House of Commons
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
There are 200,000 more people in employment in Yorkshire and the Humber today than in 2010. Unemployment has fallen by over 45%, and it is currently the second fastest growing jobs market in the UK. Since 2010, nearly 70,000 more businesses have been created, and the region has seen growth of 21%.
John Grogan
In the light of figures produced by the Economic Statistics Centre of Excellence, which suggest that growth in Yorkshire and the Humber has been less than 1% since 2010, whereas it has been over 3% in London, is it not time for Ministers to start talking seriously to the 18 Conservative and Labour local authority leaders who advocate One Yorkshire devolution, with transitional arrangements in South Yorkshire and elsewhere?
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government is reviewing the proposals of the One Yorkshire consortium. It is our priority—I think it is a reasonable one—that the Sheffield city region and its mayor is taken forward and that the mayor is able to fully perform his functions on behalf of the people who elected him a year ago. We have said that the purpose of devolution is to create a mayoralty around a functioning economic geography. It is not clear that that case has yet been made by an historic county of the scale of Yorkshire, but we will continue to consider the proposals.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
One scheme that is vital in my constituency for promoting economic growth is the Shipley eastern bypass. The Secretary of State for Transport has visited twice and made it clear that he supports the scheme and would like to ensure that it is implemented. Will the Treasury ensure that he has the funding to make the Shipley eastern bypass a reality?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend and I have discussed the Shipley eastern bypass on several occasions. We have put a record amount of money into our strategic roads network. By hypothecating vehicle excise duty, the amount of money available for road spend in the second road investment strategy period will be almost 175% of the previous period, which is a substantial increase in investment in our roads.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Centre for Cities report published yesterday shows that there is low productivity in York but also serious levels of underemployment. What are the Government doing to address underemployment and ensure that we get the maximum benefit for our economy?
Robert Jenrick
Through our productivity plan, we are investing more in the skills base in all parts of the country, whether that be through apprenticeships, the national retraining scheme or raising standards in our schools. We are also investing more in our infrastructure. Over the last four years, there has been a 50% increase in public investment in infrastructure in Yorkshire and the Humber compared with the last four years of the Labour Government. The hon. Lady and I met recently to discuss her plans in York for the high street and improving the city centre, which we wish to support.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that well-run city regions are the key drivers of productivity and prosperity and that Yorkshire’s economy is best served by devolution to the city regions of Sheffield, Leeds, Hull and York?
Robert Jenrick
We are seeing mayors across the country driving their regions’ economic strategy, including great mayors like Ben Houchen in the Tees Valley and Andy Street in the West Midlands. We want to see more mayors, but we have to be mindful of the original purpose of devolution, which, as my hon. Friend said, is the role of cities and their immediate hinterland in driving productivity and economic growth.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
The UK is one of the best places in the world to start a business, and a new business is being established every 75 seconds in this country. The Government champion entrepreneurship by keeping business taxes low and helping entrepreneurs to access the finance they need.
Will Quince
New and growing businesses in Colchester such as Ryza Media, Three Wise Monkeys, Heavenly Desserts and Beer Me Now are helping to drive our local economy. How will measures such as the start-up loans programme, cutting business rates by a third and entrepreneurs’ relief further encourage entrepreneurs in Colchester to thrive?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend has named some of the measures that we have recently brought forward to support entrepreneurship in all parts of the country. At the recent Budget, the Federation of Small Businesses declared it the most business-friendly Budget ever, and rightly so. We have extended the start-up loans scheme, helping an extra 10,000 entrepreneurs to get the capital they need, and with that—along with our reductions in business rates and with entrepreneurs’ relief, the seed enterprise investment scheme, the enterprise investment scheme and reductions in corporate taxes, including for small businesses—we are creating the most globally competitive tax regime to support those who create jobs and enterprise in our country.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Data suggest that new businesses struggle in areas where communities do not have free access to cash. As of this month, the mother town of the Potteries, Burslem—a town of 20,000 people—no longer has access to a free-to-use ATM. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can work together to fix this?
Robert Jenrick
I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady. We are continually pressing the Payment Systems Regulator and the LINK organisation, which manages the ATM network, to ensure a good supply of cash in all parts of the country. We recently issued a call for evidence at the Treasury to give greater consideration to how we can maintain that supply as we move to an increasingly cashless society and protect those who are vulnerable and harder to serve, perhaps including the hon. Lady’s constituents.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The Minister will know that Essex is the county of entrepreneurs. How are the Government supporting more small business creation, alongside new housing schemes such as the garden settlements that are proposed for the great county of Essex?
Robert Jenrick
I concur with everything my right hon. Friend has said. This is of course a country of entrepreneurs. All our most recent statistics have shown that the UK is attracting entrepreneurs from around the world. We are the third leading destination in the world, after the US and China, for inward investment. That is not happening by accident; it is happening as a result of the pro-business policies of this Government, creating the most globally competitive tax regime and investing in our productivity.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
Robert Jenrick
The Government are making a range of plans to support businesses in the event of all Brexit outcomes. For example, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is increasing its guidance to firms online and by writing to more than 140,000 businesses across the country to ensure that they make appropriate plans. As I have already described, in the Budget we made a whole range of moves to support small businesses across the country—business rates relief, the future high streets fund—all of which have been Barnetted. It is for the Scottish Government to come forward with their plans for how they intend to support small businesses; at the moment, there is only silence.
Mr Speaker
I note that “Barnett” has now become a verb, and we are grateful to the Minister for his ingenuity.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
In its report on small business, the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee drew attention to the need for consistency of advice for small businesses and those starting small businesses. In Rugby, that is provided by the growth hub, as part of the local enterprise partnership. Does the Minister agree with me that it is important that these bodies are properly resourced?
Robert Jenrick
We do agree with that. All the evidence suggests that small businesses would benefit from better quality advice across a range of areas. Recently in the Budget, we have supported extra funding for networks, to bring businesses together, and we are working across the Government to think about ways in which we can improve the quality of advice and increase competition within business advisory services.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister should take some advice from someone who has been in the House a long time: bragging about being an “every 75 minutes” Minister is very dangerous. I have just checked and in Huddersfield it is cloudy but not cold, but the economic temperature is freezing: start-ups are not starting, the new creative businesses are putting everything on hold, and until they have some reassurance about Brexit, they will not move.
Robert Jenrick
If the hon. Gentleman wanted to give greater certainty to businesses in his constituency, he would support the deal. He did not do so in the recent vote, but I hope he will come forward and do so shortly. I would not be so negative about the business community and the state of the economy in Yorkshire. We have record levels of employment, the jobs market is the second best in the country and real wages are rising. In Yorkshire, real wages and household disposable income are rising above the national average.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
Small and medium-sized businesses are the bedrock of Stirling’s economy and the engine of the UK economy. What is being done in practical terms to help those businesses find the funding that they need to scale up?
Robert Jenrick
We have made a number of interventions in this space, because as my hon. Friend says, while the UK is generating record numbers of start-ups, there is evidence that we need to help businesses to scale up and achieve their full potential. We launched the patient capital initiative, and we put £2.5 billion behind the British Business Bank to help small businesses in all parts of the country, including Scotland, and it is making good progress.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I am pleased to let the Minister know that in the next financial year, 90% of businesses in Scotland will pay less in business rates than they would if they were elsewhere in the UK. Following on from the question from the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), it is important that new firms have access to banking and lending facilities. What is the Minister doing to encourage banks to lend to businesses?
Robert Jenrick
We are taking a range of steps to ensure that banks are able to finance small businesses. For example, as I have just described, we are establishing the British Business Bank, which is supporting tens of thousands of businesses across the country, including many in Scotland, and helping to ensure that finance is available. The venture capital sector is vibrant and maturing in all parts of the country—not just the areas traditionally associated with venture capital, such as London, Oxford and Cambridge—and helping those businesses to scale up.
Kirsty Blackman
The news that Santander is to close 15 branches across Scotland will leave firms across the country without access to basic banking services. When did the Treasury become aware of that news, and what action has it taken to protect those services and those jobs in our local communities?
Robert Jenrick
We have taken action already to ensure that banks, including Santander, work more closely with post offices, so that there are always banking services available in all parts of the country. We give post offices over £50 million in financial support a year to help keep branches open, particularly in rural and harder-to-serve communities.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)
The national living wage was introduced by my predecessor. It will rise to £8.21 from April this year. In total, it will have delivered a pay rise of over £2,750 for a full-time minimum wage worker since its introduction in 2016. While we are proud of that achievement, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) will know that in the long term, sustainable pay growth relies on improving productivity. That is why we are investing heavily in infrastructure and are delivering a national retraining scheme to ensure that people are equipped for the technology revolution ahead.
Vicky Ford
What steps are the Government taking to make sure that everyone, including those on the lowest incomes, has the opportunity to save for their future?
Mr Hammond
The Government are committed to supporting savers at all levels of income and at all stages of life. In September 2018, we introduced Help to Save, which is targeted at people on low incomes and which Martin Lewis of moneysavingexpert.com described as
“a very clever scheme”
that
“enables people possibly to have the best of both worlds”.
It pays a 50% bonus on savings of up to £50 made by working families on low incomes. We have 80,000 accounts open already, and we expect the numbers to rise substantially over the next few months.
Neil O’Brien
My constituency has a quarter more businesses and 6,700 more people in work than in 2010, and Harborough district has seen the fastest growth in wages anywhere in the east midlands over the last five years, but we cannot rest on our laurels. To accommodate 230 more jobs, Harborough District Council is building a new “grow on space”. Will the Chancellor come and visit it once it is complete?
Mr Hammond
The sting was in the tale. I am delighted to welcome the new jobs that have been created in Harborough through the action of the council, no doubt with strong encouragement from my hon. Friend. The Government are keeping taxes low and are helping start-ups to access the support that they need. That is why 3.4 million new jobs and 1.2 million more businesses have been created since 2010. With regard to his generous invitation, as I visited his constituency and had the pleasure of seeing what was going on there only very recently, if he does not mind, I will offer it to one of my team.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Given that the Government’s own analysis shows that every region and every nation of the country will be poorer under any form of Brexit, does the Chancellor really believe that the lowest paid will be better off as a result of us leaving the EU?
Mr Hammond
The hon. Lady’s statistics are wrong. It is not right to say that every region will be worse off. Every region under every scenario will be better off. The UK economy will continue growing. [Interruption.] The UK economy will continue growing. There is no doubt, as the published cross-Government analysis shows, that leaving with a deal will best protect the UK economy and will be in the interests of all our constituents. I urge the hon. Lady to get behind the deal.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
Given what the Chancellor has said, why do large numbers of families in my constituency have to go to food banks? Many of them are on universal credit. Working families are having to use food banks in my constituency. What is he doing for them?
Mr Hammond
The measures we have taken to increase the national living wage, combined with the increases in the personal tax allowance, mean that a single person on national minimum wage will be £4,500 better off in terms of take-home pay than they would have been in 2010.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend is right and we are proud of that record. From 2015, 1.7 million of the lowest paid will be taken out of tax entirely and a typical basic rate taxpayer is £1,205 better off in terms of tax paid than in 2010-11. As I have just said, when we combine that with the changes to the national living wage, that is a £4,500 a year increase in take-home pay—8% in real terms, the largest increase across any part of the income distribution.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
Westminster has repeatedly failed to support Scottish National party demands to introduce a real living wage, ban unpaid trial shifts and extend rights to those in the gig economy. If Westminster will not act, when will employment law be devolved to allow the SNP Scottish Government to boost the wages of the lowest paid in Scotland?
Mr Hammond
As I have just said twice, we have substantially increased the national living wage and reduced the amount of tax that people on low incomes are paying. With regard to the question on the gig economy, the hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary is currently reviewing proposals for introducing additional employment protections to those in this sector of the economy.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
Last year, the Government published a comprehensive assessment of the impact of our departure from the European Union, covering four different scenarios and looking at the effect on GDP and GDP per capita on exports and imports. That analysis is available on gov.uk.
Stephen Timms
The British Retail Consortium estimates that if we leave the EU without a deal, new non-tariff barriers will add on average 29% to the cost of food imports from the EU, on top of new import duties on food. The Chancellor was surely right in his call to business leaders to argue for no deal to be taken off the table. Will he continue to press the Prime Minister to do so?
Mel Stride
What we will continue is our extensive planning for the possibility of a no-deal, day-one exit to make sure that our ports are indeed flowing and goods are moving, including food. But the best way to ensure that we have the right conditions for UK consumers is to back the deal that has been negotiated with the European Union.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, we would immediately be able to eliminate VAT on domestic fuel and reduce tariffs on foods imported from outside the European Union to zero?
Mel Stride
This country will achieve a range of additional flexibilities when we are outside the European Union. We will, of course, assess them all in due course, taking into account the fiscal costs of some of the measures that my hon. Friend has raised.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Mel Stride
The simple reality of the situation that Parliament finds itself in is that, in the event that we do not conclude a deal successfully with the European Union, this country may well leave without a deal. I urge the hon. Lady, in order to address the concerns that she has rightly raised in this House, to get behind the deal.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that the Government have no plans for any new non-tariff barriers and call out the British Retail Consortium’s recent “Project Fear” comments? Will he also confirm that it is within the Government’s power, after we leave, to reduce tariff barriers and tariffs on food and clothing?
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend raises two issues. On non-tariff barriers, we have made it very clear that we will implement a solution in the event of no deal, for example, that will be as friction-free as possible. But there will be requirements in that scenario for us to handle pre-custom declarations and various checks, which will come with having a border under those circumstances with the EU27. On our tariff policy, we will come to that in due course.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Stockpiling by business is at its second highest rate since 1992. The Treasury suggests that new customs paperwork for no deal would cost UK business £13 billion. When will the Minister’s boss, the Chancellor, stop arguing privately against no deal’s staying on the table and publicly take on the scorched-earth fantasists in his own party?
Mel Stride
The questions I have just responded to are in a similar vein and all lead back to one conclusion, which is that, if we are to avoid a no-deal scenario, there has, by definition, to be a deal that is agreed with the United Kingdom. We have a very good deal that the Prime Minister has negotiated and will be negotiating further with the European Union. It sees us respecting the outcome of the 2016 referendum but, most importantly, making sure that flows across our borders are as frictionless as possible.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)
The Prime Minister’s deal delivers the ability to negotiate free trade agreements with third-party countries and to protect trade with the EU. So I suggest that the SNP backs the deal, rather than try to stop Brexit.
Patrick Grady
Will the Minister confirm that we do not actually know any of the full economic effects because the Treasury has not conducted an economic analysis of the Prime Minister’s deal? On that basis, can it really be the Government’s view, as the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary told me a couple of weeks ago, that other European countries will be looking enviously at the UK’s position?
Elizabeth Truss
It is an absolute cheek for SNP Members to claim that there is an issue with our deal, given that they want to break up the UK. Some 61% of Scotland’s external sales are actually to the rest of the United Kingdom.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
In Scotland, goods exports to non-EU countries are higher than those to EU countries, so does my right hon. Friend agree that because of the trade deals that this Government are seeking to strike, Scotland will benefit from that growth?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is correct. Of course, Scotch whisky is one of our flagship exports right across the world. We have the opportunity to renegotiate some very high tariffs and make it even more of a bestseller.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Government’s deal was rejected by a record vote in the House. Business leaders in Scotland and across the UK want the Government to rule out any prospect of no deal, and the Chancellor told business leaders that that was possible, so why have the Government not ruled out any prospect of no deal?
Elizabeth Truss
It is important that we keep no deal on the table to get a better deal from the EU. I strongly encourage the hon. Gentleman to support our deal as the best way to take no deal off the table.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
Quite clearly, the Union of the UK is vital to the prosperity of Scotland and the border area. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree that Government initiatives, such as the borderlands growth initiative, also make a vital contribution to the prosperity and success of the region?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The borderlands deal is an important way of stimulating growth across the border area, although it would also help if the Scottish National party Government followed through in Scotland on things such as the tax cuts we have introduced elsewhere in the UK.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)
In 2010, the Government inherited from Labour a deficit at a post-war high. Since then, owing to decisions the Government have taken and the hard work of the British people, the deficit has reduced by about four fifths and is forecast to be just 1% of GDP by 2021-22. The Government’s balanced approach is ensuring that debt is falling while also supporting vital public services, keeping taxes low and investing in Britain’s future.
Stephen Metcalfe
I am sure the Chancellor will join me in celebrating the fact that for the first time we are starting to see a sustained reduction in our overall debt. Does he agree that the worst thing we could do is hand over the levers of our economy to the Labour party so that it might leave us yet another toxic inheritance to clean up?
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend is right. The public finances have reached a turning point. This is the first time in 17 years that we are not borrowing for day-to-day expenditure. Debt has peaked and now begun to fall—its first sustained fall in a generation—and the last thing we want is for the hard work of the British people to be thrown away by the incompetence of a Labour Government delivering higher debt and higher interest payments, which they always do.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Bank of England has forecast a range of negative impacts on the economy from Britain’s leaving the EU, with or without a deal. What assessment has the Chancellor made of the impact of these on the public sector deficit and his current public spending plans?
Mr Hammond
The Government have made a cross-departmental assessment of the medium to long-term effects of different Brexit outcomes, which the Government have published. The Bank of England, because it is better equipped to do so, has made an assessment of the short-term impacts of leaving the EU under different scenarios, which it has published.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
You’re the Chancellor of the Exchequer. You should have made it yourself.
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is a cerebral denizen of the House. I know he is arguing the toss about what he thinks is the inapplicability of the personal views or the professional opinion of the Chancellor, but he should not offer a lecture from a sedentary position. We are accustomed to hearing this eloquence when he is on his feet. We do not need to hear him when he is in his seat.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
The next most important update on the deficit will be the Office for Budget Responsibility’s statement around the time of the spring statement, but the OBR has been clear that it can only make a forecast once it knows the Government’s plans for Brexit, so could the Chancellor give the House an update on when he thinks the OBR will be able to produce that work for the spring statement in relation to the Brexit timetable?
Mr Hammond
Yes I can. My understanding is that the OBR is basing its forecasting work on the same assumptions it used at Budget 2018, but, as my right hon. Friend has asked me, I can inform the House that the spring statement will be made on Wednesday 13 March. I remind the House that it is not a fiscal event but that, as I have said before, if the economic or fiscal outlook changes materially, it is always open to us to turn it into one.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
World-class connectivity is vital to tackling the deficit, but the Treasury’s decision to stop investors in community benefit societies receiving 30% tax relief could undermine the good work of broadband pioneers such as Broadband for the Rural North—B4RN—in Cumbria. Given that B4RN has reached the parts of Cumbria that the Government and BT could not or would not reach, what assessment has the Chancellor made of the effect of that decision, and will he think again about his damaging proposals?
Mr Hammond
I am not familiar with the case to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but obviously we want to encourage the delivery of high-speed connectivity in all areas, including rural areas. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me with the details, I shall be happy to look at them and respond to him.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Mr Hammond
We have taken a large number of measures to ensure that all companies pay the appropriate amount of tax, and we have closed a significant number of loopholes that have been used to avoid corporate tax in the past. My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot discuss individual taxpayers at the Dispatch Box, but of course the Government want to see every taxpayer paying the appropriate amount and contributing fairly to the support of our public services.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
Bonkers, Mr Speaker. Let me add, respectfully, that I am referring not to you, Sir, but to the response of the Resolution Foundation’s director to the Chancellor’s £6.2 billion corporation tax giveaway. Even the adviser to the previous Chancellor says that the cut represents poor value for money, and the danger is that it will slow progress in reducing the deficit. If the Chancellor is giving away £6.2 billion, does he accept that it would be better given to, for example, cash-strapped local councils, rather providing handouts for cash-rich corporations?
Mr Hammond
The Labour party will have to get its act together, and organise a discussion between its Front Benchers and its Back Benchers.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
You ought to get your act together.
Mr Hammond
Well, I know where the deep divisions lie. [Interruption.] We have heard many Opposition Members express concern about a lack of investment and the potential relocation of businesses, but now the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) has popped up on the Front Bench suggesting that we hit business with an additional tax charge. Labour is the party that is proposing to increase corporation tax for businesses, including the smallest in our country. We will remain the party that is encouraging businesses, large and small, by ensuring that ours is an attractive jurisdiction for investment to take place.
Peter Dowd
Not content with his Government’s manic drive—and there was an example of it—to turn Britain into a bargain basement economy, the Chancellor is splashing out billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to prop up a no-deal Brexit. Will he come clean and admit that the hard Brexit for which he is reluctantly preparing may lead to increased borrowing, more debt and the widening of the deficit, not to progress in reducing it?
Mr Hammond
Some might think it a bit rich for Labour Members to lecture us about increasing deficits and debt, given that their stated policy is to increase the deficit and the debt. Let me be frank with the hon. Gentleman. He has seen the analysis that the Government have published. If we leave the European Union without a deal, yes, it will lead to an increased deficit, and it will lead to an increase in the debt. That is why the Conservatives are working to ensure that we deliver the deal that will protect the British economy. What I do not understand is why Labour Members who genuinely fear a no-deal outcome do not get behind the solution.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)
We have committed £3.9 billion of capital investment by 2023 to transform and modernise NHS buildings. We are also increasing the NHS budget by 3.4% a year, while keeping taxes low for working people.
Robert Halfon
Despite the hospital having outstanding staff and the extra moneys that have gone to Princess Alexandra Hospital in Harlow, the building is in a very bad state and not fit for purpose and we desperately need a new hospital. Will my right hon. Friend use the moneys from the excellent £20 billion extra money for the NHS and work with the Health Secretary to make sure that we get a new hospital for Harlow?
Elizabeth Truss
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. In December, we allocated £9.5 million to the Princess Alexandra Hospital to help to improve the emergency care pathway, but I recognise that there are further issues. Of course we are in discussions with the Department of Health and Social Care and these issues will be looked at in the spending review.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is not just about capital spending; it really is, in relation to acquired brain injury, for instance, also about making sure we have enough people to follow on from the work done in the new trauma centres to make sure there is proper neuro-rehabilitation and local authorities have enough money to provide decent housing for people. Will the right hon. Lady look at this in the round? Will she make sure that we are not letting people down? We can have as many wonderful hospital buildings as we want, but in the end we need people to treat people.
Elizabeth Truss
That is one of the reasons—rising demand—that we have put extra money into the NHS: up to £20 billion per year. But as part of the spending review we will be looking across the board to make sure that services are integrated and we are investing to get the best possible results for people.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)
We are working to tackle the root causes of poverty by getting people into work and giving children the best possible education. A record number of children are now in working households and there are 630,000 fewer children in workless households than there were in 2010.
Kerry McCarthy
A number of Members have been involved in the children’s future food inquiry, and we have heard some shocking stories recently about children going to school hungry, packed lunches consisting of maybe two slices of white bread with nothing in between and worse stories. What is the Treasury doing to help the UK to meet the sustainable development goal on zero hunger because it seems at the moment that it is doing very little?
Elizabeth Truss
I point out to the hon. Lady that 1 million fewer people are now in absolute poverty than in 2010, including 300,000 fewer children, but of course we continue to look at the best way to help children in school—I know that the Department for Education is looking at this—to make sure that children are properly nourished.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Treasury could tackle child poverty, attack the bureaucracy and help lower-paid workers across the economy in the UK by raising the level at which people begin to pay national insurance contributions as well as tax, thereby assisting local people in the economy across the United Kingdom.
Elizabeth Truss
We are working to make sure that those on the lowest incomes keep more money in their pockets, so at the Budget we increased the amount working families will be getting on universal credit by £630 and we cut basic rate tax, to the benefit of £130, for families on those incomes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
If the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) wishes to shoehorn his inquiry into the question of which we are treating now, it is a very neat fit.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Elizabeth Truss
One of the reasons we introduced UC was to make sure that work always pays and we have been continually working to make the system better, reducing the taper rate. Of course we continue to look at that as we roll it out.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
For heaven’s sake. In the last two years of the Labour Government, the number of children living in absolute poverty fell by 400,000. In the next seven years of Tory rule, it fell by only 100,000. At this rate it is going to take 28 years for the Tories to achieve what Labour achieved in two, and one and a half centuries to end child poverty, even without this Government’s blooming Brexit disaster. Does the Minister not understand—this ain’t success, or doesn’t she care?
Elizabeth Truss
If we are going to trade statistics, at the end of the last Labour Government, 20% of young people were unemployed and 1.4 million people were on welfare and left on the scrapheap. We have record employment and the lowest unemployment since the mid-1970s. The way we are going to solve the issue of poverty is to help people get on, help people get into work and get our education levels up.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)
Leaving the EU with a deal remains the Government’s top priority, but as a responsible Government we are, of course, also making preparations to ensure that the country is ready for every eventuality across all sectors of the economy. I have made substantial funding available to prepare for the UK’s exit from the EU in all scenarios. HMRC has written on no-deal preparations to 145,000 EU-only traders, and the Government have produced a partner pack to support stakeholders in preparing for a no-deal scenario.
Sir Desmond Swayne
And worth every penny, isn’t it? How much in total is the Chancellor spending on delivering the people’s decision?
Mr Hammond
Let me put it this way: since 2016 I have made more than £4.2 billion available for EU exit planning, and funding for the 2019-20 financial year has now been allocated to Departments. That is funding to prepare the Government for leaving the EU in any scenario. In addition, I have made arrangements to ensure that Departments and the devolved Administrations can fund measures to address urgent civil contingencies in a no-deal scenario.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
The Chancellor has rightly made very clear his determination to avoid a no-deal Brexit. How in practice does the Treasury distinguish between those no-deal preparations that have enduring value for money and those that will have been wasted in the event that he is successful?
Mr Hammond
Some of the expenditure being undertaken by Departments will be required in any case for our post-EU future, whether we leave with a deal or no deal, but I have made no bones about the fact that some of the expenditure is of a precautionary nature. The expenditure will be nugatory if the deal is agreed and we leave with a smooth trajectory. Every responsible Government, across all areas of activity, undertake expenditure to deal with potential contingencies, to ensure that the country is prepared for eventualities that may arise. It is proper that we should do so.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
Deal or no deal, one deal that is really working is the nuclear sector deal. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a hugely important venture in the south-west and that we should support and encourage it? So far, it has put £900 million into the south-west economy.
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend demonstrates ingenuity and she is absolutely right: the nuclear sector deal is very important.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Mr Hammond
Obviously, we are disappointed by Hitachi’s decision to suspend work on the Wylfa project, but we have not given up hope. It retains the site and we hope that the work we are doing on a possible alternative financing model may yet allow the project to go ahead, but I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
On 28 November, the Bank of England published analysis on how the short-term impact of leaving the EU could affect the Bank’s ability to meet its objectives for monetary and financial stability. That analysis is published independently and reported to Parliament, but in line with normal practice, no comment will be made on discussions between Ministers.
Wes Streeting
The Bank of England knows that no deal will be a disaster, and so do Ministers and the Chancellor, yet the Prime Minister is whipping her MPs to vote today for an amendment that will make it more likely. What does that say about the Chancellor? Does the continued presence of no deal on the table speak to his lack of influence, his lack of authority or his lack of courage?
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I was contacted this week by a constituent who runs a business in Derry/Londonderry. He writes:
“The official position is that”
the recent bomb attack
“is nothing to do with Brexit; everyone I’ve spoken to finds this laughable—it is everything to do with Brexit. The danger, irresponsibility and absurdity really comes home to you when the bomb disposal Land Rovers are screaming past our office.”
What does the Chancellor think the implications of Brexit will be for jobs in Northern Ireland, when local employers feel like this?
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
The loan charge is not retrospective. The schemes that were entered into and to which the loan charge relates have always been defective—they never worked, including at the time when they were entered into. That has been evidenced by a number of court cases, including one put before the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court.
Mr Carmichael
Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is allowed to go back to 1999 to look at tax records. Records that it can look at include those in otherwise closed years. If that is not retrospective, I do not know what it is. What word would the Minister use to describe the loan charge to my constituent, who tells me that he started a business working in the oil and gas industry, living in Orkney but working across the globe, doing everything the Government would want him do? How does he now find himself facing bankruptcy, before his 29th birthday?
Mel Stride
An important principle lies at the heart of the whole debate around the loan charge, which is that individuals should pay the tax that is due. If they enter into arrangements that basically mean they disguise income as a loan that they have no intention of ultimately repaying—money that is, more often than not, routed via low or no-tax jurisdictions overseas, via a trust, then brought back into the United Kingdom by way of payment—the Government believe that that is wrong, and the tax should be paid.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
What assessment has the Chancellor made concerning an immediate suspension of the loan charge and all settlement discussions within an appropriate period, to allow the loan charge review to be properly conducted and any recommendations to alter the legislation to be implemented?
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend will know that the loan charge was brought into effect in 2016. It allowed three years for individuals to clean up the loans—if they were loans, they could be refinanced on a proper, commercial basis—or to come to an arrangement with HMRC. The most important message that I can give from the Dispatch Box today to those involved in these schemes is to get out of avoidance, to get in touch with HMRC and to settle their affairs. They will have a sympathetic and proportionate hearing.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)
We fully fund adults to take English and Maths to level 2. From 2020, we will also be funding them for basic digital skills. Those are the vital skills that people need to get a job and get on in life.
Wera Hobhouse
In the last 10 years, total enrolment of adults in further education colleges has dropped by 62%, including at Bath College in my constituency. Enrolment in health and social care is down by 68%; in engineering, it is down by 68%; and in construction, it is down by 37%. Does the Minister agree that this situation is of huge concern and that the Treasury must look at serious reinvestment in adult skills as part of the upcoming spending review?
Elizabeth Truss
We do fund the core courses that are going to help people get work and get on in life, but we also provide adult learner loans so that people can help shape their own future. In 2017-18, we spent £220 million on those loans.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)
My principal responsibility is to ensure economic stability and the continued prosperity of the British people. At this juncture, the best way to achieve that objective is to support a negotiated Brexit, ensuring a smooth and orderly departure from the EU.
Alex Chalk
Cheltenham’s Government-backed future cyber-park will deliver jobs and opportunities for local people. What role will the Government’s university enterprise zones play in ensuring that this project is backed to its full potential?
Mr Hammond
I welcome the work that is going on in Cheltenham to build on the magnetic effect of GCHQ and to attract innovative cyber-based firms to the area. In autumn Budget 2018, I announced £5 million to support proposals for university enterprise zones, which will encourage collaboration between universities and businesses, promote knowledge and skills exchange, and deliver a boost to local productivity. The funding will allow excellent institutions such as the University of Gloucestershire to develop locally led proposals to build on strengths like cyber-security, technology and engineering.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Let me bring the Chancellor back to Brexit. He knows full well the impact that no deal would have on people’s everyday lives. As we have heard, the British Retail Consortium warned yesterday that a no deal would lead to higher food prices, and even to empty shelves. The Government’s own economic analysis suggests a 10% hit to real wages. Knowing all this, would not a responsible Chancellor—a senior member of the Cabinet—stand up to the Prime Minister to insist that she rule out a no deal?
Mr Hammond
We are absolutely determined to avoid no deal, but the way to avoid no deal is to deliver a deal. As the Prime Minister has said from this Dispatch Box many times, the choice is stark: do the deal or face no deal or no Brexit. No Brexit would be a betrayal of the democratic decision of the British people, and no deal would be a betrayal of our economic future. The deal is the only way forward that protects our democracy and our economy.
John McDonnell
It is a deal that lost in this House by a majority of 230. Just as business leaders were not reassured by the Chancellor’s phone call, I do not think the House will be reassured by his response today. The Bank of England has warned that we are potentially facing an economic crisis even more severe than the financial crisis of 2008. Past holders of his great office of state would have had the strength and authority around the Cabinet table to prevent the Prime Minister from behaving so recklessly. At a time when the country is facing a potential national economic crisis, has there ever been a Chancellor so weak?
Mr Hammond
If the right hon. Gentleman believes what he has just told the House, he should get off his backside and get the Leader of the Opposition off his backside, and they should get themselves over to Downing Street to sit down and engage with the Prime Minister so that we can solve this problem in the national interest.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Mr Speaker
There is a lot to be said for Essex. The right hon. Lady and I can agree about that.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)
Mr Speaker is right: the only way is Essex. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) is a great champion of the fantastic county of Essex, and she will have noticed that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has already launched a fair funding consultation on local government spending. In the spending review, we will, of course, look at the different funding streams and make sure they are fair for all parts of the country.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
The hon. Lady is incorrect. Over the course of this Parliament, infrastructure spending will be highest in the north of England—higher than in London, higher than in the south-east and significantly higher than under the last Labour Government.
Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
A consultation was launched in October, and we intend it to be as wide as possible. The consultation closes today and the Government will respond shortly, but we are very sympathetic to where my right hon. Friend is coming from.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Mr Philip Hammond
We have a cross-Whitehall committee that regularly discusses impacts of a no-deal exit and makes preparations for them. The issues that the hon. Lady is raising have been and will continue to be considered in that forum.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The creative industries are vital to our country. This Government have provided an array of very important tax reliefs to that sector—they were valued at £850 million in 2017-18. We will continue to support the sector.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Mel Stride
As the hon. Lady may know, the way the loan charge works is that those who have been involved in this form of tax avoidance have until April to settle their affairs, in which case no penalty will be applied at all. We have also said that those earning £50,000 or less will automatically qualify for a five-year minimum repayment term. My message, as always in these circumstances, is that those who are involved in these schemes should come forward, speak to HMRC and sensibly sort out their arrangements.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
Mr Philip Hammond
I agree with my hon. Friend on this. Forecasting has had a bit of a bad rap in this House over the past couple of years, but this report was interesting, because it showed that economic forecasts in fact have a good track record of delivering, and we should pay attention to what the experts are telling us.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Mr Hammond
Jazz is alive and well in Runnymede. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me the precise address of the Runnymede Jazz Club later. The measures we announced in the Budget to support high street and retail more generally apply to all retail outlets with a rateable value of less than £51,000. If he has a specific point to make about music venues, I or one of my colleagues would be happy to meet him to talk about it.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
I welcome the future high streets fund and the various business rate reliefs that the Chancellor has provided. What more can he do to support bricks and mortar retailers who have a far greater business tax liability than the online giants they are now competing against?
Robert Jenrick
We have made more than £1.5 billion available to reduce the impact of business rates on smaller retailers. At the Budget, we provided a 30% discount for small retailers, which will have a huge impact in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We have the £675 million future high streets fund, and we are also bringing forward planning reforms to make it easier for small businesses and entrepreneurs to change the use of their shops and restaurants.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
John Glen
What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that banks must make commercial decisions on the basis of what works for them. When I visited Scotland, I found they were also keen to work with post offices and the Government’s provision to make sure that services can be delivered through the Post Office.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Average wages in my constituency are below the national average, with many people earning the living wage. Tax rates really matter to them, so is that not precisely why we Conservatives voted for a tax cut for 32 million people, by contrast with the Opposition? Will we continue to be truly the party for working people?
Mel Stride
We are truly the party for working people, as my hon. Friend states, unlike the Labour party. We are the party that raised the personal allowance to £12,500 one year ahead of our manifesto commitment to do so, taking well over 4 million of the lowest paid out of tax altogether. We are also the party of the national living wage, which will go up by 4.9% this April and be of great benefit to the very lowest paid in our country.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
We knew that shifting the BBC licence fee concession to the BBC has always been folly, but we now know from the BBC’s consultation that the £745 million cost is likely to mean either a reduction in output, pensioners losing the concession, or both. Will the UK Government finally reverse this ridiculous decision and bring the concession back to the Government?
Mr Philip Hammond
A consultation is under way that I believe ends on 13 February. Once it is complete, the Government will consider it.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
What is the Treasury’s view of the idea of opportunity zones to help to revitalise some of the more disadvantaged parts of our country, particularly in that they differ from enterprise zones because they involve a capital gains cut rather than other types of tax relief?
Elizabeth Truss
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his article proposing new ideas. He raises one example of some of the exciting prospects for the post-Brexit economy that will help to revive some of the industrial areas throughout Britain.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer have any plans to meet Tom Enders, the chief executive of Airbus, to discuss his view that no deal will be disastrous for the UK economy?
Mr Philip Hammond
I am pleased to say that I recently had an opportunity to talk to Tom Enders and his successor Guillaume Faury, the incoming chief executive of Airbus, and to assure them of the Government’s commitment to make the UK a hospitable and attractive place for Airbus to continue to do business.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
UK corporation tax was already the third lowest in the G20, yet this year the Government are spending more on an unnecessary corporation tax cut than it would cost to end the cruel benefits freeze. Politics is about choices. Can the Chancellor not see that when the poorest are suffering, a race to the bottom on corporation tax is the wrong priority?
Mr Hammond
If we want to have well-funded public services and a generous welfare support system in this country, we also have to ensure that we have a solid business base creating the jobs and the tax revenues for the future. It is about getting that balance right, and in my opinion right now is not the time to be sending a negative message to businesses about the attractiveness of investing in the UK.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
When is the Chancellor going to make money available to address the shortage of police officers in the west midlands? We are 3,000 short. I regularly have representations from residents in Finham, Willenhall and St Michael’s about the high increase of crime in their areas. When is the Chancellor going to make funds available to replace these officers?
Elizabeth Truss
As the hon. Gentleman will recognise, the recent police grant funding statement provided extra funding, both from grant and from precept, into the police, meaning funding will be going up in real terms.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
Sirius Minerals already employs more than 800 people in North Yorkshire and Teesside in the world’s largest polyhalite mine, but to bring 50 years of growth and job opportunities to our region, it needs a Treasury guarantee on its funding. Will the Chancellor make that guarantee available today and unleash a whole new era of jobs and opportunities in my area?
Mr Philip Hammond
I am familiar with the project in question and a discussion is going on between the company and the Treasury. Those discussions are of course commercially sensitive and confidential, so I cannot discuss them, but the conversation is ongoing.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I feel sure that the House will want to hear the Strangford Zebedee. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has been bouncing up and down on virtually every question; I do not want him to feel socially excluded.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
They always wish to hear the Strangford perspective on life, but that is by the bye.
Will the Chancellor outline the possible negative effects that reducing the deficit could and would have on the defence budget in the next three years?
Mr Hammond
The Government have made a commitment to maintain the real-terms value of the defence budget at 2% of our GDP, increasing defence spending in real terms in every year. We have no intention of changing that commitment to UK defence.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
When will the Chancellor give some much-needed money to our police forces?
Elizabeth Truss
As I have just pointed out, we have given extra grant funding to the police forces. We are also achieving better efficiencies in conjunction with the Home Office, and we have covered the cost of additional pensions as well.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Workers at Dyson, Jaguar Land Rover and Ford are among the casualties of the threat of no deal. Given the number of jobs at risk, is it not time for the Chancellor to get off his backside and ask the Prime Minister to rule out the threat of no deal and to stop holding Parliament and the country to ransom?
Mr Philip Hammond
Parliament speaks for itself, and Parliament clearly has the opportunity to speak on this issue. I will continue to work with the Prime Minister to try to ensure that the deal that we place before the House of Commons is improved in a way that allows Members of Parliament to get behind it to ensure that we are not faced with the unacceptable choice of either no deal or no Brexit.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), will my right hon. Friend find time to have a meeting with my constituent, Sir James Dyson, to ask for confirmation that, rather than taking people to Singapore, he is taking only two senior executives to Singapore? He has invested £200 million in a research and development facility at Hullavington in my constituency and £43 million in a college in Malmesbury. He is employing 4,500 people, and that number is increasing rather than decreasing.
Mr Hammond
I or one of my colleagues will be very happy to meet Sir James Dyson should he request such a meeting. We regularly meet industrial leaders, and we will continue to do so.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced her support for the Brady amendment, which will profoundly change the deal. What right has the Chancellor got to ask us to vote for a deal that the Prime Minister herself wants to tear up?
Mr Hammond
In a very short while, after a very important statement that is about to be made by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the Prime Minister will set out her case to the House, and the hon. Gentleman and all his colleagues will be able to consider carefully what is now in the national interest.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Can the Chancellor explain to people across the UK what the point is in balancing the books if it is done on the backs of the poorest in our society and they are being starved into shoplifting? In Dundee recently, a woman was left with £90 a month on which to live. The sheriff said that it was a matter of considerable concern that someone was trying to live on £90 a month. What does he say to the judiciary and what does he say to our citizens who are being starved into poverty?
Mr Hammond
Earlier in this session, I said that, if we want to have well-funded public services and a well-funded welfare support system, we must ensure that we have a sound economy. Part of having a sound economy is to get our deficit under control and our debt falling so that we are less vulnerable to shocks in the future. Our current levels of debt mean that this country is vulnerable in the event of an economic downturn. Such downturns come along from time to time, and we need to be able to manage them in order, precisely, to protect the poorest in our society.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that the Government’s idea of turning high streets into residential streets or office spaces is not a solution to solving our high street crisis?
Mr Hammond
That is not what the Government propose or have proposed, but we must recognise that retail is changing and that the nature of our high streets has to change. The future high street will probably be smaller than the high streets of today. It makes sense to use the land that is released around our high streets to develop residential accommodation, addressing the housing challenges that we face, but also bringing footfall back into our high streets and town centre areas to give them vibrancy and a decent chance for the future.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
What procurement and budget advice did the Chancellor’s Department provide the Department for Transport before it awarded a ferry contract to a ferry company with no ferries?
Mr Hammond
The Department for Transport has complied with all the Treasury’s Green Book procedures in letting the contract in question, and the decision to go ahead will have been taken with the consent of the Department for Transport’s accounting officer.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I may have erroneously misled the House when I said that the Minister said that the Government were creating 75 businesses a minute. It has been pointed out to me that he actually said 75 businesses a second.
Mr Speaker
It is not for the Speaker to be the arbiter of truth. Knowing the ambitions of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), it is important that he knows what he is letting himself in for. He would have important responsibilities, but the adjudication upon the matter of truth would not be one of them.
Mr Speaker
In deference to the seniority of the hon. Gentleman, I will hear his point of order if he insists.
Mr Sheerman
I just wanted to thank you for correcting the record, Mr Speaker. I would be glad if the record could be put straight. As you said, the figure was 75 businesses a second. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
I am getting advice that is the product of the scholarly cranium of the Clerk of the House, but I think I will leave the hon. Gentleman to find his own salvation. We will leave it there.
Petition
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of more than 500 students and staff from Darlington College in my constituency who are demanding fair funding for further education.
Colleges build communities. They help young people to fulfil their potential, discover new talents and realise their ambitions. Colleges drive social mobility. They are the heart of local economic growth and provide the workforce needed for local businesses to thrive. For many, they are a springboard towards a bright and prosperous future, but a recent calculation by the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that spending on further education has been cut in real terms by more than £3 billion since 2010-11. Because of that, we now see fewer teaching hours, cuts to student support and stagnant wages for teachers and support staff. That harms outcomes for students, reduces opportunities and is bad for my whole community. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to
“provide fair funding for further education and fair pay for college staff”
in the interests of student performance, educational outcomes and community prosperity.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that while participation in full-time education has more than doubled over the past 30 years, it is reported that spending per student in further education is 8% lower than in secondary schools; further that colleges over the last decade have dealt with an average 30% cut to funding as costs continue to increase; further that this has resulted in a drastic drop in learning opportunities available to students, fewer teaching hours and support for young people, and staff pay; further that the situation is not sustainable and ultimately impacts on student performance; further that 547 staff and students from Darlington College have signed a similar petition to the government regarding further education funding.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the government to provide fair funding for further education and fair pay for college staff in the interest for student performance and educational outcomes.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002311]
HMRC Estate Transformation
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement relating to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs estate transformation.
In the 2015 spending review, the Government announced HMRC’s locations programme to transport the Department’s office accommodation across the United Kingdom, moving from 170 legacy offices to 13 regional centres over the space of 10 years. I am pleased to report to the House that HMRC has now successfully secured sites for each of these 13 regional centres. This is a significant milestone in the Department’s trajectory towards serving the taxpayer from buildings that facilitate more efficient and technologically adept working across every region and country of the United Kingdom. This year will see two regional centres open in Belfast and Bristol —the first to follow the pilot in Croydon and to learn from the Department’s findings there. I will be receiving the keys from the developer on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government in the handover next month in Bristol.
The HMRC offices in 2015 varied hugely in size, quality and accessibility of location, but HMRC has since worked towards offices that are well equipped and large enough to offer serious career progression in city centre locations that allow for travel across the country as well as the recruitment of local graduates. The higher standard of building, designed to support digital, flexible ways of working, is an integral component of HMRC’s broader plans to better provide service to the taxpayer at a lower cost. It is by making better use of technology and working differently that HMRC can become a more highly skilled organisation, maximising revenue, increasing compliance and further reducing the tax gap. Its Croydon regional centre is already open, impressing those who visit it with a new understanding of what it means to work for the civil service and providing a valuable prototype for the remaining offices.
Securing the locations of these 13 offices is an important step in the wider Government plans to create hubs across the country, and to move civil servants out of London and the south-east. The regional centres are not just offices for HMRC, but form part of Government hubs and sites for cross-Government work. NHS Digital will be taking space in the Leeds regional centre, for example, and the Department for Work and Pensions will be taking space in Birmingham.
The Cabinet Office is responsible for the wider Government hubs programme and it plans to align Government policy so that it is efficiently used and maximises opportunities for, and productivity of, civil servants. HMRC’s 13 regional centres are the first phase of delivering this vision. I am proud that the public sector is stepping up to the forefront of industry, thinking about what an effective, flexible and inclusive working environment looks and feels like. Far from lagging behind the private sector, HMRC is delivering offices that are suited to the 21st century, maximising current technology and planning ahead for what further change might be in the pipeline. Not only will this enable HMRC to provide its customers with good service while cracking down on the dishonest minority, it is also excellent value for money, saving over £300 million in the 10 years of the programme up until 2025 and then saving a further £90 million a year from 2028.
The route to this transformation is balanced by the recognition that, to protect HMRC from business disruption, current staff and their expertise should be retained wherever possible. HMRC believes that about 90% of the staff that it had at the start of this transformational journey will move to a new regional centre or finish their careers in their current offices. To further manage potential disruption, the Department is keeping eight transitional sites that will be open for longer to help to maintain continuity.
As HMRC gears up to manage the workload resulting from exiting the European Union, it is also providing additional space in regional centre cities for additional staff and retaining some space for longer so that the planning can benefit from the knowledge and experience of existing personnel.
To transform the services that HMRC delivers for the United Kingdom, we are modernising almost every aspect of what we do. I am proud that HMRC is at the forefront of this change within the civil service, and I commend this statement to the House.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I was given advance notice of the contents of this statement while I was in the Chamber for Treasury questions, and therefore time has been limited to prepare for it. I am surprised that we are now discussing this matter given that I and many of my colleagues have repeatedly raised problems with the Building our Future programme and generally been met with one-sentence answers from the Government.
The Minister maintains that this announcement has come today because of the successful securing of sites for 13 regional centres, so I hope that he will indicate to this House which centre was secured yesterday to justify this statement being presented today. When will he publish the list of precise locations of each of these centres, given that he maintains that we have today secured those new places? That would be enormously helpful for us, because without that information we will be forced to conclude that this statement has been made today for reasons other than its newsworthiness.
In July 2014, HMRC published the Building our Future proposals on reforming tax collection services for the next five years. In November 2015, HMRC announced plans to cut the number of offices from 170 to the 13 that are, apparently, having their locations announced today. In January 2017, the National Audit Office published its report on that process. It indicated that that original plan was unrealistic. It stated that the estimate of estate costs over the next 10 years had risen by nearly £600 million—almost a fifth—with more than half of that being due to higher than anticipated running costs for the new buildings. The National Audit Office also forecast a further 5,000 job losses and said that the costs of redundancy and travel had tripled from £17 million to £54 million due to this programme.
So what exactly is happening now among the HMRC workforce as a result of Building our Future? Some 73% of HMRC staff surveyed said that the Building our Future plans will undermine their ability to provide tax collection services. Half of them said that it would actually undermine their ability to clamp down on tax evasion and avoidance. I have to say that that was my assessment as well when I visited a number of current and former HMRC offices right across the country— 10 of them—over the past few months.
The Government say in this statement that
“90% of the staff that”
HMRC
“had at the start of this transformational journey”—
a piece of jargon if ever I heard one—
“will move to a new regional centre or finish their careers in their current offices.”
During the visits that I conducted, I did hear about staff finishing their careers—they were finishing their careers early because they could not travel to the new regional centres that the Minister is trumpeting today. People from Wrexham were being expected to travel every single day to Cardiff or to Liverpool. People from Exeter were being expected to travel to Bristol. These journeys are simply not feasible for people with caring responsibilities and simply not feasible on public transport.
I note that the Minister said that having city centre locations leads to a situation where it will be possible to recruit local graduates, but of course what his Department has forgotten, and what the NAO reminded him of a couple of years ago, is that in many of these city centre locations the labour market is far tighter, so we often find that there is actually an enormous recruitment problem rather than the bonanza that might be suggested to people who read his statement uncritically.
At the end of the statement, the Government accept, it seems, the need to learn from expertise. I will quote the sentence, although it pains me a little to do so given its construction:
“As HMRC gears up to manage the workload resulting from exiting the European Union, it is also providing additional space in regional centre cities”,
which I assume means offices,
“for additional staff and retaining some space for longer so that the planning”—
of what, we do not know—
“can benefit from the knowledge and experience of existing personnel.”
Well, that raises almost as many questions as it answers. The situation is still unclear about where 5,000 extra customs staff will go—a point I will return to later.
None the less, that sentence, as garbled as it is, suggests that HMRC wants to build on existing experience, but that principle is just not being followed in the Building our Future programme. We had within HMRC centres of excellence across a whole range of different specialisms, whether income tax fraud or the different kinds of multifarious problems that taxpayers can have in filling out their self-assessment forms. Many of the staff who were employed in those specialisms have either already left or are thinking of leaving. A great example of this is what we have seen happening in Swindon, which was previously a centre for income tax fraud. There is now a centre of excellence being built up on that in Liverpool, but with none of the same staff and with none of that expertise. It is being built up from scratch, creating huge inefficiency.
The Government have dogmatically refused to reassess the Building our Future programme apart from when they have been forced to do so—as they acknowledge very, very briefly in this statement—and that is exacerbating problems in HMRC. The attrition rate is greater than the hire rate. We saw in 2014 an absolute reduction in staff of over 3,000 and in 2015 an absolute reduction in staff of over 4,000. In 2017, the UK had the second highest attrition rate out of the 55 countries that share data on their tax services. There has also been incredible mismanagement, with the release of 5,600 customer services staff and then, in 2015, the hiring of 2,400 new customer services staff. It is no surprise that morale is at rock bottom in HMRC.
I therefore want to ask some very quick questions of the Minister. Which new regional centre was secured yesterday? When will we have the list of locations of regional centres? If 90% of positions are retained or vacated due to people finishing their careers, does that mean that 10% of people in HMRC are going to be made redundant? Have there been any reviews of these plans in the context of Brexit? Has the Minister thought about the impact of this on the local economies that are so dependent on these jobs, as raised by many of my colleagues?
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Lady for her response. I will pick up on some of the points that she has raised.
The hon. Lady asked why this statement is being delivered today. I think that she partly, at least, supplied the reason for that herself, in that she has shown a very keen interest in these matters, as have many other Members across the House, quite rightly. It is right, as we have always said, that we will be transparent in the roll-out of this transformation programme, and today is part of that process.
Towards the end of the hon. Lady’s remarks, she called for a review of our arrangements in the context of Brexit and the customs arrangements that our country may face. That is the second reason why it is important that we consider these matters. The debate this afternoon will rightly focus on preparedness, among other matters, and HMRC and its transformation programme lies at the heart of the issues that will be debated.
The hon. Lady asked for the locations of these sites. I believe they are all in the public domain, but I am happy to provide her with a list. She also made several observations about the NAO report and value for money. We are still confident that we will meet our roll-out end date of around 2025. In terms of value for money, there will be savings of some £300 million across the 10 years. I remind the hon. Lady that we will be getting out of a substantial number of private finance initiative contracts that the existing offices are engaged with—PFI contracts that were brought in under her party’s Government in 2001. One driver of additional value for money is that we will be able to unpick the unfavourable arrangements that her party’s Government got us into in the first place.
The hon. Lady asked about the cost of redundancy. I said in my opening remarks that some 90% of those who will be impacted by these moves will either conclude their career in their existing offices or relocate to the new regional hub. The overall thrust of these changes is to ensure that we are better equipped at getting in more tax. It is very much a Labour philosophy that every solution has to involve more money and more people, whereas our approach is adjusting with the times and getting offices in place that are fit for the 21st century, often using complicated data-based interrogation techniques, for which large regional hubs are the way forward.
Some of the 170 legacy offices that the hon. Lady seems so intent upon protecting had under 10 staff in them. Most of the processes carried out by those staff were manual in nature rather than technology-driven, so they were far less efficient. For example, over 80% of self-assessment returns are now done in a digital format, which is why it is important that we move to this model.
I turn to the hon. Lady’s remarks about the staff themselves, who have been at the heart of our considerations as we have rolled out this process. All staff are given at least one year’s notice of any proposed change. They are quite rightly given face-to-face meetings with their managers to discuss the changes and assistance that they may require. In determining the locations of the regional hubs, HMRC mapped out the journey to work of the staff who would be impacted, to ensure that that was one of the principles taken into account when assessing where the locations should be. Those who have extended travel arrangements as a consequence of any move may be given assistance with additional travel costs for between three and five years. Transitional offices, which the hon. Lady raised, will provide additional opportunities for continuity of HMRC’s work and the opportunity of employment for those within these arrangements.
There is a purpose to this. It is not just about saving money, closing offices, suggesting that we are ready for the 21st century or making change for the sake of change. The purpose of these changes is to ensure that we continue the excellent work that HMRC is carrying out in clamping down on avoidance, evasion and non-compliance. The proof of the cake is in the eating: some £200 billion has been brought in or protected since 2010, and we have one of the lowest tax gaps in the world at 5.7%. That does not happen by magic; it happens by having an HMRC that is lean, efficient and up to the job. I commend this statement to the House.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
More than 1,000 people work for HMRC in Southend. I understand that Southend will not be a regional centre, but what does this mean for the people who work in HMRC in Southend? Do the words “eight transitional sites” offer them any short-term hope? Will the Financial Secretary work with me to ensure that the figure is 90%-plus in Southend?
Mel Stride
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As he will be aware, we have announced that we will retain the Southend office until the end of 2022, but I am happy to meet him to discuss that matter.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I thank the Financial Secretary for giving this statement and for advance sight of it. It is clear that he has drawn the short straw today—perhaps it is penance for his “no food, no channel tunnel” gaffe. Somebody needed to give a statement so that we had less time for the Brexit debate, and at least 10 fewer Members will get to speak in it as a result of this statement.
This is an important statement, but the timing is bizarre, given that on 8 January HMRC produced on its website a list of addresses and details of the transitional sites. How come it has taken 21 days for the Financial Secretary to come to Parliament to allow us to ask questions on this statement? How come it happens to be on the day when we are discussing Brexit?
As the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) said, the entire programme of transformation and the way that this has been gone about is completely bonkers. Dedicated, experienced staff are being forced out of HMRC as a result of these closures. Communities such as Cumbernauld and Livingston are losing thousands of jobs as a result of these changes. Why on earth does the Financial Secretary think it is good value to close a large out-of-town office and move it to a city centre location where rents are hugely in excess of those in out-of-town locations, where staff will have massively increased travel costs to get to work and where business rates are likely to be far higher? Why does he think that this is a good idea?
The Financial Secretary said that 90% of staff who were at HMRC at the beginning of this process will still be there at the end. What about the 10% of staff who will not be there at the end? Will those staff be made redundant? How many of those 10% of staff are in Scotland?
People worked in HMRC offices in Inverness, Wick and Aberdeen, but the only regional offices in Scotland will be in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Does the Financial Secretary realise how long it takes to get from Aberdeen to Edinburgh, from Inverness to Glasgow or from Wick to Glasgow? It takes the best part of a day to get there from Wick. There is no way that people can commute that distance.
In terms of the customs checking functions that HMRC will need to perform, does the Financial Secretary believe that there will be adequate geographical coverage of customs staff once Brexit happens? More checks by customs officers will be required at those ports, and if it takes them a day to get to the port, there will be even more of a hold-up than is being suggested in a no-deal scenario.
I understand that HMRC is taking on an extra 5,300 staff to deal with Brexit planning. Could the Financial Secretary confirm how many of those 5,300 staff who are being taken on or have been taken on are in Scotland? How many of the 3,000 additional customer service staff who have been taken on are in Scotland? How many jobs will HMRC have in Scotland at the end of this process compared with the beginning? Lastly, I want to know why the Financial Secretary has taken 21 days to come to the House to tell us what was published on HMRC’s website on 8 January.
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady raised a number of questions, one of which was about the issue of staff.
Mel Stride
If the hon. Gentleman gives me a moment, I will do precisely that, as I always do.
The answers to the hon. Lady’s questions relating to staff and the way in which we will be handling the staff are as I have set out. All staff will have at least one year’s notice of any impending move. The mapping process that HMRC undertook, as it went into the detail of where to locate the regional hubs, was very thorough. It took into account a number of principles, which I will come on to in a moment to answer another of the hon. Lady’s questions. Among those principles is the issue of the travel-to-work time, and every single employee’s home location was mapped against the possible new alternatives under consideration at the time those decisions were being made. I have also raised the issue of the transition offices, which are of course there, among other reasons, to provide employment opportunities for the staff.
The location principles—this comes to the questions the hon. Lady asked about why we have chosen one particular location rather than another, or indeed the existing location of the legacy offices—come down to eight key principles. They include transport connections, which are of course excellent in both Edinburgh and Glasgow, and the talent pool there, such as in universities—for example, Edinburgh and Glasgow have world-class universities—as well as the housing that is available, the quality of the schools and all the matters that will sustain the recruitment of the teams we will be bringing together in these 21st-century and much more sophisticated hubs for dealing with our tax purposes.
The hon. Lady raised the issue, which I know she has raised on previous occasions, of the location of these hubs in relation to our ports and points of entry into the United Kingdom. I think I can reassure her that, quite outside this whole process of the transitional arrangements, we will of course ensure that Border Force, HMRC and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have the personnel available at those locations to make sure that they are able to run imports and exports efficiently. There is a general premise, however, in the suggestion that the offices somehow need to be close to people all the time. In fact, since 2014, it has been the case—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I think there is a sense in the Chamber that there is an inadvertent abuse going on. This is not a debate; it is a statement. The Financial Secretary has twice said that he commended the statement to the House: he said it in response to the first set of questions, and he had already said it when he delivered the statement. A brief and pithy encapsulation of the argument is what is required. A long dilation is not only not required, but notably irritating to the House.
Mel Stride
I can only apologise, Mr Speaker, and I obviously accept your guidance on this matter. I believe I was asked about 20-plus questions between the two Front Benchers, but I take your point.
I will deal with one last point. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) specifically asked me how many of the 5,000-plus personnel that HMRC is recruiting in the context of our Brexit planning will be based in Scotland. We are up to about 3,500 currently, and I will write to the hon. Lady to make sure that we provide her with the information she has sought.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
When I was an inspector of taxes, the office network was totally incapable of being developed for a digital situation. How will this new programme make such development a possibility?
Mel Stride
As a former tax inspector, my hon. Friend is probably about as popular as I am as a tax Minister, which is never the most popular job in the world. The answer to his question—in a short and pithy response, Mr Speaker—is that we have to move to the more digital-based, data-based and inspection-based system that is facilitated by the very hubs I have been describing.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
This has already cost more; the projected savings have gone down; there are no break clauses in most of the 20 to 25-year leases; and there is little buy-in from other Departments. The Minister has said that the DWP and NHS Digital—interestingly, he picked only two small examples—are buying into a couple of the hubs. Will he list the other Departments that are buying in by locating in these regional hubs?
Mel Stride
There has been a series of discussions right across Whitehall, led by the Cabinet Office, in the area in which the hon. Lady has framed her question. The hon. Lady levelled the charge of cost, but she then very quickly went on to talk about savings, and there will of course be net savings from this approach of some £300 million by 2025.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Representing a coastal community, as I do, regional centres tend to be very many miles away. This is clearly a problem for staff, but also for constituents in their dealings with HMRC. Will the Minister give an assurance that, even in this digital age, face-to-face meetings between staff and constituents, where necessary, will be available locally?
Mel Stride
All requests for face-to-face meetings are of course treated on their merits, and they are certainly not discarded out of hand. I reiterate my point that, since 2014, tax offices have generally not been open for members of the public to walk in and ask to speak to a tax inspector. Indeed, some 80% of self-assessments are now done digitally online.
Eleanor Smith (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
I have a tax office in Wolverhampton South West that is going to close, and my constituents are not happy. For a start, Carillion has gone and now the tax office is going, and it does not make sense. The Minister has talked about face-to-face meetings, but there are actually a lot of face-to-face meetings in that tax office. The staff there are not happy about having to travel, and the Government are going to lose a lot of staff with experience. How can he explain that with regard to the regional hubs, because they are supposed to go to Birmingham?
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady raises the issue of the tax office in her particular area of Wolverhampton. I am very happy at any point—this is of course an invitation to any Member—to speak to her specifically about the circumstances of the HMRC office in her location. Equally, Birmingham is not a huge distance from Wolverhampton for many of those people to commute to, but if the hon. Lady would like to take up any aspects of that with me, I will be delighted to speak to her.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
I welcome HMRC’s work on the transformation of its estate and on gearing up for customs readiness for any eventuality. In particular, it is great news that the CHIEF—customs handling of import and export freight—system will be fully ready on 30 March to handle declarations for customs and that simplifications of customs procedure are being made available to business. That will enable imports of goods into the UK to flow without hold-ups using inland clearance techniques. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we will indeed be ready and that fear is unjustified? Will he say what he is doing to ensure that a campaign is now activated to inform small and medium-sized enterprises about what they have to do to make use of the simplifications?
Mel Stride
On the IT systems element of my hon. Friend’s question, he is absolutely right. CHIEF has been upgraded, and it is now capable of processing about 90 messages per second, which will be enough to handle the import and export declarations that may be required.
On the issue of informing the marketplace or traders about the new circumstances that may pertain after 29 March, we have written to 145,000 exporters that export only to the European Union and are not therefore familiar with customs arrangements. We have issued three iterations of our partnership pack and there is a huge amount of information on gov.uk, where businesses can also sign up to email alerts to make sure that they are aware of the very latest relevant information.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
On behalf of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Eleanor Smith), I have written to the Minister to ask for a meeting, with one or two reps from the trade unions, to discuss the situation in Wolverhampton and Coventry. People in Coventry will have to travel 16 miles to premises that are inadequate, while those who are left are not guaranteed jobs. I will not rehearse all the arguments now, but I would like to meet the Minister, with some reps and my hon. Friend, to discuss this further. Will he agree to do so?
Mel Stride
I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the matters he has raised.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Improving public services is about more than just spending more money; it is about delivering better services more efficiently, on which the Treasury is well placed to lead. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that these changes will improve the services available to my constituents and how much money will he save to spend on the other public services they receive?
Mel Stride
I can confirm that services will be improved. All the evidence suggests that is the case as we have upgraded and brought HMRC into the 21st century, and I have already stated that the savings will be of the order of £300 million in the run-up to 2025.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) pointed out, the nearest centre will be a huge distance from my constituency. If we end up out of the customs union, ports such as Scrabster and Wick in my constituency will be the UK’s border. How exactly will the Minister get HMRC to support those ports? If he is going to put personnel in them, why do we not simply reopen the Wick tax office?
Mel Stride
I cannot comment on the specific tax office that the hon. Gentleman mentions, although I am of course very happy to discuss that element of his question outside this statement. As I have already set out, having effective manpower at our ports and borders is a matter of making sure that we have adequate HMRC, Border Force and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs staff available for that, and it will not impact on the fact that we are rearranging our HMRC tax offices.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Property prices tend to fluctuate, so how long are the leases on the new centres, and what break clauses are included in them?
Mel Stride
I will write to my hon. Friend with the answer to that question, on the basis that these are all individual arrangements that have been entered into. As for lease arrangements, the first stage of the process is to enter into a commitment with the developer to take possession of the building; the lease is signed in due course. I will, of course, write to him with a more specific answer.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Given that a no-deal Brexit is likely to increase massively the number of customs declarations made at ports such as Hull by those transporting goods through them, and given that that is combined with the Department for Transport’s general lack of preparedness when it comes to our ports, how can the Minister justify taking these decisions at this point?
Mel Stride
These are two relatively unrelated matters. Reconfiguring our tax offices is important for the reasons I set out in the statement. As to the hon. Lady’s point about preparedness for the very large increase that there may be in customs declarations, depending on where we land with the deal, I pointed out in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) that CHIEF has been upgraded substantially; it will be able to handle the kind of volumes that it may be necessary to handle.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The Minister may have heard of Trump Plaza in Atlantic City, which is now closed, but is he aware of Telford Plaza in the borough of Telford and Wrekin, which is very much open, and is the largest letting in Telford and Wrekin in the last decade? It is 112,000 square feet over 13 floors, and many HMRC staff are employed there. Would he care to visit that centre of excellence, when he can find the time in his diary?
Mel Stride
I thank my hon. Friend for shamelessly promoting, quite rightly, the properties in his constituency. I would be very happy to meet him to discuss the area.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Mr Speaker,
“‘Beauty is truth, truth beauty’—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.”
The Minister keeps referring to bringing together hubs, but the danger is that that will mean everything moving to big cities, and all the smaller towns in a constituency, such as all those towns in the valleys in south Wales, losing out. There are loyal HMRC workers, and cheaper properties, in many of these towns. Will he not look at those smaller towns?
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we set all current arrangements in aspic. Going back some decades, there would have been not 170 offices across the country, but several hundred. No doubt if we went back in time, the hon. Gentleman would have been on his feet telling us that we should keep 700 offices, rather than shrinking the number down to 170. The reality is that the way that the tax authority conducts its affairs is effective—I have given the figures—and there is a model that makes that happen. That lends itself to 21st-century hubs that have the right resourcing to do the job.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Given that cheaper premises were available just up the road in Bradford, it is absolutely ridiculous that the Yorkshire hub will be in Leeds. As HMRC made no economic impact assessment of the effect on the places that it is moving out of, will the Minister look at what financial support the Treasury can give from its savings to Shipley, to make sure that its local economy is not damaged by the closure of its tax office? There is already great congestion for commuters trying to get to Leeds on the train; what investment will he make to ensure that people can get from my constituency to Leeds on the train, which they cannot do at the moment?
Mel Stride
The decision to have a Leeds office as opposed to a Bradford office has been rigorously looked at. It hinged on eight principles, some of which I set out in my response to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who spoke for the Scottish National party. On my hon. Friend’s more general point about the economic impact, the House should celebrate the economic success that we have had; we have the highest level of employment and lowest unemployment since the mid-1970s, and it is this Government’s policies that are providing that.
