular we will radically simplify the system helping to reduce pressure, consulting on making “requires improvement” the sole trigger for an offer of support—replacing floor and coasting standards. The new Ofsted framework will have an active focus on reducing teacher workload, with inspectors considering staff workload as part of the leadership and management judgment. They will also look unfavourably on schools that implement burdensome data practices, and will refuse to look at internal assessment data.
Priority Two: Transform support for early career teachers
We are launching the early career framework, which will underpin a fully-funded, two-year package of structured support for all early career teachers linked to the best available research evidence—alongside funded time off timetable in the second year of teaching and additional support for mentors. We will create a major shift in the incentives for new teachers by introducing phased bursaries, with staggered retention payments to encourage good people to remain in the profession, as well as to join.
Priority Three: Build a career offer that remains attractive to teachers as their careers and lives develop
We will develop specialist qualifications to support clearer non-leadership career pathways for teachers who want to stay and excel in the classroom. We will invest in these new and existing leadership qualifications, and will do so disproportionately in challenging schools. We will support headteachers to transform approaches to flexible working in schools.
Priority Four: Make it easier for great people to become teachers
We will launch a new discover teaching initiative, giving as many people as possible the opportunity to experience the unique opportunities that a career in teaching provides. We will radically simplify the process for becoming a teacher, introducing new digital systems designed to make application much easier and more user-friendly. In particular, we will introduce a new one-stop application service for ITT, which will be easier to use and designed to better meet the needs of potential trainees. We will review the ITT market to support it to work more efficiently and effectively.
This strategy builds on work already in hand to achieve this Government’s vision to improve teacher recruitment and retention. We know that delivering this vision will take time; the issues are complicated and long-standing. But we are committed to continuing to work closely with the teaching profession to deliver this vision.
I will deposit a copy of the strategy in the House Library.
[HCWS1278]
Migration Crossings
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
Since November 2018 there has been a significant increase in the number of individuals attempting to cross the English Channel illegally in small boats.
This activity represents a substantial risk to the lives of those attempting the crossing, as well as to the rescue services. Organised criminal networks are exploiting vulnerable individuals to drive profit from what is a highly dangerous activity.
As I set out to the House on 7 January, I declared a major incident on 28 December to send a clear message that we will not tolerate these life-threatening and illegal crossings. I established a Gold Command structure to co-ordinate my Department’s response to this issue.
Good progress has been made to date. The re-deployment of Border Force assets and use of aerial surveillance has substantially improved coverage in the Channel and our extensive work with our French counterparts has improved co-ordination, both on land and at sea. We have built on existing structures, such as the Centre Conjoint d’Information et de Co-ordination (CCIC), which sees Border Force and Police Aux Frontiéres working alongside law enforcement partners to exchange real-time intelligence on criminality at the border and work together to identify and dismantle criminal gangs involved in people smuggling and wider cross-border crime. The Immigration Minister attended the formal opening of CCIC with Interior Minister Christophe Castaner on 25 January and saw first-hand the efforts that both countries are making to enhance our co-operation around border security.
Through these efforts, we have managed to reduce the number of individuals attempting the crossing from around 250 in December to around 90 so far in January, with roughly half of the January attempts being intercepted by partners in France before they can make it to British waters. But even one crossing is too many and I am determined that we make further efforts to deter both the facilitators and the individuals making these crossings.
To that end, I met with Minister Castaner in London on 24 January to agree a Joint Action Plan. The plan solidifies and builds on our existing border security partnership by setting out over £6 million (€7 million) in investment for new security equipment, as well as increased CCTV coverage of ports, air surveillance and shared intelligence. We have also agreed that migrants encountered in the Channel will be taken to the nearest safe port, in accordance with international maritime law.
In addition, the plan features a mutual commitment to return more migrants to France who have used boats to illegally cross the Channel. The first of these returns took place on 24 January.
We will not allow illegal migration and its facilitators to flourish, and we will continue to work closely with France and other countries to provide a strong deterrent against these dangerous crossings. This includes making it clear that those fearing persecution should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, and my officials are looking to strengthen our inadmissibility guidance for claims made by those who have travelled here through countries that are internationally recognised as being safe.
The Joint Action Plan comes into force immediately and builds on the existing framework of co-operation set out in the Sandhurst Treaty. I am confident that it will strengthen the achievements that we have made to date and I thank our French colleagues for their collaboration in working with the United Kingdom to tackle this critical issue—protecting human life, and our border.
I will place a copy of the Joint Action Plan in the House Library.
[HCWS1280]
Local Government Funding: Brexit Preparation
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
Local government will play a critical role in making a success of Brexit at the local level. My Department is committed to ensuring councils have the support and the funding they need to prepare for an orderly exit from the EU and do appropriate contingency planning. Table of overall funding allocations 2018-19 (£m) 2019-20 (£m) Total (£m) Upfront funding for all councils* 20 20 40 Authorities affected by ports 1.5 1.5 Retained foe specific local costs which arise 10 10 Split between Departmental teams and local government sector 5 5 Total 56.5 *Division by type of authority shown in table below Table showing split of £40m upfront funding by type of authority 2018-19 (£k) 2019-20 (£k) Total (£k) Combined Authorities (11 including London (GLA)) 91 91 182 District councils 17.5 17.5 35 County councils 87.5 87.5 175 Unitary authorities* 105 105 210 *Unitary authorities will receive the sum of the county and district allocations. Metropolitan boroughs and London boroughs are unitary authorities.
Today I am announcing an additional £56.5 million to help councils carry out their preparations.
Councils will receive £20 million this financial year as well as £20 million to spend in the next financial year to fund additional planning and capacity. Across the two years, all district councils will receive £35,000, all county councils will receive £175,000, all unitaries will receive £210,000 and all combined authorities will receive £182,000, and £1.5 million will be allocated in 2018-19 only to local authorities facing immediate impacts from local ports, with details of the allocation and distribution of that funding to be announced shortly.
I am retaining £10 million for allocation during 2019-20 to respond to specific local costs that may only become evident in the months after we exit the EU.
Finally, £5 million will be split between teams in my Department and the local government sector for specific purposes such as strengthening resilience preparations and supporting communities.
This funding will help councils to adapt to changes caused by Brexit, while still protecting vital local services.
This will not be the only resources councils receive to fund Brexit costs. The Government have been clear that Departments will assess and, if appropriate, fund any potential new burdens arising on councils as part of EU exit work they are undertaking.
As for councils’ overall funding, the provisional finance settlement which I announced before Christmas provides extra funding, with the confirmation that core spending power is forecast to increase from £45.1 billion in 2018-19 to £46.4 billion in 2019-20. This amounts to a cash increase of 2.8% and a real-terms increase in resources available to local authorities. I will be returning to this House shortly, following consultation, to announce the final settlement.
[HCWS1279]
Grand Committee
Offensive Weapons Bill
Monday 28th January 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Offensive Weapons Act 2019 View all Offensive Weapons Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 149-II Second marshalled list for Grand Committee (PDF) - (28 Jan 2019)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the Committee that, if there is a Division in the Chamber, we will adjourn for 10 minutes from the sound of the Division Bells. I also draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that, on the Marshalled List, there are explanatory statements to some of the amendments. These are included as part of a trial of their use and they have no procedural impact, lest anybody should be in any doubt.
Clause 1: Sale of corrosive products to persons under 18
Amendment 1
Lord Paddick
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, alongside the amendment to page 1, line 5, would make a failure to take precautions or exercise diligence criteria for the offence, as distinct from defences which would come into play only after the person had been charged.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I will speak to the other amendments in the group in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. These amendments seek to change the offences in the Bill from those where there is a reasonable excuse defence only when charged to ones where, if someone has a reasonable excuse, they do not commit an offence. They seek consistency in approach between legislation where no offence is committed if someone has an offensive weapon in a public place because they have a reasonable excuse and legislation where, in exactly the same circumstances, a person does commit an offence and has to rely on a defence only once they have been charged. The amendments also seek consistency between offences where the burden lies on the prosecution to disprove a reasonable excuse defence and offences where the burden lies on the accused to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they have a reasonable excuse.
We return to an issue that I raised in discussion of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill and which is applicable here; namely, creating offences where a completely innocent person commits an offence and has to rely on a defence once charged, rather than someone with a reasonable excuse for his actions not being guilty of an offence in the first place. In the context of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill, the Government acknowledged this problem in relation to the designated areas offence. In that Bill, the Government accepted that, rather than a person entering a designated area and having a defence once charged if they had good reason to be there, if they entered or remained in a designated area involuntarily or for a range of other reasons stipulated in the Bill, they did not commit an offence. The Government accepted that there could be legitimate reasons for visiting or remaining in a designated area and that it was more sensible to say that no offence was committed if they had good reason, rather than that they committed an offence but had a defence once charged.
In one part of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill, the person does not commit an offence if they had good reason yet, in another part, a person has a defence once charged—a different approach in different parts of the same Bill. It is still a Bill, I think, and has not yet received Royal Assent—I am getting nods from the back, so that is good.
In Clause 1 of this Bill, a person commits an offence if they sell a corrosive product to a person who is under the age of 18. They have a defence, if charged, by proving that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of an offence, rather than it saying, “They do not commit an offence if they act reasonably”. In Clause 3, a person commits an offence if he delivers the corrosive product or arranges its delivery to residential premises. They too have a defence, if charged, if they prove that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of an offence, rather than it saying that if they act reasonably, they do not commit an offence. There is also an issue with Clause 4, but it slipped through the net and therefore there is no amendment in this group to address it.
In Clause 6, however, a person commits an offence if they have a corrosive substance with them in a public place. It is a defensive charge if they prove that they had good reason or lawful authority for having the corrosive substance with them in a public place, rather than the provision being that if they had good reason or lawful authority, they do not commit an offence. It will perhaps be clearer if I concentrate on the latter of these three offences.
If a 19-year-old young man has a corrosive substance with them in a public place with the intention of using it to attack someone else, they commit an offence under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 of having an offensive weapon with them in a public place with the intention of causing injury to someone. It is an intended offensive weapon. However, if they have been sent out by their mother to buy drain cleaner in a squeezable bottle to unblock the kitchen sink—I speak with some experience having recently cleared one of my drains; drain cleaner does come in squeezable bottles—they do not commit an offence under the 1953 Act. They have a corrosive liquid with them in a public place, in a squeezable bottle that could be used to cause injury to someone, but have a reasonable excuse for possessing it. Were the police to stop and search the youngster, a quick phone call to the mother could establish the reasonable excuse.
Under the Bill, the 19 year-old running the errand for his mother commits a criminal offence because, under Clause 6(1):
“A person commits an offence if they have a corrosive substance with them in a public place”.
Under Clause 6(2), it is a defence for the youngster charged with an offence under subsection (1) to,
“prove that they had good reason or lawful authority for having the corrosive substance with them in a public place”,
but a police officer would be justified in arresting the youngster, because he is clearly committing a criminal offence.
When discussing the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill, we also debated the principle of necessity in relation to arrests. One of the circumstances included in the reasons why an arrest might be necessary under Section 110 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 is to allow,
“the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question”.
It would be quite easy for a police officer to reason that the quickest and easiest way to determine whether the young man has a blocked drain is to arrest him and take him to his home address, to see whether the kitchen sink is blocked.
I am sure that the Minister will say that of course the police will act reasonably, but the police do not always act reasonably. Believe me, from 30 years’ experience in the police service, including four years as a bobby on the beat, I can say that sometimes police officers look for any reason to arrest someone. For those who might argue that my experience is not current, I point out that if you own a drone, live within a short distance of Gatwick Airport and have suspicious neighbours, apparently you can end up being arrested even when you can easily prove that you were miles away at work at the time the offence was committed.
There is another anomaly. In the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill, in offences that remain of the “defence when charged” type, the burden is on the prosecution to disprove the reasonable excuse defence put forward by the accused, and to do so beyond reasonable doubt. Section 118 of the Terrorism Act 2000 states:
“If the person adduces evidence which is sufficient to raise an issue with respect to the matter the court or jury shall assume that the defence is satisfied unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is not”.
Indeed, in Clause 3(10) of this Bill we find a similar provision, except that it applies only in Scotland. South of the border, not only is it only a defence once charged—as in subsection (8)—but the person charged has to,
“prove that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence”,
presumably beyond reasonable doubt. Noble Lords will recall that Section 118 of the Terrorism Act saved the Government from the accusation of reversing the burden of proof but, in these offences, the burden of proof is on the accused, presumably to the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt, that they have a reasonable excuse. Why is the burden of proof reversed in this Bill, except in Scotland, but not in the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill, which passed through this House only recently?
Sending a message to the police that an offence is not committed if someone has lawful authority or reasonable excuse is preferable to saying that an offence is committed and that there is a defence once charged. Sending a message that you have nothing to fear by buying corrosive substances for illegitimate purposes and carrying the substance home through the streets or to a place of work is preferable to saying: “You are committing an offence and have to prove to a jury beyond reasonable doubt that you did so innocently”. The principle adopted in Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, which deals with offensive weapons, is that you are innocent if you have a reasonable excuse. That legislation has not been repealed, nor have the Government sought to amend it. That is the principle adopted by the Government in recent weeks in relation to an offence under the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill, and it is the principle that the Government should adopt in this Bill. I beg to move—
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
Not being familiar with police procedures, to me the essence of the argument seems to be about when the defence is deployed. Can the noble Lord explain what that means in practical terms?
Lord Paddick
My Lords, when the police are told that the offence is not committed if somebody has a reasonable excuse, the clear message sent to them is that they need to investigate the matter there and then to establish whether that reasonable excuse exists. If a Bill, as in this case, says that somebody who carries a corrosive substance in a public place commits an offence, it sends a message to the police that investigation of any reasonable excuse that the person may have can wait until later because, according to the legislation, the defence is available only once the person has been charged.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I support the Bill. The issue of the misuse of corrosive substances and all other kinds of offensive weapons is too obviously something that has to be addressed. However, I want to raise an issue which is troublesome in the context of the amendment.
Unless an offence is absolute—and we take a strong stand against absolute offences—it is a long-standing principle of criminal justice that you are liable to conviction and sentence, or to go back earlier, to be arrested and charged if you have done something or acted in a way prohibited by the law. Fine—but the proviso to that is, “Provided that simultaneously your state of mind was itself similarly criminal”. You may have done it intentionally or recklessly. There are all sorts of ways in which your state of mind can be identified as criminal but it is of the essence that these two concepts stand or fall together.
This statute asserts that, where certain facts are proved, you have committed an offence—full stop. Without reference to your state of mind or any other circumstance, the offence is established and you are therefore liable to be arrested. It then says, “We shall graciously allow that, in certain circumstances, you may have a defence”, and if you prove them you would have a defence. Perhaps the most gracious of all the circumstances is to be found in Clause 2(6) to (9), where a whole series of them have to be established. You then have a defence, but you have been arrested and may have been charged. Nobody has to examine these two concepts together and say, “The evidence shows that he had a guilty mind”, or “He was reckless”, or whatever it might be.
What I really want to raise in Committee is that we should stick to the normal principles that have worked well for us: you are not guilty of anything and have not committed an offence unless your mental state was simultaneously as criminal as the actions you committed. That is what we believe. I do not want to be overportentous; I cannot see the Minister making any concessions about this. However, I would like to put down a marker. This way of legislating for criminal justice is inappropriate and we should avoid it. We should certainly be very careful not to allow it to happen without us spotting it and stopping it.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, listening to the debate and the presentation of the amendment, I wonder how the amendments might protect the important relationships between young people and the police—maybe particularly between young people from ethnic minorities and the police. I can see that if the authorities have to do more work before they can detain a young person or take them to a police station, it might prevent trouble between the police and young people. My sense—and I am sure we will discuss this further on—is that one of the reasons young people carry knives is because they distrust the police and do not feel that authorities are there to protect them. The amendment may be helpful in engendering more confidence in the police—and indeed the authorities—among young people, particularly those from minority-ethnic communities, and help to make it less likely that young people will carry knives. I would be interested to hear the view of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, on that, from his experience on the beat, if he has time towards the end of this discussion.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, the Opposition are generally in favour of this Bill, but I find the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, somewhat persuasive. I particularly like the way the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, put things in the general perspective of law. Even little deviations from sound general principles are a bad thing, so I hope the Minister will not reject this out of hand but will ponder this set of amendments. The only area I am slightly unsure about—the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, or the Minister may want to address this—is the argument that the defence has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. My understanding was that there was a general piece of law that said that defences have to be proved only on balance of probability. It is important to know which of those tests the defence has to meet.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their points and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for tabling these amendments. As he explained, they address the construction of the new offences relating to the sale of corrosive products to under-18s, the prohibition on sending corrosive products to residential premises when bought online and the possession of a corrosive substance in a public place. The noble Lord’s basic premise is that it is unjust that a person who took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the sale or delivery should be guilty of the offence, rather than having to rely on the permitted defence to establish his or her innocence. The same principled objection applies to the possession offence and the person who has a reasonable excuse for having a corrosive substance with them in a public place.
As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, this has echoes of the recent debates we had on the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill. However, as my noble friend Lord Howe indicated in that context, we are not persuaded that whichever way these offences are constructed will make much material difference to a suspect or how the police go about an investigation.
In relation to the sale offence and the offence of sending corrosive products to a residential premises, I think it is quite right that it should be for the seller to prove that they took reasonable precautions to avoid the commission of these offences. The seller will clearly know what checks they carried out to stop a sale to a person under the age of 18. In the shop context, they will know whether they asked the buyer in appropriate cases to verify their age, which will normally consist of asking them to produce a passport, a driving licence or an age proof card. In the online case, it is important that the seller has put in place some arrangement for checking the buyer’s age. Clearly where a seller has shown that they have verified age, no prosecution will take place.
In answer to the question asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, about the normal principles of criminal law, the Bill reflects knife crime legalisation going back at least to the Criminal Justice Act 1988. His point about consistency is important, but I can point to other examples in other areas of law.
Going back to sellers, it is important that they take responsibility in this area and it is right that they have to prove what checks they have made rather than placing the burden on the prosecution. That is what happens in relation to other age-related sales, such as knives, alcohol and tobacco, and the approach is well understood by retailers, trading standards and the police.
Similarly, with the offence on arranging delivery to a residential premises or locker when a corrosive product is bought online, it should be for the seller to ensure that they are not sending the product to a residential address and to make sure they have the appropriate checks in place to stop this happening. The seller should be able to do this easily, and I can see no benefit in placing the burden on the prosecution to prove that the seller made the appropriate checks.
In the possession offence, as I have said before—for example, on the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill—the police on the ground will use intelligence to decide whether someone may be in possession of a corrosive substance without good reason. They will not stop people coming out of B&Q with their cleaning products and question them, just as they do not stop people coming out of B&Q with garden shears and scissors. The police will use this power only where they have reasonable grounds for suspecting the person has a corrosive substance on them in a public place without good reason—for example, where a group of young people may be carrying a corrosive that has been decanted into another container. Establishing good reason on the street should be relatively easy. If a person can show they have just bought the cleaner and are taking it home to unblock their drains or that they are a plumber and need the substance as part of their work, good reason will have been established and no further action would be taken. It is only where a person cannot provide a good reason—for example, for why they have decanted the substance into another container that will make it more easily squirtable, or where they cannot say where they bought the substance or what they intend to use it for—that further action may be taken, and in this case it is quite right that the person should have to set out any good reason why they had the substance in a public place.
That aside, and returning to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, it is important that we have consistency across similar offences. I have just explained the sale and possession of knives. We think that corrosives have the potential to be used as a weapon just as much as knives and that wherever possible the legislation dealing with the two should be consistent. Both corrosives and knives are widely available and have legitimate uses—they are not in and of themselves weapons—and to have a different approach for corrosives would suggest that they are somehow less of a threat as a weapon.
Retailers are familiar with the existing law relating to the sale of other age-related products and know what measures they need to put in place to ensure they comply with the law. It could be confusing to retailers if we now constructed these offences differently. The police are also familiar with the approach relating to possession and we are not aware that the good reason defence has caused any issues regarding possession of a bladed article in a public place.
On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, on the standard of proof, I can confirm that if a defence is raised, the defendant has only to prove that the defence is made out on the balance of probabilities. There was a question on Scotland: obviously it has a separate legal jurisdiction with its own sentencing framework. The Bill’s provisions work with the grain of the existing sentencing provisions. For example, the maximum penalty on summary conviction is 12 months in Scotland, but only six months in England and Wales. The same is true for the burden of proof, where the Bill reflects existing Scots law.
I appreciate noble Lords’ concerns but, as I said, the approach we have taken is to follow a well-precedented form for offences relating to other age-restricted goods. If we reconstructed the sales and delivery offences for corrosive products we would be creating a different legislative regime from other age-restricted products, such as for knives. I am therefore not persuaded that we need to change the construction of the new offences. With those words, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, will be content to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
This might have been dealt with before and I apologise if it has, but is a farmhouse a residential address? Farmers would certainly receive all sorts of corrosive products.
Lord Paddick
Could I assist the Committee? We will return to the problems of not allowing corrosive substances to be delivered to any residential address in an upcoming group. It might be more appropriate to discuss that matter then, if that assists the noble Earl.
Lord Paddick
Not at all.
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate, particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. It is interesting that the Minister seems to have ignored the inconsistency in approach between the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Bill. In the Prevention of Crime Act, which is a piece of legislation specifically dealing with offensive weapons, you do not commit an offence if you have a reasonable excuse, which is inconsistent with the Criminal Justice Act and the Bill. The Minister says, “We worded it this way for things to be consistent”. It is not consistent.
On the point from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, I do not want to get into the disproportionality of stop and search. What I would say is that I envisage certain circumstances where a 19-year-old young man who has a corrosive substance in their pocket, because that is the only thing they were sent out to the shop for, is stopped by the police very easily leading to arrest if the offence is worded in the way it is, whereas a police officer might be given cause to think twice if it were worded in the way I suggested it should be changed. The Minister and her officials are on slightly dodgy ground in suggesting to me what makes a practical difference to a police officer on the street or not about the way they implement the law.
That will give an indication that we are likely to return to this matter at the next stage. However, at this juncture, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas
“( ) The defence in subsection (2) is satisfied if a person has complied with a process that has been certified as adequate by the police.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that complying with police certified processes would be a sufficient defence under subsection (2).
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 13, 14 and 15 in this group. I do not put any particular weight on the drafting of these amendments. What concerns me is that we are putting a lot of weight in this Bill on the shoulders of people whose occupations we consider so lowly that we will not let them be the subject of apprenticeships. You cannot get an apprenticeship as a shop worker or as a delivery driver. There is no established pattern of training for these people, but we are putting them in a situation where something that they sold is used very quickly in a horrific crime and all the weight of the media and public opinion comes down on their shoulders as to whether they erred in their action or not. The whole machinery of justice is impelled towards convicting them because it wants some victim to compensate for the crime that has been committed. This is all too regular and humiliating, and we owe it to these people to put them in a situation where they can have a set of rules and know that if they follow this set of rules they will be safe.
It is not satisfactory to have that set of rules be just invented by the small shopkeeper who happens to employ them. There has to be some way in which their employers can establish that what they are doing is proof against whatever accusations might come their way. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, the burden of proof rests on their shoulders: they have to show that they did what was necessary to avoid the liability in this Bill. The other side of that coin is that we have to do what is necessary to enable them to do that and to enable them to be sure that they have done that. There are plenty of available recording devices around: you can take a picture of the document that you saw or the person himself, but then you are running straight into GDPR. We cannot start doing that without there being a clear set of permissions and expectations at the back of it. We want this to happen: we want a delivery driver, turning up on a wet Sunday and poking something through a gate that somebody might not see too well in the early morning light or in the evening, knowing that what they are doing is right and sufficient. I do not mind what it is, but we must do something. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group in principle, but I will make one or two comments about them. First, there is an apparent contradiction between the pair of Amendments 3 and 13 on the one hand and the pair of Amendments 14 and 15 on the other. The first pair suggests that the police should design a scheme to ensure that corrosive substances are not delivered into the hands of those under 18. The second pair dictate to the police, at least in part, what that scheme should be. However, I understand the principle behind what the noble Lord is saying.
It is currently possible to order age-restricted products online and there are schemes in place designed to prevent age-restricted products being delivered to those under 18. Amazon’s instructions to the buyer say:
“By placing an order for one of these items you are declaring that you are 18 years of age or over. These items must be used responsibly and appropriately.
Delivery of age restricted items can only be delivered to the address on the shipping label, but this can include the reception of a commercial building. A signature of the recipient will be required upon delivery. Amazon adopts a ‘Challenge 25’ approach to delivery of age restricted products. Photo identification will be required if a person appears under 25, to prove that they are over 18 years old. An age restricted item can be delivered to another adult over the age of 18 at the same address. Delivery to a neighbour or nominated safe place location is not available for these items. If an adult over the age of 18 is not available at the address, or if an adult has not been able to show valid photo identification under the Challenge 25 approach, the item will be returned to Amazon”.
The acceptable photo identification is a passport or driving licence.
Would this scheme or something like it be sufficient to restrict the sale and delivery of corrosive substances—and knives for that matter—to those under 18, obviating the need for banning the delivery of such items to residential addresses?
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is absolutely on the right lines. One of the troubles is knowing what is permissible and what is not. In speaking to the amendments in his name, I will suggest something which takes it a bit further. I declare an interest as chair of the Digital Policy Alliance, which, among other things, worked for several years on age verification for the Digital Economy Act. This Bill has exactly the same problem as Section 3 of that Act: what systems are adequate for proving the age of someone in an online sale? We worked on such systems and if noble Lords want to see that it can be done properly and securely I recommend they go to the web portal dpatechgateway.co.uk, where there are several to play with. The challenge is that there is no official certification scheme in place, but those systems are compliant with BSI publicly available specification 1296. I chaired the steering group that produced that standard and it had a lot of different people on it—people from the industry, academics, legislators, lawyers, et cetera. It shows that it can be done securely.
This goes one stage further than the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that the police can certify. Here is a system that you could trust. The technology also enables it to be on a mobile, so you can do point-of-delivery verification. You have got the person there: you can compare them with the device. Amendment 13 goes some way to solving the quandary for a seller, but what is “adequate”? Someone in the industry has suggested to me that it might be better to insert a new paragraph (c) after line 22 saying that: “The Secretary of State may lay regulations as to which bodies are recognised to provide standards against which age-verification schemes can be assessed”. In that way, a certification system could be set up. The BBFC and DCMS have been struggling with this for some time. They are getting there, but there is a lot to be learned from the fallout from that which could be imported into this Bill. Giving the Secretary of State the power to say what schemes can be certified against would go a long way to making life far simpler. We are moving into an online age. We cannot do all this offline and we should not pretend we can.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is right that we are in the hands of sellers and delivery drivers, who have quite a lot of responsibility. If they get this wrong, they could be convicted, go to prison and have a criminal record. I am not against the Bill—in general I support it—but it is reasonable for it to set out what people need to do to protect themselves. One way of going forward may be a police guidance scheme. Another would be requiring the delivery driver to take photographic evidence. This would be a very good thing to do, because it is important to protect the people who are doing this work. People do make unintentional mistakes. They need to know that the person at the door is the right age and can hand over documents as evidence, or that they have abided by a police-approved scheme to which their company has signed up. These amendments go a long way to ensure protection for the seller, as well as making sure that the items are handed to the right people who are entitled to buy them.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining these amendments, which deal with the evidence required to satisfy the defence if a seller is charged with selling or delivering a corrosive product to someone who is under the age of 18. As regards Amendment 3 to Clause 1, I understand my noble friend’s intention but I am doubtful that it is necessary or appropriate to require the police to certify a seller’s processes as adequate. There are already well-established and widely recognised age-restricted policies in place for retailers and sellers through Challenge 21 and Challenge 25. These policies are used day in and day out by retailers to deal with situations where an individual may appear to be under 18, particularly in relation to the sale of alcohol or tobacco. I have concerns about the value of asking the police to certify a seller’s processes and about the burden this would place on police forces. I am also concerned about whether this approach would undermine these established policies. Arguably this amendment would necessitate the police certifying the specific age-restriction policies of every individual seller of a corrosive product, whether a high-street store or an online marketplace. This not a valuable use of police time when we want them to be focused on preventing and tackling violence in our communities.
In any event, I am not persuaded that the police would be the appropriate agency to discharge this function. We must not forget the important role that trading standards plays and its expertise in this area. That said, I would have the same concerns about the resource implications for local authorities if they, rather than the police, were to be made responsible for certifying the systems put in place by all retailers of corrosive substances caught by the Bill.
The defence we have put in place for the Clause 1 offence is similar to that for the sale of knives to under-18s, and it seems right to have a seller prove that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence of selling to an under-18. Similar considerations apply to Amendment 13, which would again require the police to certify as adequate a seller’s system in preventing, in this case, the remote sale of a corrosive product to someone under 18. We have not specified an age-verification system in the legislation as there are various types of systems available and, as the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, pointed out, the technology behind such systems is continuing to develop at a fast pace. As a result, we did not want to prescribe a specific method or set a minimum standard for what these systems need to do, first, because we need to ensure that we future-proof the legislation, and secondly, because it is for sellers to determine the most appropriate system for their businesses to be able to demonstrate that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence to prevent the sale of a corrosive product to an under-18.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I see the point the Minister is making. She referred to various age-verification systems. I do not know whether we are going to have any guidance from the Government when this Bill becomes law. I want to ensure that these products are not sold to young people, but equally I want a system whereby I am confident that the person selling these items has had to reach quite a high bar to get this wrong so I am more confident that they have sold them deliberately. Will there be some sort of guidance saying that the Government would expect a seller to be in a scheme for age verification, so that if you are a courier company delivering products we would expect you to be in a scheme that does this and your driver would have professional training to know that, when he knocks on the door, he has to have done such and such? We need to make sure that we give the maximum amount of direction to people so we avoid these things getting into the wrong hands.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord makes a perfectly practical point. We are aiming to produce guidance. We talked about shopkeepers the other day and the abuse of shopkeepers who are trying to abide by the law. I think some of the conversation we had with USDAW will prove very fruitful in developing our thinking on that.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Will you produce guidance along the lines of what I have suggested? Or are you not sure yet? Will you get to it later on?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
We will produce guidance and I will of course take the noble Lord’s points into account. I cannot say whether supermarkets are currently part of the Challenge 21 or Challenge 25 scheme; I do not know the answer to that. However, in the production of guidance, you consult the various interested stakeholders to make sure that the guidance is as clear as it possibly can be.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
With the greatest respect, you would expect some of the bigger companies to have systems in place. I am more concerned about smaller couriers and shops—one-man-band operations—which may not have anything in place. Being directed to sign up to a scheme would be good for everybody concerned.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
In fact, I was thinking precisely of the small shop owner, who may not have the resource. If they could sign up or reference some sort of guidance that would be ideal. I was thinking along the same lines as the noble Lord.
The Earl of Erroll
Can I add something on that subject? I was not suggesting that the Secretary of State should specify specific company schemes, or whatever. However, I agree entirely that there should be a certification process so that people know whether they are okay or not. If there is not, there will be a massive test case in the courts, which will be very expensive for someone, to test what is adequate. The Secretary of State could avoid this by giving some direction on the regulations which reflects where you can change them, with changing technology, and which would satisfactorily protect the seller from vexatious things and awkward situations. The Government should look at this again.
Baroness Hamwee
I mentioned that, not long before coming into this debate, I—and no doubt other noble Lords—had a note from the British Retail Consortium. It also makes the point about how helpful it would be to have guidance—“possibly through guidance”, it says. Different situations may be different, but we are all concerned about not just protecting the seller but making sure that purchasers are able to purchase when it is reasonable to do so. I think it was my noble friend who mentioned John Lewis’s current policy on sending cutlery through the post.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, essentially come back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, made. Sellers want to make sure they are abiding by the law but, as the noble Baroness said, buyers want to make sure they are abiding by the law as well. On the systems that the noble Earl raised, I hope I did not suggest that he was trying to imply a specific system. I made the point that it would be wrong to specify a system in the legislation, given that systems are developing all the time.
To answer the point from the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, about age-restricted products, I have already mentioned knives, alcohol and tobacco, but lottery tickets are age-restricted as well, of course. Retailers are very used to operating in these systems, without a specific approved system in place.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
This is a different type of retailer—hardware shops. You usually buy your lottery ticket from a different sort of place. I think we need to deal with these like for like.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is both right and wrong. A shop might sell a range of products that includes all these things—I am thinking of Tesco, for example—whereas a corner shop might be entirely different.
The amendments would place additional burdens on sellers and delivery firms or couriers beyond the conditions proposed in Clause 2 that would need to be met by any remote seller who is charged with an offence of selling a corrosive product to someone under 18 and wants to rely on the defence for remote sales. We have already prescribed a tight set of conditions on remote sellers if they want to rely on the defence in Clause 2. There is clearly a balance to be struck, but I am not sure that we want to go further and be more prescriptive by imposing a requirement for photographic evidence, albeit that some firms may well want to adopt such an approach.
As for obtaining and retaining photographic evidence that the corrosive product was only delivered into the hands of someone aged over 18, I would have concerns about the storage for an appropriate period of such photographs under the general data protection regulation. The person who received the package would of course need to give their consent to any photograph being taken. We also need to bear in mind that it might not necessarily be the seller making the delivery; it could be a third-party delivery firm or a courier. That would raise the question of how the photographic evidence was transferred to the seller for retention. There is also a concern that the seller would not be able to fulfil the conditions set out for condition C in Clause 2 if the delivery firm or courier delivering the package failed to take and send the photographic evidence to the seller. The seller would not be able to demonstrate that they had taken all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to ensure that, when finally delivered, the package was handed over to someone over 18. I accept that these difficulties are not insurmountable, but they demonstrate the drawback of imposing a level of regulation beyond what is arguably necessary.
I reassure noble Lords that we will work with retailers, the police and trading standards on implementation of the measures relating to the sale and delivery of corrosive products to ensure that those measures are adequate. As I said, we will want to produce guidance to ensure that retailers and sellers know what steps they can take to ensure that they comply with the law. I hope that, with those explanations, the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Could I just come back to the issue of getting people to provide information? I understand the point that the noble Baroness makes about the GDPR, but we want the person who is knocking on the door to take all reasonable steps to know who the person answering the door is. Age can be quite deceptive. I had to go to the Co-op last night to get a package. I had my passport and my driving licence and I had to put in a PIN, just to pick up a jacket. These days, people often buy things that come in the post or have to be picked up from the post office or elsewhere, so giving identification is not a big issue now. If you are not doing anything wrong, why would you not provide that information anyway?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I think that the noble Lord was referring to the taking and retention of photographs, which is slightly different, and we need to acknowledge the distinction.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for saying that there will be guidance. Perhaps we might drop that into the Bill on Report, just to make sure. I think that guidance would be enough, but we should recognise that we have chosen to put into the Bill the words “all due diligence” and “all reasonable precautions”. That is a very high test. If we had meant the current systems to apply, we should have left out the word “all”. Nobody gets killed by being sold a lottery ticket—or at least not just one—but we are looking here at things that might quite quickly turn into serious criminal incidents. If in court someone says, “I looked at his passport”, but the police prove that the person in question has no passport, the poor delivery driver or shop worker is sunk. Noble Lords might remember a rather amusing TV ad from when we watched such things, “We’re with the Woolwich”, where somebody showed their Woolwich passbook to get out of East Germany. This passport or driving licence can presumably be of any nationality. How is a relatively untrained shop worker or delivery driver supposed to know that this is a Polish passport, not a Polish bankbook? We are asking people for whom there is no structured training to act as if they are trained. Under such circumstances we have to—
Baroness Hamwee
The noble Lord has made a very interesting point about the phrase “all reasonable precautions” and “all due diligence”. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord can help the Committee, but that looks like a normal phrase. I did not read it in quite the same way as having to take every possible step that might be a reasonable precaution. I wonder whether the officials might help us as to the provenance of the phrase before Report.
Lord Judge
If I might say so, “all” means “every”. Without “all”, you have just to take reasonable precautions and show due diligence. Once you put “all” in, you fall foul of any particular point you could have but did not look at and did not do.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
This is something we talked about earlier. If we are to put “all” in, it is not unreasonable to have some sort of guidance in the Bill to protect people, otherwise people are just left hanging.