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
Four hundred people work for HMRC in George Stephenson House in Stockton South. Many of them have built their lives as carers and parents around their work. Why does the Minister think that it is okay to ask them to travel for an hour and a half each way just to keep their jobs, when 97% of them say that that is unacceptable?
Mel Stride
I do not think that we are requiring all the employees at that location to travel in excess of an hour to fit in with the new arrangements. In my statement, I set out at length the various measures—I will not repeat them now—that we have taken to make sure that HMRC does the right thing.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
How can we ensure that niche skills and the expertise of key HMRC staff are retained in this move to regional hubs?
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend asks a very good question that goes right to the heart of why we are making these changes. If we are to build teams of highly skilled individuals, we need the right locations in which to house them; that will lend itself to the hubs that we are rolling out, which are in locations with good housing, good education, good access to a talent pool, good transport facilities and so on.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
The Minister spoke of graduates being part of this transformation scheme. Will he confirm that HMRC will offer opportunities to apprentices, and will support apprenticeships across the board?
Mel Stride
I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that HMRC engages with apprenticeship programmes and is supportive of apprentices, as are the rest of the Government.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
East Kilbride’s Centre 1 is so named because it was deemed No. 1 for taxation skills and experience, but the Public and Commercial Services Union reports that these plans lose the UK 17,000 years of tax experience. Everyone in EK knows someone who has worked in Centre 1 and utterly condemns this Government’s plans. Given that the Minister’s Department has been working constructively with me on the all-party parliamentary group on new towns to regenerate them, why is he devastating East Kilbride and new towns by closing our largest employer?
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to be as passionate as she is about protecting the existing workforce and making sure that we do not lose the workforce’s vital skills. That is why we have taken this approach. We are ensuring that the new locations are viable for those from the old. For example, we are assisting those who need to travel by meeting some of their travel costs over three to five years. We very much want to keep the high level of skills in the organisation.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Businesses in Chesterfield that I have spoken to that have had cause to query HMRC judgments have found the organisation monolithic and unresponsive to their queries. Does the Minister have any assessment of how many successful businesses go bankrupt or have a huge financial deficit as a result of a lack of experience in HMRC, and what will he do about that?
Mel Stride
If we look at all the metrics, we can see that HMRC is doing extremely well on customer service at the moment, including time taken to answer telephone calls. There is always more to do, and we will continue to work at this, but it has a good record to date.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
HMRC’s New Waverley development in Edinburgh is being used for photo opportunities by Back-Bench Tory MPs even before it opens. We know that the office of the Secretary of State for Scotland and of the Advocate General for Scotland, the Office for Statistics Regulation, the Information Commissioner’s Office, the Government Actuary’s Department and Her Majesty’s Treasury are also moving in. Will the Minister tell us exactly how much this enormous white elephant is costing us, and to which other Departments HMRC will sub-let?
Mel Stride
The main thrust of the hon. Lady’s question seems to be to decry the fact that we are decanting more and more services into one location. There are many logical economic and business reasons why one would do exactly that. As for her charge that Conservative Back Benchers are going up to that location, I would suggest that that says they are very interested in these particular matters.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Unlike the CEO of HMRC, will the Minister show some common sense and heed the PCS union, which says he should halt his programme and instead concentrate on keeping the expertise, amounting to thousands of years, of staff at offices under threat?
Mel Stride
Rather like the question from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the suggestion is that we just do nothing and stay exactly as we are. That would not be to the benefit of the taxpayer. Frankly, that would not be to the benefit of the staff, either, who will have increased opportunities as a result of the changes we are bringing in.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Phoenix House in Oldham is due to close to relocate to Manchester city centre. The cruelty is that, when we asked whether a different site in Oldham could be considered, there was a categorical refusal to even shortlist a site, despite rents in Oldham being half the price of those in Manchester city centre. Does the Minister understand the anger felt in many of our towns, which are being cast aside in favour of our city centres by a Government who just do not care?
Mel Stride
HMRC has stuck to very clear, very fair and balanced guidelines on how to make the assessments—the eight location principles we have been discussing this afternoon—and I have absolutely no doubt that it was rigorous in adhering to that process. The individuals impacted by this decision are central to the approach HMRC is taking, in the way I have described.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Will the Minister publish an economic impact assessment for each HMRC office closure—in many towns, the largest employer is leaving? Will he publish an equality impact assessment, so we can see the impact on staff, particularly those with disabilities, who are being asked to travel over 100 miles to their new workplace?
Mel Stride
There has already been an equality impact assessment. It is in the public domain, but I would be very happy to share it with the hon. Member.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
Seventy-nine per cent. of staff surveyed said that the plans undermine their ability to provide tax collection. Are HMRC staff wrong?
Mel Stride
What is wrong is the suggestion that we are not good at collecting tax. We are world class at collecting tax. We have a tax gap of just 5.7%. If we had the same tax gap that we had under the Labour party, the missing revenue would be enough to employ every policeman and woman in England and Wales. The Conservative way works; the Labour way squanders resources.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Given the staff and estate upheaval at HMRC, and the fact that the Government will not take no deal Brexit off the table, can the Minister explain to my concerned constituents why HMRC is sticking with the date of 1 April 2019 for making tax digital for all businesses—a day on which many businesses may have something else to consider?
Mel Stride
When I first became Financial Secretary, one of the early decisions I took was to limit the roll-out of Making Tax Digital to just VAT and those businesses over the VAT threshold. The roll-out was delayed. I am confident that we are now in a position where businesses will be ready for that important change. That will be of benefit to HMRC by way of tax collection and important for the efficient running of those companies.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
The Minister is closing down the valuation office in Rhyl, with the loss of 40 jobs. His Government have already closed the Army careers office in Rhyl, the Crown post office and the county court. By contrast, the Welsh Labour Government are investing £50 million in new schools, £50 million in flood defences, £28 million in housing and possibly £42 million in the refurbishment of a new hospital. Why are the Conservative Government disinvesting in struggling seaside towns and reinvesting in already overheated city centres?
Mel Stride
The simple fact is that the Government are adopting an efficient approach to the use of our resources, including across HMRC. We do that for a distinct purpose: it allows us to spend more money on the things that our country expects us to spend money on, such as vital public services, including the national health service, where we will be spending £84 billion more over the next few years than under the previous Labour Government. I make no apologies for doing things that drive efficiency and allow us to support health and public services.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
On value for money, the Minister is either sadly mistaken or badly briefed, because the reality for the 1,000 staff in my constituency is that they are going to one of the most expensive retail units in all of Scotland when they move to Edinburgh. Does he think it acceptable that, as I understand it from the PCS union, staff will be expected to sit in armchairs about which occupational therapists have huge concerns and that staff who have disabilities or who are in wheelchairs have been told that if they cannot reach the screen or the plug sockets on their desks someone else can do it for them?
Mel Stride
Clearly, I am not in a position to comment on very specific remarks about armchairs, but if the hon. Lady would like to raise the matter with me outside of this statement, I would be very happy to discuss it with her.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
There is deep and clear concern from the 479 hard-working HMRC staff at Sidlaw House in Dundee that their jobs may come to an end this year, rather than as planned in 2021, which was promised by the Treasury. Can the Financial Secretary give me an absolute guarantee today that their jobs are safe until the end of 2021?
Mel Stride
I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the details of that specific office location.
Bill Presented
European Union (Revocation of Notice of Withdrawal) (No.2) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Angus Brendan MacNeil, supported by Pete Wishart, presented a Bill to require the Prime Minister to revoke the notification, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the European Union, subject to the legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales; and for connected purposes.
Bill read for the First time; to be read a Second time on 8 February, and to be printed (Bill 326).
Smoking Prohibition (National Health Service Premises)
Tuesday 29th January 2019
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Smoking Prohibition (National Health Service Premises) Bill 2017-19 View all Smoking Prohibition (National Health Service Premises) Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit smoking on National Health Service premises; and for connected purposes.
It is fabulous to have a full House, Mr Speaker. How marvellous.
This is a Bill that I hope is simple in its terms, can forge the support of as much of this House as possible and can bring us in line with the intentions of the Welsh and Scottish Parliaments—a Bill that would give our NHS trusts the legal back-up to ban smoking on their grounds, which I believe would be to the benefit of patients, visitors, staff, trusts and society more widely. During my contribution, I will try to convince Members of its benefits, but I am not naive. I am aware that some Members, indeed some commentators too, will have already written this off as some sort of attempted nanny state intervention that will only seek to cruelly deny unwell people the so-called pleasure of smoking a cigarette. I know I have my work cut out for me, so let us start at the beginning.
Our country has taken great steps in raising public awareness about the risks and harm of smoking. Those warnings are rightfully embedded in our education system. I doubt there are many children who would not know that smoking is linked to cancer and other life-threatening conditions. Most recently, Britain introduced plain packaging for cigarettes. Advertising by cigarette companies is also banned. This House has a history of introducing legislation to reduce the proliferation of smokers, including limits on where people can smoke. Work locations and public buildings both have bans in place. If there is a roof, you cannot spark up. You cannot smoke in cars with children. Yet, think about your last visit to a hospital, whether as a patient or a visitor. Why is it that, to reach the hospital, a place that by its very purpose should be a leading light of health and wellbeing, the chances are that you are forced to walk through great plumes of smoke to reach your location, with cigarette butts and litter filling wall-mounted bins? That scene is more than likely replicated day in, day out.
The inspiration for my Bill came from the Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, which serves my constituents in Batley and Spen and people across mid-Yorkshire. On a recent service visit, I was deeply concerned to hear of the havoc that smoking on the premises can cause. As I go through some of the arguments for legally outlawing smoking on NHS grounds, keep in mind that smoking is already banned on those premises and that smokers are already defying the rules of the hospital. This Bill is about putting that in legislation.
The Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust has told me—and I have experienced this—about the unpleasant stench of smoke when people enter and exit the building. Staff face abuse when asking smokers to put out their cigarettes. The ethics of hospitals as health promoters is undermined. I also suggest that it makes the enforcement of other rules, such as bringing alcohol on to the premises, much more difficult. Smokers congregating outside the entrance cause congestion and block access for less mobile or disabled visitors, and that is significantly worse in bad weather.
If smoking is a free-for-all as soon as visitors hit the fresh air, that affects services, too. Our hard-working and over-stretched staff are asked to escort patients outside and wait with them while they smoke, and staff are taken away from duties to let patients back into the ward after smoking. Wheelchairs are difficult to find as smokers use them, and volunteers, who have given up their time, are subject to complaints from members of the public as they walk through smokers to reach the entrance. One of the trust’s neonatal wards cannot even open the windows because smoke would come in. Just think of the risk to newborn babies and patients with breathing difficulties.
In short, the case is compelling from that one trust, but we will not achieve smoke-free hospital grounds without legislation. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady is a distinguished actress and has a voice that projects, but it seems to me that the House is rather irreverent. What she is saying on this matter should be heard.
Tracy Brabin
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
A senior member of NHS staff, who will remain unnamed, said to me that we do not let alcoholics drink White Lightning, so why do we let smokers damage their recovery? Of course, the trust has not been idly waiting for legislation. It has introduced a speaker system to inform smokers where they should not be smoking, and it has even brought in a fruit and vegetable store to promote healthy eating, but sadly people smoke in front of it.
This issue is about much more than just mid-Yorkshire. I am calling for legislative support for all NHS trusts seeking to implement the Government’s smokeless NHS debate initiative, as laid out in the 2017 tobacco control plan for England. This is about more than simply installing no-smoking signs; it is about creating a culture that is in favour of quitting. I want this legislation to be part of a package that includes support to help smokers quit or abstain. They should receive encouragement to do so while on hospital grounds. Smoke-free policies should be communicated before appointments; staff should be given stop-smoking training; carers, families and visitors should have cessation advice; and, crucially, patients who smoke should be identified so they can be given support to stop. That is the whole package that I want to see implemented, but while we wait for legislation there are a number of things that I believe we should be doing now.
I gently say to NHS England that it would be welcome to see it produce guidance on smoke-free NHS policy, alongside implementation procedure. Such a step would strengthen the message to trusts that smoke-free policies are an essential part of their operation and would be a very welcome push towards a smoke-free NHS. I say this to Ministers: I am aware that the prevention Green Paper is on its way and this Bill might be the opportunity to implement that legislation.
At the start of my speech, I mentioned the Scottish and Welsh Governments. In Wales, legislation to ban smoking on hospital grounds is expected to be implemented this summer. In Scotland, legislation has been passed giving Ministers the power to designate a perimeter around hospital buildings within which smoking is prohibited. This Bill would be an example of this House taking a lead from the devolved Administrations where appropriate. We should never be shy of doing that. It is worth remembering that the smoking population inside hospitals is higher than it is among the general public and that illnesses can be a major factor in quitting. Let us support people in the first hours and days of kicking the habit.
I know that, for some Members, the provision of support will depend on cold, hard cash. They will be relieved to know that a full implementation of smoke-free policies on the Royal College of Physicians estate would deliver a net saving to the NHS of up to £60 million within one year and greater savings in the long term. Let us not lose sight of the immediate benefits. Even following diagnosis of lung cancer, people who quit have a significantly lower risk of mortality and cancer recurrence.
Although the number of smokers is reducing, it remains a serious menace in my constituency of Batley and Spen. In Kirklees, we have a higher than average number of smokers—17.1%—and in Yorkshire it is 17%. In England, the average is 14.9%. Sadly, 12.6% of pregnant women smoke at the time of delivery in Kirklees; the national average is just over 10%. According to Public Health England, between 2015 and 2017, there were 4,439 smoking-related hospital admissions in Kirklees—again, that is above average. In the same period, there were sadly 1,942 deaths attributable to smoking in Kirklees.
The need for this measure is obvious. We still have our work cut out for us. I am not saying that the Bill will magically reduce the number of smokers. Although I am aware of the hard work carried out on cessation programmes at the Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, we all need to do our part to make hospital grounds smoke-free, take the burden off our NHS staff and create a more pleasant experience for patients and businesses alike.
This is an incredibly simple Bill of the kind introduced in Scotland and Wales. I hope it will be implemented with ease.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Tracy Brabin, Mary Creagh, Mrs Sharon Hodgson, Bambos Charalambous, Thelma Walker, Yasmin Qureshi, Paula Sherriff, Holly Lynch and Dr Rosena Allin-Khan present the Bill.
Tracy Brabin accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 March, and to be printed (Bill 327).
Business of the House (Today)
Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion tabled under section 13(6)(a) and 13(11)(b)(i) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in the name of the Prime Minister not later than 7.00pm; such questions shall include the questions on any amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; the questions may be put after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents) and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Michelle Donelan.)
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 296 / Noes: 327 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 39 / Noes: 327 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:28 - The House divided: - Ayes: 301 / Noes: 321 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:42 - The House divided: - Ayes: 298 / Noes: 321 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:56 - The House divided: - Ayes: 290 / Noes: 322 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:11 - The House divided: - Ayes: 318 / Noes: 310 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:26 - The House divided: - Ayes: 317 / Noes: 301 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I have provisionally selected the following amendments in the following order: (a) in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn; (o) in the name of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, Mr Ian Blackford; (g) in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, Dominic Grieve; (b) in the name of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, Yvette Cooper; (j) in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds West, Rachel Reeves; (i) in the name of the right hon. Member for Meriden, Dame Caroline Spelman; and (n) in the name of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West, Sir Graham Brady. Reference may be made in debate to any of the amendments on the Order Paper, including those I have not selected.
For the benefit of right hon. and hon. Members, and of those observing our proceedings, I will set out concisely what will happen at the end of today’s debate. At 7 o’clock, I will first invite the Leader of the Opposition to move his amendment. If his amendment (a) is agreed to, amendment (o) falls, and I will invite the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield to move his amendment (g), and so on down the list. If amendment (a) is disagreed to, I will invite the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber to move his amendment (o). When amendment (o) has been decided, we will move to amendment (g), and so on down the list. If amendment (b) is agreed to, amendment (j) falls. At the end, I will put to the House the original question in the name of the Prime Minister, as amended, if amendments have been made, or in its original form, if no amendments have been agreed. To move the main motion, I call the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
I beg to move,
That this House, in accordance with the provisions of section 13(6)(a) and 13(11)(b)(i) and 13(13)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, has considered the Written Statement titled “Statement under Section 13(4) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018” and made on 21 January 2019, and the Written Statement titled “Statement under Section 13(11)(a) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018”and made on 24 January 2019.
Over the past few weeks, this House has left no one in any doubt about what it does not want. It does not want to leave the EU without a deal, because that would hurt our economy and disrupt people’s lives. It does not want to hold a general election, because it would waste time, increase division and solve none of the problems we face. Indeed, this House renewed its confidence in Her Majesty’s Government a fortnight ago. Neither do I see anything approaching a majority across the House to hold a second referendum. Indeed, the leaders of the so-called “People’s Vote” campaign obviously agree with me, because they declined even to table an amendment to put that into effect. I also accept, however, that this House does not want the deal I put before it in the form it currently exists. The vote was decisive, and I listened.
The world knows what this House does not want. Today, we need to send an emphatic message about what we do want. I believe that that must include honouring the votes of our fellow citizens and completing the democratic process that began when this House voted overwhelmingly to hold the referendum and then voted to trigger article 50 and that saw the vast majority of us elected on manifestos pledging to see Brexit through.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
At the November European Council, the Prime Minister pleaded with other European leaders, telling them that her deal was not only the best deal but the only possible deal—a statement she repeated time and again, including in this House. We now hear from her spokespeople at No. 10 that she wants to rip up the withdrawal agreement and open up the whole process again. Why would other European leaders agree to that?
The Prime Minister
I gently suggest that the hon. Gentleman listen to my speech before asking questions of that sort.
Seeing Brexit through means reaching an agreement that works for this country and our people and for the other 27 nations of the European Union, including our nearest neighbour, Ireland. It means listening to the message being sent by the great manufacturing firms that employ millions of our constituents that they need an implementation period and a free trade area with our nearest market. It means protecting the security partnerships that keep us safe. It means caring about every part of this United Kingdom, including the people of Northern Ireland, who should be just as much the concern of each one of us in this Union Parliament as their fellow citizens in England, Scotland and Wales. We need a good deal that sets us on course for a bright future.
That is what I believe this House wants. It is what this Government want; it is what I want; and it is what the British people want. Today, we have the chance to show the European Union what it will take to get a deal through this House of Commons and to move beyond the confusion, division and uncertainty that now hangs over us and on to the bright, new, close, open relationship we want to build and can build with our European friends in the years ahead.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
The Prime Minister knows that her Treasury analysis shows that every single plan for Brexit makes us poorer. If she is confident of her plan, will she publish it?
The Prime Minister
We published an economic analysis, along with other analyses, and they showed that the Government’s proposal was the best deal for honouring the referendum and providing protection for jobs and the economy in this country. I know the hon. Gentleman does not agree, because he does not want to honour the referendum result, but I think it is our duty to honour it.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has had some strong words for the House for not forming an alternative consensus to her deal, but she is now supporting the Brady amendment, and so will be voting against her own deal. How does she expect the House to provide an alternative when she is voting against her own deal?
The Prime Minister
Time and again, Opposition Members have stood up and asked me to listen to the House. Now I come to the House having listened to the House, and Members say I should not have.
The way to make clear what it will take to agree a deal is to reject the amendments that state and restate once again what we do not want and back instead the amendment that shows what this House needs in order to agree a deal.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The Prime Minister is absolutely right about honouring the referendum result. Millions of people across the north of England voted in huge numbers to leave the EU, and many of them went out and re-elected Labour MPs who stood on a solemn commitment to make good on the referendum result. Is it not the case that if any Member of Parliament representing a northern leave constituency votes for amendment (b) this evening, they will be voting to dishonour the referendum result?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is up to every Member to remember the manifesto on which they were elected. Some 80% of the votes cast at the general election were cast for parties that said they would honour the referendum result, and that is what we need to do, and we can honour it by showing tonight what it will take to enable this House to agree a deal on the basis of which we can leave the EU.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Prime Minister now no longer favours the backstop arrangement she negotiated and instead is in favour of alternative arrangements. Will she set out for the House what those alternative arrangements are?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman refers to alternative arrangements as if it is a phrase that has suddenly come into use. As I will mention later, the deal we negotiated allows for alternative arrangements.
I would like to turn to the amendments. I appreciate the spirit of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman). I, too, want to avoid leaving without a deal. I have heard the concerns and anxieties of businesses and families around the country who worry about what would happen if we left without a deal, and I do not want to put at risk all the hard work that has seen this Government deliver record high employment; the joint lowest unemployment in 45 years and wages growing at their fastest rate in a decade.
That said, my right hon. Friend’s amendment is missing the other half of the equation, for unless we are to end up with no Brexit at all, the only way to avoid no deal is to agree a deal. That is why I want to go back to Brussels with the clearest possible mandate to secure a deal that this House can support. That means sending the clearest possible message not about what the House does not want, but about what we do want.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister
I am just going to make a little more progress. I am always generous in taking interventions, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
I know that some Members have been concerned that this debate could be the last chance to vote on their desire to avoid a no deal, so I want to reassure the House that it is not. We will bring a revised deal back to the House for a second meaningful vote as soon as we possibly can.
The Prime Minister
If the hon. Gentleman wants to comment on what I am saying about the process that the Government will follow, I suggest that he should wait until I have completed what I am saying. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Let me very gently say to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and his hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) that both of them are very senior figures in the land, as Chairs of important Select Committees of the House, and they should behave with the decorum that befits their high status.
The Prime Minister
First of all, as I have said, we will bring a revised deal back to this House for a second meaningful vote as soon as we possibly can. While we will want the House to support that deal, if it did not, we would—just as before—table an amendable motion for debate the next day. Furthermore, if we have not brought a revised deal back to this House by Wednesday 13 February, we will make a statement and, again, table an amendable motion for debate the next day. So the House will have a further opportunity to revisit this question of leaving without a deal. Today, we can and must instead focus all our efforts on securing a good deal with the EU that enables us to leave in a smooth and orderly way on 29 March.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister is, of course, right that there is more clarity about what the House does not want than about what it does want, but to get that clarity about what the House wants, why will she not agree to a series of indicative votes on all the substantive options before us—not the process but the substance, including a comprehensive customs union?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady and others—indeed, Members on her party’s Front Bench—had the opportunity to table indicative votes. Did they do so? No. They tabled something that said, “Well, what’s the answer? Let’s have a few more votes in the future, possibly, maybe, if we think that it might be useful at some stage.”
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
This morning, there was some kite-flying about a so-called Tory Brexit compromise that would still take Scotland out of the EU, would probably require an extension of article 50, and proposes what has already been ruled out. Does that not further emphasise the fact that this Prime Minister’s Brexit policy has been about the Tory party, first, last and always?
The Prime Minister
My Brexit policy, and the policy of the Government, has been about the vote that took place in 2016 in the referendum and about delivering on leaving the European Union.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister agree that it is important for us to honour the referendum and the vote of 2016? Will she rule out any extension of article 50 and any wrecking tactics from the Labour party and make sure that we leave on 29 March?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree that we need to deliver on the result of the referendum. Let me add that when people talk about things such as delaying article 50, that does not resolve the issue of what deal we should have in leaving the European Union. What we can do today is send a clear message to Brussels about what the House wants to see changing in the withdrawal agreement in order to be able to support it.
The Prime Minister
I will give way to the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), and then I will relent and give way to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart).
Mr Leslie
I want to find out what has changed since the Prime Minister said to the House just a fortnight ago:
“some…wanted to see changes to the withdrawal agreement, a unilateral exit mechanism from the backstop, an end date or rejecting the backstop…The simple truth is that the EU was not prepared to agree to this and rejecting the backstop…means no deal.”—[Official Report, 14 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 826.]
Does she still agree with herself?
The Prime Minister
If the hon. Gentleman will wait, I shall come on to talk about the issue of the backstop. We retain absolutely our commitment to a way of ensuring that we deliver on the commitment to no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. However, the hon. Gentleman may have noticed that actually we lost a vote, and we have been listening to Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends say to me that I must recognise that we lost a vote. Yes, that is why we are here, looking at what it will take to ensure that we get a deal through the House.
Pete Wishart
I am very grateful to the Prime Minister for relenting. She is just about to rip up her backstop, and we are all wishing that she would get on with it and tell the House exactly what she plans to do. That involves an agreement—[Interruption.] Hold on a minute. That involves an agreement—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I know that Conservative Members find the hon. Gentleman mildly provocative—[Laughter] —and no, he is not in an isolated category in that regard, but he must be heard.
Pete Wishart
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall continue to be mildly provocative, if I can, by asking the following question. This is an agreement with the European Union. What happens when the European Union says no to the Prime Minister again?
The Prime Minister
The first step in all this is for the House to make clear what it wants to see in relation to changes. The hon. Gentleman says that he wants me to get on with it and actually talk about what I want to talk about. If he were not jumping up and down all the time, I might be able to get on with it.
Let me now turn to the amendments from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). I understand the concerns that led to the tabling of the amendments, but I have the most profound doubts about the consequences to which they would lead.
Both amendments seek to create and exploit mechanisms that would allow Parliament to usurp the proper role of the Executive. Such actions would be unprecedented and could have far-reaching and long-term implications for the way in which the United Kingdom is governed and the balance of powers and responsibilities in our democratic institutions. I am sure that, as former Ministers of the Crown, both Members must know that. So, while I do not question their sincerity in trying to avoid a no-deal Brexit, to seek to achieve that through such means is, I believe, deeply misguided and not a responsible course of action.
Furthermore, neither amendment actually delivers on the best way of avoiding no deal, which is, as I have said, for the House to approve a deal with the European Union. The amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend would see six full days given over to debates and votes on alternative plans, on which we could have voted today. With just 59 days left before we are due to leave the European Union, the way in which to deliver Brexit and avoid a no deal is to focus all our energies and time on getting a revised deal that both the House and the European Union can agree to support.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Does the Prime Minister not understand that the reason we are in this mess is that she chose to go and negotiate without first commanding the support of a majority in the House? Does she also not understand that, whether we are talking about the option that has been put forward by her Back Benchers or other options, she will need two things for that to succeed—time, and the opportunity for the House to agree on the negotiating mandate? The amendments provide that time and that opportunity. Why is the Prime Minister opposing them?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman has an opportunity today to agree the negotiating mandate for going back to Brussels by supporting the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady).
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will have seen that the amendment that I tabled goes solely to process, not to outcome. But is it not the case that the House has never had a proper opportunity to debate options, and to do it in a reasoned way? What the Prime Minister is asking the House to do again today is to suddenly adopt a measure that the Government have signed up to at the last moment and to say that that should be the route we should take. Surely that illustrates the precise problem that the House has had throughout. Let me make it clear to my right hon. Friend that the purpose of my amendment is to give the House the space in which to find where the majority lies, and I commend it to her.
The Prime Minister
Let me say first that we have that opportunity today. I, and others, have been listening and talking to Members on both sides of the House about the issues that they have raised—apart from the Leader of the Opposition, who did not want to come and talk to me. I shall mention a number of those issues later in my speech, but one of them, which has been raised consistently by Members, is the backstop. We have an opportunity to give a clear message to the European Union on this matter today, and I also say to my right hon. and learned Friend that I am sure he has thought through very carefully the longer-term implications of the moves proposed tonight in the amendments that he and the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford have put forward and the implications they have for the relationship between the Executive and Parliament in the future.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister also get the idea that the European Union too wants to do a deal with the United Kingdom? We have a £95 billion deficit with it; the Germans sell us 850,000 cars every year; we buy 20% of all the prosecco produced in Italy: does she agree with me that the European Union wishes to carry on trading with the United Kingdom in the way it currently does?
The Prime Minister
I am going to reference this later on, and I think there is a willingness on the other side—the European Union—to agree a deal with the UK, but what it clearly said when the meaningful vote was lost was that it wanted to know what the UK wanted to see happening in relation to the deal, and that is an opportunity that we have today.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
I will give way to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and then I will make some progress.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I am grateful to the Prime Minister for allowing me to intervene at this early stage.
The Prime Minister is trying to encourage this House to vote for an amendment that uses the words
“alternative arrangements to avoid a hard border”
on the island of Ireland. Forgive me, Prime Minister, if I say that those words are nebulous. They are nebulous; the Prime Minister has a duty to spell out to this House before we vote what those alternative arrangements are, and how on earth the other 27 EU member states are expected to agree to this revised arrangement before Brexit date on 29 March.
The Prime Minister
The amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West and other right hon. and hon. Members does indeed reference the issue of “alternative arrangements”. That term is recognised in the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration in terms of the deal, and I am going on to reference a number of options that have been brought forward in relation to that particular term.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
I am going to make some progress.
The amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford does not rule out no deal; it simply delays the point of decision, and the policy dilemmas, the choices, the trade-offs that we face as a Parliament will not go away if we postpone exit day. Her amendment offers absolutely no positive suggestions to address them. Furthermore, I believe that the EU is very unlikely to agree to extend article 50 without a credible plan for how we are going to approve a deal. So whatever the right hon. Lady’s intention, I think the practical consequences of her amendment would be not to rule out no deal, but to delay Brexit, and that is not a course of action that this House should support.
Yvette Cooper
If the Prime Minister does not get agreement either from the EU or this Parliament to her next course of action, is she ruling out any extension of article 50?
The Prime Minister
I have been very clear, as I said earlier, about the process we will follow: if we get a deal we will bring it back to this House, or if we have not got a deal we will give this House opportunities through amendable motions to state its view as to what should happen at that point in time.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that throughout the history of the European Union it has always worked to deadlines, and the British people now want us to get on and finish the job they have given us?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for what he has pointed out and particularly for the fact that, as he said, the British people just want to see this done. They want us to leave; they want us to leave with a deal.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
I will give way to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, as I have referenced her.
Yvette Cooper
It is really important that the House has some clarity on this. If the Prime Minister is saying that there will be future votes in which Parliament can make some decisions about no deal or not, she will know that her credibility is very limited because she said there would be a vote in December and then pulled it at the last minute. We therefore need some clarity from her now: is she saying that if Parliament votes for an extension of article 50 to avoid no deal on 29 March she will respect that?
The Prime Minister
There is a very simple point: extending article 50 does not rule out no deal. [Interruption.] No, I am sorry; I have said this before, but I apologise to the House as I am going to repeat it again. There are two ways in which it is possible to rule out no deal. One is by revoking article 50 and not leaving. That is the SNP’s view, but it is not my view, it is not the Government’s view, and I believe that it is not the view of the British people and is not the view of the majority of Members of this House. The other way to ensure we do not leave with no deal is to agree a deal. The stage we are at at the moment is that the House of Commons has rejected the deal that the Government agreed with the European Union when we brought that back, and it rejected it with our having achieved further reassurances; I am going to go on to say what I believe is now required by this House, from the conversations and discussions I have had with right hon. and hon. Members of this House. As I have set out—
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady wants to intervene again; I will take another intervention from her, and then if she will excuse me I will make some progress.
Yvette Cooper
I am very grateful to the Prime Minister for giving way again, but I am simply trying to understand what she is saying. She cannot have it both ways: she cannot be saying that she absolutely will leave on 29 March in all circumstances, whatever happens, and then simultaneously say that there will be an opportunity for Parliament to have some future votes and decide what happens next if there is no deal. The question here is whether or not she would ever contemplate any extension of article 50 to get a bit more time to sort things out to avoid no deal—yes or no.
The Prime Minister
As I said earlier in my speech, we will bring a revised deal back to this House for a second meaningful vote as soon as we possibly can. If it were not supported by the House, we would table an amendable motion for debate the next day, and if we have not brought a revised deal back to this House by Wednesday 13 February we will make a statement and again table an amendable motion for debate the next day. The right hon. Lady references the timetable up to 29 March; actually this House voted for that timetable when it voted to trigger article 50.
I would like to move on to the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
The Prime Minister
No.
We should not indulge the amendment from the Leader of the Opposition. First he wanted a comprehensive customs union, then it was a new customs union and now it is a permanent customs union. Last week, I asked him whether he means accepting the common external tariff, accepting the common commercial policy, accepting the Union customs code, or accepting EU state aid rules: he had no answers then; he has no answers now; he hasn’t got a clue. He is still facing both ways on whether Labour would keep freedom of movement, and last night he whipped his MPs to oppose the Bill that would end free movement and introduce a skills-based system. And he is still facing both ways on a second referendum: his amendment calls for legislation for a public vote, but we still do not know whether he would use it or what the question would be.
I know that many Labour voters and MPs, and others in the Labour movement, are frustrated by the Leader of the Opposition’s approach. It is surely time for him to step up to the responsibility of being Leader of the Opposition and finally sit down with me and talk about how we can secure support in this House for a deal. As I said last week, he has been willing to sit down with Hamas, Hezbollah and the IRA without preconditions; it is time he did something in our national interest, not against it.
The Prime Minister
No, I am going to make some progress.
None of the amendments I have addressed so far will ensure that we deliver Brexit. Instead, they simply provide more arguments against action and more reasons to stand still. Rather than setting out a plan to make Brexit work, they create further delay. And delay without a plan is not a solution; it is a road to nowhere.
The Prime Minister
No. I have said to the hon. Lady that I am going to make progress.
I am not prepared to stand still and put at risk either the Brexit that the people of this country voted for or the economic success they have worked so hard to secure. After this House gave its verdict on the withdrawal agreement, I stood at this Dispatch Box and pledged to work with the House to determine what steps to take next, and in the two weeks since, I have done just that. [Interruption.] Labour Front Benchers say that I have not done that. Actually, the only people I have not been able to talk to about this are the Labour party’s Front Benchers, because they decided not to come.
I have listened to the House, met MPs from all parties and spoken with and listened to Members of the European Parliament, Heads of the devolved Administrations, senior trade unionists and the leaders of Britain’s biggest businesses. From those conversations, it is obvious that three key changes are needed.
First, we must be more flexible, open and inclusive in how we engage this House in our approach to negotiating our future partnership with the European Union. Secondly, we must and will embed the strongest possible protections for workers’ rights and the environment. The Government will not allow the UK leaving the EU to result in any lowering of standards in relation to employment, environmental protection or health and safety. Furthermore, we will ensure that, after exit day, the House has the opportunity to consider any measure approved by EU institutions that strengthens any of those protections. As I have set out before, we will consider legislation where necessary to ensure that those commitments are binding. To that end, in the coming days, we will have further talks with the trade unions and MPs across the House to flesh out exactly how we can ensure that their concerns on those fronts are met. My message to Britain’s workers, in factories, offices, warehouses and right across our country, is that you can rest assured that the Government will deliver for you.
Mr Dhesi
A clear and concise message needs to be given to the EU and to our nation. The Prime Minister does not want no deal, business in Slough and in the rest of the country do not want no deal, and the unions, which she has just mentioned, do not want no deal, so what is the problem in putting that down in black and white?
The Prime Minister
In order to deliver what the hon. Gentleman wants and ensure that we do not leave with no deal, we need to agree a deal. What we are doing today is looking at a series of amendments. I will come on shortly to an amendment that actually sets out a clear view from this House that we can take to the European Union and work to ensure that we can leave with a deal.
The third point that has become clear from discussions is that we must address the concerns of this House over the nature of the Northern Ireland backstop. The fundamental concern is that what is supposed to be a temporary arrangement could in fact become permanent. The message has been unequivocal: this House wants changes to the backstop before it will back a deal.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
No, I am going to explain the position. That message has come from Conservative Back Benchers, Opposition Members and our confidence and supply partners in the DUP. That is why I believe it is in all our interests for the House to back the amendment tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and Sale West and for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and others.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
No, I am going to explain. This amendment will give the mandate I need to negotiate with Brussels an arrangement that commands a majority in this House—one that ensures we leave with a deal and addresses the House’s concerns, while guaranteeing no return to the hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
What I am talking about is not a further exchange of letters but a significant and legally binding change to the withdrawal agreement. Negotiating such a change will not be easy. It will involve reopening the withdrawal agreement—a move for which I know there is limited appetite among our European partners. But I believe that with a mandate from this House, and supported by the Attorney General, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, I can secure such a change in advance of our departure from the EU.
Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I welcome what the Prime Minister has said about the need to address the issue of the Northern Ireland backstop, which she is quite right to emphasise as the primary problem. I also welcome the fact that she has said in terms that she will go back and seek the reopening of the withdrawal agreement. She can be assured of our support in trying to find a solution that avoids any hard border on the island of Ireland as well as any borders within the United Kingdom.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful for the clarity with which the right hon. Gentleman has set out that position. We remain absolutely committed as a Government to ensuring that we have no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland and that any proposals accepted and put forward by this House maintain our precious Union.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
I agree with the Prime Minister that the best way to avoid no deal is to put an agreement in place. She will be aware that a surprising combination of Members with very different Brexit views have been coming together to come up with some proposals. We are very grateful to her for the time she has given to engage with us. Will she undertake to ask her officials to consider those proposals seriously and to put them on the table as a possible way of fleshing out the alternative arrangements?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend anticipates what I was going to say. We will be focusing on delivering specific changes that will address the concerns of the House, and I am looking at a range of ways to achieve that. As my right hon. Friend has just said, she and my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Mr Baker), for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) and others have worked to bring forward a serious proposal that we are engaging with sincerely and positively.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
I will take more interventions in a moment. I can give my right hon. Friend confirmation that we will sit down and work through the proposal in the way she has suggested.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
Some 17.4 million people voted for Brexit. The idea that they were duped into doing so is absolute nonsense, so Brexit must be delivered. But it must be a Brexit that protects jobs in my constituency and beyond. Unions and bosses tell me that that requires a permanent customs union or arrangement. Why will the Prime Minister not listen to them?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about ensuring that we deliver on the vote of those 17.4 million people, and I want to deliver on that with a deal that does protect jobs. What we need to ensure is that, as we look to the future relationship, in the free trade area and in the customs arrangements, we remember the necessity of protecting those jobs. What I have also heard very clearly from hon. Members on both sides of the House and, of course, from the trade union leaders I have spoken to is the issue of ensuring that we protect workers’ rights. As I have just indicated, we are committed to doing so.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
I say to all Members of this House that I have already been very generous in taking interventions. I am sure that many Members wish to contribute to the debate, so I will make progress.
The Prime Minister
As I have referenced my hon. Friend in my speech, I will give way to him.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and thank her for her very clear assurances that the withdrawal agreement text will be reopened and that she will consider what has been called the Malthouse compromise. May I ask for one more promise, namely that any further detailed agreement will come back and will not be deemed to have been ratified by the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady)?
The Prime Minister
I give my hon. Friend that assurance: it has to and will come back to this House. Legally speaking, ratification of the agreement can take place only in the act of passing the WAB—the withdrawal agreement Bill. That will be the ratification moment for any arrangements.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has referred repeatedly to protecting workers’ rights post Brexit, but may I take her back to 2017 and my Bill, which was specifically about protecting workers’ rights when we leave the European Union on 29 March? Why was that measure not adopted at the time, and if she is so committed to it, will she meet me to discuss those elements of the Bill that she is prepared to adopt?
The Prime Minister
We are looking at ways in which we can give that assurance in relation to workers’ rights. As I said, we are looking at when legislation would be appropriate and where it would be necessary. I am happy to meet the hon. Lady to go through that issue.
I want to complete what I was saying to my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan). We will indeed engage seriously and positively with the proposals that she has put forward, which were also referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset. The crucial concept that we see within this amendment is the concept of alternative arrangements. As I have already said in this speech, that has already been accepted by the EU as a way out of the backstop. I commend my right hon. and hon. Friends for their willingness to find a solution and I look forward to working with them over the coming days. A number of other colleagues have also suggested ways to achieve that aim, such as securing a time limit to the backstop, or a unilateral exit clause, which we will of course study closely as well. While there are obviously details that need to be worked through, the fact that leading figures from different sides of the argument are coming together to develop proposals shows how much progress has been made over the past few weeks.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Does the Prime Minister recognise that there is no solution in chasing fantasies? The EU has ruled this kind of option out many times. We cannot have an insurance policy based on a technology that does not exist. Will she not recognise that what she is chasing here are heated-up fantasies that have already been rejected by the EU and depend on technologies that do not exist?
The Prime Minister
Members across the House have put forward a number of proposals on how this issue can be addressed. They are not indulging in fantasies—they are coming forward with serious proposals, on which this Government will work with them.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
On the question of our control over our laws, to honour the referendum, will my right hon. Friend give instructions to make certain that in any future withdrawal and implementation Bill, there will be an express repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, so as to dovetail with section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which we have passed?
The Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend knows, in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, we repealed the 1972 Act. It would be necessary to replicate the impact of some aspects of that Act for the purposes of the implementation period, but I certainly take what my hon. Friend has said. Within the withdrawal agreement Bill that we will need to bring before the House, we will make absolutely clear the arrangements for ensuring that the European Communities Act, and its impacts, do not go beyond the end of the implementation period.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
I will take more interventions in a little while, but I want to make the point that the essence of any negotiation is to find a mutually acceptable solution. That is the spirit in which both sides have consistently approached these negotiations and that is the spirit in which I will engage with our partners, if this amendment passes.
Some say that there is no point even trying to achieve any change—I am hearing that from some interventions from sedentary positions, and from elsewhere—and that the EU simply will not budge under any circumstances, but in the two years since this House voted to trigger article 50, the EU has made concessions in many areas of the negotiations where people said no ground would ever be given. Today, neither side in this negotiation wants to see the UK leave without a deal. The simple fact is that the deal I reached with the EU has been rejected by this House. In response, the EU has asked us what we want and what this Parliament will accept, and this is Parliament’s opportunity to tell them.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the Prime Minister agree that, rather than chasing a fantasy, there is now an opportunity, which Michel Barnier himself presented when he told the Irish Government that the EU would look for ways of ensuring that checks could take place without any infrastructure along the border? He even talked about paperless and decentralised arrangements. That is what the EU is saying, so it is obviously not a fantasy, but something we have in common.
The Prime Minister
Those are exactly the issues that we want to work on, and several proposals have been put forward. However, what matters today is that Parliament makes it clear to the EU that the backstop is the issue that needs to be dealt with. This is Parliament’s opportunity to respond to the EU, which has said that it wants us to tell it what we want. This is our opportunity to do that. This is not the second meaningful vote. As I have said and repeated, we will bring a revised deal back to the House for just such a vote as soon as possible.
A vote for amendment (n) is a vote to tell Brussels that the current nature of the backstop is the key reason the House cannot support this deal, as many hon. Members have said to me, the media and their constituents over the past few weeks. A vote against that amendment does the opposite. It tells the EU that, despite what people may have said in speeches, tweets and newspaper columns, the backstop is not the problem. It risks sending a message that we are not serious about delivering a Brexit that works for Britain.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady is not the first Prime Minister to discover that the Conservative party is un-uniteable and unleadable on Europe. Many others have learnt that lesson. However, as she celebrates having people on different sides of the argument coming together to support an amendment, does she not realise that she has been able to get them to agree to it only because it is so nebulous as to be meaningless?
The Prime Minister
If the hon. Gentleman wants to look for different views about the issue, perhaps he can talk to some of his colleagues. He might try to get the Leader of the Opposition to focus on a detailed proposal for what the Labour party thinks.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I think that Conservative Members are all trying to find a way of getting a deal, and I have been impressed with what the Prime Minister has said today. We will send her back to Brussels to reopen the withdrawal agreement, but will she assure the House that, if we do not agree with what she comes back with, we will still have the right to vote against it?
The Prime Minister
Yes, of course the House will have the right to decide whether it agrees with the agreement that emerges. However, I hope that, when we bring a revised agreement to the House—as I am sure that we will be able to—my hon. Friend will look at it carefully before he determines how to vote.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
I am conscious of the length of time I have been at the Dispatch Box. Hon. Members want to speak and I will now conclude.
Since the draft withdrawal agreement was published, I have come to the House to discuss it more than half a dozen times. I have been on the Front Bench for many hours of debate, taking hundreds of questions and interventions from hon. Members, and I have been listening.
The Prime Minister
I indicated that I would not take any more interventions and that I was completing my speech. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity, if she catches the Speaker’s eye, to speak later.
I have witnessed division and discord, and I have seen passion and anger on all sides, but in the two weeks since the House rejected the withdrawal agreement, I have sensed a growing recognition of the task that has been entrusted to us. Members on all sides have begun to focus on what really matters: delivering the Brexit that Britain voted for while protecting our economy and our people.
We can increasingly see where this consensus lies, and I believe that we are within reach of a deal that this House can stand behind, but the days ahead are crucial. When I go back to Brussels to seek the changes this House demands, I need the strongest possible support behind me. Most of the amendments before us do not provide that. They create a cacophony of voices when this House needs to speak as one. I will never stop battling for Britain, but the odds of success become far longer if this House ties one hand behind my back. I call on the House to give me the mandate I need to deliver a deal this House can support. Do that, and I can work to reopen the withdrawal agreement. Do that, and I can fight for a backstop that honours our commitments to the people of Northern Ireland in a way this House can support. Do that, and we can leave the EU with a deal that honours the result of the referendum.
The time has come for words to be matched by deeds: if you want to tell Brussels what this House will accept, you have to vote for it; if you want to leave with a deal, you have to vote for it; if you want Brexit, you have to vote for Brexit.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and it is important to start by reminding us all that this whole process was secured only in the teeth of Government opposition, so I start by paying tribute to those MPs who voted with us for Parliament to have a full democratic role in the Brexit process and especially to the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) for his work in the earlier debates.
Labour has been absolutely clear from the start that there must be a meaningful vote on any negotiated deal. That was raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) at the very beginning of this whole Brexit process. Should a deal be defeated in Parliament, as it was decisively, Parliament must have a say on how the Government proceed.
This is a vital issue that affects the future direction of our country and the future facing all of our constituents. It determines the jobs and living standards of our people, the rights of European Union citizens living in Britain who have been deeply stressed by this situation—as have British citizens living across the continent of Europe—our place in the world and our participation and co-operation in Europe-wide projects on issues as vital as security, counter-terrorism and climate change.
Our job must be to bring people together. No matter how anyone in this House campaigned in the referendum, we cannot wish away the votes of 17 million people who voted to leave, any more than we can ignore the concerns of the 16 million who voted to remain. We must have in our minds the views right across the country.
It is therefore right that Members represent their constituents in deciding the way forward on implementing the result of the referendum, but in delivering the result, we have to unite people so as not to create further divisions, stoke xenophobia or allow racism to rear its ugly head in our society. Many communities across this country have been neglected for far too long, lacking decent investment and with too few—
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The person who has the Floor chooses whether and, if so, when to give way. That is the situation. It is very clear, and it cannot be contradicted. That is all there is to it.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Jeremy Corbyn
I will give way later to a small number of people. [Interruption.] Listen, the reason why this debate is so short is that the Government decided to take an hour out of it to make a statement that could have been made on any other day, not to mention the fact that the vote was delayed on 11 December, which wound down the clock still further.
Many communities across this country have been neglected for far too long, lacking decent investment and with too few secure and well-paid jobs and too little new industrial development. These are not issues that face Britain alone; they would be recognisable in communities all across Europe, where many people face exactly the same problems.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Contradictory, confused or claptrap. Which of those c’s best describes the right hon. Gentleman’s policy at the current time?
Jeremy Corbyn
This is a serious debate, and I do not think the hon. Gentleman’s intervention has done anything to raise the standard of debate.
It is quite clear to me that our first duty is to block a disastrous no deal, and I hope amendments to that effect will be carried by the House this evening. Labour’s amendment (a), which stands in my name and in the name of my colleagues, starts by calling for sufficient time for Parliament to vote on options that prevent leaving with no deal, but whatever happens in the votes that follow, it has now become inevitable that the Government will have to extend article 50 in any scenario. If amendments intended to rule out no deal are defeated, and if this Government are serious about keeping the threat of no deal on the table, they are not even close—not even close—to being prepared, and the exit date would have to be extended.
Even if the Prime Minister’s deal were somehow to achieve a majority in this House next month, there is no chance that the necessary primary legislation and an extensive catalogue of secondary legislation—I believe there are over 600 statutory instruments—could clear this place between now and 29 March.
Mr Dhesi
I can see that I am very well liked here. Does my right hon. Friend agree that clear, close and collaborative describes the relationship proposed by his amendment? That is why we need a customs union. The unions, Labour members and others are telling us that we need a customs union with our neighbours.
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and, of course, he is right. If we are to protect jobs and industries and maintain living standards, there has to be a customs union.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has just reiterated, as his amendment references, the need for a customs union. Will he now tell the House whether he means accepting the common commercial policy, accepting the common external tariffs, accepting the Union customs code—it is no use asking the shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union—and accepting the EU’s state aid rules?
Jeremy Corbyn
Obviously a customs union would be negotiated, would be inclusive and would be designed to ensure that our jobs and investment are protected, that there is frictionless and seamless trade with the European Union and that we have a say in future trade arrangements—something the Prime Minister has absolutely failed to achieve. The fault for not achieving it lies absolutely with the Prime Minister. She claimed she would have a deal agreed by October, then she delayed the vote by a month, and she still suffered the worst—
Mr Speaker
Order. The former Foreign Secretary does not seem to be very well versed in the traditions of the House of Commons and debate. [Interruption.] Order. I am telling the right hon. Gentleman what the position is, and he will learn from me. When he seeks to intervene, he waits to hear whether the person on his or her feet is giving way, and the Leader of the Opposition is not giving way. In that case, with the very greatest of respect, it is for the right hon. Gentleman to know his place, which is in his seat.
Jeremy Corbyn
Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I was saying, the fault lies exclusively with the Prime Minister, who missed her own deadline to have a deal agreed by October, and she still suffered the worst defeat of any Government in British history.
Jeremy Corbyn
I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon).
Jim McMahon
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. [Interruption.] I am not sure how people in this House believe this will be received by the public watching on TV, but I have to say that the public are sick of the childish antics of people in this House and they want us to come together to find a way through this mess. There are thousands of different views on, and variations of, what people felt and thought they voted for in that referendum, but the one thing we can be certain of is that the referendum leaflet that went to every household in this country did not make any mention of leaving the customs union. Why can we not find agreement on that?
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The point he makes about the way in which this House debates these matters is important. He has led a local authority, Oldham, brought people together and brought communities together, and achieved things—that is something this Government have lamentably failed to do. If the—
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) may have inadvertently misled the House. He claimed that no one had said during the EU referendum that we would be leaving the customs union. In fact, the former Prime Minister said that—
Mr Speaker
Order. Resume your seat, Mr Fabricant. I know you are trying to help the House and I appreciate that—your public spiritedness is well known throughout the House and across the nation—but the hon. Gentleman referred to a leaflet and the contents thereof. Whatever the merits or demerits of that argument, it is not a matter of order for the Chair. It is a matter of political debate, as your grinning countenance suggests you are well aware.
Mr Speaker
Order. Resume your seat. [Interruption.] With no disrespect to the hon. Lady, I am not interested in observations. [Interruption.] Order. I am not debating it. I am telling you what the situation is. [Interruption.] It is no good laughing, chuckling away as though it is a matter of great amusement. It is a matter of fact: points of order, yes; observations, no. [Interruption.] No, the hon. Lady has helpfully explained that she had an observation to make. We are very grateful.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman does know parliamentary procedure. Point of order, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Mr Rees-Mogg
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a genuine point of order. I wonder whether you could guide the House on how Members refuse interventions, because I think the reason there is so much noise is that it is not clear whether the right hon. Gentleman has heard the request for an intervention or not. Your guidance would be extraordinarily helpful.
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If I understand his point of order correctly, the answer to it is that the customary method of acknowledging the intention of another Member to intervene, and perhaps the acceptance of that intervention, is a gesticulation with the hand, at which, among other things, the hon. Gentleman excels. [Interruption.] No, no, I think the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) is a bit confused; it is not about the fact that someone seeking to intervene gesticulates, but the fact that the Member on his or her feet signals acceptance. That has not happened and therefore the Leader of the Opposition has the Floor. The position is extraordinarily straightforward.
Angela Smith
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do wonder, with all the noise in the Chamber and with my being directly behind the Leader of the Opposition, whether my requests for an intervention may not have been heard.
Mr Speaker
I cannot claim to have known that, but I think now that the hon. Lady has issued what might be called a public information notice. We are aware of it, but it is a matter for the Leader of the Opposition to decide. I hope the hon. Lady is satisfied with her efforts.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
Order. [Interruption.] Calm down. I gave a ruling in relation to the point of order, and “Further to that point of order” does not arise.
Jeremy Corbyn
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is the Prime Minister seriously telling this House that we have to wait until 13 February—
Jeremy Corbyn
And put—[Hon. Members: “She’s behind you.”] I can well understand what the Tory MPs are trying to do here. They do not want to hear the debate. They do not want to be part of this debate. They—
Mr Speaker
Order. Many people have talked in recent times about the importance of respect in the Chamber. [Interruption.] No, no, no, I do not require any help from the Government Chief Whip. Let me gently say to him that he has a challenging task, which he discharges to the best of his capabilities, and the House and the nation are grateful to him. The idea that he needs to advise the Leader of the Opposition or the Speaker on how to discharge their responsibilities is, frankly, beyond credulity. He has got one job to do. People will make their assessment of whether and how well he does it. Don’t try doing somebody else’s job. With respect, sir, it is way beyond you.
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in accordance with the rules of this House that the Leader of the Opposition takes interventions only from male members of his party?
Mr Speaker
The answer is that there is no breach of rules whatsoever. The hon. Lady has made her own point, in her own way, and I acknowledge it. No breach of rules has taken place. Order has been maintained. That is clear to me and to the professional advisers to the Chair as well, and I think the hon. Lady knows it. However, she has made her own point, in her own inimitable way.
Jeremy Corbyn
I did take an intervention from the Prime Minister, Mr Speaker. Perhaps the hon. Lady had not noticed that.
Is the Prime Minister seriously telling the House to wait until 13 February and put its faith in her doing negotiations in a couple of weeks that she has failed to do in the past two years? One really wonders how many more ceremonial baubles and promises of ermine will be handed out in vain in an attempt to cajole Conservative MPs to vote for a deal that has been overwhelmingly rejected by this House. The Prime Minister says that a second referendum would be like asking the public to vote again until they give the right answer, but so far that is precisely what she is asking this House to do.
Labour will today back amendments that attempt to rule out this Government’s reckless option of allowing the UK to crash out without a deal. Everyone bar the Prime Minister accepts this would be disastrous. The CBI says:
“The projected impact”—
of no deal
“on the UK economy would be devastating”.
Just yesterday, the Federation of Small Businesses called on Members of this House to block no deal. The TUC, representing millions of workers, is also opposed to no deal, as its general secretary, Frances O’Grady, reiterated to me last week. Every Opposition party in this House is opposed to no deal. Many Conservative Members, even Front-Bench and Cabinet Conservative Members, are opposed to no deal. Let me quote the Chancellor, who said recently:
“I clearly do not believe that making a choice to leave without a deal would be a responsible thing to do”.
So, presumably, he too wants no deal ruled out.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jeremy Corbyn
I am making progress. The Home Secretary has gone further and called for a free vote on the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). The Labour party will back that amendment tonight, because to crash out without a deal would be deeply damaging for industry and the economy—that is why the Chancellor says it would be irresponsible. I say to my right hon. Friend now that in backing her amendment, we are backing a short window of three months to allow time for renegotiation.
Yvette Cooper
I want to address the point that my right hon. Friend has raised about my amendment and I do not want to cut across a very difficult wider issue. On his point about the amendment, I reassure my right hon. Friend that the purpose of the amendment and the Bill is not to fix any particular time for any extension, or even to decide now what an extension of article 50 should be; it is simply to give the House the ability to do so at the end of February. I agree that nobody wants to see any unnecessary delays.
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank my right hon. Friend for those remarks and the spirit in which she made them. Her amendment quite clearly has the effect of ruling out no deal on 29 March. Surely that should be good and important for this House. It will not be any comfort, after 29 March, to say, “I told you so,” when the lorries are backing up on the M20, cancer patients cannot get medicines and prices are rising in our shops. Tonight, we have the opportunity to take no deal off the table.
When the Prime Minister invited party leaders for talks, I said to her that she must first remove the threat of no deal. If the House today votes to remove the immediate threat of crashing out without a deal on 29 March, as I fervently hope it does and will, I will be happy to meet the Prime Minister to discuss a sensible solution that works for the whole country—which is what the Labour party wants to achieve.
Many of the amendments tabled, including those in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), and of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), advocate delaying article 50 to give Parliament more time to break the impasse and avoid the dangers of no deal. If the House votes for any of those amendments, the Prime Minister must accept that an extension to article 50 is a responsible measure to allow time for real renegotiation and to find a deal that can win the support of this House. It will mean that no deal is off the table and that the red lines must change.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jeremy Corbyn
I am making progress, if I may.
The primary part of Labour’s amendment is about finding a workable solution. That means a new customs union, a strong single market deal and no race to the bottom on workers’ rights, on environmental protections and standards or on consumer standards. The EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier has been clear that
“unanimously the European Council…have always said that if the UK chooses to shift its red lines in future…and go beyond a simple free trade agreement…then the European Union will be immediately ready to…give a favourable response.”
We understand that just this weekend the EU Commission President told the Prime Minister that accepting the case for a permanent customs union would help to solve the issue of the backstop arrangement. Indeed, Ireland’s Europe Minister made exactly that point at the weekend, saying:
“The backstop is there because of the red lines that the UK put down”
at the beginning of this process.
We understand that today the Government will back the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady)—the Prime Minister said as much—which will require changes to the backstop, but still we have no clarity on what changes they are or which red lines will change to allow that to happen. On the other side, we see that there is flexibility—an apparent willingness now to renegotiate—but only if the red lines change.
Ms Angela Eagle
Does my right hon. Friend share my puzzlement, after listening to the Prime Minister for close to an hour and with many people having asked the question, that we are still no nearer to knowing any detail on what the phrase “alternative arrangements” means, except that the Prime Minister said they were arrangements that were alternative?
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We are witnessing the long, slow decline of this Government as they run down the clock. They put off the vote then lost the vote. They came to the House today and are now offering more votes next week, then a week later and a week later. They are running down the clock, using the fear of no deal as opposed to the Prime Minister’s deal. Her deal was defeated two weeks ago, but the Prime Minister is still to answer the question on which of her red lines she is prepared to change, or even just be flexible on. It is clear that the obstacle to a solution is the Prime Minister. She is refusing to accept the clearly stated will of this House, which has decisively—in record numbers for a parliamentary vote—defeated her deal and which is equally clear in its opposition to a disastrous no deal, which I hope and expect will be reiterated tonight.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jeremy Corbyn
I am going to make progress.
In the absence of any leadership from the Prime Minister, solutions are being put forward from across the House. Those advocating Norway plus or common market 2.0 have worked on a cross-party basis. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), and my hon. Friends the Members for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) and for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell). They are clear that not only do we need full access to the single market but we need a customs union, too. That is why a new comprehensive and permanent customs union has long been Labour’s policy. It is a pragmatic solution that would help to deliver the Brexit that people voted for and the frictionless trade that the Prime Minister once promised, that would help to deliver a solution to the Irish backstop and that would help to deliver a majority across the House for a deal.
Jeremy Corbyn
So far, the Prime Minister has only doubled down on her own defeated deal, saying at last week’s Prime Minister’s Question Time that her deal delivers
“the benefits of a customs union and the benefits of our own trade policy.”—[Official Report, 23 January 2019; Vol. 653, c. 237.]
It does no such thing. The political declaration fails to deliver on the Chequers promise of frictionless trade—it does not even guarantee tariff-free trade. It means that we lose the 40 to 50 trade agreements we have through the EU.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)
Why is the right hon. Gentleman scared to take an intervention from the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), a member of the Labour party for 37 years?
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank the Minister for his intervention and his brief statement of his leadership intentions.
As I was saying—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
He is not giving way. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Order. The House must behave with decorum. Senior Front-Bench Members, who I know would proclaim their commitment to, and I am sure genuinely believe in, courtesy in the Chamber, are witness to deliberate attempts to shout down the Leader of the Opposition. [Interruption.] Order. It will not happen. [Interruption.] Order. The rules of this House are clear. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to give way, he does so; if he does not wish to do so, he does not have to do so. He will not be shouted down and no amount of inspired and orchestrated attempts to shout him down will work—not today, not tomorrow, not at any time. Drop it. It is not worth it and, actually, you are not very good at it.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There may be quite a few people in the country watching this debate. They will not understand that our shouting is one way of seeing whether somebody can maintain a line of argument to his and her colleagues here. Given the damage that this debate is already doing to our standing with the nation, might not you consider taking all the amendments that you did not call, and closing the proceedings early so that we can actually vote on those amendments. The country will understand that, whereas they do not understand this behaviour.
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I know that he is well-intentioned, but the short answer is no. The timescale for the debate has been set and agreed by the House, and the selection by the Chair has been appropriately made in accordance with the conventions of this House and without demur from colleagues, and it is best that we proceed.
Jeremy Corbyn
I am coming towards the end of my remarks, because I want to ensure that other Members get a chance to speak in this debate.
Simon Hoare
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker. Earlier in this debate, you rightly referred to the expectations of this place of respect and politeness to colleagues. That is a perfectly sensible benchmark to set. In your judgment, Sir, and I seek your ruling on this, has the behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition to the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) lived up to your expectations of respect to colleagues?
Mr Speaker
The answer is very simple. Good order has been preserved; nothing disorderly has taken place. I do not want to be unkind to the hon. Gentleman because I know that he is trying to be an apprentice parliamentary expert, but I am afraid that he has quite a few steps on the ladder still to climb.
Jeremy Corbyn
The point that I was making is that we could lose 40 to 50 trade agreements that we have through the European Union, which the International Trade Secretary has so far failed to replicate at all, despite the extraordinary and very bold claims that he made at the beginning of this whole Brexit process.
This is a Government in denial, split from top to bottom, and incapable of uniting themselves, let alone the country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jeremy Corbyn
No, I am making progress; I will not give way any more.
The Government are in denial about the majority view of this House, which I believe exists to rule out no deal and to get a workable deal that includes a customs union. That is why, tonight, Labour will back amendments that give this House the opportunity to recognise the reality that this Government have so far failed to recognise. This Government’s shambolic handling of Brexit negotiations is fast becoming a crisis. It is worrying to businesses and it is worrying to people in work who are concerned about their futures. Everyone who is worried is worried because they have no leadership on this process from their Government. They have no leadership from a Government who have demonstrated that they have no ability to negotiate a good deal, no willingness to listen to Parliament—hence we are back here again despite the biggest ever defeat in parliamentary history—and, crucially, no acceptance that they must change course. The Government have spent most of the past two years arguing among themselves rather than negotiating with the European Union. And they are still arguing among themselves and failing to come up with a workable solution. Tonight, I hope that this House does its job and leads where this Government have failed.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
None of us taking part in this debate is in any doubt that we are actually discussing an almost unique political crisis—one of a kind that has not happened for very many years. The crisis takes two forms: one is that we are trying to break a political deadlock over exactly what changes we will make to the great bulk of our political, security, intelligence, crime-fighting, trade and investment, and environmental relationships with the rest of the world, having turned away from the ones that we have put together over the past 47 years; the second is that we are also facing a constitutional crisis over the credibility of the Government and Parliament in their ability to resolve these matters. I rather agree with what the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) said. I enjoy as much as any veteran parliamentarian the rowdiness of the House of Commons; it is a way of testing the arguments. However, we should also be aware that, at the moment, the public are looking on our political system with something rather near to contempt, as it seems to them that neither the Government nor the political parties, parliamentarians and politicians in general seem able to resolve a question that was first raised by a referendum. Referendums are designed by those who support them to bypass parliamentary decision making, parliamentary majorities and political parties deciding things. We really do need to settle down, and, perhaps if the Government get their way, we can do that in the next few weeks. We have fewer than 60 days to decide how we will come to conclusions about the way forward.
I want to concentrate on just a few issues. I have put forward most of my views on these amendments in the many debates that we have had already, and many other people want to speak. I suspect that a high proportion of this House can guess which way I will vote on the amendments that Mr Speaker has chosen. Probably far too many of them have had to listen to my arguments. To take some encouragement from this debate—
Mr Clarke
I will in a second.
I wish to take up this question of the relationship between Parliament and the Government, because I took some encouragement from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who did seem to accept that the Government should give opportunities to the House to debate things that each Member regards as key matters of policy. Under our constitution, the Government have to pay regard to the views expressed by this House.
Frank Field
I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. He and I tabled an amendment that was not called. It was to give this House the chance to vote on the various options. The Prime Minister, when she was speaking, talked of taking other amendments away and working on them with the hope of bringing them back to act upon. Might I, through this intervention, ask him to push on his own side that she does precisely that with our amendment?
Mr Clarke
Let me just deal with this question and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if his point is relevant.
The question is, what is the role of this House vis-à-vis the Government and what are our procedures? I must admit that, in the past month or two, I have listened to what I, as a fairly experienced Member here now, have regarded as the most extraordinary nonsense about sweeping away centuries of tradition and distorting our procedures because people have objected to the Speaker selecting amendments where they think they might not be on the winning side. There is a rather fundamental, underlying problem here. This Government did not start this, but Brexit brought it to its head. I think that it started with the Blair Government, because Tony Blair, with the greatest respect, never could quite understand why he had to submit to Parliament so often. He started timetabling all our business and so on, but that is now water under the bridge. I say with respect that, mistakenly, this Government began by saying that they were going to invoke the royal prerogative, and, as it was a treaty, they felt that Parliament would not be involved in invoking article 50 or any of the consequences because the monarch would act solely on the advice of her Prime Minister, trying to take us back several hundred years. That was swept away. Then we had to have defeats inflicted on the Government last summer in order to get a meaningful vote on the outcome of any negotiations. This has gone on all the way through the process. Today’s debate and the votes that we are having tonight are only taking place because the Government actually resisted the whole idea of coming back here with any alternative to the deal that they were telling us was done and fixed and the only way of going forward. That has worried me all the way through.
Now, I did take the Prime Minister today to be taking a totally different approach, and I hope that she will confirm that. It does now seem that, whatever course we decide on today, things are going to come back to this House. No deal of any kind is going to be ratified until we have had a vote in this House, approving whatever we are presented with. One problem is that we have not yet produced a consensus or a majority for any option, but if this House expresses a clear wish about the nature of the deal that it wants to see negotiated, the Government will consider—indeed, I believe that under our constitution, they are bound to follow—the wishes of the House of Commons, because British Governments have never been able to pursue these matters without the consent and support of a majority of the House of Commons.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the House must test the various options. Will he “join the (q)”, as it were? Amendment (q) aims to revoke article 50. Is that one of the ideas that he thinks should be tested in this House—even for nothing other than that the people of Scotland would at least know the folly of sticking with Westminster, which is taking them out of Europe against their will?
Mr Clarke
I do not wish to revoke article 50 for the same reasons as the hon. Gentleman, although I do share some of his views. If I was trying to exercise unfettered autocratic power in the government of the country, I would of course still believe that the best interests of the United Kingdom lie in remaining a member of the European Union. I do not share enthusiasm, however, for what the hon. Gentleman wants. After the pleasure of the first referendum and all that it has caused, he now thinks that we will automatically resolve things by having a second referendum, which could be even more chaotic in its effects than that the one we have had.
As I have said, the Government of the day have got to give this House a far bigger role, which therefore means a much bigger responsibility on this House to create the intraparty, cross-party majority that is the only majority of any kind that might be available here for any sensible way forward.
Mr Clarke
Let me just finish my point. I will give way in a minute.
I heard all the stuff when the Clerks were invoked—the advice of the Clerks to the Government to resist this approach. Of course it is true that the law can only be changed by legislation. That is a perfectly straightforward legal point. But in our constitution, in my opinion, the Government are accountable politically to the non-legislative votes of Parliament. It is utterly absurd to say that Opposition Supply days and amendments to motions of the kind we are addressing today are just the resolutions of a debating society that have no effect upon the conduct of daily government. If we concede that point in the middle of this shambles of Brexit, with all the other things we have to resolve, we will have done great harm to future generations because it is difficult to see how the concept of parliamentary sovereignty will survive such an extraordinary definition.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
May I humbly suggest that the Prime Minister is actually following the will of Parliament, because she is remembering that, two years ago, two thirds of MPs in this Parliament voted to trigger article 50, which leads to the unconditional leaving of the European Union on 29 March? That was the instruction that she was given by Parliament that she is trying to deliver, and our duty is to assist her.
Mr Clarke
With the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend, I think that my approach throughout the last two years has demonstrated that I am prepared to be pragmatic in response to these things. I did not regard myself as bound by a referendum. In the British constitution, referendums are advisory—they are described as such in official pronunciations—but politically most Members of this House bound themselves to obeying the result. That was brought home to me in a parliamentary way, consistent with what I have just been saying, by the massive majority of votes cast for invoking article 50. I opposed the invocation of article 50, but since that time I accept—I have to accept—that this House has willed that we are leaving the European Union.
With respect to my right hon. Friend, I do not concur that we agreed to leave unconditionally, whatever the circumstances, at a then arbitrary date two years ahead. We then wasted at least the first 18 months of the time, because nobody here had really thought through in any detailed way exactly what we were now going to seek as an alternative to our membership of the European Union, to safeguard our political and economic relationships with the world in the future. And we still have not decided that. It looks as though I am going to be remarkably brief by my own standards, but that is probably only by contrast with the frequently interrupted Front-Bench speeches, to which I have mercifully been only mildly, and perfectly pleasantly, exposed.
Where does this leave me, given that I believe I have a duty to make my mind up on the votes that we are going to have today? I am one of those who voted for withdrawal on the withdrawal agreement. That was the first time in my life that I have ever cast any kind of vote contemplating Britain leaving the European project and the European Union. I thought that the agreement was perfectly harmless and perfectly obvious, and could have been negotiated years before, with citizenship rights, legally owed debts that we are obviously going to honour and an arrangement that protected the Irish border—the treaty commitment to a permanently open border.
The independent hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is the only Irish Member we have who agrees with the majority of the Irish population, who would prefer to remain. Like me, I think that she accepts the reality, but I know that she thinks the backstop is an important defence of the interests of Ireland with an open border. It is quite absurd to reopen that question. I am glad to say that the Prime Minister is still very firmly committed to a permanent open border, and I congratulate her on that. She is not going to break our solemn treaty commitments and set back our relationship with the Republic of Ireland for another generation. I realise that the Prime Minister has been driven to this by the attitudes of quite a number of Government Members, but I personally cannot see what the vague alternative to a perfectly harmless backstop that we are now going to explore is; nor do I see what the outcome is going to be. Our partners—or previous partners—in the European Union cannot understand quite what we are arguing for either, so we move from having a deal to not having a deal.
Let me just say what I will vote for. I am not going to go through it amendment by amendment, because Members are waiting to move those amendments. I shall vote for anything that avoids leaving with no deal on 29 March. It is perfectly obvious that we are in a state of such chaos that we are not remotely going to answer these questions in the 60-odd—fewer than 60—days before then. We need more time. The Prime Minister says that there are only two alternatives: the deal we have got, which she is now wanting to alter and go back and reopen; or no deal on 29 March. That is not true. A further option—and my guess is that the other members of the European Union would be only too ready to hear it opened up as a possibility—is that we extend article 50 to give us time to actually reach some consensus. I think that it would create quite some time, and there are problems over the European Parliament and so on. I have always said that we can revoke it, while making it clear to the angry majority in the House of Commons that they can invoke it again, with their majorities, once we are in a position to settle these outstanding issues, which, as we sit here at the moment, we are nowhere near to resolving, and we are right at the end of the timetable. The alternative to no deal is to stay in the Union for as long as it takes to get near to a deal that we are likely all to be able to agree on and that the majority of us think is in the national interest.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
I think that my right hon. and learned Friend will therefore be joining me in the Lobby in support of what is known as the Cooper amendment. Does he agree that in changing Standing Orders, the House of Commons, if it has a majority to do so, is doing something that the House of Commons has done since Standing Orders were created, and did before the Government took control of the Order Paper in 1906?
Mr Clarke
Absolutely. We will not debate the constitutional history, but people are trying to invoke the strictest interpretation of Standing Orders going back to attempts in the late 19th century to stop the Irish nationalists filibustering, which brought the whole thing grinding to a halt. Now we are saying that as this Parliament has the temerity to have a range of views, some of which are not acceptable to the Government, Standing Orders should be invoked against us to discipline us. Anyway, I will not go back to that, but I agree with my right hon. Friend.
The other thing that I shall vote for is another thing that supports the Prime Minister’s stated ambition for the long-term future of the country: open borders and free trade between ourselves and our markets in the EU, as demanded by our business leaders, our trade union leaders, and, I think, most people who have the economic wellbeing of future generations at heart. I think the only known way in the world in which we can do that is to stay in a customs union, and also to have sufficient regulatory alignment to eliminate the need for border barriers. I do not mind if some of my right hon. and hon. Friends prefer to call the customs union a “customs arrangement” or if they care to call the single market “regulatory alignment”. I do not feel any great distress at their use of gentler language to describe these things. Nevertheless, something very near to that is required to deliver our economic and political ambitions.
It is also the obvious and only way to protect the permanent open border in Ireland. We do not need to invent this ridiculous Irish backstop if the whole United Kingdom is going into a situation where it has an open border with the whole European Union in any event. The Irish backstop was only invented to appease those people who envisaged the rest of the British Isles suddenly deciding to leave with no deal before we had finished the negotiations in Europe. Well, let us forget that. Let us make it our aim—it will not be easy but it is perfectly possible—to negotiate, probably successfully, with the other 27 an open trading economic and investment relationship through the single market and the customs union.
Lady Hermon
I am very grateful to the Father of the House for allowing me to intervene. I just want to say ever so gently that in his very nice tribute to the hon. Member for North Down, I think he might have accidentally referred to the lady as an Irish Member of this House. No, I am very much a British Member of this House. However, he is absolutely right that I feel passionate about protecting the Belfast agreement—the Good Friday agreement—and the peace that it has delivered in the past 20 years across Northern Ireland and across the whole United Kingdom. The backstop was there to protect that peace, and I am very sorry that the Prime Minister has moved away from that today.
Mr Clarke
I apologise to the hon. Lady, but I must explain to her that I refer to her and her colleagues as Irish Members of Parliament in the same way that I would refer to myself as an English Member of Parliament, or perhaps to a colleague as a Welsh or Scottish Member of Parliament. [Hon. Members: “Northern Irish.”] She is Northern Irish. I can assure her that not only do I agree entirely with the views she just expressed about what we are seeking here, but I am as keen a Unionist as she is, and I do not wish to see the break-up of the present United Kingdom. I think that she and I are in total agreement.
The other thing I would support, which arises in the context of one of the amendments we are talking about, is that the Government obviously should no longer resist this House having indicative votes. It is absurd that we have been trying to get a debate and a vote on some of the more obvious things for months now, and as time goes on, the Government are still trying to make it difficult to have a vote on them. When we have the votes, no doubt the Government and the Opposition will start imposing three-line Whips on everybody to take a narrow focus, trying to take us all back towards the failed withdrawal agreement or the rather confused Labour party policy and ensuring that we shoot down every other sensible proposition. There are quite a lot of sensible propositions flying around the House that are superior to the policy of the Government so far and certainly superior to the policy of the Leader of the Opposition. Indicative votes enable us in the time available—to shorten delay further—to give an expression of will and an instruction to the Government about the nature of the long-term arrangements that we want.
To go back to where I started, the circumstances at the moment mean that we have to strive to restore confidence in our political system, our political institutions and, above all, this House of Commons and ensure that an outcome of that kind emerges, because if this shambles goes on much longer, I hate to think where populism and extremism will take us next in British democracy.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
As always, it is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). I look forward to spending a considerable time with him in the Lobby this evening as we vote for amendments that offer hope to the people of all these islands.
I want to impress upon the Prime Minister the decision of the people of Scotland in the 2016 referendum and what she must now do to respect their wishes. During the Scottish independence referendum campaign in 2014, the Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson promised that voting no meant that Scotland would remain in the EU. Scotland did not vote for a Tory Brexit, but we are being dragged out of the European Union by Westminster against our will. The Prime Minister talks about this being a family of nations and says that Scotland’s voice will be respected. Where is the respect for the views and wishes of the people of Scotland, who have demonstrably said that they wish to remain EU citizens?
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Is it not the reality that polling in Scotland shows that the European Union remains more popular with the Scottish people than the United Kingdom? That should be heard loud and clear in this place—the European Union is more popular with Scots than the United Kingdom.
Ian Blackford
That is correct, and it is little surprise, because the European institutions show respect to the people of Scotland, which this Government do not.
The Prime Minister promised that a no vote would see Scotland’s future as an equal partner, but we now see Westminster taking powers off the Scottish Parliament against the wishes of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people. [Interruption.] I should not do this, but I will. I hear from a sedentary position the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) saying, “What powers?” Obviously, he has forgotten that he voted for the withdrawal Act, which interfered with the powers of the Scottish Parliament laid down in the Scotland Act—powers over fishing, powers over the environment and powers over agriculture. The Tories sat back and allowed the Scottish Parliament to be emasculated. The 13 Scottish Tories acted against the interests of the people of Scotland, as they have done time and again.
The Westminster campaign against Scottish independence said that high street banks were making plans to leave Scotland, yet now, because of this Government’s Brexit, Standard Life Aberdeen is setting up a hub in Dublin, and Lloyds Bank is looking at a Berlin base.
Even last week during Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister tried to tell me to drop the SNP policy of independence, yet in June 2017 the leader of the Scottish Tories, Ruth Davidson, said:
“Let me be clear: nobody, not me, not anyone, is expecting the SNP to give up on independence. That’s what it believes in & it’s a perfectly honourable position to take.”
It is a perfectly honourable position to take.
Let me be very clear: Scotland must no longer be left at the mercy of events. Whatever happens here, the SNP will not be dropping its policy of independence. Whatever turmoil and hardship this Tory Government try to drag our nation through, Scotland will and must have the right to determine its own future and to choose to be an independent nation within the European Union. I can see Members shaking their heads. They are shaking their heads because they are running scared. Like the Prime Minister, they fear they would lose an independence referendum. The Scottish people are sick and tired of being told what the Prime Minister wants them to do. Scotland’s needs are much more important than what the Prime Minister wants. Scotland needs the power to take its own decisions. That is the only way we can stop the Tories driving us off the cliff edge and into disaster.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman made the point that the Scottish people should have what the Scottish people want. Did the Scottish people not indicate their wish to remain part of the United Kingdom?
Ian Blackford
I can only assume that the hon. Lady was not listening to what I said, because the fundamental fact is that we were promised that we would stay in the European Union.
What the Tories find very difficult to accept is that when the Scottish National party went to the people of Scotland, we asked in our manifesto for the right to go back to the people of Scotland if there was a material change of circumstances, and that is exactly the position we are in today. There is a majority in the Scottish Parliament for a referendum on Scottish independence, yet what we hear from the Conservatives is, “Now is not the time,” disrespecting the mandate that the people of Scotland gave to their elected parliamentarians. I will say this to Conservative Members: if our First Minister calls for a section 30 authority, based on democracy, then this House must respect the will of the Scottish people through their elected parliamentarians.
That is the only way to stop the punitive cuts from universal credit and amend the hostile environment that sends talented workers away from our shores. The vote on the immigration Bill is just the latest indication of Westminster voting against Scotland’s national interest. We embrace free movement of people. We welcome those who choose to make a future for themselves in Scotland. We thank those who wish to add to our cultural diversity. This place wants to slam the door shut, pull up the drawbridge and retreat into isolation.
We watch the official Opposition go through trials and tribulations about whether they should oppose a narrow-minded immigration policy from this Government. Labour has lost its moral compass. Then we have the Scots Tory MPs meekly going through the Lobbies. Theresa’s Lobby fodder are supporting legislation that will damage Scottish industries and our public services, and damage Scotland’s ability to attract labour and to grow our economy. The Scottish Tories are acting against our national interest, and Labour is stuck on the sidelines.
A majority of MSPs and Scottish MPs returned at the last two elections support holding an independence referendum in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. Scotland will not be ignored. The UK Government have ignored the views of the people of Scotland. Our Parliament—our Scottish Parliament—has already overwhelmingly rejected the Prime Minister’s deal. Today, SNP MPs will vote in support of that mandate from Scotland’s Parliament, and we will continue to vote down the blindfold Brexit deal that will drive our economy off the cliff edge.
There are just 59 days to go until Brexit day, and the deal on the table is done; it has been dead in the water for months, yet the Prime Minister is still seeking to run down the clock and push that deal through this House. That is incredibly reckless and risky. How can she be allowed to behave in such a manner? She has no hope of controlling this House; she cannot even control her disunited party. If anyone is still in any doubt about it, we are in this mess today because Conservative Members gambled our economic future over a decade-long internal feud in the Tory party. They should all hang their heads in shame. Quite simply, that party is not fit to govern, because it has a track record of putting its fractured party interests before the national interest—not what the Prime Minister calls the national interest, but the interest of all the nations that make up the UK.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
On the Scottish national interest, I totally respect the Scottish National party’s position: it has always campaigned for independence, because that is what the SNP does. However, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the 2017 general election, the majority—56%—of voters in Scotland voted for parties that were committed to delivering on Brexit? The percentage of the vote for parties against Brexit actually reduced. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. That is extraordinary behaviour from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who is an illustrious doctor. She is ranting from a sedentary position; I cannot believe that she rants in that way in the middle of her surgeries. It is unbecoming of somebody of her status and high esteem in the House of Commons.
Ian Blackford
Of course, we come to this place under the rules that have been laid down, and under the rules of elections in this country, the SNP won 35 of 59 Scottish seats at Westminster. That is a majority for the Scottish National party in this Parliament. The Conservatives can only dream of having a majority. The Prime Minister went to the country on the basis that she would come back with an overwhelming majority; she came back with a bloody nose and a minority Administration who rely on the votes of the Democratic Unionist party, having handed over vast sums of money to keep themselves in any kind of power.
Today, as the Prime Minister faces a vote on her motion, the threat of resignations overshadows the debate. We know that senior Ministers have refused to rule out resigning if no deal is not taken off the table. Politicians play a slow game, and time is running out for businesses. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) said that the Prime Minister’s attempt to put pressure on moderate MPs to back her deal to avoid a disorderly Brexit was “a disaster for business”.
The chief executive of Airbus, Tom Enders, said the business
“could be forced to redirect future investments”
in the event of no deal. The chief executive of Siemens, Jürgen Maier, said:
“The thing all of us won’t be able to manage is a no-deal”
and now the British Retail Consortium warns of food shortages and empty shelves.
Just dwell on this: Sainsbury’s, Asda, Marks and Spencer, the Co-op, Waitrose and Costcutter all warn of not having sufficient supplies and of shelves lying empty. We are used to seeing images of empty shelves in war-torn or failing states, but there is a real threat of empty shelves in the United Kingdom in less than two months. Still the Prime Minister refuses to take no deal off the table. I point the finger of blame at the Prime Minister and her Government. The primary responsibility of any Government is to protect their citizens. We have a massive failure of leadership. If there are shortages of food and medicine, that will be a response to the failures of this Government. There is genuine, heartfelt fear and alarm from some of our biggest businesses.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
What is the right hon. Gentleman’s objection to enabling the Prime Minister to probe the EU on what it is prepared to give way on, to help to deliver the deal that he would like? What is so objectionable in new amendment (n)? Can he give any reason for not supporting it?
Ian Blackford
This is a complete fantasy. All of us play with the Good Friday agreement at our peril. The peace in Ireland has been hard won. The European Union has reached agreement with the UK on the Prime Minister’s draft deal on the basis of making sure that we enshrine the Good Friday agreement. None of us should be playing with fire and seeking to unwind the Good Friday agreement. That is the effect of what would happen. It is the height of irresponsibility to go down that road. [Interruption.] I am going to come on to the backstop in more detail later.
The Prime Minister could make it clear today that she will bring measures before Parliament to rule out no deal. Prime Minister, it is in all our national interests to remove the threat of supply shortages that is a threat to food safety—remove it today.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Is it not also a fact that in addition to the companies who issued those warnings, the Road Haulage Association has been saying for over a year that it is madness to consider a no-deal situation? What will happen is that those people at the furthest reaches of the supply chain—my constituents and my right hon. Friend’s constituents—will be those worst affected by the no-deal scenario that the Government are hanging over the heads of this Parliament and the people of all the nations of the UK.
Ian Blackford
My hon. Friend is quite correct. We have integrated supply chains on the basis of the single market, which has been in place since the 1990s. There are very real threats to food supply on the basis of no deal. It is the height of irresponsibility for the Government not to rule it out.
Caroline Lucas
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, because he is making a really powerful case about what no deal could really look like. He says there could be food shortages and, crucially, that food prices could go up. Does he share my anger at the voices behind me that he perhaps did not hear? When he was talking about food prices going up and the fact that there could be food shortages, Members behind me were saying, “Well, let them go to the chippy instead.” Does he share my anger about the way in which our constituencies would be affected by no deal?
Ian Blackford
I am sorry to hear that that remark was made. This is a really important debate. There is a responsibility on each and every one of us to take these issues seriously. [Interruption.] I want to make some progress and I will take some interventions later.
The Prime Minister will do nothing. She remains in office but not in power, transfixed like a rabbit caught in the headlights. There is a failure to deliver leadership. To use a food analogy, the Prime Minister is past her sell-by date. Focusing on backing MPs into a corner with the only options on the table her deal or no deal is ridiculous. I urge Members to resist the pressure. We cannot allow the UK Government to run down the clock and bully MPs into backing this terrible deal. Pretending there is a binary choice between her woeful deal and a catastrophic no deal is completely reckless. It is false. It is not the case and Members must have the courage to stand up against it. We have the power in this place to send this shambolic deal packing. We have the power to amend the deal to protect all our citizens. We have the power to end this charade. Members on all Benches: have courage, have conviction and have some integrity. Do not send our economy off the cliff edge with this deal or with no deal.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has made some very powerful points, quoting the voices of business saying that there should not be no deal. I also believe there should not be no deal; I believe there should be a deal. Does he also accept that those same voices of business, giving evidence to Select Committees, have said, for the very reasons he is giving, that there should not be no deal and that we should support the Prime Minister’s deal with the European Union because it provides for an orderly and smooth Brexit?
Ian Blackford
The businesses I speak to recognise the benefits of the single market and the customs union. There is no Brexit option that will leave us better off than the status quo. I will come on to the economic arguments about that. Our job is to protect the economic interests of our citizens, but Brexit will lead to job losses throughout the United Kingdom. We have already seen the news about the European Medicines Agency and the European Banking Authority—they have gone—and about Jaguar Land Rover and others. It is the height of irresponsibility for politicians, on the basis of ideology, to threaten the economic circumstances of their citizens, but that is what is happening. The Tory party’s myopic view of Brexit is leading these nations out of the European Union.
Anna Soubry
May I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that we will soon have only three hours of debate left? There are seven amendments, and many Back Benchers—I am not one of them—wish to speak. I look forward to joining him in the Lobbies this evening on many of these amendments. Many of us are grateful for his support.
Ian Blackford
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her intervention, but it is the Prime Minister who has set the timeline for this debate. I am speaking as the leader of the third party, as I am entitled to do. Given that that issue has been raised, I ask this question: where are the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition?
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Going back to the intervention of the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), is it not insane to say that agreeing to the Prime Minister’s deal will lead to an orderly Brexit? All it would do is put stuff into a transition period, during which time we would not know what is happening. Even the Prime Minister is now arguing that she needs to go back and change the backstop. There is no orderly Brexit, and there is no deal to agree.
Ian Blackford
The Government like to talk about an implementation period, but what are they implementing? They only thing they have come forward with is a deal to leave the European Union. The relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union is to be left to the future, and there is no knowing how long that will take. According to the papers in front of us, it will supposedly happen within a two-year period, but many believe that it could take five years or perhaps even longer. There is no certainty with what the Government are bringing forward.
We have still not seen any economic assessment of the Government’s deal. Either the Prime Minister has not instructed her Government to conduct one, or they will not publish it due to the reality of the hardship that her deal will bring. We are being asked again to vote for a blindfold Brexit and to sleepwalk into the future without facts and analysis from the Government about what the deal means for our economy. It is an insult to this House and each and every Member in it.
I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question—I hope she reads this in Hansard, as she is not here. Will she publish the details of the impact of her deal on the economy and contrast it with the status quo? The Government are refusing to end the shroud of secrecy and publish an economic analysis, but let me remind the House of the facts. Analysis by Scottish Government officials found that by 2030, under a free trade agreement, GDP would be £9 billion lower than it would have been if we had stayed in the EU—equivalent to £1,600 per person in Scotland. The Bank of England has warned that crashing out of the EU without a deal would be worse than the 2008 financial crisis, with house prices plummeting by as much as 30% and the Bank of England rate being hiked to 4%. Brexit uncertainty is already damaging our economy to the tune of £600 per household per year. Jobs and investment are at risk, and our economy is set to be weaker and smaller. How can any Member of this House countenance that?
We were elected to protect our citizens, not punish them, but Brexit will inflict undue pain across all parts of the United Kingdom. With this deal or no deal our constituents are set to suffer, and we cannot allow that to happen. Some Brexiteers argue that we will be okay without the internal markets of the EU. They are in cloud cuckoo land, harking back to the past. I say this to them: it is over.
Let us look at the facts. The UK’s trade with County Cork is worth almost as much as its entire trade with South Africa. Trade with Ireland is worth more to the UK than trade with India, Japan, New Zealand and Australia put together. As “Scotland’s Place in Europe” demonstrated, even if the UK signs agreements with the 10 biggest non-EEA single country trading partners, including the USA, China and Canada—a process that would take many years—that would cover only 37% of Scotland’s current exports. By contrast, 43% currently go to the European Union. The idea that we will be better off outside the European Union is a fallacy.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
If trade volumes are the principal determinant of policy in this area, would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, given that 61% of Scotland’s exports go to the rest of the UK and only 17% to the EU, the most important Union for Scotland is the United Kingdom?
Ian Blackford
I find that remarkable. There we have a threat to the people of Scotland from a Conservative Member. I thought we believed in free trade. We are not talking about barriers to trade with the island of Ireland, so why on earth would there be barriers to trade with Scotland? It is about time the Conservatives stopped threatening the people of Scotland, because that is exactly what they are doing.
It is demoralising to sit here today listening to the merry-go-round of Tory infighting and Labour fence-sitting. There is no leadership from these two parties. I genuinely feel for those across the UK who voted for the Tories and Labour and have been so badly let down. Now their cowardice threatens us all: our livelihoods, yes, but also our culture and communities and the type of society we could be. Our cultural ties with Europe run deep throughout Scotland. The auld alliance is perhaps the best known of Scotland’s ancient ties. France and Scotland enjoy deep cultural ties and have agreed a mutual cultural statement of intent, which the Scottish Government signed in 2013. We share a rich Celtic history of story-telling and traditional music and a great love of piping.
Such was the wealth of intellectual exchange between Scotland and Europe that in Kirkwall’s library in the 1680s there were books from Amsterdam, Kraków, Brussels, Rostock, Paris, Leipzig and dozens of other places. Our relationship with Germany dates back to 1297, when William Wallace wrote to the martyrs of Lübeck and Hamburg declaring Scotland open for business. In case Members are unaware, immigration was around long before the EU and will be around long after. It is, after all, a global phenomenon.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On a point of clarification, the right hon. Gentleman just suggested there was a relationship with Germany going back to the 1200s, but Germany did not exist in the 1200s.
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his historical exegesis, from which the leader of the Scottish National party can choose to think he can either benefit or not benefit. It is a matter for him, not the Chair.
Ian Blackford
I think I will treat it with the contempt it deserves, Mr Speaker.
By 1914, Scotland had nearly 25,000 European residents, mostly from southern and eastern Europe. Between 1891 and 1901, 25% of the immigrants came from Italy. The majority came mainly from Russia and Poland and settled mostly in the west of Scotland, and they were welcomed, just as migrants today are welcomed. Almost 50% of male immigrants worked in coal mining and about 12% in tailoring, while most of the Italian migrants became more involved with restaurants and retail.
We have so much to lose from Brexit and nothing to gain. I plead with Members to change course. If they do, history will remember their act of courage. Today, Members have an opportunity to preserve our opportunities with Europe—our cultural links, our shared values, our economic ties and our solidarity in coming together to find a way forward.
Voting for the SNP amendment will respect the votes of the people of Scotland in 2016. They must not and will not be dragged out of the EU against their will. Scotland’s voice has been ignored for too long. The SNP will continue to press for the best possible outcome for the people of Scotland, and if our voice is not respected —if Scotland is continuously silenced and sidelined by this Tory Government—this place will not be forgiven.
The days of Westminster having a veto over Scotland’s future are over. Only as an independent country can Scotland thrive; and friends, we will thrive. The discussions today about ditching the backstop are just internal Tory matters. They can fight and squabble, but the EU is united and clear. It will not accept any changes to the backstop in the withdrawal agreement.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
One of the things that I think the Prime Minister did not quite convey or understand, or forgot, is that the backstop is a compromise. It is a compromise based on the fantasies of the technologies that she has promised will come. If she is right and those fantasies are true, she does not need to worry about the backstop. She would not need to worry if the technology that is being used on the Swiss border were available. I suggest that the Europeans have used a backstop because they know that the fantasies are exactly that.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am cautiously optimistic that the right hon. Gentleman is approaching his brief peroration. [Interruption.]
Ian Blackford
If Members want to hear more, I am happy to carry on.
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I would say to the Prime Minister that there are two ways in which we could fix the backstop. The first is staying in the European Union, but the second is staying in the single market and the customs union. That is the fundamental point: that is the only way in which it is possible to remove any need for the backstop from the agreement. The Taoiseach is clear about the fact that the backstop is not up for grabs, so why do Members not get real? Why does the Prime Minister not stop fudging it?
The Prime Minister needs to own up to her own delayed mess, extend article 50, and do it today. That is the only way in which to give this place time to find a solution.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. With immediate effect, a 10-minute limit will now apply to Back-Bench speeches, but I do not anticipate that it will last very long.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I will accept your guidance, Mr Speaker.
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) for plenty of reasons, but specifically because he happens to have what I think is possibly the most beautiful constituency in the country—and my heart is there because both my parents are buried there, as are many of my ancestors. There are some links between us, beyond a wee drop now and then.
In the limited time available to me, I want to respond to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. She gave us a challenge—quite rightly, I think—at the beginning of what was, I must say, an excellent speech. She said that we had spent a lot of time telling everyone what we were against and that now we must say what we were in favour of. In accepting that challenge, I shall say what I am against, and then come on to what I am in favour of. I shall do that quickly, I hope.
I shall oppose the amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). He remains a friend, an honourable friend, and he is much admired: he was, I thought, an excellent Attorney General. However, I disagree with him on this specific issue. I do not think—this is my view, and we will have different feelings about it—that the House needs another process, or mechanism, to allow it to decide what it is in favour of or against. I think that all multiple motions of this kind end up with a place like this going nine ways from Sunday, and we do not end up with any kind of agreement. I think that the amendment process is a way of deciding what we are in favour of. My right hon. and learned Friend will push his amendment tonight, and I think we will then get an idea of whether the House really does think that.
Let me comment in the same light, but for a different reason, on the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) proposing a delay. Like my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I do not think that, of all the things we need right now, we need to book a delay regardless of what we are actually delaying for. I am conscious of the way in which the Commission has responded to the idea of a delay in recent days. Its response has been, “We do not want you to delay, because we do not want you to crash into all our procedures that we have now allowed. For instance, you are not taking part in the European elections—we do not want those to be disrupted—and we do not know what it is that you want to delay for.”
The amendment contains no appendage, as it were, telling us what the delay might actually be about. I can understand someone saying, “We are near the end of an agreement, but we have run out of time a bit,” but that is different from simply crying out for a delay. I think that, ultimately, it comes down to the fact that, as many on the right hon. Lady’s own side have said, it will then become a reality that we are opposing the delivery of Brexit. Those who vote for the amendment tonight will have to face that challenge: perhaps the delay is really all about stopping Brexit. However, I will leave the right hon. Lady to deal with that herself. I admire her enormously, as I would, but on this issue, I disagree with her completely.
As for the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), again, I just do not think that this one works. The issue of a delay—even expressed as it is in the terms of a motion—brings me back to where I was earlier. I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me, but I will not support her tonight. I shall go with the Prime Minister on this.
I want to make two further points and then a comment about what I think I must support tonight. I voted against the agreement; I did so because I felt it was too full of problems and issues that would not be settled and would give a lack of clarity, and so I expressed my view. I have not voted against the Government for well over 20 years, and I did not particularly enjoy doing it, but I did so because I felt that we needed to rethink this and go back and make some changes. So I am pleased tonight that the Prime Minister has come back.
I challenge those who say that the only thing available is the backstop as it is. That is not altogether true; it depends what question is being asked. An open border, which is the key question that Ireland wanted, can be settled by a much simpler backstop. I am in favour of a backstop; I think it is fair for Ireland and Northern Ireland to want guarantees that there will be an open border, so I am in favour of an open border and of that guarantee. I am just not in favour of the complexity and nature of the demands that left Northern Ireland separated in terms from this Union that we are in favour of keeping Northern Ireland in. That led to serious and significant problems. I believe that the protocol that we have, and that I have been to see the negotiating team in Brussels over, is the key to the way we go forward, and I believe its response to us was positive. I therefore think it would be good to take that process back to Brussels.
This brings me to what has emerged overnight, which I have been involved with myself, although not absolutely in the frontline. It is an agreement between those of us who take different views about Brexit in my party. I am thinking in particular of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan). I say absolutely genuinely to my colleagues that we might be divided about these issues, but we must now strive to find some kind of compromise. I say that as if it is somehow a discovery, but it is not really; I do genuinely think we have the prospect of moving towards that. So however we vote tonight, I hope we will, bit by bit, get behind the process that my colleagues have put forward with those of other colleagues who have taken a very different view about Brexit. I think this is wholly feasible, and I am in full support of this, given the nature of it. I therefore recommend that all of us, despite how we end up voting tonight, recognise that in delivering leaving the European Union in line with the vote that took place in the referendum, this offers a real opportunity not just for Members on my side of the House but for Members opposite who believe that it is right to deliver Brexit to get behind it.
So now I come to what I am in favour of, which started with the issue of this internal agreement here. We need what the Prime Minister described today: we need to express that view. The Prime Minister was clear on a number of points that I particularly wanted to hear. I wanted to hear whether she was determined to ensure that, where necessary, we looked for legally binding change and that change therefore would change the complexion of the agreement that she had, and she said that today. I also thought she was very clear to the whole House that she is not going to assume that, were a particular amendment to be passed, it would mean we would all agree with whatever she came back with, and she has absolutely guaranteed that we will return with a chance to vote on that; I think that is clear.
I am also pleased that the Prime Minister answered my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) on the question about the extent of the legal powers and the adjudication of the Court of Justice in the Bill to follow; I thought it was strong of her to do that. Many would have avoided that question, as it is complex. Most of my hon. Friend’s questions are quite complex, but she dealt with this one and dealt with it well.
Trying to keep to the time limit for speeches, I shall now simply say that on that basis, having voted against the agreement, I am now going to support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady). I shall support it tonight, not because I give a blank cheque and not because I think that therefore we will have solved the problem; I give this support to him, and therefore to what the Prime Minister has said is the Government’s position, because I believe it is necessary for us now to send the Prime Minister back with a fair wind and a sense that this House has agreed that it wants her to go and renegotiate, and to take that change and that desire to deliver Brexit on time on 29 March with her over there to Brussels and achieve what I hope and believe, with strength and determination, she will be able to achieve in those negotiations. I wish her well, and I therefore will be voting tonight to support that amendment because I think it will be, for me, the greatest expression of my good will for a Prime Minister for whom, notwithstanding our disagreements sometimes, I have the greatest respect.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I rise to speak to amendment (b) and to support amendments (a), (g), (i) and (j). I also support amendment (h), but it has not been selected.
There are two months to go until the end of the article 50 time limit. The Prime Minister’s deal was rejected comprehensively, fundamentally because I think all sides shared the view that it would weaken us abroad and in the negotiations ahead. It represents a blindfold Brexit that would weaken our negotiating hand. The Prime Minister is not instilling confidence that she has a plan to sort this out. I am really worried that the delay, the drift and the chasing of unicorns mean that we could end up with no deal by accident, even though that would hit jobs, our NHS and our border security, and put up food prices for the poorest families in the country.
I have called many times on the Government to support a customs union. Like many across this House, I want the Government to get a good Brexit deal that can pull people together and command support across the country, but I see no sign of that happening right now, and the clock is ticking. I am very worried by the warnings I have had from Haribo, Burberry, West Yorkshire police, GMB, manufacturers, trade unions and small businesses in my constituency about the consequences of us going over the edge of a cliff.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my right hon. Friend share my dismay at how Government Members have reacted to industry’s concerns? Even Airbus, our largest aerospace company, has been subject to vitriol and hostility. Surely such responses defy all logic.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. We should be able to have a calm and measured debate, not all this shouting.
There have been different ways to do this at every stage. Two years ago, the whole House came together when both remain and leave voters voted to trigger article 50. I voted to do so and called at the time for a cross-party commission to oversee the options and negotiations. I called repeatedly on the Prime Minister to consult and to build consent. I went to see Ministers about it, and I went to see them again a few weeks ago to see if progress could be made and to urge them to reconsider the red lines. I made customs union-related proposals to Select Committees and, through the Select Committee on Home Affairs, suggested reforms to security co-operation and immigration as part of the Brexit process. Many of us have called repeatedly on the Government to simply pin down what they think the future of our country and of our relationship will be, instead of this blindfold Brexit in which nothing is resolved.
We have also called on the Government to build consensus. As I said after the general election, if we want a sustainable deal that does not unravel in a year or two and does not end up being undermined because there is so much disagreement, not just in this House but across the country, efforts must be made to build consensus on a deal. None of that has happened, and none of it is happening now either. Instead, we feel more divided and our country feels angrier and more confused than ever. People are sick of all the chaos, and the problem we face is that if we end up with no deal in just two months’ time, that chaos and that division will get worse.
The Prime Minister’s repeated delays mean that there is a real risk that the issue will not be resolved on time. There were 24 months to negotiate under article 50: five of them were used for a general election and another 16 were run down before the Government even came forward with the Chequers plan. It was left until 22 months had gone before we even had a vote in Parliament on the Prime Minister’s deal. There was no consultation on her red lines and Parliament was not given a vote on the mandate.
Those delays and failings are why we are here now. Unless the Prime Minister changes direction and her approach, I fear we will reach the brink. Saying the same things again and again will simply make it more important to have in place my amendment and my Bill, to ensure there is a safety net to prevent no deal on 29 March. I have always believed that the Prime Minister would not let that happen and that she would flinch when it came to the crunch; that she is not the sort of person who would want to make other people suffer because of her delays and mistakes. However, when I look into her eyes now, I am worried that that has changed because she is trapped.
Every time the Prime Minister has had the chance to pull back and reach out, she has done the opposite. Every time she has had the chance to think about the country, she has instead turned to the party. Every time she has had the chance to build bridges, she has instead turned to the hardliners who simply want to set those bridges on fire. That is why I and a group of other, cross-party MPs and Committee Chairs have put forward amendment (b) and this Bill—to try to get the Prime Minister to think again and to make sure that Parliament has a safety net.
The amendment makes time to pass a Bill. It would give the Prime Minister and the Government until the end of February to sort things out. If they have not done so by then, MPs would get a binding vote at the end of February on whether to seek a bit more time and to extend article 50. We should bear it in mind that that would be just one month before the UK could crash out with no deal at all.
Neither the amendment nor the Bill blocks Brexit or revokes article 50—nor should they. They simply give Parliament the right to vote on whether to extend article 50 if time has run out.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I have looked at the right hon. Lady’s Bill in great detail. Will she confirm that clause 1(5) leaves open the prospect of an amendment being passed that would mean that article 50 could be revoked, not just extended?
Yvette Cooper
That is certainly not my intention with the Bill. It is about giving the House the opportunity to extend article 50 if we need more time, and to be able to decide the length of the extension. The whole point is that the motion put to the House would be amendable and those amendments would be binding.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. She talks of building consensus. I see consensus on both sides of the House for an extension of three months. If that were the will of the House, would it be possible for us to have an extension of three months only?
Yvette Cooper
It absolutely would be possible for the House to restrict any extension to three months. In fact, it would be possible to restrict it to three days, should Parliament choose to do so. We are not proposing that a specific time period should be decided now. The whole point is that it should be a decision at the end of February. My hon. Friend is right that that is what Parliament would be able to do.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my right hon. Friend agree with me, and would she confirm to the House again, that this is not about extending article 50, but about allowing Parliament to make the decision in the event that there is no deal and that the next step facing us is crashing out with no deal?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We would be taking no decisions today, and we would be taking no decisions next Tuesday, when we would discuss the Bill. Instead, we would simply be saying that, at the end of February, with just one month to go before we get to the end of the article 50 process, it would be for Parliament to decide whether to seek an extension, and how long that should be for.
Yvette Cooper
I am going to make some progress because I am worried about getting through everything in the time.
We should also be clear about why the amendment is needed. I know there are some on the Government Benches who say to the Prime Minister, first, that no deal might be desirable and, secondly, that it might be better than any kind of extension beyond 29 March. I strongly disagree. Other people will suffer if we in this Parliament, and this Government, allow no deal on 29 March.
Haribo in Pontefract is worried about the Government’s contingency planning for a 75% to 90% reduction in the volume of EU trade through our ports. That will hit the ingredients that they bring in from abroad. That is bad for Starmix, obviously, but it is also bad for jobs and for investment. For Burberry, which makes Yorkshire macs in Castleford that it sells all over the world, that would mean an impact on supply chains and manufacturing production. Burberry contacted me to say that it respects the outcome of the referendum and remains hopeful of an orderly withdrawal and a workable transition, but it is deeply worried about no deal. Listen to Airbus, Ford or Jaguar Land Rover. We should be standing up for British manufacturing, the very backbone of our national economy. We should be helping our industry to compete with the best in the world, not holding it back or doing it in.
It is even worse for small businesses, because entrepreneurs who have mortgaged their house or used their life savings to set up, say, a florist that depends on bringing flowers in from the Netherlands cannot cope with delays in transit. Some of those small businesses could end up going under because of delays and decisions in this House and by this Government.
For our public services, it is just shocking. What have we come to when our NHS is having to spend millions of pounds on stockpiling medicines and on fridges and air freight and when it is being told that it needs to call in the Navy? That money should be going into patient care.
I am most worried of all that tariffs on food—the WTO tariffs that some people are so blasé about—will hit the poorest families hardest. Some 14 million of our fellow citizens, including 4.5 million children, are already living in poverty. In Airedale in my constituency, local councillors have set up a holiday lunch club. Children are going hungry when they do not have a free school meal, because their parents cannot afford their food bills. Are the Government really going to stand back and let tariffs be put on our food, pushing more of those families into poverty, if we end up with no deal? It will not be Government Ministers or the hard-liners who pay the price; it will be the poorest families in the country.
We have also had warnings about the real threat to national security. Last week, the country’s most senior counter-terrorism police officer, Neil Basu, described no deal as a “very bad place” for this country and Europe, because we will lose the crucial databases and criminal tools that we use. The top police officers who are making those warnings are not “Project Fear”. Their job is to reassure, and they work and they cope with whatever situation people throw at them, and when they are warning of the risks of no deal, we should be supporting them and not making it harder for them to do their crucial job of keeping us safe.
I know how hard this debate is for many on both sides of the House. Accusations, false claims, fake news and abuse are being thrown about, and I know how hard it seems to have become to have a calm, common-sense debate without words being lifted or twisted. I know, too, how much many people want somebody else to take responsibility, and I fear that that is what the Prime Minister and Ministers want, but we cannot be cowardly about it.
The Prime Minister is running out of time. Too few dare say it, but everyone knows it. Before it is too late, we have to be honest. I urge people to support amendment (b) to give the House a chance to discuss the Bill, because if we cannot be honest at such an historic time, I do not know what politics is for.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I cannot deny that I have found the process of Brexit one of the most wearisome and unpleasant periods of my time in this House, but the cloud has a little bit of a silver lining. I find this afternoon that an amendment I first proposed last summer, which was vehemently denounced by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends as being about to break the party apart, and that I brought back just before Christmas, and passed with the help of many right hon. and hon. Members, now appears to have something to commend it to the very people who denounced it then. I note with pleasure that amendment (n) appears to command some support among Conservative Members, and from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but it could not even have been brought up for consideration if the system that had been devised for this House, simply to have motions in neutral terms be unamendable, had been followed. I derive some slight satisfaction from that.
I now tempt the House to accept another amendment, amendment (g), and I will briefly explain why. We are mired in complete paralysis. The deal that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister brought back, which I suspect is probably the best deal available, does not commend itself to many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. If they voted to leave, it does not meet their dreams at all. What about somebody like myself? When I look at the deal objectively, from the point of view of an ex-remainer, I simply cannot understand how we are going to be better off leaving on such terms than remaining in the European Union.
Mr Grieve
No, I am going to make some progress, if I may.
In those circumstances, we have to find a way forward. Throughout the times that I have tabled amendments for this House to consider, I have tried to avoid objectives and look at process. Frankly, we could do with more days of debate of this sort unless or until we reach agreement. Of course, if we do reach agreement, with this amendment we can have another business of the House motion and we will just drop the remaining sitting days. It is rather sensible to set aside six days between now and the end of March when this House can debate, free of the interference of government, which I have to say I am afraid has sought consistently to restrict debate into an absolute straitjacket of what it wanted to hear and nothing else. If we have those days, it will help us, just as we are actually starting to tease out this afternoon, to make a little bit of progress towards compromise.
Of course my views are well known about the desirability of a further referendum, and I will come back to them right at the end, but I am perfectly aware that many Members in this House do not agree with that, even if they also share my regret at what we are doing in leaving the EU. But that in no way diminishes for me the value of these days, and I agree entirely with the Father of the House and with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) that the idea that this is some constitutional abomination simply does not bear scrutiny; we are in control of our Standing Orders and changing them in this way to get the debates we need is entirely in keeping with the traditions of this House and the fact that the Government, in this area, simply do not enjoy the majority that some Governments have normally used to suppress it.
Sir William Cash
Somebody who refers to national suicide, as my right hon. and learned Friend did the other day, is now moving towards a proposition that involves constitutional homicide, but let me put it another way. Does he agree that he voted for the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which states unequivocally that the European Communities Act 1972 will be expressly repealed? Therefore, is what he is now saying going to contradict that, because he does not want the 1972 Act to be expressly repealed—yes or no?
Mr Grieve
I say to my hon. Friend that he is familiar enough with the constitutions of this country and this House to know that this House can propose, debate, pass and revoke laws—we do it quite often sometimes, including laws that have never actually been implemented. So this House can do what it thinks is right at any given moment, and that is the flexibility we need. I tabled my amendment in the spirit of trying to reach some sort of understanding of where the majority might lie to bring this unhappy episode to a conclusion. I have also made it clear that in doing that one has to keep in mind and respect the decision of the earlier referendum, but that does not mean—I will come back to this in a moment as well—that one simply says that one is going to drag the country out on terms that nobody very much seems to support and towards a future that on the face of it looks pretty bad. To do that would be an abdication of our responsibility.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has also said that this House should say what it wants and what it does not want. May I say to her that knowing what one does not want can be quite a good starting place to understanding where compromise is reached over what one is prepared to accept? There are amendments down this evening on no deal that I shall support, because it is quite clear to me that this House utterly rejects no deal. Therefore, I will vote for those as well and I ask the House to vote for my amendment, which is neutral in objective but which will give us the opportunity we need to continue developing the debate we have to have if we are to resolve this matter sensibly.
There is then amendment (n), which I have to say is quite tempting in some ways. Our party has deep divisions over Brexit, and we know the pleasure we get when, because of the respect and affection we have for each other, we can all vote together. We did it when we supported my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the motion of confidence. For that reason, it is very tempting to be told that we should just vote for amendment (n) and send some message that we might just be close to resolving our disagreements with the EU, and doing it collectively. I have some slight anxiety about this, however.
The backstop is indeed a rather humiliating thing, which is why Democratic Unionist party Members do not like it. As a Unionist, I can understand that, to the bottom of my heart, because it highlights the fact that when we leave the EU, the EU is going to continue to have a hold constitutionally over some of the things that we do. But the truth is that the backstop is just the outward sign of a much more profound truth: that ever since we signed up to the Good Friday agreement to resolve, on a permanent basis, an outstanding constitutional issue of identity on the island of Ireland, we have bound ourselves to keep an open border. The unpleasant truth is that that is incompatible with the aim of some right hon. and hon. Friends, who want to take us to a future in which we diverge on tariffs and regulation, and which inevitably therefore leads to a hard border having to be introduced.
I fear that our being asked to support amendment (n) this evening is a piece of displacement activity—something in which I am afraid the House has specialised in the past two and a half years, and which one often sees young children doing when they are asked to face up to something they do not like. That seems to me to be what the amendment is about because, first, it is quite clear that the EU will not negotiate on it—although I do accept that if you do not ask, you do not get—and secondly, even if we were to get the backstop removed, the trouble is that what some of my right hon. and hon. Friends are asking for is inevitably going to bring this conflict into the open once we are gone. If I may gently say so to them, this is one of the issues that we need to debate in those six days that I hope I may have set aside for the House. There is a lack of trust about future intention that makes 29 March completely irrelevant, because the truth is that the disputes about the nature of our state and how we relate to those around us will resume immediately afterwards.
For those reasons, I am afraid I cannot support amendment (n), but I am delighted to have provided—if only by my previous amendment, at least—an opportunity to this House to start having a dialogue. I very much hope we can pursue that.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I think we all realise that today’s debate is predominantly about process, but that cannot hide one essential truth: we are facing a crisis; our country is in a state of suspended animation because of that crisis; and the intemperate nature of the debate—partly here today and certainly outside the Chamber—is a consequence of that crisis, because in truth every single one of us present is anxious about what is going to happen to our country.
Following the defeat of the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement and political declaration, she said that she would reach out, and I welcomed that, although it would have been much better had it been done two years ago. We now know that she is not for turning on the political declaration but seeks somehow to change the backstop. I am all for optimism, but I somehow doubt that the EU is for turning on this issue either. Unless the Prime Minister knows something that we do not, I do not see how it is going to be changed.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that Guy Verhofstadt has today said:
“The deal we have is fair and cannot be re-negotiated. The backstop is needed because of UK red lines and was crafted by the UK and the EU to secure the Good Friday Agreement…We remain open to positive changes regarding the future relationship and it is time for a more consensual cross-party approach to deliver this”?
Does that not make it absolutely clear that the Prime Minister’s approach is a charade, and it needs to be stopped now?
Hilary Benn
I fear that my hon. Friend is right, as the Prime Minister will find out. She will have to return to the House, I suspect, and say, “I am sorry, but I could not get the thing to which some Members object removed.” I simply say that if Members do not want Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom to have different rules, and if they want to ensure that, in all circumstances, goods can flow freely without tariffs, delays, paperwork or checks then it is the political declaration that needs to be changed.
Mr McFadden
In supporting amendment (n), the Prime Minister has driven a coach and horses through the deal that she asked us to endorse a fortnight ago. If my right hon. Friend is right that she cannot secure legal change in the withdrawal agreement, what can she come back with on 13 February?
Hilary Benn
Well, in truth, it is very hard to see what she can come back with if my right hon. Friend is correct in his assessment. It is odd, to put it very gently, that we are spending so much time on the backstop, which is something that the Government signed up to more than a year ago, when we really should be debating the most important issue: the future of our relationship with our European neighbours. The reason why the defeat was so large, certainly in relation to those on the Opposition Benches, is that we are not prepared to sign up to a deal that, far from giving the nation certainty about the future of that relationship, has shrouded it in fog and mist that is entirely of the Government’s own making. My preferred approach, as Members will probably know, is to be part of the European economic area and a customs union. Other Members have different views, which is why I put down the amendment calling for indicative votes as recommended by the Select Committee. Although the Prime Minister today appeared to be unenthusiastic about indicative votes, she spent most of her speech hoovering up indicative suggestions, mainly from those on her own Benches. I gently say to her that, one day, she may find herself climbing into the “little rubber life-raft”—to quote a former Prime Minister—of indicative votes. Until that central issue is addressed and until the Government are honest with the House about the choices that we have to make, we will continue to remain in our current state—businesses will continue to remain uncertain about their future and, frankly, the public will continue to ask us, “What on earth is going on?” That brings me to the amendments that seek to prevent us from leaving the EU without an agreement in just 59 days’ time.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we are to succeed in using indicative votes as a process for getting to resolution, hon. Members on both sides of the House and from all parts of the House will have to be willing to sacrifice their first preference and ask instead the question, “What can I tolerate?”
Hilary Benn
I say to the right hon. Gentleman, as I have said to the House before, in the end, if we are to make progress, people will have to compromise. It is a very British tradition, which seems to be somewhat lacking in the process at the moment.
The Select Committee took a lot of evidence and we came to a very, very stark conclusion, and I will quote what we said:
“A ‘managed no deal’ cannot constitute the policy of any responsible Government.”
I do not think that that conclusion will come as a surprise to the Prime Minister. She knows it, most of the Cabinet know it, business knows it and the House knows that the damage that would be inflicted, and the sheer practical difficulties of leaving on 29 March, mean that this is an outcome that cannot possibly be contemplated. I know there are those on the Government Benches who say, “Oh, it’s all exaggerated.” What I do not understand is why it is that they, with great respect, appear to know more about the consequences of no deal than do the businesses that import things, that make things and that export things.
Hilary Benn
No, I will not give way.
Those businesses do not want tariffs, bureaucracy, delays and checks. The truth is that no one has any idea about what customs officers in Calais will do on the first day and the second day if there is a no-deal Brexit, but, eventually, those officers will have to start checking goods, because we will be a third country. Every lorry that is stopped—
Hilary Benn
No.
The lorries will be backed up from Dover, and a lorry stuck on the M20 cannot be in Germany to pick up the car parts that car plants in Britain require in order to function.
When we add in what my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said about security in her powerful speech, as well as the uncertainty for citizens here and abroad—maybe some British citizens will feel that they must return to the United Kingdom because of that uncertainty—then we realise why this is a prospect that cannot be contemplated. I would not want to be the Government who had to explain to the British people why these things were happening, when the Government were responsible in the first place.
Although many of us may still cling to the hope that the Prime Minister will not take us out of the EU with no deal, I am not absolutely sure. That is why I will vote enthusiastically for amendment (b) in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford and amendment (g) in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve).
Mr Speaker
I hope that this is a point of order, not a point of frustration or irritation, which would be an abuse of the procedures of the House.
Charlie Elphicke
I do not wish the House to be inadvertently misled. The proportion of lorries that are checked is 1.3%.
Mr Speaker
I am immensely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but that is an expression of opinion and political debate, which is not a matter for arbitration by the Chair.
Hilary Benn
I shall also vote for amendment (j) tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), and amendment (i) in the names of the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey).
Whatever happens, it is now quite clear that we are going to need more time. One day, the Prime Minister will stand up at the Dispatch Box—unless she is required by the House to do so before then—and say, “I am now applying for an extension to article 50.” Although she may not be willing today to face up to the real choices that confront us, the day will soon come when she will have to, because there is a choice to be made in this House about the future relationship that we want.
As the Prime Minister is asking for suggestions, here is mine: we should ask the European Union now to negotiate the details of the future relationship. When the EU says, “Well, we can’t do that; of course we can’t sign an agreement,” we can point to paragraph 23 of the political declaration, which mentions
“no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions”.
It talks about building and improving on
“the single customs territory…which obviates the need for checks on rules of origin.”
Note that it says “no tariffs”, not zero tariffs. No tariffs means a customs union. The problem is that the Prime Minister cannot bring herself to say those words. If we have been able, in the negotiations thus far, to reach agreement on something as specific as no tariffs, there is no reason in principle that we cannot do the same with all the other things that need to be sorted out. If that did happen, the fears on the Government Benches and the Opposition Benches about what the future relationship might look like could be resolved, and at that point, while remaining members of the EU, we could vote on whether we accepted the withdrawal agreement.
While I very much hope that the House of Commons will take control of the process, I absolutely agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, when he said that there is nothing unconstitutional about us doing our job. There is nothing unconstitutional about my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford in effect bringing forward a private Member’s Bill and, through her amendment— if it is successful—putting it on the Order Paper for 5 February.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Hilary Benn
I am concluding.
We pass private Members’ Bills every year and there is nothing wrong about that. We need to take control of the process because the Government have clearly lost control of it. The moment will come when we have to decide what we want, and not just how we get to the point of decision. For any progress to be made on that in future, what we will need more than anything else—the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) alluded to this in his intervention—is open minds, rather than minds that are closed to the risks that are now facing our country.
Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who spoke with great wisdom and clarity, as always.
A no-deal Brexit would have not just a huge economic cost, but a huge human cost, and that is what drove me to table amendment (i). The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and I are co-authors of this amendment, and we are neighbours. We have seen the lives of our constituents transformed by the renaissance of manufacturing in our region. It now exports more than any other region to the EU, which is its principal market. But Brexit is putting this at risk. As a group of cross-party MPs, we began meeting six months ago to discuss how to help, as we are already losing jobs—not just because of Brexit, but it has made it worse. We co-authored a letter to the Prime Minister calling for a no-deal Brexit to be ruled out, and I thank those who signed it. It attracted 225 signatures from MPs of six parties from all over Britain. The signatories are remainers and leavers, but we agree on one thing—we are against a no-deal Brexit.
Hardly a day goes by without another business calling for no deal to be prevented. Yesterday, it was the supermarkets, which fear their shelves will be empty. Before that, it was the security analysts advising us of increased risks and before that, Airbus, Rolls-Royce, Siemens, Ford, and the National Farmers Union and other farming organisations. The list is simply endless. The CBI has described this as a monumental act of self-harm to be avoided at all costs. Crashing out without a deal simply makes our exports instantly less competitive.
The Government say that it is not their policy to leave with no deal, so let us rule it out. The threat of no deal has been used as a stick to get more concessions, but in my view that card has played out. It has not secured the needed changes, as on the backstop, for example. So as a former negotiator, I would flip that card round the other way as a carrot, offering to take no deal off the table in return for concessions that will get the deal over the line.
I want to be clear: I am not blocking Brexit. I am committed to honouring the referendum result. I voted for the withdrawal agreement; I have read all 585 pages. I urge colleagues perhaps to have a fresh look at it. It may not be perfect, but local businesses tell me that it is good enough and works for them.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
In addition to the businesses themselves, does my right hon. Friend welcome the communications from the workers in those businesses, particularly Jaguar Land Rover, who have communicated with Members of Parliament such as myself to tell me their concerns about a no-deal Brexit?
Dame Caroline Spelman
My hon. Friend is quite right. As a fellow west midlander, he will know that many of us had a personal handwritten letter, or an original email, about the impact—the human cost—on our constituents’ lives, which we simply cannot ignore.
I know that others need persuading about the withdrawal agreement. I encourage colleagues to read the document produced by the House of Commons Library, “What if there’s no Brexit deal?” This document could usefully inform six days of debate, because we ought to debate what the House of Commons Library tells us are the really important issues that we need to consider.
Dame Caroline Spelman
I am short of time now, so I ask my hon. Friend to allow me to continue.
As no deal looms, just think of the human cost. Hundreds of young people like the single mums on my council estates got apprenticeships, then well-paid work in manufacturing, and now their jobs are at risk. Voting no to no deal means that we must agree a deal. The longer the uncertainty continues, the harder it gets for business. Stockpiling is costly and inefficient—the cost comes off the bottom line, and in the end that costs jobs. Just-in-time supply chains will be “not-in-time” with any hold-up at the border, and some factories are already stopping production to limit the disruption.
If we agree that no deal is not an option, then it is incumbent on all party leaders to get round the table—and I think I heard the Leader of the Opposition say today that he would. The Malthouse initiative is an example of a new contribution to break the deadlock. But to negotiate any new deal with the EU will take time and cause an inevitable delay, and I am with the Leader of the House in trying to keep delay to a minimum. The Leader of the Opposition does not seem to have read my amendment because he thinks that it calls for a delay. It does not, because time costs money for business.
We know that there is a majority for “no to no deal” in this Parliament because it was voted on as part of the Finance Bill, but the sheer complexity of that put some people off, including me. So this is a simple vote on whether colleagues support no deal or not. As the commentators say, it is not “processy”. I am surprised that, having been defeated on this issue once, the Government might still want to whip against this amendment—but then, these are not normal times in politics.
The public are weary with the Brexit debate. It is not quick and painless, as promised. They want us to come together in the national interest, and we can do that by agreeing that no to no deal means that there has to be a deal. I am not a natural rebel. Indeed, I do not accept that label as someone supporting something that commands a majority in this House. I see that the Speaker’s chaplain is here to remind us all that we need to be respectful. I am a peacemaker, and I urge all parties in the House to come together in an outbreak of pragmatism and to agree a deal. To vote for my amendment commits us all to that quest.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
We have had an emotional and raucous debate, whereas, as the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said, the people outside are looking for something rather more calm, deliberative and constructive.
The central issue we are addressing today is how we dispose of the no-deal option. As the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) pointed out, there is an overwhelming majority in this place to do that, and a whole series of amendments have been tabled to achieve it. The amendments go about it in different ways: the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) is a declaratory statement; the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield wants a better process; and the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) and the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford want more time. None of the amendments in themselves provides a solution, but they are an important and positive step on the way, and we should support them.
The issue we have to address is why the whole concept of no deal is out there. Let us be clear: it is a choice. It will not be imposed on the UK by the European Union. The UK has the legal authority to stop it, and if it is not stopped, it is a choice. It is out there because there is a complex game of chicken going on. The option of no deal was used initially to try to frighten the European Union, but that had no effect whatever. It has been used to frighten wavering Members of Parliament; we will see how many do waver. It certainly had an impact on frightening business.
One thing that worries me about today’s debate is that this game of chicken has now acquired a dangerous new twist. If there is support for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), the Government will go back to Europe to ask for what they call “alternative arrangements”, but we have no idea what those are. I have heard no mention today of Chequers. Does anybody remember Chequers? Six months ago, the Prime Minister held a special summit to discuss alternative arrangements. The best brains in Britain were employed to look at technological solutions, and the others were rejected. There were no alternative arrangements. Has somebody invented something in the last six months? If so, we have not been told about it. I am not always cynical, but I think there is nothing in it, although that remains to be seen.
The Government will go back to the European Union, and the EU will be very polite—I think it genuinely wants to help the Government—but it will ask, “What is all this about?” and it will say no, not because it wants to but because it has to. The Government will then come back here, and there will be another round of anger. I am sure that it will not be the Prime Minister or the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West, but people will say, “Ah, you see? It’s all these bloody Europeans. They’re blocking it and pushing us out. They’re going to cause mayhem. It’s all their fault.” The ugly nationalism lurking under the surface will bubble up. That is what is in store, and the Government’s action today makes that more likely.
We talk about no deal as if it is a hypothetical possibility, but it is real, and it is now. Partly because of the job I had in the coalition Government, I spend a lot of time talking to businesses big and small around the country, and they all say to me that no deal is happening now. They are having contracts cancelled, either directly or because a company down the supply chain is losing a contract. They are piling up inventories that they do not need, at great cost. Estate agents are having travel cancelled because of the need for three months’ notice. The impact is already being felt. Companies are absorbing it, as they would, but a few months down the track, the economic impact will be very real.
The private enterprise system depends on what Keynes called “animal spirits”, and one of the animal spirits is panic. There is a real danger now of panic getting hold in the way it did 10 years ago in a different way in the financial crisis. The longer we leave no deal on the table, the greater the risk of that happening and of its consequences.
There are other alternatives, and there is one we are not discussing tonight. The Prime Minister is quite right when she says, as she often does, that the alternative to no deal is a deal. She is absolutely right, but there are two deals already on the table: there is the one she has negotiated, and the one we already have. There is also the option that we are not debating today, but which I think we will probably come back to, of saying we should put that choice to the public. The Government say this is horrendous and that it will stir up deep social divisions, but I just ask her to consider whether the social divisions that might be accentuated in that way are greater than the social divisions that would be created if we have a no-deal world, which we are in danger of heading towards. That is why I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues will return—I am sure there will be a greater appetite for this in a few weeks’ time—to considering the option of going back to the public to have the final say.
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me. I think the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) should beware that, while perhaps not wishing to do so, he may sometimes be talking up the possibility of panic and spreading gloom and despondency unnecessarily. I have a short time available to me, but I will take less than the six minutes if I possibly can, because my points are few and simple.
In the more than 21 years since I have been in the House, I have to say that this is the first time I have experienced tabling an amendment and then winning the support of a Prime Minister for it. In her opening remarks, the Prime Minister did of course mention amendment (n). I rise to support the amendment that stands in my name and those of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee—elected, of course, by the whole House—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), as well as many others on both sides of the House.
I will oppose the amendments that seek to delay the article 50 process and those that might rule out some of the options. I do so without any suggestion that these are necessarily deliberately intended to damage the process of Brexit, but I think they carry considerable dangers in them. Those who seek to delay the process risk removing the pressure point or decision point—the moment of decision—that is bringing greater focus to the negotiations at this point. It has been palpable in the last couple of weeks that we have seen more evidence of flexibility from the EU side in the negotiations and a greater willingness to look at how it might assist the United Kingdom to come to an arrangement with which we can agree that can take us out of the European Union in an orderly and managed way. There is a real danger in that.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
What legally binding change to the arrangements does the hon. Gentleman now feel the EU will sign up to that it would not have signed up to a few weeks ago?
Sir Graham Brady
I will come on to those matters. I have very little time, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is my intention in speaking in this debate.
First, however, I wish to turn to the amendments that deal with procedure. I entirely accept what my right hon. and learned Friend the Father of the House said: it is the right of this House to change procedure. However, I would make a slightly different point, which is that I think it is unwise to change procedure without forethought. It is unwise to change procedure on the hoof or to do it for a particular purpose.
Heidi Allen
Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the reason why Members on both sides of the House are having to table such amendments is that we have had over two years of Parliament not being involved in the biggest decision facing our country for generations? The fact that we have been ignored means we have not been able, in a representative democracy, to represent our constituents.
Sir Graham Brady
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) made it very clear that he welcomed some of the changes that have taken place, as well as the debate that we are having, but that was not a dramatic procedural change; I am talking about things that go right to the heart of how this place is run. As Mr Speaker will recall, many years ago I had the pleasure of serving on the Select Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, which became known as the Wright Committee, and I have a long history of interest in reform of Parliament. I am very proud of changes that we achieved, and we sought to achieve others as well. However, I warn colleagues of the danger of doing these things without considerable forethought and consideration; we are often stuck with changes for many years or decades, and they can have unintended consequences.
I shall speak briefly to my amendment (n). I tabled it having seen the agreement reached at Chequers and the progress made towards a withdrawal agreement that clearly not all of us could embrace with great enthusiasm. It became obvious to me, for a variety of reasons, including the fact that we do not have an overall majority in the House of Commons and the complexity of the arrangements, that it would be necessary to compromise. As we worked towards the withdrawal agreement, I thought we might reach a point at which there was a compromise that we could embrace, if only with a lack of huge enthusiasm. However, there was in the withdrawal agreement one compromise too far. It was not, it is important to say, the whole concept of a backstop. The compromise too far was the possibility that, as brought forward, the backstop arrangement, which was explicitly never intended to be other than temporary, could become a permanent arrangement, and so lock in a situation in which Northern Ireland was treated differently from the rest of the United Kingdom perpetually and in which the whole United Kingdom was locked in the customs union in perpetuity. That is why I could not support the withdrawal agreement when we voted two weeks ago, and I know it was the most important, but not the only, reason why so many Conservative colleagues—and, I think, Democratic Unionist colleagues—were unable to bring themselves to support the agreement.
After the defeat of the agreement by such a big majority, the fashionable idea took hold that there was simply nothing that the House could agree—no majority for any arrangement that could possibly deliver the result of the referendum and take us out of the European Union in an orderly fashion. I do not believe that that is true. I hope to demonstrate with amendment (n) that there is an agreement that can win majority support in the House of Commons. By voting for the amendment, we can send the Prime Minister back to Brussels to negotiate, having strengthened her hand.
Sir Graham Brady
I would very much like to give way to the hon. Lady, but I have used up my two allowed interventions.
We can send the Prime Minister back in a strengthened position, able to say that she has a real mandate from this House, and to ask for real change.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I rise to speak to amendment (j), which is in my name and the name of other right hon. and hon. Members, and to express support for the amendments tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, by my right hon. Friends the Members for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), by the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) and by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve).
I am motivated to move amendment (j) because I want so much to rule out leaving without a deal on 29 March. If there is just a month before we are due to leave the European Union and we do not have a deal, extending article 50 is the way to achieve ruling that out. I come to this debate with the evidence we have taken on the Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy ringing in my ears. Businesses have many views about where, and with what sort of deal, they want to end up, but what unites them is a determination not to crash out of the European Union without any deal at all, because of the impact that would have on free and frictionless trade, which businesses have grown to rely on through our membership of the European Union over the past decades.