Lord Paddick
Would it help the Committee to suggest that the Government have put in Clause 4 exactly the sort of things the delivery courier should be looking at to take reasonable precautions?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, that is where the guidance comes in. All roads are leading back to the guidance. I hope I can leave it there.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, it was those sorts of concerns that led to me think of taking photographs, because taking a photograph of a document is a reasonable precaution. If you have not done it, you have not taken all reasonable precautions. Yet if you take a photograph you get into all sorts of complications because it is not required, so you are into GDPR in all sorts of interesting ways. Guidance therefore becomes very important and we ought to drop the requirement for guidance into the Bill. I am very grateful to my noble friend for her help on this and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would replace the custodial sentences for the new offence in Clause 1 (sale of corrosive products to persons under 18) with community sentences.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, in moving Amendment 4 I will speak to Amendments 5, 6, 7, 20 and 21. This is not the first time that the Liberal Democrats has made clear our opposition to short custodial sentences, which, in our view, tend not to do good and too often cause harm. We are grateful to the Standing Committee for Youth Justice and the Prison Reform Trust in particular, as well as other organisations for helping me to articulate this. These amendments and some later ones repeat amendments that my right honourable friend Sir Ed Davey tabled in the House of Commons. We have thrown in some additional references because this is the scrutinising House. I heard a noise of agreement from behind me and it is clear that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is on the same page on this.
A good deal was said at Second Reading on the complexity of what lies behind the carrying and use of weapons, and the context of that. Many noble Lords took what we regard as a necessarily broad view of the issues, expressly or implicitly criticising the use of legislation to send a rather broader message than the message to the police, to which my noble friend Lord Paddick referred. The Government recognise this, but not consistently. At Second Reading, I mentioned the Justice Secretary’s apparent opposition to short custodial sentences and his support for community sentences, which the Ministry of Justice’s own research shows are more effective at reducing offending. Surely that view counts. It is not so very long ago that home affairs and justice were in a single department, which was very unwieldly, but I hope that attitudes and values have not diverged to any extent.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 4 and 5, and I will also speak to the other amendments in this group. I looked in vain for Amendment 19 on the Marshalled List and the order of groupings today but I noticed that it is not there. As 19 comes before 20 and 21, I would like to speak to that as well because it also mentions custodial sentences—
Lord Ramsbotham
I am sorry. I mentioned at Second Reading that I was astonished that the Bill should bring forward the Home Secretary’s apparent desire to increase the number of mandatory short sentences while the Ministry of Justice and its Secretary of State, followed by the Prisons Minister last Saturday in the Daily Telegraph, oppose the mandatory short sentences because they were so ineffective. I would have thought that that ought to have been sorted out between the two Cabinet Ministers before the Bill was brought to the House.
When I was Chief Inspector of Prisons, I learned of the Scandinavian system, which gave to the sentencer prospectuses of what could be done with and for a prisoner. The sentencer took that into account in awarding the length of sentence and ordered that certain courses or programmes were to be completed by the prisoner so as they could rehabilitate him or herself. If the prisoner completed the mandatory parts of the sentence laid down by the sentencer, the governor of the prison could take the prisoner back to the sentencer and, because the prisoner has jumped through all the hoops that were set, ask that they please be released. That was a factor in reducing overcrowding in Scandinavian prisons.
What worries me is that our overcrowded and understaffed prisons are finding difficulty enough in producing programmes for longer-term prisoners. But they can do nothing whatever for short-sentence prisoners and therefore there is no purpose in people going to those prisons, because they will get absolutely nothing. If you expect that the purpose of the sentence is to rehabilitate, that will not happen in our present prison system. Staff shortages, for example, mean that there are not enough staff to escort people to programmes that they are meant to be attend. So even if a programme was laid down, it is unlikely that it would be completed.
I admit that community sentences need to be improved. In preparation for this debate, last week I visited the Wandsworth probation programme and asked staff what they could do with and for people accused of violent offences. They said that, at the moment, they could do absolutely nothing because they did not have the wherewithal. However, there is no doubt that, if they were given the wherewithal, they could devise a meaningful sentence that would gather credibility in the community.
I also spoke to the Justice Secretary last Thursday and mentioned that there was apparent disagreement between him and the Home Secretary. Personally, I am on his side, because I saw the effect of short sentencing in prisons and saw people coming out having got nothing. That does little to increase the reputation of the justice system in the community, and it can ill afford to lose any more of its reputation in the country.
I notice that, in her foreword to the Serious Violence Strategy, the then Home Secretary said two things. The first is this:
“The … Strategy represents a very significant programme of work involving a range of Government Departments and partners, in the public, voluntary and private sectors”.
That may be, but we have not as yet seen any evidence of this partnership working. At Second Reading, we talked a lot about a public health approach. I do not think that that approach has had time to bed in. The second thing she said was that:
“The strategy supports a new balance between prevention and effective law enforcement”.
Prevention has not yet been tried, and to lay down mandatory short sentences is imposing law enforcement on prevention and damaging the hopes that prevention may bed in and achieve something.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, listening to the debate on this amendment makes me feel very nervous. As someone who has been a victim of crime by a gang of youths, and as the community champion when I came to this place, my worry is that there is an argument about short-term sentences, because of the process a prisoner goes through. I have gone into prisons and youth offender schemes, so I have done my homework and have worked with them a lot. My nervousness is because, while this is about short imprisonment, imprisonment is effective for people for whom a community sentence does not carry that weight.
Going around the country and speaking to communities, I find they do not feel that their voice is being listened to when someone is given a community sentence. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, quite rightly said that we need to have quality community sentences. At the moment, we have painting fences and gardening while wearing visors. I am conscious about how we shift this pattern of our community sentences and what they are worth.
In addition, there is kudos in this in the gangs that we deal with. When there were ASBOs, it was cool to have an ASBO. I am conscious that we need to look at short sentences and at the messages we are sending to the community and to the gangs, who can hold one sentence against the other. If the Government are going to go that way, I would like quality community services.
I have been out with youth offender trainers. They are short-staffed and underresourced. The intelligence I had from young people who were going into gangs was that they were not bothered whether they were going to prison or doing community service. They had no idea of what they were in trouble for. That is where the serious violence strategy needs to be better—it is about the two together. I am very nervous about community sentences. Can we have further discussions about them? They are part of the essential message we are sending to youngsters and to communities that are suffering and are scared to come forward because their lives are being threatened.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I support these amendments. I recognise how important it is for the Government to make a robust response to public concerns about knife crime and the use of corrosive substances—the Victims’ Commissioner has just reiterated that. One must bear in mind the huge cost of sending people to prison. I would be very grateful if, in her reply, the Minister could give some idea of how much a short prison sentence costs compared to community provision. We have just heard that there is insufficient investment in high-quality community provision. The difficulty is that, when one starts ramping up the prison population, one has to spend more and more on an expensive provision which is ineffective. It is perhaps a difficult communications job for the Government, but the best way of protecting the public from these kinds of crimes is to invest in high-quality community provision, community support officers and police on the ground so that people can see them in their communities.
We are facing an uncertain future as a country. We recognise the limitations on our resources. If we start increasing the number of people being placed in prison, as we have done in the past, we perhaps do not have the money to do both, and we will not be able to make the most effective provision. For instance, we are not talking about children in this amendment, but I think I am right in saying that 68% of children who serve a short prison sentence will commit a crime within a year of being in prison, whereas 58% of those placed in community intervention will do so. That statistic takes into account the gravity of the crime.
There is scientific evidence that community interventions are more effective than prison sentences, at least for children. In seeking to reassure the public, we risk spending a lot more money on something which is relatively ineffective and not putting resources in an area where they are demonstrated to be effective. It is a difficult job, because the Government also have a role to reassure the public. If the public really believe that prison sentences are the only way to respond to this, we are in a difficult position. I think the public can be persuaded that we should not put money into expensive things which are not effective.
Baroness Newlove
I have an issue with the cost of putting extra money into prisons. The communities that I am involved in, and see on a daily basis, are not nice rural villages. On a daily basis, they are being told the absolute opposite of what the noble Earl is saying. Investing more in communities—to get their trust in services—will give them confidence and will nurture our society.
I have been in prisons and I am not saying they are not horrendous. One young offender who had been in a riot said to me: “It’s minging in here”, but he still could not grasp what he had done. He was a first-time offender and his solicitor had said: “Don’t worry, son, it’s your first offence”. I have an issue with giving this line to young people. I also have an issue with governors. I have seen good services, such as training young prisoners in the skills to get involved in optician work for children abroad. But when another governor comes in, he completely whitewashes everything and wants his own blueprint. That happens everywhere.
If it is about money, we need to look further at what we can do. We also need to look at what we are trying to achieve by not sending people to prison. I have an issue with money because our prisons would not be full if you invested it well. Communities need to feel safe and, at the moment, they do not. They feel that what they hear and say are worthless.
The Earl of Listowel
I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. I think we are saying the same thing: we need to put the money where it can be effective. We can put money into the community in many different ways, including increasing the number of community support officers or police officers on the beat. In particular, young men—so many of whom are growing up without fathers in the home—need to find mentors they can identify with and so begin to turn their lives around, as I have seen so often myself. Those services are effective, but they are easily cut. I am concerned that, in progressing with short prison sentences, we are actually throwing money down the drain. However, I see that the Government are in a difficult position. They need to be seen to be making a robust response to something that so many people are afraid of.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
I support the words of my noble friend Lady Newlove. Much of what the Committee has heard this afternoon about corrosive substances has referred to the appalling use of them by young people. Statistics on this are more difficult to find than on some of the other offences that we will be discussing later. I have serious concerns about the connection with drugs. The threat of acid attack is regularly used on young people involved in county lines.
One thing we have not mentioned this afternoon is the terrible situation of violence against individuals in domestic abuse situations, which is less frequent and not often reported. Surely short-term sentences will not deal with that. This is not the same as the pressures on young people to conform to gangs and so on. This is something quite different and I would like to think that there are very serious responses to that in our system.
Lord Paddick
If I could assist the Committee at this stage, these amendments relate to the offences of selling and delivering to young people, not to the possession of corrosive substances by young people. We are talking about sending the owner of the corner shop or the Amazon delivery man to prison for delivering these substances into the hands of people who are under 18. I want to ensure that noble Lords are aware that that is what we are talking about in this group of amendments.
Lord Judge
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. Views have been expressed here which I respect but do not share. The seller will be, or is likely to be, an adult, and certainly will not be a vulnerable child. The purchaser, or the person to whom the product is sold, may be a very young child. It may be a 17 year-old who lives in an area where there is an awful lot of violence and who has a bad record which is known to the seller. We have to be careful. I am implacably opposed to minimum terms—we may come to that at some stage—because minimum terms do not do justice. However, a person who sells to a vulnerable child, or to somebody who leads a gang or who has been given a community sentence first time round, with a condition that he is prohibited from selling corrosive products but continues to do so, merits a prison sentence as punishment. Prison is not just about rehabilitation. Short sentences do not do much good; indeed, the evidence suggests that some of them do a lot of harm. However, some short sentences do some good because they punish the offender. Therefore, I cannot support these amendments.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, as you heard, Amendments 4, 5, 20 and 21 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, seek to replace the punishment that a person is liable to get on conviction, as set out in the Bill, with a community sentence. Amendments 6 and 7 allow conditions to be added to prohibit offenders from selling corrosive substances.
I am very sympathetic to these amendments. We have heard about the debate that is going on in Government at the moment between the justice department and the Home Office on sentencing policy. Generally, as we have heard, short-term sentences are not the right thing to do; they can be expensive and counterproductive, and they are not long enough to deal with a person’s issues. They can actually do more harm than good: the person can lose their job, home and family and then of course they have to go back out into the community. These amendments concern the delivery driver and the owner of the corner shop—the person who sold the products—not the young person who may want to commit other offences.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. Magistrates have the ability to look at the case in detail and decide on the best punishment. It could be that, for a second or third offence, prison might be the right place to put this person, because they will not listen. Equally, I want to make sure that the magistrates deciding these cases have that ability because they will know whether the offence merits a community sentence. I want to hear that a suite of punishments is available to the court and not have it driven down that they must impose a mandatory sentence. On that basis, although I have some sympathy with the amendments as they are, I want a much broader suite that enables the court to look at the evidence before it and make a sentence that it believes is appropriate.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for tabling these amendments and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for speaking to them, as it provides us with the opportunity to debate the appropriateness of the penalties we are proposing for anyone found guilty of selling a corrosive product to someone aged under 18 or for arranging the delivery of a corrosive product to residential premises or a locker. I am not persuaded of the case for replacing custodial sentences of up to six months for the sale and delivery offences with community sentences. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, very articulately outlined why they might be necessary for some, but not all, offences. Let me explain my reasons for this.
We need to consider the significant harm corrosive products can cause if they are misused as a weapon to attack someone. My noble friend Lady Eaton pointed out one such circumstance in which this might happen: domestic abuse settings. The effects can be significant and life-changing for a victim, leaving them with permanent injuries, not to mention causing serious psychological harm. But it is important to be clear that in providing this maximum custodial penalty we are providing the courts with a range of penalties, from custody through to a fine or both. That gives the courts the option to impose a community sentence if that is most suitable, taking into account all the circumstances of the offence and, of course, of the offender.
There is also the requirement under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 that the court has to be satisfied that the offence is so serious that only a custodial sentence can be justified, so we can have every confidence that our courts will be sentencing offenders appropriately. Where a custodial sentence is justified they will impose it, but where a community order would be better for punishment and rehabilitation while protecting the public nothing in our provisions prevents it. There is also the broader legal framework to consider and the novel problems of a maximum penalty being a community order.
I must point out to noble Lords that, under Section 150A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, a community sentence can be imposed only where the offence is punishable by a prison sentence. That is an important point to note. Even if it were possible to change the maximum penalties we are proposing, it would raise the problem that if someone wilfully breached their community order, then, as the law stands, it would not be possible to sentence them to custody. The courts would be able only to re-impose another community sentence. As a result, it is important that custodial sentences are available to the courts as one of the penalties available for anyone convicted of the sales offence. Such an approach is also consistent with the range of penalties available to the courts for anyone who has been convicted of selling a knife or bladed article to a person under the age of 18.
It was very clear from the debates in the House of Commons that we should treat the threat of violence from corrosives as seriously as that from knives. We have therefore tried to ensure that the offences relating to corrosives mirror those for knives wherever possible, as we discussed. I note that this approach was strongly supported by the Opposition during the detailed consideration of the Bill in Commons Committee. These amendments would undermine that approach, and would in effect be saying that selling a corrosive product to someone under the age of 18 was less serious than selling a bladed article to a person under the age 18.
I add that, as with other age-restricted products, in many cases it is the company selling the product or arranging for its delivery that would be prosecuted. Although the person at the checkout desk is sometimes prosecuted, it is more likely the case that it will be the company operating the store, because it will be responsible for ensuring that procedures and training are in place to avoid commission of the offence. This goes back to the guidance point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. Where it is a company that is being prosecuted, the sentence is likely to be a fine rather than a custodial or community sentence, but if an individual is prosecuted, the full range of penalties should be available.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I am more comfortable with the Minister’s explanation than I am with what is written in the Bill. Perhaps we can look at this again between now and Report. The Bill seems harsh—it says that there will be a prison sentence—whereas the Minister has said that a whole suite of options will be available to the courts, including community sentences. It seems a shame that what is written in the Bill is not the whole case. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said, prison might be the right option in some cases, but in other cases a community sentence would be appropriate. I not a lawyer—I am a lay person—but perhaps we can look at how the Bill is written. As I said, I am happier with what I have heard than with what is in the Bill.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her helpful, informative and careful reply. I particularly welcome what she said about the need to think about placing women in prison, given the stubbornly high level of female imprisonment over many years now. I was thinking about the fact that one in 10 lone-parent families is headed by the man. Is there any advice to the courts on whether, when deciding on sentencing, they should take into account whether a man is looking after the children in the family? The Minister will not have it to hand, but I imagine that there is some guidance on that. Perhaps we can look at it at some point.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am happy to look at that point. Of course, every case is different, so I cannot give a pronouncement here in Committee this afternoon. I have visited Styal prison, an all-female prison near to where I live. I would imagine that Styal is an example of best in class, as it tries to support the family as opposed to just dealing with the woman in custody. I recommend any noble Lords who get the chance to visit that prison, which is an example of a very supportive environment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, we have ranged widely and it is tempting to respond to some of the points that have been made, continuing that wider debate, as opposed to focusing on Clauses 1 and 3, but I will try to resist that.
I think that we all agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, that this is about the quality of sentences. I would regard it as rather despairing to accept that there should be imprisonment because community sentences are inadequate—not fit for purpose, in the jargon. I referred to comments made in April last year, I think, by the Secretary of State for Justice, David Gauke, in response to evidence published by the MoJ showing that, for people with matched offending backgrounds, community orders were more effective than a short prison sentence at reducing offending.
I should make it clear that we are not in favour of selling corrosives that may be misused—I do not want that to come out of this debate. Clause 6 includes the offence of possession, and it is this clause that prompts me to ask whether the Minister can confirm that the offences under Clauses 1 and 3 are summary only offences. Clause 6 refers to conviction on indictment, which would allow imprisonment for up to four years. One always learns something, and I did not expect to learn about the 2003 Act. There are two ways of looking at that: either our amendments are fatally flawed or we have material to come back to at Report. That is neither a threat nor a promise, but perhaps the Minister can answer my question about summary only offences.
Baroness Hamwee
We have all shared a lot more of our views on this Bill than I thought likely to be the case when I tabled these two amendments. I beg leave to withdraw.
Viscount Craigavon
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a paving amendment for the amendment tabled at page 4, line 23. Together both amendments seek to exclude objects such as car and motorcycle batteries from the definition of a corrosive product in section 3 to allow for their continued delivery to residential premises.
Viscount Craigavon (CB)
My Lords, of the two amendments in this group, both in my name, the first is a paving amendment to Amendment 18, in Clause 3, which has the heading, “Delivery of corrosive products to residential premises etc”. Clause 3 would carry on the same definition of corrosive products, but my Amendment 18 would allow for an excepted class of product, of which an example is motorcycle and car batteries. The amendment is solely to deal with their delivery to residential premises.
While fully and obviously agreeing with this Bill providing sweeping protection from the misuse of corrosive products, I hope the Government will recognise that unintended consequences—on quite a scale—could occur in the particular case that I am setting out. I hope that the Minister will not want this Bill to disadvantage or even punish an important section of the population, when, by accepting this amendment, a perfectly safe resolution can be achieved.
The wording of my main amendment might appear to be rather obscure, but it is, with reason, copied from what is successfully used in the Poisons Act, as amended. The clue is in the wording: I have narrowed its scope and restricted it to just one of the nine substances listed in Schedule 1, sulfuric acid. It applies to objects containing sulfuric acid, which will usually, but not exclusively, be batteries.
In making my case here I will concentrate on car and motorcycle batteries, in particular the latter category, which would be most affected by an unamended Bill. We are talking mainly about the delivery to residential premises of such batteries. I declare my interest in this matter as a frequent motorcyclist and a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Motorcycling. The Motorcycle Industry Association has picked up the potential problem: the present extensive online sale of motorcycle batteries to individual customers at their residential address would simply be unable to continue were this Bill to pass unamended.
I use the example of motorcycle batteries but this would apply to car batteries and other such sulfuric acid battery users. However, motorcycle batteries are produced and designed in small sizes, to fit particular specialisations and models, unlike car batteries, which are fairly standard and interchangeable and some of which can be bought sealed with a lifetime guarantee. I know to my cost that motorcycle batteries, which are normally sealed, have to be frequently replaced in the normal course of things, and then by the exact shape and power of battery that each machine requires. They are much more prone to failure and the effects of the cold and normally have to be replaced every two or three years. I say all that to emphasise the need of motorcycle owners to obtain ordinary and specialist batteries on a regular and speedy basis, specified for their machines.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble Viscount. This is an example of how complex this ban on delivering corrosive substances to residential premises is. That is an issue that I will return to in group 7; I shall keep my powder dry until then.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, I also rise briefly to support this amendment from my noble friend. He is absolutely right. It is not just cars and motorcycles; things such as uninterruptable power supplies for computers, in which I have a particular interest, have them and I do not know whether the fact that the battery is inside another bit of kit which can be unscrewed matters or not. If you have a heavy-duty burglar alarm panel, that will probably have a lead-acid battery behind it. There are lots of reasons why you might want to get replacement batteries. I personally find it very inconvenient, except for the fact that I am married to a farmer. If I was living in a normal place—like my son for instance, who lives in London—I would not be able to buy batteries like that. They are a damned sight cheaper online, I can tell you that.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I think the noble Viscount makes a fair point. He has listed some examples of when this could be a problem. I look forward to the Minister’s response to these valid concerns.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, before my noble friend responds—the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, raised some very pertinent points—she might consider that if a miscreant wanted to obtain a corrosive substance, buying a brand-new motorcycle battery would be an extremely expensive way of doing it. When we look at banning things, we have to be very clear about what we think the benefit will be. This is a substance that is still very easy to obtain. It feels as if we are doing a great thing by banning things—we all want to see a reduction in the availability of these dangerous substances—but the reality is that any backstreet garage or facility will have stacks of used car batteries, from which these substances can be taken. We have to consider whether the delivery of an expensive motorcycle battery that may cost £50 is really a likely route for a miscreant who is trying to get hold of these substances. I am a motorcyclist too, although my battery appears to be very reliable.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, for raising this important issue. Before joining your Lordships’ House, I was warned that I would be surrounded by world experts on almost every topic and this short debate has reinforced that view.
The noble Viscount’s amendment seeks to address the potential that the provisions in Clauses 1 to 4 will have unintended consequences for suppliers of car and motorcycle batteries and, as the noble Viscount pointed out, other batteries which contain acid, for example those used in mobility scooters. I agree that this is an important point. Noble Lords may be assured that, in the light of discussions we have had with the representatives of the industry, the Government are carefully considering the impact that the Bill may have on the sale and delivery of such batteries. We remain committed to preventing young people from getting hold of acid in a form that they can use in the sort of horrific attacks that we have seen. But I agree with my noble friend Lord Goschen that it is quite a different matter to prevent the sale or delivery of car batteries and the like to those who have a legitimate need for them.
I ask the noble Viscount to bear with us a little longer. The Government need a little more time to consider how best to meet the point without impacting on the purpose of the Bill. I fully expect that we will have completed this work ahead of Report when I hope we will be able to reach a satisfactory conclusion. Given this assurance, I ask the noble Viscount to withdraw his amendment to give the Government further time to consider this issue.
Viscount Craigavon
My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the spirit of that reply and to all noble Lords who have spoken in support. There is a genuine problem, which I outlined. It is useful to know that the Government are discussing this and coming up with some sort of answer because it has to be dealt with. I think it can be dealt with. I deal with it also under Clause 3. The Minister mentioned Clauses 2 to 4. I hope this can be dealt with. I am grateful for her answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Paddick
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require consultation before any amendment of Schedule 1 (corrosive products).
Lord Paddick
My Lords, Amendment 9 is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I shall speak also to my Amendments 10A and 10B, which are also in this group. I apologise to the Committee for the late arrival of those amendments.
Amendment 9 simply suggests that if the appropriate national authority amends Schedule 1—the list of corrosive products—for the purposes of Clause 1 by regulation, it should consult representatives of those likely to be affected. Amendments 10A and 10B probe the necessity for including 3% or more nitric acid and 15% or more sulphuric acid in Schedule 1 when they are already regulated explosives precursors listed in Schedule 1A to the Poisons Act 1972 as amended by the Deregulation Act 2015. These substances are already restricted for sale to the general public. If a member of the public wants to buy these substances, they need to apply to the Home Office for a licence to acquire, possess and use these substances. Will the Minister explain why these substances therefore need to be included in Schedule 1 to the Bill and why the existing restrictions are not sufficient? For those who are amazed at the depth of my knowledge of these issues, I am very grateful to the House of Lords Library for its excellent briefing on the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, Amendment 10 simply asks why not just list all these substances, since we know what they are and the list will not change. Substances have been left off, such as slaked lime, which are seriously corrosive to skin, might be used and are very easy to obtain, and there are others on the list that would be very difficult to obtain. None the less, if we are going to have a list, since the list is not going to grow over time but is a small collection of basic inorganic chemicals, why not have the lot? It really does not add a lot of weight to the Bill to complete the list.
Baroness Barran
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend, Lord Lucas, for explaining their amendments, which relate to the list of corrosive substances in Schedule 1. I can deal quickly with Amendment 9. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that we would consult with affected persons before making regulations amending Schedule 1. Whether we need to specify this in the Bill is a moot point, but I am happy to consider her amendment further ahead of Report.
Turning to Amendment 10, I know that my noble friend expressed concerns at Second Reading about the list of corrosive substances set out in Schedule 1 and felt that it did not go far enough and that we needed to have a more comprehensive list. It might be helpful if I set out how we arrived at the corrosive substances and concentration limits in Schedule 1. We based it on the advice from our scientific advisers at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory as well as from the police.
The substances that we want to prohibit sales and delivery to under-18s and to residential premises are those which we know have been used in attacks to harm and cause permanent injury and those that are the most harmful. Furthermore, the concentration limits are at those thresholds where, if the product was misused, it would cause permanent injury and damage. This seems a proportionate approach when talking about prohibiting the sale and delivery of corrosive products. It is important to remember that we are talking about products that have legitimate uses in our homes or for businesses. Consequently, we should not be criminalising the sale or delivery of particular corrosive substances without good cause.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and commend her on her mind-reading ability. Although Amendment 9 is in my name, she correctly identified its author. My noble friend and I are both grateful that the Government are considering their response to the amendment. I am still not quite clear why we need to ban the sale to under-18s and delivery to residential premises of nitric acid and sulphuric acid in the concentrations specified in Schedule 1. The point of the question was that people cannot acquire these substances unless they have a Home Office licence under the Poisons Act, so they are very unlikely to be sold to somebody aged under 18 or delivered to a residential address. The Government are normally keen not to have unnecessary legislation, and including those two substances in Schedule 1 to this Bill appears to be unnecessary, bearing in mind that they are listed in Schedule 1A to the Poisons Act 1972. We may come back to that at a later date, but at this point I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to probe and clarify why the seller needs to show the method of purchase employed.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, in moving this amendment on behalf of my noble friend I will speak also to Amendment 16. These are nothing like as technical as the matters raised in the previous group. Indeed they are probing, as all amendments are at this stage in Grand Committee.
The first probe concerns condition A, one of the defences in Clause 2, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has already referred. The Explanatory Notes very straightforwardly state of condition A that,
“at the time of any alleged offence being committed, a seller had a system in place for checking the age of anyone purchasing corrosive products that was likely to prevent anyone under the age of 18 from purchasing that product”.
That seems quite straightforward. What is important, as I read it, is that there is a system in place to check that purchasers are not under the age of 18. The amendment would delete the words,
“by the same or a similar method of purchase to that used by the buyer”.
I am not entirely clear to what those words refer. I do not understand them and I apologise to the Committee if they are perfectly obvious to other Members. The purpose of my amendment is to obtain an explanation of what the words add to those in the Explanatory Notes.
Amendment 16 relates to Clause 2(10) and queries the term “supply”. We have a buyer and a seller, a reference to sale and a reference to delivery, which is to be read as its “supply” to the buyer or someone acting on the behalf of the buyer. The offence in Clause 1 is that of sale. That is not the same as delivery. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the choice of terminology here. I beg to move.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, if I can give some comfort to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I did not understand it either.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am sure that the noble Baroness is very much comforted. I hope I can clarify the meaning.
Amendment 12 seeks to test why it is necessary to include in Clause 2(6)(a) the words,
“by the same or a similar method of purchase to that used by the buyer”.
There are many different ways to make purchases online or in response to an advertisement by post or telephone. The simple purpose of the condition set out in Clause 2(6)(a) is to ensure that, at the time of making the sale, the seller had the required arrangements in place to verify the age of the buyer. This would assist in proving that an offence had been committed.
Amendment 16 seeks to clarify why Clause 2(10) uses the term “supply” instead of “delivery”, given the terms of the Clause 1 offence. The use of “supply” is correct in this context because it is about the actual handing over of the product to a person or their representative at the collection point, rather than its delivery to the address from where the buyer ordered the product. I hope that provides clarification, although the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is looking even more puzzled than she initially was.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am afraid I remain a bit puzzled. I do not find all of this Bill entirely easy. My prejudice was confirmed this morning when, ironically, I got a rather painful paper cut from the Offensive Weapons Bill. On the second point, “supply” has all sorts of other connotations, particularly with the drug trade. That perhaps diverted me, but “delivery to a person” is not the same as delivery to premises. I remain puzzled by that. I will have to read what the Minister said about Amendment 12, but I thought she more or less said what I said I thought it should mean without the rather difficult words. I will go back and read that.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I am confused as well, so I am in good company. Maybe an example would help the Committee. I am certainly confused about what the words mean.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Would it be helpful if I wrote to noble Lords giving examples?
Baroness Hamwee
I think that would be an excellent idea. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, the purpose of opposing the Question that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill is to raise issues around the practicality of the operation of the clause and to ask the Minister why the scheme suggested in Clause 4—Delivery of corrosive products to persons under 18—cannot be extended to sellers inside the United Kingdom as well as outside, thus obviating the need to ban delivery to residential premises. The practicality of Clause 3 arises out of subsection (6) where premises are not considered residential premises when a person carries on a business from the premises. How does a courier know that the house he is delivering to is also used to conduct a business from? For example, I could be registered as a sole trader with Revenue & Customs, as I used to be before my introduction to your Lordships’ House. I was registered as a writer and public speaker and carried on my business from my home. Unless the courier was able to access— presumably confidential—information held by Revenue & Customs, how would he know? In any event, why should being a writer and public speaker carrying on a business from my home allow me to have corrosive substances delivered there, whereas now I cannot? The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, gave another practical example about the delivery of acid batteries.
Clause 4 applies to the sale of corrosive substances where the seller is outside the United Kingdom. It applies where the seller enters into an arrangement with a courier to deliver the substance. The courier commits an offence if they do not deliver the substance into the hands of a person aged 18 or over. The courier is deemed to have taken all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of an offence if he is shown a passport, a photocard driving licence or other document specified by Scottish Ministers or something that looked like one of those documents and would have convinced a reasonable person that it was genuine. This seems to me to be the proof-of-age system that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was looking for in Amendment 3. Why can this system not be modified or added to so that UK sellers can not only age verify as far as possible at the point of sale but, if they are delivering the substance, age verify at the point of hand-over? If there is age verification at hand-over, as set out in Clause 4, why does there need to be a total ban on the delivery of corrosive substances to residential addresses, assuming that that ban is designed to prevent under-18s getting their hands on corrosive substances?
The Earl of Erroll
I apologise for my earlier intervention that should have come under this clause. I can see that it is dealt with in Clause 3(6) about farmhouses, and so my earlier intervention was irrelevant. However, the noble Lord has a very good point about why we are banning delivery to residential premises if there is someone there who can prove that they are over 18. The ban is actually not about whether the substance goes to residential premises. There are many reasons why you might want something delivered. For instance, if you are cooking and things like that—I know that is a later section. There are cleaning products and stuff like that. I cannot see the purpose of the ban if the delivery is being accepted by someone who is over 18. As I said in my earlier intervention, it is easy to do now with modern technology; we can now age-verify people extremely accurately.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, as we have discussed, Clause 3 makes it an offence, where a sale is carried out remotely, for a seller to deliver, or arrange for the delivery of, a corrosive product to residential premises or to a locker. Given the concerns over the use of corrosive substances in violent attacks and other criminal acts, to restrict access effectively we believe that it is necessary to stop delivery to private residential addresses. This does not mean that corrosive products cannot be purchased online in the future, merely that individuals will be expected to collect the product from a collection point where their age can be verified before the product is handed over to them. This provision is important as it will ensure that checks are made and that the purchaser will need to prove that they are 18 or over in order to be able to purchase and collect a corrosive product. If the purchaser cannot collect the corrosive product in person, they would have to be able to send a representative who is also over the age of 18.
We have also included an exemption within the provision to ensure that deliveries to businesses that are run from home—such as a farm—would not be affected by the prohibition on delivery to a residential address, for example, where corrosive products are ordered by small family-run businesses, such as metal working, soap making or even farms, in the case of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. We have also provided defences that are available in cases where the individual has taken all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, questioned why both Clause 3 and Clause 4 are needed. Clause 3 relates to the dispatch of corrosive products bought online in the UK to a residential premises or locker in the UK. We cannot apply the same restrictions on sellers who are based overseas without taking extraterritorial jurisdiction for this offence. Such a step would be inappropriate for a sales offence such as this and, in any event, there would be practical difficulties mounting a prosecution given that an overseas seller would not be within the jurisdiction of the UK courts. Clause 3 is therefore supported by Clause 4, which makes it a criminal offence for a delivery company in the UK to deliver a corrosive product to a person under the age of 18 where that corrosive product has been bought from a seller overseas and where the delivery company knows what it is delivering. The purpose of Clause 4 is to try to stop overseas sellers selling corrosives to under-18s in the UK and having them delivered to a person under the age of 18. There is no overlap between Clauses 3 and 4; we think that both are needed. Clause 3 deals with UK online sales and Clause 4 deals with online sales from overseas sellers.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, again brought up the use of home as a business, which he has mentioned to me before. It will be a matter for the seller under Clause 3 to satisfy themselves that the delivery address is being used for a purpose other than residential purposes. If they cannot satisfy themselves, they should not deliver to that address. Again, it is something that we can deal with in the planned guidance. He also mentioned to me previously his concerns about Amazon’s terms of trade in relation to the sale of alcohol. We are clear from evidence of test purchases of knives that we cannot rely on such terms of business to ensure that the law on age-related restrictions is properly adhered to in the case of online sales.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I have to confess to being even more confused than I was before. Is the Minister saying that you can purchase corrosive substances from a seller overseas and have them delivered to your residential premises, but you cannot get corrosive substances delivered to your residential address if you order them from a UK seller? That appears to be the effect of Clauses 3 and 4.
Lord Lucas
That seems a bit odd. If you can get the corrosive stuff only from overseas sellers, you will get the rest of your stuff from an overseas seller too because it is that much more convenient. If there is no positive effect—because people can still get the corrosive substances from an overseas seller—why ban getting them from a UK seller? It is really very easy. A lot of sellers that you think are in the UK are overseas.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Can I be absolutely clear? Are we saying that you cannot buy it from a UK seller but you can buy it from an overseas seller?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
You can buy it from either, but the mechanisms for age verification are slightly different.
Baroness Hamwee
We have referred quite a lot to Amazon. I do not use it very much, but the few times I have, I have ordered from Amazon but got my items from the producer or seller, which was often in the UK. Is the seller overseas or in the UK in that situation?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
If the seller is in the UK, the seller is in the UK. If the seller is overseas there is a slightly different mechanism. As I said, that is because of our ability to enforce sales in the UK as opposed to online sales abroad. The two are very different, but we are banning the delivery of corrosive substances to under-18s when ordered from an overseas seller, just as we are banning that here.
Baroness Hamwee
But if I order from Amazon, am I buying from Amazon or from the manufacturer in the UK?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That depends entirely on whether the seller is a UK seller or an overseas seller.
The Earl of Erroll
I think the contract is with Amazon, because you pay Amazon for the product. I therefore think Amazon is technically the seller. The website could well be hosted abroad and Amazon has its headquarters abroad. Therefore, your contract is with someone in a foreign country, but the delivery agent may be someone in the UK who happens to have the product and is remunerated by Amazon for it. I am not at all clear. Because this is so obscure, it seems that aligning the two clauses would be sensible—remove the residential bit from Clause 3 and insist on proper age verification of the person receiving the goods, whether the address is residential or business.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, if you buy from Amazon, you are buying from Amazon UK.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I think the point still stands. If you order online from an overseas supplier, you can have your corrosive substance delivered to your residential address and the courier, under Clause 4, is obliged to check the age of the person who it is handed over to, to ensure it is not delivered to somebody under the age of 18. Why on earth—
Lord Lucas
How can the courier know that there is a corrosive substance in the package? It will just say Amazon on the outside.
Lord Lucas
But this is an overseas seller. It is not subject to this law. It just sends a plain package.
Lord Paddick
Clause 4 says that if the courier knows it is a corrosive substance, they have to take these precautions. That is what Clause 4 says. It makes no sense to me at all. If age verification at the point of handover is effective in preventing under-18 year-olds getting hold of substances in the case of overseas sellers, why cannot age verification at the point of handover be effective in preventing them getting hold of corrosive substances delivered to residential premises from a UK supplier? It seems to make absolutely no sense whatever.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I think it is because there is an unwillingness to do that with UK sales. We have made provision for this arrangement to apply where the product is picked up, but we cannot impose extraterritorial jurisdiction on overseas sellers and therefore we are putting the onus on the courier to ensure that the product is labelled as a corrosive substance. That is why the two schemes are slightly different.
Lord Paddick
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for reminding me of that but I am even more confused. She seems to be saying that, in the case of a UK online sale, somebody can pick up the substance from a pick-up point, where their age will be verified. What is the difference between that and a person at the front door of a residential premises having to prove to the courier that they are over the age of 18? I do not understand how picking up the substance at a collection point or picking it up at your front door makes a difference to the ability of the person handing it over to ensure that the person is over the age of 18.
The Earl of Erroll
I can see that this will also get more complicated because you can order a product from a supermarket located just across the channel and have it delivered to your residential premises, which presumably means that it is an international transaction. A particular supermarket was mentioned earlier. I do not think that any supermarkets want to lose their trade to people located just across the channel, but a ban is suddenly going to be put on a lot of local supermarket deliveries.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
It seems that in this debate we have highlighted a massive hole in this legislation. Obviously when legislating on matters such as this, you are legislating not for the law-abiding people but for those—villains, crooks and suchlike—who want to do harm to others. It now seems that if you are a person who wants to use these products to attack somebody, you can go to a bad company abroad that will very happily sell them to you. You can make the transaction and the product will come in the post. You think, “Thanks very much”, and off you go to commit your crime with no problem at all. That is a very bad place for us to be in. It might be useful if the noble Baroness could write to those taking part in the Committee to explain where we are, because a big coach and horses could be driven through the Bill in this area. Unfortunately, we will find companies abroad that will sell to bad people in this country, making a mockery of the law that we are trying to pass here.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, obviously in a perfect world the overseas arrangements would mirror the home arrangements, but the rigour of the age-verification procedures applied to the arrangements for pick-up points cannot be relied on or effectively enforced for home deliveries. It would be great if we could do the same for both situations but we cannot, although I shall be very happy to talk about these issues further before Report.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Given the lack of clarity, if a letter could be sent to us before any discussion takes place, that would be good.
Baroness Hamwee
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to clarify why delivery arranged after the sale is concluded (as a matter of contract) does not fall within the Clause.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 22 but I wonder whether, with the indulgence of the Committee, I can go back to Amendment 12. As it has puzzled at least three noble Lords—three of us have confessed to it—I urge the Minister, as well as writing, to consider whether the wording might be clearer. We would be happy to look at a government amendment on Report because, if it confuses people who are used to reading legislation, there is a good argument for making it clearer to others who will also read it.
Amendment 22 again concerns some detailed wording. Clause 4(1)(c) provides that the clause applies if before the sale the seller has entered into an arrangement for delivery. Why before the sale? Does this apply only if the seller already has delivery arrangements in place? Often that will be the case but I am puzzled as to whether those words might, in a few situations, limit the application of the clause. I beg to move.
Lord Tunnicliffe
May I join the noble Baroness and say that I too am confused?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I fear that I am about to confuse people further—I hope not—because the noble Baroness is effectively asking why Clause 4 is drafted on the basis that the delivery arrangements for an online sale made to a vendor based overseas will have been made at the point of contract and not subsequently. It therefore might be helpful if I explain how we have drafted the clause in this way.
The purpose of Clause 4(1)(c) is to avoid criminalising a delivery company in instances where an overseas seller has simply placed a package containing a corrosive product in the international mail. By doing this, it then places an obligation on the delivery company, and potentially the Royal Mail, to deliver the item without having entered into a contract or necessarily knowing that the package contains a corrosive product. If we did not have the provision in place and in combination with the provisions of Clause 4(1)(d), which makes it clear that the company was aware that the delivery arrangements with the overseas seller covered the delivery of the corrosive product, then delivery companies such as the Royal Mail would be committing an offence.
We want to mitigate this, which is why we have constructed the offence in this way so that it requires the delivery company to have entered into specific arrangements to deliver corrosive products on behalf of an overseas seller.
The noble Baroness looks far less confused than she did in my previous explanation and I hope I have provided the explanation she seeks.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, that is perfectly clear and I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Offence of obstructing a seller in the exercise of their duties under section 1
(1) A person (“the purchaser”) commits an offence if they intentionally obstruct a person (“the seller”) in the exercise of their duties under section 1 of this Act.(2) In this section, “intentionally obstruct” includes, but is not limited to, a person acting in a threatening manner.(3) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would create an offence for those who obstruct retail staff in performing their responsibilities under this Act.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for adding his name to this amendment and I am happy to support his Amendments 24 and 25.
We discussed shop workers on Second Reading and, as Members of the Committee will know, the issue was also discussed in the other place on Second Reading during its progress there. I am glad to be here today. As we have heard before, we are placing shop workers at the forefront of the delivery issues. They will be at risk of committing criminal offences, being sent to prison, or incurring a community penalty or possibly getting a fine. If they have sold this product incorrectly, I have no problem with that; if things are wrong, they should be dealt with. What is missing in the Bill is anything about protection for shop workers. In a Question to the Minister last week my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley talked about some of the discussions that have gone on between Victoria Atkins and Members in the other place. A number of initiatives are going on; that is all very welcome, and I support them, but what is missing from the Bill is anything about a specific offence. USDAW, which is promoting this, and organisations such as the Co-op and other companies, the British Retail Consortium and the Association of Convenience Stores have said that this is missing from the Bill.
USDAW has run its Freedom from Fear campaign for many years. I used to work in a shop on a Saturday when I was at school. It was hard work, but it was great fun and I enjoyed it—you got to talk to people. But equally, I remember getting knocked over once when someone ran out with a credit card. In those days you had to phone up to check that the credit card was legitimate; it was not, and the person legged it down the road, leaving me lying on the floor. People get assaulted in shops and can be treated very badly. Here we are putting on shop workers some big obligations that they have to comply with and deal with, but we are doing nothing to support them. People can get assaulted and abused, so we need to see what we can do to improve that. As I said, we have had the discussion around helping the Government, and what they said there is fine, but there is nothing in the Bill. We are asking shop workers to report knowledge and enforce the legislation, as it were, so we should require the Government to do something to support them. There is evidence: plenty of facts and figures. A survey from the Health and Safety Executive found 642,000 reported incidents of violence at work—assaults and threats— and there are other aspects about how people are dealt with.
One of the problems we have is that people are assaulted, abused and threatened. I know that the Minister will say to me in a moment, “There’s no problem here, Lord Kennedy, because you’ve got all these things we’re going to do as a Government, and on top of that, of course, you’ve got the legislation in place already, so people who commit offences will be dealt with”. But, of course, far too often these offences are not prosecuted; people are assaulted in shops and the perpetrators are not prosecuted. That is why we are asking for a specific offence to deal with this. No one goes to work to be punched, pushed over, or abused. If you are assaulted at work and it is particularly traumatic, it can cost people their job or their livelihood; people may not want to go back to work after having been knocked over or assaulted. Why would you put yourself in that position? People can get very scared about going back to work, so again, we need to look at that. To have a specific offence would give shop workers the comfort to know that people recognise that they have been asked to do an important job and support them. Equally, as regards the prosecuting authorities, it should be clear that if people are assaulted in a shop, the prosecutors know that this offence has happened, and the perpetrators can then be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for that offence.
I will leave it there, but this certainly simplifies sentencing, would encourage prosecutions, and would have a deterrent effect, as people would know that if they go into a shop and abuse or threaten a shop worker, they will have committed X offence and, potentially, things can happen to them. I beg to move.
Amendment 24 (to Amendment 23)
Lord Paddick
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to insert reference to section 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 in subsection (1) of this amendment.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hamwee and I have Amendments 24 and 25 in this group. These amendments are designed to have the effect of extending the scope of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, to cover the sale of knives as well as sale of corrosive substances—or, should I say, to prevent the sale of these items to those under 18.
We had an Oral Question last week on this issue, and I suggested that shop workers were acting as law enforcers in the circumstances. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, suggested that shopkeepers were simply obeying the law in not selling age-restricted items and that we all have a duty to obey the law. I disagree. The circumstances in which this offence would take place are those where someone underage tries to buy an age-restricted item and is prevented from doing so by a shop worker, who in these circumstances is enforcing the law. They are compelling observance of or compliance with the law, which is the definition of “enforce”. As such, they deserve the protection of the law in carrying out this duty. I support Amendment 23.
Baroness Newlove
My Lords, I support both amendments. I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, not just on the question of having a specific offence but on support within the community. In my previous role and going around the country, I saw women workers on their own selling alcohol and other quite serious items—corrosives and knives—where the employer put their staff in a predicament by not supporting them fully. When they go out of the shops, they are under further threat in their local communities from these groups of gangs, both girls and boys. So I support a specific offence to put that message right through, because workers do not feel that they are getting the right support. Even from the bigger businesses, I am concerned for workers who are scared to lose their jobs as well.
I also really agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about knives. It sends a message within the communities and the bigger employers who do not know every individual who works for them. It shows loyalty, as well. I am concerned about people who work in local shops, in their local communities, especially where they have security guards to protect the staff but they do not get the support through the law to protect the jobs they so need to feed their families.
Lord Deben (Con)
I hope my noble friend will listen carefully to what has been said, because there is an increase in the anger constantly found around the country. I do not want to get down to some of the reasons for that, but there is certainly an increase in anger. The sort of people who will be prevented from buying those products are, of course, those who are most likely to give way to anger. I have recently come from a meeting today in which a senior representative of one of our largest supermarkets said how much more there is now a problem with people who will not take the advice of the shop worker that this is not possible.
I really think the Government have to come to terms with the fact that we are a much less willing society. We are not a society that is prepared to go along with these things, as once was true. So although USDAW has had this campaign for a long time, it is more necessary now than it might have been 10, five or even two years ago. The circumstances we are facing at the moment are likely to make more people more angry, and therefore it will become more acceptable. Anger, and showing anger, on the roads or in shops is more accepted by society than it ever has been before—certainly in modern times.
I say to my noble friend that it may well be sensible to make the point specifically that we are asking, indeed insisting, that shop workers—I will not argue whether they are acting as law enforcement people or not—take a stand against people who, by their nature, are likely to be angry, to demand that the shop worker give way to them and to use intimidation for that purpose. I cannot think of a reason why you should not repeat it. I know what the Government often says—all Governments do—because I was a Minister for a very long time and I know I used to say it. I would say: “There is no need for this. We’ve got this and we’ve got that and we’ve got the other”. If it is not actually harmful, perhaps it is a good thing to put it in. I am not sure it is enough that other things cover it. If this reminds people that there is a specific protection for shop workers in this situation, where we asking them to take a stand, that is a valuable thing. I hope my noble friend will take it seriously.
Lord Judge
We are devising a system which will impose considerable burdens on sellers. The arguments in favour of this amendment are absolutely obvious. May I make a completely separate point, though? The amendment is brilliant legislation too, unlike the rest of the Bill. Here we have a clear statement of what act you have committed—obstructing the seller—and simultaneously the state of mind you are in: you are acting intentionally. Intention to obstruct is a perfectly clear, simple piece of legislation that anybody could understand. There is an argument that there are various ways those who work in shops can be protected, against violence and so on, but this is very limited in what it is seeking to address: obstructing somebody. In these circumstances, when the burden is so heavy on the seller, they ought to be protected.
Lord Paddick
My Lord, if I may have a second go, until very recently I did not support particular protections for shop workers. Being from a policing background, I know we have taken the steps in the law to protect law enforcers, and recently there has been a Bill to protect all emergency workers in this way. But here we are talking about people who are intent on violence; they are looking to get their hands on knives or corrosive substances to commit violence. That is the sort of person that these shop workers are likely to confront, and that is why I am now convinced that this is the right thing to do.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said I would say that there is no problem. I am not going to say that, but I am very grateful to him for explaining his amendment. He attaches particular importance to affording greater protection for retail staff, and his noble kinsman, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, raised this question last week. It was a very good opportunity to discuss the issue, which is of great concern. I understand the concerns of retailers and their staff about being threatened or attacked in the course of their duties, including as part of verifying a person’s age when selling a corrosive product. As my noble friend Lord Deben said, it may be those very people who want to buy these things who will be those who mete out the abuse on retail workers. Nobody should have to experience this sort of behaviour at their place of work, especially when providing a service to members of the public.
As I said at Second Reading, the Minister for Crime, Safeguarding and Vulnerability held a roundtable on 11 December with David Hanson MP, Richard Graham MP and representatives from the retail sector, including USDAW and the British Retail Consortium, to discuss what more we can do ensure greater protection for shop workers. Last week, I met USDAW to see what more we can do to ensure these greater protections. Following the discussion at the roundtable I am very happy to update the Committee. We will be taking forward the following actions: first, the call for evidence, which I spoke about last week and is intended to help us ensure that we fully understand this issue and look at all the options for addressing it; secondly, that we provide funding to the sector to run targeted communications activity to raise awareness of the existing legislation that is in place to protect shop workers; and thirdly, we are refreshing the work of the National Retail Crime Steering Group, co-chaired by the Minister for Crime, Safeguarding and Vulnerability and the British Retail Consortium. An extraordinary meeting of the group, focused exclusively on violence and abuse towards shop workers, will take place on 7 February. That discussion will help to shape the call for evidence.
In addition, the Sentencing Council is reviewing its guidelines on assault. A consultation on a revised guideline is anticipated to commence this summer. These measures are intended to complement existing work under way to tackle this issue. For example, the Home Office is providing funding of £1 million for the National Business Crime Centre over three years between 2016 and 2019. The centre was launched by the National Police Chiefs’ Council in October 2017 to improve communication between police forces on business crime, promote training and advice, and help to identify national and local trends.
In addition, through the national retail crime steering group, which includes representatives from across the retail sector, the police and others, we are taking forward a range of work to strengthen the collective response to these crimes, including: the creation of a “crib sheet” for retailers to use when reporting violent incidents to the police so that they get the information they need to support a timely and appropriate response; exploring options for improving consistency in the recording of business crime by the police, which will include a short pilot analysis of forces applying business crime flags; and the development of guidance on impact statements for businesses to increase their use. These statements give businesses the opportunity to set out the impact a crime has had and are taken into account by courts when determining sentences.
I know that there are concerns about the adequacy of the existing legislation for protecting those selling age-restricted products. The call for evidence is intended to help us understand better how the existing law is being applied and whether there is a case for reform, including in the context of the sale of age-restricted products. However, I want to provide some reassurance about the legislation we have in place, without dismissing noble Lords’ points. A wide range of offences may be used to address unacceptable behaviour towards shop staff—including those who sell age-restricted items—covering the full spectrum of unacceptable behaviour, from using abusive language to the most serious and violent crimes.
Some of the existing offences available include behaviour that causes another to fear the immediate infliction of unlawful violence, which is already an offence of common assault under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Where shop workers are threatened or experience abusive language, this may be captured by the offences under the Public Order Act 1986. There is also the Offences against the Person Act 1861, which means that assaults against shop workers could be considered as assault occasioning actual bodily harm under Section 47 of that Act. In addition, courts have a statutory duty to follow sentencing guidelines when considering any penalty to be imposed further to criminal conviction, unless it is not in the interests of justice to do so. In all cases, the fact that an offence has been committed against a person serving the public may be considered an aggravating factor for the purpose of passing sentence.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Deben and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the specific offence in Amendment 3 could be counterproductive and encourage prosecutions for the new obstruction offence with a maximum penalty of a fine—I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, made that point as well—rather than a more serious offence, such as assault, which carries a higher penalty. That said, and going through the list of offences that this may capture, we understand retailers’ concerns about the risk of their staff being threatened or attacked—particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said, for smaller retailers, such as corner shops. The call for evidence is intended to improve our understanding of the issue and identify potential solutions. We will seek to issue the call for evidence as soon as is practically possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked whether shop workers were law enforcers. It is a moot point on which I think we will agree to differ. I was trying to make the point that they are not policemen but they have to uphold the law. With that, I hope that I have given the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, enough to help him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Paddick
Member’s explanatory statement
This would extend Lord Kennedy of Southwark's amendment so it would also be an offence to obstruct retail staff in their responsibilities in preventing the sale of knives to persons under 18.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken for their support. I agree very much with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. We have to remember that we are talking about usually very low-paid people, often working in difficult situations. I can often see these things happening late at night or early in the morning. It does not really matter whether you work in a big organisation or in the corner shop. As we know, in many big stores there is no one around late at night. That is part of the problem. If ever you leave this House and go to the supermarket on the way home—I do sometimes—there is no one in them. It is the same if you go to a big hardware store. Whatever the people’s job is, it is not to sell the young person the knife or the acid, and they are put in a difficult situation.
I agree with most of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, about anger. There is a lot of anger around in this country at the moment for all sorts of reasons. That is another debate for another time, but angry young men going into stores late at night wanting a knife or acid are not the sort of people I would want to meet. I would not want to be behind the counter saying, “You can’t have that”, and we are leaving people to do that. As the noble Lord said, if the amendment is not harmful, what is the problem? I recall debates on other Bills. On the counterterrorism Bill, we passed a few amendments and accepted that what we were agreeing was wrong—but it was all fine to carry on as though that were not a problem.
If you go into a store and commit this offence, the amendment would make things easier for prosecutors and give some comfort to shop workers. I certainly intend to come back to it at a later stage. I look forward to meeting USDAW. I know that my friend Paddy Lillis will put forward a strong case for holding those discussions before Report and I hope that we can persuade the Government to act on these matters. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Paddick
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make it an offence to have a corrosive substance in a public place only with the intent to cause injury to someone.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, the amendment is in my name and in those of my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. We are back to group 1 and the issue of completely innocent people having to prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt.
We discussed this at considerable length on group 1 and I do not intend to rehearse those arguments again, save to say that people acting completely innocently commit an offence as the legislation is drafted, hence the need for the amendment. That having been said, if someone has a corrosive substance with them in a public place with the intention of causing injury to someone, they commit an offence under Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, which defines an offensive weapon as:
“any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him”.
If they have a corrosive substance in a water pistol or a washing-up liquid bottle capable of squirting the corrosive liquid at someone, it is an article adapted for causing injury. If they have a corrosive liquid in the bottle it was sold in, intending to pour it over someone, it is intended by the person to cause injury, and an offence under the Prevention of Crime Act.
To quote from the briefing on the Bill from the Standing Committee for Youth Justice and the Prison Reform Trust, the clause,
“creates a very loose and ill-defined offence, that fails to satisfy the requirements of legal clarity and will lead to unjust prosecutions and custodial sentences”.
It continues:
“New legislation is unnecessary. Currently, someone found in possession of corrosive substances, where there is intent to cause injury, could clearly be prosecuted under existing offensive weapons legislation … Prosecutors should be required to prove intent to cause harm …The new offence puts the onus on the child”—
or adult—
“to show they have good reason for carrying the corrosive substance … Proving such a defence may be difficult”.
I beg to move.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I put my name to this amendment purely to be consistent with what I said at Second Reading. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has pointed out, it could be that children are sent to collect corrosive substances from shops. They do not know that the substance is corrosive, as defined by the Act, and could be caught in possession by stop and search techniques, resulting in thoroughly unfortunate imprisonment.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for explaining the rationale behind this amendment which would, as he has acknowledged, fundamentally change the nature of the offence provided for in Clause 6. As the noble Lord pointed out, we return in part to the arguments that he put forward in the first group of amendments. I appreciate the noble Lord’s concerns, but I will set out the reasons why we are seeking to introduce this new possession offence.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made reference at Second Reading to the existing legislation in this area, and I will explain why it is not sufficient to tackle the problem of individuals carrying corrosive substances in public. Under Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, it is already the case that anyone who is in possession of a corrosive substance can be prosecuted for the offence of possession of an offensive weapon. However, for the accused to be guilty of the Section 1 offence, it is necessary to prove that they are carrying the corrosive substance with the intention of causing injury. Such intent can be proved, for example, in cases where an individual has decanted the corrosive substance into a different container for the purposes of making it easier to squirt or throw at another person and also to conceal it from the police. However, the intention of Clause 6 is to strengthen the powers available to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. We want to remove the burden on the police and the prosecution to prove that the person was carrying the corrosive substance with the intention to cause injury.
This approach is not novel; it is consistent with the possession offence for knives and bladed articles. We have modelled the new offence on existing legislation in place for the possession of knives under Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. There is also a similar offence in place in Scotland. We have put in place suitable defences for members of the public to prove that they had good reason or lawful authority to be carrying the corrosive substance in a public place. These defences are also modelled on existing legislation for the possession of knives.
I know that noble Lords may be concerned about law-abiding members of the public being stopped by the police as they leave their local supermarket or tradespeople being stopped. However, I reiterate the points that my noble friend made at Second Reading about how we envisage the new offence being used by the police. This is not about the police criminalising tradespeople, children sent on an errand or law-abiding members of the public. We would fully expect the police to use this new offence in response to information or intelligence from the local community that someone was carrying a corrosive substance in public.
Furthermore, as my noble friend also indicated at Second Reading, with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, we have jointly commissioned the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory to develop a testing kit for the police to use to be able to identify corrosive substances in suspect containers. This work is well under way, and we want to have a testing kit in place before commencing the new possession offence.
We need to strengthen the law to tackle the abhorrent use of corrosive substances as weapons. This amendment would effectively leave the criminal law as it currently is. I hope that, in these circumstances, the noble Lord is persuaded of the case for the new offence as currently formulated and would be content on reflection to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I seek clarification, however, on Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, about which the noble Earl said that in order for somebody to be guilty of an offence under that Act, intent had to be proved. However, if the person is in possession of a made offensive weapon—an offensive weapon that has no other purpose than to cause injury: a dagger, for example—then my understanding is that no intent is required. Indeed, if the article that the person has with them is adapted to cause injury—for example, a water pistol filled with a corrosive liquid—again, there is no need to prove intent. That would make the existing offence even stronger than this offence as amended by this amendment.
The noble Earl talks about consistency with Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 regarding bladed and pointed instruments. I accept that the offence as drafted is consistent with that Act, but, in my view, two wrongs do not make a right. The noble Earl and the noble Baroness earlier talked about how the Government envisage that the police will use this legislation. They fully expect the police to use it in response to intelligence. I go back to what I said on the first group: having been an operational police officer for more than 30 years, I do not share the confidence that the Government have about how, in every case, the police are going to use this legislation. This is the source not only of my concern but, as I have said, of the concern of the organisations I mentioned in proposing the amendment.
As far as the testing kit is concerned, that is something that we will return to in a successive group later on. However, having made those points, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with the amendment to page 7, line 14, is to probe what “lawful authority” is and how it is obtained.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 30 and 31. These amendments are in my name and that of my noble friend. Amendments 29 and 30 seek to understand what is meant by “lawful authority”. In Clause 6(2)—I am not making any concessions about the points made on the first group of amendments this afternoon—it is a defence to prove that a person had “good reason” or “lawful authority” for having the corrosive substance with them in a public place. Obviously, lawful authority is not the same as good reason, otherwise it would not have to be provided for—although one would have thought that lawful authority would be good reason. But what is lawful authority? Where does the authority come from? Who gives it? How does one apply for it? Is it a consequence of some other arrangement that is in place? Amendment 29 applies to England, Wales and Northern Ireland and Amendment 30 to Scotland, but they make the same point.
Amendment 31 makes a very small point, but I have discovered over the years that sometimes small points are worth making. Under Clause 6(3) one can show that one had the corrosive substance for “use at work”. My amendment would substitute for those words “the purposes of work”, thereby distinguishing in my mind the purpose and the place. These days “work” is very often used to designate the place. Technically, that might be a bit lax, but it is what people say: “I’m going to work”. They do not mean, “I’m going to put in a good day’s effort”; they mean, “I’m going to my place of work”. The Minister may say that “for use at work” implies “purpose”, but one might take something to use at a place where there is no legitimate reason for using it. I beg to move—and I wish Hansard could record the look on the Minister’s face.
Earl Howe
My Lords, as the noble Baroness explained, these amendments address the defences available if someone is charged with an offence of possessing a corrosive substance in a public place. As I understand her, these amendments are intended to probe what would constitute lawful authority to be in possession of a corrosive substance in a public place. She then went on to comment on the phrase “for use at work”.
On the lawful authority issue, let me give your Lordships one example. Under the Poisons Act 1972 there is a licensing regime for regulated substances such that a Home Office licence is required to import, acquire, possess or use a regulated substance. Both nitric acid at above 3% concentration and sulfuric acid at above 15% concentration are regulated substances. Therefore, there may be circumstances where a Home Office licence holder has purchased a corrosive product containing one of these substances and is transporting it from A to B. This would be a scenario where the defence of lawful authority might come into play.
However, for the majority of cases, a person would need to rely on the defence of having good reason—unless, of course, they were a tradesperson and had purchased the corrosive for use at work. This brings me to Amendment 31, about how we have framed the defence for tradespeople and businesses. The reference to “for use at work” replicates the terminology used in existing knife legislation. The existing defences in relation to the possession of an offensive weapon in a public place are well understood by the police and various trades and businesses, and we are not aware of any issues in the operation of them in relation to the possession of knives.
While I can see the intention behind the amendment, I will need to think about what the noble Baroness has said—but I am not convinced that it is necessary or in practice achieves any significantly different result. I am also concerned that having a different defence in place for possession of corrosives, compared with that for knives, would or could cause confusion and unnecessarily complicate the law. So I hope that, at least for now, I have been able to provide sufficient clarification to persuade the noble Baroness to withdraw these amendments—although, as I have said, I promise that I will read carefully in Hansard what she said.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am grateful for that. The approach to the wording of legislation has been updated quite a lot recently. That was partly in my mind when I raised the point about “at work”—that one wants legislation to be read as easily as possible, using words as they are normally understood. I understand, of course, a resistance to distinctions between offences relating to corrosives and offences relating to knives. That is not how it was dealt with in the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and in our amendment to it on shop workers. That does not mean that you cannot amend the earlier legislation.
Regarding licensing under the Poisons Act, it seems that one would have a good reason and would not have to rely on the lawful authority defence. I believe that we are going to look at the Poisons Act again—it has been brought up several times. Certainly for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would replace the definition of corrosive substances provided in the Bill. The amended definition would include reference to the conditions under which a substance may corrode human skin, such as temperature.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, as has been pointed out already, these are absolute offences in this Bill. Therefore, people ought to know what it takes to be guilty of that offence. The clause here states that,
“‘corrosive substance’” means a substance which is capable of burning human skin by corrosion”.
That is, of itself, a very loose definition. There are obvious substances that would fall under this, such as cement. Lots of builders get burned by cement every year; if it gets trapped against the skin for any length of time it can cause nasty burns that take a long time to heal, Wart cures, by and large, are designed to burn human skin. There is also a large collection of substances that will burn skin under relatively unusual circumstances, such as household bleach. Generally you would not be exposed to household bleach for a long time, but it would fall within the definition here because it will corrode human skin if you use it for long enough. We talked earlier about hydrogen peroxide, which will corrode human skin if it is hot enough.
We need something here that gives the people who are subject to this clause a clear idea of what is forbidden. My noble friend hinted earlier that there may be some testing kit. Great—but if there is a testing kit, there must be with it a very clear statement of what gets caught. When people are committing or are in danger of committing an absolute offence, they must know what conduct will put them in danger of that. If the Government want a looser definition, it should not be an absolute offence. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
I advise the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 33.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is in the same territory as my noble friend and I. Like him, we seek to know how one objectively defines “corrosive substance”. His amendment asks what happens if the skin is particularly sensitive. I am not sure that there is such a thing as the “average human hand”, which he refers to in his amendment. I suspect that sensitivity may depend on age—whether one is young or old could affect vulnerability—as well as all sorts of other matters.
Our amendment proposes two points. The first refers to the testing method. That would not help the point, with which I have a great deal of sympathy, about knowing whether a substance falls within the definition but it enables us to ask about the status of the testing kits. The noble Earl has said that work on them is well under way. Can he tell us any more about them? Are they intended to work—as I understand it—like a breathalyser? It is enough to get you taken off for a second and different test, but does it start with a roadside test? As with a breathalyser, it may look as if you have failed it. Again, this is as I understand it; I do not have personal experience of going down to a police station and giving a blood test or a mouth-breath test. The point is about the process.
My second question is about the definition of the substance as one capable of burning human skin. Our amendment refers to eyes, since a lot of awful acid attacks have involved throwing acid into someone’s eyes. Are eyes “skin” for this purpose? We simply want to be sure that we have covered the ground here.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, perhaps I may speak briefly on this rather macabre amendment. First, I am not sure who the testing is to be done on. I cannot see many volunteers being willing to be corroded. My second and more substantive point is that I cannot see why the definition is required because, as I read the Bill—not an easy Bill to read, as we have discovered today—a corrosive substance is de facto defined by Schedule 1. I would have thought it much more satisfactory to retain the concept of a schedule, which can be altered by order, than to have this rather frightening test.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining his amendment, which seeks to modify the definition of a corrosive substance for the purposes of the new possession offence. This provides me with the opportunity to clarify why we have taken the approach that we have, and to reassure him about how the new possession offence would be used.
We know that perpetrators of these horrendous attacks often decant the corrosive into other containers, for example soft drinks bottles. This is done to make the substance easier to use but also to conceal.
Police officers who come across an individual carrying a bottle containing a suspect liquid will not know exactly what chemicals it contains or at what levels. As a result, the approach we have taken for the sales and delivery offences of defining a corrosive product by substance and concentration limit will not work on our streets. The police require a simpler definition for use operationally, so we have defined a corrosive substance by its effect rather than by its specific chemical composition—that is, as a substance capable of burning human skin by corrosion.
Baroness Hamwee
Before the noble Lord responds, first, will there be an opportunity for Parliament to consider the arrangements for testing when they are pretty much complete? I am sure it will be of interest. Secondly, are skin and eyes similarly sensitive? Or do we risk not outlawing a substance that might damage the eyes but would not damage the skin?
Earl Howe
In answer to the second question, my understanding—on advice—is no. A substance capable of burning the skin by corrosion would also be capable of doing severe damage to the eye, and the other way round. We do not think we are excluding any substance by accident in defining corrosive substances in this way. On the noble Baroness’s first question, as I understand it, the approval of the testing kit will not be subject to any formal parliamentary procedure, but I am sure the noble Baroness is capable of finding ways to tease out relevant information from the Home Office at the appropriate time.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, in thinking about how criminals might think about getting around the law that the Government are proposing, I add this as a footnote to take away. Would it be possible to take two separate substances, which on their own might be quite innocuous, but when mixed together could be powerfully corrosive and thereby say you were not carrying corrosive substances? That is something to take away as a possible concern.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for that response. Could he write to us on this question of eyes? I am aware of quite a large number of substances which have hazard signs about getting them in your eyes, but nothing about getting them on your skin. Hydrogen peroxide would be an obvious example, but there are others. I wondered if you might question that. Are we covering stuff thrown in people’s eyes effectively, so that there is no risk of permanent damage from substances that can be washed off the skin easily, causing a bit of redness but not much else? I am not an expert, but this is not what I have read. I would be grateful if my noble friend could drop us a line on that.
As for the general principle, this is something we will have to chew over and come back to on Report. I am concerned that people should know when they are committing an offence. If you look up acetic acid, otherwise known as vinegar, you will find that it is highly corrosive to the skin and eyes. This is being drawn very widely; I can understand why, but when the testing kit is published, it has to be clear what it applies to and what it will pick up, or we have to have a defence in here that the substance was not actually a weapon—that it contravened this, but was not capable of being used as a weapon. If we do not, we shall give the police opportunities which they should not have to bounce people off the wall when they feel like it. Occasionally it happens—there is a nice little story doing the rounds about the Humberside Police, who grilled a man for 35 minutes because he retweeted a limerick. The police can sometimes be quite interesting in the use of their powers, and one should not assume that they will be perfect on every occasion.
Something like this, which gets down to the relationships between communities, and gives police officers an opportunity to pick up people where perhaps they ought to be doing other things, requires giving some thought to how to make it as fair as we can while not removing from police officers the opportunity to nab someone they suspect has something on them intended to do people harm. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ramsbotham
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, in moving Amendment 34 in my name and those of others, I will speak to my opposition to the clause. My comments about Amendment 34 apply to the clause as a whole.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has already mentioned the very good briefing which many Members have received from the Standing Committee for Youth Justice and the Prison Reform Trust. Speaking about the new possession offences, it forecasts that the measures will be ineffective because they increase the use of ineffective short mandatory minimum sentences. They create legal uncertainty, may lead to disproportionate sentences and are likely to increase black and ethnic minority disproportionality, further damaging trust in the justice system. I apologise for saying some of this earlier in the debate on another amendment.
Amendment 34 seeks to move the application of this clause from the age of 16 to 18, and is entirely in balance with the Children Act 1989, which lays down that every person in this country under the age of 18 is a child. My contention is that, if mandatory short sentences are ineffective for adults, they are even more so for children. The appropriate sentence advised in Clause 8 is,
“a detention and training order of at least 4 months”.
That means that they will have only two months in prison and two months supervision. Bearing in mind the conditions in our prisons at the moment, and remembering that last year the Inspectorate of Prisons reported that there was not a single young offender institution in the country in which young offenders were safe, that means that—with the overcrowding and shortage of staff—two months will not be enough even to complete an assessment of what a young offender needs.
I therefore think that, in all cases of children involved in possession, custody should be eliminated from the equation—and eliminated from this Bill. As I mentioned, community sentences are in some disarray at the moment, but that does not apply to the youth offending teams, which have the benefit of being under local government control and are therefore able to reflect the wishes of the community in the community sentences that they impose.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, my noble friend and I support the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, particularly on the question of the clause standing part. I am conscious of progress in the Chamber, so I will not say as much as I might otherwise have done. It looks like some negotiations are going on. We have a number of other amendments to these clauses as well. In addition to supporting what the noble Lord has said, I want to make clear our implacable opposition to mandatory sentences—in this case custodial ones. Judicial discretion is very important and precious in our system.
Clause 8(4) is a get-out clause, referring to having regard to the duty under the 1933 Act to have regard for the welfare of the child. I do not think this works. It was obviously a response to representations, but it applies only to children, not young adults, and seems to be a nod to that well-established provision without changing anything that surrounds it. I also have a question about the particular circumstances in Clause 8(2). I had a look at the sentencing guidelines yesterday. If that phrase originates from those guidelines then subsection (2) is actually an inversion of them. They require the court to look at the particular circumstances, but Clause 8(2) is the reverse: it is an “unless” provision. Finally, Amendment 37 deals with the appeals subsection. We have added a reference to the criteria in Clause 8(2). I am not sure whether this is appropriate technically, but perhaps we could have an explanation as to how the appeal takes into account the points made in that subsection.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I support these amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the clause stand part Motion spoken to so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. The noble Lords made the case very strongly against short-term prison sentences. I want to add my voice to emphasise very strongly just how unhelpful these short-term sentences are, particularly to the very vulnerable young people who are most likely to be caught up in these offensive weapons allegations or crimes. Apart from doing nothing for those individuals, short-term sentences do absolutely nothing for society as a whole. If we do not prevent these young people committing crimes in the future, our society will be all the worse off.
Scotland has shown the way. The removal of judgment in Scotland has been proven to be more cost effective and positive when responding to people with drug and alcohol addiction and other problems often associated with the carrying of knives or corrosive substances. I believe huge proportions of these young people have drug problems. As others have mentioned, the Ministry of Justice has already produced its own evidence of the ineffectiveness of short-term imprisonment. Perhaps the Minister can explain why we are adding to these short-term sentences in this Bill.
I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the radical Checkpoint deferred prosecution scheme in Durham, run by Chief Constable Mike Barton, and very much supported by his police and crime commissioner, Ron Hogg. Checkpoint is a multi-agency initiative which aims to reduce the number of victims of crime by reducing reoffending. This is what this should all be about. The scheme targets low and medium-level offenders—it is not just for people right at the bottom—at the earliest stage of the criminal justice process and offers them a suspended prosecution. It encourages them to engage in services designed to address their problems instead of receiving a caution or going to court, which does not seem to have anything to do with where these kids or young people are coming from. Checkpoint is evaluated by Cambridge University. This is very important because the evidence on this is really very thorough and reliable.