We heard evidence from Honda, which warned our Select Committee that every 15 minutes of delay at the border cost £850,000; from the Food and Drink Federation, which talked about how European businesses could
“hoover up the markets that have previously been well served by UK companies”;
from pharmaceutical companies; and most recently from the British Retail Consortium.
Emma Reynolds
Does my hon. Friend agree that the threat of no deal is already having a material effect? Businesses in the west midlands tell me that they are already putting orders on hold and withdrawing or postponing investment decisions because of the threat of no deal.
Rachel Reeves
I absolutely agree. Passing my amendment would give the certainty to businesses that we will not crash out and that they do not have to look to offshore more work and potentially lay off more workers to build up their inventory supply. It will give workers certainty. Trade unions are also saying that the very worst thing for our economy and for people working in our economy is to crash out without a deal. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford said, it will also provide assurance to families and pensioners, particularly those on fixed incomes who are incredibly worried about the rising costs of essentials in the shops when they are already struggling with the cost of living.
Mark Pawsey
The hon. Lady is a very effective Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. She heard, as I did, businesses argue for no deal, but in the main businesses say they recognise that the Prime Minister’s deal, while having many faults, is better than the continued uncertainty. Why is the hon. Lady not able to accept that contention from the businesses we have heard? Why does she think that her method of continuing the process is better than accepting what we heard businesses say?
Rachel Reeves
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He and the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) are fantastic members of my Select Committee—as are all the members. The deal has been rejected; all my amendment says is that, if we get to 26 February and we still have agreed not agreed a deal just 31 days before we are due to leave the European Union, we need at that point to have in place a mechanism to give us more time. That is simply what my amendment would do. It does not propose that we extend article 50 today and it does not come to a conclusion about the final deal, but it does say that we need time to get this right, to secure a deal so that we do not crash out without a deal. For business and, as other Members have said, for policing and security, we must avoid the chaos that we all know will occur if we crash out without a deal. I believe that the Prime Minister knows that, too. The amendment would give her and the Government the space to get the right deal.
The most obvious way to ensure that we do not leave without a deal is to take no deal on 29 March off the table. The way to do that is to put in its place this mechanism to extend article 50 if we get to 26 February without having secured a deal. It will give us the time we desperately need to get this right. It is exactly the opposite of the dangerous tactic of running down the clock and putting pressure on Members to agree a deal that many of us think and believe very strongly is a bad deal for our country.
Rachel Reeves
I will not give way, because of the time, if that is okay.
My amendment is very simple. It calls on the Government to extend article 50 in the event that we do not have a deal by 26 February. The Prime Minister could still come back to the House on 13 or 14 February and if she can get her deal through Parliament, the amendment will become irrelevant. The Prime Minister still has another month to secure agreement, but the amendment would give us further time if that is necessary. My amendment does not specify an amount of time for which we should extend article 50. It would be up to the Government to agree that with our counterparts in the European Union.
My amendment differs from amendment (b) tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford. My right hon. Friend, rightly, is trying to secure through legislation an extension to article 50 if needed, because so many of us have lost trust and lost faith in this Government. They have let us down on too many occasions. My amendment does not seek to go as far, although I very much support her amendment and will be voting for it this evening.
There are many alternatives, so let us explore them with the time that we have left. Let us try to find consensus and compromise. Let us not box ourselves in, get this wrong and have to live with the consequences either of a bad deal or of crashing out without a deal. We are all under conflicting pressures. We have duties to our constituents and obligations to our parties, and we must also listen to our consciences. I believe that, on such issues, we must put those interests aside and act in the national interest. We must rise to that challenge when we vote this evening.
My message to right hon. and hon. Members about the merits of my amendment, and why I hope they will support it, is straightforward. If they voted to leave and want to see Brexit resolved but are worried about the danger of a no-deal Brexit, it would remove that risk. If they are pushing for a Norway-plus solution, it would keep open that possibility. If they are looking to protect environmental standards, consumer and workers’ rights, the customs union and a strong single market deal, it would allow them to continue making that argument and win it. If they want a people’s vote, but accept that the immediate priority must be to take no deal off the table, it is a key part of that process.
With the countdown clock ticking down by the day, we must all work together and agree a way forward by joining forces to end any prospect of a no-deal Brexit. We must have time to come up with a workable solution. We must not let down our country and crash out of the European Union without a deal, so I urge hon. Members to support my amendment.
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), who made her case powerfully and cogently. I want to strengthen the hand of this Prime Minister and this Government in returning to Brussels. I believe that there is a range of changes that would render the withdrawal agreement—in particular, the backstop—acceptable to me and to hon. Members across the House.
There could be a sunset mechanism or an exit mechanism, over which we exercise control but with assurances to our friends and partners in Dublin about its exercise. I listened very carefully to the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable), who talked about whether that is possible. It is possible. Michel Barnier said very clearly on 24 January, in relation to a no-deal scenario, that the EU side
“would be obliged to carry out controls on goods arriving in the Republic of Ireland. My team have worked hard to study how controls can be made paperless or decentralised, which will be useful in all circumstances.”
He later confirmed and clarified:
“We will have to find an operational way of carrying out checks and controls without putting back in place a border”.
We must be clear that this is not a question whether it can be done; it is a political choice. Paragraph 23 of the political declaration was clarified to make clear a transition to a best-in-class free trade agreement.
In the brief time available, let me address the two key amendments. I listened very carefully to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and I am worried about the constitutional precedent that she would set. Most of all, her amendment and the Bill that would follow purport to be neutral in relation to process, but in their substance they are a Pandora’s box. They would mandate a nine-month extension for negotiations, but the EU has ruled out such a long extension.
Yvette Cooper
To make it absolutely clear, the intention is not to mandate nine months. I think that would be very unhelpful. The point is that any motion that is tabled at the end of February should be amendable, and it should be for the House to decide at that point. If necessary, we can make that clearer as the Bill progresses to avoid any unhelpful conclusions.
Dominic Raab
I thank the right hon. Lady for that, but the Bill states nine months very clearly, and the EU has made it clear that it would need to know the strategic objective of any extension.
Dominic Raab
I will make a bit of progress, and then I will certainly take at least one more intervention.
The Bill nowhere sets out the substance of the approach that the right hon. Lady would seek to pursue. It is not clear if it is the Norway option or the second referendum option. It is neutral—in fact, it is empty—on the substance. I have listened to her carefully and with respect throughout these debates, and I will take her advice. Back in February 2018, she said:
“The Government have said they do not want to be in the single market, but they have not told us what they want instead… the clock is ticking and when you are running out of time, you cannot keep kicking the can down the road”—[Official Report, 5 February 2018; Vol. 635, c. 1212-13.]
And yet that is precisely what her amendment and Bill would do. Just last November, on the 500 pages of the Government’s withdrawal agreement and political declaration, she said to the House:
“This is not a deal for the future; it is just a stopgap… We have no idea where this is heading”—[Official Report, 26 November 2018; Vol. 650, c. 33.]
Again, I gently and respectfully say that her amendment and Bill are vulnerable to the very charge that she herself levelled at the Government and the Prime Minister. Just moments ago—I listened to her speech carefully and with respect—she talked about avoiding a blindfold Brexit, but I am afraid her approach is precisely a blindfold approach.
It is not clear whether the right hon. Lady backs the Norway option or a second referendum, but I worry most that, as she said, the period is amendable. Without her setting out a positive proposal, I am afraid there is the understandable fear that it is a ruse to reverse or frustrate Brexit. There will be people who, because of the absence of her setting out a substantive credible alternative, will fear just that.
Nick Boles
My right hon. Friend persists in ignoring what the right hon. Lady told him about the true intention of the Bill, which I support. It is very clear that, if amendment (b) were passed, there would be two opportunities to amend the length of the extension, both during the Bill’s passage through all its Commons stages next Tuesday, when a majority would be required, and through the motion the Government would need to table on 26 February. It is entirely scurrilous to suggest there is a hidden plot to revoke Brexit when both she and I have been explicit that we would never vote for it. The only way it could be amended is if there was a majority in Parliament.
Dominic Raab
The problem my hon. Friend has is that, although he has powerfully made the case for the Norway option, I have also read the cogent case made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) in The Sunday Times for why that is wrong and we should have a second referendum. With just two months to go until Brexit, the amendment is a climbing frame for everyone with a different view. I fear most, however, that this would encourage the EU to delay at the eleventh hour of the negotiations in the hope that we will settle for worse terms and undermine the Prime Minister at exactly the point we need to reinforce her hand.
I turn to amendment (n), tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady). Initially, I thought this rather a vague amendment, but I understand precisely what he is seeking to achieve. The Government should have tabled an amendment of their own, but the Prime Minister has come to the Chamber and given three assurances: one, that the changes we will seek will be legally binding changes to the withdrawal agreement; two, that she will seriously consider the substantive proposals in what I can only call the Mogg-Morgan-Malthouse compromise; and three, that the revised deal will be returned to this House for a further, effectively meaningful vote. On that basis, I will vote for the amendment. I want to send the Prime Minister back to Brussels with a strong and clear sense of what this House will accept. That is the best way—in fact, the only way—to get a deal acceptable to the House and the country.
Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab). Let me say at the outset that we have had very good discussions with the Government and, indeed, with Back Benchers in both parties in recent days, and that, for the reasons that he gave, we agree that the right approach is to vote for amendment (n) in order to give the Prime Minister the backing that will indicate to the European Union that there is a way through this which can command support in the House.
The Prime Minister’s agreement to bring back any final deal for a meaningful vote, the fact that she will seek legally binding changes, what she has said about reopening the withdrawal agreement, and the fact that serious consideration will be given to options that can bring together those on the Brexiteer and remain sides of the argument are all powerful reasons for supporting the amendment. I believe that there is a way through the current difficulties and deadlock, but some of the options presented in other amendments do not, in my view, command a majority. We must be realistic about that.
We, certainly on these Benches, want a deal: we do not want a no-deal outcome. However, the idea of taking no deal off the table is more likely to lead to a no-deal outcome than anything else, because that is exactly what will ensure that the EU holds out and gives absolutely nothing in any future negotiations. I have dealt with the Irish Government—Irish Governments of different hues—over many years, and that is exactly the approach that they have told us they will take, so it should not come as any surprise.
The Prime Minister has focused on the issue of the backstop. We have some other issues with the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, but the backstop is the main issue, and if it is dealt with, that will mean that we can get a withdrawal agreement through the House. I do not need to rehearse all the reasons why the backstop was so difficult for us as Unionists. However, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) described it as damaging to the Union, the Father of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) described it as a ridiculous proposition, and the Prime Minister herself has criticised it in strong terms as something that no one wants and everyone detests. Yet it remains at the heart of our debate. We must address the fact that with it in place, we cannot support the withdrawal agreement.
People say that the position cannot possibly be revised. However, as the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton has just said, Michel Barnier himself, when he had to deal this week with the criticism that came the way of the European Commission’s spokesperson who had said that there would have to be a hard border in the event of no deal, said “No, no, there does not have to be one.” I will not repeat the quotation that the right hon. Gentleman has just given, but the fact is that if we can have no hard border in a no-deal situation, that will certainly be possible in the event of a withdrawal agreement and a deal.
The position in the Irish Republic is not as homogeneous as people think. Its Prime Minister, Leo Varadkar, said the other day that in the event of no deal we would have to send troops to the Irish border. The Irish Government swiftly retreated from that. The Prime Minister was out in Davos. He may have been mixing with all sorts of characters—I do not know who those could possibly be—and he obviously got carried away with the rhetoric. Some wild stuff is being said.
One of the most damaging arguments, which is of concern to many Unionists—and we in the House speak for the vast bulk of Unionists who are concerned about the implications of the backstop—is that this is designed to protect the backstop and the Good Friday agreement, as amended by the St Andrews agreement. It does nothing of the sort. Lord Bew, one of the architects of, or the people behind, the Good Friday agreement, said in a recent article for Policy Exchange that it drives a coach and horses through the agreement. We need to be realistic about this.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I believe that Lord Bew went even further in the other place last week, when he said:
“there is one great problem with the backstop: it does not protect the Good Friday agreement.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 December 2018; Vol. 794, c. 1012.]
He has made that point repeatedly. Surely that is the issue: as he has said, the backstop drives a coach and horses through the agreement.
Nigel Dodds
That is absolutely right, and I urge Members on both sides to read what Lord Bew has said. He voted to remain; he is a supporter of the Good Friday agreement; read what he said about this, instead of listening to some of the myths that are about. For instance there is the myth that the open border is part of the Good Friday agreement—the Belfast agreement. The Belfast agreement does not mention anything to do with an open border; this is a complete myth. What we want in Northern Ireland—on all sides—is no hard border on the island of Ireland; we in our party are absolutely committed to no hard border on the island of Ireland, but not at the expense of creating borders down the Irish sea with our biggest market and affecting the integrity of the United Kingdom.
That has got to be the sensible position, and I believe now that if we get behind the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) and send the Prime Minister out to Brussels with that strong support behind her, we can achieve something that people have said is not possible: we can get this deal sorted out for the good of all our country.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) as someone who was both present and involved when the confidence and supply arrangement was originally signed. I am delighted that it is in such robust health today.
I rise, as indeed the last two speakers did, to support amendment (n) in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady). I do so partly because the House now needs to say something positive. The Prime Minister was right when she said in her opening speech that we all know what we do not like collectively; we now have to start moving down the path quite quickly of things that we do like.
Three issues have arisen during this debate where I would invite Members on both sides to question the conventional wisdom. First, both sides appear to agree that there should be no more delay, but many in all parts of the House will be tempted by amendments tonight that will lead to more delay; that seems to me to be slightly incoherent. The second point that I have heard time and again is that there is something wrong with the Prime Minister radically changing the backstop arrangements when she put them forward so strongly. It seems to me that when something is put to the House of Commons and it is defeated by 230 votes, there is a certain degree of common sense involved in changing it radically. That seems to me to be sensible. Thirdly, there is the temptation, not just of colleagues in this House but people outside, to assume that everything said by anyone representing the Commission, the European Parliament or any other European body must be taken as gospel whereas anything said by a British politician must be taken as a negotiating stance. Speaking as someone who is a lifelong pro-European and who campaigned hard for remain, I must say that we do need to show a bit more realism, and occasionally a bit more cynicism. Guy Verhofstadt has been quoted in this debate; good man though he is in many ways, I have never noticed him particularly advancing the interests of this country, nor is he paid to do so.
It is clear that given the result of the referendum—a narrow victory—the winners must win but the losing 48% who accept the result want a smooth and orderly Brexit. We need a new deal after the last vote and therefore several things are important. First, we need to start changing the tone of the debate both inside this Parliament and outside. We have seen some of the hatred and bile that has been introduced into our politics by the passions aroused on this, and it is the responsibility of us all to try to drain that bile—to try to improve the tone of the debate. Apart from one or two instances at the start, it seems to me that our debate this afternoon is a model of how to do it. We all respect each other’s views, and we know that everyone on all sides has strong views. Many of us who are not just conventionally hon. Friends but are actual friends will be going into different Division Lobbies tonight, and that is as it should be, as long as we can continue the civilised tone.
I support amendment (n) because it gives us the outline of a new deal that might be successful in negotiations with Europe and certainly gives the British Government a coherent position following the loss last time. I will not vote for any of the other amendments, partly for constitutional reasons. I think that the distinction between Parliament holding the Executive to account and Parliament trying to become a quasi-executive, even in limited terms, is a confusion that we should not consider.
Although other amendments are in some ways attractive, the amendment on the indicative vote is perhaps premature. I take the Prime Minister’s point that those of us who are very against no deal will have an opportunity to express that opposition. I am absolutely at one with those colleagues who say that no deal would be a disaster.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I just want to understand the import of what my right hon. Friend is saying. He and I are genuine friends but we will go through different Lobbies to vote on the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). I will also vote for amendment (n), which obviously we hope will succeed, but if it does not succeed and the Prime Minister comes back in the middle of February, as she has said she will, unwilling to ask for a delay, would he then change his mind about the constitutional propriety of avoiding a no-deal exit through Parliament?
Damian Green
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend is asking me to address hypothetical questions. Let us see where we are in two weeks’ time. Certainly, as I have said before, I will do whatever it takes to avoid a no-deal Brexit. The method chosen may not be exactly right, but he and others with immensely fertile brains may yet, I hope, have two weeks to think again or, even better, may not need to. I hope that the focusing of minds in this country is reflected by a focusing of minds in Brussels and, indeed, in Dublin.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that much the best way of guaranteeing that no deal does not happen is to keep no deal on the table so that we keep pressure on the European Union to talk in a serious manner?
Damian Green
My right hon. Friend may well be right. Certainly, throughout the negotiations, the Government have made the perfectly sensible point that anyone entering into a negotiation saying, “Whatever happens, I am going to take a deal at the end of it,” is unlikely to get a particularly brilliant result. To some extent, that is what happened to the British Government in the negotiations before the referendum. We all know that one of the things that might have changed the result would have been if David Cameron had come back with a better and more generous deal from Europe. I think there is a degree of validity in my right hon. Friend’s point, even though I think this may be the first time we have ever agreed on a European issue in our more than 20 years in this House.
Today is obviously important for the Government and for the negotiations, and it is also important for Parliament, because it gives Parliament a chance to be positive—not just to reject a deal, but to point a way forward. In a terrible time for democratic politics, this would be a glimmer of hope—a shaft of light—to show that this House can contribute to finding a solution to the most difficult political problem that this country has faced for decades. I hope that today and over the coming days the House and the Government can rise to the gravity of that problem.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister came along this afternoon and encouraged Parliament to drive a coach and horses through the agreement that she spent two years concluding and hour after hour at the Dispatch Box defending. She had a choice when the House rejected that agreement a couple of weeks ago. She could have tried to form a coalition across the House for common ground, but instead she chose to throw her lot in with the ERG to try to revise the backstop—something she has repeatedly said could not be done. She made it clear today that she is talking not just about the future political declaration but about legal change to the withdrawal agreement itself.
It should be remembered that this backstop is not some foreign imposition. The commitment to no hard border arises out of commitments that we have made as a country and that we repeated in the December 2017 phase 1 agreement with the European Union, but now we are committed to watering it down or doing something to undermine it.
I speak today to support the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) and the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), which try to avoid no deal. There are two reasons why I think we should do that.
The first is responsibility. Leaving the European Union without a deal in place would have extremely damaging consequences for the country, and it is our duty as responsible politicians to try to avoid them. There has been a legion of warnings, so let me just mention a couple.
Last week, the chief executive of Airbus, which directly employs 14,000 people in the country and sustains many tens of thousands more jobs, including many in Wolverhampton’s valuable aerospace cluster, warned that leaving on the basis of no deal would be a disaster, and the ideology behind it was “madness”. For his pains, he was attacked on the basis of his nationality. What has happened to our politics when that is what happens?
Also last week, the Road Haulage Association warned of chaos in transport if we go down the no-deal route. Just yesterday, Britain’s major food retailers warned of both shortages of food and higher prices for consumers if no deal happens. Who will pay the price for that? Our constituents on low incomes, who cannot afford higher food prices, will pay, as a result of right-wing nationalist ideology.
David T. C. Davies
I visited the port of Holyhead with at least one of the right hon. Gentleman’s colleagues on Monday. They said that it was time that MPs dampened down the hysteria about no-deal Brexit, and that they were quite prepared for it. That is what the officials in the port of Holyhead said to us yesterday.
Mr McFadden
I am quoting the chief executive of Airbus, the Road Haulage Association and the country’s major food retailers. These are not my warnings—these are their warnings.
There was a time when such things would have carried some weight, but we are in a time when our politics has so changed that such warnings are simply dismissed as irrelevant. Even worse, there are voices who almost lust for the chaos. I believe that, as responsible politicians, we should not will an end that brings about job losses or rising prices for our constituents. It is not the rich, right-wing ideologues who will pay the price. It is people who work in the manufacturing industry and people who need affordable food prices in the shops.
There is a second reason to avoid no deal. There is the argument that somehow we just need to get this thing over the line; that people are bored of Brexit, and they just want this done. That is irresponsible. It is simply not the case that we will be able to stop talking about this on 30 March, because all the big questions about the future remain unanswered. They have not been left for another day because that is in the national interest; they have been left for another day because to make the fundamental choice would upset one part of the Conservative party and would mean the slaying of the Brexit unicorns.
Of course it is tempting to tick the box and get a deal—any deal—over the line. There is maybe part of us that wishes to say to our constituents, “We have delivered you Brexit, and if it turns out to be not what you wished, well, that is not our problem.” That is an irresponsible illusion. We do no service to the public if we try to pull the wool over their eyes in exchange for a quiet life for ourselves in the short term. I understand the temptations of it, because of course some people are angry and frustrated, but many more will be angry if we are not candid with them about the Brexit future ahead.
The second reason to avoid no deal and to have an extension is therefore the opportunity to give clarity on the future ahead. We have not done that so far. The Prime Minister’s strategy is to avoid that for party reasons, to run down the clock and to have all the questions answered later. We have a greater duty to the country and our constituents, and that is the reason to avoid the strategy of running down the clock and to use an extension for the purpose of giving clarity about the country’s future, on the basis of the reality of Brexit and not the irreconcilable promises made about it thus far.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
Unlike the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), I am a very easy man to please. I voted for the Prime Minister’s first deal; I shall vote for whatever she brings back; and I am going to vote for the Brady amendment. I am past caring what deal we have; I will vote for it to get a smooth exit.
The fact is that tonight we are faced with a choice of huge significance for our country, but it is not about the deal we do or do not get eventually, which I suspect in the long run will have to be done through some kind of consensus we have not yet found in this House. We are not really voting about that tonight.
The 29th of March is not an abstract fact; it is going to happen. There is going to be a 29 March, which is a real day, and what we are really voting about tonight is the question whether, in the absence of this House taking action, we will leave the EU without a deal—in fact, in the absence of the House taking action tonight rather than two weeks from now, because I do not believe that vote is really going to happen. I am perfectly aware that some very old friends of mine, whose integrity and passion I respect and admire, believe that leaving without a deal is a perfectly tolerable outcome, or even a good outcome, for this country. I respect that opinion, but I do not share it.
I am also aware that many people think the Conservative party will suffer if it is seen in any way to do anything that delays the exit date. I accept that there is some suffering, and I have experienced some of it in my constituency. I have experienced some of it through the tirades of those who send me emails and the like. I accept that.
What my hon. Friends ignore is what will happen, first, to this country, which should be our first preoccupation, and, secondly, to our party if we leave on 29 March, taking the risks involved in not having a deal, and it goes wrong. Incidentally, I entirely accept that it might be perfectly all right, but it might not. If it is not, it will be Conservative Members and our Government—it will not be Opposition Members, some unseen force or the EU—to whom those difficulties will be attributed by the population of our country. When the people elect a Government, they expect that Government to look after them and not to impose risks and difficulties.
If those risks materialise, our party will not be forgiven for many years to come. It will be the first time that we have consciously taken a risk on behalf of our nation, and terrible things will happen to real people in our nation because of that risk, and we will not be able to argue that it was someone else’s fault. I beg those Conservative Members who are still in doubt—I know there are many who are not—to consider that issue when we go into the Lobbies tonight.
Finally, I will say one word on the question whether amendment (b) and the Bill proposed by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) is some kind of constitutional outrage. The Father of the House spoke about it, as did my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), and I will add a word.
It is a fine thing to debate constitutional process, but if one is going to do so, it is important to read the books. It is important to know what our constitution is. There is one pre-eminent authority on the law of our constitution, and the one thing that A. V. Dicey makes clearer than anything else in his very large book is that the House of Commons has undisputed control of its own procedures. The Standing Orders of the House of Commons, which Bagehot tells us are the nearest thing in this terrible constitutional melee to a constitution in our country, are under the control of this House. There is nothing improper, wrong or even unusual about changing Standing Orders by a majority of this House of Commons. Until 1906, the Government did not have control of the Order Paper. It was invented for a particular reason that the Government should have that control, but there is no need for them to have it in future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. After the next speaker, the time limit will have to be reduced to three minutes, because everybody has been taking interventions, which is very consistent with the rules of debate but, obviously, truncates the opportunities of other right hon. and hon. Members.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I am proud that my name is on amendments (o), (g), (b) and (j). We also support amendments (a) and (i), but not amendment (n). That is because the Brexiteers’ modest proposal to the problem of Ireland is Swiftian in its grotesquery, its historical ignorance and its single, 360°, all-encompassing blind spot.
In June 2016, the Prime Minister, in a last-ditch attempt to win the referendum, explained how customs checks between Northern Ireland and Ireland would be inevitable if we were pulled out of the EU. What followed was a series of warnings from customs experts, culminating in Eric Pickett, an authority in WTO rules and international law, telling MPs in February 2017 that giving Ireland special treatment would be a strict violation of WTO law. When Mrs May triggered article 50 a mere month later, with the help of the Labour party, she started the clock on Brexit without having the faintest idea how she might avoid running roughshod over the Good Friday agreement. Now, two years later, we are still debating whether or not we need a backstop designed to avoid the dangerous chaos of a hard border. All the while, the clock is ticking and this place cannot find a resolution, and all the while the Prime Minister’s status is sinking before our eyes. Will she take the peoples of the UK down with her? Or will she put all four nations before unforgivable party loyalty and turn to us for answers?
There are plenty of answers the Prime Minister could choose on today’s Order Paper. Not all of them perfect—some of them attempt to have cake and eat it—but some of them are necessary and rational compromises. They are necessary to avoid the no-deal-by-default scenario towards which we accelerate with every passing day. The Labour party’s indifference makes it just as culpable. Last night’s last-minute one-line Whip against the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill is illustrative of the Labour party’s intentional apathy towards all things Brexit. The amendment tabled by the Opposition Front-Bench team today is a masterclass in fence-sitting. Let me be clear: their self-serving ambiguity is paving the way to a no deal.
Brexit is a thinly veiled assumption by the British Government of their right to centralise power and concentrate wealth. I am not talking about taking back control and money from the EU; I am talking about using Brexit as an excuse to take powers back from Wales and spend ever more per head in London than in Wales than they currently do. The economic disparity between Wales and London is already the worst in the European Union. It is not possible to overstate the grotesqueness of our current inequality. Inner London’s GDP is 614% of the EU average, while West Wales and the Valleys, where I live, possesses a regional GDP of 68% of the same EU average. Westminster has always seen fit to benefit most that which is closest to its heart, and its heart is in south-east England. As for the rest of us, we are as we always have been—peripheral, expendable, beyond the pale.
This place indulges itself with endless, abstract angels-on-a-pinhead debates about backstops, safe in the knowledge that most of us here will probably be all right in a no-deal scenario. I was in Holyhead yesterday, with the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies). What we were told by people in the port of Holyhead is that they probably can survive day one of no deal, but they have no idea what is happening in the weeks after that—they have no idea whatsoever. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is going there this week to deal with pets and racehorses; the grand national is a week after we come out and most of the horses come through Holyhead. We will be all right here in a no-deal scenario; it is real people, constituents of mine and of all hon. Members—the hill farmers, the factory workers, the mums and dads; and, ultimately, the children—who will pay the real price for our time-wasting. I beg the Prime Minister: let us move on, rule out no deal and allow the House to work, at least for once, for the people and not for her party.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
With two months to go until 29 March, it is hardly surprising that we are once again debating our withdrawal from the European Union. It is pretty obvious that we should be much further ahead in the process. Of course, the warning signs have been there for months, as all Members have said: from the minute the backstop went down to the Chequers agreement and the withdrawal agreement, which were of course not right for our country. I voted against the withdrawal agreement.
At this crucial time, we need leadership, which is why I welcome the Prime Minister’s very clear statement today. She should be commended for the way she handled strong questioning and rightly addressed many of the challenges relating to the withdrawal agreement. She should be particularly commended for reopening the negotiations on the withdrawal agreement. I would like to hear more from the Government about whether they have engaged in discussions and are preparing to hear from the European Commission whether it is prepared, willing and able to reopen the negotiations and get that legally binding change to the withdrawal agreement.
It is right that we now concentrate all efforts on delivering the referendum mandate. We cannot have more statements or glorified letters of assurances; we must get that clear, legally binding change to the text of the withdrawal agreement. When the negotiations are reopened, we need to ensure that the right people are engaged and involved in the process.
Ian Paisley
Does the right hon. Lady agree that yes, obviously, a legal textual change is now being sought, but that should not come as any surprise because the words of amendment (n) are already in paragraph 27 of the political agreement, of which Europe has been aware since November last year?
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, which is why there is now an opportunity for us to land a clear commitment on the future relationship and on every aspect of the trading relationship and to remove some of the ambiguity in the political declaration.
It is important to recognise—as I think all Members do—that Parliament must deliver on the referendum mandate, and we have the opportunity to do so. The Prime Minister was right to refer to Conservative colleagues who were on either side of the referendum argument but have put forward new proposals that seek to provide certainty and clarity. They seek to unite the country in getting that compromise, including by extending the key issues around implementation, replacing the backstop and supporting the future UK-EU free trade arrangement, as well as by seeking co-operation in security matters and guaranteeing citizens’ rights going forward.
I was reassured by the Prime Minister’s remarks today, which is why her hand should be strengthened when she goes back to Brussels. I have called for the Government to go back to Brussels again and again since I voted against the withdrawal agreement. We must leave on 29 March so that we can position ourselves as an outward-looking, global, free-trading country, and as a nation that is on that mission of economic and democratic renewal. I will support amendment (n). We have to find the right degree of unity and compromise to strengthen the Government and the Prime Minister to go, as she herself stated today, back to Brussels to deliver for Britain.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
The right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) is passionate about the Land Rover plant in her constituency, as I am passionate about the Jaguar plant in Erdington. The plants have transformed the lives of tens of thousands throughout Birmingham and the west midlands. Together, the two plants are a symbol of the success of the automotive industry. But we have lost a thousand jobs at the Jag over the past 12 months, and we recently saw the announcement of 4,500 job losses. That is why the chief executive of JLR, Ralf Speth, said no to no deal. With the greatest of respect, some right hon. Members on the Government Benches should show a degree of humility. There are some who pretend that they know more about cars than the people who make cars, more about building ships than the people who build ships and more about keeping our country safe than the head of counter-terrorism.
During the next stage, we have a duty to honour the outcome of the referendum and to do everything possible to reach agreement, but it is clear beyond any doubt that the deal on offer will not pass and that no serious progress is being made towards delivering a deal that will defend the national interests and also pass Parliament. Therefore, in saying no to no deal, the right hon. Member for Meriden and I hope that the Government listen. Everything possible in terms of cross-party negotiations needs to be done to reach an agreement, but, crucially, that needs to be underpinned by the amendment from my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), which would prevent us going over the cliff on 29 March if the Government refuse to listen.
The Government cannot be allowed to treat the House of Commons with contempt or to ignore the views of its Members. Going into a serious negotiation, we have to move beyond the Tory party talking to itself. We must do right by the country. It should no longer be, “My deal or no deal,” and no longer should we be taken ever closer to the cliff. All this matters for the security of our country, for medicines, for industry, for farming, for food and for retail. The voices are loud and clear and they need to be listened to.
In conclusion, I am someone of an Irish background, but I am also someone who believes in a proud United Kingdom. This is a great country with great potential. I do not want us to become a fearful, fractured, inward-turning country at the margins of Europe—a country that is weakened in the world and impoverished for a generation. Our destiny is to be a truly great Britain—not a country plunging into the abyss and decades of despair, which is what will happen if we go out on 29 March without a deal.
Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)
I have followed three principles since the country voted to leave the European Union: to respect the referendum result and deliver Brexit; not to have a second referendum; and to avoid no deal. I voted to implement article 50. I supported the withdrawal agreement out of my own free will with no offers of gongs or jobs. Members can imagine therefore that I have taken with a pinch of salt the protestations—the butter-would-not-melt-in-my-mouth protestations—of the hard Brexiteers as they wish the Prime Minister well, with a heavy heart, as they send her back to Brussels, assuring her of their good will.
I will continue to support the Prime Minister: I supported her when the hard Brexiteers tried to oust her as Prime Minister; I supported her in the no-confidence vote; and tonight in the Lobby I will support her. I will vote for the Grieve amendment. The Prime Minister says that it is time for Parliament to say what it wants, not what it does not want. This is what the Grieve amendment does, and it is a modest constitutional proposal. I do not support the ERG in its proposal to prorogue—the first such prorogation of Parliament since Charles I—or in its instruction to Her Majesty not to pass Parliament’s legislation. I support merely a modest amendment that supports the Prime Minister.
I support the Spelman amendment, because I do not want no deal. The Prime Minister has said from the Dispatch Box that she wants to avoid no deal. I back the Prime Minister and I back Spelman. I support the Cooper amendment because the Prime Minister needs time to get her deal right, because I know that the hard Brexiteers will vote her down on 14 February, so she needs the time to get things right. I back Cooper and I back Boles. I am afraid, however, that, because I support the Prime Minister I cannot support the Brady amendment. I back the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement, and unlike some people in this House, I will not turn my back on it and neuter it with a fake clause, pretending that it is amending an agreement when it is doing no such thing.
I wish the Prime Minister well in the full knowledge that Parliament can come forward and actually say what it wants to do. Our bluff can be called and we can come forward with our own proposals. I back her in her withdrawal agreement and I back her in avoiding no deal. I am pleased and delighted to remain a loyal supporter of the Prime and her policy on Brexit.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
It was embarrassing to be part of the pantomime that started this debate earlier and that could not contrast more with the levels of anxiety that I hear out there in the country whenever I am allowed to go home. These debates have largely generated far more heat than light, and I have been glad to hear many Members, in the debate that has ensued, recognise that we are breaking our democracy. We urgently have to build common ground. That is why amendment (f) in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), which seeks to narrow down the options with a series of indicative votes, is an incredibly helpful suggestion. So, too, is amendment (h) in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), along with myself and many others, proposing a citizens’ assembly. This has been used as a mechanism in many other countries, including Ireland, to break similarly controversial deadlocks.
The importance of amendment (h) is that the 46 MPs who are signatory to it come from all different Brexit positions and none. That proves that there are a number of us in this House who are willing to step out of the trenches and start to compromise. This matters because HOPE not hate produced a report today that clearly shows that attitudes around the country are hardening and people’s willingness to compromise is being reduced. We are seeing fear, anger and a rise in activity from the far right in that fertile ground in a way that I have not seen since I was growing up as a child in the 1980s.
It is astonishing that the Prime Minister came here today still talking to the House as if she can have it both ways. She told my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) that she is seeking to strengthen workers’ rights, but then she told this House that she is backing the Baker plan, which on page 31 junks the non-regression clause and seeks to dilute existing employment rights protections. The Prime Minister seems determined to tilt right and try to get this through with a small group of hard Brexiteers in her own party, but how does she honestly think that she is going to maintain that fragile coalition all the way through the legislation that will be required to pass this?
That is why, reluctantly, I have come to the conclusion that today I will support amendment (b) in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). That is not because I think that extending article 50 to the end of the year is by any means sustainable; it is not and the public will not accept it. They will not forgive us if we go over the summer and try to re-elect MEPs to a Parliament that we were supposed to have left three months before.
There is not enough understanding in this House of how little trust there is that we mean what we say when we say we respect the result of the referendum, and we cannot afford to kick the can down the road any longer. But this amendment is now the only mechanism that this House has to try to avoid a no-deal scenario and to start making real decisions about how we are going to respect the result of the referendum, protect jobs and heal this divided country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Oh! Well, I would have called a particular hon. Gentleman who seems to have beetled out of the Chamber. That is most unfortunate. I hope the fellow is not indisposed. But Mr Charles Walker is here, and that is important.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I have an admission to make: I am not an intellectual. [Hon. Members: “No!”] No, I am not. I really have tried it for the past few months, but I just cannot get on with it, so I am not going to give a highbrow, intellectual speech. My speech will be more of a three-minute cry of frustration, because I really, really do want to leave the EU; I have campaigned for it for a number of years and I am very keen to go.
We have talked at length about unicorns, and the proudest stallion unicorn of all is the unicorn of perfection—a unicorn that canters across broken fields with unrealisable dreams underfoot. But the unicorn of perfection must sadly be slayed, because perfection does not exist. When I am out in my constituency, meeting people who do not email me and do not write to me, so they are not self-selecting, they say three things to me: “Get on. Get on. Get on.” These people voted to leave. These people voted to remain. But they want to get on and they want this Parliament to make a decision. They have accepted the result of the referendum.
It will be impossible for this House to come up with a perfect deal—a bowl of porridge that everyone finds to their satisfaction. But we can find something that 80% of our fair-minded constituents can get behind and say, “Do you know what? As a fair-minded citizen of this country, I’d have liked a little more of that and a little less of this, but I can live with it. I can get on and move on, and we can have certainty.” It is impossible for this House to appeal to the implacable 10% who bookend the 80%—the remainers who want to remain at any cost and the leavers who want to leave at any cost. The demands of these people cannot be met by this House.
That is why tonight I will be supporting the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady). I will go through that Division Lobby to hopefully give the Prime Minister further instruction to go back to the EU and deliver a deal that 80% of my country and my constituents can unite behind.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
We have 59 days to go, or, as James Melville said on Twitter a little earlier, 28 parliamentary sitting days to go.
Last time I spoke on this, as you probably remember, Mr Speaker, I mentioned Fintan O’Toole’s book, “Heroic Failure: Brexit and the Politics of Pain”, and the pain we are all feeling at the moment. The quote I used then was the Turkish proverb,
“An Englishman will burn his bed to catch a flea.”
It is worth reflecting a bit more on what Brexit has done. The methodology of Brexit, Fintan O’Toole points out in the book, is this:
“It will triumph by teaching the English to take trivial things—the petty annoyances of regulation—very seriously indeed, and to regard the serious things—jobs, communities, lives—with sincere and studied triviality.”
That is what we are seeing in the middle of this Brexit nonsense. All options of Brexit are bad. The Prime Minister knows this. In a sleight of hand today, she alluded to it by talking of the balance between the referendum and the economics. But of course, if we look at the economics alone, this is a bad deal.
The Government have got themselves into the invidious position of making promises to Ireland and making promises to other people that they would be outside the customs union and the single market and still have frictionless trade. I am talking of unicorns and made-up fantasies. They then had an opponent at a negotiation saying, “This is nonsense. Give us some assurance, have a backstop,” and the backstop came along. Now this House is saying, “See that backstop, that assurance we gave on the fantasies we were talking about—we now want you to negotiate away our assurance and our fantasies.” Westminster has got to take a step back and see the nonsense it is finding itself in.
Amendment (q) was not selected today, but I would encourage people in future to join the queue. It is an amendment to revoke article 50, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). This is something the UK has control of until 29 March. The UK can get itself out of the hole it has dug for itself through the fantasies that Mr O’Toole expanded on greatly in his book. A lot could be done to prevent the damage that is coming down the road. If we leave on 29 March or in December 2020, MPs here, particularly whoever is in the governing party, will have to face that. Maybe this is one of the reasons Labour does not want a general election. Who wants to be the Government on 29 March or in December 2020 when you leave and you have queues in Dover, you are damaging the economy and you have empty shelves? Whoever is holding the parcel when that music stops is going to find themselves in great trouble.
Ian Paisley
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the genius in any negotiation is to achieve an agreement and that agreement implies that two sides have come to a common cause? Is not the fatal flaw of what Europe has done that it has not accepted that Britain cannot agree with this?
Angus Brendan MacNeil
No. The agreement was reached. This is the funny thing. The agreement was reached, and now the Prime Minister, having not talked to the House of Commons, comes back to the House of Commons and finds that it thinks that her agreement is a dud agreement. She has now been sent to scurry back to Europe to beg the Europeans because the shire Tories want something different. They had an agreement but then they were scared of the agreement and sent the Prime Minister to go and get another one. In the beginning, we did not want any parliamentary involvement at all. Conservative parliamentarians, in particular, were abdicating their responsibility as MPs and hiving this off to the Government. Then when the Government came back, it was not good enough, deepening the mess of Brexit. This is exactly the problem we have here today.
We should take a further step and consider this idea that going out of the customs union and the single market is bad for you. There are about 12 customs unions across the world between about 100 countries. The exceptionalism about the UK is utterly baffling, and it is so baffling because these people are trying to damage their communities and their businesses. It does not matter how often we say it, but this is the point of Brexit. This is what Brexit is going to end up with—damage to jobs and damage to business. Airbus and other companies are dismissed because, as Fintan O’Toole said, the serious things are regarded with “studied triviality”. I am at the end of my tether trying to talk to these guys. This is why Scotland is moving on. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) said, we are moving towards independence—we have to. This is a mess.
Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
In the short time available to me, I will not try to match my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), who said almost everything that I would have said and much more entertainingly. I will try to explain why I have taken a step that many of my hon. Friends consider to be somewhat rash—the step of signing the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and supporting the Bill promoted by her.
The reason I have done so is that on the morning after the referendum, I sent a message to my constituents in which I committed to do my best to make a success of Brexit. Since then, I have left hospital in a wheelchair to vote for triggering article 50, and I have voted with the Government in every single Division on the withdrawal Act and every other piece of legislation advancing the delivery of a successful Brexit—unlike, I would point out, 117 of my fellow members of the Conservative party, including all the members of the ERG.
I am seriously committed to making a success of Brexit, but there are two parts to that sentence. There is Brexit and there is success, and Brexit on 29 March with no deal will not be a success. It will be a disaster. It will sour the British people against the operation of their Government for a generation, and I cannot have that on my conscience.
I will tell the House what the proposed amendment and Bill would do. They would rule out a no-deal Brexit on 29 March. They do not rule out a no-deal Brexit forever, because the only way of doing that is to revoke Brexit. I will never vote for that, and the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford will never vote for that. I do not believe that more than 100 Members of this House will ever vote to revoke Brexit, because that would be a political disaster at least as cataclysmic as the economic and human disaster of a no-deal Brexit on 29 March.
What we seek is to buy ourselves a little time to find a compromise and make a success of Brexit. I hope that we will be successful with this amendment tonight, but if we are not, it will be because the Prime Minister made a pledge at the Dispatch Box to come back to the House on 14 February with a motion that is equivalent to this one and equally amendable. My hon. Friends and I from across the House will move an equivalent amendment again, with an equivalent Bill attached, and I hope that Members will support them.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister is asking the House to back an amendment to a deal that she said could not be amended, to give her a mandate to negotiate with the EU that she said she never needed and to reopen a withdrawal agreement that she insisted could not be reopened. I do not know whether the Prime Minister genuinely believes that she can get the EU to reopen negotiations despite the fact that it has said it will not; whether she has finally succumbed to the ERG’s myth that she just has to somehow stand up to the EU and it will give us all the benefits of membership with none of the responsibilities; or whether she knows that this is all a charade and is in fact continuing her plan to run down the clock and blackmail MPs into backing her bad deal, because leaving the EU with no deal is even worse.
What I do know is that we are in a complete and utter mess. Many Members of this House know that, and members of the public know it, too. The mess has been caused by a lack of honesty about the choices that Brexit inevitably brings. Brexit has always been a choice between staying as close to the EU as possible, to protect jobs and prevent a border in Ireland, giving up our say over the rules and getting some kind of free trade agreement, which will inevitably mean more barriers to trade than being a member and seeing a border on the island of Ireland, or leaving the EU with no deal at all, with all the risks and uncertainty that that brings for jobs, businesses and the Good Friday agreement.
If the Prime Minister and the Government will not take the lead in facing up to the these choices and being honest with Members of this House and the public, then Parliament must, and the first step has to be to rule out no deal. Many hon. Members have spoken about the risks of this, but I would just say that for many Members from the east midlands—Members such as me from Leicester—the threats to food and drink manufacturing are real. Some 46,000 jobs depend on food and drink manufacturing, and we know that there could be serious disruption to food supplies and rising business costs and consumer prices if there is no deal.
I will vote for all amendments that seek to rule out no deal, but I believe the most important of these is amendment (b) in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). It is the only one that will lead to legislation that requires the Prime Minister to request an extension of article 50, rather than simply urging her to do that through a motion of this House. As my right hon. Friend has said, the House can amend her Bill to specify how long the extension should be. My view, however, is that any extension must be for a purpose, and that purpose is being honest and straight with the public about the real choices we face in our long-term relationship with the EU. I urge Members to back that amendment tonight.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
It may be a bit of cliché now, but I say to the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) that the best way to prevent no deal is to vote for a deal. [Interruption.] Well, I am afraid it is pretty obvious.
We have heard so much in this debate about compromise, and we have all had to compromise. This is where I agree with my right hon. Friends the Members for Ashford (Damian Green) and for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). We come to this debate from different directions— I voted to leave in the referendum, and we only won by 52% to 48%—and we cannot get a deal for ourselves that gives us 100% of what we want, so we have to settle for most of what we want.
Frankly, what the Prime Minister has provided us with is leaving the EU, getting control of migration and, after a process of perhaps two or three years, getting out of the customs union. I am not a hard Brexiteer or a soft Brexiteer, but a measured Brexiteer, and that is what the Prime Minister is trying to do. We cannot of course have government by a sub-committee of the 1922 committee. We cannot keep kicking this can down the lane, as we have been told again and again. We have to come to a decision, and probably within the next two weeks we will have to make that final decision.
I say to the Government that I, like so many of my colleagues, will be supporting amendment (n). We want to give the Government some negotiating push to try to resolve this, but we have heard again and again that the EU will not contemplate any amendment to the withdrawal agreement. I say—and I repeat—that there is a solution to this, and we may have to do this in the end if we are going to get this deal through Parliament and reassure in particular our colleagues from Northern Ireland: we may have to issue a letter of reservation, under the Vienna convention, to the treaty. It would say that as both parties agree that the backstop is temporary, if it proves not to be temporary but subsists after 2021, we reserve the right under the Vienna convention to end the backstop and get out of it.
The EU could of course refuse to ratify the treaty, but we do not have to issue the letter of reservation at the time. I believe, however, that if we make absolutely clear our intention that the backstop should be temporary—that is what we have all agreed: the EU has agreed, the DUP has agreed, the Conservative party has agreed, the Labour party has agreed—and we are all agreed, this problem is surmountable. However, the Government must now take action.
I just make one final plea. We talk so much about compromise. At the end of the day, although the Prime Minister is accused of running down the clock, she is doing her level best to deliver what the British people want. So let us finally support her, and let us push this deal over the line.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I rise to speak in favour of amendment (g) and to make the case that the amendment is vital in enabling Parliament to take control, frankly, from a Government who are in denial and in disarray. I must say that I find any opposition to amendment (g) from Conservative Members quite perplexing, given that so many of them were in the forefront of saying that Brexit was all about restoring parliamentary sovereignty. Now it seems as though they regard parliamentary sovereignty as a bit of an inconvenient obstacle to getting their own way.
The amendment is vital to allowing us to avoid the catastrophe of no deal. Let me make it very clear that for my constituents in Brighton no deal would be a catastrophe—a catastrophe for our tourism industry, for businesses, for our universities and research and for families and communities who are built on free movement and will fight to the end to stop free movement ending. The amendment does not bind the House to any particular outcome; it simply gives Parliament the time and space to make an honest assessment of the available options.
I want to say a few words about amendment (n)—the so-called Brady amendment. It takes fantasy to a new art form. I do not know how many times the EU has to say that it is just not possible to re-open negotiation on the withdrawal Bill. The amendment is perhaps an extraordinary way of trying to get the Conservative party to hold together, but it will not stand up to any kind of contact with external reality. Right now, EU officials tell us that they are preparing a statement that says that it would not be possible to open up an agreement that was negotiated over the past 20 months. Sabine Weyand, the deputy chief negotiator, said yesterday:
“There’s no negotiation between the UK and EU—that’s finished.”
Crossing one’s fingers, screwing up one’s eyes and just wishing it was otherwise is not a good negotiating strategy.
I appeal to Conservative colleagues to focus on what is in front of us—on practical ways to avoid the catastrophe of no deal, which will hurt the poorest hardest and for which the Prime Minister has absolutely no mandate. To those Conservative Members who seem to think that threatening no deal is effective with our European counterparts, I point out that it is tantamount to someone standing with a pistol to their head and saying, “I’ll fire it if they don’t do what I want.” It is not a very sensible negotiating strategy.
In my last few words, I want to say how much I support amendment (h) on having a citizens’ assembly. If I had more time, I would say more about it.
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). I again give this caution: we do not seem to be listening in this House. If we continue to say, “This is a Conservative party problem,” we fundamentally misunderstand why people voted for Brexit. We can go on and on about the machinations of the Conservative party and about the party being united, but people in this country, in working-class areas, voted in swathes for Brexit. What were they voting for? I tell the House now that it was not stuff to do with the Conservative party.
We are limited in our options. I was particularly touched by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). I understand—I can kind of feel—his trepidation about no deal, and absolutely share it; but we cannot get rid of no deal by taking that option away, because without that, we have nothing to fall back on. Should we have done this at the beginning? Yes. Should we have bound Opposition parties into this, and have made this an endeavour of national renewal? Of course we should, but we are where we are, and we cannot capitulate and let the United Kingdom fall out on a deal that is not good enough.
We have one option left, and that, I am afraid, is to support the Brady amendment. Many of us in this place have said that the Northern Ireland backstop is the problem, so we must now do what the EU keeps saying we cannot do: get behind the Prime Minister and show that we are united on that front. Let us get a result on that backstop agreement—something: a sunset clause, or some sort of unilateral exit—and then let us get on and deliver it. Let us get into the realm of possibility.
I see the exciting new proposals that came forward today; I am pretty lukewarm about them, to be honest, because this has been going on for two years. We have a deal, but there are aspects of it that are not good enough. Let us tackle those aspects, focus on what we are doing and actually deliver Brexit. Let us get this done, so that we can get out of the European Union on 29 March and get on with something else. I have sat through the debate, and it has been extraordinarily painful to hear the arguments rehashed again and again. I have huge respect for those who continue to say, “This or that is going to happen,” and “This or that is what I want,” but we are here now; we are starting now. The agreement has a fundamental flaw that we cannot accept, but let us get on and do something about the backstop that is within the realms of what we can do. If we ask for too much—for the unreasonable—the European Union will shut the door. Let us ask for something deliverable, get that backstop amended, and get out the European Union.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
There has been much talk today about finding consensus across the House. The consensus that should trouble us all is the consensus between the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) when they talk about the contempt the British public have for the process they are seeing unfolding before their eyes: the pantomime that we are becoming in Parliament, the questions they have about what on earth is going on in this place and the plague on all our houses that they see.
I have gone through all the amendments and tonight I will support the amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and Labour Front Benchers to try to make some progress. The honest truth, however, is that we have heard many powerful speeches today and there will be little progress.
In the short time available to me, I want to talk about amendment (h). It was not selected, but it speaks to Einstein’s principle that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and again and expecting a different result. We are living through that in this place as we talk but do not listen to each other.
Citizens’ assemblies are not about replacing MPs, or about cancelling or giving up on Parliament. They are not about saying parliamentary democracy cannot work; they are about making it work with the public. They are also about stopping the games that we have seen being played in this place: the horse trading and the unicorn hunting that has meant that we are in this gridlock. Parliaments around the world have used citizens’ assemblies as a circuit breaker to all the bad habits that now inhabit this place. Everybody here claims to know the will of the people on these issues when the truth is that nobody does, because nobody has actually asked them. It is 250 people randomly selected to represent the British people: not the “Question Time” audience or those who will bother to turn up, but people sorted by their age, ethnicity, gender and social class, excluding politicians and those who work for them. Not aye or no, but looking at the priorities and feeding back into our discussions. We would be free as a Parliament to say no to what they said, but after just 10 short weeks of deliberation we never know what a pair of fresh eyes might bring to this debate. Certainly, that has been the experience in Ireland, Iceland, Canada and Australia. It would equally have leave and remain, Norway, Canada and any other flavour of Brexit.
The Prime Minister was right when she said that nothing has changed, but it can get worse. I ask Members whether they truly think progress can be made in the next 10 weeks, or whether it might just be worth looking at whether there is a better way that we can learn from. The public are watching. They need us to do better. Let us give it a shot.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
As colleagues will know, I voted against my party for the first time in my career when I could not support the Prime Minister and the Cabinet’s withdrawal agreement. I felt it breached two very important manifesto commitments, largely around the Northern Ireland protocol, putting barriers in the way of different parts of the United Kingdom and potentially trapping us in an indefinite customs union.
I want to give the Prime Minister the best opportunity to go back to the European Union and secure the changes that are necessary. In my judgment, supporting the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) provides the best opportunity to support the Prime Minister in her return to the European Union.
I do not want to make her task more difficult. That is why I think it is fundamentally wrong to rule out a no-deal Brexit. The best way to secure a Brexit with a deal is to get a deal before this House that can get its support. My right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) said she thought there was some merit in ruling out a no deal to get something in return. The problem is that if this House rules out a no-deal Brexit without the Prime Minister getting something in return, that makes her life more difficult. It makes it more difficult for her to secure a deal and less likely that we will get the deal we need to rule out a no-deal Brexit.
The amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) is flawed for that reason. We have already established that her Bill has a number of problems. I understand that the Labour Front-Bench team is not keen on the length of the delay; her Bill says it would be nine months. I asked her a question and established that the Bill could be used—I accept not by her or my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), but by others—as a mechanism for cancelling Brexit, against the wishes of the public. The Bill needs more scrutiny than the one day in which it would be rammed through this House.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) that it is perfectly proper for the House to look at its procedures, but if it decides to ram through a piece of contested legislation that has not been agreed to in a procedure usually used for emergency legislation agreed by both Front-Bench teams, I think Back Benchers will rue that precedent, because a future Government will use it to ram through legislation without proper scrutiny. I urge the House to reject amendment (b).
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I rise to support the SNP amendment that seeks an extension to article 50 and to oppose the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady). The most pertinent point that has been made this afternoon in relation to what is being called the Brady amendment is that the backstop is the inevitable consequence of a clash between the Prime Minister’s red lines and our obligations under the Good Friday agreement. Therefore, as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) said, the Brady amendment is the sort of displacement activity that is engaged in by children who are asked to do something that they do not want to do. I make no apology for repeating that analogy, because it was fantastic.
As I have been sitting here this afternoon listening to Conservative Members waxing lyrical about the Brady amendment, The Guardian correspondent in Brussels and other respected correspondents have reported that the European Union is preparing to issue an immediate rebuttal and publish a statement rejecting any renegotiation of the withdrawal agreement in the event of amendment (n) being passed. Tony Connelly, the very well respected RTE journalist, tells us that Jean-Claude Juncker phoned the Prime Minister at lunch time today to tell her that the Brady amendment is pointless. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There are a lot of noisy conversations taking place. The hon. and learned Lady must be heard.
Joanna Cherry
I am sure they do not want to hear it, because it is not convenient. What we have been engaged in today is another waste of time. It is a charade and, frankly, a joke.
Last Friday was the birthday of Robert Burns, who famously said,
“Oh wad some power the giftie gie us
To see ourselves as ithers see us!”
Today, the UK Government and this Parliament are seen as the laughing stock of Europe. A BBC correspondent on the radio this morning said that the other member states are getting the popcorn out, mesmerised by what is going on in this House.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, as well as being pointless because it will never be agreed, tinkering with the backstop is potentially dangerous? If we gave the backstop its correct description—the Good Friday peace agreement guarantee—tinkering with it would be seen to be as reckless as it actually is.
Joanna Cherry
I entirely agree. I ask myself the following question: what kind of a Prime Minister spends months—years—negotiating a deal, and then supports someone else’s amendment, which drives a coach and horses through it, as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) said? We are in this mess because of the Prime Minister’s red lines and the Conservative and Unionist party’s deceit and foolishness.
Another famous Scottish writer—Walter Scott—once wrote:
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive!”
There has been constant deception. First, there was David Cameron’s deception when he called his referendum and thought he could win it with the sort of scare tactics that were employed in Scotland during the independence referendum; then there was the deception employed by the leave campaign, the lies and the undeliverable promises made to ordinary decent people in this country; and now there is the deception of the Prime Minister pretending, so she can hang on to power for a few more days or weeks, that the Brady amendment is her saviour.
The delay provided for in the amendments that seek an extension is not the answer to the mess we are in. The answer for the United Kingdom is a second EU referendum, and the answer for Scotland is a second independence referendum. I believe that very soon Scotland will have to decide whether Scotland wants to be an unequal member of this Union or an equal member of the European Union—a member of a market of 60 million or a member of a single market of 500 million. The answer is a bit of a no-brainer.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I have only 10 minutes, so I will get to the heart of the matter. Last Monday, the Prime Minister should have made a substantive and detailed statement setting out how the Government planned to proceed in the face of defeat—a plan B—but she did not. Instead, she has today taken a radically different course and indicated support for an amendment that cuts across the very deal she negotiated by requiring the backstop to be replaced with unspecified “alternative arrangements”. She said earlier it was not the first time the phrase had been used. It has been used twice in these negotiations in different ways: first to mean the future relationship itself and secondly to mean technology. It cannot mean the future relationship, because if we have a future relationship, we do not need a backstop; and if it means technology, it takes us back to the old idea of technology that is not there.
It is one thing for Back Benchers to lay an amendment at odds with the Prime Minister’s deal, but it is quite another for the Prime Minister to support it, unless she has already got an indication from the EU that it could and would negotiate the necessary changes—but she has not. The danger is obvious: that the Prime Minister today may build a temporary sense of unity on her own Benches while in reality raising expectations she can never fulfil.
On 14 January, on the eve of the meaningful vote, the Prime Minister said at that Dispatch Box:
“I recognise that some Members wanted to see changes to the withdrawal agreement, a unilateral exit mechanism from the backstop, an end date or rejecting the backstop altogether... The simple truth is that the EU was not prepared to agree to this and rejecting the backstop altogether means no deal.”—[Official Report, 14 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 826.]
Either that was correct, in which case the Government backing this amendment is absurd, or it was not, which raises its own equally serious issues. Earlier when confronted with this, the Prime Minister said you never know if you do not try, which is true, but we have been here before. She told us on 10 December that she was off to seek much lesser concessions, and she failed, so if we are going down the path of giving it a try, we need to consider what happens if we try and fail.
I listened carefully to the Prime Minister when she was challenged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and she refused to rule out the prospect that she herself would apply for an extension of article 50 if this latest attempt to reopen issues, long thought closed, failed. I do not think this House should be so passive in the face of the high likelihood that we will be back here in two weeks facing that very prospect, which is why Labour will support the amendment seeking to prevent no deal, whether by an extension of article 50 or otherwise.
No deal would be catastrophic for jobs and living standards; it would weaken our security; and it would risk a hard border in Northern Ireland. Members should be under no illusion about this: no deal is not a way to prevent a hard border, but a way to guarantee it.
Keir Starmer
I will in a moment.
The first step in preventing the rush to no deal is to reduce the time pressure on the article 50 process. That is what some of the key amendments seek to do, and we will support them, but before there are cries of “Brexit delayed,” let us be clear: we are only at this stage, with 59 days to go, because the Government have run down the clock.
The word crisis is overused in this House, in our media and in our national debate, but we should be in no doubt that this is one of the greatest national crises our country has faced in a generation, and in the absence of leadership from the Government and this Prime Minister, Parliament must now act.
I recognise that there are concerns among some Members, including some on my own side, about voting for these amendments tonight, and I understand those concerns. I also understand the anger and frustration felt by many of our constituents about the handling of these negotiations and about the way in which this place has conducted itself in recent weeks.
Keir Starmer
However, we do not have the luxury of being bystanders in this debate. We are active participants. What our constituents are looking for is leadership, and it is time for us to provide it. We cannot say that we want to prevent no deal if we are not willing to take steps to stop it. We cannot tell the people that we do not want no deal and then sleepwalk towards it. We must act, and we must act tonight. Our constituents will not forgive us—nor should they—if we dodge difficult questions.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister may pretend otherwise, but I want to be very clear: delay of article 50 is now inevitable, and it is irresponsible to pretend otherwise. That is the honest truth, and our constituents need to be told it. Even if the Prime Minister were to get a deal through the House in the coming weeks, a swathe of legislation would still need to be passed: six Bills, including a complex implementation Bill, and 600 statutory instruments. It is simply not credible to pretend that all that could be forced through in the remaining time. All that the amendments do is face reality.
Keir Starmer
I will not, because I do not want to leave the Secretary of State without the time that he needs.
The next task that the House will have to undertake is to explore credible alternatives to the Prime Minister’s deal that might be capable of gaining majority support in the House. That is not an easy task, but it is one that we need to get on with. Time is now needed in which to debate and vote on these options. That is why Labour’s Front-Bench amendment was tabled, and it is also why Labour supports amendment (g), in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), and amendment (f) in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn).
One of the great tragedies of this last two years is that we have had a Prime Minister who is unwilling to listen to Parliament and wants to push Parliament away, unwilling to build consensus and unwilling to listen to reasonable amendments. But the Prime Minister is now out of time, and Parliament must take control.
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen Barclay)
Recent weeks have proved the strength and vigour of Parliament, but it is now time to agree its will. It is time for us to establish what deal the House is for, to deliver certainty to our citizens and businesses and to offer clarity to the European Union. As we debate inside the Chamber, we should not lose sight of the fact that outside, the EU rightly expects us to continue to respect our shared values: to protect citizens’ rights, to honour our international obligations and to preserve the integrity of the peace process and avoid a hard border. That is a commitment that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister holds extremely dear.
Indeed, many Members in all parts of the House find much in the withdrawal agreement that is common ground. That is an integral part of bringing the country back together as we move forward in the national interest. However, many of the amendments simply prolong uncertainty and delay, despite the paradox that they were presented in a spirit of making progress in the delivery of certainty.
Stephen Barclay
Unlike the shadow Secretary of State, I am happy to give way.
Ms Eagle
I thank the Secretary of State. I wonder whether he could enlighten the House about the phrase in the amendment tabled by the Chairman of the 1922 Committee, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady). What are the “alternative arrangements” that they are going to barrel off to the EU to renegotiate in the next couple of weeks?
Stephen Barclay
If the hon. Lady had read the political declaration, she would know that the alternative arrangements are referred to in paragraph 19, but what she has drawn attention to is the stark difference between Labour and the Conservatives.
The amendment tabled by the Leader of the Opposition has barely been referred to today. Members on his own side did not even want to mention it as they referred to amendments tabled by Back Benchers. They did not seem to want to engage with it. That is because the Leader of the Opposition starts from a position of calling for unity, but cannot adopt the unified position of accepting an amendment from his own Back-Bench colleagues.
Mr Evans
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for showing such great generosity in allowing Members to intervene on him. If Members vote for the possibility of extending article 50 this evening by up to nine months and the EU allowed it, has he estimated how many billions of pounds that would cost, and could he estimate where that money would come from—which public services would be damaged because that money was going to Brussels rather than public services in the UK?
Stephen Barclay
The reason we are willing to take interventions and debate is that we have a clear position from the Prime Minister, whereas the position of the Leader of the Opposition is confused. Is he for a second referendum, like the shadow Business Secretary, or does he support the position of the shadow Education Secretary who thinks a second referendum would be a betrayal? Does he or does he not support the position of Len McCluskey, who is willing to engage with the Prime Minister?
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The question should be turned the other way: has any estimate been made of the billions in extra revenue that will come to the Exchequer through trading in the best single market and customs union for an extra nine months—not the fee to be part of the club, but the money that is to be gained from trade while being in that club?
Stephen Barclay
The whole point is that indecision and delay would flow from the amendment of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and indeed, as we saw in the debate, there is confusion as to what the date is: the amendment refers to the end of this year, yet in her remarks she said that it might not be that long; she said that it might be shorter. In an exchange, my very good and hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) said that there would be further iterations where we could look at the timing, yet, as my distinguished predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) pointed out, it is an empty vessel—in essence a Trojan horse in which there is indecision over delay.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Barclay
I want to make some progress. The key point that flows from the point made by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) is that by not backing a deal we prolong the level of uncertainty, and that drives cost. That is exactly why so many businesses in Scotland as well as the rest of the United Kingdom say that the best way to end unnecessary costs under a no deal is to back the Prime Minister’s deal.
What we see in the debate is a marked difference of focus. We have on the Benches behind me colleagues on different sides of the referendum debate, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), coming together to look at how they can work on solutions, and we have a proposal from my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) that will do just that. It will help us unlock the conversation with the European Union and get us even closer to delivering on the result of the referendum—a result, indeed, that so many on Opposition Members were committed to supporting in their manifesto.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that, whatever we say in this House tonight, those who vote for amendments to delay article 50 and the whole process of leaving at the end of March will be seen by the public, even if they do not mean it, as wanting to stop Brexit?
Stephen Barclay
The hon. Lady is absolutely right: at best they delay Parliament in terms of getting clarity on an agreed plan, and at worst they disguise attempts to stop Brexit. It would be better if those Members who want to go back on their manifestos and indeed stop Brexit were more explicit about their intentions, because, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has repeatedly set out, there is only one way to stop no deal and that is to secure a deal or go back on the biggest vote in our democratic history.
In the remaining time, let me turn briefly to the Leader of the Opposition’s amendment because it contradicts what was said by the shadow Trade Secretary who said that a customs policy would give the EU
“power to decide our tariffs & quotas with 3rd countries. We’d be forced to liberalise our market but have no reciprocal access to theirs”,
The Leader of the Opposition’s amendment would leave the door open for a second referendum, which is something his own Front-Bench colleagues have said they oppose.
Emma Reynolds
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being very generous. Can he spell out to the House—please do not refer to an article in the political declaration—what are the alternative arrangements to the backstop that the Government want to pursue with the EU?
Stephen Barclay
I have five minutes left and will come on to that point—[Interruption.] Unlike my opposite number, I will take interventions and I will come on to the alternative arrangements, because they go to the heart of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West.
Before doing so, I want to touch briefly, in the time available, on the amendments tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford. I do not for a minute question the principled spirit in which they have been proposed, but the reality is that they would have significant wider implications beyond Brexit. That is not just my view or, indeed, that of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It is also the view of leading constitutional experts such as Philip Cowley and Vernon Bogdanor, the latter of whom said that
“the proposals…have international as well as domestic implications.”
The House needs to consider carefully the lack of debate and clarity on the amendments’ proposed policy and the lack of certainty as to their intent and consequences. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), the former Chief Whip, has pointed out, the danger is that they will, in essence, act as a Trojan horse against the stated intention.
I do not for a minute doubt my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) when he says that changing Standing Orders has precedence—of course it does—but there has been no debate about that with the Procedure Committee or in this House. The wider constitutional implications, which have been referred to by leading experts in the field, cannot simply be swept away in the short-term convenience of the moment.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) tabled a principled amendment, but she spoke of a simple vote on saying no to no deal. That issue was taken head on by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) when he pointed out that the practical effect of taking no deal off the table would not facilitate the amendment’s intention. I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is not just DUP Members who hold that view. On 24 January, Michel Barnier himself said that
“it is not enough to vote against the No Deal…if no positive suggestions are put on the table, then we will be more or less bumpy or heading for the No Deal on March 30, as in an accident.”