If this amendment were to be accepted by the Government, the objective would be for the Checkpoint policy, or something like it, to be applied to children and young people who are found in possession of an offensive weapon. I know very well how utterly appalling these corrosive substances are. I happen to know a young, beautiful girl whose face has been utterly destroyed by an acid attack. The poor girl has had endless operations and she will not be the beautiful person that she was, although she will be a beautiful person inside and that is what really matters. Nevertheless, I want people to know that I really understand that these are shocking and horrible crimes. The most important thing that we can do is to cut them down, reduce them and, ideally, eliminate them. Anything that somehow does not achieve that is an utter failure, so I feel very strongly about it because we have to do something that is effective.
Checkpoint shows that it is the threat of punishment, rather than the severity of a punishment, that is cost-effective and, most importantly, effective. It argues in favour of taking a whole-person-centred approach to understand the causes of their offending and ensure that those people receive appropriate interventions to address the problems of drug dependence, debt issues or homelessness—a whole range of problems that these young, very vulnerable people face. Indeed, its figures from a random control trial—and I emphasise that it is a random control trial, not just any old tin-pot kind of study—show that reoffending is reduced by 13% if we do not send these people to custody but instead try to get them involved in help for their problems.
Its study of young offenders who have committed crimes on more than five occasions within a year is very important. You might think that these are hopeless cases and that there is no point in doing anything. This study looks at the traumatic experiences during childhood that so many of those repeat offenders have experienced. Almost all have been exposed to violence, physical harm or danger, parental offending or admissions to A&E due to physical harm or trauma. They have frequently exhibited violent behaviour or problems in school and have been excluded.
We have to ask ourselves about the effect of putting those young, very vulnerable, damaged children into custody for just another dose of punishment. They obviously need a great deal of therapeutic help and support to begin to recover from their childhood experiences. Durham Constabulary, West Midlands Police and other police services are, in my view, leading the way in exploring policies which will benefit not only the vulnerable but society as a whole by reducing reoffending and will also save vast police and prison resources, but that is not the point. This is about reducing these terrible crimes and helping the vulnerable.
I hope this legislation can be amended to ensure that it works with the grain of new, evidence-based criminal justice policy. It is interesting that police services are taking the lead in this crucial field. Of course, the police have their street-level experience; I always have great regard for the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for this reason—he knows what goes on on the street. They are saying we should not send these people to prison because they see them coming round again and again. I take this very seriously; I think we all should. I hope the Minister will discuss with us how best to amend this Bill. I very much look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I will hold the Committee for only one moment, but I very much agree with the arguments put forward by those who tabled this amendment. It seems that this is another example of saying, “We’ve got to do something, so let’s do this”. But “this” has failed. It does not work and is a disaster. There is no more stupid thing to do than to give young people short prison sentences. Countries throughout Europe have shown that it does not work and that other things do. I really am tired of people coming forward with the same answer to a problem, which does not work. Therefore, I very much hope that my noble friend will say that this Government will not go on with this kind of answer. It will take time, money and resources to make sure that we have something which works, and we should learn from other countries which have found a way through, instead of repeating a failed policy.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I would like to follow what the noble Lord has said. We have seen what works in this country. Indeed, a Conservative Government set up the intermediate treatment centres. I think the noble Lord, Lord Elton, very much led this work 30 years ago. I worked in one of those centres at that time. There was a male social worker and a female teacher, so the children and young people saw a model of a man and a woman in co-operation together, being courteous and respectful towards one another. There were six boys, ranging from eight to 15. The eldest was mad about motorbikes and was just about to get on a mechanics course. I saw these boys sitting down together sewing, with the teacher’s help. If you make the right kind of intervention, you can really turn these young people’s lives around. To put this in historical context, perhaps I may take my hat off to the coalition Government, as we have reduced the number of children and young people in prison in this country by 71% over the last seven or so years.
We have been through this process before. I remember that about 10 or 15 years ago, there was an outcry about mobile phone theft and various pushes to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, but really being tough on crime was putting more and more young people in custody. What did we see there? A boy who had just entered care, on his first or second day in a children’s home, was with a group of children and one of them stole a mobile phone. He ended up in court and there were no suitable places for him in custody, so he was placed in an insecure prison and ended up hanging himself within two days. His mother has been grieving for him ever since. As a trustee of a mental health service for adolescents, I know that adolescents become more and more interested in their peer group. So when you send a child off to one of our young offender institutions or secure training centres, you send them into a peer group where they will get the best information about how to join a gang or be destructive.
On some occasions it may be necessary to do that, if they are too dangerous. But leave it to the judges and magistrates to decide that; do not tie their hands. I know there will be exceptions, but I suggest to your Lordships that we do not want to tie the judiciary’s hands in this case, and having mandatory sentencing is not helpful.
I have been a trustee of the Michael Sieff Foundation, which was set up around the time of the Children Act 1989. I had the privilege of working for several years with Dr Eileen Vizard, a forensic child psychiatrist who worked with the NSPCC. She made the point that, once the criminal justice system gets children into the secure estate, they are likely to keep on coming back, and so we should try not to get them in there.
I share the conviction of all the noble Lords who have spoken in Committee today. I hope that the Minister can give us some comfort in his response.
Earl Howe
My Lords, Clause 8 provides an appropriate custodial sentence where a person is 16 years old or older and is convicted of the offence of possession of a corrosive substance in a public place in England and Wales and has at least one relevant previous conviction, as defined in Clause 9. We have made it a requirement that the court must impose an appropriate custodial sentence unless it decides that there are particular circumstances relating to the offence, the previous offence or the offender which would make it unjust to do so. We have defined an “appropriate custodial sentence” as a custodial sentence of at least six months’ imprisonment for an offender aged 18 or over. For an offender aged 16 or 17, we have defined an “appropriate custodial sentence” as being a detention and training order of at least four months’ duration.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, referred specifically to Clause 8(2). It is not designed, as she suggested, to reflect the sentencing guidelines. The clause mirrors existing knife legislation and ensures that anyone aged 16 or over who is convicted of a second possession or similar offence, such as an offence relating to a knife, will receive a custodial sentence unless the court determines that there are appropriate circumstances not to do so. The use of appropriate custodial sentences will make it clear to individuals that we will not tolerate people carrying corrosives on our streets and other public places in circumstances which would enable them to cause injury or commit another offence, such as robbery.
Amendments 34 to 36 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Paddick, seek to confine these provisions to adult offenders. I understand why the noble Lords are proposing this but I really think—as do the Government, very firmly—that, given the nature of this particular form of offending and the appalling injuries it can cause, the minimum sentence should apply to 16 and 17 year-olds as well as to adults, as for the existing offence of possession of an offensive weapon in a public place. We fully recognise, however, that this cohort of young offenders should be treated differently from adult offenders. I have already indicated that for 16 and 17 year-olds the minimum sentence is a four-month detention and training order as opposed to six months’ imprisonment in the case of adult offenders.
In addition, for this age group, we have ensured that when considering whether there are particular circumstances which would make imposing an appropriate custodial sentence unjust, the court must have regard to its duty under Section 44 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. This relates in particular to the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. Under that section, the court must have regard to the welfare of the child or young person, take steps to remove them from undesirable surroundings and ensure that proper provision is made for their education and training. We have also ensured that there are procedures for appeals in those circumstances where a relevant conviction, which was relied upon by the court to impose an appropriate custodial sentence, has been set aside on appeal.
I recognise that there are some Members of the Committee such as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who object as a matter of principle to minimum sentences as provided for in Clause 8. I fully accept that the normal practice is for Parliament to set maximum sentences and leave it to the discretion of the court to determine the appropriate sentence, having regard to the facts of an individual case. However, there are already a number of exceptions to this rule, including, as I have said, in relation to second convictions for possession of an offensive weapon in a public place. We regard the possession of corrosive substances in a public place as equally serious and therefore deserving of the same sentencing framework.
As I have indicated, the requirement to impose the minimum sentence is not absolute and the provisions still allow for some judicial discretion. The court must still consider the particular circumstances of the case and, if there are relevant factors relating to the offence or the offender such that it would be unjust to impose the minimum sentence, the court has the latitude in such a case not to do so. That could be: where the seriousness of the offending falls far below a level deserving custody; strong personal mitigation of the defendant; or the undue impact that going into custody may have on others. In addition, the courts would have to consider the effect of a guilty plea. In the youth justice system, four months is the minimum detention and training order available, so any reduction would mean that a community order is imposed. It is important to emphasise that.
It remains a matter for the court to weigh up all the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors before deciding the appropriate sentence to impose, at or above that required by this clause, and subject to the question of it being unjust in all the circumstances which I have mentioned. In short, the Government are firmly of the view that in exceptional cases such as this, there is a place for minimum sentences in our sentencing framework. We are dealing here with repeat offenders who pose a particular risk to others and our communities, and the law and the courts should recognise this.
Finally, Amendment 37 deals with the test to be applied by an appellate court on any appeal against sentencing where the provisions of Clause 8 apply and a previous relevant conviction has been overturned. In any case where there was only one previous relevant conviction and that conviction was subsequently overturned on appeal, the criteria provided for in Clause 8(2) would not be relevant in the case of an appeal against sentence to which Clause 8(6) applies. Where the conditions requiring a court to impose a mandatory minimum sentence no longer apply after the fact, a court hearing an appeal against a sentence would be bound to quash it and pass a new sentence without regard to the provisions in Clause 8. Given this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, will withdraw his amendment and that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, will support Clause 8 standing part of the Bill.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. With regard to children and young people in local authority care, and young people leaving such care, might the courts not be given some guidance as to a more lenient treatment of them? I think we recognise the statistics on the high levels of children from care and care leavers in custody. We have a corporate parenting responsibility towards these young people. We know that over 60% of them enter care because of physical abuse or neglect on the part of their families, and that very few of them enter because of criminal or anti-social behaviour. Will the Minister consider giving guidance to the courts on our corporate parenting responsibility to these young people and, regarding their histories, should we consider giving them a more lenient approach in the courts?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Earl has often and rightly emphasised the vulnerability of children in care and young people leaving care. I fully accept that point. However, as he has heard, the provisions under the 1933 Act constitute a very considerable duty on the court to look at the pertaining circumstances of a case. He will also know that the Sentencing Council provides exactly the kind of guidance to which he alluded. If there is any more I can say on that, I will be happy to write to him. I am sure that the Sentencing Council will not be slow to follow up on any proposal emerging from the provision in the Bill.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this amendment. I assure the Minister that this is not a matter of principle against short sentences. I have seen how ineffective they are. I know how ineffective they are, and I have been saying so for more than 20 years. It is not a question of principle; it is knowledge that they are ineffective. I fail to see why the Justice Secretary, who is against mandatory minimum sentences, is on one side saying one thing and then the Home Secretary is imposing yet more mandatory sentences on the other. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I am sure we will return to it at a later stage.
Lord Bethell
“Review of sections 1 to 12 and 31
The Secretary of State must each year, for the period of three years beginning with the year in which the last of the provisions in sections 1 to 12 and 31 of this Act come into force, lay before both Houses of Parliament a report reviewing the effectiveness of the measures contained in those sections.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report each year for three years after the Bill comes into force reviewing the effectiveness of the provisions relating to corrosive substances.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 39. I thank noble Lords for returning and doing me the courtesy of hearing this out. I really appreciate it and I will be very quick. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, put it very well—I wish she were still in her place—but I also feel very passionate about the victims of acid attacks and corrosive substance crime. I am a trustee of the Scar Free Foundation and I have met a lot of the victims, and I have been blown away by how these crimes have seemingly come out of nowhere and become a very big deal: there were nearly 1,000 attacks last year. I am very much aware of how innovative criminals have quickly become, to get around the law and invent new crimes. I am aware that our responses have got to be very quick as well. I applaud the speed with which the Home Office has reacted to this crime wave. I will not go through the list, but it is an impressive list and I completely endorse the approach.
We owe it to ourselves to recognise that this is an experimental approach: international data suggests that legislation on acid attacks is very difficult. It does not always work, so we should keep track of how this legislation proceeds and whether it is worth analysing its effectiveness and what is happening with the arrests that come out of it. That is why I suggested these two amendments: so that in two or three years’ time, we are not left worrying whether we have been on the right track and so that we have the right data to be able to fine-tune and make any changes to our approach.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in this, because so many things that were alleged about the inefficiency of various measures are unproven. For example, short sentences are said to be no deterrent. We do not know for certain, and therefore I support entirely a continuous review. We must have more data to be able to be more precise in the measures that we take.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bethell for setting out the rationale for these amendments. I understand his intention, but I hope to persuade him that there will be adequate reporting of the use of the new powers in the Bill relating to corrosive substances without the need for statutory provisions such as this. Once the offences in this Bill are brought into force, the collection of data regarding corrosives offences will be much more accessible for police forces and will allow for a much clearer picture to be presented on the extent of corrosive attacks and the corresponding law enforcement response.
My noble friend may be aware that we are already working with the police to improve how offences involving corrosives can be better captured in police data to help understand the scale of attacks. We have submitted a joint application, with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, to the police data requirements group to establish a new data collection requirement with respect to corrosive attacks as part of the annual data requirement on all forces in England and Wales. Subject to agreement, these would allow for regular publication as part of the Office for National Statistics quarterly crime statistics.
In relation to Amendment 38, I simply point out to my noble friend that all government legislation such as this is subject to post-legislative review five years after Royal Assent. In the intervening period, there are the usual arrangements for scrutinising government policies and the operating of new powers such as contained in this Bill. For example, it will be open to my noble friend to table periodic Written Questions or initiate a debate.
Given these established methods, I am not persuaded that we need a bespoke duty to report annually on aspects of this Bill. I fully accept that this is a serious issue, but I hope I have provided my noble friend with sufficient reassurance on the action that we are taking to address it and that, accordingly, he will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bethell
My Lords, the Minister puts it very persuasively and I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
House of Lords
Home Care Workers
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wills
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what new steps they will take to ensure that home care workers are paid the national living wage for travelling between appointments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, the law is clear: workers are entitled to the minimum wage for time spent travelling from one client to another. The Government are committed to enforcing minimum wage legislation. Workers who think they might be underpaid should first speak to their employer. Alternatively, they can call the ACAS helpline for advice and referral to HMRC for possible enforcement action.
Lord Wills (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I am glad he recognises that there is a problem, and I hope he agrees with me that more needs to be done to address it. It is a disgrace that UNISON has estimated that over 50% of home care workers do not receive any payment for travelling between appointments. The National Audit Office has estimated that up to 220,000 such workers do not receive the national minimum wage. Clearly, something is going wrong and more needs to be done. The Government might be able to look at the way the Care Quality Commission regulates home care firms and to insist that it scrutinises all standard contracts to ensure that workers receive the payment they are due for travelling between appointments. Will the Minister agree to explore this option—I hope he will write to me with the results of his exploration—and if not, why not?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I will look at the figures the noble Lord cited. I am not sure I fully accept them. The role of the Care Quality Commission is to make sure that health and social care services provide people with safe, effective, compassionate and high-quality care. It is not within the remit of its inspectors to check the contractual arrangements of each home care worker. I will certainly ask officials to look at that and to ask colleagues in the Department of Health. I also make it clear that local authorities, when commissioning services and when guidance has been issued by the Government, should assure themselves and have evidence that their service providers deliver services through staff remunerated so as to retain an effective workforce. Remuneration should be at least sufficient to comply with the national minimum wage legislation via hourly pay or equivalent salary. That will include appropriate remuneration for any time spent travelling between appointments.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, the Minister says that the law is clear, but the problem lies with its enforcement, as the noble Lord, Lord Wills, has said. Too many home care workers get confusing pay packets which can obscure the fact that they are not being paid for travel time. Could it not be made a legal requirement that employers separate out travel time and make pay packets clearer on the different elements of pay?
Lord Henley
The noble Baroness is right to draw attention to transparency in pay packets, and I can give an assurance that legislation will take effect in April of this year for the first time entitling all workers to receive a pay slip. Where a worker is paid with a reference to time worked, the pay slip will now also detail the number of hours worked.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, I have personal experience of this through someone we helped eventually to get citizenship here—it took 10 years and was supported by other Members of this House—and she now works as a carer. I asked her about this issue following the court ruling that they should be paid for travel between appointments, and she said that the issue had never been brought up. I wrote her a letter pointing out that this was position, and she handed it into the agency that she works for. The agency immediately tore it up and said, “You have no right to discuss our affairs with anyone else”. To this day, she has still not had a penny for travel, even though most of her work is one hour at this place and then half-an-hour’s walk to the next. She is playing a valuable role, but the ruling of the court is absolutely ignored.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I did not want to comment on any individual case, but what my noble friend has said sounds completely and utterly wrong. As I have said, the law is clear. I recommend that my noble friend tells her friend to take advice from ACAS, which I hope would then recommend enforcement by HMRC.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that the minimum wage was introduced to give an hourly wage? If that person is travelling and not being paid, does that not undermine the principle of an hourly minimum wage?
Lord Henley
My Lords, the point is that the travelling time between the two jobs should be taken into account: it should be part of what is called the pay reference period. One should look at the whole pay reference period and make sure that it is compliant with the minimum wage legislation. If there is any doubt, take advice from ACAS.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, it would be helpful if the Minister could comment on the challenges to local authorities of trying to place contracts for people who need at least three visits a day in rural communities, where the time spent between visits is significant and they are unable to fully factor in those costs. Is he aware that in some places they are choosing to use different carers for the same individual across the 24-hour period so that they avoid paying some of the travel costs?
Lord Henley
My Lords, we are dealing with the pay of individuals and the travel costs between the two visits. I have tried to set out what the law is, and I think that it is perfectly clear. On funding for local authorities, it is for them to decide how to deal with it. The Government have given councils access to £3.6 billion extra funding for adult social care in 2018-19 and £3.9 billion in 2019-20.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, this is predominantly a female workforce, often employed under precarious employment conditions—on zero-hours contracts without any guarantee of the number of hours worked or available each week. The Resolution Foundation estimates that care workers are collectively cheated out of £130 million each year. Age UK says that we will need 650,000 extra care workers for the future. We know that we need 130,000 care workers just to meet today’s demand. Does the Minister agree that giving care workers a decent living wage for all the time spent on the job is not only fair but vital to recruiting new staff and addressing current and future chronic staff shortages? If he does, what is he going to do about it?
Lord Henley
My Lords, we believe it is vital that they are paid properly and that is why we gave advice to local authorities on how they should perform their duties. I repeated that advice on what local authorities should do to the noble Lord, Lord Wills. We have also made funding available to local authorities, so it should be for them to ensure that they have the right people to do the job.
Ofcom: RT News Channel
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the findings of Ofcom’s investigations into the RT news channel.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, investigations into RT are a matter for Ofcom as the independent communications regulator. On 20 December 2018, Ofcom announced that the RT news channel broke broadcasting rules in seven programmes. Ofcom is minded to consider a statutory sanction, and it is right that it makes decisions without government interference. On 17 January, RT announced that it will be seeking a judicial review of Ofcom’s findings. It is vital that as a society we remain vigilant regarding the spread of harmful disinformation, and Ofcom has strong powers to tackle it where it occurs in broadcast news.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am really grateful to the Minister for a very helpful Answer. Does he agree that it is ironic that RT takes advantage of the freedoms in this country that are not available in Russia? Will he nevertheless take some government action to stop RT, the Russian television agency, the Sputnik news agency, based in Edinburgh and London, and indeed all the social networks spreading the Kremlin’s fake news throughout this United Kingdom?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I thank the noble Lord. I agree, although I would not want to comment specifically on RT, for the reasons I have mentioned. However, in 2017 the Prime Minister said that the Russian state has been launching,
“a sustained campaign of cyber espionage and disruption”,
which has included,
“meddling in elections and hacking the Danish Ministry of Defence and the Bundestag”.
Therefore, I agree with the noble Lord’s view.
Regarding disinformation generally, we are working with the DfE to include information for schoolchildren on how to make judgments about what they read on social media, and a consultation will be coming out this year. We are also launching a programme of adult internet literacy, which will be very important in enabling older members of society to understand how this new technology works. In addition, we are engaged with international partners, such as the G7, the UN and the Council of Europe, but, above all, we are introducing the online harms White Paper, part of which will deal with tackling disinformation. Generally speaking, we will look at illegal harms and the much more difficult area of harms that are legal.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend take into account the fact that RT and other Russian actors have produced strong propaganda against the shale gas industry and that this is having a real effect on the debate in this country?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
As I have said, RT is regulated by Ofcom, which is independent of government, and I know that it will do its job.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
I declare an interest as a series producer for the Smithsonian Channel and CNN. A week after the ruling on RT, the personal details and photographs of journalists working in Russia for the BBC were leaked online. This action was publicly condoned by President Putin’s press office and was seen as an act—indeed, part of a pattern—of intimidation. At a time when the BBC’s Russian service had seen an annual increase of 20% in its audience, what are the Government doing to protect the BBC World Service and the Russian service within the Russian Federation?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The BBC’s charter was renewed for 10 years. Its job is to provide impartial news, and Ofcom regulates those services. It has been given the financial backing to do that—£3.8 million of licence-payers’ money. I believe that an extra £219 million has been provided over the next four years to increase the number of Russian language programmes that the BBC World Service can produce.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
It is clear that Ofcom is doing a thorough and effective job on this very difficult case. We hope it will move forward in an appropriate way. Does this case not raise the wider question of whether the holder of the broadcast licence here is a fit and proper person to carry out the duties for which it is responsible? The issue came up recently during the Sky takeover; there was common ground in the House that the existing rules, both through statute and through the precedents set in previous cases, mean that this is not an effective test. Are the Government going to do anything about that?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I do not want to talk specifically about RT for the reasons I mentioned. Ofcom has sanctions which can include fines, suspension or revocation of a licence if Ofcom deems that suitable.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that Ofcom licenses many hundreds of broadcasters in London? This is a good example of what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, often refers to as Britain’s soft power. Is it not very important that we leave Ofcom to the job it was given with the powers it was given? The idea that some kind of political or government pressure was involved does not set a good precedent with regard to closing radio or television stations. We should let RT make its case to Ofcom, let Ofcom use its powers and then see what happens.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I completely agree with the noble Lord. That is why I said in my initial Answer that it is right for Ofcom to make decisions without government interference.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, the Minister is right that Ofcom is not responsible to the Government. but am I right in saying that it is responsible to Parliament?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I am not sure; I do not know whether it is responsible in a statutory sense but of course ultimately Parliament can decide what it wants. The main point is that, in a democratic society such as ours, the regulator of the news and of broadcasters should not be linked to government, especially the Executive. That is the situation we have now and I believe that it is working well.
Sexual Offences Legislation
Lord Campbell-Savours
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reform sexual offences legislation.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to ensuring that the law on sexual offences is fit for purpose and responsive to changes in attitudes and behaviours. The Sexual Offences Act 2003, amended in 2015 and 2017, has a clear and comprehensive framework of offences to deal with the scourge of sexual abuse and exploitation.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, I have a simple question: is the law credible in helping genuine accusers when a man now on remand, charged with making false allegations of multiple homicides, fantasy assaults by paedophile rings and fraud, is able to accuse Sir Edward Heath and Lord Janner of rape, and is believed by the police so that the press publishes their names, destroying their reputations? The innocent are treated as guilty and the guilty, false accusers are treated as innocent until found to be lying, by which time the damage is done. Their real motive is compensation under the criminal injuries compensation scheme. The law is a shambles.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I respect the tenacity of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and his simple questions in this area. The case that he has raised has been the subject of extensive debate in your Lordships’ House in recent months. To wrongly and deliberately accuse someone of a sexual offence is a very serious matter and is treated as such by the police. The noble Lord will be aware that Carl Beech, aka “Nick”, has been charged with 12 counts of perverting the course of justice and one of fraud. All people charged with, or indeed accused of, an offence, sexual or otherwise, remain innocent until proven guilty.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Is it not imperative to restore full respect for the cardinal principle that my noble friend has just mentioned, a principle so flagrantly violated by Mr Mike Veale in respect of Sir Edward Heath and, sadly, by the Church of England in respect of the great bishop George Bell, although the latter’s reputation has now been largely restored as a result of a welcome report from the Church last week? It is tremendous news that George Bell is to get a statue in Canterbury Cathedral.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I acknowledge the strong feelings on all sides of the House on this matter. It is extremely important that we get the balance right. Since the events to which noble Lords have referred, a number of steps have been taken. For example, the College of Policing guidelines on media relations, which dictate when a person’s identity should be released, have been subject to consultation. They were updated in 2017, and further updated in 2018 to include deceased persons. A lot has gone on in this area and I believe there has been much improvement.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, the coming Domestic Abuse Bill is very welcome but there is a gap, in that it does not seem specifically to cover people whose immigration status is uncertain. They risk being taken as immigration offenders if they report sexual violence, which makes them reticent to report incidents. Does the Minister agree that anyone subject to sexual violence should have equal recourse to the law, regardless of their immigration status? Could that not be made clear in the Domestic Abuse Bill?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for raising that issue. The Domestic Abuse Bill was published in draft form on 21 January, following a long consultation that received 3,200 responses. Its goal is to deter offenders and protect victims. The noble Baroness is quite right that people whose immigration status is unsure need protection too, and I hope she will put forward the points that she has raised as the draft Bill comes to your Lordships’ House.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
In addition to the need for legislation, there is clearly a need to identify and support vulnerable adults and children before, as well as after, abuse takes place. What action is being taken in this respect by the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The noble Lord raises an important issue. One of the ways in which the law has been progressing over recent years is that many of the more recent changes have focused on early intervention, which is critical, particularly when it comes to communication of a sexual nature with a child. With regard to specific action being taken by the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care, I will write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, as Victims’ Commissioner I have to put my pennyworth in. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, mentioned the criminal injuries compensation scheme and suggested that victims are in it for money. I suggest that he reads my recent report, which came out on Wednesday. I have met many victims who are not in it for the money; actually, they are in it for justice for what happened to them. Do the Government have any plans to review and amend the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 to include a requirement to seek complainants’ consent in relation to their digital evidence and personal records, with a clear and defined limit and effective judicial oversight? Many victims listening to this already do not come forward, and I do not want many more not to come forward because of what goes on in procedure.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I commend the work done by my noble friend the Victims’ Commissioner. It is a very weighty tome that she has worked on, looking at the criminal injuries compensation scheme. There are many things we can do in this area. We will take on board the recommendations of the Victims’ Commissioner, and those of IICSA, and we are consulting on future changes to the scheme. The report will come out later this year.
We will bring forward legislation as soon as possible, for example to remove the pre-1979 “same roof” rule, which will mean that certain victims can reapply. I will write to my noble friend on her specific point about the legislation.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, the dead cannot answer. There is still a question mark that has not been removed from the reputation of the great George Bell. Should it not be the absolute rule, and should not the Government give this immediate attention, that for any dead person accused there should be no publication of their name until there is really substantial evidence of guilt?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I refer my noble friend to my answer to a previous question. Following the events of recent years, there has been a substantial and significant change to the College of Policing guidance. This now covers deceased persons too, and is published on the Authorised Professional Practice website, available for all practitioners to see. The previous Home Secretary asked the HMICFRS to do a short and targeted review of this issue in particular, to make sure that the release of people’s names prior to charge is done in only the right circumstances.
Florence Nightingale: Bicentenary
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Crisp
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to commemorate the bicentenary of the birth of Florence Nightingale in 2020.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, the Department of Health and Social Care is working with the Chief Nursing Officer for England on plans for the occasion, and will focus on rightly celebrating those in the nursing professions. Plans include supporting the Nursing Now campaign across the NHS in England. In addition, the Florence Nightingale Museum—located across the river within St Thomas’ Hospital—is in early discussion with partners, including the Heritage Lottery Fund, regarding a number of events to mark the bicentenary.
Lord Crisp (CB)
I thank the Minister for his encouraging response, and I had better declare my interest as chairman of Nursing Now, which he just referred to. Florence Nightingale is a truly global figure —the foundational and inspirational figure for nursing and health systems worldwide. This is an enormous opportunity for the UK. We should be using this bicentenary not just to celebrate nursing and other great nurses such as Mary Seacole, but as an opportunity to promote the contribution the UK makes to health globally. This is a great post-Brexit—I assume it will be post-Brexit—opportunity to promote UK expertise in everything in health, from academia to commerce. The World Health Organization is debating her bicentenary today, and will be making a major announcement about what it intends to do. The UK needs to do the same.
Does the Minister agree that this is a tremendous opportunity for the UK that we must grasp? Will the Government join the WHO, Nursing Now and others to promote nursing and support plans to develop young nurses worldwide?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that this is a very good opportunity to support nursing both in this country and abroad. I pay tribute to those in the nursing profession; those of us who have had care from nurses will understand what I mean.
As I said, the NHS is celebrating the year of the nurse in 2020 and will be organising a number of activities, culminating in an international conference organised by the Florence Nightingale Foundation in October 2020. As far as Nursing Now abroad is concerned, I know the noble Lord is meeting the DfID Minister on 5 February to ask for more practical support. I can confirm that we support the aims of the Nursing Now campaign and its promoting the importance of health workers to achieve the goal of universal health coverage.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, Florence Nightingale was ahead of her time in realising the importance of data and statistics—in her day I think it was called information and relevant points. Does the Minister realise that today is Data Privacy Day, and that my Private Member’s Bill, the Health and Social Care (National Data Guardian) Bill, has received Royal Assent? Does he agree that this is a very good sign for the health service going forward?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, as the DCMS Minister, I am aware of course that it is Data Privacy Day. Council of Europe Convention 108 is the only binding international instrument which is signed by 54 states, including Russia. Data Privacy Day celebrates the anniversary of its signing in 1981 and I agree with my noble friend that it is an important day. She is right that Florence Nightingale was an important statistician, and she was the first female member of the Royal Statistical Society in 1858. The national data guardian legislation that my noble friend took through the House as a Private Member’s Bill is excellent because it promotes trust in health data so that we can gain the maximum benefit from it.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, as the noble Baroness rightly said, Florence Nightingale not only cared for the sick and wounded but was a statistician, thus providing the foundation of our infection control today. Does the Minister agree that the best tribute to Florence Nightingale is to ensure that nurses today have enough time and resources to continue their own professional development, which contributes not just to the National Health Service but to the health and economic status of this country?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I completely agree with the right reverend Prelate: we want more nurses and we want to encourage nurses to join the profession and, importantly, to stay in it. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has recently launched his long-term plan, which addresses in part the problem of the lack of nurses.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port
My Lords, I would not have wanted to give way to any Bishop other than the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who has extensive experience of her own in this very field. We have noted the body of people who will be organising the celebration—quite properly—and we look forward to those celebrations, but they have insisted that if we are to honour nursing properly, we should be looking forward rather than back. Some 40,000 health service nursing vacancies need to be filled. Might something as simple as reinstating bursaries for nurses become government policy? Others have thought about it; I am sure that the Minister will want to say something positive about it, too.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Of course, that is not directly relevant to the DCMS, but I am aware that it is an issue. That is why the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who was previously Secretary of State at the DCMS, established a DHSC-led nurse supply board to drive progress with health bodies on a range of measures, including a national recruitment campaign, action to encourage nurses who have left the NHS to return to practice, and a programme to encourage nurse retention and to look at situations where suitable nurses might be turned away by disproportionate language controls. We are addressing the issue. The one thing on which I think we all agree is the tremendous benefit that the nursing profession brings to us and countries abroad.
Brexit: Parliamentary Approval of the Outcome of Negotiations with the European Union
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:40 - Division on Baroness Smith of Basildon’s Motion. - Ayes: 283 / Noes: 131 - Baroness Smith of Basildon’s Motion agreed.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That this House, in accordance with the provisions of section 13(6)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, takes note of the Written Statement titled “Statement under Section 13(4) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018”, made on 21 January, and of the Written Statement titled “Statement under Section 13(11)(a) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018”, made on 24 January.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, the EU withdrawal Act set out a process for the Government to follow in the event that at this point we had not secured a deal to leave the European Union which had been approved by the House of Commons. In accordance with Section 13 of the Act, last week the Government made two Written Statements. The first was to set out next steps following the result of the vote on Tuesday 15 January. The second was to confirm how the parliamentary process would work going forward. So today’s debate—the latest but, I suspect, not the last—is in one sense simply a formal step that we have to take to satisfy the requirements of the legislation, but it also offers an opportunity to take stock.
The Motion before the House asks us to take note of both Statements in the same terms as the government Motion that the House of Commons will debate tomorrow. The Commons Motion is amendable, so there are likely to be votes on a variety of options at the conclusion of the debate. Noble Lords will be aware that a number of amendments have been tabled in the other place. They range from time-limiting the backstop, or replacing it with alternative arrangements, to seeking an extension to Article 50 or membership of a customs union. It will be for Mr Speaker to select the amendments to be voted on, and for MPs to decide what to support.
It is not my role to speculate on the outcome of the proceedings in the other place, and I will not do so. However, the Government and this House will need to reflect on any decisions that are made tomorrow. In this House, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, has tabled her own Motion. I will leave it to my noble friend Lord Callanan to respond to it; I have no doubt that he is eagerly looking forward to his third opportunity in recent weeks to respond to a debate of this sort.
This will not be the last time that the House of Commons is on the cusp of significant decisions which this House will want to have an opportunity to inform. I will do all I can, working with the other parties in this House, to ensure that that happens. We in this House have helped shape the process of leaving the EU and will continue to do so in the months ahead. In opening the debate on 6 December, I outlined the contribution that this House has made to the legislative programme needed to leave the European Union. It has considered legislation line by line. It has asked questions of government, proposed amendments and improved Bills through its work, but it has ultimately recognised the primacy of the House of Commons when the two Houses have disagreed. As Leader of this House, I have defended its right to do this and will continue to do so.
All of us—Government and Opposition, Front Benches and Back Benches—are working in a political environment charged with uncertainty, and in view of this noble Lords have reasonably raised questions about the legislative programme ahead. I heard the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, when she asked us last week to give the greatest possible notice of our plans so that the House as a whole, and its Select Committees in particular, can plan their work. All of us recognise the unusual constraints the Government are currently facing in planning their legislative agenda due to the fact that significant decisions are being taken on the Floor of the House of Commons which fundamentally shape what happens next. We are a bicameral Parliament. This House does not operate in a vacuum, and very often the business in each House is dependent on the progress of the same business in the other.
The uncertainty we face today relates to future decisions of the House of Commons over a deal, to future negotiations which may follow such decisions, and to the timing of subsequent legislation which would be needed to give effect to a deal. Finding satisfactory outcomes could scarcely be more critical. But we should not be distracted from the task at hand. The uncertainty surrounding elements of the process does not mean that this House has been sitting idly by while others attempt to find answers to these questions. So far this Session, we have played a key role in passing five Acts which help ensure that the UK will have a functioning statute book whatever the outcome of the negotiations. In the remainder of this week alone we will be considering exit-related bills such as the Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill and the Trade Bill. Next week we begin our consideration of the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill. We are also pressing ahead with key domestic legislation: over the next fortnight we are considering the Offensive Weapons Bill and the Finance (No. 3) Bill.
A number of noble Lords have expressed concern over our ability to scrutinise EU exit-related secondary legislation effectively. The Government have worked hard to ensure that this legislation is brought forward in a timely way, and we have engaged proactively with committees and opposition parties in both Houses on the way it should be scrutinised, including through the introduction of new sifting mechanisms.
Our Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, chaired by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, and its two sub-committees, chaired by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham of Felling, are doing an excellent job—as of course are the Members of this House who sit on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I know that we are all extremely grateful to them for their hard work. This legislation is essential to provide legal continuity in a no-deal scenario. But of course much of it will also be needed if we leave the EU with a deal.
Since Christmas we have spent well over 20 hours debating this legislation in Grand Committee and on the Floor of the House, although some contributions were perhaps not quite as focused on the policy issues at hand as they could have been. In organising the forward programme of work, my noble friend the Government Chief Whip and I will continue to work in a constructive way with our counterparts in the usual channels and to give as much notice of our timetable as is practical. We are all aware of the challenges ahead. By working together, we have already shown flexibility in timetabling. For instance, during the course of the withdrawal Bill, we sat earlier to ensure that the House had more time to scrutinise the legislation. Of course, as is normal at this point of the year, from the end of this month sitting Thursdays will revert to government business.
The decisions that Parliament takes in the next few weeks will have profound consequences for the future of this country. Recognising this, since I last addressed this House the Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers have continued to meet parliamentarians and others across the political spectrum—including Members across the political parties in both Houses and representatives of business groups and trade unions—in order to find the broadest possible consensus on a way forward. I am sure that tomorrow the Prime Minister will provide an update on these discussions when she addresses the other place.