The way to address no deal is by backing the deal of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
There has been much discussion of the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse). Although it is not the subject of an amendment on today’s Order Paper, it has given us many technical questions to consider and we will seek the experts’ views. We will take forward the spirit of goodwill on which it builds, as part of reaching the common ground the House needs.
Lady Hermon
I have waited very, very patiently, but I have run out of patience. I would like the Secretary of State to explain to this House exactly what the alternative arrangements are. It is a straightforward question and we are entitled to a straightforward answer.
Stephen Barclay
That will be part of the negotiation that we will discuss in terms of the technical issues. What is not in doubt is that our commitment is shared by the hon. Lady, who has criticised Labour Members who, unlike the sister parties of the Labour movement in Northern Ireland, have not backed this deal or reflected the will of either the Labour movement in the south or that in the north. The fact is that they have walked away from the deal, even though the deal is the way to secure our steadfast commitment, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister repeated today, to ensuring that no hard border returns to Northern Ireland.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Barclay
Given that I have just a minute left, I will not give way.
Across leave and remain constituencies, we hear the same overwhelming call for the House to get on with it. Although 17.4 million people did not vote for no deal, they voted to leave. Time is of the essence. Citizens and business want certainty; the EU wants clarity; the Prime Minister needs a mandate and the House must therefore come together. It is time to act in the national interest. That is why the House should back amendment (n) tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West.
The Prime Minister
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. A fortnight ago, this House clearly rejected the proposed withdrawal agreement and political declaration, with just 202 Members voting in favour. Tonight, a majority of hon. Members have said that they would support a deal with changes to the backstop combined with measures to address concerns over Parliament’s role in the negotiation of the future relationship and commitments on workers’ rights in law where need be. It is now clear that there is a route that can secure a substantial and sustainable majority in this House for leaving the EU with a deal. We will now take this mandate forward and seek to obtain legally binding changes to the withdrawal agreement that deal with concerns on the backstop while guaranteeing no return to a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. My colleagues and I will talk to the EU about how we address the House’s views.
As I said this afternoon, there is limited appetite for such a change in the EU and negotiating it will not be easy, but by contrast to a fortnight ago, this House has made it clear what it needs to approve a withdrawal agreement. Many hon. Members have said that the continuing protection of workers’ rights after Brexit is something that needs to be strengthened. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary will intensify our work with hon. Members from across the House and the trade unions this week. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union will do the same on how we engage this House further in our approach to negotiating our future partnership with the EU.
As well as making clear what changes it needs to approve the withdrawal agreement, the House has also reconfirmed its view that it does not want to leave the EU without a withdrawal agreement and future framework. I agree that we should not leave without a deal. However, simply opposing no deal is not enough to stop it. The Government will now redouble their efforts to get a deal that this House can support. To that end, I want to invite my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and all those who tabled amendments in opposition to no deal to discuss how we can deliver that by securing a deal.
In the light of the defeat of the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition, I again invite him to take up my offer of a meeting to see whether we can find a way forward. If this House can come together, we can deliver the decision that the British people took in June 2016, restore faith in our democracy and get on with building a country that works for everyone. As Prime Minister, I will work with Members across the House to do just that.
Jeremy Corbyn
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Since we have had this debate and the House has emphatically voted to reject the no-deal option that the Prime Minister was supporting, may I say that we are prepared to meet her to put forward the Labour party’s points of view about the kind of agreement we want with the European Union in order to protect jobs, living standards and rights and conditions in this country? It is exactly the offer that was made last September and exactly the offer that was made two weeks ago. I look forward to meeting the Prime Minister to set out those views to her on behalf of my party.
Ian Blackford
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This House has spoken—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman is the leader of the third party in this place and represents an important body of opinion. As was exhorted earlier, people should treat opinions that differ from their own with respect. The right hon. Gentleman will be heard, however long it takes. That is all there is to it.
Ian Blackford
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The House this evening has given an instruction to the Government that no deal must be taken off the table. I am frankly flabbergasted that the Prime Minister still seems to be in denial. What legislation will she bring forward to ensure that we remove the threat of no deal?
This is a sad day, when the Prime Minister has had to admit that her deal does not have support and that she is now prepared to try to pick away at the backstop. We were told that the backstop was there to protect the peace process, but tonight the Conservative party has effectively ripped apart the Good Friday agreement. This House should be ashamed of itself. The contempt shown by the United Kingdom Government right across these islands is stark.
This Government, Westminster and the Tory party have no respect for the devolved Administrations or the other regions of the United Kingdom. Scotland has been silenced, sidelined and shafted by the Tories. Tonight the Conservative party has ripped apart the Good Friday agreement—an international treaty. This is serious; we are talking about a treaty that has delivered peace to the island of Ireland. The Government have reneged on the backstop and on the Good Friday agreement. Mr Speaker, can you advise what mechanisms are open to this House to protect the democratic rights of the devolved regions and nations, as well as the Good Friday agreement and the peace process that this Government are prepared to disregard?
Mr Speaker
I will take the right hon. Gentleman’s question as a rhetorical question, rather than a substantive one. He knows that Parliament is here to debate and to vote, and he is well familiar—[Interruption.] Order. I am addressing the right hon. Gentleman; perhaps he would do me the courtesy of listening to me. He has the mechanisms of the House available to him.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Vince Cable
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Now that the House has given the Prime Minister contradictory instructions—not to have no deal, but to pursue a course of action that will lead to no deal—will she return to the House tomorrow and give a clearer indication of what these alternative arrangements actually are? They have been rejected at her own summit at Chequers and now appear to be the basis of negotiations.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, but I would say to him—I know that he will take this in the right spirit—that this is not Prime Minister’s questions. Prime Minister’s questions will take place tomorrow. If I understand correctly, I think the right hon. Gentleman was more concerned to make his point than to elicit a reply from the Prime Minister, and there is no reason for the Prime Minister to feel any need to reply tonight. The right hon. Gentleman has made his point and there will be ample opportunity for further exchanges, doubtless tomorrow and in many subsequent days.
Nigel Dodds
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We represent 10 seats in Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) represents one other, and there are others who represent a different point of view but who refuse to take their seats in this House, and it is quite frankly outrageous—I am, I believe, speaking on behalf of both communities in Northern Ireland—to say that this vote tonight drives a coach and horses through the Good Friday agreement. It does nothing of the sort. It is utterly reckless to talk in those terms—utterly reckless. The fact of the matter is that nobody in Northern Ireland—no political party—is advocating any kind of hard border in the island of Ireland, and we certainly do not advocate what others advocate, which is creating borders within the United Kingdom or ripping up the United Kingdom. Let me say in conclusion that this is a significant night because, for the first time, the House, by a majority, has expressed a view on the sort of deal that will get through and will have a majority. We will work with the Prime Minister to deliver the right deal for the United Kingdom.
Liz Saville Roberts
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. When the woman holding the title of Prime Minister is driven solely by the ideal of holding the Tory party together, and the man known as the Leader of the Opposition will neither lead nor oppose, how do you advise that we get the House back to working for the communities we are supposed to represent?
Mr Speaker
Again, if I may very politely say so, I think the hon. Lady’s point of order, although it contains what is ostensibly an inquiry, is one in which she is making her point rather than seeking anything from me. The short answer to her is that, as I said a moment ago, there will be further debate. Members must speak and vote as they think fit. All these matters will be thoroughly aired in the days and weeks to come, and I am sure we all look forward to that—the hon. Lady from her vantage point and I from mine.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope you can advise. The House seems to have found itself in a contradictory position. First, it wants no deal off the table; and secondly, it does not accept the deal that the European Union is putting forward. Is it not the case that the United Kingdom Parliament is now at the mercy of the European Union, because if we are in a situation where no deal is off the table and we are not accepting the deal the EU is offering, where do we go from here?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman may wish to offer the views that he has just expressed to the news outlets that operate in Na h-Eileanan an Iar, and I rather suspect that that is what he will want to do. Local newspapers and radio stations will doubtless be very interested in the views that he wishes to express, but they are not matters of which I can treat now. The House has decided what it has decided—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is saying that these matters are in contradiction of each other or have to be weighed against each other, but of course it is not a matter for the Chair to offer an exegesis to the House on the way in which it has voted. Members will make their own assessment. We know what statute says and we know what expressions of opinion have been recorded by the House today. The hon. Gentleman, although his brow is furrowed, is a perspicacious fellow, and I am sure he will get his head around these matters in the hours, days and weeks to come. We look forward to that with eager anticipation.
Business without Debate
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Levels of pay in Further Education
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of more than 500 students and staff from Darlington College in my constituency who are demanding fair funding for further education.
Colleges build communities. They help young people to fulfil their potential, discover new talents and realise their ambitions. Colleges drive social mobility. They are the heart of local economic growth and provide the workforce needed for local businesses to thrive. For many, they are a springboard towards a bright and prosperous future, but a recent calculation by the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that spending on further education has been cut in real terms by more than £3 billion since 2010-11. Because of that, we now see fewer teaching hours, cuts to student support and stagnant wages for teachers and support staff. That harms outcomes for students, reduces opportunities and is bad for my whole community. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to
“provide fair funding for further education and fair pay for college staff”
in the interests of student performance, educational outcomes and community prosperity.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that while participation in full-time education has more than doubled over the past 30 years, it is reported that spending per student in further education is 8% lower than in secondary schools; further that colleges over the last decade have dealt with an average 30% cut to funding as costs continue to increase; further that this has resulted in a drastic drop in learning opportunities available to students, fewer teaching hours and support for young people, and staff pay; further that the situation is not sustainable and ultimately impacts on student performance; further that 547 staff and students from Darlington College have signed a similar petition to the government regarding further education funding.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the government to provide fair funding for further education and fair pay for college staff in the interest for student performance and educational outcomes.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002311]
Vagrancy Act
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I am grateful to the House for allowing me to raise the issue of the Vagrancy Act 1824 on this of all evenings, when others out there might be forgiven for thinking that we do nothing other than talk about Brexit.
I have been campaigning to repeal the Vagrancy Act for well over a year now. In fact, my campaign began in response to a petition by the Oxford University Student Union and Oxford-based homelessness campaign group On Your Doorstep. I want to give them full credit for starting this.
The Vagrancy Act is a cruel and outdated piece of legislation. It was aimed at tackling the rise in homeless veterans after the Napoleonic wars, and even then it was controversial, with the great abolitionist William Wilberforce suggesting that it was too catch-all because it did not consider people’s individual circumstances. Nearly 200 years later, it is still used to criminalise people for sleeping rough or begging.
Between 2014 and 2016, more than 3,000 homeless people were dragged before the courts in violation of the Vagrancy Act. That is only the tip of the iceberg, as many more individuals will have been arrested but had their cases dropped, or the Act will have been used as a threat to move them on.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. This issue affects us all. Just last week in my constituency, I had to deal with a homeless person in great need. Does she agree that the use of this law to target people who are sleeping on the streets or begging should be stopped, and instead councils should work with compassion and care to help people who are desperate and find a way to make our social care system work for that individual, as opposed to simply moving them on, as helpless and hopeless as they were before? Compassion and care—that is what we need in society.
Layla Moran
The words “compassion and care” will repeat themselves in what I have to say tonight, and I could not more agree with the hon. Gentleman. The signal that this sends to others about who we are as a society is why I believe this Act needs to be repealed as a matter of urgency.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
The hon. Lady is quite right to refer to William Wilberforce. He acknowledged at the time that the Act did nothing to take into account personal situations and the reasons behind homelessness. As she said, his words ring true two centuries later. Does she agree with me, and I think with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), that in a modern society it is far more effective and compassionate to use time and resources to help those who desperately need that support, rather than relying on this blunt piece of legislation on the statute book, which, as Wilberforce pointed out, does nothing to help those living on the streets and simply criminalises the vulnerable?
Layla Moran
I could not agree more with every word the hon. Lady said. Indeed, if we want an example of how badly the Vagrancy Act can be used, last year Windsor Council suggested, just before the royal wedding, that local police use the Act to “clean up the streets”. That was a disgraceful display, but, unfortunately, it is not uncommon. The Act is a common tool that is available to the police across the country.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this very pressing issue to the House. Does she not agree that it is particularly cruel, given that a lot of homeless people are actually ex-military men who have devoted their lives and given their commitment to this country? They are on the streets for various reasons, but we should treat them in a very different way, rather than punishing them when they were originally prepared to give their lives for this country.
Layla Moran
In fact, this comes back to why the Act was controversial 200 years ago, let alone now. The use of the Act is damaging and counterproductive in tackling rough sleeping. Rather than addressing the root causes of homelessness, which we all know are incredibly complex, the Act simply displaces people from one area to another, which is particularly problematic given that the funding of support is still to an extent based on local connection.
Anneliese Dodds
The hon. Lady is making an excellent case, and I am very pleased that it is one that my party supports as well. When I have had discussions with rough sleepers—at the new hub, O’Hanlon House, the Porch, the Gatehouse or, indeed, doing a St Mungo’s round—in every case those discussions showed that people really need the support she is talking about, rather than to be criminalised, which can of course set them back substantially. Does she agree?
Layla Moran
I completely agree. Indeed, we know very well from our city how much our local constituents care desperately, and care and compassion, as has been mentioned, is actually the driving force behind why people care so deeply about this matter. The legislation acts as a barrier to cultural change. It sends a message that the act of rough sleeping itself is morally wrong, and it treats people who are sleeping rough as a negative problem to solve, rather than individuals in need of positive support.
In 2018, I met the Leader of the House on this matter, and asked if she could help me to repeal the Act. She was sympathetic, but she told me that some homelessness stakeholders wanted to keep the Act in place. This was reaffirmed by the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler), who is the Minister for homelessness, when we met last year. However, in my second meeting about this with Ministers, I got positive engagement. I am disappointed that the Minister for homelessness is not on the Front Bench today, because I am going to answer some of the questions she raised in the meeting. However, she made the point that the Act was used to encourage rough sleepers to get off the streets and into shelters.
I listened carefully to those arguments, and I continue to disagree with them. The thing is that threatening rough sleepers with the Vagrancy Act to coerce them into shelters is not the way to help them. It is paternalistic and it claims that it is for their own good, but it actually has the opposite effect. In a survey of people sleeping rough carried out by Crisis, 56% said that enforcement measures such as the Vagrancy Act contributed to their feeling ashamed of being homeless, and 25% said that following an enforcement intervention their alcohol consumption increased. What does that say about the effect of the Act on the human level?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Does not the hon. Lady agree that many homeless people have nowhere else to go during the day, and they are therefore just moved on time and again? The only solution is to ensure that people have secure housing, and the Government target nine years from now is, quite frankly, far too late.
Layla Moran
The hon. Lady is exactly right. Using the Act just moves the problem on; often, it does not tackle the core issues behind what is happening.
This is my first question—of many, as the Minister will not be surprised to hear. Who are these stakeholders who wish to keep the Act in place? I would be genuinely grateful for a response, because they certainly do not include the homelessness charities with which I have been working, or the outreach managers whom St Mungo’s surveyed in 2018; 71% of them believed that the Act should be scrapped. One said:
“The Vagrancy Act takes a moral view on street activity giving no consideration to the complex reasons behind any such activity such as begging and rough sleeping. It is widely agreed that criminalizing addicts and homeless people serves no purpose apart from to further push them to the fringes of society, towards further impoverishment and stigmatization. I agree it should be scrapped”.
Surely we should listen to the views of professionals, who see at first hand the Act’s damaging impact on rough sleepers.
When we met last year, the Minister for homelessness argued that she does not want to criminalise homeless people—I believe her—but that she supports the use of the Vagrancy Act to combat “aggressive and persistent begging”. I went away and did my homework, just as I, like a good teacher, would have told my students to. Legal advice to Crisis concluded that the actions criminalised by the Vagrancy Act are covered by many other provisions in criminal law:
“Much of the language is archaic. The conduct it seeks to criminalise appears to belong to a different era. Legislation other than the Vagrancy Act, if correctly and carefully applied, provides a much better and modern framework than what remains of the Act”.
The Public Order Act 1986 and the Fraud Act 2006 are good examples of legislation that could and should combat aggressive begging. Indeed, in a debate in Westminster Hall, the Minister for homelessness acknowledged that
“Local authorities and police are equipped with a wide range of enforcement powers to combat issues arising from begging…Particularly flexible are the powers contained in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014”—[Official Report, 17 January 2018; Vol. 634, c. 386WH.]
If there is other legislation in place, why is the Vagrancy Act needed at all?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)
The hon. Lady is doing an excellent job. I ask this so that I can respond to the debate properly. She made the point that criminalising people who are homeless or begging damages the ability to help them. She went on to say that other Acts may also criminalise them and that they should or could be used instead of the Vagrancy Act. Is there a contradiction in that statement? Would she like to clarify that, just to enable me to respond more fully?
Layla Moran
I will come to that later, when I will ask the Minister to extend the review that his Department is carrying out of this legislation to include all that other legislation, but I would point out that the Acts I mentioned are about aggressive begging, which is different, of course, from being genuinely homeless; we need to make sure that the two are not conflated.
In some parts of the country, the Vagrancy Act is not used at all. Chief constables can decide to use the Act at their discretion, and it is used in only 34% of the country. Why does it not have to be used in 66% of the country, and why is it used in 34% of it? Furthermore, use is planned to decrease to 7% of areas. Is the aim to shut this door? However, the Act is still there, though it has been repealed in Northern Ireland and Scotland. If it is barely being used, why not just repeal it?
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
The Act was repealed in Scotland in 1982. Every night, when I go from a full House here to my flat, I pass six homeless people while crossing the bridge to St Thomas’s Hospital. A young girl—18 years old—arrived there last night. She was sitting on the bridge with a bag. I did not know how to approach her, or what to do. That is happening here, and there have already been two deaths outside this House. We have to look at the Vagrancy Act, and I applaud the hon. Lady for bringing the subject to the House.
Layla Moran
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. His passion is palpable. This measure is receiving wide cross-party support in the House and I would like to take a moment to thank all hon. Members for being here for the debate. It means so much to the community.
I was very pleased to hear that a review is on the cards. I speak to homelessness charities and they are a little frustrated that there has been no announcement on when it will take place. That is important, but I do ask why we need one at all when the situation is blindingly obvious. I encourage the Minister to widen the scope and ambition of the review. There should be a wider assessment of enforcement, for example on the use of public space protection orders and dispersal orders that give the police and local authorities the power to penalise the act of rough sleeping itself. We need a cool-headed assessment of whether that actually helps the people we seek to help. I believe that the Government want to help, but I wonder if the stick approach now needs to be changed.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Lady agree that measures such as the Vagrancy Act not only criminalise homeless people, but put into the mind of the public that they are criminals and, as a result, they receive worse treatment? In Brighton, one homeless person was murdered last year and many others are regularly attacked. Removing the Act would show that it is not acceptable to treat people who have ended up in dire circumstances in that way.
Layla Moran
I agree entirely. The principle of no enforcement without support is vital. As funding for local authorities has decreased, there is often not enough money to tackle the root causes and to give the support to those who are at risk of homelessness or who are homeless. Rather than spending money enforcing laws that punish people and move them on, in the long term it would be a far better use of taxpayers’ money to invest properly in the very welcome Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which I have no doubt the Minister will mention, and to ensure support is in place to prevent homelessness from happening in the first place.
We all know that the causes of homelessness are complex. The Government need to do more to support local councils in providing services to combat those root causes. The Homelessness Reduction Act is a welcome start, but it cannot be the end. It is clear that the Vagrancy Act, among other Acts, is the lowest hanging fruit—it just makes problems worse. We need a more compassionate and preventive approach to tackling the national scandal of homelessness.
Repealing the Vagrancy Act would be an easy first step. It would not take any money, just a three-line Bill. The private Member’s Bill is waiting there and I am desperate for it to receive support. I think it would receive support from all corners of the House. I am sorry to say—this is the way with private Members’ Bills—that it was blocked on First Reading. However, we are seeking another First Reading soon. I am delighted that the Labour party is now supporting the Bill—that is brilliant—as are St Mungo’s, Centrepoint and Crisis. There is a real swell in the campaign from across the political spectrum and beyond.
The Vagrancy Act is a symbol: what sort of country do we want to be? Rather than being a cold-hearted mean-spirited country, I believe we should show compassion and care to those who need our help. I ask the Minister to push as hard as he possibly can at the open door to scrap the Vagrancy Act.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)
This is the first time I have heard the hon. Lady talk on this subject in the House. I congratulate her on the tone of the debate and on how heartfelt and passionate she is on this very, very important subject. I congratulate her, too, on securing tonight’s debate.
I want to live in a country—I think we all do—where no one should ever have to sleep rough. That is why the Government have committed to halve rough sleeping by 2022 and end it by 2027. When I first entered Parliament in 2010, before I did this job as a Minister, I worked for the then Housing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps). We worked together then, as part of the coalition Government, on how we could come together across government, and I think also on a cross-party basis, to tackle the scourge of homelessness. That is why I am pleased that the Government published our rough sleeping strategy in August 2018, which set out, as I think has been acknowledged across the sector, an ambitious programme building on three core pillars. Before I answer the hon. Lady’s questions, I want to expand on them briefly to help us all understand the context of the debate.
First, we want to prevent rough sleeping before it happens. That is hugely important and is our key target. We then want to intervene at crisis point, again to try to prevent rough sleeping from ever occurring. For people who find themselves rough sleeping, we need flexible support that meets their needs and enables them to leave the streets. That is why we committed £1.2 billion of funding over the spending review period to tackle homelessness. We implemented the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017—the hon. Lady correctly said that I would mention it—to put prevention, which is key, absolutely at the heart of our approach to tackling homelessness.
We must ensure that people get early support to prevent them from ever becoming homeless, and we must provide support on a broader basis than ever before to help people off the streets. We have started to do that through the introduction of pilots such as Housing First, the rapid rehousing pathway and the private rented sector access fund to help people leave the streets and find a sustainable stay in accommodation.
On the hon. Lady’s main point, the Government are clear that no one should be criminalised in this country for having nowhere to sleep. That is quite wrong, and we are determined to tackle it. We have made it clear in the guidance that public space protection orders should not be used to target people who are simply sleeping rough or are homeless. Rough sleeping on its own does not have, or is very unlikely to have, an unreasonable detrimental impact on a neighbourhood, and therefore those orders should not be used. On the point that the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) made about the real price of homelessness that we see every night in London, we all understand that we should not target or criminalise people who are simply homeless or sleeping rough.
People are convicted every year under sections 3 and 4 of the 1824 Act, to which the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon referred, but we have seen that they are used to target persistent begging and public order offences in public places. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is shaking her head, but that is what our rough sleeping advisory panel’s research shows. She asked who is on the advisory panel. That information is publicly available. It includes Crisis, Shelter, St Mungo’s, Homeless Link, the Local Government Association and others.
Layla Moran
For clarification, I asked which stakeholders agree that the Vagrancy Act can be used. At least three of the charities that the Minister mentions have said to me that they do not, so who wants it to be used? As he can see, I am listening, and I want to understand who wants this and why, so that I can get to the bottom of it. Who are they?
Jake Berry
If the hon. Lady would allow me to develop my argument, I will attempt to answer her question.
Of course, other legislation is used. The hon. Lady mentioned the Public Order Act 1986 and the Offences Against the Person Act 1861—another very old piece of legislation that makes persistent begging in public places an arrestable offence. She asked why laws other than the Vagrancy Act are not used. It is because they have a higher burden of proof and harsher penalties are often—although not always—attached to them than to the Vagrancy Act.
Tracey Crouch
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his tone. I have known him for nearly nine years, and I know that he cares passionately about homelessness and rough sleeping. On the panel, he mentioned various stakeholders, but one that he did not mention is the police. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) said that many police forces do not use the Vagrancy Act. A police officer who works in the town centres in Medway told me that he has never used it; he always uses community protection notices. What input is the panel getting from those who actually apply the legislation—in other words, the police?
Jake Berry
I am coming to our review of the law, but it is heavily engaging the Home Office and thereby the police and law enforcement more generally.
Jake Berry
I do not want to be timed out, so this will be the last time I give way.
Wera Hobhouse
From the list the Minister is reading out, I get the strong feeling that local authorities have also been involved. Could he clarify with the LGA where it stands on this?
Jake Berry
I will happily go away and find out the LGA’s position, although, having been involved in such commissions myself, I can say there is often robust debate as they come to their conclusions, but many people with differing views happily come behind one report and one set of recommendations, so the LGA will not necessarily have had the ability to set out its view separately, but will have been bound as part of the panel.
As I have said on the record, the Government do not believe that anyone should be criminalised for simply sleeping rough, but equally we should not rush to a wholesale repeal of the 1824 Act without proper consideration of the consequences. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon said—I wrote it down—that we needed a cool-headed assessment of the law before acting. I agree, and I rather hope she accepts that that is the Government’s approach.
We developed our rough sleeping strategy in collaboration with many national charities, many of which I have named, and they form part of the rough sleeping advisory panel. Enforcement can form part of moving some people away from the streets, but it should come with an offer of meaningful support. Some charities working with rough sleepers are clear that the ability to secure income through begging can make it harder, not easier, for vulnerable people to leave their damaging lifestyles behind. The 1824 Act is sometimes the only option to get someone off the street when they have become dependent on begging income to support their drug or alcohol dependency and to find ways of moving towards the support they need.
The rough sleeping strategy made a commitment—partially based, I am sure, on the hon. Lady’s sterling work—to extend our review of the Homelessness Reduction Act to include a review of other relevant homelessness and rough-sleeping legislation, including, of course, the 1824 Act. She acknowledged that homelessness and rough sleeping was a complex issue, and we know from engagement with stakeholders that there are conflicting views about the necessity and importance of the 1824 Act, which is why the Government believe that a review, rather than immediate action, which I know she would prefer, is the appropriate course of action.
We recognise that there is a wide variety of views about the Act among stakeholders. We have engaged with homelessness charities, such as those referenced by the hon. Lady, and the panel held wide-ranging views, although many panel members thought the Act necessary. My Department will continue to work with the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and the homelessness sector to understand why the Act is used as part of this wider review, and one thing we want to get to the bottom of is why it is used to varying extents in different areas. Before we rush to repeal it, we must understand why that is the case. We will report the review findings by March 2020.
There is obviously considerable interest in this debate, and I would like to make an open offer to all interested hon. Members. I know the hon. Lady met my hon. Friend the homelessness Minister, and she is more than welcome to do so again. As part of this review of the law, we want to seek as many views as possible in order to get it right, so the door to my Department remains open, and I know that my hon. Friend, too, will happily meet colleagues from across the House to make sure we get this right, because it is very, very important. We must act to help the most vulnerable in society.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft European Qualifications (Health and Social Care Professions) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
Draft European Qualifications (Pharmacists) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2018
(5 years, 2 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 for Health (Stephen Hammond)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft European Qualifications (Health and Social Care Professions) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft European Qualifications (Pharmacists) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2018.
Stephen Hammond
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Howarth.
The draft regulations aim to ensure continuity in the recognition of European economic area and Swiss health and care professional qualifications in the United Kingdom in a no-deal European exit scenario. The statutory instrument relating to Northern Ireland, which has been introduced here because the Northern Ireland Assembly is suspended, ensures that the approach to recognising health and care professional qualifications is consistent throughout the United Kingdom.
European health and care professionals make a major contribution to the national health service and the wider health and care system. Since 1997, more than 100,000 EEA and Swiss-qualified health and care professionals have applied to have their qualifications recognised in the United Kingdom, and more than 77,000 of them have been dentists, doctors, midwives, nurses and pharmacists. The Government have been clear that European health and care professionals will continue to be welcome after the UK leaves the EU, and the statutory instruments are part of ensuring that.
Arrangements for the recognition of professional qualifications within the EU is provided for by the directive on the recognition of professional qualifications, which will cease to apply if the UK leaves the EU without a deal. Changes to the domestic legislation that implements the directive are therefore needed to ensure that recognition of those EEA and Swiss qualifications can continue after EU exit, in the case of no deal. The directive provides for mutual recognition of EEA and Swiss professional qualifications within the EU and makes provision for harmonised education and training standards in seven professions, five of which are in health—doctors, dentists, nurses, midwives and pharmacists. The directive allows for recognition of listed qualifications that meet the harmonised education and training standards and provides for recognition under a general system for qualifications that do not meet those harmonised requirements. The directive also covers Switzerland and EEA nations.
It is worth noting, as I have said, that the UK has been a major beneficiary of the arrangements under the directive. Since 1997, the UK has recognised 77,000 EU qualifications in the automatically recognised professions. In contrast, fewer than 7,000 UK qualifications have been recognised in other EU states. The directive has helped with the recruitment of skilled professionals to the UK’s health and care sector and it is important that the arrangements that allow for continued recognition of health and care professional qualifications are in place if the UK leaves the EU in a no-deal scenario.
The two instruments that we are debating have three main effects. First, they put in place arrangements for the recognition of those EEA and Swiss professional qualifications that are currently recognised and provide for the continuation of recognition arrangements for those qualifications that are covered by the general system. Secondly, they ensure that applications for recognition that are ongoing at exit day can be completed under the current legal arrangements and, finally, they remove a number of provisions that would not be appropriate to maintain in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
I will set out the changes in a little more detail. The instruments put in place new arrangements for the recognition of professional qualifications that are currently automatically recognised. Such qualifications will become recognised overseas qualifications, or “relevant European qualifications” in the case of pharmacist qualifications in Northern Ireland. As such, they will continue to be recognised without additional testing, other than the checks for an applicant’s language skills and on whether there are concerns about their fitness to practise.
The regulations give UK regulators a new power to designate a qualification that is currently recognised automatically.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
The Minister has just announced a major change, in that a UK regulator would determine whether qualifications were acceptable. Who sets the criteria for the regulator to determine that?
Stephen Hammond
I have said two things: that there will be new arrangements, so that professional qualifications that are currently automatically recognised will continue to be recognised without additional testing, other than checks for language; and that the regulations give powers to designate a qualification that is currently recognised. As yet, I have not said that there will be a new designation system.
Vernon Coaker
My understanding is that the regulator will determine whether a qualification is regarded as comparable. Is that the case? If so, who determines the criteria on which the regulator will make that decision?
Stephen Hammond
I will come to that a little later, if I may. The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to come on to that point, because some qualifications will be comparable and we need to ensure that the right regulatory system is in place.
As I was saying, designating a qualification will allow UK regulators to stop the automatic qualification, which is not possible under the directive. That is an important additional measure, which will enhance public protection. Such designation will be subject to Privy Council consent, or the agreement of the Department of Health in Northern Ireland in relation to pharmacists’ qualifications there.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will review the arrangement for the continued recognition of automatic qualifications no later than two years after the regulations come into force. The review clause is important because it means that the arrangements put in place by the regulations will not remain indefinitely. It would be reasonable for hon. Members to ask what the review will cover. In short, it will cover whether it is appropriate for the near-automatic recognition of European qualifications to continue. It would not be right for me to predict what key factors there might be at that point in two years’ time, but I guess that hon. Members will make a judgement about which factors ought to be included in the review.
Vernon Coaker
The point I am trying to make is about the difference between automatic acceptance and the regulator determining that certain qualifications are not acceptable. I am trying to tease out from the Minister how that difference will be determined, between automatically accepted qualifications and those that are regarded as non-comparable. Who sets those criteria? That is the question for the Minister.
Stephen Hammond
It is the question. There is a system currently in place, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in which the regulator has powers to automatically accept qualifications. There is also a system in place for professionals from outside the EU and the EEA, which looks at regulatory qualifications and ensures that they comply with UK standards, which, at the moment, is the EU directive. Therefore, there is already a regulatory system for non-EU/EEA/Swiss citizens that sets those standards. If we were considering different standards to the current automatic recognition, it would be appropriate to use that process of regulation to give the regulator his authority to decide whether a qualification was acceptable. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.
What I can say about the two-year review period is that it is important to have a widespread and encompassing review of the arrangements for recognition of all international healthcare. That will ensure that the process of recognising all the qualifications is effective and proportionate. If and when the arrangements for the recognition of relevant EEA and Swiss qualifications come to an end, a parliamentary review to determine the time when that happens will be appropriate.
The regulations, as I hope I explained in more detail in answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, enable qualifications that are not covered by the automatic system to be considered by the relevant UK regulator and compared with the equivalent UK qualifications standard, as currently happens. They allow applications made before exit date to be concluded under the current arrangements, as far as practically possible. They allow individuals practising under temporary and occasional status, or under the EU professional card, to continue to do so until such registration expires.
The regulations also remove obligations and administrative arrangements that will no longer apply to UK domestic regulators when the UK leaves the EU. Those changes include the removal of provisions relating to cross-border temporary provision of services, which currently allow professionals in a member state to practise in another member state on a temporary and occasional basis without having to register fully; the removal of the requirement to share information through the European Commission’s internal market information system, to which UK regulators will no longer have access; and the ending of arrangements that allow professionals to practise in the EU using the European professional card. That card is underpinned by European Commission systems that will no longer be available to UK regulators.
Finally, the regulations remove the requirement on UK regulators to set professional education and training standards that comply with the standards set out in the directive. That will provide UK regulators with greater flexibility to set education and training standards that meet the needs of the UK’s health and care professions.
In conclusion, the regulations put in place a system for the recognition of EEA and Swiss health and care professionals if the UK exits the EU without a deal. They also ensure that applications that are in progress at exit day will be concluded under current arrangements as far as practically possible.
As I said at the outset, the UK places enormous value on the contribution of the EEA and Swiss-qualified professionals who work in the UK health and care sector. The regulations will facilitate the continued recognition of EEA and Swiss professional qualifications after the UK leaves the EU. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other hon. Members. The effect of the regulations is to ensure continuity of recognition of qualifications in the event of a non-deal EU exit.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth.
I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations. As we have heard, current EU law sets out a reciprocal framework of rules for the recognition of health and social care professionals. That enables EEA and Swiss nationals to have their qualifications recognised, and to gain access to the regulated professions in which they are qualified to work in the UK on a temporary or permanent basis. Of course, in the event of a no-deal Brexit those rules will no longer apply.
As we have heard, the draft regulations on health and social care professions would amend the relevant legislation for the nine health and social care professional regulators in the UK. The other set of regulations would similarly amend the relevant legislation for regulation of pharmacists in Northern Ireland. The aim in both cases is to put in place new regulations for EEA and Swiss-qualified professionals to register to work in the UK in the event of a no-deal Brexit after 29 March.
As that date is fast approaching, the regulations are important. It is right to make arrangements, although it is a matter of regret that we are dealing with them at the last minute. Clearly they must be temporary. We accept the need in principle for some arrangements to be put in place, but we have several questions about their potential impact on the delivery of healthcare.
First, on registered professionals, an estimated 3,200 EEA and Swiss-qualified health and social care professionals join the relevant registers to practise in the UK each year. According to the General Medical Council, doctors from the 31 EEA countries and Switzerland currently make up about 9% of the UK’s medical workforce, rising to around 20% for some specialities, including surgery, with similar figures in other important areas. According to the Royal College of Nursing, the figure for nurses and midwives is between 5% and 6%.
We are therefore talking about a significant chunk of the workforce, in the context of a record number of vacancies, so there is clear potential for workforce disruption if EEA and Swiss nationals cannot register. We must do all we can to minimise the risk associated with that in a no-deal scenario. The NHS workforce is already in a precarious position, with 100,000-plus vacancies and more nurses and midwives leaving the register than joining. There is no doubt that the workforce challenge has been exacerbated since the referendum result, with 3,692 staff from the EEA leaving the Nursing and Midwifery Council register between 2017 and 2018, for example. At the same time, the number of EU nurses and midwives coming to work in the UK has fallen to its lowest level, with just 805 joining the register in 2017-18.
My first question to the Minister is this. Given the huge contribution of EEA and Swiss-qualified professionals to the NHS, which he was generous enough to acknowledge, what assurances can he give that the NHS will begin to stem the huge losses of these important staff that we currently see? Furthermore, future arrangements for EEA and Swiss applicants will be dependent on discussions with the EU. The costs attached to these future arrangements are unknown, but regulators are expected to continue to operate on a full cost recovery basis. The Government assume that any extra cost of assessing applicants with EEA and Swiss qualifications for registration will be recouped via the regulator’s setting and charging fees to recover those costs from the applicants, which has been confirmed by regulators including the General Medical Council.
At the same time, the Government have acknowledged that changes to the procedure for recognising qualifications could make access to health and care professions more difficult, which could affect the availability of professionals. Has the Minister carried out an impact assessment to determine whether additional costs will affect the number of applicants from EEA countries and Switzerland and what affect that will have on the health service?
There is also a potential impact on healthcare, because the draft regulations will remove the right of EEA and Swiss professionals to work in the UK on a temporary or occasional basis. Examples that we have been given include a Dutch-qualified paediatrician working in the UK full time but participating in European-funded international research projects, or a Portuguese-qualified doctor working in Lisbon but undertaking weekend locum work in the UK. In December, when the draft instrument came before the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the other place, there were 134 EEA or Swiss professionals providing healthcare services in the UK on that basis. How will the Government ensure that the removal of this right will not have a detrimental effect on the NHS?
The draft regulations will give UK regulators the discretion to designate EEA and Swiss qualifications as not acceptable in the UK after exit, but they do not set out clearly the process for deciding what is or is not a comparable qualification. Two months from our exit, we do not know how healthcare professional regulators will operate their new powers to remove a qualification from automatic acceptance, should they have patient safety concerns; all we know is that the Privy Council will approve such a measure. It is unclear on what grounds a regulator will be able to make such a request and what information will be needed to satisfy the Privy Council. I am aware that at least one regulatory body, the General Medical Council, has been asking the Government for further clarification on that point. Will the Minister provide us and the regulators with guidance on what information will be requested to obtain Privy Council consent to remove a qualification from automatic acceptance where patient safety is a concern? How will he ensure consistency across the board when dealing with such applications and in the mechanism for reporting these issues to Parliament?
The impact on regulators also needs to be considered. The Department has said that there will be no additional administrative or resource burden on regulators. Given that UK regulators will have the additional function of having to assess whether qualifications are comparable, what assurances can the Minister give that UK administrators will have the administrative capacity and resources to deal with those burdens at no extra cost?
It is clear that these regulations are a stopgap to avoid an immediate cliff edge, should the UK exit without a deal. There is no clarity on plans to introduce more sustainable long-term arrangements for registering and licensing EEA and Swiss nationals beyond a review in two years. The Minister did not go into detail in his opening remarks, but it is legitimate to ask how the Government intend to approach the two-year review of the instrument and whether in the long run they will commit to reform of the legislation on professional regulators to allow for the registering of healthcare professionals regardless of where they qualified.
The Minister touched on this briefly, but what is most concerning is that the regulators will lose access to the internal market information system, or IMI, the online tool for sharing information. That will apply whether we leave with or without a deal. The IMI allows details about applicants and their qualifications to be shared and, crucially, provides an alert mechanism, which makes EEA and Swiss regulators aware of professionals with compromised fitness to practise or of restrictions on their practice. I appreciate that it is not in the Minister’s gift to commit to ensure continued access to the IMI, but as the instrument revokes provisions that require UK regulators to access and use the IMI as part of their mutual recognition procedures, it is fair to ask what plans he has to ensure that patient safety is not jeopardised by its removal. This is a very important point. What plans are in place in the short and long term to enable continued sharing of information relating to the fitness to practise of professionals across the EEA and Swiss area?
Finally, as is often the case with Brexit-related debates, we forget that there is movement both ways. The impact on UK professionals wishing to work in the EEA must not be forgotten. After exit day, professional qualifications awarded in the UK will no longer be covered by the directive. The EU has agreed that holders of UK qualifications that have been registered in EEA countries and Switzerland will continue to be registered. However, in the absence of an agreement with the EU, that will be a matter for individual EU member states to determine. Has the Minister had any discussions with his EU counterparts about the impact of no deal on UK professionals wishing to practise in the EU after exit day? Does he know, for example, how many UK professionals would be affected? Has there been any consideration of mutual qualification recognition for emerging roles such as nurse associates?
In conclusion, we do not oppose the regulations or what they seek to achieve. We recognise, as the Minister does, the valuable contribution to the NHS of staff from the EEA and Swiss areas. I hope that these regulations will not result, inadvertently or otherwise, in our deterring or losing more of them than we already have. I would welcome any reassurance from the Minister in response to my concerns.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I am grateful to the Minister and the shadow spokesperson for their comments today. I will confine my comments to the lead statutory instrument and will not discuss the Northern Ireland instrument.
This SI is about repealing the EU system of qualification assessments and replacing it with something that in my opinion is nowhere near as robust, but instead worryingly ad hoc. Having read the legislation, I believe the new automatic system sounds like anything but automatic. A lot of this seems to be about offloading the risk of assessing the ongoing relevance of applicants’ qualifications for healthcare positions in the UK away from Government. The regulations put enormous amounts of responsibility on the designated UK health regulators to decide which EEA and Swiss qualifications are no longer comparable, with no apparent framework other than that they are allowed to designate non-comparability based on the course, the institution or even just the country itself.
Those regulators have also been given the discretion to decide how to treat the EEA and Swiss qualifications that they assess to be non-comparable. I therefore have some questions. Are the regulators happy with that? Have the Government checked that the regulators are happy to take on that burden of responsibility, and what preparations are taking place? Will new guidance need to be put into place to support that? As this will amount to regulators taking on the burden of making decisions that they have never had to make before, will there be a detrimental impact on the UK health and social care services workforce?
The explanatory memorandum states:
“The amended legislation will no longer include obligations on regulators to abide by the Directive training standards when setting standards for UK qualifications, although regulators may use the Directive as a guide when setting standards in the UK.”
That sounds like the UK could be put at a competitive disadvantage to the EU, through the creation of different standards between the two, again potentially wreaking havoc with our workforce. The transition provision goes nowhere near far enough to protect those currently going through the process. Saying that the UK will
“allow applications which have been made before exit day to be concluded under current arrangements as far as possible”
is no comfort whatsoever.
The Scottish health sector relies heavily on the EU workforce. This legislation could have a disproportionate and potentially devastating impact on our health sector. I believe it is a terrible piece of legislation that fails to provide a robust framework for transition, any protection for those making applications to our health sector or any assurances that our workforce will not suffer considerably as a result. The fact that the explanatory memorandum says that there is
“no, or no significant, impact on the public sector”
is laughable, and also puzzling, considering that that is directly contradicted on the very next page, in paragraph 12.5, which states that there could be an
“impact on the availability of health and care professionals”.
I have normally taken a pragmatic approach to these Delegation Legislation Committees on emergency exit regulations, saying that we need regulations in place and that I am not opposed, but I find it hard to do that today. Unless I hear suitable reassurances from the Minister, I am minded to try to force a Division on this matter.
Vernon Coaker
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I wish to reinforce a couple of important points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston from the Front Bench in his excellent contribution.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, who speaks for the SNP, talked about this, but these SIs are incredibly important. Tucked away in these regulations are all sorts of policy changes that will have huge implications for our constituents and our country. I want to mention a couple. Hon. Members might not have read all these regulations—I have not read all of the pages, but I have read some—but if, in a few weeks’ or a few months’ time, a no deal happens, we will have people coming to our constituency offices asking what has happened to change their working arrangements in this country. We will have to say, “We’re not quite sure; we’ll go back and have a look and see where that happened.” And it will have happened in Committees such as this.
I say this as an aside—I know that we have all said it—but one of the problems with SIs is that we cannot amend them. Let me give one example. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston mentioned this, but one really significant change tucked away in these regulations is the removal of the right of EU and Swiss nationals who are working here on a temporary or occasional basis to do so. My hon. Friend set out how many people that covers. What will we say when a Swiss or EEA national turns up at our surgeries and says, “I am working here on an occasional or temporary basis”—or says that they wish to do so—“and my local hospital needs me”? The figures are there: 42 General Medical Council registrants, 88 other professionals, and so on. If one of those people comes to us and says, “I am no longer able to work here,” it will be this Committee that agreed that regulation.
I agree with my hon. Friend that we will not vote this measure, but why on earth is the Minister doing this? Why on earth are we saying to EEA and Swiss nationals who are working here on an occasional or temporary basis that they cannot do so?
Vernon Coaker
I will of course give way to the Minister, but the House of Lords Select Committee raised that point, so is he going to tell me that that has been changed?
Stephen Hammond
The hon. Gentleman is raising a number of serious and important points, as did the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson—he was right to do so, and I will answer those points. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that at the moment the number of social and healthcare professionals working under the regime that he is describing is fewer than 160. Does he not agree that if people wish to work, or to continue to work, on a temporary or occasional basis, it might be more sensible, in the interests of public safety, for them to seek full registration? We are talking about a very small number. Surely full registration is the way forward.
Vernon Coaker
The implication of what the Minister has just said is that those people have been working in the NHS at the present time with sub-standard qualifications.
Vernon Coaker
That is exactly the implication of what the Minister has just said.
Stephen Hammond
It is not. The hon. Gentleman was citing the example of someone who wanted to work here on a more permanent basis and to use that regime to achieve that. If someone wishes to work under that regime, would it not be sensible to have full UK regulatory recognition?
Vernon Coaker
The Minister will give his answer, but this question has been raised by NHS professionals and by the cross-party House of Lords Select Committee that looks into these matters. Indeed, that Committee specifically said that the Minister should be questioned about the change, because it has serious concerns about the detriment to the NHS from removing the right of those people to work in this country under the occasional and temporary arrangements. The Minister may say it is only a small number, but if there is a no-deal scenario, let us see whether that small number start appearing at our surgeries and whether we have to explain why the current arrangements no longer apply.
I think the change is unnecessary. The system works very well now and allows people to move backwards and forwards. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston pointed out, this is a reciprocal arrangement. People from this country benefit from exactly the same arrangements when they go to other countries across Europe. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s answer to my hon. Friend’s question about what he expects the reciprocal arrangements to be and how other European countries will respond to our doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals seeking to broaden and extend their experience by working in other countries in Europe.
The Minister started to answer my earlier questions about qualifications that are not regarded as comparable. In his response to the House of Lords Committee, he said it would be a matter to be determined by the regulator. My hon. Friend has already raised this point, but given that different regulators will determine which qualifications are not comparable, will they all have different criteria? How on earth will there be any consistency? The bureaucracy will be enormous. What are the costs of that? What will the staffing arrangements be? Again, the House of Lords Committee, in response to what the Minister said, raised serious concerns about how that will be done. My hon. Friend is right: the Minister needs to lay out more clearly how he believes the NHS will not be detrimentally affected by the changes introduced by these regulations, should that be necessary in a no-deal scenario, given the numbers he pointed to—3,200 people being automatically registered and 1,500 being registered under the general system. Will the Minister also confirm, as I think he said earlier, that the language tests will remain exactly the same?
My final point refers to Northern Ireland. It is a general point for the Minister to take away and one that he should perhaps ask the Secretary of State to discuss in Cabinet. There is no Assembly in Northern Ireland. The explanatory memorandum says that, under the legislation passed by this House, the Government talk with officials in Northern Ireland to determine whether these or other regulations are acceptable. Without getting into the arguments about why that is occurring or not, the democratic deficit is quite significant. I wonder whether there might be a better, more informative way of proceeding than just to include a few lines saying, “We’ve consulted with Northern Ireland officials about whether these regulations will apply appropriately in Northern Ireland,” given the responsibility on us all, in the absence of a Northern Ireland legislature, to consider the impact of regulations on that part of the United Kingdom in a more appropriate way.
These are significant changes. The Minister says that a small number of people will be affected, but those receiving treatment from someone who will no longer be able to register under the temporary or occasional scheme will be asking how this Parliament passed legislation that is potentially detrimental to their healthcare. That is not the Minister’s intention, but these are appropriate questions for this Committee and the House to ask the Minister as we move into the unknown.
Stephen Hammond
I would like to reassure hon. Members that, while it is essential to the public’s protection that we put in place this legislation, I recognise that a number of important and significant issues have been raised. I also recognise the potential impact on patients and citizens of the whole of the United Kingdom of not getting this right. There have been a lot of questions, which I shall try to address in some sort of order, perhaps lumping together some of the points put to me.
Initially there was a lot of talk about the impact on the numbers. From the overall number of EU, EEA and Swiss health and care professionals practising in the United Kingdom, the number working in NHS trusts in England increased by over 3,500 in the 12 months following the referendum. That includes an extra 600 doctors. As of June 2017, over 21,000 EEA doctors were registered with a licence to practise with the GMC. The number of joiners from the EEA has remained steady since 2016; therefore, these regulations would allow that to continue. The hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston and for Gedling might like to point out that there has clearly been a decline in registered nurses. That is a significant concern to the Department, and we have looked not only at the number of current vacancies resulting from EU nationals not coming forward but, as importantly, at the need to train, recruit and retain UK nurses, which is why there are a number of routes into nursing.
There are language issues. One reason for the nursing staff shortage in respect of EEA applications is down to the language controls introduced by the NMC, which took full effect in July 2016. Although some people might concentrate on the referendum as the contributory factor, the language testing is also judged to have had an impact. Therefore, since November 2017 the NMC has introduced a number of changes to the language requirements for nurses and midwives trained outside the UK, which has increased the options available to such applicants to demonstrate their language ability. The changes appear to be having a positive effect on international recruitment, with 2,500 more overseas joiners to the register between January and December 2018.
The hon. Member for Gedling asked about a slightly different language issue. I will confirm this in writing, but it is my understanding that we do not intend to change the language tests.
The temporary permissions argument is clearly of concern, and I have tried to address the hon. Gentleman’s questions about that. The numbers currently working under the regime are relatively small; however, that does not mean that they do not have a positive impact. It is right that under a new regulatory system people should seek full registration. However, over the EU exit day period and the period post that, the regime will continue. As temporary and occasional permissions last for up to 18 months, there will be plenty of time for those working under the regime to decide to apply for full registration.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston asked about the impact on UK professionals wishing to practise in the EU after exit day. I said in my opening remarks that it is the UK that is the main beneficiary of mutual recognitions. After exit day, professional qualifications awarded in the UK will no longer be covered by the directive, and the EU has agreed that holders of UK qualifications who have been registered in EEA countries and Switzerland will continue to be registered. However, in the absence of an agreement with the EU, recognition of UK qualifications after exit day will be determined by the national policy of the individual member state.
The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed reciprocal international healthcare arrangements on several occasions, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee, and he will recognise that the Government hope that a widespread and encompassing international healthcare reciprocal agreement will be in place with the whole EU after exit day—that is our ambition. In the event of a deal, during the implementation period the current arrangements will pertain and we can look to put in place such a treaty.
Stephen Hammond
One moment, and then I will. As the hon. Gentleman rightly knows, in the event of a no-deal EU exit—which is a lot of what we are talking about this morning—it is the Government’s ambition first to put memorandums of understanding in place and then hopefully to have a widespread agreement with the whole EU or, if not, individual arrangements with member states.
Justin Madders
We all hope that arrangements will be in place, but my question was: have any discussions been entered into yet with individual member states about the arrangements in a no-deal scenario?
Stephen Hammond
There are ongoing and widespread discussions with the Commission and with member states. A number of member states are of high priority because the numbers of UK nationals currently living there make reciprocal international healthcare arrangements particularly important. A number of issues are being discussed. Given the nature of the discussions, I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that reassurance.
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
Is it not the case that the guidance issued yesterday says that in some cases the European health insurance card may not be valid or guarantee access to healthcare after 29 March and that it is the responsibility of individuals to check the healthcare arrangements with the countries they are visiting?
Stephen Hammond
The hon. Gentleman is correct. That is why we discussed in depth the reciprocal healthcare arrangements under the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill. Although it is absolutely the Government’s intention, in either a deal or no-deal scenario, to ensure continuity of international arrangements, at the moment that cannot be absolutely guaranteed. I hope the hon. Gentleman heard me say to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston that it is the Government’s intention to ensure that, in the event of a no-deal scenario, memorandums of understanding will be put in place. We have already stated that anyone seeking emergency medical care, from wherever they come, will be treated by the NHS. We hope to ensure the continuity of current arrangements in a deal or a no-deal scenario.
To give Members a bit more flavour and depth, let me say, in response to both the initial inquiry, from the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, and the inquiry from the hon. Member for Stockton South, that there is understandably a widespread agreement in this area that the current arrangements are to the mutual benefit of the healthcare systems of both the UK and the whole EU and should continue. In that light, very positive discussions are taking place, particularly with the countries where most UK nationals currently reside.
I do not need to write to the hon. Member for Gedling; I can confirm that the regulators will continue to apply the language tests as currently set out.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston talked about the loss of the internal market information system. If the UK exits the EU without a deal, it will no longer have automatic access to the EU systems, including the internal market information system, which regulators across the EU use to exchange information. We hope that the discussion about international healthcare arrangements will continue, but it may well be the case that UK regulators have to seek information from their European counterparts directly, rather than from the Commission. UK regulators are aware of that and are preparing for it, although, as I have said, that may well be part of the discussions about international arrangements and encompassed in a future bilateral or EU-wide international healthcare arrangements agreement. However, the regulations mean that UK regulators will not be required to carry out more assessments of European qualifications than they do now and they will allow bilateral applications for information.
Justin Madders
The Minister has been very generous in giving way. We should be clear that, as things stand, the early warning system will not be in operation. It is important to express our concern about that and our sincere wish to put in place an arrangement to avoid it.
Stephen Hammond
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise that concern, but as I have sought to reassure him, it will be perfectly possible for UK regulators and EU regulators, either in whole or individually, to exchange information. It will be possible under this arrangement for UK regulators to seek that information from their individual European counterparts, should they need to do so.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the capacity of regulators to check qualifications. Although it is not the Government’s intention or desire to have a no-deal outcome, regulators have been preparing for that possible scenario. These regulations will ensure that there will be little additional work for regulators in recognising EEA and Swiss qualifications at exit date. Under the regulations, the regulator can choose to review automatic qualifications that it was previously obliged to accept and to designate those qualifications where there are patient and public safety concerns. An applicant will be obliged to supply the regulator with the relevant documents, and if the regulator is not satisfied, it can reject the application. My point is that there is no extra administrative burden on regulators.
On the potential for an additional financial burden, the UK and the regulators have been preparing for a possible no-deal outcome. As the regulations seek to maintain the current systems as far as possible, for at least two years from their coming into force after the expected exit day until the review, there should be little extra cost or impact. There is, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the potential for regulators to recover those costs through additional fees, and that is true of current regulatory systems, in many cases.
The hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston and for Linlithgow and East Falkirk asked whether the regulations reduce the ability to safeguard public and patient safety, making the health service less safe. At the heart of these instruments is the recognition that public protection and patient safety must be the foremost ambition; therefore, public protection is the key purpose of regulating health and care professionals. The instruments provide the regulators with the necessary powers to protect the public by introducing the power to designate EEA and Swiss professionals, who they are currently obliged to accept automatically. In addition, they will still be able to check applicants’ language skills and, as I confirmed to the hon. Member for Gedling a moment ago, the language tests will not change.
I was asked about the review process. It is appropriate that a two-year review of the regulations is put in place, which will potentially be wide-ranging and encompassing. The regulations are intended to be subject to review two years after they come into force. As I said earlier, it would be wrong of me either to limit the scope of the review or to predict the factors that may be in place at the time. I am often asked by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston and others to commit to reviews of regulations and other legislation, and, as we are committing to a review after two years, I hope that he will accept my assurance on that.
Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, asked me about the impact assessment. There is no significant impact. The impact for the instrument falls below the £5 million threshold of the annual net direct cost to business, as detailed by the business impact target. There is no significant impact on business, and no significant direct impacts have been identified as a result of the changes. Hon. Members have asked about the potential impact regarding allowing recognition so that EEA and Swiss professionals who are valued in the health service can continue to practise in the UK post-EU exit day in a no-deal scenario. That is the impact, and the regulations seek to minimise it. They put in place sensible measures to ensure that that recognition can happen.
Finally, I was asked about whether the regulations support cross-border co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The regulations ensure the continued recognition of Irish professional qualifications in the UK for at least two years after exit day. They allow professionals practising under an existing and temporary or occasional status to continue until the end of that—
Vernon Coaker
Will the Minister give way? I think he misunderstood what I asked.
Stephen Hammond
I will give way but I think I might be about to predict that as well.
Vernon Coaker
To clarify, I was not talking about the cross-border arrangements. I was making the point about whether, in the absence of the legislative Assembly in Northern Ireland, instead of having two or three lines saying, “We’ve discussed this with Northern Ireland officials and that’s fine,” we need to give more detail to our discussions about that.
Stephen Hammond
Not at all. The hon. Gentleman is right to ask whether, in the absence of an Assembly in Northern Ireland, the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland can assess EEA and Swiss pharmacist qualifications that are not covered by automatic recognition—he recognises, of course, that the automatic recognition system is there. These regulations will ensure there should be little change in those. The PSNI will continue to recognise pharmacist qualifications that are within the scope of the automatic system at exit day. Those who do not hold a qualification currently within that scope will be registered with the General Pharmaceutical Council before registering with the PSNI. That is a continuation of the current practice. I am happy to keep this issue under review and to make it part of the discussion with Northern Ireland officials.
With those remarks, I hope that I have managed to satisfy hon. Members’ inquiries, and I commend both sets of regulations to the Committee.
Question put.
Draft Broadcasting (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries (Margot James)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Broadcasting (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has worked hard to prepare for the UK’s departure from the EU and to ensure that our statute book continues to function. The draft regulations will achieve three broad aims and were laid before the House on 13 December 2018.
First, the regulations will ensure that Ofcom, as the UK’s audiovisual regulator, can continue to regulate broadcasters effectively. If the UK leaves the EU without an agreement in place, the EU’s audiovisual media services directive will no longer apply. The directive provides for freedom of reception and re-transmission for audiovisual services such as television and video on demand. It also establishes minimum content standards and provides that a service that is regulated in one member state can adhere to that country’s rules while being available across all the EU. This is known as the country of origin principle.
The audiovisual media services directive underpins several pieces of UK primary legislation, including the Communications Act 2003. We are therefore using section 8 powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to fix deficiencies and inoperabilities in primary legislation to ensure that Ofcom continues to have jurisdiction over services that are available to UK audiences or established in the UK. The draft regulations also ensure that cross-border services that originate from Europe under the Council of Europe convention on transfrontier television can broadcast to the UK. Services from countries that are not parties to the convention will be regulated by Ofcom.
We are not amending the current standards or restrictions placed on UK broadcasters through this instrument; they will continue as before. Should the Government wish to make any changes to the standards or restrictions in the future, that will be subject to consultation and the parliamentary process as normal.
Secondly, the draft regulations will implement the aforementioned Council of Europe treaty in UK law. The European convention on transfrontier television was signed and ratified by the UK in 1993, but it has not been implemented in the UK because the treaty provides that EU member states must apply the relevant EU legislation in their mutual relations instead. The ECTT provides for a similar system of freedom of reception and transmission between the parties to the convention. Both the AVMSD and the ECTT provide that a majority of transmission time on a television channel must be reserved for works of European origin. The AVMSD references the ECTT in its definition of European works, and that in turn safeguards the UK’s status as a producer of European works. The quota system provides a preferential market for the UK’s excellent content across other European states and has benefited our production sector enormously in the last decade.
Finally, the draft regulations will ensure that services with Irish-language content—RTÉ One, RTÉ Two and TG4—will continue to be available in Northern Ireland. The UK made those commitments in the Good Friday agreement and later through the European charter for regional or minority languages. Because those services are established in Ireland, which is not a party to the ECTT, they would need to be licensed by Ofcom under the changes introduced through the draft regulations, but that would not be in the spirit of the Good Friday agreement, so the UK has decided unilaterally to exempt the services from the requirement to hold an Ofcom licence.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Before the Minister concludes, paragraph 7.3 of the explanatory memorandum states that the instrument will remedy the deficiency by amending the Communications Act 2003
“to require that any television service that is available in the UK, whatever its country of origin, is required to be licensed by Ofcom”.
How many businesses that have not required a licence from Ofcom will now have to get one?
Margot James
I know what the hon. Gentleman is driving at concerning the risk to businesses that transmit and will require a new licence from Ofcom. I will try to cover that in my concluding remarks, if I may.
My officials have worked closely with Ofcom to ensure that the regulatory regime remains operable and effective in the case of no deal. I believe that the draft regulations are necessary to ensure that the UK statute book works and that audiences are protected from harm.
I can now give the hon. Gentleman something of an answer to his question. Approximately 50 to 60 channels have been identified that may need a licence from Ofcom to continue to be received in the UK. They are mostly specialist minority language channels, religious channels or adult services. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Kevin Brennan
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon, especially in the light of your recent eminent elevation elsewhere, about which I have been told not to go into any detail. I will say only that we will all sleep safer in our bed in the knowledge that you are looking after our interests.
I thank the Minister for her explanation, which highlights just one of the myriad complexities of Brexit and the prospect of no deal. Today, we should rule out that prospect, rather than continue to play chicken with the EU, but that will take place elsewhere and is not within the scope of this Committee’s business. Nevertheless, the instrument highlights one of the many complexities we face in trying to take the egg back out of the omelette, which is what Brexit entails.
I intervened on the Minister because I noticed that the Government say in the explanatory memorandum that they felt no need to conduct an impact assessment for this statutory instrument, and the explanatory note says:
“A full impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no, or no significant, impact on the private or voluntary sector is foreseen.”
Yet the Minister has just told the Committee that 50 to 60 channels, at the very least, will be required for the first time to be licensed by Ofcom. If that is not a significant impact on the private sector, I do not know what is. I understand that the Department and the Government have an incredibly difficult task in passing all these statutory instruments at great speed, and I am glad that we are scrutinising the legislation this morning; that is our job. However, it seems to be a dereliction not to produce an impact assessment of a statutory instrument of this kind, which is just one example of the significant impact on the private sector.
Through this statutory instrument, we are essentially trying to minimise the failure that Brexit represents to a great British success story. Hundreds of television, broadcast and audiovisual content companies currently have a choice of where they can be licensed. Under the audiovisual media services directive and its country of origin principle, a licence in one EU country licenses the holder in all the other member states. Part of the requirement is that the company’s headquarters and essential editorial establishment must be located in the member country where it is licensed. Companies choose to license here in the UK because we have a widely admired and trusted regulatory regime, with a high-quality regulator in the form of Ofcom. The Minister and I probably agree on that point. Leaving the EU and, worse still, leaving with no deal, will have a serious impact on those companies and on the sector. We have already heard press reports about companies such as WarnerMedia, the Discovery Channel and even the BBC having to move some of their operations out of the UK as a result of needing to license their operations in the EU post UK withdrawal. That is the context of the draft regulations.
The statutory instrument is intended to ensure that broadcast licences granted by Ofcom would still be legally valid after a no deal Brexit because they have been issued in the context of our membership of the European Union. From the point of view of Her Majesty’s Opposition, I accept what the Minister says: this is a necessary measure that has to be taken. As a responsible Opposition, it is not our intention to divide the Committee this morning, because the Minister is correct that it is important for the directive to go through. However, I have a number of questions on which I would be grateful for clarification.
First, as the Minister knows, the way in which content is consumed by viewers is changing rapidly, with the advent of streaming services such as Netflix. Surprisingly, Netflix is licensed in the Netherlands. My understanding is that under the SI, on-demand services such as Netflix that are located in the EU will in future be treated the same as on-demand services licensed in other parts of the world—particularly the USA, where most on-demand services are located. Will the Minister confirm that my understanding is correct, and that services such as Netflix will now be treated the same way as streaming and on-demand services located elsewhere in the world, rather than having the European model of treatment?
Secondly, what are the implications for the UK of this change—for example, what if post Brexit we were to introduce new regulations to limit the advertising of junk food? Lively debate is taking place on that issue at the moment. Currently, we would be able to argue our case within the EU that on-demand services licensed in the EU should respect that change in our domestic law. We have a forum and a means by which we can press that case. What will be the position after we leave the European Union, should we decide to take that kind of action? In her remarks the Minister referred to the implications post Brexit if we decided to make changes in our own standards relating to broadcasting and streaming.
Thirdly, what will be the impact on on-demand services with adult content? The Minister referred to the fact that many of the services that will be required for the first time to get a licence from Ofcom as a result of our leaving the European Union with no deal will be adult services—that is, content that we do not want to be available to people under the age of 18. Will there be any impact on the UK’s ability to place effective age restrictions on such services when they are treated on the same basis as on-demand services located in the rest of the world?
An opportunity offered by the SI has been lost. Why have the Government not taken the opportunity to create a level playing field for on-demand and linear services? If my understanding of the instrument is correct, a linear service wishing to operate in the UK—for example, German news broadcasting into the UK, licensed in a European Union state—will in future require an Ofcom licence to do so. The Government could surely have taken this opportunity to require all on-demand services to set up a presence here and to license in the UK. Why should on-demand providers not be required to be licensed and have a presence here if they do business in the United Kingdom, if such requirements are placed on linear services? Will the Minister at least commit today to launching a consultation on what licensing policy should be for all overseas services targeting the UK market?
Next, in relation to the need for broadcasters currently licensed by Ofcom to license in an EU jurisdiction post Brexit, what estimate has the Minister made of the number of jobs that will be transferred out of the United Kingdom as a result? The Government say in the impact assessment that there is no impact on businesses from a lot of these changes. The Minister knows, as I do, that many businesses are already making arrangements because of the future requirement to license in European Union countries. To make the country of origin principle effective, they will have to move their headquarters and a minimum editorial establishment. At this moment, jobs are being relocated out of the UK to Dublin, Amsterdam and Luxembourg as a result of that requirement. What estimate have the Government made of how many jobs will be affected by that and what the economic value of the jobs lost to the UK will be? If the Minister is able to tell the Committee what she knows about which companies are having to take those steps, that would be useful. We have read some press reports, as I mentioned earlier, but we do not have the full picture.
Which companies have told her Department that they are moving their editorial operation or headquarters out of the UK, and where are they relocating? What estimate has the Minister made of the likelihood that countries that are party to the Council of Europe ECTT will choose to use its provisions to continue broadcasting? Will she also clarify which of the Irish language services she referred to are exempted from licensing in the UK by this regulation?
Margot James
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s scrutiny of what he rightly calls a complex area post Brexit. The 50 or 60 companies that will for the first time require licences from Ofcom are foreign owned, which is why there is no requirement for an impact assessment, as impact assessments are designed to consider the cost implications of changes in regulations to UK-based companies.
The hon. Gentleman rightly describes the UK’s performance in film, broadcast and television as a great success. A sector that grows at 25% more than the average rate of the economy is certainly a success. In part, that success is indeed down to the very beneficial regime, the AVMSD. As he said, to comply with the requirements of one regulator allows transmission across the entire European Union. The entire European Union’s production in that sector grows by about 18% per annum, following the introduction of the directive. The UK constitutes 21% of the entire European television market, with 1,200 out of 3,000 European channels emanating from the UK. That sector is indeed a great success.
The hon. Gentleman talked about jobs transferring, and some companies have already started to seek licences elsewhere within the European Union. Discovery Channel, NBC, Sony and Turner are all seeking licences elsewhere. Of those four channels, only Sony proposes to move its European headquarters out of the UK. The other companies are content to seek a licence elsewhere, whether in the Netherlands, Ireland or Germany, and move a number of editorial staff so that they have a meaningful presence in the country that entitles them to the country of origin broadcasting privileges. At the moment, it is not possible to assess the number of jobs that are transferring and what will constitute a meaningful presence in a market to get the benefits of the European directive, but the signs are that the majority of companies will continue to operate in the UK, with a presence outside the UK should they need one to qualify for country of origin privileges.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the advertising of junk food and other such issues, which he is right to say that we are looking at, and the question of on-demand services licensed in the EU respecting UK rules on advertising foods high in fat, sugar, salt and so on. The UK has been unable to insist on country of destination rules up until now, either under AVMSD or through country of origin services that adhere only to host country rules. However, the existing standards will continue to apply.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Netflix and other video-on-demand providers, which are currently regulated differently. In practical terms, Netflix will still be regulated under AVMSD because, as he says, it is based in the Netherlands. The same content standards will apply after exit as now. We recognise that after exit we may need to consider a long-term and future-proofed approach to video-on-demand regulation.
I think that deals with most of the hon. Gentleman’s questions. I hope that the Committee has found the sitting informative.
Kevin Brennan
I also asked whether the Minister could tell us about the likelihood that countries that are party to the Council of Europe ECTT would choose to use its provisions? If she needs to write to me, I am happy for her to do that, because I realise that that is a technical question, I would be interested to have an answer. Perhaps she should to other Committee members as well, if that is acceptable to them.
Secondly, which Irish language services are exempted from licensing in the UK by the regulation? Again, if that information is not immediately to hand, I am happy for the Minister to communicate that to me and the rest of the Committee later.
Margot James
The hon. Gentleman is very generous. I will write to him with any further information. The ECTT guarantees similar content standards and freedom of reception between signatories, but as he will know, approximately six EU member states are not signatories to it. We will therefore not be relying on that, but I will write to him with any further technicalities associated with the ECTT. The Irish channels exempted from the requirement to seek Ofcom licences for continued transmission are the three that I mentioned: RTÉ One, RTÉ Two and TG4.
I commend the regulations to the Committee. I hope that Members will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has already indicated that he will do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Fisheries (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Fisheries (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
I am pleased to open this debate on an important set of regulations, and I am grateful to hon. Members for being here when, obviously, another debate is taking place in the main Chamber. The regulations give effect to, and enable enforcement of, certain common fisheries policy and marine management measures, as part of the legislation needed for exiting the European Union. The regulations are one piece of a jigsaw that will ensure we have a functioning legislative framework when we leave the European Union. This statutory instrument is one of two that work together to amend fisheries legislation to make it operable for EU exit. A separate statutory instrument—the Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019—has been laid in draft and will be debated at a later date. It amends the vast majority of directly applicable EU regulations, for example those concerning illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries.
The SI under consideration today makes consequential amendments to various pieces of domestic legislation that are used to enforce and enable the implementation of those directly applicable EU regulations. The primary legislation amended is the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, the Fisheries Act 1981 and the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. The amendments predominantly relate to enforcement powers. The secondary legislation amended is the Merchant Shipping Regulations 1993, the Sea Fisheries (Northern Ireland) Order 2002, the Tope (Prohibition of Fishing) Order 2008, the Eels (England and Wales) Regulations 2009, the Sea Fishing (Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing) Order 2009, the Fish Labelling Regulations 2013, the Sea Fishing (Points for Masters of Fishing Boats) Regulations 2014, the Sea Fishing (Enforcement and Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 2015, the Grants for Fishing and Aquaculture Industries Regulations 2015, and the Sea Fishing (Enforcement) Regulations 2018.
These lucky 13 pieces of legislation are simple and technical, to ensure that they operate correctly after EU exit. There are no changes to policy contained in the instrument. The instrument was considered by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and no concerns with the regulations were raised by either Committee. The former asked that we provide further explanation about the nature of the amendments. That has now been published in annex B of the revised explanatory memorandum.
The instrument is affirmative, as it amends existing powers to legislate, in particular in section 30(2) of the Fisheries Act 1981, and in the Sea Fisheries (Northern Ireland) Order 2002. The statutory instrument has therefore not been examined by the withdrawal Act sifting Committees.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
I rise to raise two issues with regard to section 30 of the Fisheries Act 1981, because of the effect it has on England and Wales, and on Scotland. Regulation 3(4)(b) under part 2, “Amendment of primary legislation”, mentions
“enforceable Community restrictions, and enforceable EU obligations”.
My understanding is that the Fisheries Act also refers to “enforceable EU restrictions”, so I wonder whether the intention is to leave in “enforceable EU restrictions” or to remove that part and replace it with something else. I rise as a new member of the Committee, unsure about how we go about amending a statutory instrument once it passes through here.
The same question arises with regard to regulation 3(4)(c), which states, in relation to section 30(2) of the Act,
“for ‘enforceable Community restriction or other’ substitute ‘retained EU restriction or retained EU’”.
It seems to be silent with regard to the enforceable EU restriction contained in the Act.
George Eustice
If there are any different answers, I will consider them before coming to my closing remarks, but I think the answer is that in all these cases our intention is to bring across retained EU law, the enforcement of which would then be done domestically. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that we do not want to retain anything in our domestic statute that could in future be enforceable by the EU itself. The purpose of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and indeed of these statutory instruments, is to ensure that we have an operable law book on day one, without leaving open the idea that the European Union could enforce anything under those.
Martin Whitfield
I am grateful for that explanation. It is therefore my understanding that the reference to EU restrictions would also have to be removed from the 1981 Act.
George Eustice
My view is that they should be retained EU restrictions, but I will have a specific look at that before the end of this debate. Those restrictions would be retained EU restrictions rather than EU restrictions per se.
The amendments made by this statutory instrument fall into four main categories. First, where there are references to “an enforceable EU obligation” or “enforceable EU restrictions”, these are amended to “a retained EU obligation” or “retained EU restrictions”, to ensure that they remain operable as part of retained EU law. For example, section 30 of the Fisheries Act 1981, which we have just discussed at some length, concerns the enforcement of EU rules relating to sea fishing. Amendments to section 30 change references to enforceable Community or EU obligations and restrictions to retained EU obligations and restrictions, to ensure continued operability of those enforcement provisions on EU exit. I hope that point reinforces what I have just explained to the hon. Member for East Lothian.
Secondly, there are some provisions that will be redundant or inoperable in UK law after EU exit. For example, paragraph 5 of schedule 4 to the merchant shipping regulations refers to an “EC number” in the list of details to be recorded on the register of British fishing vessels. That has been removed. Likewise, a reference to euros has been converted to pound sterling in the fish labelling regulations.
Thirdly, references to “member state or third country” are replaced in future simply with “third country”, because in this context existing EU member states will be categorised as third countries after we leave the European Union. For example, in article 3 of the Sea Fishing (Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing) Order 2009, the definition of a third-country fishing vessel, which was
“a fishing vessel which is not a Community fishing vessel”,
has been amended to,
“a fishing vessel which is not a United Kingdom fishing vessel”.
Finally, cross-references to EU regulations are amended to bring them into line with technical amendments made to those regulations in the main Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018. For example, in the fish labelling regulations, the designation of the Secretary of State to draw up a list of commercial designations of species has been deleted, because that is now provided for in Council Regulation (EC) 1379/2013, as amended by the main common fisheries policy SI. This is a consequential amendment arising from the amendments made by that SI.
This SI and the other UK-wide fisheries SIs have been developed and drafted in close co-operation with the devolved Administrations, reflecting the devolution settlements. The amendments made by this instrument mainly extend and apply to the United Kingdom, with some exceptions, so each of the devolved Administrations were heavily involved in developing the approach. A targeted engagement was carried out for the fisheries SIs, involving key stakeholders from the fisheries sector, the food industry and environmental non-governmental organisations. Additionally, a 10-week consultation was conducted through the fisheries White Paper, which described future fisheries policy as well as the legislative approach taken by these statutory instruments. Stakeholders were broadly supportive of the approach.
This legislation is complemented by the Fisheries Bill, which will deliver our promise to take back control of our waters and decide who may fish in them and on what terms. It creates the powers to allow us, over time, to build a sustainable and profitable fishing industry. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. The Minister says that the purpose of this SI is to preserve and protect the existing EU policy regime, rather than to introduce new policies. He has stood up and told us that there is nothing to worry about—his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), did the same yesterday in a similar Delegated Legislation Committee—because all they are doing is transposing EU law into UK law, replacing “Europe” with “UK” and “EU Commissioner” with “Secretary of State”, so we have nothing to worry about.
However, as we saw with the Fisheries Bill, at the start the Minister said the objectives were simply being copied over from the CFP, but we know that the date for maximum sustainable yield by 2020 was removed from the Bill and two new objectives were added. Things can change when laws are transposed. Secondary legislation ought to be used for technical, non-partisan, non-controversial changes, but the Government are continuing to push contentious legislation with high policy content through the SI process. I said last night in another Delegated Legislation Committee that we are concerned that we are being asked to wave through statutory instruments at breakneck speed without sufficient scrutiny.
A total of 343 SIs have been laid since June 2018. I did not get a reply to this question last night, so I would like to ask the Minister now. How many of those does he expect to be completed by exit day on 29 March? How many of those does he expect to be Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs SIs? The Government expect us to wave through hundreds of these hurried SIs. This particular one combines 13 pieces of legislation, and yesterday’s contained 21. That seems a lot of change to debate in such a short amount of time.
What methodology is the Minister’s Department using in grouping these 13 pieces of legislation, especially as this is a two-part SI, as he mentioned? There is a deep irony that Brexit was sold to the country as a way of taking back control when at every turn the Government have tried to thwart decent parliamentary scrutiny. We have an SI Committee here with a Government majority, even though they do not enjoy one in the House.
I worry about the Minister, because I know he is a very busy man, with two pieces of primary legislation and an awful lot of SIs, as well as running large chunks of the Department while his Secretary of State goes on manoeuvres. I do hope he has had enough time to look through all these SIs to ensure that there are no drafting defects, because we have had drafting defects in SIs before, which we need to look at.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian rightly raised concerns about the difference between retained EU restrictions and retained EU obligations. In regulations 3(4)(d), 3(5)(d), 4(2)(b), 4(4)(b)(ii) and 4(5)(b), references to “enforceable EU restriction” and “enforceable EU obligation” in the Fisheries Act 1981 and the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 are replaced with references to “retained EU restriction” and “retained EU obligation”. Although the SI includes a definition of EU restriction, there is no corresponding definition of retained EU obligation. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether, as defined in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, that applies to specific regulations and not SIs more generally. Will he clarify whether that was an intentional discrepancy or difference, and what the difference is between the retained EU obligation and that retained EU restriction, in how it will be enforced?
As I said to the Minister when we debated the Fisheries Bill in Committee, we do not leave the common fisheries policy every day—we do not leave the EU every day—so we need to ensure that we get it right. Because so much legislation is being amended in one bash, debated at most for the length of a football game, without the chance for amendments, without impact assessments or pre-impact assessments and with limited consultation, I am concerned that there may be unintended consequences. I am sure the Minister will recall when the Government had to amend their own red tape challenge a few years ago. The Government’s own memo said at the time:
“Defra is introducing this instrument to provide Inshore Fisheries Conservation Officers with powers to enforce a list of EU fisheries technical and conservation measures that were inadvertently revoked as part of the Red Tape Challenge.”
We know that such errors can and do happen and that there is a risk they will happen more frequently when SIs are hurried through without substantial stakeholder feedback.
Although a different Minister introduced yesterday’s statutory instrument, I spoke about the need for impact assessments, to ensure that the impact of these SIs is adequately understood. The explanatory note for this SI states:
“There is no, or no significant, impact.”
However, below that it states that there is to be no impact. There is a difference between no impact and no significant impact. I know that the Minister will not want to hide behind parliamentary protocol to define the difference between the two. Can he tell us whether there is to be an impact, no significant impact or some impact?
The explanatory note states:
“An Impact Assessment has not been prepared,”
because it is expected to have no impact. If no impact assessment was prepared, how does the Minister know that there will be no impact? Can he go into more detail? Was there a pre-impact assessment to inform whether an impact assessment was required? The wording of
“no, or no significant, impact”
is problematic. As we get through as many of these SIs as the Government intend to, will the Minister clarify this point. “No impact” and “no significant impact” are two very different things, and clarification would help stakeholders and parliamentarians to understand whether the Government have done their homework. They have put a broad spectrum between “no” and “no significant” impact.
Yesterday the Minister’s colleague told me that this was simply parliamentary drafting and that she herself had wanted to change the wording of the SI. Does today’s Minister agree with yesterday’s Minister that there is no or no significant impact, and did he too ask for the drafting to be changed? There is a difference and it really matters.
One of the huge unintended consequences of the SIs that we are considering is the potential loss of access to independent scientific expertise currently provided at EU level. We currently have access to EU-wide research and analysis that can help shape our decisions, but in future that will not necessarily be available to us. I want to look, in particular, at the Eels (England and Wales) Regulations 2009, which I am sure we have all familiarised ourselves with in advance of the Committee. Regulation 8(3) of this SI removes regulation 11 from those eels regulations, which states:
“This regulation applies where the Agency determines that a reduction in the fishing effort for eels is required in order to comply with Article 5(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007.”
That is about establishing measures for the recovery of European eel stocks.
When those elements are removed, it is important that we consider the potential for overfishing in this area. It also provides me with the opportunity to put the Minister on the spot in relation to recent news stories about coked-up eels in the River Thames becoming hyper-active because of the high levels of cocaine in the river. It could be that the eels are considering a future career in advertising or financial services, but I suspect that there are problems with high levels of cocaine. The Department has not yet commented on that story, so will the Minister say what steps it is taking to ensure that the high levels of cocaine do not affect our eels in future?
Concerns have also been raised about the changes to inshore fisheries and conservation officers. Regulation 14(3)(b) removes references to article 42 of the control regulation from the Sea Fishing (Enforcement) Regulations 2018, which were introduced only last year. I am concerned that regulations introduced only last year, effectively by the same Government pursuing the same policy on Brexit, now requires amendment less than 12 months later. People will not have confidence that the Department drafted complete legislation in the first place if, less than 12 months later, we have to redraft elements that were passed only a year ago, when our exit from the European Union was established Government policy.
The effect of that change is that inshore fisheries and conservation officers will no longer have the power to enforce article 42 of the control regulation, which states
“fishing vessels engaged in fisheries subject to a multi-annual plan shall not tranship their catches on board of any other vessel in a designated port or in places close to the shore unless they have been weighed in accordance with Article 60 of the Control Regulation.”
That presents a risk that the rules on weighing catches will be evaded and could result in overfishing. Will the Minister explain why the change has been made and whether the consequences have been mapped out?
Turning to the European maritime and fisheries fund, regulation 13 amends the Grants for Fishing and Aquaculture Industries Regulations 2015 procedures by omitting the EMFF. Following our departure from the EU, EMFF subsidies, which are worth around £30 million a year to coastal communities, will cease to be available to the UK industry. Although many fishing communities’ access to waters has often been limited by the CFP, they have benefited from EMFF funding. In our discussions on the Fisheries Bill, the Minister alluded to changes to the EMFF being announced in future. Given that this SI creates restrictions on access to that funding, will the Minister clarify whether the Government are committed to match every penny that goes to coastal communities from a replacement EMFF fund and when the details of that fund will be announced, especially as we are now fewer than 60 days away from leaving the European Union? It will be a requirement for those coastal communities to have access to funding, which is currently uncertain.
I know that the Minister and the Government are under huge pressure to dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s before we leave the EU, but the number of concerns raised by stakeholders, combined with the manner in which these SIs are often rushed out, suggest that there has not been enough time offered for consultation and pre-lay scrutiny. In yesterday’s SI we heard about the wondrous reading room that DEFRA has assembled for its SIs, which has been offered to stakeholders for prelegislative scrutiny of some SIs. Can he tell us how many stakeholders have taken part in the reading room activities on this SI? How much notice are stakeholders given to access SIs in the reading room, and will he publish details of their concerns? We have also had questions on how stakeholders who are not currently privy to the reading room can gain access.
In yesterday’s discussion I raised with the Minister a suggestion from a noble Baroness in the other place about parliamentarians’ access to the SI reading room. Before SIs are formally laid in the House, we could have access to that pre-lay scrutiny, as other stakeholders have. It is important that Members of different parties are willing to get these regulations right. Access for parliamentarians, especially those with a particular interest in these regulations, could help improve the legislation.
Before I conclude, I remind the Minister that there is something missing from this SI, which relates to a commitment he gave in the Fisheries Bill to ban electric pulse beam fishing. He promised in Committee that he would share a draft SI to ban the cruel use of electric pulse fishing in UK waters when we leave the common fisheries policy. He will recall that the Opposition tabled amendment 66 to the Fisheries Bill on 13 December 2018. On the Government side, the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) tabled amendment 92. Both amendments aim to prohibit electric pulse fishing within British fishery limits, a policy proposal that enjoys cross-party and large stakeholder support, especially in our coastal communities.
Members of different parties made good arguments in support of those amendments. They were supported by the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party but, due to assurances made by the Minister in his response, neither I nor the hon. Member for Waveney pushed the amendments to a vote, which would have likely secured a change in the wording of the Bill and a Government defeat. In his response, the Minister proposed that
“the pulse trawling prohibition and the derogation are contained in technical conservation regulation 850/98. Article 31 of that regulation establishes the pulse trawling prohibition, and article 31a establishes the derogation. Under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, regulation 850/98 will be coming across into UK law.”
He then said:
“We anticipate laying a statutory instrument to give effect to that in January”.
He gave assurances that
“placing this new clause on the face of the Bill is unnecessary”
and said:
“I am happy to share the draft of the statutory instrument that we intend to introduce in January with my hon. Friend and the shadow Minister before Report”.—[Official Report, 18 December 2018; Vol. 652, c. 232-233.]
I had hoped to work with the Minister on drafting that important SI. I politely remind him that we have two days left in January for that SI to be shared with me. I have written to him to ask for a meeting to discuss the SI but am yet to receive a response. I ask him to address in his remarks how much of that SI has been drafted already, and whether stakeholders have been consulted. When he lays it, does he intend to put it in the reading room for stakeholders’ pre-lay scrutiny, and will he give parliamentarians, especially Members who sat on the Fisheries Bill Committee, advance notice to feed into that debate?
When we considered amendments to the Fisheries Bill, I said that if we did not have a sufficiently robust SI, the Opposition would table an amendment on Report. I know that the Minister takes this area very seriously, and I say to him in all sincerity that we have 48 hours to make good on his commitment. I would be grateful if he not only replied to my letter on this, but addressed the substantive subject of electric pulse beam fishing. There is cross-party agreement that we should not have it in UK waters and that we should not allow access to Dutch trawlers that, in effect, now operate a commercial fishery for electric pulse beam trawling. It causes so much devastation, especially in the North sea.
I am concerned that there is not enough in this SI that has been properly consulted on, and stakeholders have concerns about the speed with which these SIs are being hurried through. I think there is genuine concern about some elements of this SI, and I would be grateful if the Minister addressed those when he makes his concluding remarks.
George Eustice
The hon. Gentleman’s comments went somewhat outside scope towards the end. I will first address those pertinent to this particular order and then touch on some of the points he made at the end, although obviously they are also for discussion at a later date.
The first point to make, which is important, is that it is great that Parliament has—for the first time—the opportunity to debate these issues at all. Let us not forget that, as an EU member, our Parliament scarcely debated these technical issues: they came down through delegated Acts from the European Commission, and there was no parliamentary scrutiny or involvement at all.
Indeed, in the context of the so-called Henry VIII powers, it is important to recognise that probably the largest Henry VIII power used in recent times was the European Communities Act 1972 itself, which used to change our primary legislation willy-nilly. Many of the changes we are making to primary legislation here are simply changing a reference from EU law to retained EU law, when the power itself was initially created by that 1972 Act. Let us recognise that, in bringing forward these statutory instruments, we are re-establishing parliamentary scrutiny to this area for the first time in almost half a century. I welcome that.
The hon. Gentleman asks how many of these statutory instruments the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has; he mentioned that there were over 300 in total. As he may know, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has 98 statutory instruments to get through. He asks when we will get those passed. We will do that by exit day on 29 March. We all recognise—and it has been speculated about—that, if necessary, Parliament may have to sit longer hours to ensure that we get this job done on time. But it is absolutely our plan and intention to lay all those 98 regulations, and to pass them in time for exit day on 29 March.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the grouping. There is a large number of these SIs, so it makes sense to group them. The methodology we are applying is simply to do with the similarity of subjects. I will explain this in the context of these SIs: had we laid the second SI that deals with directly applicable EU law in time, I probably would have advised that we group the two together. But in the event, that one was not laid before this one had a debating slot, so I said we should press ahead with this one anyway. The two go reasonably well together, however, and that is why I alluded to it in the first instance. One deals with directly applicable EU law and the other deals with consequential amendments to domestic EU law, particularly around enforcement. In all other areas, where they cover similar subjects but where—for good legal order—it makes sense to have them on separate orders, we are seeking to group those.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the term “retained EU obligation” and wanted me to explain what that means. That meaning is set out clearly in schedule 8 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. On page 92, it defines a “retained EU obligation” as meaning an obligation that, first,
“was created or arose by or under the EU Treaties before exit day”
and, secondly,
“forms part of retained EU law”
as modified from that time. That interpretation was set out in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and that amendment made consequential changes to the Interpretation Act 1978. The legal understanding of a “retained EU obligation” is clear and already in statute, and therefore does not need to be addressed in this order.
The hon. Gentleman asks what we mean by “no impact”, and how we can possibly know that there is no impact, or no meaningful impact. I simply say this: it is because, right across the board, these statutory instruments are—by definition—about simply continuing, as far as we are able to, the legislative book that we have, so that on day one of leaving the European Union our legal book is exactly the same as it was on day one before we left, save that there will be different institutions and Government Ministers responsible for enforcing those.
The reason why we can confidently say that there will be no impact is that we seek to make no change with the regulations. On whether there will be any meaningful impact in some cases, one could argue that if someone was changing currency from euro to sterling, there might be some familiarisation issues. If one was changing the precise nature of what needs to be recorded on a particular piece of paper, there might be some mild familiarisation issues. We think that those will be negligible, but they are why we include the term “no significant impact”.
The hon. Gentleman asked about our scientific expertise. We will be re-joining the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and will play a full part, as an independent coastal state, to develop science for our fisheries. It is also important to recognise that, although the European Union has a role in interpreting some of the science and making recommendations based on it, the collection of the science is done largely by CEFAS—our own fisheries science agency—through its survey vessels, such as the Endeavour, and through some of the other data that it captures. The collection of the raw data of the science is currently done by CEFAS, which is a world-leading agency. Indeed, it is probably the most important contributor to the EU understanding of fisheries science, and we will continue to have access to that after we leave.
The hon. Gentleman made a number of other points. He asked me to comment on coked-up eels in the Thames. Obviously, that is some way outside the scope of the regulations, but I am sure that we will be able to address the issue should it become a problem once we are an independent coastal state and can tackle such issues. Obviously, the report was a matter of some concern. He also asked specifically about the eel regulations and, in particular, why regulation 11 had been omitted. I am told that that was a time-limited provision applicable only in 2010, so it was therefore a redundant provision that it would have made no sense to keep in the SI.
Luke Pollard
Coked-up eels are an important issue, although I did seek to make light of it. There are two paragraphs in regulation 11 of the 2009 regulations, which was omitted. Paragraph (2) is the time-limited element and came to an end in 2010. Paragraph (1), however, did not. I would be grateful if the Minister asked his officials to look at the difference between paragraphs (1) and (2).
George Eustice
I will seek clarification and may get an update on the difference between paragraphs (1) and (2) before I conclude my comments.
The hon. Gentleman also made some comments about the replacement for the EMFF. As he will know, the Fisheries Bill, which we debated in Committee, creates the powers for us to issue grants to coastal communities and to fishermen to help them invest in more selective gear. It is absolutely our plan to replace the EMFF funds with future fisheries funds to support selective fishing and our coastal communities.
On pulse fishing, nothing has changed. Our intention is absolutely to bring a statutory instrument forward. Hon. Members will have noticed that these days, the House has a just-in-time delivery approach to legislation and agreements, but I absolutely stand by the undertaking that I gave.
Our intention is to lay the instrument during the month of January, but I will share it with the hon. Gentleman and with my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, who tabled an amendment to the Bill on the matter, before the Bill reaches Report. I repeat that undertaking, which I gave to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that we will lay that particular instrument before the end of the month. If we do not, because we are unable to achieve those best endeavours as we had hoped in December, we will nevertheless not move to Report until we have done so and the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend have had an opportunity to debate it.
In conclusion, these amendments are simple but necessary to ensure that certain CFP and marine management measures continue to operate effectively and can be enforced after the UK leaves the EU. The technical connections to domestic legislation are important to enable the continued enforcement and maintenance of sustainable fisheries management in the UK. The instrument marks an important step towards having a cohesive statute book for exit day and provides us with a solid foundation.
Martin Whitfield
I hope the Minister can satisfy two problems in one. To return to my earlier intervention, is he satisfied that the drafting in the statutory instrument gets over the problem of its miswording as compared with the Act? Does it achieve what he wants to achieve—to transfer the EU regulations and make them enforceable, albeit with a different title?
George Eustice
Yes, I am satisfied, based on the point I raised with the hon. Gentleman earlier. Replacing
“enforceable Community restrictions, and enforceable EU obligations”
with
“retained EU restrictions and retained EU obligations”
covers all those things. It is very clear that the provision is in the context of retained EU obligations and restrictions, rather than EU obligations and restrictions themselves.
Martin Whitfield
For my own satisfaction as much as anything else, the 1981 Act talks about
“enforceable Community restrictions, enforceable EU restrictions, and enforceable EU obligations”,
yet the quote that has been lifted—the quote that will be replaced—discusses only
“enforceable Community restrictions, and enforceable EU obligations”.
It therefore omits four crucial words. The SI then repeats the four words by putting them back in. The thing that concerns me is that when people come to reconcile the 1981 Act with the statutory instrument, there may be a duplication or error, in which case people will have to go back to statutory interpretation. They may need to have to look at the notes to decide what we meant.
George Eustice
What I will do is check the hon. Gentleman’s point and write to him. This is a point he has persisted with. I feel I have answered him, and from the notes I have seen, I am satisfied that the regulations address the two things and catch all the possibilities. I will double-check the specific point he makes just to ensure there are no omissions in the language.
I turn to the point that the shadow Minister raised about the all-important eels regulations. Regulation 11(1) states that it
“applies where the Agency determines that a reduction in the fishing effort for eels is required in order to comply with Article 5(4)”.
Article 5(4) is being deleted, because it relates to the setting up of eel management plans. That has already been completed. The two provisions are linked, in that one was effectively a requirement on the Environment Agency to determine those reductions, but that was in the context of the bit we deleted. Both become redundant, since they relate to one another.
In conclusion, we have had a comprehensive discussion on the regulations. I am grateful to Members for raising points of detail on them, which are important. The shadow Minister is right that we need to get it right. We have embarked on a huge endeavour.
Luke Pollard
Before the Minister sits down, will he address the point about parliamentarians having access to the pre-lay reading room? If he cannot answer that immediately, will he endeavour to write to us? An element of additional scrutiny is needed, especially considering the volume of SIs and the speed with which the Government intend to bring them forward. There is a lack of an opportunity to scrutinise. Scrutiny of SIs would normally happen every now and again, but in this time there is a risk of it happening every single day, and we may miss out on the opportunity. It should be made easier. Will the Minister endeavour to write to me?
George Eustice
The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point, but it goes beyond something I am able to agree here, since the Government across the board are looking at the issues and different Departments are approaching them in different ways. I will take away his suggestion.
The hon. Gentleman asked a question about stakeholders. We are fairly open to allowing them to come in and discuss any concerns they have with us. We have a comprehensive list of fisheries stakeholders, notably the green NGOs, which already attend a number of the events we have. All the fishing representative organisations are invited as well. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Fisheries (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Draft Maritime Transport Access to Trade and Cabotage (Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 2 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 Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Maritime Transport Access to Trade and Cabotage (Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker, in this oasis of calm on this ordinary Tuesday afternoon. The Department for Transport has conducted intensive work to prepare for the UK’s departure from the EU, which includes ensuring that our statute book continues to function. The Department plans to lay about 65 statutory instruments before exit day; I believe that 44 of those have already been laid.
The regulations before the Committee revoke EU legislation that would otherwise be retained in UK law under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. For the most part, that legislation would be redundant after we leave the EU; it would have no effect. For example, Council regulation 4058/86 is about anti-competitive measures taken by non-EU countries. It allows member states to ask the European Commission to co-ordinate retaliatory action against such countries. That remedy will not be available to the UK when we are no longer a member state.
EU regulation 3577/92 gives member states rights to provide maritime cabotage with another member state. For the information of hon. Members, I should say that “cabotage” in this context is essentially the operation of ships between two UK ports, or one-port operations to and from an offshore site. If we do not revoke that regulation, it will be retained in UK law, which would mean that member states would continue to have cabotage rights in UK waters but UK vessels would no longer have such rights across EU waters.
It is important to say that the UK has no intention of restricting cabotage by EU vessels in UK waters. By removing the statutory rights provided in the regulation, we are simply putting EU vessels on the same footing as vessels from other countries: that is, they will continue to be able to operate cabotage without any express statutory right.
In preparing this legislation, the Department has discussed the scale of activity with the UK Chamber of Shipping. In practice, relatively little cabotage is undertaken by UK-flagged vessels in EU waters. Furthermore, a number of EU countries have an open approach to cabotage, as do we. We expect there to be very little change in the provision of cabotage by UK operators in EU waters after the UK leaves the EU, and these regulations do not change that position.
There is also no reason to believe that the regulations will have any effect on service provision by EU operators in UK waters. As I mentioned, the UK has no intention of restricting cabotage: we believe that an open approach promotes competition, leading to better and more efficient services. However, the UK does not intend for member state cabotage rights to continue to be expressly guaranteed in UK legislation.
The changes made by these regulations are appropriate to ensure that on exit day, the UK statute book does not contain regulations that are redundant. The regulations are fully supported by the Government, and I commend them to the Committee.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Walker, and to serve under your chairmanship. As the Minister has mentioned, this instrument revokes legislation related to trade and cabotage that the UK will no longer benefit from, or be subject to, when we leave the European Union. All the regulations will either be revoked completely or replaced by existing UK law.
The instrument effectively takes away—albeit indirectly —the legal implementation of our signing of the OECD shipping principles for access from third countries’ flagged ships for international shipping, which is council regulation 4057/86 of 22 December 1986 on unfair pricing practices in maritime transport. Without a direct UK replacement, doing so would be a backwards step, and the instrument does not make clear how or when a replacement will be introduced.
Council regulation 3577/92 applies the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within member states—that is, maritime cabotage. My understanding is that the instrument states that that principle will be retained in UK law, but does not adequately explain how. For example, it does not make clear the timeline between revocation of the EU regulation and its retention in UK law. What impact will the instrument have on public contracts that use that regulation that are currently out to tender? Again, the instrument does not cover that.
The explanatory memorandum states:
“The UK Government has agreed with its Scottish and Welsh counterparts to draft”
amendments to the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 2006. Will there be wider consultation on the draft regulations with trade unions, passenger groups and other stakeholders? The instrument does not make that clear at all.
Given that the Government refuse to rule out a disastrous no-deal Brexit, I wonder whether the Minister call tell us what assessment has been made of what the removal of cabotage rights will mean for UK shippers in a no-deal scenario. Have the Government made any attempt to negotiate guarantees for the extension of maritime cabotage rights with the EU in a no-deal situation? Are the Government seeking to agree reciprocal cabotage rights for EU and UK shippers as part of our longer-term relationship with the EU? Has the Minister spoken to her EU counterparts about the possibility, and is she confident of achieving that objective? Without real clarification of those points, I will struggle to say that the Opposition can support the instrument.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I rise very briefly to make just a few points. Following on from what the shadow Minister said, the Scottish National party has grave concerns that the UK Government do not intend, through this instrument, to ensure that cabotage rights for EU member states continue to be expressly guaranteed in UK legislation. That creates an essential issue of trust between European Union members and the UK, which will be outside the EU; it seems that the UK Government are not reciprocating their trust.
Continuity is critical as we are taken out of the EU. Many Opposition Members have supported instruments related to our leaving the EU because we want to maintain continuity. How can we support an instrument that does not do so? It seems the instrument would have an unacceptable impact on maritime trade, because it actively rescinds the basis on which EU ships transport, import and export, and breaks the EU shipping regime’s safety and environmental standards. Finally, the instrument does not provide continuity for shipping arrangements after we leave the EU. Therefore, at this moment in time, the SNP will not support it.
Ms Ghani
I am grateful to the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull East and for West Dunbartonshire for their contributions, which underline the importance of the maritime sector to the UK’s trading capacity and success. It is important that people understand that, despite revoking EU legislation, the UK will still operate a liberal cabotage regime. That means shipping companies registered in EU member states will still be able to operate in the UK as they do now, so very little will change.
Competition was mentioned. After exiting the EU, the UK will have a robust competition regime, overseen by the Competition and Markets Authority, and will be able to take trade remedies action in its own right under the aegis of the World Trade Organisation. If hon. Members have concerns about what may or may not happen in a no-deal scenario—obviously, this instrument is intended to ensure that we have everything in place for such a scenario—I suggest that they support the Prime Minister’s deal.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East mentioned consultation with unions. We undertook extensive consultation, not only with the UK Chamber of Shipping but with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. We can discuss many issues, but we need to ensure that, in a no-deal scenario, we continue doing business as we do today. That is what this statutory instrument is about.
Karl Turner
On consultation, have there been any discussions with the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, which represents many crew members on vessels?
Ms Ghani
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. We are not only blessed with the International Maritime Organisation, across the water, but the maritime sector is a global sector and one that we take very seriously. Only last week, we launched “Maritime 2050”, working with all stakeholders. We communicate with as many agencies as we can. We want to do what we can to ensure that the maritime sector in the UK continues to be as robust as it is.
I turn to cabotage. The draft regulations will make no practical difference to cabotage arrangements in UK waters. Operators from EU or non-EU countries will be able to continue to provide cabotage services as they do now. However, EU operators will no longer have guaranteed rights, which operators from other countries similarly do not have in UK waters. Such rights would not be reciprocated for UK operators in EU waters, so it is reasonable for us to revoke them.
Karl Turner
I am afraid the Minister did not answer my question. The question is, what discussions has the Minister had with the Rail, Maritime and Transport union, which happens to be the biggest trade union in the sector, representing seafarers in this country? It seems incredible to me that the Government have not had any discussions with the RMT union. Will she be clear about that quite simple point?
Ms Ghani
What is incredible is that the RMT did not update the hon. Gentleman to say that we did indeed speak to it recently. The union made it very clear that this piece of legislation does not adversely affect its practical interests in any way. Perhaps that is the incredible piece of information that he can take back to the RMT.
The changes made in the draft regulations are appropriate. They will remove from the UK statute book regulations that would otherwise be retained after EU withdrawal. They are fully supported by the Government, and I commend them to the Committee.
Karl Turner
I am afraid that I am not at all persuaded by what the Minister said. For that reason, the Opposition cannot support this draft instrument.
Question put.
Draft Invasive Non-native Species (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 2 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 Invasive Non-native Species (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. As the Committee will be aware, we are bringing forward legislation reflecting the fact that, in 2016, the population of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, to which Parliament subsequently agreed by passing the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Through the Act, we have the mechanism to ensure the transfer into UK law of legislation that is not already in place in UK law, so that the law will operate in the same way on the day after we leave the European Union as on the day before we leave the European Union.
The draft instrument will ensure that legislation preventing and managing the introduction and spread of invasive non-native species will continue to function when the UK has left the European Union. The cost of threats from invasive species has been estimated at £1.8 billion per annum and, since 2008, a Great Britain-wide strategy has been in place to deliver action to address the threats posed by such species. The draft instrument is being introduced under the correcting powers in section 8 of the 2018 Act. Principally, it makes amendments to the directly applicable EU regulation on invasive non-native species to address technical operability issues as a consequence of EU exit.
The devolved Administrations were closely engaged in developing the statutory instrument. As set out in part 1, it applies to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It also extends to Scotland in respect of imports and exports, and to the offshore marine area. Domestic implementation of policy on non-native invasive species is a devolved matter. The Scottish Government have chosen to make the rest of the regulation operable in Scotland by means of their own secondary legislation, as is their right.
The draft instrument maintains existing safeguards. It does not create new policy or change current policy, and does not therefore put any new or greater administrative or economic burdens on businesses or other stakeholders. Although there was no statutory requirement to consult publicly on the instrument, officials have held discussions with key stakeholders from different sectors in its development. Stakeholders had the opportunity to view the draft instrument before it was laid before Parliament and did not raise any concerns. In fact, the first time we were made aware of any concerns was by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals last Thursday, and I am happy to answer questions on that. In essence, a lot of the issues the RSPCA raised will be addressed by the enforcement regulations—another statutory instrument will be introduced once this SI has been passed—which also refer to elements of policy on management plans, muntjac deer, raccoon dogs and similar issues. The constraint in the 2018 Act’s mechanism for introducing SIs is that this is not about changing policy, but about making the law operable, and it would not therefore be appropriate to make those changes at this point or in this SI.
Part 2 the draft instrument makes a small amendment to section 11 of the Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932, which, I should point out, does not apply to Northern Ireland and never has. The amendment ensures that we treat EU member states in the same way as other countries with regard to the restrictions on imports of species to which the 1932 Act applies.
Part 3 sets out the rest of the amendments made by the draft instrument, some of which are purely textual, such as removing references in the EU legislation to the UK as an EU member state. Others make devolved Ministers responsible for a range of measures necessary to operate the existing system, such as the obligation to establish and implement action plans to address the pathways of introduction and spread of these species.
The existing EU list of species, which is fundamental to preventing and managing the spread and introduction of invasive species, will continue to apply across all parts of the UK on exit day. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and in Scotland for imports and exports, the EU list will become the list of species of special concern. We will retain the requirement to review this list at least every six years. Any change to the list will be informed by robust scientific advice provided by the UK replacement for the Commission’s scientific forum, and the underpinning risk analysis will be based on the criteria and principles set out in the EU regulation. A decision to amend the list can be made only by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Ministers in the other parts of the United Kingdom.
The instrument retains the obligation for Ministers to be supported by a committee and advised by a scientific forum. We propose that the Programme Board on Non-native Species, drawing on existing and extensive knowledge and experience, take on the role of the EU Committee, and the Non-native Risk Analysis Panel, which is often referred to as NNRAP, will take on the role of the EU’s scientific forum. These GB bodies will be extended to include Northern Ireland. The programme board delivers strategic consideration of the threat of invasive non-native species and is made up of senior representatives from across the Great Britain Administrations and their agencies.
The UK has significant expertise in invasive non-native species, including in the area of risk analysis, where we are among the leaders within Europe. NNRAP is a core group of risk analysis experts, chaired by Professor John Mumford of Imperial College London, who provide advice on risks associated with non-native species and pathways of introduction. We will continue to draw on the expertise of these highly respected scientists from the UK and overseas.
Invasive non-native species are no respecters of boundaries or borders, and the United Kingdom is committed to ongoing co-operation with the EU, its member states and other countries after exit. This instrument retains the obligation under the EU regulation for Ministers to make every effort to ensure close co-ordination with other countries, including, where appropriate, under regional and international agreements. There are strong references to that in the convention on biological diversity and the Bern convention, which we are already full members of.
With regard to ensuring transparency and accountability of environmental performance, the instrument will still require Ministers, in line with the current regulation, to report by June 2019, and every six years thereafter, on the implementation of the regulation, as well as to retain the duty to review and report by June 2021 on how the regulation has operated. More broadly, the Government published draft clauses on environmental principles just before Christmas to provide for independent scrutiny of the UK Government on the implementation of environmental law, and those are currently undergoing pre-legislative scrutiny via the Environmental Audit Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
The Government were strongly supportive of the strict measures in the EU invasives regulation when it came into force in 2015. These measures remain essential to tackle the significant threats that these species pose to our native plants and animals, and this instrument will ensure operability so that the strict protections that are in place for these species are maintained when we leave the European Union.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I welcome the Minister to her place; we will see an awful lot of one another in the coming weeks. I am not sure which of the 88 SIs we have to get through before the end of March this one is, but she is no doubt ticking them off on her calendar every day.
I will start by making the point that this process is not the way to run any Government; it is not effective scrutiny. As an Opposition, we will do the best we can, but the reality is that this process is being greatly rushed. It is difficult to know the enormity of what we are all taking on, because although this SI looks like a bit of a nothing SI, in fact, as anyone who reads anything about animal or plant diseases knows, these species could, effectively, wipe out the United Kingdom if we get this process wrong. Sadly, there is every chance that we will get it wrong.
I will also make the point that, as much as the civil service has done a very effective job—I am sure of that—a lot of this process is about taking out the words “Member State” and sticking in their place the words “appropriate authority”. I do not know how much European legislation and regulation over the last 45 years will be affected, but someone has had to do an awful lot of work, and I do not know whether they have done it well or whether they have covered all the bases.
The one bit of good news is, of course, that if any species are about to invade the British Isles, they can at least now get a British passport. That, no doubt, will make all the difference in terms of whether they arrive or not. [Laughter.] I am glad you got the joke, Mr Evans —at least you are awake.
This statutory instrument matters. I asked a parliamentary question in December about trees and tree diseases. There are now 1,820 notifiable tree diseases that affect various species in this country. The idea that this is a marginal, out-of-the-way statutory instrument misses the main point that disease is ever-present. We know that ash dieback and oak processionary moth have taken out our major trees in this country. We have to look at the impact very carefully.
When I sat on the EFRA Committee some years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) and I looked at the environmental liability directive. When you get into these things, you realise the implications in terms of not only the diseases that have come in, but who was responsible for them—if they were spread by humankind. It is very difficult to lay the blame; we still do not know what caused foot and mouth back in the early noughties, although there are those who make allegations about how it was brought into this country. To put that into perspective, it cost the British economy £8 billion. Thankfully, the rerun was not as bad. As the Minister said, a cost of £1.8 billion a year has been allocated to the implications of the issues before us. So we are on our guard, because we know what the implications of these things can be.
I have a number of questions, which I accept that the Minister may not be able to entirely answer, so I am quite happy for her to write to me. I make the point again that I made throughout the Agriculture Bill Committee—many of us are in the same place again today: it is rather strange that we cannot even get the four nations of the United Kingdom to agree to some commonality over something as basic as invasive species control. That does not bode well for the future. Scotland may well be very competent to bring forward its own secondary legislation, but for those who farm on the Scottish borders it is not much consolation that Scotland will do things in its own way. It may do them better than us, or it may do them worse than us, but the fact is that it is not doing them with us. That undermined the effectiveness of the Agriculture Bill, which is still in this place, and, sadly, it is likely to mean that we will have some conflict if there is a disease outbreak between Scotland and England. It does not look good that we cannot even get the four countries of the United Kingdom to agree on a particular policy.
The House of Lords voted on this measure last week—I thought it was quite a good debate. A number of questions arose that the Government have not yet answered. First, my noble Friend Lord Adonis asked the Minister, Lord Gardiner, what other pieces of legislation this measure was in synch with. He asked what had happened to the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. They were on the Order Paper for debate last week, but did not come forward.
The explanation was that they had been stuck in a Joint Committee, but it makes it very difficult, certainly for the Opposition, to make sense of these issues when things are put on the Order Paper and expected to be debated—and it makes sense that they are debated together—but they then disappear. Likewise, I am not sure about the link—the Minister did refer to it—between this measure and the Invasive Non-native Species (Enforcement and Permitting) Regulations 2019, which clearly has an impact on the grey squirrel, muntjac and other species. What measures are being taken against those particular invasive species? It would be nice to know what the order of these bits of legislation is and what happens if we pass this one, which we may well do today, but then we have these other SIs, which have not been passed. We have just over a month before 29 March, but it is not at all clear where we will be in terms of the whole way in which the Government are performing.
Let me quickly look at what the Lords came up with. Among the key things they identified was that the preamble to much of the European regulation regarding invasive alien species is not included in this secondary legislation. Yet, according to all the different non-governmental organisations I have been in touch with, that is quite an important element of the way we lay down how these invasive species are dealt with. It would be interesting to know whether the Government have looked at how they can include that preamble not in today’s statutory instrument, obviously, but in a future statutory instrument.
In terms of what the Minister said about how we cobble together the organisations that will take over from the EU, I am a little confused about where this all fits with regard to the draft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill, and particularly the office for environmental protection. Will the office for environmental protection oversee this piece of legislation, even though specific bodies she has referred to may have been given responsibility? The criticism advanced by those who welcome the Bill but who would say it needs to go further is that they are not sure what that body’s powers and responsibilities will be. It would be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
This SI does not seem to change policy, but why was the Government’s commitment in this field—the Secretary of State has said on many occasions that they intend to enhance our environmental credentials—not taken up in regard to this SI? Are we just going to cut and paste from existing European regulations, which does not improve our environmental credentials at all?
It is unclear why there was no impact assessment. The Government argued that one was not necessary, because the regulations did not have a particular impact on the public or private sectors, but that seems strange, given that they will have a huge impact if they go wrong. It would be interesting to know what analysis has been done of the additional costs on business, individuals and the public sector if—as is likely—we find there is an impact as a result of invasive species coming on to our shores. That is linked with enforcement, because although we have these new bodies, I am not clear what powers they will have.
That links directly to the enforcement and permitting regulations. Have they been consulted on and agreed? The Minister could nod or not. Those regulations are the one bit of this that have been quite controversial. They effectively mean that if a rescue centre takes in a squirrel, the centre is told to dispatch it, because it will not be able to release it back into the wild. There are implications for muntjac as well. I am not clear what powers will be there or who will enforce them. Are we talking about a series of fines for people who take in a grey squirrel that may be injured? Again, that is not clear. It is all involved with the enforcement regime. The RSPCA and other animal aid organisations have been very unhappy in terms of whether this could ever be enforced or properly introduced.
I have a few more questions for the Minister. The consultation on these regulations was undertaken on an “informal” and “limited” basis. I am not sure whether we should introduce legislation without consulting the appropriate organisations. The consulted organisations were rather limited—for example, I do not believe that the National Farmers Union was consulted, even though the regulations will have a big impact on British agriculture if and when they go wrong. It would be useful to know whether the Government, as part of their environmental Bill, which is a good bit of legislation, intend to have a much bigger consultation to ensure that people are fully informed on the impact of alien invasive species.
I have two more questions, and I am sure other hon. Members will have others. On the responsibilities exercised by the current EU bodies, to what extent—I think particularly of the trade control and expert system database—will we still have access to operational functions that the EU carries out? The EU has always been at its best in recognising that this is a pan-European problem; we cannot pretend that it just starts and ends at our coast. That is particularly important, because these issues affect marine species, as well as species on the land and in the air. I am not sure what we will do about the TRACES database—it is important, because it is something we share. British influence has been fundamental in the way we have built up that collection of data. It would be interesting to know whether we will have access to it or whether we will have to set up our own. Should the EU have an outbreak, will we get to share that information? That really matters, because when something happens, it will be too late. We need to do much more preventive and precautionary work.
My final question is the usual one. Should we crash out of the EU on 29 March, this legislation will presumably come into play immediately. There is no transition, so it has to be foolproof, but it is not clear how the different SIs fit in. It is unclear what we will be able to execute. There are no bodies at the moment; they are not set up. We have no environmental Bill or office for environmental protection. It would be interesting to know what contingencies the Minister has put in place, should we end up in a no-deal scenario and face an immediate problem, given that African swine fever is already on the continent and is, sadly, coming our way. We have done our best to prevent that, but we have to be very aware of these things.
Those are a number of questions, which I am sure the Minister will try to answer. I am happy for her to write to me on some of them. This SI is really important, but it does not look to be anything other than a cut and paste from the current EU regulation. Should it go wrong, it will have a major impact on our economy and on people living here, particularly in the farm economy. I hope that we get more warning of what measures are coming our way—this one was quite a sudden imposition on us today—and that we get to know the fuller picture, which the Government should give us. If nothing else, they have to explain to the people affected what should be done in preparation, particularly if we crash out, and what we should do anyway, as a country, in terms of good preparation work to forestall the worst impact of these invasive alien species.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your wise chairmanship, Mr Evans.
I listened to the Minister’s speech intently, and I have three specific questions to ask for the record. She talked about the scrutiny committees. Will she clarify whether they will be independent, and what weight they will have when their recommendations come to the Government? Secondly, will the UK have continued access to the EU invasive alien species information system? Thirdly, will the Government continue their commitment to ensure that UK invasive species legislation and public policy aligns with the Bern convention, the convention on biological diversity and the UN sustainable development goals?
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Will the Minister clarify what she said about the statutory instrument being relevant to the campaign to control the spread of the grey squirrel and, by implication, to defend our native red squirrel? Will she update the Committee on how the campaign is going and, in that context, on whether the Government consider the ring-necked parakeet to be a non-native invasive species? The birds are extremely loud and numerous in many parts of the country. They are not only driving out our domestic birds but disturbing the peace significantly, in particular in the summer months in gardens and parks in a growing part of England.
Will the Minister comment on how the SI will protect the status of the very large proportion of EU nationals who work for our plant and animal health services? As she knows, they make a huge contribution and have done so for many years. What can she say to reassure them about their future after the end of March?
At the end of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, he asked how foolproof the SI is in the event of a crash-out no deal. Will the Minister clarify that? Is the SI fit for purpose in the event that the Government get the deal, and will it still be fit for purpose and do everything that she hopes and wants it to do if there is a crash-out no deal?
Will the Minister update the Committee on progress in the processing of the very large number of SIs coming before the House from her Department and other Departments? In the Health Committee yesterday, I asked the Health Secretary whether he was confident that the huge number of SIs due to come before the House in the next few weeks would get through in time for the end of March, even just those required for a no-deal crash-out Brexit. That follows comments by the Minister’s neighbouring former MP in Suffolk, Ben Gummer, in the Evening Standard yesterday. He said that it was simply impossible for the Government to get all the necessary legislation on to the statute book by the end of March. The Health Secretary denied that; he said that he was very confident, at least with SIs in his departmental responsibility, that they would get through. How confident is the Minister that all the relevant and necessary Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs SIs will get through in time?
The other remark the Health Secretary made that received quite a lot of coverage in today’s media—I do not know whether the Minister saw it—was that, in the event of no deal and a shortage of essential food supplies reaching our supermarkets, medicines and medical equipment would take priority over food supplies. Is that a conversation that the Health Secretary has had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or the Minister? Is she aware that food would be sacrificed to medicine in the event of a crash-out, no-deal Brexit?
I would be grateful if the Minister responded to some of those questions in her closing remarks.
Dr Coffey
It is a pleasure to respond to the questions that have been raised. In answer to the hon. Member for Rotherham, the independent bodies are already in place, and they will continue to be in place. On access to notification and intelligence sharing, the system enables critical information to be shared quickly between member states and the Commission. We have developed contingency plans to mitigate the impact of losing access to the system; I will not say at this point that an agreement has been made that we can continue to access it, but I assure her that there is an obligation for Ministers to co-operate with one another. I expect that obligation to be upheld, especially with reference to treaties of which we are full members, such as the Bern convention and the convention on biological diversity.
I remind the Committee that it is not just from the European Union that diseases can enter. As someone who represents a port constituency, I know the level of detail that authorities go into when checking that things like pallets do not have the bugs and beetles that can sometimes invade unduly. A lot of work also goes on, under a risk-based approach, to inspect the importation of trees and so on, for similar reasons. There is no reason for any of that to change, and the advice from the independent bodies will still be there.
The sustainable development goals are not strictly treaties, although they have been agreed worldwide. They tend to be quite broad, but of course the United Kingdom Government have signed up to them, and we will continue to work on the outcomes that we have signed up to.
To reply briefly to the right hon. Member for Exeter, the point of the draft regulations is set out in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act; they are not about the status of EU nationals or other issues to which he referred. He asked whether the regulations are fit for purpose—yes, they are. I have confidence in the legal advice that was given to my noble Friend Lord Gardiner, who is the Minister responsible for this portfolio and who has signed a transparency statement to the effect that the regulations are to make the system operable and no more than that—they do not seek to get into other issues.
The hon. Member for Stroud raised several points about what more we could do on biosecurity policy. The point is that we are active in this space. I think it was last year that the Secretary of State wrote to the Commission to ask it to take greater action against the spread of Xylella fastidiosa. While ash dieback affects one species, at least 50 species would be affected by Xylella fastidiosa, so we were very keen for the Commission to step up its actions. There are a number of ways in which we are already active; that relationship will continue, although I accept that we will not be part of the European Union.
I have not read the article by my former right hon. Friend Ben Gummer, so I am not sure what he was referring to. I appreciate that he may have some doubt about the primary legislation that may be needed, but I have every confidence that the statutory instruments drafted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and by the devolved Administrations will mean that we will be ready for exit day as decreed.
I cannot remember how many SIs we have got through so far; this is my third affirmative SI, but a number of negative SIs have already been through the sifting Committee. There is another way in which the drafting of such statutory instruments is checked: the peers and hon. Members on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and the lawyers who advise it, scrutinise them to ensure that the drafting procedure is suitable. That Committee noted that the draft regulations have not been referred to the House; it is happy with them as drafted, in legal terms.
Sarah Champion
I hear what the Minister says. We do not doubt the skill of those who advise the Department, but a Treasury Minister confirmed to me before Christmas that 800 pieces of secondary legislation would need to be passed by 29 March in the event of no deal. The draft regulations are not particularly contentious, but we have been here for 35 minutes. Does the Minister genuinely believe that we can get through the outstanding pieces of legislation in two months? There are probably 700.
Dr Coffey
Within DEFRA, we have taken an approach of bringing several SIs into one, for instance when amending references to EU law and EU obligations so that they refer to retained EU law and retained EU obligations. For example, a statutory instrument that we debated yesterday will change several primary Acts—four, I think—and make three cross-cutting environmental amendments. We are grouping operability changes that commonly require several SIs within one SI. Those instruments often relate to one directive. The draft instrument covers one directive in its own right, which is why we are only discussing invasive species.
I appreciate the hon. Member for Stroud’s concerns about the draft instrument. As I say, it has been through the JCSI. It was laid in the first week of December, and prior to that, DEFRA opened it up to a group of stakeholders to look at, so that they could talk it through with our officials and raise any questions. So far, that has only happened to one other SI, to which he referred: the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Unfortunately, before that draft instrument made its way through the JCSI process, and in response to feedback from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Secretary of State took the decision to change it. I thought my noble Friend Lord Gardiner answered questions on that rather well. The draft instrument was again laid before Parliament last night and will come back before the House in due course. I do not have a date for its return. That shows how, via stakeholders coming to the Government with suggested changes, we have been able to effectively consider the draft instrument before reaching the Committee.
On the hon. Gentleman’s wider points, I fully understand the biosecurity threats.
Dr Drew
Does that affect the draft Invasive Non-native Species (Enforcement and Permitting) Regulations, which were subject to consultation? Will that instrument be crucial for—dare I say it—the grey squirrel and the muntjac? It is entirely in line with this draft instrument, is it not, so when will it come forward?
Dr Coffey
As I just tried to explain, by going through this process with stakeholders we have changed that draft SI, which is why it was withdrawn and again laid last night.
The Government have not received any comments on this draft instrument, apart from what the RSPCA said about muntjacs and raccoon dogs. As I have tried to outline, the draft instrument is about operability, not changing policy. The draft enforcement regulations will be presented to the House, and I am happy to arrange for the hon. Gentleman to have a specific briefing on that. To reiterate, this is not about changing policy.
The hon. Gentleman was also concerned that the four nations could not get together. That is the element of devolution. There are quite a large number of our SIs over which the four nations have agreed to come together in different ways, but there are also those that the Governments have decided to approach through their own legislative vehicles. That is perfectly acceptable and respects the devolution process.
However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have had a Great Britain strategy since 2008, and we will continue to use that body to support all the Administrations as we work closely together on invasives. I particularly stress that the external borders of the United Kingdom are still a responsibility of the UK Government. However, the Scottish Government have decided to pursue domestic regulation through their own front.
On the impact assessment, the draft regulations will have no impact on external bodies, such as businesses, charities and voluntary bodies. A small cost is estimated for public sector bodies taking on the Commission’s functions, but those are limited and below the £5 million threshold, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is the level for publishing an impact assessment.
On the link between this statutory instrument and the invasive alien species order, this instrument will make the regulations controlling the spread and management of invasive alien species operable after we have left the EU. It will apply strict reservations on a list, to which I have already referred, so that such species cannot be imported, kept, bred, transported, sold, used or exchanged, allowed to reproduce or be grown, cultivated or released into the environment.
That list includes grey squirrels, although the debate is not about grey squirrels. The EU regulation has been in place since 2015. What has happened very recently is that Natural England has said it will not be issuing any licences for the release of grey squirrels. That may be a suitable debate for Westminster Hall, rather than here, but I point out that we know that grey squirrels threaten the existence of red squirrels, which are our native species. We need to stick up for the red squirrel.
The legal advice I have received is that we do not need to carry over the preambles. Section 6(3) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act is specific, and shows that the interpretation of the regulation that happens today—which is what the preamble is about—will be the same as that used post-exit. Any changes in policy in the future will have to be decided by Parliament through changes to regulations.
I assure the hon. Member for Stroud that the cross-cutting principles are effective in UK law already—he will be aware of the proposals in the draft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill. In terms of oversight, the bodies to which he referred will continue. Will the office for environmental protection oversee this area? As it stands, the bodies are there to provide advice, which is taken. The basic function of the OEP, which the Government have set out, is effectively to replace the Commission in respect of whether we are applying environmental law as we should. It provides an alternative way to do that, but of course Parliament is also there to scrutinise and hold the Government to account.
The hon. Member for Stroud asked why this statutory instrument does not change policy. That is not what we are allowed to do through these SIs—that is for another day. On the databases, I have referred already to the fact that we cannot say today that we will have access to this database. That will be the subject of ongoing negotiation and discussion. However, there is an obligation to co-operate. I am aware that this is a cut and paste, which the hon. Gentleman referred to. That is the point; it is what this SI is supposed to be.
Dr Drew
Are we negotiating over the TRACES database? Will we pay money to have access to that, or are we going to have our own database? That idea makes me feel cold, given that we are not necessarily that good at developing these databases, as even the Minister would accept. These things need to be understood. If we are shut out of that database, where will we get our information about invasive species from?
Dr Coffey
I have to say to the Committee that this is not my portfolio, so I have not been involved in the day-to-day negotiation about the IT elements. I want to point out that we have developed contingency plans to mitigate the impacts of losing access to the system. There is still the potential to make those changes as we move forward. If my noble Friend Lord Gardiner would like to say something that is different or to enhance what I have said, I will of course write to the hon. Gentleman.
In conclusion, this is a cut and paste from the existing EU regulation to ensure that when we leave the European Union the functions continue to have legal effect. I assure the Committee that the Government take the issue of biosecurity extremely seriously. We are very conscious of the concerns about African swine fever. We recently took action very deliberately against species that were being reintroduced on licence in the Forest of Dean, killing beavers, because they had a disease that was brought into this country. Unfortunately, they were imported from Germany, against the voluntary code of practice, which meant they should have come only from Norway or other parts of the United Kingdom. We will take action, even when it is unpopular, to make sure that we preserve the biosecurity of nature and animals in this country. I hope that the Committee will support the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Invasive Non-native Species (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Westminster Hall
(5 years, 2 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
Children with Life-limiting Conditions
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered support for children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions and their families.
I am conscious that other people want to speak, so I will limit my time and give them a chance to contribute, Ms Dorries. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place. I spoke to her last week and before today’s debate. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for selecting this important debate and the Minister for her attendance. I also thank everyone who is here to speak on behalf of their constituents. This matter is not for my constituency alone; it needs to be addressed UK-wide in a co-ordinated manner. As for the magnitude of the issue, 49,000 babies, children and young people live in the UK with health conditions that are life-limiting or life-threatening, and the number is rising. There are 40,000 in England alone.
I have three wonderful children and three perfect grandchildren. They are the best in the world, but every grandparent probably thinks that about their grandchildren. Hearing the news that one’s child has a life-limiting condition and is likely to die young is devastating. My heart always goes out to those who hear such dreadful news. The children have complex and unpredictable conditions and often need round-the-clock care seven days a week. Families have to cope with the knowledge that their child will die before them, and daily life for the whole family can become extremely challenging.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and congratulate him on securing this debate. Will he join me in praising the children’s hospice movement, including Tŷ Hafan, which serves my constituency in south Wales, for their excellent work in providing care not only for the children but for the families who need support?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is absolutely right. By the way, several of today’s speakers applied for this debate along with me and I thank them also. Hospice care is important and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. Every one of us knows the role that hospices play in the lives of those who need help at a very difficult time. Although there are many excellent services, many families still have difficulty accessing the care and support that they need, which is why hospices are important.
Children with life-threatening conditions need palliative care from when their condition is diagnosed or recognised until the end of their lives. Families also need care and support throughout the trajectory of their child’s illness, including bereavement care after they have passed away. Palliative care for children includes, but is not limited to end-of-life care, and the two terms should not be used interchangeably.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise, as highlighted by CLIC Sargent, the financial cost? It might be the last thing that people think about when everything else is going on, but there is a huge financial cost. The costs associated with cancer treatment are estimated to be around £600 a month extra, and the travel costs are on average £180 per family. For some people that is a huge amount of money.
Jim Shannon
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and reiterate the point he has made. The financial implications, restrictions and pressures are important. I know CLIC Sargent well. It does massive fundraising in my constituency and elsewhere. I appreciate its work immensely.
Children’s palliative care providers offer a range of services, including supporting families to manage their children’s pain and distressing symptoms; providing children and their families with lifeline short breaks; and offering bereavement support both before and after the child has passed away. Families want to be able to choose where they receive the lifeline children’s palliative care services that they rely on when they need and want them. They also want to choose who cares for their child and which treatments they receive.
Along with others, I am a vice-chair of the all-party group for children who need palliative care. We seek to educate, inform and motivate parliamentarians to take action to help transform the lives of children and young people with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We are supported to do so by our secretariat, Together for Short Lives, the UK’s leading charity for the 49,000 children living with life-limiting conditions and their families. In November 2017, the all-party group began a Select Committee-style inquiry into the extent to which the Government are meeting their choice in end-of-life care commitment for babies, children and young people. The Government are clear that that commitment applies to people of all ages who need palliative care. The commitment explicitly states:
“To support high quality personalised care for children and young people, commissioners and providers of services must prioritise children’s palliative care in their strategic planning”.
Prioritising children’s palliative care in strategic planning is so important.
In a report last October, the all-party group published what we found and what action we recommend as a result of our inquiry. Despite the end-of-life care commitment, the APPG has heard evidence from young people, families, services and professionals that the quality of palliative care that children and families can access is patchy—the reason for today’s debate—and depends on what part of England they live in. MPs and peers have stated that that is unfair and represents a wholly unjustified health inequality.
The APPG highlighted five areas of particular concern where many children and their families have limited access. The first is children’s palliative care out of hours and at weekends. They also need short breaks and respite. As MPs we know these things, but the respite that is needed is so important to give parents a break. Age-appropriate palliative care and smooth transitions to adult services must be smoother, simpler and less stressful. Specialist children’s palliative care teams led by level 4 consultants are needed, and we need advance care planning. Those five barriers explain why the Government's choice commitment is at serious risk of not being met, which is why we are having this debate.
I am very pleased to see the Minister and the shadow Minister in their places. I know they both understand the issues. That certainly came out in my discussions with the Minister last week. Today we hope to hear the responses that we need to satisfy our concerns.
The first area of concern is leadership and accountability. Almost half—46%—of clinical commissioning groups are failing to implement the Government’s choice in end-of-life care commitment and have no plans to do so, which is disappointing, but there are reasons for it. Only a third of CCGs responded that they are implementing the guidance, and a further 19% stated that their plans to do so are in development. Consequently, will the Government and NHS England consider appropriate mechanisms to bridge the children’s palliative care accountability gap? Furthermore, will the Government develop a system to monitor how sustainability and transformation partnerships, integrated care systems, CCGs and local authorities are supporting children’s palliative care in accordance with their legal duties? That is very important. Will the Government develop outcome indicators that measure the extent to which children with life-limiting conditions and their families can make choices about the palliative care that they receive? If so, will they reflect the outcomes set out in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence quality standard for end-of-life care for infants, children and young people?
The second area concerns clarity. Will the Minister work with her colleagues at the Department for Education and NHS England to write to STPs, ICSs, CCGs and local authorities to clarify which parts of the health and care system in England are responsible for commissioning palliative care for children and young people aged 0 to 25? We always go on about data, but data is important to get a strategy that works. It is vital to make it clear who is responsible for commissioning short breaks and specialised children’s palliative care, as described by NHS England.
The third area is funding. Unfortunately, there has been a downward spiral in the trajectory of funding: 22% in 2016-17 and 2015-16 compared with 23% in 2014-15 and 27% in 2013-14. That downward trend worries us greatly. There was a wide range in the state’s contributions to voluntary care sector children’s palliative care providers’ charitable costs in 2015-16. The maximum contribution received by a charity in 2015-16 was more than half and the lowest was 2%. Like other members of the APPG, I was therefore pleased to welcome NHS England’s recent decision to commit to funding children’s palliative care in the long-term plan. However, I want to highlight the mismatch in the two announcements that NHS England made.
On 27 December, NHS England announced that up to £18 million would be available to children’s hospices through the long-term plan, of which £7 million would depend upon CCGs contributing another £7 million through match funding, which is fair enough, taking the total to £25 million. Yet in paragraph 3.41 of the plan, published on 7 January, NHS England said that the £25 million would be for local children’s palliative and end-of-life care services, including children’s hospices. Does the Minister recognise that the two NHS England announcements were confusing, and can she clarify whether the £25 million will be for children’s hospices only, or a wider group of services? We need answers to those points. I gave the Minister advance notice of all my questions. It was almost the highest number of questions I have ever asked a Minister at one time, even though I ask a lot of questions.