The Government recognise the responsibility they have to deliver the result of the referendum and to maintain the trust of the public in the political system which serves them. Parliament must recognise that it too has a responsibility in this regard. We all have to act in the interests of the people of the United Kingdom. Although I strongly disagree with them, some noble Lords will no doubt argue today that those interests would be best served by sending the question back to the people or even by Parliament coming to the opposite conclusion of the referendum result and deciding to remain in the European Union.
This Front Bench recognises the right of noble Lords to strongly challenge the Government, but we can work effectively only if the House acts responsibly and constructively. I know that my noble friend the Government Chief Whip is pleased that the usual channels in this House work so well together. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said last week, we intend for Parliament to have a still greater role in the next phase of our negotiations should a withdrawal agreement and future framework be agreed. This will include confidential committee sessions that can ensure that Parliament has the most up-to-date information, while not undermining the negotiations.
As I said in response to questions last week, this commitment applies to Select Committees of this House as well as to those of the House of Commons. That was reiterated by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union when he gave evidence to the European Union Committee last week.
I think it is fair to say that we are in uncharted waters. However, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister remains focused on finding solutions to deliver Brexit that are negotiable and that command support across the political spectrum. Only by doing that can we provide the country with the certainty that it urgently needs. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her contribution on her Motion, although I am not sure that she said much about what we were expecting on the deal that we thought was in the Motion. She said that we were taking stock, but if we take stock of where we have got to so far it does not take very long because we have not got very far.
There are huge amounts of legislation still required prior to exit day, and at times the noble Baroness’s comments sounded like a lecture or a ticking-off. We should all be grateful to noble Lords across this House who give up their time and expertise to scrutinise primary and secondary legislation.
We are debating both Motions together for the convenience of the House. I will speak to my Motion and move it at the end of the debate. I will test the opinion of the House, although there are some things in what the noble Baroness said that implied that she might be able to accept my Motion. I hope that that will be the case. If the Government could indicate that, it would be very welcome. She seems a bit flustered, but I live in hope—I am one of life’s optimists. If that is not the case, I will test the opinion of your Lordships’ House.
Following the result of the referendum, few could have imagined that, more than 30 months later, there would still be so much division and so little agreement. I made the point last week, on our amendment about information required to complete consideration of the Trade Bill, about how often we were told how easy it was going to be. We were told, for example, that our existing trade agreements could be rolled over in an afternoon and new deals would be in place, apparently, one second after Brexit. Yet here we are, 60 days to exit day, with our country more divided and frustrated about the political process than ever before. Despite stark warnings, including from business, the NHS, and food producers and suppliers, the Prime Minister continues to refuse to take even one step towards ruling out the most damaging and catastrophic of outcomes: crashing out of the EU. Instead, Mrs May is seeking to use it as a bargaining chip with her MPs to try to force through a deal that has already been resoundingly rejected. As I remarked previously, the plan B that she has offered seems remarkably similar to plan A.
Despite offers of talks and political engagement, there has been no real attempt to seek wider support or build a consensus. Since the referendum, your Lordships’ House has had many contributions on the detail of how the Government should reflect the outcome of the referendum, which the noble Baroness referred to. We have had debates on legislation, Motions such as this one—I welcome the Minister back to the Dispatch Box to respond—many questions on different aspects, debates on the detailed reports of our excellent EU sub-committees, and regular Statements from the Prime Minister have been repeated, most Mondays, in your Lordships’ House. At every point, this House has sought to be useful. Many of our suggestions and amendments, including on issues such as Northern Ireland and our future relationship with the EU agencies, have ultimately been accepted or slightly amended by MPs.
I often reflect on the amendment to the withdrawal Bill tabled by my noble friends Lord Monks and Lord Lea, who sought to persuade the Government that the Prime Minister should engage with Parliament and seek a mandate for her negotiations. That way, she would have had a better idea of what Parliament would accept, which would have strengthened her hand. Instead, she chose to go it alone, with a predictable rejection, although the scale of that rejection was astounding.
Time is now running out. With the clock ticking down, and MPs voting tomorrow to seek a way forward, how can we in your Lordships’ House be most helpful? The legislation relating to a meaningful vote was initiated in this House—that is clear. It is the responsibility of the elected House to hold that meaningful vote on whether to accept the outcome of the Prime Minister’s negotiations, and it remains for the elected Members of Parliament to decide. As we draw closer to exit day, it is clear that Mrs May has failed to find acceptance for the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration that she negotiated, losing the vote in the other place with the largest parliamentary defeat in living memory. However, despite the urging of colleagues from across the political spectrum, the Prime Minister continues to raise the spectre of leaving without any deal or agreements. It is true that it is not entirely within her gift to guarantee a deal. However, Mrs May could—and should—send a clear signal to the EU 27 that all possible steps should be taken to rule out a chaotic and reckless no-deal exit. There will be different views on who must take responsibility for getting to this stage with so little clarity and agreement, and so much division across our country. But that is for another time. At this stage, a way forward has to be found.
The Motion in my name is in two parts. First, it is a factual recognition of where we are. Your Lordships’ House was clear about our position on a crash-out exit when we voted, by a majority of 169, to reject that as an option, and MPs have resoundingly rejected Mrs May’s proposals. It is probably worth noting that the House of Commons also agreed an amendment to the Finance Bill to limit the Government’s powers in the event of no deal. Secondly, my Motion proposes how we should respond to the next steps taken by the House of Commons. In some ways, that should just be taken as read, but it is worth restating. It may be that, following their debates and votes tomorrow in the other place, MPs will be no clearer as to how to proceed. But it is also possible—I said that I am an optimist—that MPs may agree on a way forward: either a conclusion or a process to reach a conclusion. Time is running out. If, in the few days that remain, the elected MPs find a course of action that has majority agreement through the Motions and amendments for debate tomorrow, we must respond positively.
Once we accept the premise that crashing out is too damaging for the UK to seriously accept, few options remain. It is for our elected colleagues to decide at this stage which option to pursue from the amendments tabled. These include: support for the Prime Minister’s Motion; some kind of indicative vote on the options that MPs may agree to; to seek more time, if no agreement can be reached at this stage, through a limited extension of Article 50; or—if there is simply no majority for any option—to return to the electorate with a further public vote.
The Labour amendment restates our policy of rejecting a no-deal outcome, seeking a permanent customs union and negotiating a strong relationship with the single market that recognises the importance of EU-derived social protections. It also acknowledges that Parliament may have to seek further approval from the public. Other proposals are on the table. Some make requests of the EU 27, particularly in relation to the backstop, while others ask the Government to pause for further reflection, instead of deliberately running down the clock and crashing out.
Tomorrow evening we may know what our elected colleagues want the Prime Minister to do next. That is, quite rightly, a decision for them and them alone. My Motion reiterates the stated position of your Lordships’ House on rejecting a no-deal Brexit, and, if the House of Commons agrees a course of action that requires new legislation, makes it clear that both the Government and this House should facilitate its passage. It is nothing more than that, but they expect nothing less of us.
I hope, therefore, that the Leader of the House and the Minister will respond positively to my proposals today. If not, I will move my Motion to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, today’s debate is the seventh opportunity for the House to discuss the Government’s deal since the first debate on the withdrawal agreement and political declaration on 5 December—some eight weeks ago. We have had two full debates, three Statements and one Urgent Question. It is now just over eight weeks to the anticipated exit date. Yet over the past eight weeks we have moved no closer to a Brexit outcome that can command a majority in the Commons.
The only substantive change that the Government are seeking to the deal that suffered such a catastrophic defeat two weeks ago is that the Prime Minister is looking to find a way of keeping a frictionless border in Northern Ireland that does not involve the current backstop proposals. To date, there is simply no credible suggestion as to how that might be achieved.
With every passing day, however, confusion continues to reign, and businesses and individuals are voting with their feet. Within the past few days the high-profile headquarters moves of Sony, Dyson and the European Medicines Agency have been announced, but behind the big headlines myriad smaller companies are opening warehouses and offices in continental Europe to ensure that their companies survive Brexit. They are being wooed ever more openly by political and business leaders across the EU, with, for example, high-profile political interventions from Belgium and France last week. Furthermore, when it comes to EU migrants, the Polish Prime Minister has issued a “please come home” appeal—and there is every sign that it is working. When I asked why a popular local restaurant closed over Christmas, I was told that it was still making money but that, “The Poles went home”.
The Motion before the House in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, is in two parts. The first part reiterates our opposition to a no-deal outcome. Many noble Lords have spoken in previous debates about the costs of such an outcome. To show its utter folly, I simply refer your Lordships to the article in yesterday’s Sunday Times, in which it is reported that officials are having to consider the introduction of a state of emergency, or even martial law, to deal with the possible impacts of no deal. This is madness indeed.
The other part of the Motion reflects the fact that, over the past eight weeks, despite our debates in the Lords—and indeed our vote a fortnight ago—we have counted for little. But this may be about to change. The proposals which will be debated in the Commons tomorrow include one led by Yvette Cooper and Nick Boles which would have the effect of deferring the withdrawal date by several months, and would enshrine this in a Bill. As with every other Bill, it would come to your Lordships’ House. It is therefore particularly important today for your Lordships to assert that, if that is the case, we will deal with it in a timely manner and not seek to thwart it.
It should not be necessary for us to do this. Your Lordships’ House has always acted quickly in response to urgent legislation that has gone through the Commons. For example, some of us remember the passage of the Bill to rescue Northern Rock. But in this case there is clear evidence that some Ministers are actively seeking to encourage Members of your Lordships’ House to filibuster on the Cooper Bill if it passes the Commons. According to last Friday’s Daily Mail—so it must be true—Liam Fox has had meetings with pro-Brexit Peers to discuss such filibustering: a tactic that other government sources have also predicted, hence the many articles to this effect over the weekend.
I cannot believe that the Leader, the Chief Whip or the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, would countenance such behaviour, but it would be extremely reassuring if the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, could confirm in his winding-up speech that they will positively discourage it.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am fascinated by his allegation—but, as he says, it is a matter of scaremongering in the newspapers. He has spent some time asking people to rebut this allegation. Can he name a single Peer who has been approached by Mr Fox to engage in this filibustering? I have to say that I am aware of none.
Lord Newby
It may come to the noble Lord as a bit of a shock, but Liam Fox is not in the habit of consulting me about secret meetings and who attends them—so, unsurprisingly, I cannot answer his question. Amazingly, Peers who might be thinking of filibustering in your Lordships’ House have not written a letter to the papers saying, “I have had this good idea of filibustering in the House of Lords. I am looking for volunteers to join me. If you are interested, here’s my email address ”.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I have not been approached by Liam Fox, either—but if it came to filibustering, I certainly learned a lot of lessons on the EU withdrawal Bill from the Liberal Democrats.
Lord Newby
I am sure that the noble Lord has learned many lessons from the Liberal Democrats: principally about the cost of every aspect of our leaving the EU, which my colleagues, 30 of whom spoke during debates on the withdrawal Bill, enunciated so clearly.
As I was saying, I hope that we will pass this Motion tonight to signal to the Commons the clear view of your Lordships’ House that, were MPs to decide to pass the Cooper Bill or any other legislation relating to the Brexit timetable or process, your Lordships’ House would deal with it in a timely manner.
The Cooper Bill is a recognition of what everybody knows: namely, that there is no way that the UK will be in a position to leave the EU in a mere eight weeks’ time with the full panoply of post-Brexit legislation in place. The inability or unwillingness of the Government to say how many Brexit-related SIs have been passed into law is testament to this. So is the withdrawal, because of its flaws and errors, of the mammoth SI which the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, recently drew to the attention of the House. So is the fact that, with the exception of the Trade Bill, the various other major Bills which we will need to pass—on agriculture, fisheries and immigration—have not yet had even their Second Readings in your Lordships’ House.
In a BBC interview on Friday, the Leader of the Commons implicitly recognised this when she said, in respect of the need to get all the legislation through, that,
“if we needed a couple of extra weeks or something then that would be feasible”.
So an extension is on its way, one way or another. The only thing that is unclear is the basis on which such an extension will be sought. I suspect that if the Prime Minister simply asked for more time to try to come up with something which would unify the Conservative Party, she would be met with a firm rebuff by the EU. Even in the unlikely event that she was able to discover an alternative to the Irish backstop that satisfied the EU and her own party, the Government would need more time simply to get the necessary legislation through.
The other justification for more time would be to allow the people to express their view, with an option to remain in the EU. Your Lordships know that that is what we on these Benches support. I can only reiterate that there is now widespread support for a people’s vote across the country and a growing majority who say that, in such a vote, they would vote to stay in the EU. In arguing against such a vote and in answer to a Question last Thursday from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said that in the 2016 referendum a majority of the electorate voted to leave the EU. That is of course not the case: 37% of the electorate voted to leave. I hope that in his winding-up speech the noble Lord will take the opportunity to correct that error.
There is no doubt that the country is now heartily fed up with endless Brexit arguments. There is a growing, and accurate, sense that while we wrangle over this issue, virtually every other area of public policy is being unaddressed. This week Parliament has the chance to narrow down the options and make some progress. Our role in your Lordships’ House is secondary, but we still have an obligation to ourselves and the country to play it to the full. I therefore urge noble Lords to support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord advanced a number of hypotheses that may or may not happen. As general principles, though, would it not be astonishing if the Government could not accept these two parts of the Opposition’s Motion? We know that it is the Government’s policy to try to avoid no deal: surely they must feel an obligation to give adequate time to this House to pass any consequent legislation.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, as the Brexit process nears its high noon, I suggest to your Lordships that it might be a useful time for us as a House, as the noble Baroness has suggested, to think a little not just about the withdrawal process but about safeguarding the health of our parliamentary democracy. With all this wild talk about citizens’ assemblies, the national fury and frustration at the deadlock in Parliament, and Parliament being widely despised and, indeed, ridiculed, I am afraid that the parliamentary institution itself is clearly now in danger.
Parliament is being depicted outside this place as a ship of fools, drifting fast towards a no-deal cataract, with all the Members of Parliament on board desperately calling for the Government to somehow shift, abolish, postpone or rule out the cataract and the chaos ahead—with a shower of amendments, as we have heard, and with a proposed Bill which, incidentally, I understand cannot be passed anyway, regardless of filibustering, without a money Bill from the Government; so it cannot be passed at all, if the Government oppose it. It might be worth the noble Lord, Lord Newby, checking on that, because he is looking puzzled. The suggestion that you can somehow wish the cataract away is a brilliant idea—if you shut your eyes tight and wish hard, the nasty waterfall or cliff-edge will disappear and something else will turn up. Of course, in real life the only course is to turn the ship round and head fast upstream to the safety of the withdrawal deal that we have on the table, with the backstop tweaked, clarified or perforated if possible—but, basically, that is the one anchorage available. Short of that, the rocks of the cataract are unavoidable, however many amendments MPs pass and however many tables it is taken off.
A number of people, especially our good friends the Lib Dems, keep saying, “Well, what about a second referendum?” The problem—and I really ask them to think about this, because I do not think they have—is that plebiscites do not solve anything. First, they certainly weaken parliamentary government and smash our national unity, as we saw with the previous referendum. The idea that a second referendum—in fact, it will be the third—will settle the issue is pure fantasy. Secondly, mass voting events are now more open to vicious manipulation than ever before. Of course, dictators twisted and corrupted mass opinion in the 20th century, but now that giant algorithms and incredible power can target millions of people individually and bombard them with a cascade of endless slogans, true or untrue, fake or real, the facts are 10 times worse. Indeed, not an hour ago, we heard a Question emphasising that point.
Now there is an even bigger danger of distortion which applies not only to plebiscites but to all big public votes and elections, and that is foreign meddling. Disinformation has become a worldwide currency, and a cheap one too, allowing not just weaker nations but sinister hacking groups of no known allegiance to undermine and confuse facts and truth so that discord, descending into street violence, can be sown and all forms of democracy discredited with terrifying ease. In effect, the true voice of the people has become harder and harder to discern and act on. That is the reality we now face.
As for the next stage of Brexit, anyone who thinks that it will all be put to bed via a referendum or any other means in the next two years is living in a fool’s paradise. Like many others, I have struggled with this underlying conflict in one form or another for most of my political life. In or out of the European Union, and with all the tensions between existing members, which are growing all the time, I see a future Europe of constant bargaining: an endless, continuous set of disputes between the legitimate yearnings for national unity, identity, sovereignty and independence and the pull of ever-deeper interdependence and collaboration, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, reminded us the other day. These forces are working in both directions, they are driven by unstoppable technology and they are constantly clashing as new issues come along. My noble friend Lord Patten—I do not know whether he is in his place today—was worrying about having to debate customs unions for ever. Yes, he is right. They will indeed be debated in 50 different varieties long after he and I have gone.
As for Ireland, the puzzle for me is this: it has been obvious from the start that, contrary to what has been asserted, modern means are available and can work to keep the border invisible. At first, the EU high priests said that all these systems were “magical” and dismissed them, but now we have Mr Juncker admitting that they exist and could work. The reality is that long before we get anywhere near a backstop, well inside any transition phase, a workable open border can be up and running—probably rather similar to either the sort of minimalist borders that exist already in Northern Ireland or the sort of borders that exist elsewhere across Europe between EU member states, all of which are completely consistent with the subtle ambiguity at the heart of the Good Friday agreement.
There is the additional reality that a hard, sealed border is in practice impossible. In Ireland, under Mr Willie Whitelaw almost half a century ago, I and my colleagues tried to close the border with military and customs posts to stop the Provisionals and their weapons coming up from Dundalk. It made not the slightest difference. All that happened was that a number of young soldiers and brave customs officials got murdered. You would need a wall across Ireland, like in Mexico or Israel, to make a hard border, which no one wants anyway.
We are on a long journey, step by step. As my noble friend the Duke of Wellington said in a speech in the Chamber the other day, many things that cannot be fixed now will become soluble later. As the wise noble Lord, Lord Bew, says, “Things evolve”. Relationships evolve. Trade patterns evolve. The EU evolves; it is doing so very rapidly before our eyes. People who keep calling for certainty and guarantees will have to go on calling, because there is no certainty in life or business and certainly not in our connections with our neighbours. Francis Bacon said, “If a person will begin with certainties, they shall end in doubts”.
I am not closely acquainted with the Prime Minister, and I have hardly ever met her, but I know political courage when I see it. She is criticised for Brexit delay, but actually the delay is proving invaluable. I would make it a confidence vote. A touch more delay, and a good strong will, will work wonders. Every day that passes is clearly bringing a stronger realisation, to those with closed minds, that short of massive dislocation and self-harm, there is only one practical way of delivering Brexit—hopefully with a few adjustments wrung out of the EU, but we will have to see what can be obtained. We know the realities. The Prime Minister’s courage, denounced by all the jejune know-all commentators and political foes as stubbornness, is what will pull us through to the next stage in the evolution of our ties both with our regional European neighbours and with the utterly transformed world of Asia, Africa, the Commonwealth network and Latin America—where most of the growth is going to be. We need to associate more closely than ever before with these parties to ensure our future prosperity and security. It used to be a case of the east catching up with the west; now, it is becoming the other way around.
The longer we delay the Brexit journey with pretence alternatives, unicorn solutions and child-like yearnings for riskless certainty and a rose-tinted past, the slower will be our adjustment to the entirely new world conditions that have already come about, and that we now face. We should get on with it, and that, I believe, is now the wish of this nation.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, it is imperative in my view, doubtless in common with the great majority of your Lordships, that we reach a deal. I believe that the Government themselves also feel this.
I do not believe that there is any greater chance of the Prime Minister allowing a no-deal Brexit, than there would be—obviously, in very different circumstances —of her authorising a nuclear strike. I am not suggesting that each would cause comparable devastation: plainly, that is not so. Indeed, it is a ridiculous thought. The critical point, however, is that it is vital to keep the risk of each—the possibility of each, however small—in play.
Obviously, no one, however passionately opposed to our maintaining a nuclear deterrent capability, could, while we continue to have it, seek to persuade Parliament to legislate against ever deploying it. Its value as a deterrent lies in the risk, however faint, that in retaliation we just might. So too, I suggest, with the possibility that we just might crash out of the EU. While that possibility exists, it must surely operate as an incentive for us to reach a deal. It is an incentive, let it be emphasised, on all—both on our own Members of Parliament and on the EU negotiators.
It is nothing short of absurd to argue that Parliament should now legislate to take a no-deal Brexit off the table. That would either force us to accept a less favourable deal than we might otherwise get or, alternatively, force us to stay in the EU.
I confess that at heart I remain a remainer, but I have finally come to accept that there should not, and now must not, be a further referendum, certainly not one that still caters to the possibility of remaining in the EU. The only conceivable further vote could be on a choice between accepting the deal on offer and exiting with no deal. But I would not legislate to take the possibility of remaining off the table either.
What of the proposed legislation to force the Prime Minister, if by 26 February she has still not achieved a parliamentary vote for a deal, to request of the EU an extension of the Article 50 process? This, I suggest, would again have the inevitable consequence of lessening the urgency of the need to agree a deal. Everyone acknowledges that EU deals are habitually reached at the 12th hour. Postpone the 12th hour, delay the date by which agreement is required and on would go this ever more depressing and debilitating process.
I do not know whether any of your Lordships have had the time or inclination over recent weeks to watch “Question Time”, now chaired by the estimable Fiona Bruce. I have watched them, and to my mind they have made one thing clear beyond all others: the general public—not every individual, of course, but the great majority—ache for a final end to this saga and are ever more critical of the politicians at Westminster for failing to bring this question to a conclusion.
I recognise, as plainly does the Prime Minister and, for that matter, the EU, that the closer to the 12th hour that any deal is agreed, the more obvious will be the need for what would, we hope, be only a short extension of the Article 50 process for the necessary legislative steps to be completed to give effect to it. But that request for an extension can and, I suggest, properly should be left to be made when the deal is struck, not in anticipation of failure and according to a given timetable.
In the last debate I voted in favour of the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I regret having done so for this reason: in my speech I made it explicit beyond question that I supported the Prime Minister’s deal and was urging Members at the other end to accept it, notwithstanding that the opposition Motion still included some criticisms, although markedly fewer than in the previous, pre-Christmas debate, of the deal’s likely adverse consequences. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, likewise voted for the Motion while also supporting the Prime Minister’s deal. We were therefore dismayed to hear the Opposition Bench thereafter, and indeed again today, lumping together all those who had voted for the Motion as having voted to reject the deal and calculating the majority accordingly.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord but perhaps I may just correct him. If he checks my comments of today in Hansard, I think he will see that I have made it clear that this House rejected no deal. My other comment was that we soundly rejected how the other place expressed its views on the Prime Minister’s deal. I made no reference in my speech today to our comments on the Prime Minister’s deal.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
I am grateful for that; clearly, one would always accept a clarification. I confess that I understood that what came from the Front Bench was to regard the votes of all who supported the Motion as votes against accepting the deal on offer. If I am wrong, of course I withdraw that point.
In any event, I shall not be supporting the opposition Motion this time. Despite the earlier intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, I suggest that it is expressed in such abstract terms—it uses the hallowed word “appropriate”—begs so many questions and seems so elliptical in what it is inviting that it is mischievous rather than self-evidently helpful. I fear that it, too, could be misrepresented, at least to this extent. It could be misrepresented as support for legislating against a no-deal Brexit or compelling the Government to request an extension of the process, both of which—for the reasons I have already sought to give—I would regard as weakening the Government’s negotiating position and thus prejudicing the prospect of an acceptable early resolution of this most ghastly saga.
Lord Dobbs
My Lords, I thought this would be a debate reserved for headbangers, but it is a privilege to have followed two such fine and thoughtful speeches from the Back Benches. Of course, all the Front-Bench speeches were scintillating as well.
One of the most powerful memories of my life is that of a young man in a white shirt on his own in Tiananmen Square, who walked out in front of a column of tanks and stopped them dead. Why? Because he wanted a voice, a say in how he was governed. His was just one voice, but that voice rang out around the world. Another enormous memory was that of the Berlin Wall. I lived for a while in Berlin as a young man in the 1960s, shortly after the wall was built. The wall was one of the most evil things I had ever witnessed. One of the most joyous moments was the sight of it being destroyed, not by tanks and missiles but by the bare hands of those who also wanted a voice and a say in how they were governed. I have a chunk of that wall at home to remind me.
There are times when I think we in this country take our own freedoms too much for granted, particularly the tolerance that glues the bits together. Tolerance is the sticking plaster of a democratic society. Without it, our system does not work—and right now, it is not working. I wonder if noble Lords saw the alarming poll last week suggesting that 9% of all leave voters would mind if one of their close family married a remainer. It is a sign of awful intolerance—almost one in 10. Perhaps that is to be expected; we Brexiteers are so often derided as bigots and xenophobes. What of remainers? In that same poll, it was nearly four in 10: 37% would object if one of their close family members married a Brexiteer. I assure you, you can relax: I am not in the market. I am not sure Boris is, either. But that poll suggests an awful lack of tolerance.
Things are changing for the worse, and it is our fault. We politicians have totally overplayed our hand—taken a challenge and made it far worse. We throw accusations and exaggerations around like children hurl snowballs. How can we be surprised if others follow our example and do not trust us any longer? I doubt we deserve to be trusted; we are “a ship of fools”, as my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford so accurately and eloquently suggested in that very fine speech. And what do we do? We so often indulge in baseless scaremongering and insinuation. We fight for what we believe in, of course we do, but there will be a time beyond Brexit—soon I hope—when we will have to return to a system of trust and tolerance, if there is any left.
Most noble Lords know where I stand on Brexit and I am not going to talk about the specifics today—what is the point? At this time tomorrow it may all have changed. Will it be plan A, plan B, plan C, triple plus or the Labour Party policy of having no plan at all? Will we have withdrawn from the withdrawal agreement or customised the customs union? Will we have sent our troops to match the legions that Leo is apparently massing at the Irish border? It is so sad and so pointless—and we wonder why people think politicians have lost the plot.
We should reflect on the fact that we in this House, along with the House of Commons, voted to give the people a referendum in the first place. We promised that we would abide by the outcome. We voted through the withdrawal Act and we approved Article 50. Whether or not we approved of it is another matter, but that is what we have done. We have run out of excuses and almost run out of time. We have ripped off the sticking plaster of tolerance. The mess that we are in is not the fault of the people—it is our fault. Our system is not about doing what we think is best for the people but enabling them to do what they think is best for themselves.
What do I fear? I fear people coming to the conclusion that there is not much point in voting when their elected politicians keep turning a deaf ear: that they will stop voting and instead try to change things by other means, as they have on the streets of Athens, Rome, Berlin and Paris, and as they did with the poll tax in London. We can stretch their tolerance too far. I lose sleep over this, as I am sure many noble Lords do. I hope that my nightmares are nothing more than bad dreams and that we will somehow stumble upon a deal that delivers what the people voted for.
If we cannot in Parliament reach agreement, we need to do what our constitutional practice says we should do: let the people sort out the mess we have created. There is only one way to do that—as my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford has elegantly set out in the past—and that is to hold a general election. Not a second referendum, which is nothing more than a loser’s charter; not grabbing at opinion polls, which our Lib Dem colleagues dine on so selectively; not further delay; not even more divisions—but a new general election which will give people the opportunity to take back control.
I know that some of my Conservative colleagues say that that might let in Mr Corbyn but, cheer up, even the Labour Front Bench does not want Mr Corbyn in Downing Street.
Lord Dobbs
Then some have changed their tune. I hope that we in my party have not screwed up so badly that we have made Mr Corbyn electable. If we have, again, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
We have complained long enough about the democratic deficit. This is not the time to do what they do in Brussels and make up the voters’ minds for them. If we do not honour the people, they will not bother honouring or even tolerating us. David Cameron made a good speech about it all at Bloomberg—noble Lords might remember it. He said that for too many people the EU is something that is done to us, not for us. Wise words which outlasted Mr Cameron himself. Let us remember that the only thing that is certain in the midst of all this self-inflicted chaos is that the British people voted for Brexit: not to remain, not to delay, not for silly parliamentary games, but for Brexit. So unless we want to suffer Mr Cameron’s fate, let us do this for them, not to them, and try to earn their respect once again.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, it is a not unadulterated pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs. I too have a piece of the Berlin Wall. I just wish that he and others, in celebrating the fall of that wall, would recognise the role that the EU has played in giving democracy, freedom and the right for people you disagree with to demonstrate to those who were previously suppressed both by the fascist Governments in Spain, Portugal and Greece and by the communist regimes in eastern and central Europe. That is one of the great legacies of the years that we have been in the EU and we should celebrate it, not deplore it.
As a conscientious member of your Lordships’ EU Select Committee, I usually try to be constructive and pragmatic in these discussions on the Brexit process. However, today I am afraid that I am feeling just exasperation. We will hear later from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who, I am sure, when he helped draft the Article 50 process less than 10 years ago did not really envisage that we would be engaged in this long drawn-out process in the way that we have been.
It is two and a half years since the referendum. One can admire the Prime Minister’s fortitude and resilience but the fact is that we have seen a period of totally misguided and incompetent negotiation. We have seen a fractured Government and, as others have remarked, a nadir in people’s respect for this Parliament. It is not really a great time for politicians to take back control. Whichever way they voted, the people are bemused and impatient but they are also angry, and businesses, small and large, have moved from worry to desperation, as we see in the letter from food retailers today.
We here in Westminster can look forward to the deliberations in another place tomorrow and hope for an outcome, but let us register that the time for parliamentary and internal party games is over. It is time that Ministers confronted the Brexiteers and the media snapping at their heels who pretend that they can get a significantly better deal on the withdrawal treaty from the EU. To put it at its mildest, it is unlikely that the EU will make significant changes in the legal text of the treaty. Had the Government behaved more constructively, it would have been possible to get better wording in the political declaration. The EU has already indicated that it wishes, within a limited number of years, to reach a trade deal that would supplant and withdraw the need for a backstop. Meanwhile, the backstop guarantees what the Government say they want: near-frictionless trade within Ireland and between the UK and the EU.
Then we have our domestic situation. For months, I, along with others, have been asking the Government to set out how we are going to pass the legislation that we are required to pass by 29 March. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the Leader of the House herself referred to the onerous legislative task in front of us. We need a little more time to deal with that, let alone for the Government to go back and sensibly negotiate a marginally better deal.
Therefore, I support the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith, which calls for a time extension. I am not talking about years but months. In that period, you might get an agreement closer to one that the Prime Minister could get through the House of Commons, and you might also reach a deal that is acceptable to the European Union. You will not do that in 60 days. So let us say that we need a little more time, difficult though that is. If even then the Government fail to get a deal that the Commons would accept, or that the EU would accept, we will have to face the harsh truth that the politicians of this generation have comprehensively failed the public and this country. In those circumstances—the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, comes half way towards me on this—there is no alternative but to return the verdict to the people. The people must judge their parliamentary representatives, their views on Brexit and their performance in this Parliament.
I would go further. In the eventuality of a failure to reach a deal after an extended period, we should have both a general election and a referendum on the same day. The people can then judge their politicians on the lines they are taking on the referendum and judge whether they wish to proceed with Brexit. We have failed the people over the last two and a half years. We will have to put it back to them and return a Parliament that can enact their wishes.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. We sit together on the EU Committee and often agree, especially on matters of history and technical reality, if perhaps not today on his latest idea.
I spoke on 9 January about the need to improve the withdrawal agreement. On the assumption that such an improvement would be negotiated, I also talked of the opportunities that we can garner post Brexit. Today I return to the former theme and will also say something about how we should conduct ourselves in the unlikely event that, for whatever reason, improvement proves impossible and we need to proceed with no deal.
The other place, as has been said, voted decisively against the present withdrawal agreement; tomorrow’s further votes are likely to include one requiring the Government to re-enter negotiations and take out or severely limit the life of the backstop. I believe that this can and should be done. We have far more power now than we will have once the withdrawal agreement is accepted. This is partly because acceptance requires only a majority vote in the European Union, whereas the future relationship agreement requires unanimity and votes in Parliaments across Europe. Also, as the Attorney-General has confirmed, if the present withdrawal agreement were accepted, there would be no legal way that the UK could ever unilaterally exit the backstop. My noble friend Lord Bridges said in an earlier debate that no Government should ever have agreed to that concept and I am afraid that I have to agree with him. Vassalage is a colourful term but, to my mind, it would accurately reflect our status if we accepted the current agreement as it is.
Furthermore, the backstop is illogical. We are told that it is designed to prevent a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Yet, as matters stand, it is the main factor preventing the withdrawal agreement being accepted. Recently, the EU has belatedly acknowledged what has been apparent all along; namely, that if there is no withdrawal agreement there will be a hard border in Ireland at the EU’s insistence. The EU is apparently insisting on the backstop to prevent a hard border in Ireland, while the main factor threatening a hard border is the inclusion of the backstop in the withdrawal agreement. It is a mystery to me why the Government have not been more vociferous in pointing this out.
The major advocates of the backstop are the Commission, the French and the Irish.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
Perhaps the noble Baroness might think again before saying what she said about tariffs: that tariffs being charged on the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in the event of no deal would be because the EU orders it. That is not true: it would be because the World Trade Organization rules require it.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I will come on to talk about tariffs in the event of no deal. Obviously, I was referring to the point that has been made about the apparent change in the Irish position in recent days, which others have already referred to. My understanding is—
Lord Hain (Lab)
I apologise for interrupting because I know that time is pressing, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Is it not the truth that the Irish Government are acting with integrity, as we should be, in supporting the backstop as an insurance policy to keep that border open and keep the Good Friday agreement alive and peace in progress? They are acting responsibly. I am very surprised, as someone who has a great deal of respect for the noble Baroness, that she is criticising the Irish Government for defending what everyone says they agree with.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I am saying that they have overplayed their hand. I believe, and I think the noble Lord will agree with me, that the EU is about compromise and consensus-building. I know from my own experience in the Council of Ministers that unfair outcomes, often promoted in silken terms by the French and their supporters, sometimes have to be moderated. Other member states to which I have spoken recently are concerned about the damage from no deal and are increasingly seeing the problem. So the climate is gradually improving, and if we returned to Brussels with unity and resolve, we could prevail.
There is also a question as to whether the backstop is really needed. I believe that the Good Friday agreement, which has widespread support everywhere, is a natural backstop, and that it will be taken into account in the future relationship, deal or no deal. An open border is no bar to the enforcement of different arrangements, as I know from operating right across Ireland in my time in retail. We had enforcement of different rates on alcohol and of VAT and other taxes and regulations. My noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford has already made this important point.
A major change to the deal is necessary, in my view, to secure support in the Commons.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I recall that the noble Baroness was a civil servant, I think in Defra. Non-tariff issues are not unimportant in this respect. Animal health regulations across the border will clearly mean inspections. If, for example, there were an outbreak of foot and mouth or BSE in one part of Ireland, the idea that the border would remain open for more than five minutes seems a little fanciful. Borders are not simply about tariffs. Regulations, including phytosanitary regulations, are extremely important.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I agree about the importance of the phytosanitary arrangements, but I would point out that my recollection is that when there was foot and mouth the Irish border closed, in spite of the fact that we were in the single market. These are things that you have to tackle together, and with good will—which is of course what I am seeking—we could do that. I am trying to explain the argument as I see it. Perhaps I can make some progress.
My feeling is that the backstop needs to be taken out of the withdrawal agreement, and a substitute, requiring best endeavours and so on, put into the political agreement or a side letter instead. This is the kind of flexibility that is shown in business negotiations—for example, in a major merger—where both sides want to agree, as I believe they do here. I was in Salisbury Cathedral on Friday for a service for the conversion of St Paul. Saul, as he was then called, was a brilliant, educated man pursuing the goal of destroying the Christians. After his conversion on the road to Damascus, he saw the light. That is what we need to happen in Brussels to move things forward.
Lastly, I have a warning about the work on no deal. The detail of what the Government do is critical and there are two things that we have to worry about: short-term chaos and longer-term interest and damage to this country. I am worried that too much attention is being given to the former and not enough to the latter. The focus is domestic, and not enough attention is being given to the implications for our negotiating position on the backstop and on future trade negotiations with both the EU and third countries. I have a particular concern about an assumption in some quarters that the UK will not impose tariffs in the event of no deal. This would be a disaster because exporting member states would not feel the pain that they need to feel. Our own domestic industries would be decimated—agriculture, for example—as third-country imports poured in at zero tariffs under the most favoured nation rules while we paid charges on our exports. We would have no negotiating leverage with anyone now or in future, as we would have given away our revenue source from our ability to levy or tax at the border or to offer preferential markets in future, as well as our current powerful position in the EU institutions.
All the work on no deal is being conducted in secret, and business leaders have told me they have to sign NDAs for involvement in no-deal planning. I can understand this, but ask my noble friend the Minister to confirm that he accepts some of my concerns and is looking at variable tariffs, such as for imports from both the EU and elsewhere. Obviously they need to be lower on things such as bananas and oranges, which we do not produce, but higher for dairy products, meat and other things that we do produce. We do not want to be in a no-deal situation—I completely agree with that—but there must be contingency planning, which must embrace the wider interest.
I was glad to hear from my noble friend the Leader about the timetable for Brexit measures and the role she saw for our committees. The Government’s approach to organising their scrutiny and challenge in this House is right. We have a duty to progress these measures in an orderly way. It is a vital part of our function in this House, and I will not be supporting the Opposition’s Motion this evening.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness who, as ever, produces an innovative approach to problems that to others seem impossible to resolve. To the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, let me just say: do not be concerned about attitudes towards marriage—MacDonalds have been refusing to marry Campbells for nearly 300 years.
It was clear from the noble Baroness the Leader of the House that we are to some extent hampered by the fact that we do not know which amendments will be selected, and which will be successful. In that of course we are in good company, because the Prime Minister finds herself in exactly the same position. In parentheses, I will say that, while it is for the House of Commons to resolve how it conducts its own business, it does seem that profound constitutional change is taking place on the hoof in the House of Commons. I hope that someone is giving at least some consideration to the principle of unintended consequences.
If I ever had any doubts about the proper way for us to deal with the issue of membership of the European Union, they have more than been removed by the conduct of the negotiations and the terms of their outcome—what I might describe as the Prime Minister’s deal. After the rejection of that deal in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister set out to talk to other political parties. It does not appear that anything new was discussed on these occasions. She talked about the enshrining of employment rights—a promise that had previously been made, so it was simply being said for a second or even third time—and promised to go back to Brussels and try to negotiate. Being as generous as one can be, it does not seem that Brussels has much of a negotiating attitude, particularly on the backstop. To coin a phrase that Mrs May has often used, it rather looks as if nothing has changed.
There is something else that has not changed: the opinion of the Attorney-General, to which reference has been made on a number of occasions in the past couple of weeks. I will read from paragraph 2 of the additional letter he wrote, dated 14 January 2019, after the Government had received a joint response from the Presidents of the Council and the Commission:
“I agree that in the light of this response, the Council’s conclusions of 13 December 2018 would have legal force in international law”—
he does not stop there, but goes on to say—
“and thus be relevant and cognisable in the interpretation of the Withdrawal Agreement, and in particular the Northern Ireland Protocol, albeit they do not alter the fundamental meanings of its provisions as I advised them to be on 13 November 2018”.
In truth, the empress of Downing Street has no clothes. She can expect no shelter from her Cabinet, none from her Government, none from her party and none from Parliament—so we have to read her mind as best we can. I understand her to believe that this deal is the best that can be obtained and that, whatever the consequences of leaving the European Union, even if there is no deal, we must leave because the decision in the referendum is inviolate.
If the consequences of that decision in economic, social or political terms are as bad as some have predicted, or if the promises that were made at the outset are not kept, do not imagine for a moment that the British public will congratulate us on keeping faith with the referendum decision. They will blame those who took us out for the consequences and those who unsuccessfully resisted for not being effective enough. Gone now are the Panglossian predictions—although if you drive around in the south of England, you will find them repeated on billboards just to remind people of how different were the predictions from what has been produced in the Prime Minister’s proposals.
The Prime Minister has an admirable strength of determination, but I respectfully suggest that it has become her weakness. That is particularly so in her refusal to rule out leaving with no deal. I do not entirely follow the reference to the doctrine of nuclear deterrence that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, asked us to consider; I shall consider it at a little more length. I will, however, say that nuclear weapons are rarely used out of negligence or a failure to conduct oneself in an otherwise perfectly reasonable manner. The truth is that the Prime Minister’s position is a gamble. It is a gamble born of stubbornness, and it is one which produces quite extraordinary precautions: stockpiling of food; stockpiling of medicines; off-the-shelf ferry companies; motorway car parks; and even, as my noble friend Lord Newby said at the outset, the possible imposition of martial law—no one discussed that during the referendum campaign.
Meanwhile, as has been said, others are taking precautions: the motor industry, even the vacuum cleaner industry and—would you believe it?—P&O. The flagship of the British Empire is now registering its ships to fly under the flag of Cyprus. Who would have believed that? The truth is that, if there is a disorderly withdrawal, be in no doubt that it will severely damage relations with the European Union; if there is a disorderly withdrawal, countries waiting in the wings will think themselves able to drive even harder bargains when it comes to trade deals.
On my part, there is no ambiguity: I firmly believe that leaving the European Union is wholly against the interests of the citizens of the United Kingdom, just as I believe equally sincerely that for Scotland to leave the United Kingdom would be against the interests of the citizens of that part of the United Kingdom. Of course there are risks involved in another referendum—but if, as some have argued already, it is the only thing to do, are we are really going to bow to the threats from the mob? We enjoy a great privilege in this House and in the place further down the Corridor, but we also have a great responsibility. If we believe that the only way in which to resolve these difficulties is to test once again the opinion of the public, we should not shrink from doing so.
I again ask a question to which no one has yet tried to offer me an answer: if the Prime Minister’s deal had been on the ballot paper, and voters had appreciated the disorder, delay and damage that withdrawal has caused until now, how many would have voted for it? If the majority vote to leave in a second referendum, then I accept that leave we must. I will not change my mind about the extent to which the interests of this country are best served by being in the European Union, but I will accept a decision that is based on informed consent.
The Duke of Wellington (Con)
My Lords, I declare my European and agricultural interests as detailed in the register. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, who I have always greatly admired.
Since this House last debated the European Union withdrawal agreement, the other place has overwhelmingly rejected the Prime Minister’s proposal and left the country in a state of political paralysis rarely seen before. Surely some sort of cross-party agreement should now be sought.
It would be irresponsible for this or any Government to allow the country to leave the European Union without an agreement. I fear that the warnings from business and from public authorities are not alarmist. For example, it is inconceivable that Calais can handle 10,000 lorries a day from the United Kingdom if they are required by the European Union or the WTO to impose some sort of check or, worse still, tariff. Another example has been provided by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who has often rightly mentioned exports of Welsh lamb to Europe; unless the UK has negotiated a quota with the EU such as New Zealand currently has, there will be a tariff and a fixed sum per tonne on lamb exported from this country to Europe. This will cause a large fall in the price Welsh farmers will get this summer for their lambs, to the point where I suspect sheep farming in Wales will not be sustainable. These are only two examples of the multitude of grave difficulties that British business will face with no-deal.
We must not allow the UK to leave the EU without a deal, and it is extraordinary to suggest that moves to prevent no deal are in fact trying to stop Brexit. The vast majority of those who find no deal unacceptable are, at the same time, in favour of an orderly withdrawal that does limited damage to the economy.
We are now seven weeks past the day when the Prime Minister’s deal was meant to be voted on in the other place. I must repeat myself: if I were a Member of the other place, I would support the Prime Minister’s deal however many times it was submitted to the vote. In fact, it is more likely that a way will be found for the deal to pass in the coming weeks. There are a number of amendments to be voted on in the House of Commons tomorrow, which may lead to a conditional acceptance of the deal, subject to further negotiations in Brussels.
Whatever the outcome of the votes tomorrow, I cannot see how we can avoid requesting a short extension to Article 50. I think it should be of three months. This would take us to the end of June. The new European Parliament will not sit until July, and therefore we could avoid holding elections to the European Parliament in late May.
We were told recently from the Dispatch Box that a number of Bills and still several hundred statutory instruments must pass through both Houses of Parliament by exit day. If these are all to receive scrutiny, as they should in this House, I see no alternative to an extension. There is an amendment in the other place to seek to extend until the end of the year. I think nine months is too long, and, what is important, it sends the wrong signal. Three months is more likely to be accepted by the EU 27 member states, particularly if that period is needed to complete the necessary parliamentary procedures.
This is not to thwart Brexit, and should not be considered a defeat by Brexiteers. Rather, it is a return to a standard of good government and legislative competence which currently is at risk. I urge all Members of Parliament, including the opposition parties and the Democratic Unionist Party, to work with the Government to find a majority in the House of Commons to pass a withdrawal agreement and a political declaration.
We cannot leave without a deal. We cannot leave without a transition period. I think we must now accept the necessity of a short extension until 30 June. I hope the House of Commons will be able tomorrow to find a majority for a sensible, pragmatic solution to what is, after all, only a temporary arrangement to enable us to start the negotiations for the long-term relationship and the new treaty between this country and the European Union.
Lord Dykes (CB)
My Lords, I will not necessarily follow others in their very interesting analyses of the possible vote outcomes tomorrow. For us, the humble House of Lords, there is a general feeling that the whole pattern and mixture of amendments—their flavour and content—is so complicated, even for parliamentarians, to absorb by way of accurate predictions that we have to await the outcome of those matters before drawing conclusions, which, I hope, will be positive about our position as members of the European Union. That would be a better way of doing it, rather than speculating too much—as of course parliamentarians are fully entitled to do.
I suppose that some colleagues here would generally agree with the proposition that Monday morning is always a bad time, as people have to return to work and they can be in a bad mood. Although I have never normally suffered from that ailment, which is justifiable and understandable, I certainly felt in a bad mood this morning after hearing yet another hysterical broadcast on the BBC Radio 4 “Today” programme. Nick Robinson was trying to bully a very distinguished TD in the Irish Dáil to admit that the Irish Government would then soften their stance when all they are doing is agreeing with the other member states of the European Union on the generally agreed position, on which there can be no further movement. So hysterical had he become that, by the end, he was more or less screaming at the distinguished TD, and then made it even worse by suddenly saying, “Oh, we’ve run out of time, now it’s the weather forecast, you can go”. It was such a nauseatingly offensive broadcast that I shall pen a letter to the BBC tomorrow—I have not had time to do it yet—because Nick Robinson is joining John Humphrys in being an entirely reckless broadcaster.
Lord Hain
I very much endorse what the noble Lord says. I find deeply worrying the reckless way in which many leading figures in public life, including in Parliament, simply attack the Irish Government, destroying what has been a carefully and patiently built relationship after a tangled history. This must stop, and it must stop now.
Lord Dykes
That is not the first time I have agreed with the noble Lord in his assertions, which are usually very accurate, and I do so wholeheartedly in this case. It is the weight of that very adverse, condescending history of Britain and England’s relationship with the Irish that smacks of being repeated when people behave like that nowadays. Think of what Ireland has achieved as a country and as a loyal, constructive and successful member of the European Union, not one that whinges and moans about everything, as unfortunately have far too many politicians over the years of our membership of the EU, which is still continuing, in case people have not noticed that.
The other reason for my bad mood this morning was the totally ludicrous and absurd article in the Daily Telegraph by that failed ex-Foreign Minister Boris Johnson about his advice to the Prime Minister. After all the chaos of recent weeks, his even presuming to give any advice was grotesque. However, my mood changed for the better as I came here for work—early, as usual, of course, in a virtuous sense—because of the flag-wavers outside, led by the immensely impressive but hugely modest Steve Bray and his team. They have now been there for nearly three years, day in, day out, from 10 am—not 11 am, as it was before—until 6 pm. There are even more flags, and the leave component at the end, trembling with fear, consisted of one or two flags. That sums up the reality of the public feeling about these matters. Many of those educated people who join in the flag-waving are British citizens living in EU countries, who come over whenever they can, while others have a deep knowledge of the functioning of the EU and the success of our membership of it. If only we had made more effort. So I felt better after that, but, none the less, the Brexit nightmare is getting worse.
I find it astonishing that colleagues such as the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, are so complacent about Mrs May’s alarming and indeed atrocious behaviour—I am sorry to have to use that strong adjective—especially after the 8 June election result. For her to go through the necessary and inevitable motions to follow up on the legislative requirements after the referendum result would be one thing, but to go on after that election result as if nothing had changed was quite preposterous. The mandate had been lost, but she did not accept that. In the old days in the House of Commons, when I was an MP, there was a natural self-restraint between members of all parties, and that would have been accepted by the Prime Minister, who would have said, “I no longer have this mandate to carry on this negotiation”. Instead, however, she did a grotesque deal with the most unpopular party in the House of Commons, let alone probably in the country, apart from some people in Northern Ireland: the unsavoury DUP—Protestant extremists who resist and oppose all women’s rights in Northern Ireland, in contrast to what happens now in England, with our more modern legislation. To go on as if nothing had changed was unacceptable. This now means, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, wisely said, that profound changes are in danger of being made on the hoof in the Commons. That can be an unfortunate consequence of what happens if mistakes are made. The Prime Minister pretended to hold substantive talks only after her massive defeat in the Commons last time—the biggest defeat in parliamentary history.
In the UK, we have always, tragically, failed to explain the EU’s functions and its success story. The euro is a good example. It is feared here, because we were driven out of the exchange rate mechanism, but it is also regarded as a dangerous currency. In fact, the euro is the most successful currency in the world, getting closer and closer to the US dollar, and most member states are very happy with it. Some have found it harder to adjust than others, but that is natural in such a large grouping. I am glad to remind noble Lords that my own modest European Union (Information, etc.) Bill, is still awaiting a Committee of the Whole House—I believe it is number 11 on the list. If it comes through, it will provide that information that should have been available in public libraries and public buildings all over this country, explaining how the EU functions, in non-partisan terms, to give people the necessary information about it.
I come back to the present crisis, which is a grotesque nightmare for everyone, even the Brexiteers, more and more of whom are beginning to realise that this is the case. The SNP MP for Glenrothes, Peter Grant, the party’s foreign affairs and Europe spokesman, recently intervened on the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union:
“The Prime Minister has promised that her discussions with the devolved nations and the Opposition parties will be without preconditions, so clearly she will not refuse even to discuss the prospect of extending article 50, because that would be a precondition; she will not refuse even to discuss the prospect of taking no deal off the table, because that would be a precondition; and she will not refuse even to discuss the possibility of giving the people another say, because that would be a precondition. Can the Secretary of State therefore confirm on the record that all those topics will be available for discussion, in honour of the Prime Minister’s promise that there will be no preconditions?”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/1/19; col. 318.]
The most important absence of a precondition would be to give the people the chance of another vote.
Lord Dobbs
Before the noble Lord sits down—I promise not to keep bobbing up and down, which would be very aggravating, but he mentioned my name—I want to apologise to him for appearing in any way complacent. I had not thought I sounded complacent. He mentioned the demonstrations outside, which he said had been going on for three years. They are very impressive, with all the flags waving. Can the noble Lord enlighten me, and perhaps the House, on who is paying for these demonstrations? The question has never really been asked, and it is about time we investigated.
Lord Dykes
Would it not be better for the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, to go and ask them himself? I do not know the answer but I am told that they all do it by paying themselves for their individual efforts. That is the only answer I have ever received.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by declaring my interests, as recorded in the register, from which it can be readily discovered that I am a Eurofanatic. I am, too, very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, who I have known since we were both in different parties—although he has managed two moves to my one.
I have observed in the past that you can change your history but not your geography, and we will find out, in the years to come, that being 22 or 23 miles from Calais will not change because we leave the EU. We seem to be in danger of talking about the deal as if it settled everything. It settles nothing: all it does is begin the negotiations on getting where we want to get to. We are at a very preliminary stage, and, as I have said many times in this House and elsewhere, we are being totally unrealistic. There is no way in which we leave the European Union and get a better deal than when we are in it, for the simple reason that 27 countries do not want to be reduced to 26 and will make it jolly certain that we get as difficult a deal as they can get away with. That is where the history and geography come together.
I turn now to a couple of practical things. We talk about extending Article 50—let us remember, however, that the European Parliament has to agree to whatever deal is reached. The last sitting of the European Parliament is on Thursday 18 April; it does not return until 2 July. The whole of the week when it returns is a basically ceremonial time when it elects its president, its committee chairs and all the people needed for the negotiations. The European Parliament, therefore, will have to decide whether it wishes to maintain its EU committee and whether Mr Verhofstadt will continue in his role. The European Commission will have to decide whether Mr Barnier is to continue in his role, or perhaps to become the new president of the Commission—an outcome I see as highly likely.
There will also be a change of presidency: at the beginning of July the Finns take over the presidency of the European Union. The odds are that theirs will be a fairly active presidency. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how much discussion there has been between HMG and the incoming Finnish presidency on how they propose to handle the period from July to December.
We then proceed through the autumn, when the European Parliament has hearings for the nominated Commissioners. Every country will nominate a Commissioner. A presidency will be nominated in July and throughout the autumn there will be hearings of the new Commissioners on their new portfolios. The EU will not be in a great position to be doing any negotiation. So an extension of three months is pretty meaningless.
Let me consider the MEPs. The Prime Minister said in her Statement:
“It would require an extension of Article 50”.
This is when she was against it; I am not sure what position she is in today. She continued:
“We would very likely have to return a new set of MEPs to the European Parliament in May”.
We would not, actually. The MEPs could lapse and there is a long-established procedure that when a member state joins the EU, the parliament nominates the MEPs. There is no legal reason why an outgoing state could not nominate MEPs—or, for that matter, have no MEPs at all. As we enjoy shooting ourselves in the foot, that might be the choice. They can be appointed.
We are also told that a second referendum would set a difficult precedent. Of course it would. As Mr Speaker Bercow has shown, precedents are there to be broken. I seem to remember that we had two referendums on Scottish independence and two on Welsh independence—
Lord Balfe
On devolution—the noble Lord is absolutely right.
It is a case of how long you allow to lapse between them, not that you cannot do it. As the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, rightly said, we could have an election. Let me warn my party what is likely to happen. I think it is highly likely that the Opposition would win an election. To people who think that elections are about Brexit, I say, think again. If you want an example, look at the Soke of Peterborough, as it is called. It had an MP who campaigned vigorously for a no vote. He lost his seat. I am not sure that the person who replaced him is in full communion with the party that she was elected for, but none the less, he lost his seat. Mr Stewart Jackson joined the unemployed as a reward for campaigning for Brexit.
You might well get that result in an election. People have reflected on seeing me on these Benches, but I will have a far bigger laugh when I see the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, as a Minister in a Corbyn Government. As she will remember, we were together in Labour First, the right-wing pressure group within the Labour Party. I think she will make an excellent Corbyn Minister. Let us be aware where we are heading.
On Project Fear, all we get these days is, “The drugs won’t come through” and “The ports will seize up”. Of course there will be difficulty, but we will get over it. We are a resourceful nation. People in East Anglia, where I live, say to me—and, I am sure, to my noble friend Lord Lansley—“We heard all this before, Richard. It was rubbish. We had it in the run-up to the referendum: the world was going to collapse. It hasn’t happened. It won’t. We might have a bit of difficulty, but we’ll get over it”.
I counsel that the argument for Europe is a moral and philosophical one. It is not about a can of beans, even a delayed delivery can of beans. Please do not go on with Project Fear. The next step will be negotiations. After this deal, whatever it is, is agreed, there will be difficult negotiations.
Last Friday, I was in Madrid talking to Spanish politicians. It is clear that they are keeping their powder dry. Their demands will come through when it matters, which is when they start negotiating. That is when you will find the different countries of Europe asking for whatever they want for their particular interests, for what is known in Belgium as the Flemish Christmas tree. Virtually every country of Europe will want to hang a bauble on that tree. That is where the difficult negotiations are going to take place. We will look back on debates like this and think, “Wasn’t it simple? We only had to talk to ourselves. Now we have got to talk to all these foreign people about how we survive”.
So I say to noble Lords, by all means let us extend Article 50, but do not believe that another referendum would necessarily change the result; it probably would not. We have to move forward. This is a great country and whichever way we go, we will survive. I would prefer to survive within the EU, but I do not subscribe to the prophets of doom who say that we are going to collapse if we are not.
Lord Hain
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, spelling out European realities, given that he knows them well—although I think he was rather uncharitable in pulling the leg of my noble friend Lady Hayter.
I speak in strong support of my noble friend Lady Smith’s Motion. There are now just 60 days to go to Brexit, come what Theresa May. This is “make your mind up” time. As Michel Barnier has pointed out:
“To stop no deal, a positive majority for another solution will need to emerge.”
It is therefore imperative to extend Article 50 in order to prevent the calamity of no deal and allow time to see whether there is an agreed way forward—including whether a people’s vote is the only way out of this nationally humiliating, utter mess.
The Government are currently held hostage by a group of right-wing extremists who are blocking any compromise on the Prime Minister’s completely unrealistic and undesirable “red lines”. Preoccupied with their fundamentalism and fantasies about so-called free trade and sovereignty, they are quite willing to sacrifice the well-being and security of our country—as well as, perhaps most disgracefully, peace and continued progress on the island of Ireland. In contemplating or even positively advocating no deal, as many do, they are willing to risk every trade agreement the UK currently has. But the wheels are finally coming off the European Research Group free trade bandwagon, as their illusions are exposed. For the truth is that they never had a practical Brexit plan of their own.
Two weeks ago we learned that, contrary to airy promises made in 2017, International Trade Secretary Liam Fox has failed to deliver a single “roll-over” trade agreement to replace the 70 or so with the rest of the world that we currently have through the European Union. As for claims that trading on WTO rules only after 29 March would be no problem, as the EU Commission made clear just last week, those very rules would require the European Union to treat the United Kingdom as it treats other non-EU WTO members. International law would then inevitably require a hard border on the island of Ireland. It is simply dishonest to blame the Irish Government for that. The chosen WTO rules of the Brexiteers would require a hard border. The United Kingdom’s businesses and, importantly, services would face the loss of their European Union and other markets, with no prospect of finding replacements in protectionist economies such as the US, India and China.
The Labour leadership also appears fundamentally to misunderstand the impact of European Union state aid and competition rules. As the IPPR has made clear, those rules would not in fact prevent an active industrial policy or, indeed, renationalisation of rail or water, or public ownership stakes and interventions elsewhere.
There are frightening real-world economic, security and social consequences if Parliament is unable to get a grip and offer people the opportunity to decide whether this sort of Brexit is the future they really want. The Brexiteers never explained that people would be poorer and less secure. They dishonestly claimed that we could leave and keep all the benefits of remaining. Why should a narrow victory in a referendum two and a half years ago give Brexiteer fanatics the right to drive the country over a cliff? It is inherent in a democracy that voters should have the chance to change their minds. Labour leaders, please note: more than 75% of Labour Party members and two-thirds of Labour voters currently support a people’s vote. Meanwhile, Parliament must stop at all costs the catastrophe of a no-deal Brexit.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, such a brief and effective speech is not unusual of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, with whom I have worked on a number of important issues over the years.
I want to make one or two new points if I can, although that is extremely difficult. Indeed, I am reminded of a great friend of mine who was getting married for the fourth time. As his son, who proposed the toast, rose to his feet, he said, “Here we are again”. The Brexit debate in your Lordships’ House is a bit like that. One can guarantee that whenever two or three noble Lords are gathered, whether in this House or outside, one short phrase will be uttered within a matter of moments: “What a mess”. It is our duty, so far as it can be, to help to steer the country out of this mess.
We are constantly reminded of the 17 million people who voted leave. Of course, they were in the majority: 52% of voters voted to leave the European Union. We must respect that. However, 48% voted in the opposite direction. Two statistics are even more stark and telling: 37% of the electorate voted to leave and 34% voted to stay. Those figures put things into perspective and ought to induce a little humility in us all. I have always studied the English Civil War with great interest, with its fascinating people, great issues and extraordinary events, but I have come to understand it only over the past three years. We all have a duty to try to heal some of the rifts and breaches. My noble friend Lord Dobbs, who is not in his place at the moment, referred to last weekend’s polls saying that a large number of remainers would not wish to marry a leaver, and vice versa. We all know from our circles of friends that this is all too true. I speak as one whose sons married remainers a long time ago and are both happily married, one after 20 years and the other after 25 years. That was absolutely a good thing.
We need to bring our nation together. How can we do that? I suggest two things: first, we will all be looking to the other end of the Corridor tomorrow night. There will be a series of votes. We do not know exactly how many; that depends on Speaker Bercow. I believe that even at this late stage, the Prime Minister should make the decision that the votes are free ones. I was in the other place when we voted to enter the European Community, or the European common market, as it then was. It was the courageous but realistic decision of one of the most accomplished Chief Whips in post-war history, translated by then to Prime Minister, that led to a free vote. I can see the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, smiling and nodding because he remembers that every bit as well as I do. That decision had a profound influence on the result because although only the Government side was officially given a free vote, it had a real effect on the Official Opposition of the day, as I knew from talking to many of them at the time.
The Prime Minister would be performing a great parliamentary and national service if she were to sanction a free vote tomorrow. I also think she would do rather better as a result of that magnanimity than by imposing Whips, which did not work terribly well two weeks ago. Assuming for the moment—I hope correctly—that there is a consensus following tomorrow night and the other place is able to concentrate on one or two not mutually exclusive but complementary avenues towards a settlement of this issue, I hope something else can be done. When my noble friend the Leader of the House was introducing this debate, she referred to cross-party talks and to confidential briefings, so that Members of both Houses could have a clearer insight into the precise details of the negotiations. That is good so far as it goes, but I want to resurrect an idea that I first voiced on the Floor of your Lordships’ House in June 2016, when I said it would be a very good thing if we could have a joint committee—based on the Scottish and Welsh committees—of both Houses, not just one House, on the European issue.
If we are to come together—if those of us who accept that there is to be Brexit, but are proud that we are one of 48% of the electorate and 34% of the nation, are to bring people together—it would be good to have a joint committee of both Houses and all parties meeting to discuss the details. It does not need to prolong the issue indefinitely. I was taken with what my noble friend the Duke of Wellington said about a three-month extension; because of the burden of legislation, that may be necessary. Nevertheless, I was brought up sharp, as I am sure many of your Lordships were, by the speech of my noble friend Lord Balfe. He pointed out some of the practicalities involved, and that the European Parliament that meets on 18 July will be different—perhaps very different—from the Parliament that meets on 18 April. It may have a very different angle on some of the great issues.
Lord Wigley (PC)
I am following the noble Lord with a lot of interest. A free vote could, no doubt, stimulate the possibility of a different consensus— or of getting a consensus at all. Given that there are 14 amendments and four amendments to the amendments, and no certainty as to how they will be selected, there is no guarantee that a consensus that may exist in the other place will translate through to here. In those circumstances, might we not need more time in this Chamber to handle legislation that could come from the Commons? A No. 3 Bill is already mentioned in an amendment. Even if we are constrained to 13 June, we certainly do need more time.
Lord Cormack
As I said, I am attracted by some of the propositions put forward by my noble friend the Duke of Wellington. The fact of the matter is that, as my noble friend Lord Balfe has pointed out, there are practical difficulties. What we want is a united Parliament—so far as we can—and a united nation. Whatever motivated those who voted to remain and those who voted to leave, one thing underpinned whatever that individual motive was: at the end of the day, each man and woman who cast a vote surely wanted a prosperous, peaceful Britain in a prosperous, peaceful Europe. We should focus on that sentiment, because it ought to unite us all. If that needs more time so that we can properly fulfil our parliamentary duties, so be it, but let us get on with it.
I hope that we will see some clarity from the other end of the Corridor tomorrow. I hope also that when we next have a debate, it will not be in the rather sterile and unhelpful atmosphere we are forced to debate in today.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, a number of noble Lords, including in particular the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, have remarked that much of Britain’s broader public are longing for an end to these endless debates about Brexit. Some within your Lordships’ House probably share that view. However, leaving at the end of March will not bring an end to domestic debate. The Government have hardly begun to negotiate on the future relationship and there are still deep divisions within the Government and in the Conservative Party about what that future relationship should be. The seven speeches from the Conservative Party that we have already heard in this debate show that it has many different opinions. So we are facing a further two years or more in which domestic issues take second place to European ones while Ministers struggle to decide what their party will accept.
If Theresa May had taken a different position when she became Prime Minister, we might now be in a different place. She could have noted the thinness of the majority and the divisions in public opinion and could have stood up to the hardliners in her party and gone directly for a Norwegian option, membership of the European Economic Area and the closest association possible. If she had, we might well now be leaving with the negotiations almost completed—but she did not. She set out red lines to satisfy her right wing, appointed ideological hardliners to key positions in the Brexit negotiations and divided the country and the party more deeply. Here we are, up against the lines she set, and unprepared either to leave or to stay.
Last week the Prime Minister declared that to question the outcome of the referendum and ask the public to think again,
“could damage social cohesion by undermining faith in our democracy”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/1/19; col. 26.]
That is a pretty strong statement. However, the country is already divided. The last referendum damaged social cohesion. The campaign itself brought out underlying divisions—not just about the European Union. A right-wing extremist murdered an MP before the vote. Hate crime shot up immediately after the referendum and has stayed up since then—against eastern Europeans, against people of Asian and Afro-Caribbean descent although born in Britain, and against outsiders of all sorts.
When Theresa May was appointed Prime Minister, she made an idealistic speech about healing the nation’s divisions, but she then pandered to the nativist elements in her own party, labelling those who opposed leaving the European Union “citizens of nowhere”—this from the leader of a party which receives large donations from financiers with offshore businesses and which has accepted contributions from Russians resident in Britain, but who nevertheless stoops to labelling those British citizens who believe in European and international co-operation as having divided loyalties. That is how English Protestants labelled Catholics 350 years ago and nationalists labelled Jews.
Of course, the right-wing media went further with headlines about “traitors” and “enemies of the people”, attacking judges, the liberal elite and the establishment. I love to hear Jacob Rees-Mogg attacking the establishment because it is the ultimate absurdity. Neither the Prime Minister nor other responsible senior Ministers have deplored such attacks or warned that they are feeding social division. A recent survey shows, not surprisingly, that Britain has become a much angrier society over the past two years. That is partly because of the deteriorating quality of our political debate and partly because of the Government’s failure to address the many other causes of social division, in their preoccupation with internal party rivalries and disputes.
For more than a century Britain has been a liberal democracy built upon reasoned debate, respect for evidence in policy-making and continued dialogue among politicians of opposing views. We now face, within Britain as well as elsewhere, a surge of “illiberal democracy”, as Prime Minister Orbán of Hungary has labelled it, founded on the exploitation of popular fears, antagonism to foreigners and international institutions, the denigration of domestic opponents and a sweeping disregard for consistency or evidence. President Trump is one of the most skilled exponents of illiberal democracy. After all, one of his campaign promises was that Mexico would pay to build a wall along the United States’ southern border. Two years later, without any sense of shame, he shut down the federal Government to try to force Congress to pay for the wall instead.
We have had similarly illiberal and irrational promises here. We were told repeatedly by Liam Fox and others that the German car industry would force the EU to give Britain whatever we demanded if we left, and that the exit negotiations would be the easiest negotiations ever. We were also assured that leaving the European Union would resolve the problem of immigration, even though in no year did the majority of immigrants arriving come from inside the EU. The leave campaign promised groups within the Asian community that closing off European immigration would leave more space for others to arrive.
Now we are warned that the will of the people—a phrase that authoritarian and anti-democratic Governments have long been fond of—requires a much harder, nastier and domestically damaging Brexit, because there can be no reconsideration or turning back. We should not be surprised that the most committed Brexiters overlap with those who deny the reality of climate change and those who promise that the best way to increase government revenue is to cut tax, nor that the same people who warn of the threat of violence on the streets of English cities if Brexit is not delivered in full dismiss the prospect of any return to violence in Northern Ireland as exaggerated. They choose what they want to believe.
Boris Johnson has shown the same happy disregard for consistency and evidence in denying that he played a major role in the Brexit campaign or even raised the spectre of millions of Turks swarming across our frontiers; so has Jacob Rees-Mogg, in switching from a passionate commitment to establishing parliamentary sovereignty again to now calling on the Prime Minister to prorogue Parliament to prevent a democratically elected Parliament delaying an unprepared and un-negotiated Brexit. I am sure that, as a good historian and a Roman Catholic, he knows that King James II prorogued Parliament repeatedly to prevent MPs blocking his pro-Catholic legislation, and ended up in exile as a result. Perhaps the same fate may reach the Conservative Party. I do not know whether he and others would go to Switzerland or Singapore.
Meanwhile, the regional divide between Britain’s richest and poorest regions remains the widest in Europe, and the overall divide between rich and poor is shameful for an open democracy. London has a structural surplus of housing for non-resident rich—built precisely for citizens of nowhere under London’s Conservative mayor, Mr Johnson—and a structural shortage of affordable housing for British citizens. We are a divided country—economically and socially, as well as politically—and going through with Brexit is likely only to make those divisions worse.
This country desperately needs constructive political leadership to bring us back together. It is now clear, sadly, that we will not get constructive leadership from this Prime Minister, more concerned with her doomed effort to hold together her own party than with the rest of the country. The task for all of us, in both Houses, is to find a way out of the present political, social, economic and constitutional crisis that can begin to re-establish our damaged social cohesion. That will require cross-party co-operation and a quality of political leadership that has been lacking since 2016. It may also need to include another referendum.
Lord Saatchi (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have sent me kind thoughts in the past few weeks. I am very grateful to them—they know who they are—and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, who, aside from being the chairman of our Appointments Commission and Judicial Appointments Commission, is also, as we know, one of our most distinguished physicians. He is not in his place but his combination of ice-cool medical professionalism and loving care is a symbol of one of the many wonderful things about your Lordships’ House.
What I am about to say is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, one of our leading legal figures; she is unable to be in her place today because she is with the United Nations team in Turkey examining the murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Also, outside of this House, it is supported by Gina Miller, who, with the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, defeated Her Majesty’s Government in the Supreme Court on the question of the trigger of Article 50.
With the help of your Lordships today there will be a big redistribution of power in Europe. Why? After the Second World War, Germany was in ashes. At the Yalta peace conference we were one of the big three—Russia, America and Britain. We spoke for the whole of Europe but, in three brilliant moves, German diplomacy ended all that. First, there was reunification so that Germany had the biggest population in Europe. Secondly, there was the treaty of Nice so that voting strength in Europe reflected population weight—one man, one vote instead of one country, one vote. Germany outvoted Britain for the first time. Thirdly, there was the treaty of Lisbon—your Lordships are familiar with the articles—so that the majority required to change EU law was reduced. Three simple steps to effective control of Europe.
Our Government were asleep at the wheel. Throughout, the British Foreign Office practised the withdrawal method in sex—stay out of the danger zone. That was the government strategy throughout—variable geometry and two-speed Europe—until they finally achieved a climax with the aptly named EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Britain stood on the touchlines at Nice and Lisbon and watched the game as a spectator. The result? You will hear it on the TV news any night: in the end Germany will decide; Mrs Merkel signs the cheques.
This brings us to today, with Britain as a subordinate reporting to the EU. Are we supposed to look forward to serving the EU Scottish smoked salmon for starters, Irish beef for the main course and Welsh rarebit for dessert? As someone once said, “No, no, no”.
After all this, what are we to do? To now remain in the EU, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, would be a national humiliation that would last for 100 years. What would be the point anyway? We would still have the same problems as before: first, we do not want to be bossed around; and, secondly, we do not want uncontrolled immigration. Those two problems have to be fixed and the only way now on offer is to leave.
However, there is a much better way, which is what the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, Gina Miller and I are suggesting today—to lead, not leave. For the sake of phraseology, let us call it remain-plus. We want a redistribution of power in Europe and that is why I introduced the EU Membership Bill in your Lordships’ House on 10 December 2018. It would give us equal votes to Germany and reasonable control of immigration. It would mean that Britain would take its rightful place as, at the very least, one of the natural leaders of Europe. A happy ending to two years of what has been popularly known and described as a complete mess.
The withdrawal agreement has been withdrawn. I consider myself to be of average intelligence but it was so complex that it was beyond the judgment and understanding of the human mind to comprehend all its variables. Shall we see whether your Lordships’ House can do any better? Instead of a 585-page EU document, the Bill I am referring to, which is now in the Printed Paper Office, is a one-page House of Lords Bill. Here is the rationale behind it.
For over 100 years since the Parliament Act 1911, we in your Lordships’ House have obviously all looked up to the other place. It has legitimacy, the authority of the ballot box and the mandate of the general election, et cetera. We are a humble House and we know it. However, I hope that we will make up our own minds about whether we think that our continuing silence on the subject of the EU is still appropriate. The EU chief spokesman said last week that the EU wants to hear what Britain wants—what it “really, really wants”. Apparently, the House of Commons is having difficulty telling it, so why do we not have a go?