Can the Minister guarantee that the £11 million children’s hospice grant will be protected and increased as a result of the long-term plan, to reflect the growing demand and the complexity of care provided by those lifeline services, and will she guarantee that total NHS funding for children’s palliative care will not fall as a result of the long-term plan? Will she also monitor the amount of money that NHS England, clinical commissioning groups and local authorities are contributing to children and adult hospice and palliative care charities? If so, will she ensure that they bring about parity in the state’s percentage contribution to their charitable costs?
I often refer to the Scottish Government—in the best of terms, as well. I note that they have committed to bringing about parity and funding 50% of the agreed charitable costs of children’s hospices across Scotland. They often set the bar, and set an example for the rest of us to try to achieve. I know that my hon. Friends from the Scottish National party will speak to that, and I look forward to their contributions.
The funding challenges are being exacerbated by the Government’s decision not to provide voluntary sector providers that do not apply “Agenda for Change” pay and conditions with financial support in order to mitigate the recent pay rise for non-clinical NHS staff. Will the Minister provide financial support to help voluntary sector children’s palliative care providers, including children’s hospices that do not apply “Agenda for Change” pay and conditions, to mitigate that recent pay rise?
We have to mention the Government’s proposal to increase the proportion that employers need to contribute to the NHS pension scheme from 14.9% to 20.9%. That will also lead to children’s hospices incurring significant costs. I say very gently that there is an imbalance in what is happening. Although the cost of the increases for NHS organisations will be met by the Government through additional funding, the potential additional costs for charitable hospices will not be.
Children’s hospices are faced with the puzzling situation where NHS England is giving them more money with one hand while, through the pension scheme changes, the Government are taking it away with the other. We all have concerns about that. Will the Minister meet the significant costs that children’s hospices will incur as a result of the Government’s proposal to increase the employers’ contribution to the NHS pension scheme?
The APPG believes that the Government and NHS England should go further to ensure that children’s palliative care provided by the statutory sector, in hospitals and in the community, is funded equitably and sustainably in England. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence calculates that by investing £12.7 million in implementing its guideline on children’s palliative care, non-cash savings worth £34.7 million would be released back into the NHS. Mathematics is not one of my stronger points, but it seems logical to do that. Will the Minister undertake a review of the palliative care available to children with life-limiting conditions in England as a matter of urgency, and will she develop a funded, cross-departmental children’s palliative care strategy for achieving better outcomes for children and families across the statutory and voluntary sectors?
There are too few professionals with the skills, knowledge and experience to provide children’s palliative care in hospitals, children’s hospices and the community. Those who are skilled, and have the ability and opportunity, do wonderful work. Will the Minister set out the steps that she is taking to develop and advance care plans with families? Shortages in children’s nurses, and generally in children’s palliative care, are particularly acute.
The final area is integration. Single, joined-up education, health and care assessments, plans and personal budgets for children and young people up to the age of 25 are available only to those who have a special educational need. The APPG is also unclear on how the Government’s approach to personalising palliative care for children and young people, which is underpinned by joint plans and budgets, correlates with the special educational needs and disabilities system. That is tremendously important to us all. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us whether she plans to ensure that all 40,000 babies, children and young people in England with life-limiting or life-threatening conditions have the right to an integrated assessment, plan and personal budget.
Will the Minister commission a review of health and social care law, to strengthen and clarify rights and entitlements for disabled children and their families, including children with life-limiting conditions? That would help to bring about more integrated assessments and plans. Will she invest in supporting work to develop children’s palliative care managed clinical networks across England?
Mark Tami
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Does he agree that the Government need to speed up, and that they cannot apply the general criteria that they apply to everyone else? Those parents, those families, and those children need support straightaway, not after waiting for weeks—sometimes months.
Jim Shannon
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and his wise words. I absolutely agree that we need to implement right away the response that families need. He is right: one size does not fit all. Every person’s case and circumstances are unique, so we need to respond with something that fits, quickly.
If not quickly met by the Government, those challenges will threaten Ministers’ ability to meet their end-of-life care choice commitment for children by 2020. We have to work to that timescale. We need that response to do away with the patchiness; there are parts where the Government are doing well and families get help, and other parts where they do not. I know that the Minister is committed to that, and hopefully her response will be helpful to all of us who are asking these questions.
We urge the Government to work with the APPG, and interested bodies and charitable groups, to implement the APPG’s recommendations. There has already been progress in the past few weeks. That is good news, and we are pleased about that. NHS England has decided to recognise children’s palliative care as an important priority in the NHS long-term plan.
I commend the Government, I commend the Minister for her commitment to the strategy, and I commend Health Ministers for the Department’s commitment to addressing health, and spending money on it. That is good news. Nobody in this House would not welcome that. I very much welcome it. Will the Minister assess the extent to which the NHS treats children’s palliative care as a priority, as it commits to in the long-term plan, and if so, how? Will she tell us a wee bit about how that long-term strategy and plan will work?
I think it is the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) who says, “Jim Shannon gets more words into a minute than any other MP.” I am not sure that I have given my four-minute speech in one minute, but I have tried to compress what I wanted to say, and I gave the Minister my questions beforehand. There are hon. Members present who have a real knowledge of the subject matter. It is so important that we hear all their opinions as well.
I ask the Minister to update us on the progress that the Government are making in responding to all the APPG’s recommendations. I very much look forward to hearing her response. These children need help. The report is clear, and now we need to be clear on how the Government can and will make changes to ensure that these short lives, and the lives of loved family members, can be better. Sometimes we see only the child; we also have to see the families. I think the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) referred to that in his intervention. It is so important that we reach out and help. Our job as MPs is to do just that. We look to the Minister for the response that we all want.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ms Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)
I will impose an informal five-minute limit on speeches. Obviously, if Members go over the informal limit, I will have to impose a formal four or three-minute limit, so if everybody would realise that and be courteous, that would be great.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the debate and for his continuing interest in the matter.
It is exceptionally difficult to care for a child with a life-limiting condition. The Government have made progress on making things slightly easier in areas such as bereavement care, but I recognise that more needs to be done to support families who are going through the process, especially in terms of palliative care. The issue affects not just the 49,000 children in the UK who live with life-limiting or life-threatening health conditions, but their families and those who care for them. Those who are suffering from such conditions need the best medical care possible, but the families require care too, whether that is in the form of respite breaks or financial support for adjusting their homes and lives.
I sympathise somewhat with the Minister: she has to respond on behalf of her Department, but it is not just her Department that acts in this space. Local authorities, the voluntary sector and other Departments all have a role to play, and it will be possible to tackle the challenges faced by families only by taking an integrated approach that encompasses all of those groups.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentions the adjustments that need to be made in people’s homes. To what extent does she think local councils are living up to expectations in that respect?
Antoinette Sandbach
I will come on to that point, but I know that in my area the situation is certainly not as good as it might be.
I hope that the Minister will commit to ensuring that children have a right to an integrated assessment, a plan and a personal budget to address their individual needs. Likewise, I hope that she will agree to review health and social care law, not only to strengthen the rights and entitlements for disabled children and their families, but to clarify them. That clarification would be hugely welcome, because uncertainty leads to some local authorities failing to meet their obligations. For instance, Together for Short Lives reports that 21% of local authorities are failing to meet their legal duty to commission short breaks for disabled children. That postcode lottery is deeply unsatisfactory and requires the Minister’s attention.
I was concerned to discover from December 2017 data that only one of the four Cheshire clinical commissioning groups was developing a strategy or care pathway for children with life-limiting conditions. The same data shows that although some of my area’s CCGs offer out-of-hours paediatric palliative care consultants, community children’s nurses and psychological support, others do not. Given that families have 24/7 responsibility, should not the NHS? My area is lucky to have specialist paediatric care close at hand, thanks to Alder Hey Children’s Hospital, but it is clear that even in Cheshire more must be done, which probably means that more funding must be put in place.
The all-party parliamentary group on baby loss wrote to the Chancellor at the end of last year to ask for a guarantee of the future of the NHS England children’s hospice grant beyond March 2019; for an increase in its value to £25 million per year; for parity of funding between children’s and adult hospice and palliative care charities in England; and for a funded, cross-departmental children’s palliative strategy for England. I was pleased to see that the issue received attention in the NHS long-term plan, but I am concerned by the mismatch between NHS England’s 27 December announcement about children’s hospice funding under the plan, and what was published in the plan itself on 7 January: the announcement said that the money was for hospice funding, but the plan said that it would be for palliative services, including hospices. Will the Minister clarify whether that £25 million will be for children’s hospices only, or for a wider group of children’s palliative care services?
Likewise, will the Minister guarantee that the £11 million children’s hospice grant will be protected and increased as a result of the long-term plan? It is vital that we resolve that, because in 2006-07 the children’s hospice grant contributed 14% towards the cost of providing clinical care in children’s hospices across England, but by 2015-16, when the grant had risen to £11 million, it contributed an average of just 8%.
I hope that the Minister will offer the reassurance that so many families deserve, not just about the finances but about integration and ending the postcode lottery. I am sure all hon. Members agree that these families need support, but now we must build on that agreement and implement a sustainable, compassionate plan to support them.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this important debate and on his speech. We have campaigned together on many issues and I am happy to participate in his debate today.
Many hon. Members will be aware of my campaigning work to support families who have lost a child. I am very proud to have brought about the introduction of the children’s funeral fund to support grieving parents with the costs of their child’s funeral. My campaign came after my own experience of losing my son Martin and having to take out a loan to cover his funeral.
I lost Martin very suddenly in a car accident. From the perspective of a parent, I have no idea whether it is worse to lose your child suddenly, like blowing out a candle, or to watch them pass away slowly from a life-threatening or life-limiting condition; all I know is that, whatever happens, it is the end of the world. It feels as if it is a bank holiday and the world is still going on around you—you cannot comprehend why people are still putting the kettle on, taking the milk in and having the post delivered. It is such a painful experience: nothing can prepare you for it, and realistically it is not something that you will ever recover from. Nothing will ever be the same again. You think that you will never worry again about anything like how much the telephone or electricity bill is, because nothing will ever matter again, but in reality it is more painful: you worry more and you keep waiting for that moment when something really bad will happen again. I think that stays with you for the rest of your life.
Tragically, the parents of 5,000 babies, children and young people have to face that dreadful pain every year. It is a pain that nobody can help them with, but one thing that we can do for those families at such a difficult time is try to lessen or ease their financial worries. There are very many additional costs when you lose a child, apart from the funeral. At the time, it seems as if all the other things do not really matter, but they do. Someone whose child has a life-threatening illness has to think about parking at the hospital, childcare for their other children, making sure they have clean pyjamas, pants and vests, and maybe having to give up work to look after them.
When a child passes away as a result of a long-term disability, the family may well have been receiving a benefit because of the child’s health, such as carer’s allowance, disability living allowance or child benefit. As well as the personal loss, they will face a huge and immediate financial loss. I will never, ever forget losing Martin on a Monday—I had cashed his family allowance that morning—and getting a letter the following week asking me to repay it because I had sent in the death certificate to say that Martin was not with me anymore. As a parent, you cannot imagine how painful it is even to get that letter, let alone to try to find the money to pay back. It may be small, but for a parent it is the end of the world.
That is not the only financial hardship that parents face when they lose a child; as I said, there is also the cost of the funeral. Royal London has found that the average cost of a funeral in 2018 was £3,757. For someone who is not anticipating losing a child, or who is on a low income, that is an insurmountable amount. Some people have actually asked me why I did not have insurance. Why would you insure a child? Why would you consider insuring against a child’s passing?
As hon. Members may be aware, health in Wales is a devolved matter. I am very proud that the Welsh Government led by example and introduced a children’s funeral fund in 2017. I will say only that I had a letter from the Prime Minister on Easter Sunday last year, yet we still do not have a children’s fund throughout the United Kingdom. Scotland has introduced it and, in the absence of Stormont, Northern Ireland has done it on a local level, so it is only parents in England who are not getting support with their child’s funeral. The Welsh Government, who were the first to introduce such a fund, have announced an additional £1 million investment to support the work of the end-of-life care implementation board. That funding will go towards a variety of areas, including training for staff on having difficult end-of-life care conversations with parents.
I give personal thanks for the work of the wonderful charities Tŷ Hafan, Hope House and Tŷ Gobaith, which provide care to children and families in my constituency and across Wales. After I lost Martin, I spent a lot of time trying to do what I could to help other families. I provided pastoral care for mentally and physically handicapped children, and I went to work for a children’s cancer charity. I felt like my personal experience would help those parents. Today I still talk to parents who have lost a child and try to reason with them by saying, “The thoughts that you are thinking, the worries that you are having, the fears and the fright that you will experience day in, day out for the rest of your life—they’re real but they’re not abnormal, and you need to share.” As a country, we should support these people financially and give them that little bit of comfort, so that it is only the emotion—something nobody can ever help you with. I urge the Minister to do whatever she can to ensure that families in such a position never have to worry about the incidentals of life and can grieve with dignity and peace of mind.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
It is humbling to follow the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). I want to put on record my respect for her campaigning on this and other issues, and for my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach).
I commend the work of the Donna Louise Children’s Hospice in Stoke-on-Trent, which provides children’s and young people’s hospice services across Staffordshire and south-east Cheshire. It has written to me this week—given that time is short, I will pass the Minister a copy of the letter after the debate. It talks about the quality of palliative care as patchy:
“The way in which NHS CCGs and local authorities plan, fund and monitor children’s palliative care in hospitals, children’s hospices and the community represents”—
as we have heard—
“a postcode lottery. Staffordshire has no coherent plan and this is reflected in the poor financial support the Hospice receives from local commissioners. Donna Louise receives 8.9% of its income from the NHS”.
The hospice calls on the Government and NHS England
“to consider appropriate mechanisms to bridge the children’s palliative care accountability gap.”
I want to spend most of my speech talking about an issue that I know is uncomfortable for some people to hear about. For that reason, I am delighted that you are in the Chair, Ms Dorries, because you have spoken about this issue on a number of occasions. Many families face a difficult decision when a child in the womb is diagnosed with a life-limiting or life-threatening condition. This is not a small issue: in 2017 there were a total of 3,314 ground E abortions on the grounds that the child was diagnosed with a substantial risk that, if born, they would suffer from physical or mental abnormalities, such as being seriously handicapped. Parents have to make really agonising decisions.
A few years ago, I held an inquiry in this place on the difficult situations that parents face when their child is diagnosed in this way and they have to consider an abortion. We took evidence from dozens of witnesses. Some had come under huge pressure to have an abortion, and the support they were given to consider keeping their baby was very limited. Many told us that they were steered towards an abortion, and they felt like the medical profession was irritated by them. Many felt like they were given no information on the support they might get; often the best information they got was through contacting charities, which could put them in touch with parents who were bringing up children—often very successfully. Those children brought great joy to their families, but the medical professionals did not give the families the information they needed to make a decision that was right for them. Some told us that all they received was a leaflet telling them how to have an abortion. The mothers who had kept their children, even if it was for a very short time, felt like they could grieve and care for their children in a way they had not been able to do otherwise. One mother had to have an abortion with her first baby and then decided she would keep the second, even though she knew the condition was life-limiting. She felt like there was a much better outcome for her and her family’s going through the grieving process.
The inquiry made a series of recommendations—I will pass a copy to the Minister because time is very short. I hope she will consider them and respond to me. Many people generally find this issue a very difficult one to address, as do—I am sorry to say—Ministers. Many of the recommendations in that report, which was published a few years ago, are still valid today. We recommended that guidelines for the medical profession should include training for obstetricians, foetal medicine specialists and midwives on the practical realities of the lives of children who have such conditions, so that they can better advise parents and give them better information when they make this difficult decision. One parent summarised what many others reported:
“Guidelines and standards need to be set in place”
so that all hospitals can meet a certain standard. Can the Minister assure me that she will look at our report and perhaps produce guidance to ensure that all mothers feel like they can make a genuinely informed decision when they are carrying a baby with a life-limiting condition? Does she agree that we ought to provide much better information, so that parents in such circumstances can make an informed choice?
Ms Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)
I am afraid that I will now have to put a formal time limit of four minutes on Back-Bench speeches.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this important debate. Given that we are reduced to four minutes each, I will ensure that I keep to that.
Like other hon. Members, I want to bring attention to two outstanding children’s hospices that serve my constituency: Chestnut Tree House and Demelza. They are not based in Eastbourne, but they do a considerable amount for many of my constituents and their children. Both are hospices and also deliver outreach services to very poorly children at home. I want to put that on record, as they do outstanding work.
I know the Minister is getting a long shopping list, so I will keep my requests fairly simple. I want to focus on two areas, both of which I am confident the Department can respond to fairly swiftly. First, NHS England states that its end-of-life care programme for children and young adults is managed through a cross-system governance board. That makes sense. It includes a lot of the key providers, such as the Department of Health and Social Care, clinical commissioning groups, NHS England and others. However, I discovered that there is no representation on that cross-system governance board of the children’s palliative care sector—the charities and groups that represent families and children and really know their stuff. I urge the Minister to look at that again.
The other serious issue—I am sure the Minister is aware of it, and I would welcome information from her on what is being done to respond—is that, according to the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, there are only 14 children’s palliative care consultants across the UK. I am sure the Minister would agree that that is completely inadequate. Perhaps the Minister can let me know—either at the end of this debate or in a letter—what plans NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care have to work with the Royal College to increase that number. Fourteen is clearly inadequate.
Let me end with a constituent’s issue that brings home the issue of long-term conditions and the end of children’s lives. This subject is incredibly important—we are talking about 45,000 youngsters—and I want to bring it down to earth and make it real. I am working with a constituent couple, Mr and Mrs Spence, and their teenage daughter Connie, who I have known for well over 10 years. She is now 16 or 17 and still has—obviously—a progressive, life-threatening condition. She is an amazing girl. Her parents have done fantastic work in looking after Connie and working with Demelza, giving her a good life.
Recently, Mr and Mrs Spence’s CCG told them that they would be allowed only three nappies a day. Without going into too much detail, we all understand that a very disabled 17-year-old girl—or any of us in her situation—would usually use six or seven nappies a day. They have been told that she can have only three. That is completely unacceptable, highly inappropriate and just wrong. The CCG pleads costs, as does the local trust. I will be writing to the Minister with details and hope that she will support me by making representations to the CCG to stop that completely inappropriate cut.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Dorries. I commend my friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for securing the debate. As one might expect, I wish to offer a few examples from Scotland, where I believe that we have a good story to tell, although we still have so much more to do. In the context of Scotland, it is important to make the distinction that funding for children’s palliative care is given parity of esteem with adult care. That is a point that I have made before to the Minister down south.
I know from my good relationship with Children’s Hospices Across Scotland, known as CHAS, that it is one of Scotland’s most well-known and best-loved charities. That is why it was right that in 2016, the SNP Scottish Government announced that they were committing £30 million in funding to CHAS, commencing in the financial year of 2017-18. That funding provides half of the agreed funding costs of running CHAS; that is very important. Not long after I was elected, my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) and I had the honour of visiting Robin House in Balloch, where I saw at first hand the absolutely amazing work done by CHAS to provide compassionate care for children with a life-shortening condition.
At this juncture, I pay tribute to my good friend and colleague, Alex Neil MSP, a former Health Secretary in the Scottish Government, who drove that vital funding boost for the sector. His backing for research, in particular, was immeasurable. We know from experience that engaging comprehensively with the issue through research is an absolute necessity to determine the needs of those with life-limiting and life-shortening conditions.
I am conscious that other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate and, in particular, raise issues through the prism of English funding, so I will make a couple of brief points before I conclude. First, it felt as though we were making a lot of progress on the baby benefit bar but I am not sure how far we have got. I would therefore welcome an update on that from the Minister.
Secondly, on the issue of workforce, having spent last night participating in debate on Second Reading of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, I am concerned that there are far too few professionals with the skills, knowledge and experience required to provide children’s palliative care in hospitals and children’s hospices. Can the Minister outline what strategies the Government are pursuing to meet workforce challenges in future? That is a major issue.
Thirdly, on the difficult issue of when a child finally passes away, I am glad that my own Government, in Scotland, announced last year that they were taking action to ensure that all burial fees for children are abolished. When I was first elected to Parliament, the 32 local authorities in Scotland had different policies and charges for burial fees—it was very much a postcode lottery, so I welcome that change. I am concerned, however, that we need to do more to support families when their child eventually passes away. I absolutely welcome the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018, which was piloted through this place by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), but I remain disappointed that the scope of the Bill was so narrowly defined. I hope that we will have the opportunity to go back and widen it in the future.
In summary, there is plenty of work for us to do and get on with to support children with life-limiting conditions, as well as their families. We look to the Minister to take forward the consensual and strong cross-party support we have heard about today and deliver a better standard of research, funding and care for vulnerable children and their families. Again, I thank my friend, the hon. Member for Strangford, for securing this important debate. I hope that we can make progress going forward.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate and I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing it.
Over 40,000 children and young people in England have a life-limiting or life-threatening condition, so we must not underestimate or undervalue the support that both the NHS and charity care sectors provide to both patients and their families. I am proud to represent the seat where the purpose-built hospice movement has some of its origins, with the foundation of St Christopher’s Hospice by the late Dame Cicely Saunders. South London is also home to the renowned Demelza specialist children’s hospice. Demelza was started more than 20 years ago and, in that time, it has grown to include two hospices and a community scheme in East Sussex, to which the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) referred.
Demelza’s hospice in Eltham, which opened in 2009, serves the boroughs of Bexley, Bromley, Croydon, Greenwich, Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark. It is a specially designed hospice that provides first-rate care to the children who use it, while also supporting their families. I recently met the chief executive of Demelza children’s hospices, and I appreciate the lengths that he and his colleagues in the voluntary sector go to to make sure that the whole family is cared for. Their service is about a lot more than just the child and the medical and palliative side of care. Not only do charities like Demelza ease pressure on the NHS, but by providing support, advice and respite for the whole family, the assistance that they provide is invaluable. Having a child with a life-limiting condition can cause unimaginable strain on a family, and the smallest gestures have a big impact during those difficult times.
I follow the work of the all-party parliamentary group for children who need palliative care and I pay tribute to it. The APPG, alongside Together for Short Lives, recently published a report into end-of-life care for children. Worryingly, the report concluded that children who need palliative care are often subject to a postcode lottery of patchy service. The recent NHS long-term plan acknowledges that for far too long, funding for children’s palliative and end-of-life care through the children’s hospice grant has not kept pace with growth in clinical care costs or inflation. I welcome the plan’s pledge to boost funding for children’s hospices by up to £25 million a year by 2023-24, but the sector still has many funding requirements that need to be addressed if the hospices are to continue delivering such world-class care.
In October, I spoke in the Westminster Hall debate on hospice funding and the NHS pay award, and I mentioned that without additional Government support, local children’s hospices could face difficult choices about reducing services. The additional estimated cost to staffing budgets of matching the pay award for the NHS, which hospice staff rightly deserve, would be £200,000 every year. I hope that the additional funding will go some way to allay the fears of local hospices, but we cannot assume that the funding pledged will still be adequate in five years’ time.
We have much to be proud of in our care sectors, but there is still a great deal more to do. The funding commitments are welcome but are not a one-fix solution to the many issues faced by children with life-limiting conditions and their families. I hope that the continued hard work of the hospice workers who run Demelza and other hospices across the country can continue to bring care and compassion to families at the most difficult times, and that they will have the funds and resources to do so.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I am delighted that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) secured this debate on an issue that is so important for so many children and families across the country. It goes to the very heart of the work done by the APPG for children who need palliative care, of which I am vice-chair, alongside the chair, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson).
Babies, children and young people with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions rely on a range of social care services provided by a variety of statutory and voluntary organisations such as short breaks, practical assistance at home, home adaptations and support to access travel and leisure activities. A good example of one such provider, which celebrated its 15th birthday this year, is St Oswald’s Hospice in Newcastle. It provides residential short breaks and care to babies, children and young adults. Up to six children and young adults can stay at St Oswald’s at any one time, in a beautiful, relaxed, home-from-home environment. Indeed, one mother said about the hospice:
“Having respite at St Oswald’s for a couple of nights a month helped to give me a break. While I was doing all the medical care for my son, I couldn’t be a mum. Being at St Oswald’s gave me time to step back and just enjoy playing with him and having fun.”
Seriously ill children and their families across the country need short breaks and the respite provided by skilled, highly trusted people who can meet the child’s often complex health needs. It might only be for a few hours, or overnight for a few days at a time, but those short breaks are vital to help parents and siblings manage the immense stress and 24/7 pressure that a child with a life-limiting condition can bring. The evidence suggests that such respite care helps to support children and their family’s physical and mental health, and mitigates the risk of parental relationships breaking down.
Local authorities of course have a legal duty to provide short breaks for disabled children and their families, to be planned and funded jointly by local councils and the NHS. A Government-commissioned review of funding arrangements for palliative care made it clear in 2011 that that duty must include respite care for the carers and families of children requiring palliative care. Despite that, however, the charity Together for Short Lives found that too many CCGs and local authorities in England fail to plan and fund short breaks. More than one in five local authorities do not commission short breaks for children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions, despite having a legal duty to do so, although 84% of CCGs reported that they commission short breaks for children who need palliative care.
Furthermore, the Disabled Children’s Partnership, of which Together for Short Lives is a member, has gathered increasing evidence of cuts to services for disabled children. Is it any wonder that that is taking place? The Local Government Association estimated that children’s services face a £3.1 billion funding gap by 2025, just to maintain existing levels of service. Given such findings, I shall be grateful if the Minister confirms in her response how she holds sustainability and transformation partnerships, integrated care systems, CCGs and local authorities to account for the way in which they plan and fund short breaks.
I am also keen to highlight the importance of the provision of short breaks to all families who receive them, not only those families with children who need palliative care, but those with disabled children whose conditions can be life-limiting as well. I was able to witness that on Friday, when I visited the excellent Alan Shearer Centre in Lemington in my constituency. It provides specialist respite services in a specially adapted environment. One of the key concerns expressed to me at the centre was about how the level of respite care support that disabled children and their families receive can be halved when a person’s condition has not changed at all—the only thing that has changed is their age. Many families described that as feeling as if the rug has been pulled from under their feet.
I also want to highlight the work of the Rainbow Trust, which provides vital support at home for so many families, including in Newcastle. Will it be possible for the recently announced funding of £25 million for palliative and end-of-life care to be used to provide that emotional and life-affirming support for such families? Children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions face enough challenges without the added stress of not having the support they need.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I am grateful to you, Ms Dorries, for calling me to speak, and to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for giving me the opportunity to raise an urgent case.
My constituent, Shakil Malji, has a daughter, Maryam, who is five months old and a beautiful, engaging child. Recently, Maryam was diagnosed with a terrible condition called spinal muscular atrophy, type 1. The effects of SMA1 if left untreated are horrific. The disease causes muscles to waste away even before they can properly develop. It reduces and then takes away the ability to do basic things unassisted, including walking, crawling, sitting, eating, drinking and breathing.
Maryam’s family are devastated—of course they are. However, an effective treatment developed by international drug company Biogen—remember that name—does exist: a new drug called Spinraza. Clinical trials, which ended more than two years ago in 2016, showed that Spinraza is effective and can provide a lifeline—a longer life and less suffering; what else is medicine about? Spinraza is available on the NHS in Scotland and in 23 other European countries. It is licensed for use in the UK, but it is not available to Maryam because Biogen and NICE have not yet reached an agreement, and because last November Biogen’s extended access programme was closed; I have been told repeatedly that it will not reopen. To date, 220,000 people have signed a petition about ensuring that all children with SMA get access to Spinraza through the NHS. I have written to the Secretary of State to encourage him to intervene. The NICE approval process is taking far too long.
I am here to talk about Maryam, however, and to argue that Biogen has a special and moral responsibility to ensure that she receives the care she needs. SMA is genetic and Abdullah, Shakil’s son, was also diagnosed when he was very young. Shakil was offered access to Spinraza for Abdullah as part of the clinical trial. That trial was successful and led to Biogen being able to sell the drug. Abdullah, unfortunately, was still very weak from his condition, and he died in 2015. But Maryam could have that drug now, soon after diagnosis, which would bring the family hope again.
Shakil feels that his family have been used. His son helped to test the drug but it is now being denied to Abdullah’s sister. Biogen offers to work with NICE towards what it calls a “bridging solution”, if and when NICE commits to a permanent agreement to pay for SMA patients to access Spinraza. Shakil and I have been encouraged by Biogen to campaign for that, even as the weeks pass and as Maryam inevitably gets weaker.
I call those tactics heartless. In effect, Biogen’s approach is to hold a baby’s life in its hands and to ask a still grieving family to use their child to get the deal that the company wants with NICE. Shakil and his family have suffered so much, and Maryam needs Spinraza as soon as possible. I will not let the Government or NICE off the hook on this one, and I would like to meet the Department. Biogen, however, needs to step up now to offer a way forward for Maryam—she cannot wait. Biogen, do the decent thing!
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing the debate. He and I are both members of the all-party group for muscular dystrophy, so I know that his commitment to the issues being discussed this morning is genuine.
Following on from my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), I will talk about Spinraza, because nothing is more fundamental for anyone with a life-limiting or life-threatening condition, or their families, than to have access to treatment that will give the chance of a better quality of life and, possibly, some chance of longevity.
As my hon. Friend said, one of the rare conditions that until the last few years has had no proven treatment is SMA. There are four types, and the most severe is type 1. Infants diagnosed with that have a life expectancy of no more than two years. The condition affects the lower motor neurones in the spinal cord, leading to loss of mobility and eventually of the ability to breathe and swallow.
The drug Spinraza, which was developed and marketed by the pharmaceutical company Biogen, is the only treatment that has proved successful for children with SMA. Spinraza was granted a marketing authorisation by the European Medicines Agency more than 18 months ago. It is available in 24 European countries including Scotland, as has been said, but not in other parts of the UK.
The APPG, which I chair, has supported the work of our excellent secretariat organisation, Muscular Dystrophy UK, and other groups to press for Spinraza to be approved by NICE. Many MPs across the House with constituents who suffer from SMA feel the frustration of families waiting for Spinraza to be approved. So far, however, progress has been slow. That is largely due to the fact that Spinraza has been assessed by NICE under the single technology appraisal, or STA, route, which is not appropriate for such a rare condition. That route is normally used for more common conditions, and it is now a year since the assessment began. Also, in August, when NICE published its initial decision on access to the drug, it did not recommend Spinraza for use on the NHS. That was a bitter blow for all the families, including the family of young Sam McKie from North Tyneside, who has the condition.
Biogen opened an expanded access programme globally in 2016, as an interim solution for patients with infantile-onset SMA. In the UK, the programme was extended to support continued access for those patients until NICE completed its appraisal. To date, more than 80 eligible children in the UK have received the drug free of charge. Under the timeframes provided by NICE, the final appraisal document was scheduled for last November; therefore, disappointingly, Biogen closed its access to the EAP for new patients.
Since August, the APPG has been active in pressing NICE, NHS England and Ministers to be flexible in finding a way forward, and I raised the issue at Prime Minister’s questions in September. There is an impasse, because NICE continues to require that Spinraza should be cost-effective through the STA route, but Biogen has pointed out that, given the smaller patient population in rare diseases, it is inappropriate to expect treatments to achieve the same cost-effectiveness thresholds as medicines in disease areas that have much larger patient populations.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I thank everyone who has taken part in this extremely important debate. It is an absolute pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon), who raised the issue of Spinraza, and the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who spoke about her constituent Maryam and about why this issue must be taken forward by the UK Government. I hope the Minister will agree with her.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate and for speaking so passionately. Week in, week out in the House of Commons he champions the most vulnerable in our society. He gave a poignant speech to support children with life-threatening conditions. By securing this debate, he has let us all speak about the important issues raised by those conditions and the charities that do such excellent work, including Together for Short Lives, the Rainbow Trust, the Children’s Hospices Across Scotland at Robin House and CLIC Sargent, to name just a few. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee; I was extremely pleased to be part of the cross-party group that requested the debate. I have chaired the all-party parliamentary group for disability since 2015; we are working extremely hard on these issues, and I thank everyone involved in it.
I should like to mention my constituent Gary Butterworth of Westwood Golf Club, who, as well as playing lots of golf, has taken the time to raise more than £20,000 for Children’s Hospices Across Scotland. Every year I support the efforts of the club and Gary to fundraise; we will visit Robin House together later this year.
I also thank my constituent Lisa Quarrell, who has worked so hard over the past year not only to look after her six-year-old son Cole, who has experienced repeated epileptic seizures and whose health has deteriorated dramatically, but to try to access medicinal cannabis since the Home Secretary took up that issue. I hope the Minister will look at those issues very carefully, because the care pathways for families are not adequate. Lisa has battled day in, day out just to access the Home Secretary’s recommendations. Those families do not have the energy, in addition to caring for their children, to battle the system.
A number of issues have been raised in the debate. I want to stress the care and emotional and practical support that needs to be put in place for siblings. When a young child has a life-threatening or life-limiting condition, siblings often feel, not ignored, but not the focal point of the family’s daily life. There should be support for the whole family unit, and particularly for siblings. We heard about the need for family-friendly working policies and psychological support. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, having worked as a psychologist.
Some remarkable speeches were made; I thank the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), who does such fantastic work in the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss, for raising the important issue of personal budget plans. Families should not have to think about finances at such a grave time in their lives. If I was wearing a hat, I would take it off to the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for her excellent work in Parliament to strengthen families, provide support and raise issues that many find extremely difficult to broach. I hope the Minister looks very carefully at the hon. Lady’s recommendations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) outlined the Scottish Government’s developments and funding for CHAS; I thank him for his work on those issues. The hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) spoke so poignantly that I was almost in tears while listening to her talk about the end of the world for individuals and their families. We must take that on board. I am sure the Minister heard those words clearly.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) paid tribute to all his local hospices and spoke about the important issue of the number of consultants available. The Minister should look at that issue closely and meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss it. The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) spoke about the fantastic work of the specialist hospices in her constituency, and the need for funding to preserve and enhance that work. I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for speaking about the importance of respite, which too often is forgotten about. Respite is not a dirty word; it is not about respite from your child but with your child, to enjoy them, to play with them and to do the natural things that families do.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. Can she confirm that total NHS funding for children’s palliative care will not fall as a result of the long-term plan, and that children’s hospices will not receive less funding? Will she clarify whether the increase in funding from £11 million to £25 million is intended to be open to providers of emotional and practical support, alongside the hospices? If not, what will be provided to ensure that we have that emotional and practical support? What steps will the Minister take to encourage clinical commissioning groups and local authorities to increase commissioning for the sibling support that I mentioned?
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing a debate on this very important subject. I pay tribute to all the dedicated people in hospices, in the community and in hospitals who support families with a seriously ill child. I also thank organisations such as Together for Short Lives, CLIC Sargent and the Rainbow Trust, which do excellent work to provide support.
Hon. Members across the House have made powerful speeches on a very emotional subject. I am grateful to them all. I can think of few things in life worse than for a parent to hear that their child is so seriously ill that they cannot expect to live a full life, or to live with the knowledge that their child will never grow into adulthood, and will die before them. That must be absolutely devastating and is against the natural order of things. The pain is almost unimaginable. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for sharing her moving story and for the work she does to support other parents to get through very difficult times.
In the United Kingdom, 49,000 babies, children and young people, and their families, are coping with life-threatening and life-limiting conditions. In recent years, the Government have made various commitments to deliver support for appropriate end-of-life care that recognises the difference between the end-of-life care needs of children and those of adults. The needs of children and young people in that situation are invariably more complex and can be longer term. The children’s charity CLIC Sargent reports that four out of five children survive cancer for five years or more. In fact, many children with life-limiting conditions live into adulthood. It is clear that although they may not need end of life care, they and their families usually need access to expert support and palliative care in a children’s hospice, at home or in a community setting.
As children with life-threatening and life-limiting conditions increasingly live into adulthood, it is more important than ever that they are able to express their care preferences and that the continuity and co-ordination of their care is assured. In 2016, the Government committed to offering children and their parents the right to be involved in choosing and accessing the most appropriate care. NICE guidelines published in December 2016 stated that local commissioners and providers should prioritise advance care planning and agree in partnership, in a responsive and flexible fashion, the place and delivery of that care.
However, the reality is a postcode lottery. We heard many good examples of that. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) spoke movingly about the plight of Maryam and the fact that children in England still do not have access to what is effectively a life-saving and life-enabling drug. I hope the Minister listened very carefully to that. My hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) raised similar concerns about what children and their families suffer.
Shockingly, 46% of CCGs are failing to implement the Government’s end of life care commitments. I note that when Ministers are questioned on the provision of health and social care services for disabled children, their answer invariably includes the words, “The commissioning of health and social care services is the responsibility of clinical commissioning groups and local authorities respectively.” That is all very well, but agreed standards are not being implemented.
I know the Minister cares about this issue, but there is a worrying lack of accountability. Will she outline what steps the Government will take to bridge the accountability gap? Will she clarify who is responsible for commissioning palliative care and who is responsible for commissioning respite breaks for families? Respite breaks provide essential relief for the parents and siblings of children with severe life-threatening and life-limiting conditions; they are often the difference between coping and not coping. Does she agree there is a desperate need for a review of all commissioning of palliative care and support services, and that the Government need to develop an overarching strategy to bring an end to the postcode lottery that leaves so many families struggling to access vital services?
An important part of the support available is provided by children’s hospices. We have heard many examples of those; the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) and others talked about excellent hospice care. In the main, hospices are charitable organisations that rely for the majority of their funding on donations and fundraising in the local community. The current economic climate makes it more difficult for hospices to raise the requisite funding; at the same time, the proportion of funding provided by the NHS is falling. Again, there is no consistency or strategic oversight of the amounts that CCGs and local authorities contribute.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentions the fundraising that is done by some excellent organisations and lots of individuals, some of whom we have heard about. Does she agree that the Government should undertake to fund increased pension contributions for staff working in hospitals, instead of giving with one hand and taking with the other?
Julie Cooper
I totally agree, and I will come to that point in a moment.
The average NHS contribution to children’s hospices is only 9%. Recent additional costs relating to the implementation of the NHS staff pay award and extra pension costs have pushed many hospices into a dire financial position, with closure a real possibility. Where hospices are forced to close, the NHS is left to fund the entire cost of health and social care for those children and young people.
In that context, the announcement by NHS England in December of £25 million of extra funding for children’s hospices was extremely welcome. However, children’s hospices do not know how to access that extra funding. Derian House Children’s Hospice in Chorley, which currently supports 12 families from my constituency, told me this week that there is no clarity about how that newly committed funding can be accessed. As many Members mentioned, since the publication of the NHS 10-year plan there has been confusion about what exactly has been promised.
The Minister will be aware that the 10-year plan promises that, over the next five years,
“NHS England will increase its contribution by match-funding clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) who commit to increase their investment in local children’s palliative and end of life care services including children’s hospices.”
Does she agree that that is confusing, and will she clarify the following points? Will the £25 million promised in December be only for children’s hospices or for a wider group of children’s palliative care services? Can she guarantee that, as a result of the long-term plan, the £11 million children’s hospice grant will be protected and increased to reflect the growing demand and complexity of care provided by those lifeline services? The total spend on children’s palliative care in hospices, hospitals and the community currently exceeds £25 million, so the promised funding could be viewed—I am sure this is unintentional—as a cap on NHS spending on children’s palliative care. In the light of that, can she reassure me that the NHS will indeed provide additional funding for children’s hospices?
I turn briefly to the financial pressures that parents of children with seriously ill children often experience. The 2018 “Counting the cost” survey of families who provide long-term care for a disabled child found that many experienced huge financial difficulties. A third of all families surveyed said they had additional costs of more than £300 each month. Some 46% of families had been threatened with court action for non-payment of bills. That is hardly surprising given that 87% of the families surveyed were unable to work because of their caring commitments.
CLIC Sargent has highlighted that children suffering with cancer often have to travel longer distances than adult patients for regular treatments, placing a significant additional financial burden on parents already coping with so much. Will the Minister commit to introducing a package of financial support that includes a children and young people’s cancer travel fund for parents who care for children with life-threatening diseases? Will she also spare a thought for bereaved parents and accelerate the introduction of the children’s funeral fund that so many Members have requested?
In conclusion, I ask that the Minister answers the specific points that I and other hon. Members have raised, and commits to implementing a comprehensive strategy that provides a consistent standard of joined-up, adequately funded children’s palliative care that has full parity with adult care.
Ms Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)
Minister, will you leave one minute at the end for Mr Shannon to wind up?
The Minister for Care (Caroline Dinenage)
Of course, Ms Dorries. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing the debate and on his enduring and passionate commitment to this incredibly important cause.
We heard incredibly powerful speeches from both sides of the Chamber, with lots of great examples of amazing practice in different regions. Some worrying issues were mentioned; I thank the hon. Members for West Ham (Lyn Brown) and for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) for raising the issue of the life-saving drug that they are keen to get hold of for their constituents. I will of course commit to looking at that with the Secretary of State, but I share the concern of the hon. Member for West Ham that children should never be used as pawns in communications between drug companies and Government organisations.
Caroline Dinenage
Absolutely. The meeting probably would not be with me, because the issue does not fall under my portfolio, but it is really important that the hon. Lady meets the relevant Minister.
The debate has been very broad, and a lot of questions were asked. I will attempt to answer as many as I can, but I commit to writing to hon. Members with all the answers they asked for if I miss any out. Whenever we discuss this issue, we must keep at the back of our minds the powerful point made by the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), despite her throat issues, that at a time of their lives when they are dealing with unimaginable stress and grief, parents should not have to fight for what they need to best care for their children.
The hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) painted a picture of how the world ends when you lose a child. I cannot even begin to imagine that, but it must feel the same to be told that your child may die at a young age. That must, quite simply, be devastating. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, almost 40,000 children and young people aged 19 or under in England live with a life-limiting condition and may need palliative care. Of those, around 1,000 die every year.
As outlined in the NHS long-term plan, we know that children’s palliative and end of life care have not kept pace with the growth in clinical care costs or with inflation. NHS England’s hospice grant programme provides £11 million a year for children’s hospices, which are incredibly valuable. I have spoken before—probably in this room—about my great passion for children’s hospices. That comes from my mum who helped raise money to build Naomi House children’s hospice just outside Winchester, and throughout my twenties she made the whole family partake in a range of humiliating fundraising exercises to raise money for that. I went to visit Naomi House again last year, many years later, and I saw at first hand the incredible, valuable services that it offers, not just for end of life care, but because of its respite and outreach work, which is a lifeline for so many families.
Hon. Members will know the invaluable services offered by children’s hospices, and I was pleased that in the long-term plan additional funding has been made available each year for children’s palliative and end of life care services. I understand the confusion about the different amounts that have been mentioned and issues around that, and Department officials are currently working with NHS England to clarify those numbers and what they mean. I am clear that funding for children’s hospices is vital. We must ensure they get the money they need, and that money must increase from its current levels.
As the hon. Member for Strangford pointed out, there is regional variation in how palliative care is delivered. I know that such care is exceptional in some parts of the country, and many staff up and down the country go above and beyond to ensure that experiences for children with life-limiting conditions, and those at the end of their life, are as good as they can be. We know, however, that there are areas where we need to do considerably more, and NHS England is firmly focused on providing support and challenge to achieve that. Choice at the end of life is a centrepiece of the Government’s drive to improve end of life care, and for choice to be meaningful it needs to be personalised and matched by healthcare services that respond in an effective way that places patients, families and carers at the heart of decision making. We know when we achieve that that we have got it right, but also that we have a long way to go. I pay tribute to the all-party group for children who need palliative care, and charities such as Together for Short Lives, and the work they are doing to take that crusade forward.
Catherine McKinnell
I appreciate the commitment made by the Minister that her officials will clarify those figures. Will she also commit to ensuring that children’s hospices do not receive less money as a result of the long-term plan? Can she make that reassuring commitment to everybody watching the debate today?
Caroline Dinenage
I know that we are planning to meet next month to discuss this issue in more detail, but my understanding from the announcement in the long-term plan is that there will be an increase in funding for children’s hospices. I would not support a move towards anything other than that, so we are certainly in agreement about the value that children’s hospices offer up and down our country.
In July 2016, “Our commitment to you for end of life care” set out what everyone should expect from care at the end of life, and the actions being taken to make high-quality personalised care a reality for all. NHS England is responsible for delivering that commitment in partnership with key stakeholders through its national end of life care programme board. The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned ensuring that sustainability and transformation partnerships and integrated care systems deliver care in a way that supports their local population. NHS England is already working with Public Health England and the Care Quality Commission to provide bespoke end of life care data and support packs to STP and ICS areas, to help plan for and improve end of life services.
NHS England is developing a new indicator for clinical commissioning groups to measure deaths in hospital after three or more emergency admissions in the final 90 days of life. That sounds like a technical piece of data to collect, but such vital information will help us to understand exactly what care is being delivered, and ensure that we spread best practice and identify areas for improvement.
The hon. Gentleman rightly highlighted the crucial role that leadership and accountability play in commissioning those vital services, and NHS England has and is seeking to improve support for commissioners when funding and delivering children’s end of life care. In April 2017 it made available a new specialist palliative care currency—one for adults and one for children—to support local areas in planning and delivering services, including hospice services. The currency can help local services better understand complexity of care and the investment needed to deliver it. It can be difficult for some commissioners to develop suitable models to meet children’s needs, given that in some geographical areas relatively small numbers are involved. That is why NHS England has established an expert group, which includes Together for Short Lives, to bring together knowledge and expertise in children’s end of life care, consider developing models that are suitable for that incredibly vulnerable group of patients, and set up pilot models of care that will be implemented later this year.
A number of hon. Members mentioned short break services, and access to respite and short breaks is fundamental for many families and carers. Local authorities have a legal duty to commission short breaks, and although the NHS’s role is not statutory but a matter for local commissioners, it may also provide clinical support. Having the reassurance of clinical oversight can often mean the difference between carers taking those much-needed breaks and feeling unable to do so, and it is important that such work is collaborative. A recent report from Together for Short Lives found that 84% of clinical commissioning groups said that they commission short breaks for children who need palliative care—an increase from 77% in 2018. We want to ensure that 100% of clinical commissioning groups make such a contribution so that carers have access to the breaks they need. NHS England provides bespoke data and commissioning support to STP and ICS areas to enable them to plan and deliver effective services, such as short breaks, for children and young people.
Access to and quality of palliative and end of life care goes beyond funding for hospices, and through the long-term plan we are accelerating the roll-out of personal health budgets to give people greater control and choice. We want 200,000 people to benefit from a personal health budget by 2023-24, and that will include things such as provision of bespoke wheelchairs and community-based packages for personal and domestic support. NHS England is expanding the offer of mental health services to people receiving social care support and those receiving specialist or end of life care.
Julie Cooper
Does the Minister agree that the 49,000 babies, children and young people who have been diagnosed with life-threatening or life-limiting conditions would all benefit from a personal finance plan?
Caroline Dinenage
That is right. The system has to be rolled out carefully because we must get it 100% right. It is a jointly funded and collaborative system, but at the end of 2018 it covered 32,000 people, and by 2023-24 it will cover 200,000 people. That shows enormous progress and commitment, and it will give those who want it more choice and control over what kind of care and support they need to meet their needs.
NHS England is developing a refreshed end of life care core skills education and training framework to standardise training, and the NHS now employs more staff than at any other time in its history. The data does not identify nursing specialities, such as palliative care, but the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) may be interested to know that 648 full-time equivalent doctors are working in palliative medicine, which is 202 more than in May 2010—an increase of 45.2%. NHS England’s long-term plan sets out how it will work with patients, families, local authorities and voluntary sector partners to personalise and improve end of life care.
I will write to the hon. Member for Strangford about NHS pensions and hospices. I was going to mention “Agenda for Change”, but I do not have much time and I wish to leave him time to conclude the debate. I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in this debate. We know there is more to be done to meet our ambition to reduce variation at the end of life and ensure proper support for children with life-limiting conditions and their families.
Jim Shannon
I thank you, Ms Dorries, for enabling all Members to speak today, and I thank the 17 right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken for their personal and incredible contributions, which came from every region of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Their constituents should be proud of their elected representatives who made such significant contributions to the debate. I thank the Minister for her compassionate and understanding response, and for her obvious interest in and commitment to improving the situation. The meetings that she will hold will be an indication of how that goes. Today this House shone a light on an issue that has united us. Is it too much to hope that before the day is out, we may unite on other things as well?
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered support for children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions and their families.
Short Prison Sentences
(5 years, 2 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
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effectiveness of short prison sentences.
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on boxing and a steward of the British Boxing Board of Control.
I have called this debate because I was heartened by the Minister’s recent statement that he is seriously considering abolishing short-term prison sentences. Considering the many reports in the news about the apparent decline of prisons across the country— perhaps most notably HM Prison Bedford—this debate could not have come at a better time. It is my hope that the debate will serve as the beginning of a conversation with the Government, wider society, charities and other organisations that inspires confidence in our criminal justice system and brings about effective, fair punishment in the future.
According to Dr Robert Jones at the Wales Governance Centre, Wales has the highest imprisonment rate in western Europe. As of last Friday, there were more than 82,400 people serving sentences in prisons across England and Wales, 95% of them male. The current prison capacity of England and Wales is estimated to be around 85,000, which means many prisons are suffering from severe overcrowding and a massive strain on resources. This overcrowding leads to increased risk of inmate violence, and leaves resources and staff thinly stretched across the prison, which can heavily impact on the success of rehabilitating inmates.
It is clear that things have to change. I believe that there are alternatives available to the Government. If we were to see more investment in community services and rehabilitative treatment programmes, which can address an offender’s criminogenic needs, we would see a reduction in the prison population and rates of reoffending. I am aware that the Minister expressed an interest in abolishing sentences of only three months, but I believe that there is a case to extend this to sentences of up to six months. All of the evidence stacks up to show that shorter sentences do not work.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making some good points about overcrowding and the state of the prison estate. When looking at short sentences, the key issue for me is whether they achieve the rehabilitation of prisoners; my judgment is that they do not. Would he agree?
Chris Evans
The hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point, which I will elaborate on later. There are numerous examples of people in the system with substance abuse issues, who cannot get into substance abuse rehabilitation or overcome their problem, who then find themselves outside, and get back into the system. I will develop this argument more as I go on and I will be happy to take another intervention, if the hon. Gentleman so wishes.
To me, short sentences do not help to reduce reoffending and they can cause unnecessary disruption to the lives of those who could have been dealt with in ways that have seen better results.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
My hon. Friend talks about the impact on people’s lives. A recent report published by the Prison Reform Trust showed that 17,000 children in England and Wales are affected by maternal imprisonment each year. One in four women are sentenced to less than one month. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is completely unsustainable for women and their children?
Chris Evans
In the case of non-violent crimes, especially those committed by women, there is a real argument to make about that. I cannot quote the figures off the top of my head, but I understand that a large number of women who are locked up have been victims of domestic violence. The courts need to accept that and think about it when they are sentencing women in the future. As I said, 95% of the prison population is male. How many of the 5% who are women have been convicted of non-violent crimes and sentenced to less than one month? Many women are in nurturing and caring roles, with children and also with elderly parents, and that would cause severe disruption as well.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is critical to develop a robust and credible system of community sentences, so that my constituents can feel satisfied that when people are punished by the court they truly receive something that is inconvenient, rehabilitative and credible?
Chris Evans
The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head. This is all about building confidence in community rehabilitation sentencing. Somebody said to me earlier in the week that if somebody’s house gets burgled, they want to feel that people have been punished. However, community sentencing is seen as the soft option. As this debate goes on over the next few months, we have to be talking about building confidence in those sentences—the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
The Revolving Doors Agency’s campaign, which is called #shortsighted, backs the sentiment that ending short sentences can reduce cost and be resource effective. It is calling on the Government to bring an end to short sentences and opt for community-based sentences instead.
In England and Wales we are too quick to send people to prison for petty and often persistent crimes. I understand that Governments of all shades are often influenced by the media, which likes the idea of “lock them up”. The fact that many people who have received a short sentence often reoffend and commit similar crimes shows that short-term sentences are ineffective in reducing recidivism. Government statistics from 2018 show that 63% of those who had sentences of less than 12 months went on to reoffend within a year. It is clear that short prison sentences do not provide an apt amount of time to stage an intervention and address the needs of an offender, particularly if that offender is also experiencing ongoing problems with drug and alcohol use or other mental health issues.
On the other side of the coin, those who have committed crimes of animal cruelty face a maximum of six months’ imprisonment in Wales. I understand that the Government in England have committed to increase that to five years, an extension which I believe should be applied to all parts of the UK. Six months hardly provides enough time for an intervention in such criminal behaviour, and animal cruelty should not be treated in the same manner as petty crimes. I support the continued campaign by Battersea Dogs & Cats Home to increase these sentences.
Last year, the Revolving Doors Agency carried out research among voters of all parties in England and Wales, bearing in mind what I said about the media and “lock them up”. It found that an overwhelming 80% believe that those convicted of petty crimes, such as theft of daily essentials, should not be sent to prison. They also found that voters strongly back reducing the prison population and investing money in activities such as drug treatment programmes instead, with 74% thinking that offenders who have committed a petty crime and who have drug or alcohol addictions belong in treatment programmes, instead of prison. What is more, the majority of voters said that they would be more likely to vote for an MP who supported reducing prison populations and investing the savings into treatment programmes, with only 16% saying that they would be unlikely to do so.
Alex Chalk
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that we need to slay the myth that this country is somehow soft on locking people up? Across the United Kingdom over 90,000 people are locked up, whereas in France the figure is closer to 60,000 people. It is important that we set the record straight, and do so loud and clear.
Chris Evans
I absolutely agree. From the contributions that we have had so far, the tone of the debate makes me think that we are going to produce something that will inspire confidence. I welcome all the interventions we have had so far; it has been good. The hon. Gentleman is right. Coming from a small country like Wales, I find it amazing that we have the highest prison population in western Europe.
I have always been supportive of the UK’s prison system taking a rehabilitative approach with offenders, rather than a punitive one. Rehabilitation is proven in successfully reducing reoffending rates, far more than a punitive system does. All we need to do is to look to prison systems in countries such as Norway and Finland to see that rehabilitating and educating offenders massively reduces rates of crime, and to the US and Russia to see that punishment does not.
People being imprisoned in England and Wales are mostly being convicted of non-violent, petty crimes. Many of these offenders have other issues, such as alcohol, drugs or their mental health. Sending those people to prison for a few months will not help them, and nor will it help wider society. The Ministry of Justice has published research in the past which confirms the fact that offenders given short-term prison sentences were associated with significantly higher proven reoffending than those given a community order or suspended sentence.
To reduce reoffending by those with substance abuse or mental health issues, treatment programmes would be far more beneficial than imprisonment. For younger offenders engaging in petty crime, perhaps educational workshops would be better. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on boxing I have been researching and learning about the benefits of sport and boxing in reducing and deterring criminal behaviour and keeping young people on the straight and narrow. It is definitely an avenue that the Government should consider exploring. However, despite a review from Rosie Meek about the benefits of sports, boxing and martial arts in prisons, the Government have yet to act on the recommendations. I want to ask the Minister whether I and a delegation from the all-party group could come to discuss her report with him.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a considered speech, and I wholeheartedly agree with it. We both represent working-class communities that believe in being tough on crime and its causes. Does he agree that the Government could do much more to support projects such as the Wildcard boxing academy in my community, which keeps young people in places such as St Helens out of the criminal justice system in the first place?
Chris Evans
When it comes to boxing there is evidence. I could cite a huge number of champions, from both sides of the Atlantic—some famous examples—who found themselves in trouble and used boxing to turn themselves around, because of the discipline that the sport taught them. The Government need to take those ideas on board, and provide support for boxing clubs, which tend to be at the bottom of the pile when money is handed out in community grants.
John Howell
Does the hon. Gentleman think there is a great contradiction in the health service engaging in social prescription, by encouraging people to engage in sports activities, while the Prison Service does not?
Chris Evans
Yes. The trend in the past 20 years has been that prevention is better than cure. The NHS is getting success in encouraging people suffering from obesity to go on to fitness and diet programmes. There is some success from that approach, and it could be transferred to the Prison Service. If people with energy have time on their hands, sport can fill it.
In research published last year by the Ministry of Justice it was found that reductions in reoffending were associated with the use of court orders such as community sentences rather than short custodial sentences. The effect was greater for people with a larger number of prior offences, younger offenders, and people with severe mental health problems. For those with prior offences who have already served a number of short stints in prison, imprisonment is clearly not a deterrent but more of an occupational hazard. It is interesting, therefore, that those offenders are less likely to reoffend when given community sentences.
Community sentences can be a win-win for all. Taxpayers’ money is saved, local communities and projects benefit and offenders learn skills and the value of giving back to society instead of taking from it. Not only do short sentences do nothing to rehabilitate an offender or reduce their risk of reoffending; sending people to prison for a few months unnecessarily adds to the overcrowding in prisons throughout the country. As I mentioned, England and Wales are reaching peak prison capacity and many prisons are heavily overcrowded. The overcrowding means even more strain on already pressured prison staff and resources; there are not enough of them as it is. That in turn has an impact on the success of inmate rehabilitation, levels of violence in prisons and access to illegal drugs, not to mention the wellbeing of prison staff.
That overcrowding could be prevented if courts did not instantly resort to sentencing offenders to short prison terms for non-violent petty crimes. In the year ending June 2018 almost 29,000 people entered prison to serve sentences of six months or less. That was 47% of all sentenced offenders entering prison during that time. According to Ministry of Justice prison performance statistics for 2017-18, in England and Wales the cost of keeping one person in prison for a year stood at £37,543. That works out at about £3,125 per month for one prisoner. The annual figure is more than Brits earn on average each year, and is almost as much as the cost of a place at an elite public school. Think of the amount of money we could save and invest elsewhere, if we did not imprison people on short sentences. It would also save money in the long run, as those who serve a community sentence or enter a rehabilitation programme are less likely to reoffend and to be imprisoned again in the future.
The money saved could be invested into the programmes and used to create more jobs and train more staff in the skills required to work in rehabilitation and treatment services, as well as being spent on other public services. With the looming threat of a no-deal Brexit and a shrinking economy, we need to be more efficient and effective with money and resources, and invest in and utilise more efficient and effective options.
It is not just the placement in prison for a few months that is costly. Short-term sentences can be hugely disruptive to people’s lives and lead them to be more reliant on public and social services than they were before entering prison. Resettling a previously imprisoned offender back into the community uses up a lot of time, money and resources. Short sentences can disrupt employment and housing situations, which can lead to more people applying for and relying on universal credit. There is a risk of people being left homeless, particularly if they are released on a Friday, as happened to more than 25,000 people in 2017-18. The public services that people rely on upon release, such as access to benefits, medication, housing or other assistance, are closed over the weekend. That means there is a risk that they will not get their basic needs supplied and that they will sleep rough for at least three nights. Therefore they will be at increased risk of reoffending. From there the offender can fall into the cycle of offending and imprisonment, which racks up the costs in the long run.
I know that the Minister is committed to prison reform and reducing the levels of inmate violence and access to drugs, and that he recognises the virtue of rehabilitating and educating inmates. I commend him for that. I hope he would agree therefore that, if we truly want to protect the public and remove people from a life of crime, so that they become proactive citizens who make positive contributions to society, we must take heed of the research and the multitude of statistics showing that short prison sentences do not work. I mentioned earlier the Revolving Doors Agency’s #shortsighted campaign, and I urge the Minister to take on board its recommendations. It calls on the Government to introduce a presumption against short custodial sentences of less than six months, much as the Scottish Government have done. That would allow for such sentences to be given only when no other appropriate option was available. In cases where short prison sentences were imposed for non-violent petty crimes, the courts would have to give a reason why they had opted for a custodial sentence over a community one. What is more, that approach would not remove the court’s discretion, and would allow courts to deal with more serious and violent offences appropriately. What is proposed is a presumption, not a ban on short prison sentences.
The fact that an offender does not go to prison does not mean that they are escaping justice or retribution. Such offenders will serve their time in another way, whether through curfews and tags or community service that benefits the wider community. Many of them face pressing personal issues, including substance abuse, homelessness or mental illness. I believe that they should be given the opportunity to escape the vicious cycle of criminal behaviour. They should have help alongside serving their community sentence, so that they can be rehabilitated and learn skills that can benefit their local economy and wider society.
We have to ask: do we truly want our streets to be safe, or do we want offenders to be punished and thrown into an expensive cycle of petty criminal behaviour and short-term imprisonment? If the answer is the former, the only way forward is to focus on how we can help those people change their lives for the better, rather than throwing them in prison and forgetting about them for several months. By allowing the latter to happen we will only contribute to the rising level of crime on the streets, and to overstretched prison services. I hope that the Minister can agree with me on that, and that he will pursue alternatives to short-term prison sentences.
As I said at the beginning of the debate, I look forward to engaging in a constructive and robust conversation. I do not expect to get all the answers today. However, I want a real opportunity to engage, over the next few months, in bringing about a justice system that brings benefits and, above all, inspires the confidence of the whole community.
Ms Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)
You can only intervene in a 30-minute debate; I am afraid you cannot make a speech.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) for his fantastic speech, which has really framed the problem we are dealing with today. I am happy to encourage interventions from any hon. Member; I am sorry to hear that we will not be hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), who has an enormous amount to contribute to this debate.
Rory Stewart
He can always intervene on me. I will first touch briefly on the issue of public protection, secondly try to take a concrete example from Bedford Prison about how short-term prison sentences actually work in reality, thirdly touch on the alternatives to prison and, finally, talk about the prison regime.
I begin with public protection. It is not a subject that can be approached with anything other than the greatest, profoundest degree of seriousness. In the end, almost the most fundamental duty of our Government is to protect the public, and in particular to protect the public against crime. Whatever we are talking about today, all parties across the House begin with a fundamental understanding that crime is wrong and that it can inflict unspeakable misery on a victim. We have only to think of recent events—victims of knife crime, innocent people smashed up in the streets, victims of burglary, victims of sexual offences—to see why we must begin with absolute horror at and abhorrence of crime.
In addressing it, we must combine our desire to punish people, quite rightly, for committing crimes, our desire to deter more people from committing crimes in the future, our desire to rehabilitate people and change their behaviour, our desire to protect the public, and our desire to pass on a strong message that we will not tolerate this misery being inflicted on the public. When we talk about this, it is important to stress that nobody, on either side of the House, is in any way questioning the horror that crime imposes on victims.
However, it is also important to look at the reality of what is happening in our prisons. On Thursday last week, I was in Bedford Prison, talking to a man. I asked, “How long have you been in for?” He said, “Three weeks.” I asked if it was his first time in Bedford Prison and he said, “No, I was here eight times last year.” I said, “How could you possibly have been in Bedford Prison eight times last year?” He showed me his arm; he was not wearing his shirt and he had tracks from his heroin addiction right the way up his arm. He said, “What happens is, I’m a heroin addict. I leave Bedford Prison after a few weeks, I don’t really know what to do with myself, I shoplift and I get put back in Bedford Prison again.” The question is, what purpose is being served by moving this man in and out of Bedford Prison eight times in a year?
Rory Stewart
By all means, we can come back to that suggestion, but first I will go through some of the purposes that might be put forward. It was quite clear from my conversation with him that this was a man who had serious mental health issues, serious learning difficulties and a serious drug addiction. The first suggestion, made by the sotto voce intervention from my hon. Friend, is that perhaps the reason we have put him in prison is that when he is in prison he is not shoplifting. That is true, but we must remember that he is only in prison for three weeks. It is not a great protection of the public from his shoplifting if he is removed for three weeks and then popped back on to the streets again.
The second reason that people would suggest for his being put in prison is to deter him from committing an offence in the future. That is clearly not working: he leaves, he reoffends. The third reason he might be put in prison is to rehabilitate him—to change him so that he does not reoffend. That is clearly not working, because he is obviously reoffending. The final view that is sometimes put forward by judges or magistrates is that there is no alternative; they have tried everything else with this person, so what else can they do other than put him in prison? But it is not working. The idea that there is no alternative to putting this person in and bringing him out again cannot possibly make sense.
That brings us to the nub of the issue: prison, for somebody such as that, does not seem to be working. A better way of dealing with them would be a community sentence that addressed the fundamental problem, which is that this man is a heroin addict. The right kind of treatment programme is not about being soft on the individual, but about protecting the public. If we can turn his life around so that he is not coming out and reoffending seven more times in a year, that shop is protected and the public are protected from the misery of crime.
It is also worth bearing in mind the prison itself. Our prisons are currently facing a rising tide of violence, a rising tide of drugs and a rising tide of assaults on prison officers and prisoners. An enormous amount of that is driven by short-term prisoners. The way that drugs get into prison is frequently through prisoners bringing them in, often inside their bodies. The people who are coming in and out of those prisons most frequently are, of course, prisoners with short-term prison sentences—people such as the man I met, who are coming in and out eight times in a year. By definition, if someone has been put in prison for 20 years, they only have one opportunity to bring drugs into prison. Someone who is going in and out on short sentences is really contributing to that flow.
Furthermore, someone who is not imprisoned for 20 years does not have the same incentives to engage with the regime. Somebody who is in for 20 years will often settle down and focus on work and education; they need to make a life in prison. Somebody who is in for a few weeks simply does not have the same attitude toward prison. Therefore, from the point of view of a prison governor or prison officer, the prisoners on whom they are spending an enormous amount of time are those on short-term prison sentences.
That relates also to self-harm and suicide: people are at their most vulnerable in prison on their first night there. It is very destabilising to go into a prison. That is when much of the self-harm and suicide happens, so a lot of the prison officers’ focus is on those people who are coming in and out for a few weeks, but it is difficult to do them much good. In Durham Prison, the average length of stay at the moment is 10 days. Ten days cannot possibly be long enough to get someone into an education programme, a work programme or a drug treatment programme.
Prison is and should be a very serious thing. It is very expensive. In certain cases, it costs more than sending someone to Eton. It is incredibly complex to manage. We are dealing potentially with people who could be terrorists, murderers or sex offenders and with a complicated regime, moving people in and out of cells, keeping them safe in prison and dealing with self-harm. That requires an enormous amount of professionalism. Having a safe, stable, decent prison, which would be helped by not having prisoners on short-term sentences, would help us to focus on the more serious prisoners and to do the professional work to turn their lives around.
We must get the right kind of community sentence in place, ensure that those people are not destabilised by being dragged in and out of prison all the time and recognise that the wrong type of short sentence is long enough to harm them but not long enough to change them. It is long enough to harm them because they lose their house, their partner and, if they have one, a job; they come into prison, and—bang!—a few weeks later they are back out on the streets again, with none of the support networks that might keep them stable, they commit crime again and they are back inside prison.
If we can find a way of working with them in the community, we can prove what is absolutely clear from all the research we have done: they are less likely to reoffend after a community sentence than after a short prison sentence. If I take that man in Bedford Prison as an illustration, that individual, given a community sentence, is less likely to go on to commit that ninth shoplifting offence than if he is put in prison for the eighth time. If he is put in prison for the eighth time, he will almost certainly go on to reoffend; in fact, in two thirds of cases, short-term prison sentence prisoners do so. That is endangering the public, not protecting the public.