The same deference that we have always displayed to the House of Commons applied also to the EU referendum, and that ace of trumps is played on a daily basis: “We voted to leave. Nobody must obstruct or frustrate the clear sovereign will of the people in the biggest democratic vote in British history”, and so on. However, I say that the time is up for that argument because the result of the referendum was clear: we cannot decide; we are not sure. That was the result.
There is no comparison between a general election and that referendum. In a general election, if we do not like what we voted for, we can change our mind. This is democracy—first past the post and the greatest advance in human civilisation—and one vote is enough. Nobody challenges that. But this EU referendum is completely different. If we do not like what we voted for, we cannot change it—it is permanent. Therefore, the beautiful concept that “one vote is enough” does not apply. As we have seen, the result is that nobody is happy. Leave people hate half in; remain people hate half out.
We keep hearing that this is a “failure of statesmanship” on a level with Suez. Apparently, Colonel Nasser wrote a page a day for each of the country leaders involved in the Suez crisis—Britain, France, America and Israel—to try to understand how that day had gone from their point of view. It worked very well, did it not? Shall we try that with Chancellor Merkel and President Macron? They had only one interest and one strategy—no detail required. The view was, “We don’t really care whether Britain comes or goes. All we care about is that they don’t set a precedent for anyone else. Therefore, our strategy is tough terms. The tough-terms strategy will have one of two good results. Either Britain accepts the tough terms—that will teach the rest of them—or it says, ‘These terms are tough. We’d better stay’”. Either way, for France and Germany tough terms was a no-lose bet, which they have executed to perfection.
Meanwhile, Britain has now spent many angry years, and 585 pages, debating our terms for leaving. Let us see what we can do with our terms for remaining. How about one page? That is the length of the Bill—two clauses on one page. The first clause sets out that Britain is to have the same voting powers as Germany; the second deals with Britain having reasonable control over immigration. This Bill is remain-plus, and it means that we will have won a lot for our years of political anguish: equal power to Germany and reasonable control over immigration. That would make it all worth while, would it not? Perhaps the EU leaders would prefer that too. They keep saying that they are “so sad” at our leaving. Let us find out whether theirs are crocodile tears.
In case any noble Lord thinks that the EU will never accept that, here is Manfred Weber, the leader of the biggest parliamentary group in the EU and the front-runner to replace Mr Juncker as President of the EU Commission. Last week he said:
“Brexit is absolutely an example that people can see in reality ... why our main message for the EPP campaign is that it’s better to reform the European Union where we need a reform, than to leave or even destroy it”.
This Bill has big reforms for the EU leaders to swallow but, like the British people, they might prefer them to the unpalatable dishes now on offer.
If your Lordships’ House moves this Bill forward, we will feel more responsible for our own lives. Everyone will agree that it makes everything in Europe much fairer and the British people will gain more dignity and self-respect. Therefore, in the name of common sense and in the interest of the country, I ask all noble Lords, on whatever Bench they may be, to now fight for this EU reform, and this Bill, as best they may. The three of us whom I mentioned at the beginning are undertaking this national task here today. I call upon all Members of your Lordships’ House who agree with us to listen to my voice and follow me. Long live Britain in honour and independence.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, I had been going to start my remarks by saying, “Here we go again”—but unfortunately the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, got there before me. There is indeed quite a lot that is both tedious and repetitive about the string of debates that this House and the other place have been holding on Brexit. I hope that I will not be thought too disobliging if I say that today’s debate seems to show some traces of metal fatigue. However, the debates and the votes we register are necessary because only Parliament can ensure that the Government do not, perhaps inadvertently, take this country on a course that could inflict considerable loss and suffering on its citizens.
Two weeks ago, by a majority of 169, this House categorically registered that leaving without a deal needed to be rejected. I would like the Government to say—since the noble Baroness the Leader of the House did not say a word about it when she opened the debate —what account they took of that vote when they started to shape up what is described with some irony as plan B but is in reality plan A, rejected by large majorities, in flimsy disguise. I listened carefully to the Leader’s speech and she did not manage to mention plan B at all. Like TS Eliot’s Macavity the Mystery Cat, it has just disappeared. Where has it gone? I do not know—but we perhaps need to know. I fear that the answer to the question of how much account the Government have taken of your Lordships’ majority of 169 is, “Not a lot”.
It is important that the Government face up to reality and admit what the consequences of leaving without a deal would be. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, referred to this and I will refer to it, too. If we leave without a deal, on 30 March we will be required, not by a diktat from Brussels or Dublin but by WTO rules, to apply tariffs on all our imports from the European Union—and EU countries will be required to apply tariffs on all their imports from us. That would apply on the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland as elsewhere. Alternatively, there is one way out, which is that we apply zero tariffs to all our imports worldwide—which would remove all protection from our businesses and our farmers.
It would be helpful if the Government would say which of those choices they would make. It is rather important for businessmen who are already fulfilling contracts that involve trade in these goods. They might like to know whether the tariff will be 10%, 20%, 0% or what. That quandary was admitted by the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, at Second Reading of the Trade Bill on 11 September. It was also implicit in what the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said in reply to a question of mine on 21 January. Is that the Government’s view—I would very much like to hear the answer in the winding-up speech by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan—or are we planning to start our life as an independent member of the WTO by flouting its most fundamental rule: the most favoured nation rule? If that is the case, there are even more compelling reasons to rule out leaving without a deal.
It really is no good the Government repeating, as they do frequently, that they cannot single-handedly rule out leaving without a deal. That is entirely correct, of course, but entirely insufficient. The reason is that they could quite easily say, today at the Dispatch Box, that they would do everything within their power to avoid leaving without a deal, and we would all be very happy if they said that. We would recognise that it would require the co-operation of the other member states, but it would be a good start. Frankly, if they still believe that it gives us leverage to go on playing with the trigger, they are in for another bad surprise.
Then there is that date of 29 March, which the Government insist must remain as if it were written on one of the tablets brought down by Moses from Mount Sinai. Do they not understand by now that there is not the slightest chance of being able to meet that deadline? Whatever course of action is taken, even in the eventual case of the Prime Minister’s deal being approved, there still is not time to do it and to pass all the necessary legislation under the withdrawal treaty and the political declaration. Would it not be more sensible to recognise that now and initiate discussion with the European Union about prolongation? Several views have been expressed on its duration and its motivation, and surely that would be a much more sensible course to take. No doubt the Government will be forced to get there eventually, but how much better to do it now and not to inflict more uncertainty and damage on our economy in the weeks ahead.
I hope that a clear message on these two points will go out from this House today. That is why I will support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. I looked at it again just now and really find it hard to believe that anybody could be opposed to the second part of the Motion—although I then listened to my noble and learned friend Lord Brown, who managed to find some reason to do so, which I am afraid I did not follow very carefully—while the first is just simple common sense.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)
My Lords, it is my pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. He certainly shows no sign of metal fatigue.
I have always been proud to be British, but that is becoming harder. This country is looking increasingly ludicrous. As my noble friend Lord Cormack said, we are in a mess. It is fair to say that, thanks to David Cameron, Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg, we are in a veritable Eton mess. The public deserve the opportunity to save the country from that mess. A referendum is their right. It is in the public’s interest that they should have a say.
The opposition to a referendum is highly vocal, and I find it puzzling. We are told that it would be undemocratic, that the people have spoken. I do not see that that is the case at all. It seems to me that those who are opposed to a second referendum, as they call it, are worried that actually it might not produce the result that they want. That is because the people have had the sense to look at where we are going and to be worried. There are reasons to be afraid—very afraid. The Brexit that was on offer at the time of the referendum is very different from the Brexit on offer now, and it seems only right that the public should have the right to give their informed consent.
The Prime Minister says that a second referendum would threaten social cohesion. That is somewhat ironic, given that the Government are discussing the prospect of declaring a national emergency when we leave without a deal. We already are in a national emergency because we are horribly close to 29 March. When David Cameron became Prime Minister, it was on a promise to heal “broken Britain”—but if it was broken then, it is in a really bad state now. Every day brings more news of companies taking jobs out of the UK. Sony’s headquarters is one of the latest moves to be announced, along with Dyson; and Jaguar Land Rover is moving jobs. Ireland is seeing an influx of new business to the extent that there is now a real skills shortage there. It is interesting to see that the headhunter Odgers has just decided that it really needs a new office in Ireland.
A no-deal Brexit is only days away, yet Britain simply is not ready. The Federation of Small Businesses says that only one in seven of its members has made any preparation for a no-deal Brexit. The Government are doing their best to help. There is a website geared towards helping businesses prepare for such an eventuality, which tells you that you have to answer only seven simple questions and all will be made clear. Posing as a small retailer importing a little bit from Europe, I answered the seven questions. I was promptly delivered 25 documents I needed to read to prepare for what lay ahead. There was even one that told me how to work out the trade tariff code I would need—really useful, particularly as the example that had been chosen was that of a grand piano. The retailer I was posing as had little cause for grand pianos, but then I do not think many in this country do. The point is that if you are running a small business you do not have time to read 25 documents—the surprise is that one in seven businesses has got that far.
What this does make clear is that, should we leave with no deal on 29 March, there will be chaos, and not just at ports. Trade will simply not be done. We will be an impoverished country. As others have already said, even if we get a version of a deal—potentially Mrs May will find one or two fig leaves; they will be words, really, not much of substance, but the Commons may eventually be persuaded to back her deal as the clock ticks further and further—that does not give business the certainty it needs. It does not give any of us any certainty. It is only then that the negotiations over our future will begin, and we will have no negotiating chips at all.
I have listened to those who say that the Prime Minister merely has to go back to Brussels and demand more and she will get it. I have also listened to what Michel Barnier and Jean-Claude Juncker say. I just cannot see how anyone can come to the conclusion that those two—or any of the other 27—are going to bend. The withdrawal agreement is, they say, the final agreement. A customs union or Norway-style solution would be less damaging than no deal, but would still involve years of negotiation and uncertainty. In her Statement, the Prime Minister promised that the Commons would have more of a consultative role; that she would seek to secure a mandate from the Commons. As pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, we attempted to give her that helping hand and to have a mandate for the negotiations in the first place. I put my name to the amendment with the noble Lords, Lord Monks and Lord Lea, and I am afraid we did not make any progress with her. I suspect that Mrs May’s definition of consultation is not the same as the ACAS definition of it.
I have listened this afternoon to many interesting speeches, including from my noble friend Lord Dobbs, who is not in his place, sadly. He spoke with his usual eloquence about two memories very heavily imprinted on his mind. He spoke of a young man in Tiananmen Square, and of the Berlin Wall coming down. I drew two very different conclusions from the noble Lord. That young man in Tiananmen Square reminded me that a very large majority of our young people do not want to leave the EU. The magic moment when the Berlin Wall came down was a sign of how powerful a united Europe is.
I do not want us to leave Europe. I do not want us to put up a metaphorical wall between the UK and Europe. I heard the President of the United States, Donald Trump, say last autumn that, in the right place, there was nothing more beautiful than barbed wire. I do not subscribe to that view.
Lord Desai (Lab)
My Lords, I have not spoken on Brexit more than about three times in the past two years—I think that I deserve a prize for that. I spoke last on 5 December and more or less what I said then I will say again, but with a few more caveats.
My principal view is that people voted for Brexit. I voted remain; people voted for Brexit. It does not help to say, as did the noble Lord, Lord Newby, “Only 37% voted, so it does not count”. No victor in a general election has ever been chosen by the majority of voters. If we were to use a 51% rule, it would mean that all our Governments were not legitimate. That will not do. A referendum was called. People chose to vote. A lot of the young people who we now hear are very pro Europe chose not to vote. If you choose not to vote, you take the consequences. Some 34 million people voted; there was a majority of 2 million. It is up to us to deliver on that as best we can.
The deal negotiated by the Prime Minister is not the best deal, not the second best nor even the third best, but it is the best that we can get. It is not possible within the time that remains, or even if we elongate the time, to get a better deal as we like it. Both Houses of Parliament have proposed better alternatives, as if we were in a shopping mall and could pick up anything we liked, saying, “I will have this Brexit”, “I will not have that Brexit” or “I will not have a Brexit at all”. That choice is no longer open. We have started a process. We are only 60 days away from the end of it. Sooner or later, the House of Commons will have to come to its senses. Plan A equals plan B, equals plan C equals plan D: ultimately, it will have to vote for the deal; nothing else is available. There is no going back to Brussels. The sooner the penny—or maybe the euro—drops, the sooner we will realise that the deal is the deal and there is nothing more.
To those worried about the backstop, I say let us think about it this way. All the backstop threatens is that it will not be reversed in an anticipatable time—it may not take two years; it may take four or five. In the long run, that is not a serious objection to having a backstop. We know that whatever trade relationship we negotiate with the EU after Brexit will take five or six years—that is the norm. Liam Fox did not know about free trade treaties, but that is neither here nor there. Those with a public school education cannot be expected to have any knowledge of anything real, but that is their problem.
I have a question for the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who is going to follow me. If it takes five years to negotiate a free trade treaty, how come it takes only two years to get out of it? The Lisbon treaty should have said, “Having invoked Article 50, you are allowed five years to sort out the mess”, because we have realised that any kind of Brexit that we negotiate is extremely complicated and will take a lot of time. The backstop and the transition period are giving us extra time creatively to get out of the free trade treaty that we signed, so we should take every advantage of it. We do not even have to negotiate a postponement, because after 29 March all is not over. There is a transition period; all sorts of opportunities are available.
Eventually, sense will prevail and we will see the realism of the deal. On the possibility of no deal, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, that the problem with Brexit and business right now is uncertainty. We do not know what the final shape of the beast is going to be. But once we know what the beast is, we will adjust. We will be able to adapt under whatever circumstances, deal or no deal. I am confident that the British economy has tremendous flexibility, and its people have great character—they can innovate, adapt and win in the end. Of that I have no doubt.
If we are in a no-deal scenario, I would adopt a suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay: we should declare ourselves a zero-tariff country. That will considerably simplify the problems of the no-deal arrangement, because, apart from problems of health and other requirements, at least we will not have the trouble of stopping people to collect tariffs from them. If we go to a no deal, attention should be paid to how much we can unilaterally ease our lives, and we should get the imports to come in as quickly as possible. They may or may not need our exports, but we need their imports. Therefore, we should concentrate on our needs.
The much-maligned Prime Minister has shown remarkable stamina; I am astonished. She is shrewd enough to know that if she plays this game long enough, ultimately everybody will get bored and agree with her.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Desai. I cannot answer his question on how long negotiations for a free trade agreement will take from outside, but, like him, I would not have started from there. I would have started during the process, agreeing a framework for the future relationship, which is what the treaty says we should have been doing, and thus got some way down the road during the two years of negotiations on the first agreement.
I thought I would try very hard to say something new today. It is time we talked about time. It is running out, and we are going to need more. There are 60 days left, and plan B is exactly like plan A: sticking with the November agreement, which the Government would not let Parliament vote on in December; sticking with the agreement that Parliament rejected by a record majority in January; and sticking with this hopeless and humiliating request that the 27 acquiesce in some sort of legally binding formula contradicting the feature of the agreement which the Attorney-General highlighted in his letter of 13 November, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem—namely, that the backstop will last as long as the EU 27 want it to last.
The Prime Minister told us she would change that in December—it did not work. She told us that again in January—it did not work. Mr Johnson, the former Foreign Secretary, tells her in today’s Daily Telegraph to,
“stiffen the sinews and summon up the blood and get on that trusty BAE-146 and go back to Brussels”,
to kill off the backstop and to replace it with a “freedom clause”. The content of the freedom clause is as yet unspecified. Reading this, I was reminded of “Beyond the Fringe”, and its splendid wartime RAF sketch, in which squadron leader Peter Cook declaims that, since the war is going rather badly:
“We need a futile gesture … Get up in a crate … pop over to Bremen … don’t come back”.
What, conceivably, could Mr Johnson’s motive be in saying “Don’t come back”? Presidents Tusk and Juncker could not have been clearer when they said in their letter of 14 January about the backstop:
“We are not in a position to agree anything that changes or is inconsistent with the withdrawal agreement”.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, said:
“These people mean what they say”.
There is no more time to waste challenging them.
As for “no deal”, I do not believe that our Prime Minister, whom I believe is a serious, responsible, honourable person, would drive the country over the cliff in 60 days’ time. I do not believe it, and I do not believe that anyone believes she would. Her Cabinet may be divided, but they are not deranged. The consequences of no deal for the country have been spelled out every day ever more clearly, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said. The logically and physiologically rather odd argument that it would weaken our hand in Brussels if we were to stop threatening to shoot ourselves in the foot now looks even odder, given that there is no serious negotiation going on, because we have tabled no serious proposition.
I will reflect on the interesting analogy with nuclear deterrence that my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood regaled us with. The flaw may be that Trident deters the Russians and does not damage us, whereas a no-deal Brexit would delight the Kremlin, and the risk of it is ravaging the British economy right now, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, pointed out. The choice cannot be between the November deal and no deal. That makes no sense, and the Spelman-Morgan amendment in the other place tomorrow deserves support.
Talleyrand defined statesmanship as foreseeing the inevitable and accelerating its occurrence. The Government must already know that we are going to need an extension under Article 50(3). They must know that the Reeves-Benn-Grieve amendment tomorrow is sensible. They would do well to embrace it.
What are the arguments against seeking an extension under Article 50? I have heard three. It is said that it would betray the referendum result if we were still in the EU on 30 March. I cannot see that. The date was not on the ballot paper, and I do not think anyone knows why the Prime Minister subsequently picked it and started the two-year clock with no proposals tabled in Brussels, no strategy agreed in Cabinet, no attempt made to find consensus in Parliament, no consultation with the devolved Governments, and no consultation with the Dublin Government.
Mr Johnson, the former Foreign Secretary, says that 29 March is an “iconic” date, which it would be humiliating to miss. Why “iconic”? I do not know. Maybe he was thinking of the Battle of Towton, fought on 29 March 1461, which did, after all, produce a change in leadership. However, I doubt it. Towton was the bloodiest battle ever fought on English soil, and Mr Gove is still around.
Maybe he had in mind the Treaty of St Germain, signed on 29 March 1632, when we gave control of Quebec back to the French. Could he be planning to reverse that, in a maximalist version of Canada-plus? I rather hope not, but enough of Mr Johnson. Let us be serious.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Could it be that he considers the date iconic because such a huge majority of the House of Commons voted for the legislation that set it in stone?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
That is perfectly true; the date is in the legislation. The date was taken out of the legislation in this House by quite a large majority— I think it was 78—on the recommendation of the amendment of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. I think that the House of Commons was extremely rash to put the date back in again, but the Letwin compromise ensures that there is no particular problem here. It can be taken out again without primary legislation.
The second objection I heard is that the House of Commons has decided on that date. If it wishes to, the House of Commons can change the date, on the Government’s recommendation, by the stroke of a pen. That is not a serious objection.
The third objection I have heard is that the 27 might not agree to an extension. However, they do not want no deal either. Nobody wants no deal. While it is much worse for us, it is bad for everyone, and the 27 have always been clear that a better deal—better than the November deal—could be envisaged if the Prime Minister were ready to move on her four red lines, which were so rashly laid down for party management reasons at the 2016 party conference. A move might involve considering a real customs union, unlike the partial, unequal, temporary, bare bones version in the backstop. It might even, two years late, involve working out a real, legally binding framework for the future relationship, as envisaged in Article 50(2), which would be directive and determined, unlike the present loose aspirational declaration. That would require time for real negotiation, but we know that the 27 would allow it, and we have always known that they would allow time for an election or a referendum in this country. It is clear that Brussels, shocked by the disarray in this country, now knows that more time may be needed and is waiting for us to signal that. Provided that we have a real proposition to discuss—not just the plan A, plan B, “Beyond the Fringe” nonsense of seeking contradictory assurances—it is clear that the 27 would give us more time, if we ask for it. Therefore, the Cooper amendment tomorrow in the other place makes sense and should be supported.
Our debate is only the overture to tomorrow’s drama over there, but it is right that we should show that we are just as concerned as they are and ready to do our bit to stop the country sleepwalking into disaster. I now believe that that will require stopping the clock.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, as always, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who speaks with such wisdom on these matters, and to follow the excellent contributions made by noble Lords from across the House. I concur with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that we are indeed the warm-up act for tomorrow. Nevertheless, I hope that the debate this afternoon will produce some interesting insights for the other place.
The Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement and political declaration were roundly rejected last week by both Houses, but no plan B has been put forward. The current position is a serious threat to the unity of our United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, insists that an invisible solution exists for the Irish border, and the ERG has insisted that technological solutions are available and that this is a manufactured excuse from those who want to stop Brexit. If that is the case, why the fuss over the backstop? Either they do not believe that such a solution exists, or this is merely a delaying tactic to edge the country closer to a no-deal cliff edge.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, how is it that the EU is drawing a stark red line to protect the border and the Good Friday agreement, while the Conservative and Unionist Party seems willing to sacrifice it? To leave the customs union and single market is, in almost everyone’s opinion, simply incompatible with the Good Friday agreement in practice. Border controls are required. Leaving with no deal likewise abandons the Good Friday agreement. It is essential to rule out no deal; it should have happened long ago. I will therefore be voting, in sadness but in absolute good conscience, in favour of the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I join her in encouraging my noble friends on the Front Bench to support it, too.
No deal is an option that no reasonable Government could support. Walking wide-eyed into a course of action while knowing that it will be damaging—and contrary to an international treaty—is against all the principles of representative democracy. As George Orwell said, political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
My noble friend the Leader of the House said in her opening remarks that the Government have a responsibility to deliver the result of the referendum. Will the Minister, when he winds up, tell us how many of the 17.4 million leave voters actually voted for this withdrawal agreement and political declaration—or indeed how many voted for no deal?
There is a loud, extreme group of Brexiters who believe that the referendum gave carte blanche for any action that delivers the cherished Brexit. This is not democracy. A quarter of the population voted to leave, but we have no idea what each of them expected. The only deal on offer is the Prime Minister’s deal, but that does not command parliamentary support. Equally, it does not provide certainty, and it puts at risk our economy and national security.
The promises of the leave campaign in the EU referendum have not materialised. The “easiest trade deal in history” is nowhere to be seen. Brilliant new trade deals, and even rolling over the existing deals that we have via the EU, are just pipe dreams. Assurances given so confidently by my right honourable friend David Davis in 2017 that the European Medicines Agency would not leave the UK have proved wrong, as we sadly saw yesterday when the agency left the UK. The Brexiters have been wrong about the EU all along, and are still wrong—catastrophically so—when they claim that leaving on WTO terms can be managed reasonably.
We need to know how many people still want to leave the EU, and the only way is to ask them. That is respecting the will of the people. My noble friend Lord Dobbs called this a “loser’s charter”. That misunderstands its purpose. If people confirm that they still want to leave, they have the option and we will honour it—I will accept it. Not even to ask, however, when what is being delivered is so different from what they may well have voted for, is irresponsible.
My noble friend the Leader also suggested that we must command support across the political spectrum. No deal, however, certainly does not do that. Why, therefore, is this kamikaze course still on the table? As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, the leave enthusiasts are holding our party hostage and refusing to give up the no-deal threats. Why are they doing so? Is it because this was their one and only plan right from day one? Having watched the actions of the honourable and right honourable colleagues in the other place, I say that this is a wholly consistent explanation. Was their plan, all along, to just keep threatening no deal until 28 March and wait for the EU to surrender to the cake-and-eat-it promises made to voters in the 2016 referendum and the 2017 election? They still refuse to accept that it is simply not possible to leave the EU single market and customs union and protect the Northern Ireland border within the UK.
If this giant game of poker is all that they can offer, it is going to fail. The EU will not cave in to what we want—it has made that clear. The House of Commons Library has produced an excellent report on the full impact of no deal. It was released today, and I strongly commend it to all noble Lords. Indeed, I ask my noble friends on the Front Bench to suggest that both this House and the other place dedicate time to a proper debate about it.
I will quote selectively from the report. The Permanent Secretary of HM Revenue and Customs, Jon Thompson, said:
“We cannot give you or Ministers any assurances whatsoever of what will actually happen in the event that there is no deal ... I cannot say it will all be fine. I absolutely cannot tell you”.
Those who say that many other countries trade on WTO terms and we trade on WTO terms with other countries seem to ignore the fact that the US, Brazil, China and India all have trade agreements with their closest neighbours. Even with the US, the UK already has trade regulated by more than 100 sectoral agreements derived from EU membership that go well beyond WTO provisions.
On medicines, we are told that there is not enough cold-chain warehousing available to build the stockpile that the industry has been asked to hold. Air freight is not an option for medicines that cannot be X-rayed. On Northern Ireland, the WTO rules are clear: there needs to be between two separate customs territories the possibility of checks, and contemporaneous forms need to be filed to ensure that, when goods are passing across the border, the right tariff has been applied.
On security, Cressida Dick, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, has said that no deal would have to replace the mechanisms we currently have with others that are “costly, slower” and potentially put the public at risk.
“There is no doubt about that”,
she said.
On pensions—I declare an interest—there is a promise that overseas residents who are UK citizens will have their pension uprated in the country in which they live as long as there is reciprocity. There are 70,000 British pensioners living in Spain and 62 Spanish pensioners living in the UK. The cost to Spain would be significant. The temptation for it not to offer reciprocity would leave 70,000 British pensioners—and other pensioners in other countries—at risk of no uprating: more frozen pensioners.
As to the managed no deal that we have heard about, we are told that any side deals if we leave with no deal would require the maintenance of goodwill between both sides, which inevitably would require settlement of our financial obligations and the rights of EU citizens, as well as protection of the Northern Ireland border.
The House of Commons has roundly rejected this deal. At the moment we have no agreed way forward. We are approaching the cliff edge. I know that many noble Lords share the concern that the no-deal outcome is unconscionable. I echo the call of the Commons Brexit Select Committee for Article 50 to be extended, as so many other noble Lords have said, because we are simply running out of time.
The British people have been misled about the impact of leaving the EU. Whether we leave with the current agreed deal or with no deal, there will be casualties. In all good conscience, I hope that we can support the words of Benjamin Disraeli:
“Power has only one duty—to secure the social welfare of the people”.
Lord Owen (Ind SD)
My Lords, the French have a saying that for all the ifs in the world, you could put Paris in a bottle. We have spent a lot of time on ifs in this debate. The issues will now be settled not here but in the House of Commons, and the House of Commons is pretty close to doing something which we need to be very careful about, which is to reject an international treaty that has been agreed by 27 other countries and our Government.
There was no question in the referendum that the House of Commons was to negotiate with the EU 27. There was no question but that this was to be left to Mr Cameron’s Government, because he had promised that he, his Chancellor of the Exchequer and others would stay to carry this thing through. Many mistakes have been made, and many differences that could perhaps have been addressed have not been, but we face the situation now. How do we help the House of Commons to come in the next few weeks to a better solution than it has at the moment? If there is anybody here who has come out of this with some honour and distinction, it is the Attorney-General. I think his letter to the Cabinet was noble. He was a Brexiteer, but he made it quite clear that he was extremely worried. His words were,
“the current drafting of the Protocol, including Article 19, does not provide for a mechanism that is likely to enable the UK lawfully to exit the UK wide customs union without a subsequent agreement”.
He has not changed his mind as a result of the clarification letter that came from the two Presidents, the President of the Council and the President of the Commission.
He also wrote, near the conclusion of his letter to the Cabinet, three lines that are worth repeating:
“Finally, in considering any international agreement, it is important also to take into account the changing political context in which it is to operate and that the solution to any essentially political question is rarely wholly or even predominantly legal”.
He voted, therefore, for the Government’s negotiation, warts and all. I believe and hope that the House of Commons will think very carefully before not doing the same.
The question is: how can we help? One piece of guidance to have come out of this debate—though I doubt the Members of the Commons even read our Hansard, frankly— which would be a wise decision, would be not to emphasise being able to change the withdrawal agreement too much. That is very difficult to do. The noble Lord who spoke earlier on this point is not in his place, but has experience of the European Parliament. We have to remember that that withdrawal agreement has to go back and be accepted by the European Parliament. Because the European Parliament is changing and because there are to be elections, the room for postponement—though it is undoubtedly there; let nobody be under any illusion about that, and the European Union will be helpful on this—is nowhere near as large as most people think. I think it is a matter of weeks. We want this European Parliament to make a decision over what changes may or may not be made.
Another piece of wisdom that has come out of our debate, which may help Members of Parliament, is that the political declaration is much easier to amend, so we should look at that. First, we should record the fact that all aspects of the transitional agreement are extremely helpful to this country. Not just trading questions, but City of London questions and issues that are of real importance but rarely discussed, are left open during this transitional period. The problem is that most of us are worried that we will not get a free trade area agreement by 31 December 2020, when the transitional period comes to an end. It can be extended, but remember that this transitional period is very odd. We are not actually involved in any of the issues. We are given the appearance of still being a member of the EU, but without any powers. We are paying what we would broadly be paying if we were staying in the EU—which we are, during that period—and that which we owe to the community. That is what I would call a good agreement. During that transitional period the EU gets money, which is very helpful to it with its budgetary constraints and difficulties at the moment; and we get an open agenda. It is a proper status quo—although as far as we are concerned it is also political limbo, and we will have very little impact. To extend that would be difficult. Here, I come to the one suggestion that I hope the Government will think carefully about. I have given it to them and do not know what they might do with it, but Members of Parliament might consider it.
There is a good deal of interest in the European Economic Area. It is no secret to anybody that I always thought that we would come out through the European Economic Area and use the Norway model. I was never tempted by a customs union; indeed, neither was Norway. I believe that we need the single market, which, if it continues after 31 December—if we have not reached an agreement—is a huge help to Ireland. I agree with a lot of what has been said. However tempting it may be, let us not take it out on the Irish. The 26 other nations have put them in this position, particularly—and very unwisely, in my view—the President of the Council, Donald Tusk. At one stage, he said, “What Ireland wants, Ireland gets”. You cannot have a proper negotiation on that basis. The EU has put itself on to the most sensitive border in the world with a dangerous declamatory process. It is difficult for this country to accept that we cannot at some stage pull out of this endless customs union.
Like many others, I know that we are already in the EEA and have never given notice to come out of it. There is a respectable case for that but, again, that is an “if” of history. We are here now. I suggest that in the political declaration, we ask that if on 31 December 2020, the UK wishes, as a non-EU contracting party, to be a member of the European Economic Area, it would not stand in our way but would allow it to go through. Of course, we would also have to convince the three EFTA countries. This would lead to a number of different things. We would start to have some influence on trading matters; like Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein, we would have a voice.
Secondly, we would be able to stand by our pledge to the fishing community to introduce UK management of fishing in our waters, although we would still have to consider environmental issues, for example, and negotiate. This would not necessarily have to be done, as is obviously the wish of some countries, through a free trade area agreement, which would not be appropriate. It would also give some sustenance to those people in the peripheral parts of this country who are, by and large, overwhelmingly in favour of Britain leaving. We must not do what Ted Heath did in the most disgraceful manner and completely sell out the fishing industry. I for one am not prepared to see that happen through a free trade area agreement.
That is one advantage. This idea would also put us into an organisation where, if we wanted, we could apply to continue being in the customs union. Non-EU members are not excluded from being in it; the three EFTA countries have just decided not to. It would be for the Government of the day, in the days approaching December 2020, to make a judgment on whether they wanted to enter the EEA and whether they then wanted to negotiate with the EU on being part of a customs union. That is difficult, but it can be done. This would change the atmosphere and show that the Government were listening to the people, not least in the Labour Party, who believe that the European Economic Area has merit and would be perfectly prepared to see that as our way of coming out. The Labour Party’s position is honourable: the party leader has made it clear that he would come out under the EEA and the single market, then try to negotiate a preferential deal on a customs union—the party is very optimistic about what it could get out of it—although that is not obligatory.
Those are my few suggestions. I speak as one who has had to be responsible for international treaties. At the end of the day, you must go into this with the belief that you will carry your country with you. I say to the people who advocate thrusting this aside as if it is a matter of no consequence: it is a matter of huge consequence if we do not live up to our commitments, not just to our electorate and the people who voted in the referendum and the 2017 election, but to those people from 27 countries with whom we went into negotiations. We cannot just shred the agreement and throw it away; it would be very hard to replace. We must face up to that withdrawal agreement over the next few weeks—and the sooner, the better.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I feel almost guilty for disturbing the mood of despondency, but I confess I am actually looking forward to 29 March. I am looking forward to bringing home accountability, from Brussels to Westminster and the devolved nations, for major policy decisions affecting the minutiae of people’s lives here in Britain. I am looking forward to seeing people, Parliament and, indeed, your Lordships’ House being given more power, not less, and British democracy being strengthened as a result. But, most of all, I am looking forward to the people’s vote of 2016 being honoured. For what greater privilege could there be, as a parliamentarian, than to have helped put into effect the majority will of the British people to leave the EU?
After so many hours spent in debate, one could argue that all that remains to be done is for the UK to leave. We are so close and yet, with only 60 days to go, we are still so far away from respecting the result of that once-in-a-generation referendum. In fact, the closer we get, the more intense the battle to stop us leaving becomes. So much is being done to delay, derail and even deny what 17.4 million people voted for by a clear majority. Some 80% of voters may have voted for MPs who stood on manifestos to respect that referendum result, but if some of the amendments in the other place are anything to go by, who could blame those same voters for regretting trusting MPs to keep their word? As my noble friend Lord Dobbs said earlier, we can stretch their tolerance only so far. I agree. Their trust is not elastic.
So why are we doing this to ourselves, to the British people and to their faith in democracy? Is it because we are petrified of leaving on WTO terms—the so called no-deal option? It may be the least favoured option, but are we really suggesting that we would strengthen our negotiating hand by throwing our strongest card away? Do we really think the EU would give us a better deal after we had voluntarily sacrificed what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, rightly described as an “incentive”, and what I would say is the biggest incentive there currently is to reflect on the consequences for individual member states of the Commission’s continuing intransigence? Are some advocating removing the no-deal option precisely because they know that without our strongest card, we are far less likely to leave the EU in anything other than name only?
Of course, if someone opposes Brexit, it makes sense for them to want to take no deal off the table. If they are intent on thwarting the people’s vote of 2016, naturally they are going to oppose using the one thing which could bring the EU back to the negotiating table. After all, leaving on WTO terms would not be the end but the means to an end—that of securing a better Brexit. I understand the logic of the approach even if I disagree with it, but what I do not understand is this institutionalised timidity—this chronic aversion to risk, which invites defeat rather than success, poverty rather than prosperity, and corrosive mistrust in politicians rather than a restoration of faith in British democracy.
Although I have worked in the private sector, I cannot claim to have run a business. But as someone who lives with brittle bones and has had more than 50 fractures in my time, I can confidently claim that I have managed risk since the day I was born and I will do so until the day I die. That is just life. I damn well get on with it because I am British, because that is what we do. It is what millions of people the length of these islands do, day in, day out, and they are entitled to expect their parliamentarians to follow their example, hold their nerve and deserve their trust. Waging a concerted campaign of attrition against the people’s vote of 2016 does the opposite; it destroys trust. The EU Commission does not really do democracy. For it, referenda are exams people sit and resit until they get the answer right, so it is hardly rocket science that Brussels supports a campaign which seeks to subvert the people’s vote of 2016. What does surprise me is the extent of some parliamentarians’ collusion with Brussels, because the more they choreograph talking up the dangers of leaving the EU, the more they talk down our country.
That brings me to the question of certainty. Is it not a touch ironic and revealing that those who clamour most for certainty are those who most want to remove the one thing that is certain? It is in black and white and it is in law. It is this country’s leaving date of 29 March. Why? Because among them are those who never wanted us to leave, who still do not want us to leave and who are determined to do everything to thwart the result of the people’s vote of 2016.
The well-respected journalist Charles Moore is surely correct when he writes:
“Despite three and a half years of argument, this process has only just, at five minutes to midnight, begun”.
That is why it is so important, as the Prime Minister told the other place, that,
“we need to be honest with the British people ... when people say, ‘Rule out no deal’, what they are actually saying is that, if we in Parliament cannot approve a deal, we should revoke article 50. Those would be the consequences of what they are saying. I believe that that would go against the referendum result”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/1/19; col. 25.]
In conclusion, if there was one lesson above all else that my years in charity campaigning before entering your Lordships’ House taught me, it was that you do not deserve to win a campaign unless you are prepared to take it to the wire. That is why we must keep the option of no deal and leaving on WTO terms on the table. Let us never forget that we are British so we will not be bullied. For the sake of democracy, we must honour the people’s vote of 2016 and leave the EU on 29 March, with or without a deal.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin. I greatly admire his personal courage and integrity, but I say to him that I think nothing is more likely to strengthen the anti-democratic forces in this country or to see the emergence of a strong populist, nationalist party with tendencies to fascism than the economic disaster that would follow from having no deal on our exit from the European Union. It would set off social forces that I really am concerned about.
As we again debate Brexit, I fear I am again part of the “here we go again” consensus in the debate today. I support my noble friend Lady Smith’s Motion. It seems to me that an Article 50 extension is inevitable if no deal is to be avoided. That would be the case even if by some miracle Mrs May were to get her deal through the House of Commons in the next couple of weeks.
So what is it worth talking about today? Something very significant has happened in the last fortnight, and it is about what the Prime Minister gives her top priority to. After the deal was defeated by 230 votes, there was a lot of talk of a plan B, of seeking cross-party agreement for a compromise that could have carried both Labour and Conservative MPs and other parties. I know this was not helped by the leader of the Opposition’s decision not to join those talks, but the true analysis of what went wrong was well summed up by Hilary Benn, the chair of the Brexit Select Committee in the Commons. He said that he had been to see the Prime Minister and that, yes, there was an open door, but he was faced with a closed mind. That is the only conclusion we can come to on what we are told is now the Government’s plan B: to go back to revising the backstop. So I am afraid the Prime Minister has not taken the good advice that I remember the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, offering her: that she should seek to be Sir Robert Peel in these circumstances. Rather, she continues the pathetic performance of the indecisive Arthur Balfour in the Administration of 1902-1905, faced with Conservative divisions on tariffs.
So what does going back to the backstop mean? Will the Minister give some specific answers to questions about that? This seems to be the substantive point of content in today’s debate. Are the Government, as I hope and assume they are, sticking fully to the commitments they made in the December 2017 agreement with the European Commission and to the amendment that was passed by this House to the EU (Withdrawal) Act—that the Good Friday agreement would be adhered to and that as a consequence of Brexit there would in no circumstances whatever be a reinstatement of a hard border in the island of Ireland? Is that still the Government’s position?
Secondly, do the Government accept—I have heard Ministers say at times that they do—what the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Kerr, have said about what would happen in the event of no deal: in other words, that the problem of the border arises from our adherence to the very WTO rules which the Brexiteers go on about incessantly? If we do not stick to those rules, in the absence of a comprehensive free trade agreement, the most favoured nation principle comes into play, and that means that every other country in the world would have the right to trade with us and the EU on the principle of no tariffs, no quotas and no rules of origin. Do the Government accept that analysis?
Thirdly, do the Government accept that for the foreseeable future—and no one knows how long that future might be—while advanced technology and behind-the-border checks may minimise the policing, bureaucracy and delays involved in border checks, they cannot substitute for them? That was the authoritative evidence given to our Select Committee by the customs experts who came from Norway and Switzerland to talk to us.
Fourthly, do the Government therefore logically agree that the only way of avoiding the re-imposition of border checks in Ireland is an agreement whereby the island of Ireland remains within the EU customs territory and regulations on both sides of the border are closely aligned? If not, will the Minister tell us what might be possible?
Fifthly, if the Minister does agree and the Government want to avoid a customs border in the Irish Sea because they want, reasonably, to maintain the integrity of the United Kingdom, is not the logic of that position that it requires Great Britain as a whole to abide by the rules of a customs union and maintain general regulatory alignment with the EU?
The Government have to come clean on these questions. What are their answers? I look forward to the summing up of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and seeing whether he has anything to say.
If the Government accept these propositions, how can they honestly go back to Brussels and argue that the backstop can be time limited, have a unilateral exit clause or even be eliminated altogether, when as recently as last autumn they agreed to all these things? What credibility would such a request have in Brussels without some clearly specified alternative, of which at the moment there is precisely none? Can the Minister give us an inkling of what the alternative to the backstop might be?
Finally, is it not sad and deplorable that a desperate attempt to restore the unity of the Conservative Party is once again being put ahead of the national interest and continued peace in Ireland?
Lord Ricketts (CB)
My Lords, we are at the stage of the debate where everything has been said but not yet by everyone, and therefore I think it is best to be short.
To vary just a little what has been said this evening, I thought that I would do an exercise in imagination. I am not a very imaginative person but I have tried to imagine what the conversation would be like between the Prime Minister and Mr Juncker if Sir Graham Brady’s amendment passed in another place tomorrow.
I suppose that it would start with the Prime Minister going back to Brussels and saying, “Jean-Claude, I’ve got great news. I’ve got a parliamentary majority—for something”, to which the reply is, “Yes? Well, what’s the plan?” The Prime Minister says, “The plan is that we delete the backstop in its entirety and put in its place alternative arrangements”. I suppose that the EU reply would be, “So now you’re proposing to strip out the central and most hard-fought part of the negotiation that took 21 of the 24 months of the Article 50 period and which you agreed in outline in December 2017 and in detail in November of this year? What alternative arrangements are you proposing to put in its place?”, to which the Prime Minister might say, “Well, I don’t have any instructions from the House of Commons on that. What do you suggest, Jean-Claude?” He might say, “What about a customs union for the whole of the UK? That would resolve the problem of the Northern Ireland backstop and give the certainty to business that you say is so necessary”. The Prime Minister’s reply would be, “Ah, no. That crosses my red line”.
This is no way for a major country of the United Kingdom’s standing or any country negotiating with the EU to proceed. It would mean the Prime Minister once again ricocheting between the Commons and the Commission like a pinball with no proposals of her own and constantly waiting for the EU to supply the answers. In practice, a majority for Sir Graham Brady’s amendment would be a vote for no deal, because there would be no time to work out any alternative to the central feature of the backstop. It might be an attempt to shift the blame to the EU, but that is a manoeuvre that will convince no one.
The more the implications of no deal are studied, the clearer it becomes that it would be disastrous across whole sectors of our national life. The letter from the major supermarket chains today about the devastating impact on the availability of fresh fruit and vegetables in British supermarkets is one vivid illustration. I saw precisely that when I was ambassador in Paris and we had the short-term delay in 2015 caused by both migrants and a French seamen’s strike. Within days, the supermarket shelves were beginning to empty. In the case of no deal, that would become a permanent position.
I have been convinced for a long time that a no-deal Brexit would do serious damage to our security—the area that I know best. Noble Lords do not need to take just my advice on that; my noble friend Lady Manningham-Buller made that clear in the House recently and again in authoritative terms on the BBC’s “World at One” programme today. The police force consulted the Schengen Information System 539 million times in 2017, but access to that would be shut down from one day to the next if we left with no deal.
The EU might put in place temporary emergency contingency arrangements to keep the traffic flowing for a short time but we will be entirely dependent on the good will of the EU to make that work, even for a short time, and that good will will be in very short supply. Try selling that to potential future investors in this country as a worthwhile proposition. When we hear that the Cabinet Office Civil Contingencies Secretariat, which used to report to me as National Security Adviser, has been dusting down martial law arrangements for dealing with disorder in the event of a no-deal Brexit, what are we to think of the pass that this country has come to? Incidentally, it might be interesting if the Minister could update the House on how that work in the Cabinet Office is progressing.
I, for my part, hope that Members in the other place will not be seduced by siren songs that stripping the heart out of the Prime Minister’s plan can in some way advance towards a deal with Brussels. I believe that that is a direct route to no deal. The thrust of Yvette Cooper’s amendment makes much more sense: ruling out no deal and looking forward to more time should there be no solution after four more weeks. That is the thrust of the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, this evening, and I will be supporting it.
We need to bear in mind the damage already done to the standing of this country internationally by the spectacle that we have presented over the last two years of so-called negotiation. We have suffered a serious loss of reputation. We are still miles away from any consensus on how to take things forward. Yes, I detect a growing momentum towards accepting that no deal should be taken off the table. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, my studies of deterrence suggest that it is not very credible when exercising the deterrent would involve a massive act of self-harm.
The emerging conclusion that more time will be needed is interesting and makes sense, but more time for what? We are a long way from any clarity on that. This Government’s negotiating approach in the last year, frankly, does not give me much confidence that they will be open to genuine fresh thinking. That is why I believe that, while more time is needed, it must be coupled with further democratic consultation of the people, in the light of facts that have come out in the last two years and for the sake of our children and grandchildren.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, like a number of others, I supported the idea of having a referendum with no particular terms in it as to what might be decided. The Government made it plain in literature put out to every house that the referendum result would be implemented. That was a sad situation as far as I am concerned, because I happened to vote remain, but I believe that we are under an obligation if at all possible to give effect to the view that was expressed in the referendum. It is absolutely essential that the Government and the House of Commons make a real effort to do this.
It is true that people have different ideas. But, in order to get this done, you have to get an idea that seems generally to prevail. That is what I assume the House of Commons will try to do tomorrow. I suggested some time ago in a correspondence in the Times that a series of alternatives should be put against the Prime Minister’s deal to see where the major change was wanted. That has not happened so far—although exactly what will happen tomorrow in the House of Commons I am not sufficient of a prophet to be able to say. Members seem to be embarking on a very difficult procedure, but I wish them every success in coming out with a clear result.
As far as this House is concerned, we have had some very interesting speeches. I am not attempting to make one. The noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Owen, have presented interesting views which I am sure should commend themselves to the House of Commons. In my view, the peace and security of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom are fundamental. Getting a border of the right kind between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, in the event of our coming out of the European Union, requires that the rules on both sides are the same. There is scope for changing the rules on both sides in the future, but having the same rules is required.
There is a lot of talk about the customs union and the single market. We have to remember that, by the time the referendum vote was taken, Mr Cameron had secured a binding agreement with the European Union that we were no longer part of the movement towards a closer political union. Therefore, at that time the only elements that were really important in our relationship with Europe were the customs union and the single market. So, if we are properly to give effect to the result of the referendum, we cannot remain in the customs union and the single market—but of course we may be able to have customs arrangements that enable us, for example, to have bargains outside. That was certainly one of the prominent points of view of the leavers in the argument that went forward.
It therefore seems essential that, while it is for the House of Commons to make the decision, we as a political unit should come forward with a proper arrangement that meets the House of Commons’ wishes, in the hope that it will also meet the wishes of the European Union, to give effect to the referendum in a way that preserves the rules between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. In a sense, that is the backstop. Of course, the situation is that the negotiations about exactly what these rules should be are matters that can be open—but it would be necessary to preserve the continuity when you change the rules.
I entirely agree with those who believe that no deal would be a disaster for the UK and for the European Union. Most of the arguments that I have heard about this concern the economic aspects of the matter, but there are far more important relationships than that: security arrangements have been mentioned, and I must say that I am very conscious of the medical arrangements that are required to be made. We very much need to have proper uniformity in clinical trials, for example, and that is not easy to achieve. There are delicate arrangements in the process of being carried out, but unfortunately Brexit will come before they are completed, so it is very difficult to be sure.
When I came here this afternoon I was very happy to vote for the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. However, I am very sorry to say that I understand it somewhat differently from the way that she put it forward. The first part requires,
“Her Majesty’s Government to take all appropriate steps to ensure that … the United Kingdom does not leave the European Union without an agreement with the European Union”.
Well, the best way to secure that is to secure an agreement; it is nothing to do with no deal. You do it by securing an agreement. I would be happy with that and would like to see it happen—very much so. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, the terms of the Motion are perfectly in accordance with what the Prime Minister wants: namely, to get an agreement that is effective and supported by the House of Commons—and then, we hope, supported by the European Union.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for allowing me to participate: I am afraid that I could not get my name down early enough.
Following on from what my noble friend Lord Dobbs said about the Berlin Wall, in 1961 I went to the Staatsoper in East Berlin to see the ballet and then came out. I did not realise until 1979, when I went through with a brigadier-general controlling our brigades over there, that where I came out in 1961 was Checkpoint Charlie.
I have been involved in the delivery of trade and tourism in all its forms throughout most of my working life worldwide via shipping, aviation and road and ground transport—and I still am. Nearly two years ago I was asked if I could advise the Government on what withdrawing from the European Union would likely be. The Government have the updated report, plus views on a no deal. At the very beginning of last August I was asked to meet with John Manzoni, the head of the Civil Service and responsible for the plans to handle the no-deal scenario. Some of the news appearing in the media was conveying the impression that no deal would be close to the beginning of World War III, particularly regarding the Straits of Dover. Even today, words like “dire” have been used.
The report was put together by former senior P&O colleagues of mine who are now working for companies which acquired parts of the P&O SN Co., DP World and Hutchison Ports. They live these subjects and have a unique knowledge of customs clearance. As I am sure noble Lords are aware, world trade is increasingly handled electronically and the speed of development is quite astonishing. I suggest that this will play a key role in helping deal with the uncertainty in Ireland.
I must make it very clear that these colleagues and I have carried out this work on a totally non-political basis. My deep concern today is not with regard to these subjects, but that over the past couple of years we have steadily been undermining our great country’s reputation worldwide. In Europe, the Commonwealth, the United States, the Far East, Africa and most of the rest of the world, this country has always been regarded as by far the best example of democracy at its finest, backed up by the rule of law and, most importantly, the lack of corruption.
If withdrawal does not proceed in the way in which the people of this country voted, we will lose for all time the moral respect and influence and—perhaps most importantly—the unique fabric of our Parliament, which can ride and override the shock absorbers of change. This is what our children and grandchildren, and the future generations of this country, are entitled to be proud of. That respect will also play a most significant part when negotiating future trade deals.
Of Peers in this House and Members of the other place who always wished to remain—and these views I totally respect—and those tomorrow who will be pushing for amendments, I ask: if the result of the referendum had been 52% to remain against 48% to leave, would the result be questioned? I suggest that the answer would surely be that democracy had spoken.
My noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford today said it much more eloquently than I ever could. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will wish that this great country should continue to make a difference in world affairs, as it has done through history.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the sunlit uplands of Brexit have disappeared into the fog. The land of milk and honey has morphed into the country of damaged prosperity, with jobs in peril. Brexit-supporting businessman James Dyson is upping sticks and moving his business to Singapore, while Jacob Rees-Mogg is moving his money to Dublin to continue to enjoy the benefits of the single market. It sounds like a case of rats leaving a sinking ship.
Instead of £350 million a week for the NHS, we have a health service haemorrhaging EU nurses it cannot afford to lose. Liam Fox, a man who invoked the slogan “Let’s give our NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week”, claims that delaying Brexit would open up a gulf in trust with the electorate. That is beyond parody.
The possibility of a crash-out no deal, hopefully ruled out by MPs tomorrow, apparently raises for the Government a prospect of civil disorder requiring troops and martial law. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, that ruling out no deal is not institutionalised timidity but about ensuring that the British people get their food and vital medicines.
No longer promising Utopia, the pro-leave case now boils down, at best, to how we must grit our teeth and summon up our blitz spirit to endure and survive the misery of the coming storm as it is “the will of the people”. There is no willingness, of course, to update our knowledge of what that “will” is in the light of Brexit reality rather than Brexit fantasy.
This gloomy prospect is now accompanied by abuse. It is not only abuse from the thugs who jostled and harassed Anna Soubry just yards from here, with the police apparently having forgotten what happened to Jo Cox, or the abuse affecting EU citizens and minority British citizens who are the target of hate speech and hate crime, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire. Unacceptable language is also coming from senior members of the Tory party. We heard former Minister and ERG leading light, Suella Braverman, directing against a former Prime Minister of her own party, Sir John Major, the populist insult of “remainer elite”, leaving aside that he was brought up in Brixton with no silver spoon and no Eton mess, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, put it, unlike some Brexiters we could think of. Miss Braverman, I believe, attended Oxford and the Sorbonne. Her sense of irony seems deficient.
Just this weekend, ERG member and former Tory Whip Mark Francois accused Airbus boss Tom Enders of ‘Teutonic arrogance” adding, “My father was a D-day veteran; he never submitted to bullying by any German and neither will his son”. He was talking about the boss of a company which provides 14,000 jobs in this country directly and another 120,000 in the supply chain. I wonder whether these remarks came up in any conversations that our Prime Minister is having with Angela Merkel. I cannot see the German Chancellor being much impressed by Mr Francois’ idea of winning friends and influencing people. Quite how this type of pseudo-Churchillian rhetoric, as one journalist aptly described it, is supposed to be helpful in the contemporary promotion of “global Britain” is beyond my comprehension.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hain, about the disgraceful attitude from too many in public life towards the Irish Government, whom we need as friends. It would be good if the Prime Minister brought these people in her party to heel. The trouble is that she set the tone of unpleasantness with her “Go Home” vans and “hostile environment” at the Home Office, culminating in the scandal of Windrush. It was she who called her internationalist countrymen citizens of nowhere and called EU free-movers queue-jumpers. She even once made up a totally false story about how a migrant was invoking in his claim to stay his human right to have a relationship with his cat. You would never think from all these gratuitous insults that this is the group who won. Surely they should be full of joie de vivre, confident in their own assurance that Brexit is a fabulous idea that will make everyone better off. Or do they know it will not?
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, quite correctly wants these divisions to be healed, but when the Prime Minister claimed, as she did last week, that,
“a second referendum could damage social cohesion”,—[Official Report, Commons, 21/1/19; col. 26.]
I think we are entitled to retort in the light of Tory Brexiter utterances: “Physician, heal thyself and thy party”. Brexiter politicians, who are allowing themselves plenty of opportunities to review and change their mind, insist on denying even one such opportunity to the voters. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, that it was in fact Nigel Farage who said that, if remain won, he would want a further referendum.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, I would be interested in hearing from the Minister the latest on the manoeuvring to get the backstop removed. Is it true that the Government are putting a three-line Whip on the Murrison-Brady amendment tomorrow which they know the EU will reject because it is incompatible with the withdrawal agreement? Apparently, the ERG is rejecting it, too, so what is the point? The noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, explained that there is none.
The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, said that the British people voted for Brexit. Is he able to tell us which of the 57 varieties the 37% voted for? I gently remind the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that my noble friend Lord Newby did not say that the 37% does not count. That is not the attitude of any remainer I know. My noble friend simply corrected the Minister, who said last week that leave voters represented a majority of the population.
The country needs an end to hypocrisy and double standards, and the same chance to think again that MPs are being allowed. We must have a people’s vote with an option to stay in the EU. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem said, we will accept the result of a further referendum based on informed consent. Then we would make a start on achieving real social cohesion in this country. In the meantime, these Benches will support the opposition Motion.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I sometimes feel that Sir George Rostrevor Hamilton had Boris Johnson in mind when he wrote of political columnists:
“I am the daily mentor who
Tells the Premier what to do
And when she’s done it, I go on
To tell her what she should have done”.
Of course, Boris Johnson was no mere mentor. He was a player, tasked with taking the UK out of the EU such as to preserve the exact same benefits as membership. He, David Davis and Dominic Raab failed to negotiate a deal acceptable to Northern Ireland or to Parliament. Having got the Premier to adopt unhelpful red lines, they then jumped ship and, as foreseen by Sir George, now shout from the sidelines what she should have done. Worse, the ERG now lays down new demands that we should contemplate a no-deal exit. These siren voices—despite rocks, storms and tides—lure the PM towards, if not a shipwreck, at least holding the country below the water.
That is not my prediction. Despite what we have just heard, P&O—which knows a thing or two about rocks, tides and undertows—will re-register its fleet under the Cypriot flag, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has revealed. Bentley, Dixons and drugs companies are stock-piling and, as we have heard, a number of supermarkets have pleaded against no deal not only because prices will go up but because shelves might be empty. The CBI demands that no deal be ruled out, and the British Chambers of Commerce reports thousands of companies triggering emergency plans to cope with no deal, many even moving outside the UK should we crash out.
Tom Enders, CEO of Airbus—which has 14,000 skilled workers, plus 110,000 in the supply chain—says that the company could pull out of the UK if there is no deal, and begs us not to,
“listen to the Brexiteers’ madness which asserts that, because we have huge plants here, we will not move and we will always be here. They are wrong”.
Business Minister Richard Harrington described the example of Airbus as a “disaster”, and warned that no deal would also threaten car manufacturing. It seems that the ERG is deaf to such realities. Ex-Minister David Jones claims that Airbus does not understand the aerospace industry—rather like Boris Johnson claiming that Jaguar Land Rover does not understand the motor industry.
Luckily, there are some grown-ups in the Government who are rather more realistic. Philip Hammond described no deal as a “betrayal” of the referendum, and he reassured business that it would be defeated in Parliament. The Justice Secretary David Gauke calls it “disastrous” and, along with Richard Harrington and Health Minister Steve Brine, suggested he could not remain in a Government where this was the preferred option. Tobias Ellwood says the option must be ruled out, it being,
“wrong for government and business to invest any more time and money in a no-deal outcome”.
Of course, travel is threatened by a crash out—partly because 3.5 million passports might not be valid in some EU countries, and up to 5 million airline tickets could be cancelled if the EU freezes a number of flights, as proposed. The Manchester Airports Group forecasts,
“lasting consequences of a disorderly exit … on economic growth, consumer confidence and business investment”.
Freight is similarly at risk, with cross-channel ferry trade possibly dropping by 87%; it is the Border Force—perhaps on the noble Lord’s advice—which used that figure.
The poultry industry, producing half the meat we eat, says that the consequences of no deal would be catastrophic for its 38,000 workforce and for consumers. Britain could risk £1 billion in tax. Crucially, it fears,
“a two-tier food system where only the affluent can afford to eat British poultry that meets British standards”.
As the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, said, almost all Welsh meat exports go to the EU, so no deal would be horrific. Little wonder that the National Assembly for Wales called for the emergency reconvening of the UK Joint Ministerial Committee to seek agreement on ruling out a no-deal exit.
The Met Police head of counterterrorism spoke of his deep concern about a no-deal Brexit loss of intelligence and data sharing with Europe, which would leave Britain less safe. We heard a similar concern from the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, and the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, warned that no deal would leave us less safe. We know of the dangers for the good people of Gibraltar.
No deal means no transition period, so it means the immediate imposition of tariffs, rules of origin declarations, border checks and British citizens in Europe plunged into uncertainty, with possible loss of residence and employment rights. If this were not so serious, it would be a great James Graham play, but this is for real.
Parliament itself has challenges ahead. Originally the Government planned for the Commons approval to take place on 11 December and the withdrawal agreement being introduced on 12 December. It was envisaged that the five-week Christmas delay would be followed by acceptance by the House of Commons on 15 January, and of the Bill on 16 January. The 230 defeat ended that, but even if the deal were struck tomorrow, we would be facing a daunting task of handling seven or more Bills and a few hundred SIs in 60 days—37 sitting days. It is beginning to sound like sitting nights rather than sitting days.
Now we hear that the Government are going to take it back to the House of Commons on 13 February, so that would mean even fewer sitting days to deal with the legislation. Should the Chief Whip be dreaming of fast-tracking Bills, he had perhaps better reread our Constitution Committee’s 2009 report on which “exceptional circumstances” might justify fast-tracking, and its calls for proper scrutiny to include time for consultation and for full transparency. It also notes that fast-tracking should not be used for predictable issues and should involve cross-party agreement and that any relevant legal action should be published. The Constitution Committee stressed that your Lordships’ House’s constitutional responsibilities would be heightened for fast-tracking.
Given that we know that the withdrawal agreement Bill exists, because it was planned to be introduced some time ago, perhaps the Minister could release relevant clauses to our Constitution Committee now so that proper scrutiny of the novel, complicated legal issues can begin. Will he also guarantee that there will be sufficient parliamentary time to scrutinise all relevant legislation, if necessary by extending Article 50? All this suggests that for business, for Parliament, for the Civil Service and for transport planning, in order to build consensus we need more time on this major constitutional and economic issue. We must denounce no deal in the way described by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and find a way forward in the interests of the whole of the UK, our citizens here and those in the EU. I urge support for the Motion shortly to be moved by my noble friend, which rules out no deal and calls for time for us to facilitate any legislation agreed by the Commons.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, helpfully reminded us, here we are again. As my noble friend the Leader noted in her opening remarks, this is not the first such debate that I have had the pleasure of responding to in recent weeks. However, as always, I am grateful for the insightful contributions of noble Lords, who have examined the breadth and depth of the withdrawal agreement and political declaration. It was a particular pleasure to see my noble friend Lord Saatchi fully recovered and back in his place.
I have heard, and of course recognise, the differing and strongly held views from all sides of the House on the next steps in this process. I am grateful to noble Lords for voicing these views and pay tribute in particular to the work of the Select Committees, which have taken a constructive approach and are ensuring that the statute book is ready for exit day. I echo the words of my noble friend the Leader in extending my gratitude also to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and its two sub-committees, chaired by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and my geographical neighbour, the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham of Felling, for all their work in the scrutiny of that legislation.
That work includes the scrutiny of statutory instruments. I can tell the House that, as of today, we have laid more than 350 of them. These SIs help provide certainty for businesses and the public by ensuring that we have a functioning statute book when we leave the European Union. The majority are needed in either a deal or a no-deal scenario as they will be deferred to the end of an implementation period if they are no longer needed on 29 March. All instruments and the procedure they follow can be found online via GOV.UK or legislation.gov.uk, and Parliament’s own SI tracker also has all this information. I say that because many noble Lords are writing to me daily, asking me for updates on where we are with that programme.
Let me be clear: the Government are committed to honouring the mandate of the British people and leaving the European Union in a way that benefits every part of our United Kingdom and every citizen of our country. Before I respond to the points raised in the debate, including the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, I will take a moment to respond to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, regarding the referendum vote and my response to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, last week. As I have made clear, the referendum result demonstrated that a majority of those who voted voted for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. I am sure all those present will have understood the correct position but, none the less, I am happy to make it clear to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness.
The best way for us to leave in an orderly manner is with a good deal. I note the arguments made by many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, Lord Kerr, Lord Hain and Lord Liddle, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, all of whom are asking me to rule out no deal. There is a way to rule out no deal, which is for the other place to approve a deal negotiated with the European Union.
The Labour Party is fond of quoting the former Foreign Secretary, with his “cakeism” policy, but the Labour Party itself is adopting a negative “cakeism” policy. It is saying that we cannot accept the best and only cake available, but also that we cannot accept having no cake at all. Labour cannot carry on saying no to everything. I noticed that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, spent an awful lot of her speech telling us what she was against but very little of it telling us what she was in favour of.
Of course, the only other guaranteed way to avoid a no-deal Brexit is to revoke Article 50, which would mean staying in the EU. That is certainly not acceptable to this Government and, as far as I am aware, it is not advocated by any other party in this House. Noble Lords, including the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who would like to extend Article 50, will of course be all too well aware that that this is not a unilateral option. An extension would require the consent of all 27 member states. As the Prime Minister correctly highlighted in the other place last week,
“the EU is very unlikely simply to agree to extend Article 50 without a plan for how we are going to approve a deal”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/1/19; col. 25.]
Deferral is not a decision. I refer noble Lords who doubt that to the statement of the President of Lithuania last week. My noble friend Lord Balfe also made a particularly important point when he observed that the last session of the current European Parliament is on 18 April. I remind noble Lords that the European Parliament also needs to approve the withdrawal agreement.
We want a smooth and orderly Brexit, with a deal that protects our union, gives us control of our borders, laws and money, and means that we have an independent trade policy. Following the clear message from the other place earlier this month, the Government are working hard to speak to MPs from all parties to find a way forward together that delivers on the referendum and commands parliamentary support. I agree with my noble friend Lord Shinkwin that the British people expect the Government to honour the referendum mandate and deliver Brexit in a way that benefits every citizen of our country—and that is what we are committed to doing.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Newby, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, Lord Dykes, Lord Hain and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft have also, once again, expressed their preference for a second referendum, although I have noticed that their campaign has not had the courage to propose an amendment to this end in the House of Commons, so perhaps this option would have less support than they pretend.
It will come as no surprise to noble Lords when I tell the House that it is still not the Government’s intention to hold a second referendum. I think the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, wins the prize for the masochist Peer of the year with his call for both a second referendum and a general election. I was particularly struck by that, and I think that the noble Baroness should send him to Bristol to convey personally the good news to Brenda of her forthcoming travails.
This Government remain committed to respecting the clear result of the 2016 referendum, and on this I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai. I also very much agreed with the excellent speech by my noble friend Lord Dobbs, in which he said that a second referendum would not be a people’s vote, it would be a politicians’ vote, or, as he described it, a losers’ charter—politicians telling the people that they got it wrong the first time. We have been very clear about the dangers of calling a second referendum for democracy and the faith of the British people in our political system. We believe that it would divide the country. On that point, I agree with my noble friend Lord Sterling.
A fortnight ago I responded to a Question for Short Debate from the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, setting out the many steps that would be required to set up a referendum. In the first instance it would require primary legislation, which, taken alone, would require time and a consensus on key questions such as the franchise or the date on which the poll would take place. I highlighted to noble Lords, as I closed that debate, the fact that it took seven months for the previous referendum Act to pass through Parliament, and that was with a Government who had a majority in the House of Commons acting on a manifesto commitment.
This timescale does not include the time needed to adequately take the other steps required. For example, the Electoral Commission recommend that referendum legislation should be clear at least six months before it is required to be implemented or complied with. Noble Lords may have seen the comments of the incoming interim chief executive of the Electoral Commission reported in Saturday’s Guardian. He said that,
“it’s difficult to think that it would be sensible for parliament simply to take the rules from the last referendum and paste them across”.
He was arguing that the whole of the referendum legislation needs to be looked at first. This Government remain committed to the clear result of the referendum and the democratic process that delivered that result. Noble Lords should not underestimate the division and dangerous precedent that would be created if we were to second-guess the result of that referendum.
Many noble Lords, including my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Owen, have spoken with great insight about the Northern Ireland backstop, and expressed concerns about it, although I also notice that there were speeches supportive of the backstop from the noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Ricketts, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. As the Prime Minister has said, we recognise the concerns that many have expressed regarding the backstop. The backstop is our ultimate safeguard: in the event that there is a gap between the end of the implementation period and the start of our new ambitious relationship, we will still uphold the commitments of the Belfast agreement and ensure that there is no return to a hard border. This is, in our view, essential to safeguarding the lives and livelihoods of the people of Northern Ireland.
Let us be clear: both the UK and the EU agree that the backstop should not need to come into effect and have committed to using our best endeavours to take the necessary steps to conclude a final deal that supersedes it in full by the end of the implementation period.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, that that is why the Government are engaging with Members of both Houses to find a way in which we can meet our obligations to the people of Northern Ireland and Ireland in a way that Parliament can support. If he can have a little patience, the Prime Minister will set out her conclusions in her closing speech tomorrow.
Let me repeat: let us be in no doubt that this Government are wholly committed to the Belfast agreement and will work to ensure that there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
Before I conclude, I must address the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. I appreciate the sentiments in it—not least the call to take all appropriate steps to ensure that the UK does not leave without a deal—but, as it is the legal default, we cannot completely rule out no deal.
I remind noble Lords that this is exactly what the Prime Minister and her team of negotiators have been doing for the past two years: trying to agree a deal which will, of course, rule out no deal. It was the result of that work that was put to the other place for approval. Although the outcome of that vote was—to put it mildly—not the one that the Government wanted, it was clear that there was much that was supported in the withdrawal agreement. We are now keen to work with politicians from all sides, as the Prime Minister has been doing, to see how we can address those concerns. That dialogue will be essential to securing a successful exit with a deal—on that point, I agree with my noble friend the Duke of Wellington.
I therefore assume that that section of the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, was taken from a letter that she has also sent to the leader of her own party. It is pleasing to hear her speak of the importance that she and her party place on the timely passage of legislation, and her remarks on the subject of filibustering in the media last week. To be clear, we remain committed to ensuring that all the necessary legislation required is in place for exit day on 29 March 2019. As my noble friend the Leader of the House said, in organising the forward programme of work, both she and the Chief Whip will work with the usual channels and seek to give as much notice of our timetable as is practical, and will also work flexibly with timetabling.
In response to the question posed to me by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, about the Cooper Bill, although I cannot speak for any individual Back-Bencher, I can confirm that I am not aware of any such discussion and would be very surprised if that were the case. It is not for me to speculate on how MPs will vote, but I am sure that this House will consider all legislation passed by the Commons in the usual way.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
My Lords, in the light of what the Minister has said, can he tell us which part of the opposition amendment he opposes? We know, as he said, that it is the Prime Minister’s determination to “take all appropriate steps” to get an agreement—so that is the first part of the amendment. The second part is to provide,
“for this House to ensure the timely passage of legislation necessary to implement any deal or proposition”.
He just said that that is what the Government also want. On what grounds could he oppose the Opposition’s amendment?
Lord Callanan
Because the noble Baroness is asking us to take no deal off the table, and we do not think that that is possible because it is the legal default—as I have said many times in this House—because of the notification of withdrawal Act, because of the Article 50 process and because of the withdrawal Act passed in the summer.
My noble friend Lord Balfe asked me how much discussion there has been between Her Majesty’s Government and the incoming Finnish presidency. We are engaging with the Finns through our embassy in Helsinki. This engagement will increase, including potential secondees, as their preparation for the presidency develops.
As I conclude, I think it would be helpful to recap the way forward for this House and the other place. The rejection of the deal two weeks ago was obviously a disappointing moment for this Government. We are mindful that we cannot legally ratify the withdrawal agreement until a deal has been approved, and therefore the defeat precipitated some serious reflection on the concerns expressed by both MPs and Members of this House.
The best way forward, I repeat, is to leave in an orderly way with a good deal. It is not our strategy to run down the clock to 29 March. As the Leader of the House set out in her opening speech, the Prime Minister has highlighted a number of areas in which we intend to address concerns going forward. I have expanded on some of those this evening, including responding to concerns on the backstop, engaging with Parliament as we head to the second phase of negotiations, and demonstrating our commitment to social and environmental protections. It is these proposals, along with amendments to the Government’s Motion, that the other place will consider tomorrow. As the Prime Minister has said, we should all be prepared to work together to find a way forward, given the importance of this issue.
I know that many noble Lords will be following the debate there as keenly as we in government are listening to what is said in this place—and noble Lords’ words will be heard in the other place. We believe that the way forward that we have set out is the only way to seek to address the concerns of Members in both Houses at the same time as respecting the 17.4 million people across the UK who voted in favour of leaving the European Union.
Lord Cormack
As one who genuinely wants this to work out—as the Government wish it to work out—I ask: why are we going to the trouble of dividing on an unexceptional, entirely sensible, logical Motion that almost all of us in our hearts believe to be right?
Lord Callanan
I refer the noble Lord to the question that I answered earlier. We cannot completely rule out no deal because, as I have repeatedly said, that is the legal default—and that is what the Motion is asking us to do.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, it is true that in my winding-up speech I did say that we should denounce no deal, but the Motion that will be moved does not say that. It asks us to seek an agreement.
Lord Callanan
We are going round in circles here. I refer to the point that I made. Has somebody got a copy of the Motion?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
While the noble Lord is searching for a copy, I refer him to the part of my Motion that he complained about, which calls on,
“Her Majesty’s Government to take all appropriate steps to ensure that … the United Kingdom does not leave the European Union without an agreement”.
That includes getting a deal that is acceptable to the other place. What is it that he objects to?
Lord Callanan
I think that you can read that as taking no deal off the table. Of course, we are doing our best. No deal is not our preferred option. We want to avoid no deal if at all possible, but we continue to believe that the best way to avoid no deal is to vote for a deal. For the Labour Party to come along here and say that it is against everything, without putting forward any positive proposals, is not acceptable.
I have set out our position. If the noble Baroness wishes to move her Motion, she is entitled to do so. That is the end of my remarks.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, it is absolutely plain that the Motion put down does not exclude expressly the no-deal situation. If we compare this with the Motion that was put down last time, it is different. What is required here—and it is an effort that I thoroughly support—is that everything should be done to get a satisfactory agreement and that we do not go out without an agreement. Surely, the right way to do that is to try to get an agreement. I look to the House of Commons to say tomorrow what its preferred alternative is to what the Prime Minister has done so far.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That this House, noting both its resolution of 14 January and the resolution of the House of Commons of 15 January, calls on Her Majesty’s Government to take all appropriate steps to ensure that (1) the United Kingdom does not leave the European Union without an agreement with the European Union, and (2) sufficient time is provided for this House to ensure the timely passage of legislation necessary to implement any deal or proposition that has commanded the support of the majority of the House of Commons.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, we have had the debate. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said; he did not make his case. I beg to move.