What I have talked about today is an expansion on what the hon. Member for Islwyn said, referring to the problem that we face. The solution is much more difficult. We will have to bring parties together in Parliament, we will have to discuss it with judges and magistrates, and above all we will have to discuss it with the public. Our primary obligation is to protect the public from crime, to show our moral abhorrence at crime and our sympathy of its victims, and also to explain that in order to protect the public, we need to be practical and focused. One way of being practical and focused is to be honest about the problems of short-sentence prisoners. I will allow the hon. Gentleman some time for closing remarks.
Ms Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)
Minister, that does not happen in a 30-minute debate. If you would like to continue, you can.
Rory Stewart
I am so sorry; I would be delighted to continue. Many apologies. Perhaps an intervention from the hon. Member for Islwyn?
Chris Evans
I find myself in the happy position of agreeing with everything the Minister has said. His critique of what is going on with short sentences is spot on. I know there are hon. Members on the Opposition side who would be interested to meet with him and talk about a way forward, and I hope we can get those meetings in place. I only regret that the debate was only half an hour; I think we could have spoken all day about this subject.
Rory Stewart
I thank the hon. Gentleman very much. To conclude, we must focus on what outcome we want—not the process, which is the prison, but the outcome. The outcome must be to find the right way of protecting the public, and whether we are talking about punishment, deterrence, incapacitation or rehabilitation, there are serious problems with short-term sentences.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Human Rights: Xinjiang
(5 years, 2 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
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered human rights in Xinjiang.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss this issue. I am also pleased to see a good number of other MPs in the Chamber, given the importance of business elsewhere in the Palace. I am grateful for their support. I place on the record my appreciation of the work in this area of various non-governmental organisations, including Amnesty International, Christian Solidarity Worldwide—CSW—Human Rights Watch and the World Uyghur Congress.
I also add the BBC to that list. It was a remarkable 10-minute report by John Sweeney on “Newsnight” in August 2018 that first brought this issue to my attention; I am ashamed to say that I knew nothing about it until that point. In that 10 minutes he described very graphically the scale of what is happening in Xinjiang province and well illustrated the human cost. Even if the BBC does nothing else worth watching over the next 12 months—I do not completely discount that possibility—that 10 minutes alone justifies the licence fee.
The concerns that I and, I hope, others will raise are all supported by evidence, although there are other concerns that are not so well evidenced. However, even on those concerns for which evidence exists it is impossible to be entirely accurate, as we shall see when looking at the numbers affected. That is principally a consequence of the secrecy and surveillance of the government of the Xinjiang province, which is said to extend not only within the province but outside it as well. Uyghur Muslims living in this country feel very much under the same pressure as those who live in Xinjiang. Parenthetically, I hear anecdotal reports that the Chinese secret service has been recruiting Chinese students at British universities to spy on other Chinese students, thus continuing and worsening the climate of secrecy and fear.
However, thanks to the evidence of “Newsnight” and the efforts of Amnesty, CSW and Human Rights Watch, we have an emerging picture on an epic scale. What is being done in Xinjiang is also happening in Tibet, where mass detention camps have been a feature of the landscape since 2014. The so-called re-education camps, officially known as centres for transformation through education, are principally, but not exclusively, targeted at the Muslim community.
CSW lists reasons for detention in the camps including, among other things: someone having WhatsApp on their phone; having relatives who live abroad; accessing religious materials online; having visited certain “sensitive” countries; participation in communal religious activities; and behaviour indicating “wrong thinking” or “religious extremism”. Indeed, sometimes no reason is given at all.
Amnesty gives some useful context, stating:
“China’s Constitution, laws and ethnic policies all stress ethnic unity and prohibit discrimination against ethnic groups…But China’s expressed determination to eradicate the ‘forces of terrorism, separatism and extremism’ leads officials to pursue discriminatory policies that target members of ethnic groups merely for exercising their rights to freedom of religion and belief, thought, peaceful assembly, association, movement, opinion, expression and access to information.”
Quite incredibly, the Chinese Government continue to deny the existence of these camps. However, eyewitness accounts, documentation relating to the construction and procurement of the camps, and satellite imagery all contradict that denial. The number of detainees is said to be between several hundred thousand and just over 1 million, with CSW saying that it may be as high as 3 million. We can be certain that that number is rising.
What goes on within these detention facilities has been described as Orwellian, which I think, because of what we know, does some injustice to George Orwell. If George Orwell was commissioned to write in the style of Franz Kafka, that might come close. Inmates are required to chant Communist party slogans, recite party thought and take part in self-incrimination sessions.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I thank the Minister for his help in answering several of my questions on this issue. Does the right hon. Gentleman share the concern of many in my constituency, most importantly Mohammed Haroun, representing the Uxbridge Street mosque, who wrote to me to say that the scale of Muslim persecution in China makes what is happening in Myanmar pale into insignificance, and that we must act?
Mr Carmichael
I always think it invidious to try to compare persecution in one country with that in another. However, the hon. Gentleman’s point is a good one. I suspect that we do not hear more about this issue because of the difficulty in getting reliable information out of the province. I will return to that point.
To give a bit more of a human flavour of what goes on in the camps, I will share with the House, and place on the record, a couple of the testimonies from that “Newsnight” report in August. The first is from Azat, whose family are detained in the camp. He describes having been allowed to visit his family, saying:
“It was dinner time. There were at least 1,200 people holding empty plastic bowls in their hands. They had to sing pro-Chinese songs to get food. I never dreamt the place was so huge. The cell windows were barred. From the lights, I knew there were many more people inside as well. I estimate that there were at least 3,500 people in there.”
He describes them, saying:
“They were like robots. They seemed to have lost their souls. I knew many of them well—we used to sit and eat together—but now they didn’t look normal to me. They behaved as if they weren’t aware of what they were doing. They were like someone who’d lost their memory after a car crash.”
There was a further interview with a re-education centre survivor called Omir, who said:
“They have a chair called the tiger. My ankles were shackled, my hands locked into the chair, I couldn’t move. They wouldn’t let me sleep. They also hung me up for hours and they beat me. They had thick wooden and rubber batons, whips made from twisted wire, needles to pierce the skin, pliers for pulling out your nails. All these tools were displayed on the table in front of me, ready for use at any time. You could hear other people screaming as well.
You have no freedom at all. You must do everything according to the rules set by the Communist party: recite what they say, sing red songs, thank the party, think like a robot. You do whatever you are told.”
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
It is hard to listen to some of those descriptions of the situation in the camps and the psychological pressures placed on people. Has the right hon. Gentleman heard evidence, as I have, that DNA samples and biometric data are also being obtained from Uyghurs in the camps, perhaps for the possibility of organ harvesting? That issue has been raised in relation to China before.
Mr Carmichael
I have heard that suggested. The evidence around the purpose of the use of DNA harvesting—I think, clearly the fact that it is suggested demands proper investigation. I think it is something that we as a country could do, and that we should lead on exerting pressure for such an investigation; but whether or not that is actually happening, I do not honestly know and I am careful not to overstate the case. What we know, and what is evidenced already, is certainly bad enough.
The human rights report produced by the Minister’s own Department, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in June 2018 said of Xinjiang that
“the authorities introduced intrusive security and surveillance measures and cultural restrictions targeted at the Uyghur Muslim population. Thousands of Uyghurs were held in re-education camps after returning from abroad.”
I would suggest, on the basis of what we know now—what has come to light since then—that if anything, that is something of an understatement. I will look with interest to see how that statement is revised in this year’s human rights report.
I am conscious of the shortage of time and am grateful for the support of colleagues who have turned up for the debate. I could say a lot more, but I will focus now on why this matter should concern us and what my asks are of the Minister. First, it should concern us because the United Kingdom is a party to several declarations of human rights, including the universal declaration. The defining characteristic of human rights is surely their universality. An abuse or denial of human rights anywhere is a denial that affects us all.
The issue affects a number of Uyghur Muslims living in this country. “Newsnight” spoke of one case in which a family member had lost contact with up to 20 members of her family, who had possibly been taken into detention. What we know about the threats to the Muslim population in Xinjiang province raises serious questions for our own asylum policy. We know that there are some 10 Uyghur Muslims with active asylum claims at the moment. I know that this is not directly within the Minister’s responsibilities, but the Government should consider following the example of Sweden and Germany and introducing a moratorium on returns to China of Muslims from the Uyghur province.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to the Chamber for us to debate. The issue is not only the need for pressure in relation to asylum applications and so on. Other authoritarian states are copying that example and piling in and persecuting citizens in a similar way.
Mr Carmichael
That is absolutely the case. It is the contagion of the abuse of human rights. We have seen it times without number in different parts of the world down the decades.
What consideration have the Government given to the use of section 13 of the Criminal Finances Act 2017 in response to gross human rights abuses? This could be a good first test of that section. Most importantly of all, what will the Government in this country do to see that an independent investigation is carried out into what is happening in Xinjiang province? The Chinese Government have said that they would be prepared to co-operate with a UN-led investigation. As a permanent member of the Security Council and as an advocate and strong promoter and defender of human rights, our country could take an important lead in making that sort of investigation happen. We should not be relying on groups such as Amnesty, Christian Solidarity Worldwide and Human Rights Watch to find out what is going on.
Human rights are to be defended wherever they are challenged. The right to religious belief should be defended, and everyone has a right to due process. None of these things features in the way in which Uyghur Muslims and others in Xinjiang province are treated. We have a direct interest at play also. It is obvious that the treatment of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang is now acting as a recruiting sergeant for Daesh, for IS. As that happens, yes, of course its primary focus will be in relation to China, but we know from our own experience that Daesh, IS, does not confine its activities to any single country, so Britain has a very direct interest in ensuring that the rights of Muslims and others of religious faith in Xinjiang province are protected, and that the abuses are brought into the public domain so that their human rights and those of others can be protected.
Several hon. Members rose—
Phil Wilson (in the Chair)
Order. Several people want to speak, and I want the Back-Bench speeches to finish at 28 minutes past 3 so that we can give the three Front Benchers 10 minutes each and then allow two minutes for the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who moved the motion, to conclude his remarks, so I ask people to keep their speeches to about five minutes. I do not want to impose a time limit. If we play it that way, we should get everybody in.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
It is a privilege to speak in this debate, and I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing it and for his speech, with which I very much concur.
Last week, as chair of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, I was able to meet a Uyghur Muslim who is now living in Washington DC and part of the NGO the Uyghur Entrepreneurs Network. He said that, about two years ago, Uyghurs who use Washington as a base—there are now about 3,000 of them—started reporting that relatives in China were disappearing. He says that, now, every Uyghur he meets there has a relative who has disappeared. Indeed, all of his own relatives have disappeared. The last one was his father, who sent a message to him saying, “Son, they have come for me.”
As we have heard, reports suggest that there are huge numbers—quite possibly more than 1 million—in the camps. People are often there for no reason at all. I am told that the difficulties experienced by Uyghur girls are such that they are even selected for Communist party officials to have relationships with them and used for bartering in exchange for their family’s freedom.
The religious dimension to the detentions is self-evident. Detainees are predominantly, although not exclusively, Muslim; they include people of Uyghur, Kazakh and Kyrgyz ethnicity. In this climate of fear, Uyghur Muslims have stopped public and communal religious observance. We have been told about the treatment of people once they are in the camps. Detainees have been not only forced to renounce their religion but forced, we understand, to eat pork or drink alcohol, in violation of their right to freedom of religion or belief. Conditions in the camps are extremely difficult, as we have heard.
The awful treatment extends even to children in the camps. Children as young as three can be detained, although sadly the children of those detained are often left to fend for themselves. We were told last week of one child who was found frozen—they had died when their parents were taken away. Children are often mistreated or sent to retraining centres. We have heard of children as young as six months old being locked up like farm animals in a shed.
Let me also draw the Minister’s attention to the concerns about DNA testing of Uyghurs, about which we have heard, and the potential that that might be being used for forced organ harvesting. I know that that is currently being investigated by the independent China tribunal, chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice, QC. It would be interesting to hear the Minister’s comments on that.
Bob Fu, of China Aid, told us last week that the human rights violations in terms of religious persecution are at their worst for some 40 years in China. I am grateful to the UK, during the universal periodic review, for calling on China to implement the recommendations of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and to allow the UN to monitor the implementation. But the UK needs to do as much as it can to ensure international accountability for the human rights violations, so can the Minister say whether he will support the calls for the UK to work with others in the international community to establish an independent, impartial and comprehensive UN-led investigation and to work towards the establishment of a mechanism for accountability on this issue?
Let me also draw colleagues’ attention to concerns in America. In relation to what is said to be happening in China, the Washington Post says:
“It’s hard to read that as anything other than a declaration of genocidal intent.”
This month, members of Congress and the Senate introduced the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act, which calls for the President to condemn the abuses, for the Secretary of State to co-ordinate closely with the traditional allies on targeted sanctions and restrictions, and for the appointment of a US special co-ordinator for the Uyghur autonomous region. It also calls on the private sector to conduct due diligence in dealings with China, and asks the FBI to track and take steps to hold accountable officials from China who harass, threaten or intimidate US citizens and legal permanent residents. I hope the Minister will join me in welcoming this action from the US and that he will co-ordinate with his counterparts there on this situation.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I want to thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this important debate on a topic that is overlooked.
We have all been made aware of the plight of the Uyghurs in the last year or so by the media coverage, the satellite images, and those who have family and friends in the region, who talk about the abuses taking place. Last week I met with several human rights groups to discuss the reports of widespread abuse in the Xinjiang region. The experts I spoke to emphasised that while tensions between the Communist party and the Chinese citizens of non-Han identity have been present for some time, the last two years have seen violent escalation in the state policy. Uyghurs, Kazakhs and other Muslim minorities are now facing unprecedented levels of repression.
Since 2017, a network of enormous holding camps has been built, with as many as 1 million Uyghurs said to be currently detained in them. As evidence of these camps has become indisputable, thanks largely to investigative journalism, we have seen a shift in the rhetoric of the Chinese state. Colleagues will be aware that for a long time the Chinese Government denied the reports that the camps existed and that people were falsely detained in them. Now, of course, they say, “Oh yes, there are camps, but they are vocational training centres and educational centres.” I am not the only one who is very sceptical of this. The United Nations and our Government have publicly expressed deep concerns about those sites.
Given that individuals are forcibly placed within them, we must recognise that they are camps. There has also been evidence of physical abuse and torture of the people there, as eloquently set out by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. We know that the Chinese Government have argued that the measures are justified by the growing threat of religious extremism and separatist activism in the region. However, it should go without saying that whatever the perceived threats, the measures have lost all sense of proportion. Uyghurs outside the camps are now also subject to some of the most pervasive and intrusive surveillance systems in the world, including being on a register of DNA samples and blood types, and constant tracking by facial recognition cameras. Thousands of police stations have sprung up across the region and correspondence with family members outside of China is either banned or closely monitored.
We have heard of various religious and psychological violations. In a secularised society such as Britain, choices of food, drink or dress may not seem so fundamental, but for those of faith, who are brought up in cultural environments where certain foods are prohibited and alcohol is not drunk, forcing people to abandon those articles of faith is deeply dehumanising. Not only are they prevented from practising their religion, but they are forcibly fed with meat that they do not normally consume and forced to drink alcohol, which they do not normally do. That is surely traumatising. They are prevented from fasting in the month of Ramadan, their dresses are cut to make their clothing more in line with everyone else, they are asked to remove their headscarves, and they are asked to quote the Communist manifesto and learn about China. Forcing them to do these things takes away their identity.
When the state begins to isolate and discriminate against a minority group, it has overstepped the mark of acceptability. When the state sends citizens into camps without legal representation or international oversight, the door is left open to something truly terrible. We have to condemn such actions in the strongest terms. History has shown us that such actions can lead to even worse atrocities. If the world stands by and does nothing, in light of what is happening, what is to say that it will not continue and escalate to another level?
China has said that it welcomes an inspection, as long as the UN restrains itself from interfering in domestic matters. What does that mean? Will the Chinese Government give the investigators the right to visit these prison camps? Will they give the investigators the freedom to speak to the people there? Will they allow the investigators to investigate things properly? If they are saying that those things are not happening, they should allow for it to be openly investigated, so we can all know whether they are happening or not. The Chinese Government should realise—as should Governments worldwide—that when they start suppressing their own people, they do not solve any problems. If anything, they make the problems worse.
I ask the Minister, what specific representations have been made to the Chinese Government about these concerns? Have these issues been raised with the embassies of those countries with large Uyghur diasporas, including Kazakhstan and Turkey? What steps are we taking, to ensure that our position on the Human Rights Council is used to place real pressure on the Chinese Government to reverse those measures? What efforts are being taken to gather evidence on the ground and apply diplomatic pressure on the Chinese Government? Does the Minister agree that the UK border authorities should make every effort to ensure that the Turkic and Uyghur Muslims residing in the UK are not deported back to Xinjiang, because of what they would face?
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
There are more than 10 million Uyghurs living in Xinjiang. They speak a Turkic language. They are Muslim. In many ways, they are culturally and geographically closer to central Asia than central China. Over the past decade, due to outbreaks of protest and violence, and the subsequent harsh crackdowns from the Chinese authorities, hundreds of lives have been lost in Xinjiang.
A BBC investigation said:
“Over the past four years, Xinjiang has been the target of some of the most restrictive and comprehensive security measures ever deployed by a state against its own people.”
That includes the large-scale use of technology and penalties to curtail Islamic identity, stopping them practising their religion. Uyghurs face severe travel restrictions and are subject to ethnic profiling at thousands of checkpoints. Most alarmingly, as we have heard already, the Chinese authorities are building and operating high-security camps on a huge and growing scale. Testimonies from Uyghurs living abroad confirm that they are detention camps, where inmates are often beaten, terrorised and brainwashed. This is the brutal subjugation of an ethnic minority aimed at crushing their identity.
The detention camps in Xinjiang are the most recent Chinese human rights abuses to draw the world’s attention, but we must not forget that human rights abuses in China are the norm, not the exception, especially for China’s ethnic minorities. Of the roughly 1.4 billion people living in China, over 1.2 billion are Han Chinese. Ethnic minorities with distinct cultures and identities, such as the Uyghurs—and the Tibetans, who are better known—live mostly in the outer regions of China and tend to be seen as threats by China’s one-party state.
Within China a small number of people dare to speak up for human rights, but their voices are invariably silenced. Those of us who have the freedom to do so, therefore, have an even greater moral responsibility to speak up. The Chinese authorities tend to take the line that what happens inside China is not the concern of foreigners, but China is a member of the United Nations, and the belief that human rights are universal is at the core of the UN’s vision.
Of course, there is an argument that our criticism makes no difference, but that is untrue. China’s leaders care a great deal about its reputation and invest huge resources in its global image. The problem in recent years has been that our Government, alongside most other western Governments, have been cowardly about speaking out. Many western countries see China as an indispensable trade partner, and China’s rulers have used its economic power to withhold access to its own huge market from countries that have spoken out on human rights issues. Consequently, almost every country in the world has stopped speaking up on human rights abuses in China.
How can we break the silence? Three things need to happen. First, there must be a domestic political cost for any British Government who do not speak up on Chinese human rights abuses; parliamentarians, the media and the public need to demand action.
Secondly, we must all wake up to the importance of international human rights, because China’s actions pose a threat not only to its own people. The Chinese Government are no longer trying just to crush dissent internally, but to become a global superpower with influence over the wider world. The Chinese Government’s view of the world is not democratic, inclusive or based on the rule of law; they are trying to undermine many aspects of the international order that has existed for the last 70 years. We need to develop a clear awareness that China is a more serious threat than familiar rivals such as Russia, because of its growing economic and military power. The unflinching defence of human rights issues is key to the battle about values that will certainly play out over the next decades.
Thirdly, countries that believe in human rights need to stand together because, apart from the US, no individual country has enough power to stand up to China’s bullying. Collectively, however, we would have that clout.
A practical way forward could be to create policies of reciprocal access. The principle of reciprocity exists in economic trade deals and it could be applied to other areas too. Chinese journalists and officials are free to go anywhere in most western foreign countries, but foreign journalists and diplomats do not have anywhere near the same freedom to travel in China. Last year, the US passed a law that bans officials who are involved in restricting access to Tibet from coming to America. The EU considered similar measures at the end of last year.
Human rights abuses flourish in the dark, so it would make a big difference if journalists and diplomats were free to travel everywhere in China. I encourage the Government to examine reciprocal access policies, alongside their European and global allies. Human right abuses will stop only if we dare to call them out. We must be prepared to defend human rights as the pillar on which our democratic societies and the whole international order are built.
Several hon. Members rose—
Phil Wilson (in the Chair)
I call Lyn Brown. If you stick to four minutes, we will get everybody in.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I will do my best, Mr Wilson. I have filleted my speech as I have been sitting here.
Last October, a senior editor from Foreign Policy, James Palmer, was interviewed about his work and about human rights in Xinjiang. It was a heart-wrenching watch. He said:
“All of my Uyghur sources are gone”,
and then apologised as he broke down in tears. He continued:
“I can’t talk to people because they’re gone. I cannot reach them.”
Even his Han Chinese sources had been arrested for talking about what is happening to the Uyghur people. They are disappearing from the streets and being put into camps. The Government appear to be trying to erase the memory that they even existed. Mr Palmer made it clear that he is no longer trying to contact Uyghur people because his attempts could put them in danger.
In October, in response to a question from me, the Minister stated that according to credible reports an estimated 1 million people—at least—were being held, including Uyghurs and other minority ethnic Chinese. As has been said, Chinese officials describe the camps as,
“vocational education and employment training centres”
for
“criminals involved in minor offenses”,
but Human Rights Watch has gathered evidence that points chillingly to something else.
Basically, there are reports of beatings, solitary confinement, psychological abuse and even inmates being forcibly given psychotic drugs in the camps. We are told that people with serious mental and physical health conditions receive no special treatment; nor do heavily pregnant women. There are reports of deaths inside the camps. Survivors have described to Human Rights Watch how they were chained to a bed or to an iron chair for days, or even hung from the ceiling, as they were interrogated. They eventually confessed to whatever they were charged with, whether that was owning a religious book or having a friend who had been abroad.
Apparently, that is what the Chinese Communist party is calling its “Strike Hard Campaign against Violent Terrorism”. Under that regime, as we have heard, Turkic Muslims are identified as belonging to one of three categories: trustworthy, average or untrustworthy. Muslim citizens have to not only keep out of trouble, but actively display their loyalty. From a place such as this, it is hard to imagine what it must feel like to live with such suspicion and in constant fear of saying the wrong thing, being with the wrong person or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The Chinese artist and defender of human rights, Ai Weiwei, spent 16 years of his childhood in exile in Xinjiang province because his father, a poet, had fallen out of favour with the authorities. His international fame as a dissident artist is evidence that that kind of repression is eventually ineffective as well as cruel. He has said about the current situation that we have to think about human rights and human dignity as one, and that if anyone’s rights are violated—whatever minority, whatever religion they are—we have to think of it as our rights being violated. I could not agree more.
The Government have been asked several times about the steps we can take to improve the human rights situation through our trade with China. Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon said:
“China is an important strategic partner, and it is because of the strength of our partnership that we are consistently able to raise these issues”.
Although I agree that raising issues bilaterally is important, the level of abuse documented calls for something stronger. Given what is going on in the Chamber at the moment, I worry that human rights might be viewed as an inconvenience or a threat to our trading relationship.
I hope that the Minister will commit to concrete steps today. Statements of concern are simply not enough. We need economic sanctions against those responsible and we need to follow Germany and Sweden in offering expedited asylum processes for Turkic minorities from the province.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
My apologies for hearing only the end of the speech by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), whom I congratulate on securing this debate to discuss the important issue of human rights in Xinjiang.
I declare three interests. First, I am chair of the all-party parliamentary China group. Secondly, for eight years, I was the director of the Great Britain-China Centre. Thirdly, in 1993, I was a member of the first-ever successful crossing of Taklamakan desert in Xinjiang, as part of an Anglo-Chinese and Uyghur crossing by foot. That led me to spend more time in Xinjiang than probably anyone else in the House of Commons, and has left me with a strong affection for that enormous, harsh and beautiful land of different minorities and peoples.
It is worth highlighting the all-party group’s expedition to Xinjiang some two and a half years ago to look into some of the issues raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and other hon. Members, and other issues as well. During that expedition, we were accompanied by the Minister’s enterprising now private secretary, who was then with the embassy in Beijing. More recently, the all-party group has had updated briefings in Beijing and London.
I have arrived at five thoughts to share with hon. Members. First, Xinjiang, which means “new land” in Mandarin, was known as East Turkestan for a long time. Although the name has changed, the essential cultural differences of that huge province remain fundamental to the way of life of its residents.
Secondly, the UK, which reopened formal relations with China in 1972—56 years ago—is now an important strategic partner of China and the depth of that relationship allows for respectful differences of view. Although we acknowledge and hugely recognise the vast progress that China has made in the living standards of its enormous population, and its contribution to the world’s economic growth—a consistent 30% for the last three decades—we can also express real concern about specific human rights issues in China and work with her on reforms to the rule of law, including on the death penalty, which has been one of the achievements of the Great Britain-China Centre.
Thirdly, on Xinjiang today, there can be no doubt that relations between the peoples of Xinjiang, by whom I mean predominantly the Uyghur community, but also other ethnic minorities—Kazakhs and people who would normally be found in Kyrgyzstan, the Kyrgyz—have deteriorated considerably. They have worsened recently after a clampdown on the freedoms of expression, gathering and religion, and other freedoms that have been mentioned. Much of the evidence is anecdotal because it is very difficult to access information at first hand either by visiting the province or through journalists and others who have been there.
Wera Hobhouse
Is it not the case that we need to ask for a reciprocal access policy? If we can have the same access as Chinese people have when they come to our country, that would be the first step. Ultimately, that would be exactly what we could negotiate.
Richard Graham
I understand the hon. Lady’s point. It would not be impossible for her or others to go to Xinjiang. The question is what they would see and how genuine it might be. The point I want to highlight is that in recent times there has been much greater use of artificial intelligence and sophisticated control mechanisms to clamp down strongly on what we would regard as the fundamental freedoms of the people living there. The Minister might want to comment on this, but the opportunity is for the UK to try to help China recognise that some of the evidence coming out will not necessarily act in China’s own interests.
Of course, China has considerable security interests. For example, the bombing of the railway station in Yunnan a few years ago by Uyghurs was absolutely unacceptable, just as terrorism in this country is unacceptable. It is important that there are training and skills opportunities available to Uyghurs as there are in other parts of the country. But a large-scale detention policy of large numbers of people, or other repressions of freedoms such as Islamic boys under the age of 18 not being able to go and pray in a mosque, are not justified. Such issues will affect China’s belt and road initiative across central Asia, which is predominantly Muslim in religion, and there are issues that will damage China’s reputation internationally and affect the world’s acceptance of the increasing leadership role that China is taking on a range of global issues.
It is worth highlighting China’s report to the United Nations General Assembly on China’s human rights. In the report submitted in August last year—some 25 pages long—only one paragraph in the entire report is on Xinjiang, as I am sure the Minister knows. The report refers to the year of building people’s livelihood initiative, the disposable incomes of urban and rural residents and free education programmes, all of which are no doubt worthy in their own right, but they do not address the issues that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and others have raised today.
Although China would regard our interest in such matters as fundamentally interfering in her own domestic situation, the truth is that in this House we debate issues across the world for the benefit of all mankind. Today’s debate therefore shines a torch on the fact that we need to work closely with China on how the situation in Xinjiang will develop and on what changes might be made that will benefit the people of Xinjiang, particularly the Uyghur community, and China’s own standing in the world. Our role should be to work closely with her on some of those difficult issues.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Mr Wilson, and I thank you for calling me. I also thank the Minister, who, we know, has a deep interest in human rights and I am sure we will get a positive response from him when he replies. Finally, I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this important and timely debate just a week after Orkney was named the happiest place in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—we already know that, as it is epitomised by the right hon. Gentleman. However, we are gathered here to discuss a serious issue.
The debate is timely because it takes place in the week of Holocaust Memorial Day, when we remember how millions of people were rounded up and placed in camps and harassed, tortured and killed simply because of their religion. It is deeply saddening that some 70 years later we are having a debate to discuss the fact that potentially millions of innocent Chinese citizens are being rounded up and placed in camps because of their religion. It seems we have yet to learn the lessons of the past—oh, that we had looked back at the past and learned the lessons.
It is important to note that just yesterday evening, right here in Parliament, where today we are discussing persecution by the Chinese Government on an unimaginable scale, the Chinese ambassador to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Foreign Secretary were guests of honour at a celebratory reception for the Chinese new year. It is a coincidence: we are discussing very serious issues within 24 hours of a celebration. Although I am a firm believer in friendly and open dialogue, I am not sure what message that sends to the world and to the millions currently in detention camps in China about the UK’s commitment to human rights and defending those who are persecuted for their religion.
Hon. Members know that I chair the all-party group for freedom of religion or belief. Our group stands up for those of Christian faith, other faiths and no faith. Hon. Members have rightly raised the plight of the Uyghurs, but I want to make sure we do not forget the plight of some of the other religious or belief minorities suffering at the hands of the Chinese Government: for example, practitioners of Falun Gong and Chinese Christians. Twice a year the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and I co-sponsor events in this House for Falun Gong. I want to put on the record our thanks to Becky James, who works so hard to make it happen.
In 2018, Cristian Solidarity Worldwide recorded extremely concerning violations against Catholic and Protestant churches in Henan province, where authorities have demolished crosses and churches and destroyed religious materials. From March to June, dozens of independent house churches also reported cases of harassment, fines, confiscation of property and forced closure of churches. Many Christians have also been arrested or disappeared. For example, Lu Yongfeng, a member of the Church of Almighty God, was arrested with her husband in June 2018. The following month she died in police custody, reportedly as a result of torture. I look to the Minister to ask him this: can we make inquiries about what happened to that lady? She died in custody because she is a Christian. That was the reason for her death.
Similarly, thousands of practitioners of Falun Gong have been arbitrarily imprisoned by the Chinese Government. There are credible reports that China is using prisoners of conscience to supply organs for its vast, lucrative transplant industry. In response to such accusations, the UK Government have said that the World Health Organisation believes that China is implementing an ethical, voluntary organ transplant system. However, many who argue that China is involved in forced organ harvesting often point to the fact that the average time to get a kidney transplant in the UK or the United States is two to three years, whereas in China it is two to three weeks. It is fairly obvious; you do not have to be a mathematician or Einstein to work out that something is wrong there. It is almost like a conveyor belt of organ transplant in China, and that needs an answer.
Has the Minister asked either the World Health Organisation or the Chinese Government how they can explain such a remarkable difference? Also, does the Minister know whether the World Health Organisation has assessed the wealth of evidence compiled by former Canadian Cabinet Minister David Kilgour on this issue? It is a phenomenal evidential base. If not, will he suggest it does do so? Might he also suggest that it assesses the evidence being presented to the ongoing independent people’s tribunal being led by Sir Geoffrey Nice, QC?
The tribunal recently released an interim judgment that reads:
“We, the tribunal members, are all certain, unanimously, beyond reasonable doubt, that in China forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience has been practised for a substantial period of time, involving a very substantial number of victims”—
innocent victims—
“by state organised or approved organisations or individuals.”
The horrifying nature of the charges makes them difficult to believe and we must rightly assess the evidence before jumping to any conclusions. However, we also must make every effort to gather and assess evidence honestly, and not just turn our backs on the issue because what we may find out might not be palatable. We must speak out when we see the evidence, not only because it is the right thing to do, but because how can we ever hope for a peaceful and secure world when a permanent member of the UN Security Council is rounding up and abusing millions of its own citizens?
Such crimes against humanity—affronts to human dignity and to the very concept of justice and morality—cannot be allowed to pass by with muted and occasional condemnation. There is a time for quiet diplomacy, discreet dialogue and private conversations. This is not it. This is a time to stand up for what is right. This is a time to let every oppressor and would-be tyrant know that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—and the rest of the world—will not tacitly accept the systematic, sinister destruction of entire communities. This is a time for the world to rally together and proudly declare, in one unified, powerful voice, that enough is enough. That should be our message today.
Phil Wilson (in the Chair)
We now have a little extra time, so I shall bring in the Front Benchers at 15.32. There are four minutes each.
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this important debate.
I shall not speak for long. I just want to say a little about Hikvision, one of the world’s biggest CCTV companies. It provides equipment for the massive prison camps in Xinjiang and has been used in Tibet to develop an extremely intrusive police and security apparatus. Hikvision uses facial recognition technology that can distinguish entire ethnic populations from the Chinese. It puts Tibetans and Uyghurs at serious risk. While the company is now subject to bans by the US and Australian Governments, Hikvision was revealed to be Britain’s biggest supplier of CCTV equipment in 2016.
Fiona Bruce
Does the hon. Lady share my concern that Christians are also being targeted? Pastors are being required to put facial recognition cameras on the front of pulpits, to make it possible to assess who is in the congregation.
Karen Lee
Absolutely. The point is well made and I share the hon. Lady’s concerns.
The Government of this country must speak up. They must make it clear that we will not accept the abuse of human rights, and the Chinese Government must and will be called out. The abuse of the Uyghurs is abhorrent, but abuse has been going on in Tibet for much longer.
Is the Minister aware whether any UK Government agencies purchase surveillance equipment from Hikvision? Are questions being raised about the security implications of its unfettered access to the UK? Does he share my concerns, and if he does not have answers to my questions, will he follow those matters up?
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing the debate.
I, like many other hon. Members, was not aware of the difficulties that many people are suffering in China until a number of my constituents brought the matter to my attention. When I looked into it further, the work of many NGOs and a BBC documentary brought home to me the extent of the abuse taking place. A recent report by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination suggested that there was widespread detention of the native Muslim minorities in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. About 1 million adults are detained, most of whom are Uyghur. Alleged forms of torture include forcing detainees to denounce Islam and forcing them to abandon their native language, religious beliefs and cultural practices.
Sadly, the world’s response has not matched the gravity of the situation. The Chinese Government’s claim that the camps are vocational training schools is not credible. There is now significant discussion among US and European leaders of economic sanctions to be directed at key Chinese leaders and security companies. I understand that the Foreign Secretary raised the situation of Uyghur Muslims with his counterpart, Foreign Minister Wang Yi, during the official visit to China in July 2018. However, continued human rights abuses suggest that clearly more needs to be done.
Will the Minister provide urgent assurances that the British Government will step up their efforts to hold the Chinese Government to account for those blatant human rights violations and urge the Chinese authorities to stop the practice of mass internment and close the camps? Will he give an update on the current situation and tell us what representations the Government have made to the Chinese authorities?
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson.
I am pleased that the debate has such a good turnout, and that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) was able to secure it. I think even more Members would have come if it had not been on such an important day for votes to do with the European Union. It is great to see so many participants from across the House. I am vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on China, and it is encouraging that many Members are joining, to discuss not just trade opportunities but the important human rights element of our dialogue with China. I was pleased that at last night’s reception the chair of the all-party group, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), mentioned in his keynote address that the group has that concern.
I am also pleased that, following a parliamentary question to the Minister, the issue emerged in the FCO reporting cycle. That is not recent; for several months it has been taken seriously by FCO officers. However, I should like an update from the Minister today, and a sense of the ultimate direction of travel. What can be done, if the reports are indeed true—as we believe they are, given the evidence coming before us? What is the endgame, in terms of what the Government will do?
The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) spoke about the position of children. China is a signatory of the UN convention on the rights of the child. It is worrying that the children of individuals detained in camps have been sent to state-run orphanages, training centres or welfare facilities, and that it is reported that children as young as six months old have been locked up like farm animals in a shed. The reports come from Human Rights Watch, Radio Free Asia and ChinaAid, which I believe to be independent and to be reporting from a place where reporting is difficult. As the hon. Member for Gloucester said, it is not easy just to go there and see what is happening.
I want to mention the good things that have happened in China as a result of the convention on the rights of the child, to show that issues can be tackled. A lot of work has been done in China on human trafficking, and good results have come from that. Action to tackle climate change and air quality, and the effects on children in polluted cities, has also borne some fruit. I do not want to give a counsel of complete despair. With challenge and dialogue, we can move forward.
I want briefly to consider our response in the UK. First, could the Minister please tell us exactly how independent our own FCO investigations might be? Who are our international partners, and what kind of resources are we using? Secondly, is there a forum in which to challenge tech or other companies that could wittingly or unwittingly be supporting the crushing of dissent, and compromising on the Uyghur people’s human rights? Thirdly, what is the Minister’s plan for reporting back regularly to interested Members in the House?
We have had an excellent debate, very measured but also very concerned, expressing great worry about what is happening to the Uyghur people in China, but focused on seeking a more action-based response from the Minister.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) not just for bringing the debate to the House, but for his work to increase awareness of the issue in Xinjiang province. As he said, we are relying a lot on reports. The evidence is difficult to gather, and that is one of the big issues for us. However, we know that the state in China is not just promoting its values and principles, but using its position to commit cultural genocide and scapegoat an entire culture. History has taught us the danger of such intolerance.
It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) talking about his experiences in Xinjiang province, but I want to correct him on one thing. He said that the UK and China had had diplomatic relations since 1972, and that that was 56 years ago. Having been born in 1972, I must tell him that it was 46 years ago.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) gave descriptions of the horrific torture and conditions in the detention camps, and several Members made comparisons with other horrific situations. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that this debate was timely as it was being held in the week in which we remember the holocaust, and many of the conditions that have been described this afternoon are very similar to those found in the horrific concentration camps during the second world war. The hon. Gentleman also drew our attention to the plight of the Falun Gong community, and of ethnic Christians in China, who are also subjected to human rights abuses. The hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) spoke about religious abuse and Muslim people being forced to eat particular meats, or drink alcohol or wear inappropriate clothing—all things that we recognise would impact on someone’s freedom to practise their religion.
Reports from former detainees claim that women have been forced to take unidentified medication, which in some cases has stopped menstruation, and in other cases has resulted in severe bleeding. The use of female detainees as sex slaves was highlighted by the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) who, together with the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), raised serious concerns about the plight of children in detention centres, as well as those kept in separate locations. To hear reports of children as young as six months old being locked up without care or parents is disturbing and shameful for us all.
Dangerous propaganda is being peddled against the Uyghurs. It has been reported that the Han Chinese people who live in the region have been put through state-mandated self-defence drills; that as part of China’s suppression campaign, education portrays the Uyghurs as potentially dangerous extremists; and that a steady stream of Government news paints the Uyghurs as unsophisticated and uneducated.
Interestingly, China has said that it would welcome UN officials to Xinjiang if they follow China’s procedures and restrictions, but that is not how it works. There must be open access without any restrictions. If such a UN investigation concludes that Chinese activity in the region constitutes a violation of human rights, there must be decisive diplomatic condemnation and consequences for China. Human rights violations cannot go unchecked, particularly if sanctioned by the state on a massive scale.
The hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) mentioned a worrying trend developing in Chinese domestic and foreign policy, and respect to human rights abuses more generally. That trend includes sinister practices such as the collection of biometric data, including DNA and voice samples, and the use of biometrics for automated surveillance purposes should be causing us concern—the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee) also raised that point. China holds more data on its citizens than any other country in the world, and we must wonder why it needs that data and what it is doing with it. None of us would object to our data being collected if we knew the purpose for it—data on health is fine, traffic data is okay, but we need to know the purpose and the ways it is being used. In China, however, those systems are being deployed without effective privacy protections in law, and people are unaware that their data is being gathered in that way.
Concerns about human rights records in China extend beyond what it does to its own citizens, and it is now trying to prevent meaningful international scrutiny, including at the UN. Human Rights Watch recently reported that Chinese officials are working to weaken key human rights reviews at the UN. China remains a designated human rights priority country for the UK, but with trade and investment becoming more important for the UK in a post-Brexit Britain, there is a concern that the UK’s performance regarding human rights in China is far weaker than it should be. The Scottish First Minister met Chinese officials in April 2018, and she specifically raised human rights in China. Has the Minister done the same, and if not, does he intend to?
Karen Lee
Over the past few days we have had debates on subjects involving human rights in different countries. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is utterly wrong to be selective about where we see human rights abuses, and that we should call them out wherever they are, most importantly in China?
Carol Monaghan
Absolutely, although not “most importantly in China”—we must call out human rights abuses everywhere. Look at Saudi Arabia and what it is doing in Yemen, yet we are still selling arms there. We must think carefully about our trading partnerships.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised the issue of Chinese students, which is slightly controversial, and we must think about policy decisions that we take here and how they impact. A few years ago the post-study work visa was removed, and the diversity of our international students was greatly reduced. Far more Chinese students were happy to come for one or two years and go back, as opposed to in the past when students wanted to stay and work here. Because of that, the situation is ripe for exploitation, because different students can monitor the activity of other Chinese students. We need to be aware of what we are doing, and I call on the Minister to discuss the reinstatement of the post-study work visa. There are unintended consequences to such decisions.
Finally, will the Minister take every opportunity in public and private to condemn China’s use of these camps and all forms of non-legal detention? Will he speak up for the rights of children and use all possible levers to cease the practice of forcibly removing children from their homes and families? Will he call out human rights abuses, including violations of the right of freedom of religious belief, and will he seriously consider sanctions against policy makers responsible for human rights abuses in China? Finally, given the high risk to those returning to Xinjiang and other parts of China from overseas, will he hold discussions with his Home Office colleagues to ensure that those who are under threat are not forcibly removed from the UK and sent back to a harmful and dangerous situation in China?
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
It is nice to see you in the Chair, Mr Wilson, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this important debate. We are extremely grateful to him, because it gives us an opportunity to send a united message from this House to the Chinese Government about the unacceptability of what is happening in Xinjiang at the moment, and of our shared desire to see the detention camps closed.
I will begin my speech where the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) began his, because on Sunday afternoon I went to a holocaust memorial service in Bishop Auckland in my constituency. Everybody said, “Never again”, and “How did it happen?” It is all too clear how these things happen: they happen when it is too unpleasant or too inconvenient to think about them and people have a desire to look away. On Sunday, we pledged
“to proclaim release to the captives,
to let the oppressed go free”.
We should make a reality of that commitment in the work that we do with respect to the Uyghur community in Xinjiang.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland set out the fundamental problems with the detention camps that have been set up, which we now believe are imprisoning about a million people, perhaps more. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) made a fearless speech; she is becoming well known for being fearless on human rights issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) described the denial of people’s religious rights. She gave a clear insight into how that might feel for this minority. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) said that we should look for more reciprocity with the Chinese Government. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) gave powerful testimony and pointed to the important work undertaken by the voluntary sector.
The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who has been to Xinjiang several times, said that it was difficult because Xinjiang is in a very closed part of China, but that none the less we need to shine a light on the situation. The hon. Member for Strangford spoke about Christians being persecuted. My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee) raised important concerns about the use of modern technologies to oppress people. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) asked how the Government would keep reporting back to us. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) spoke about the impact on children; I am particularly grateful to her for organising a meeting last summer at which we heard from academics who had looked at satellite images, from refugees and from relatives of people who are suffering.
It is absolutely clear that the situation in Xinjiang has deteriorated over the past four years. It is beginning to emerge and become clear to the rest of the world that what was suggested to be an attempt to prevent extremism and terrorism has morphed horrendously into the systematic oppression of a whole ethnic minority, who are being physically abused and psychologically indoctrinated. I am glad that the Minister has answered a number of parliamentary questions that I have tabled about Xinjiang; we know that Ministers have raised the matter and British diplomats have been in Xinjiang and gathered mounting evidence about the problem, but we can do more than tell the Chinese that we do not like the situation.
What can be done? Clearly it is important that we maintain public condemnation of the treatment of the Uyghur Muslims, and that we echo the call of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination for the Chinese authorities to shut down the re-education camps and facilitate the immediate release of all detainees. It is clear that there has been a lot of focus on work at the UN level; I do not know whether the Minister has also discussed the matter with European colleagues, but I urge him to do so. The Government have the opportunity to continue to challenge the Chinese Government through intergovernmental forums. We would also like them to initiate calls for UN access to Xinjiang, including access by the UN Human Rights Council.
Many of my colleagues have spoken about the problems that asylum seekers face in this country. I know that that is a Home Office responsibility; none the less, it is all very well to talk about human rights abuses—we need to treat refugees well. I hope that the Minister will talk to the Home Office about that.
One possibility that the Government did not have a year ago is to use Magnitsky powers for personal sanctions. An obvious candidate for such sanctions is the Xinjiang state secretary, because it is since his arrival in that part of China that the oppression has screwed down in a particularly nasty way. Well, we have a lever now—let us use it. As well as looking at the activities of particular companies, I would like the Government to consider using export controls on surveillance technology that is used by the Chinese Government to monitor and oppress Uyghur Muslims. They should also review the operation of companies in Xinjiang. The simple message is that we are horrified by this state of affairs and we must always prioritise human rights over trading relations with the Chinese.
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
I commend the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this important debate. Mischievously, perhaps, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) put it to us that Orkney and Shetland may be the happiest constituency in the country; on a day like today that may have something to do with its proximity to Norway, but I will not make too much of that point. There used to be a quiz question asked about the right hon. Gentleman and me because my constituency is the nearest to Westminster, while his is the furthest away.
As a last bit of levity in this important, serious and high-profile debate, may I say that it is great to hear from the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse)? She knows that I have a German mother; we used to tease my mother about her malapropisms. If the hon. Lady’s only problem is that she has difficulty in saying the word “reciprocity”, I am sure that very few of us could answer that we know much about Gegenseitigkeit. I thank the hon. Lady and all hon. Members present for the high quality of their contributions today; this is a serious debate and I do not wish to use any more levity.
If I may, I will update the House on the current situation in Xinjiang and the action that the Government propose. I do not have anything like the depth of knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), but I have visited the region, not as a Minister, but on my very visit to China some 16 years ago. I was struck even then by the atmosphere of tension. There was clearly a very large Muslim population in many of the towns and cities of the autonomous region close to the Mongolian border, but there was also a sense—this was only a couple of years after 9/11—that human rights issues were beginning to crowd in. We have seen that happen with much more serious effect in recent years.
The ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang have faced a variety of restrictions on their freedom of religion and belief, freedom of speech and freedom of association over several years—indeed, for decades past. Xinjiang’s energy reserves and geopolitical significance are likely to be key factors in the Chinese Government’s close involvement in the region: Xinjiang is home to China’s largest gas fields, half of its coal deposits and an estimated 20% of its oil reserves.
The Strike Hard campaign was initiated following an outbreak of violence, including bombings and knife attacks, in 2009. As many hon. Members have said, it has developed into the intensive crackdown that we are seeing today. The situation has deteriorated rapidly over the past two or three years, particularly—as the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) rightly pointed out—since the appointment of a new regional party secretary, Chen Quanguo. He had previously held the same position in Tibet, where he obviously earned his spurs as far as the Chinese authorities were concerned.
Mr Chen has introduced many of the techniques that he used in Tibet to monitor residents in Xinjiang. In fact, he has developed them further and fused them with a system of “political re-education camps”. However, we should also be clear that although Mr Chen has been a leading architect of the crackdown on the Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities, culpability for the worsening situation does not lie with him alone. His actions have been supported at the highest levels by the Chinese leadership.
Many hon. Members have already said that there are credible and important reports by non-governmental organisations describing the restrictive and oppressive measures being employed by the Chinese authorities, and quoted those reports. Our own diplomats visited Xinjiang as recently as December last year and their report painted a similarly bleak picture of the oppression being suffered by over a million Uyghurs and other minorities.
Let me speak for a moment about the specific measures that the authorities are using in Xinjiang. Among other things, traditional and unexceptional expressions of religious observance are now banned, from giving children religious names to having an “abnormal” beard or wearing a veil; I think the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) went into some detail about some of the oppressive practices that are being imposed on the local community.
As part of an apparent attempt to redefine Islam and to sinicise the Uyghur culture, extensive cultural restrictions have also been introduced, including the restriction on the use of the traditional Uyghur language. Contravention of the rules is likely to lead to detention and other punishments.
Uyghurs and members of other minorities with overseas connections, whether they have family members living abroad or a history of travel themselves, are deemed to be particularly suspicious and are highly likely to be detained. Families are monitored closely, including by Han Chinese officials, who they are obliged to host in their homes for several days at a time. Outside the home, Uyghurs and other minorities are reportedly watched closely through extensive use of sophisticated technologies, as has been pointed out already, which is supported by a heavy police presence. However, as has also been mentioned during the debate, what most concerns many of us is that over 1 million Uyghur Muslims—more than 10% of the Uyghur population—and other ethnic minorities have at one time or another been held in extra-judicial camps, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) pointed out.
It is not known just how long each individual is detained, what chance they have of being released or what the mechanism for release might be, or whether they can appeal their detention. However, what is clear is that these detentions have split up families, left many children effectively orphaned, as the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) pointed out, and created an overbearing culture of fear.
Much of this activity was considered by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in its report last August. It issued very detailed recommendations, including that China should
“Halt the practice of detaining individuals who have not been lawfully charged, tried and convicted for a criminal offence in any extra-legal detention facilities”.
In addition to the extra-judicial camps, and according to Chinese Government data, criminal arrests in Xinjiang accounted for an alarming 21% of the total number of arrests in China in 2017, when the population in Xinjiang makes up only 1.5% of China’s total population.
As a number of Members have pointed out, China’s response to the increasing expressions of international concern was initially simply to deny the existence of these camps. Later, it sought to brand them as education and training facilities, and it justified them on the basis of counter-terrorism. As I think all of us know, there have been incidents in the past, but this is a wholly unprecedented and unwarranted over-reaction to that matter.
China claims that the camps are a necessary part of the policy to prevent extremism and that other countries have no right to interfere in its internal affairs. The Chinese authorities naturally have the right to address genuine security concerns in Xinjiang. However, all the evidence to hand suggests that their action is disproportionate and indiscriminate, and it is a response that, as a number of Members have pointed out, will be counterproductive in the long term, because it will exacerbate a whole range of ethnic tensions.
In this way, I believe that China is causing untold suffering to millions of its own citizens. It is also contravening its own constitutional provisions on freedom of religion and indeed its obligations under the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The UK is, of course, deeply concerned about the situation in Xinjiang. We believe strongly that everyone everywhere should enjoy equal rights and protections under the law. That is why we are promoting and defending human rights, including the right to freedom of religion or belief, as a fundamental part of our own foreign policy.
It was right that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green pointed out that in areas such as climate change, anti-money laundering and increasingly in combating modern-day slavery, we are making some progress alongside the Chinese authorities. Despite that co-operation, and notwithstanding our deep and strong relationship with China, we must and will have no hesitation about raising these issues of concern. Realistically, doing that at the UN Security Council will not have a great impact. Therefore, doing it in Geneva and through the European Union, as the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland rightly pointed out, is the more productive way forward.
The situation in Xinjiang is one of the most serious areas of human rights concerns in relation to our relationship with China.
Mark Field
Forgive me; I will not give way because I am running out of time and I want to touch on all the issues.
Our lobbying of China takes place both bilaterally and in multilateral forums. I myself raised the issue of Xinjiang during my visit to five cities in China last July, as did my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary during his visit to Beijing later that month.
In the UK’s “item 4” statement at the UN Human Rights Council in September, we raised several of our concerns about Xinjiang. And during China’s universal periodic review at the UN on 6 November, we pressed China on when it would implement the recommendations of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. In our formal statement during the review itself, we urged China to
“Immediately implement the Committee’s recommendations on Xinjiang and allow the UN to monitor their implementation.”
Additionally, we have applied such pressure both in private and in public, working strategically with likeminded international partners, in particular, of course, with EU member states and others, to raise awareness of our concerns.
I will touch on one or two of the specific concerns that were expressed in the debate. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked about the moratorium on returns of failed asylum seekers. As has been pointed out, that is a Home Office competency and responsibility. However, I understand that the Home Office has recently updated its guidance notes for asylum caseworkers, which I think reflects the latest situation in Xinjiang, and those guidance notes will be kept under constant review.
The hon. Member for Bolton South East called for an independent inquiry. The UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, has said that her office is seeking access to Xinjiang as a matter of urgency, to verify what she regards as very worrying reports about the “re-education camps”. We support her call for access and we continue to urge the Chinese Government to grant unrestricted access to the UN, so that it can take care of this matter.
The hon. Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee) talked about Hikvision CCTV, which is a very specific case. We are obviously aware of the reports of Hikvision’s specific role in providing facial recognition cameras for use in Xinjiang. I will be happy to write to the hon. Lady with more details about that, and indeed I will be happy to write to other Members to deal with the one or two other matters that came up during the debate that I am not able to discuss now.
To conclude, the Government watch with very deep concern the Chinese authorities’ crackdown on Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang, and in particular the huge numbers of people in detention, apparently without recourse to due process of law. In the interests of the people of Xinjiang and for the long-term stability of that region, and indeed in the interests of China’s own international reputation, it is vital that China implements the recommendations of the UN Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and honours its own human rights commitments. We shall continue to urge the Chinese Government to change their course and to meet those commitments.
Mr Carmichael
Thank you very much, Mr Wilson, for calling me to speak again.
I thank the Minister for that response. We should not fool ourselves that we will probably be the main focus of the world’s attention in Parliament today. However, in many ways that is unfortunate, because the debate we have had here today illustrates what is possible in this place when we manage to put aside differences, and find areas of common concern and work together.
In that regard, I hope that today is not just an event itself but the start of a process by which we might take forward our concerns on an ongoing basis, because a very clear message has been sent out from here today, which I hope will be heard not only in this country but in China itself. It is that we know what is going on in Xinjiang and we are not just going to sit back and be bystanders, watching it happen.
I had hoped that today I would be in my constituency, which was confirmed this weekend—in the latest in a long line of similar reports—as the happiest and best place to live in the country, as today is Up Helly Aa day in Shetland, when we celebrate our Viking heritage through a fire festival and burning a boat. Unfortunately, I have to be here, not just for this debate but for other business. So, I thank you, Mr Wilson, for chairing the debate and I thank everybody else who has taken part in it. I wish you all a very happy Up Helly Aa day.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered human rights in Xinjiang.
Venezuela
(5 years, 2 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
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
We now come to an important debate about the political situation in Venezuela. The debate can last one hour, and lots of people are seeking to contribute. I encourage those who wish to make a speech not to intervene, because that would be having two bites of the cherry. I want to ensure that everybody can make a contribution. I call Graham Jones.
Graham P. Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the political situation in Venezuela.
I thank the House staff, you, Mr Hollobone, for chairing the debate, and all colleagues who have come to speak about a country that many have followed and taken an interest in for a considerable time.
Since the last debate on Venezuela was held in Parliament two years ago, much has happened. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Venezuela I have chaired many debates and discussions in this place with good attendance and participation by the diaspora, with speakers from Venezuela and Canning House, and other academics. Unfortunately, there has been little positive news from the country. For those who care about others, it has been depressing to see such enormous distress in Venezuela. The authoritarian Government have only strengthened their power via the usurper and illegitimate President Nicolás Maduro, and the usurper legislature, with the establishment of a rival and illegitimate Parliament, the Constituent Assembly, created to delegitimise and dismantle the democratically legitimate Parliament, the National Assembly.
The economy, living standards and overall security have significantly deteriorated. In recent days, inflation has run at more than 1,000,000%, rubber bullets and live ammunition have been used to kill protestors—I believe the total number of fatalities stands at 26 people—and the population has lost on average 10 kg per person through hunger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) on securing an urgent question yesterday. I am delighted to quote what he said:
“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.”—[Official Report, 28 January 2019; Vol. 653, c. 482.]
That is in a country with an abundance of its own assets.
In recent days, Juan Guaidó from the National Assembly has been sworn in as interim President, and that appears to be the first fragile glimmer of hope for the country. The tragic political, social and economic situation in Venezuela has been caused by a failed Marxist revolution, now 20 years old, which was evoked in the name of one of the founding fathers of Venezuela, Simón Bolívar.
Graham P. Jones
I would like to make some progress, please.
Bolívar’s revolution in the 1820s gave Venezuela a legacy of freedom and self-determination. Chávez and Maduro’s Bolivarian revolution in the 21st century plagued Venezuelans with destitution and dictatorship. There is no worthy comparison between the two. Some in the UK claim that Maduro’s cause is a rightful one, and the British left is aligned to that. They are wrong, and those who think that Venezuela is now subject to some right-wing coup are wrong. One is an economy of bankrupt Marxist ideas, and the Opposition represent democratic socialism.
Juan Guaidó, and his left-leaning Opposition, needs our party’s support. His party, Popular Will, is, in fact, a member of one of Labour’s sister parties in Venezuela, and a member of Socialist International, like the Labour party. It is worth stating too that the bankrupt Marxists who have ruined Venezuela over the last 20 years are not members of Socialist International and are, in my opinion, anything but socialist. They, and their fellow Marxist travellers who propagandise about foreign interference, are wholly responsible for a bankrupt economic policy.
It is ironic that those Marxists should reject unwelcome foreign interference. Perhaps they could include their list of friends who seem to be interfering in Venezuela: Iran, Russia and Turkey, who are propping up the illegitimate, authoritarian and kleptocratic regime. It would carry more weight if they knew what they were talking about. The United States, our long term ally, has so far resisted economic sanctions, instead targeting the extreme wealth of the Chavismo politicians, some with links to drugs cartels. The US has also targeted currencies that facilitate the syphoning of Venezuela’s assets into private bank accounts.
The truth is that the “Boligarchs” of Venezuela have ensured that Venezuela’s problems will never affect their luxurious lifestyles. According to the Venezuelan news website Noticias Centro,
“the late-president’s family owns 17 country estates, totalling more than 100,000 acres, in addition to liquid assets of $550 million…stored in various international bank accounts”.
The Marxist hypocrisy is astonishing. Hugo Chávez said:
“Being rich is bad, it’s inhumane. This is what I say and I condemn the rich”.
He also said that
“capitalism leads us straight to hell”
and that
“we must confront the privileged elite who have destroyed a large part of the world”.
Meanwhile, his daughter, María Gabriela Chávez, is reported to be one of the richest people in Venezuela, with a net worth of $4.2 billion. I would like to know where she got that money from.
Finally, it is worth pointing out how the US has so far resisted economic sanctions and continues to allow US companies to purchase 21% of Venezuelan crude oil, which provides the Venezuelan Government with vital overseas currency. It is a regime that is increasingly despised by a majority of its citizens, that routinely arrests, imprisons and tortures its opponents, that mismanages the economy and that profits from narco-trafficking with the cartels, with much of the result finding its way on to the streets of English towns and cities such as mine.
It is not a functioning Government in the name of the people. Speaker after speaker at the APPG has relayed their and their families’ stories of just how bad the situation is, from hunger to property theft, gun crime and the “colectivo”—the Chavismo motorbike gangs that terrorise ordinary citizens on behalf of Maduro. The rest of the international community has a duty to support the values of liberty, democracy, the rule of law and human rights, and to support the Venezuelan people at this time, not an oppressive dictatorship that ignores those values.
In the last partially free and fair elections in November 2015, the majority of the Venezuelan people voted in droves for the Opposition, and three years later those people are out on the streets protesting en masse. The biggest priority for the international community is to address a devastating consequence of Maduro’s Marxist regime: the migrant crisis—the exodus of almost 4 million people since 2014.
The Minister said yesterday that
“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”.—[Official Report, 28 January 2019; Vol. 653, c. 485.]
Graham P. Jones
I would like to make progress, thank you.
That is a direct result of an economic meltdown, a huge spike in violent crime and a climate of fear towards the authorities, who routinely kidnap and torture those who dare to speak up against the regime. Human rights groups say that Maduro’s forces have arrested more than 12,800 people for speaking up against his regime since taking power in 2013.
The Amnesty report says that the Venezuelan Government are guilty of
“one of the worst human rights crisis in its history.”
It says that there have been 8,292 extrajudicial executions between 2015 and 2017—an absolute totalitarian disgrace. As a result, the Organisation of American States and the Lima Group referred the Venezuelan Government to the International Criminal Court last September for crimes against humanity, citing 8,000 extrajudicial killings, 12,000 arbitrary arrests and the detention of 13,000 political prisoners. It is the first case in which an entire state has been referred to the ICC. President Macri of Argentina said in an interview with CNN:
“For me, there is no doubt: in Venezuela, human rights are systemically violated by steamrolling the opposition and everyone. There is a growing sense that we need to take more forceful action.”
The UN Human Rights Commissioner stated:
“The UN Human Rights Office understands that at least 280 individuals who had been arbitrarily deprived of their liberty for their political opinions, for exercising their human rights, or because they were perceived as a threat to the Government, remain in detention in dreadful conditions.”
Given the scale of the problems, the response has been pitiful. Words have not matched actions, and refugees are suffering in horrendous circumstances. There seems to be reluctance to classify the situation as a full-on refugee crisis, perhaps because that comes with more responsibilities to act than a migrant crisis. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has referred to a “mixed flow” of migrants and refugees pouring out of the country.
I appreciate that the Minister is here today as a representative of the Foreign Office, but I say to him that more needs to be done by the Government to address the human cost of the political crisis that manifests itself not just in Venezuela, but in neighbouring countries and right across Latin America—a point I raised with him in the urgent question yesterday.
From Ministers’ recent answers to questions on aid to Venezuela, we can see that not enough is being done. From the Minister’s responses to parliamentary questions from me, it appears that the UK spends just £10.2 million on aid through various agencies. I note that he told the United Nations last weekend:
“People are starving, children are malnourished, essential items are absent from the bare shelves of bankrupt stores. And from this wretchedness, millions have fled to seek refuge in neighbouring countries where they have been rescued by an outpouring of human generosity.”
I doubt that last point. He went on to say:
“This inexcusable and wholly avoidable wasteland…is entirely the creation of one man and his cronies.”
That contrasts sharply with a lack of commitment in his speech. At no point did the UK Government show any leadership on the refugee crisis or suggest the allocation of further resources. To put it in perspective, the UK Government give £1.6 billion to the Syrian refugee crisis, which makes £10.2 million seem insignificant. According to the National Audit Office, only five applications have been accepted from the 79 Venezuelans who have sought political asylum in the UK since Maduro took power in 2013. We must do more and recognise the crisis for what it is.
Last year, Channel 4’s Krishnan Guru-Murthy went to the border between Venezuela and Colombia to report the experiences of the thousands of people who attempt to cross it every day. The conditions he found were terrible: rivers were crossed on foot, armed gangs constantly patrolled the streets, and the Colombian army was at the border. The area is littered with narcos; the UK Government advice is not to go to those areas. The huddled masses in his film were not optimistic migrants packing up their old life and moving to another country for a job; they were scared, malnourished and resorted to walking hundreds of miles to flee daily life in their home country, which had become unbearable. It is suggested that half the refugees are children, and Colombia cannot cope. One boy cried for his mummy, and another said that the basic meal Channel 4 bought him was worth a month’s wages. Young girls are turning to prostitution.
Who suffers the most? It is the voiceless in society, particularly children. Venezuela’s Ministry of Health published damning figures in 2015. The death rate among babies less than a month old increased more than a hundredfold in public hospitals run by the Ministry. According to the Government report provided by lawmakers, the figure has increased from 0.02% to 2% since 2012. Maternal mortality has increased nearly fivefold in the same period, and 11,446 children under the age of one have died since 2016—a 30% increase in one year—as the economic crisis has accelerated.
In Krishnan Guru-Murthy’s documentary, he met a woman with a small, gravely ill child in her arms. Her daughter has kidney disease and was previously treated at the children’s hospital in Caracas until it ran out of drugs and equipment to help her due to hyperinflation and lack of resources. The only option to save the child was to leave everything and walk to Colombia. In tears, the mother pleaded with the Colombian soldiers to let her in for the sake of her child, whose life would surely have ended had she not received the medical attention she desperately needed. In this instance, the mother and her daughter were granted passage to Colombia. This is just one of the millions of stories of Venezuelans fighting to survive.
I have had the immense privilege of meeting many members of the Venezuelan National Assembly in the past couple of years. They come to London to learn about the Westminster system, and to learn about government. Some of them have risked their own safety and that of their allies by leaving the country and re-entering it when they return. Their bravery is a testament to their belief that, one day, freedom and democracy will rule once again in their country.
As I mentioned, this debate comes after the unconstitutional presidential election in Venezuela last year. The election process was rightly criticised by every country with a functioning democracy. Polling stations in areas of high opposition were closed, and food coupons were given away at others. There were counting irregularities, and people were intimidated in the streets by Maduro and his supporters. It is no wonder that many countries, including the UK, did not recognise the Maduro victory as legitimate. Let us not forget the British company Smartmatic, which provided the software that was used in the 2017 Constituent Assembly election. When it came back to the UK, Smartmatic said that the elections results had been “tampered with”. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, stated that the election
“does not in any way fulfil minimal conditions for free and credible elections.”
It is important to thank Members of all parties who have turned up today to engage in this debate, and I look forward to listening to their contributions. There is consensus among almost everyone, but sadly there are malign individuals for whom the Venezuelan people are no consideration. As I said yesterday in the House, it is vital that the UK Government, who have yet to step up to the plate and do what Britain does best—caring for those in need—begin to put together an international response that meets the scale of the crisis. This is foremost a human catastrophe: human beings, particularly children, are experiencing inordinate suffering. If there is one closing thought, let it be of the children of this or any other refugee crisis, who are suffering tonight and going forward.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I am obliged to call the Front-Bench spokespeople no later than eight minutes past 5. The guideline limits are five minutes for the SNP and for Her Majesty’s Opposition, and 10 minutes for the Minister. Mr Graham Jones then gets two minutes to sum up the debate at the end. Seven Back-Benchers seek to contribute within 18 minutes, so there has to be a two-and-a-half-minute limit. I call Mark Menzies.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Hollobone. It is with great pleasure, but with some sadness, that I rise to support the words of my friend, the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham P. Jones). As chair of the APPG on Venezuela, he knows only too well the issues that the people of Venezuela face. He has covered much territory and time is short, so I will keep my words focused on the impact on the people of Venezuela, as a side-effect of the economic crisis and political corruption there.
I speak in my capacity as chairman of the APPG on Latin America and not in my capacity as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Colombia, Argentina or Peru, or any other governmental role. I mention those roles because, by going to Colombia, I have seen at first hand the misery of hundreds of thousands of people who have had their normal lives, dignity, and good prospects torn from them, by no fault of their own.
There is no sight more heart-breaking than the one I saw when I went to Barranquilla and Santa Marta in Easter last year. I saw women with children begging by the roadside, in the morning, to be taken by men, in order to get money to see them through the day. No greater humiliation can befall any individual. I saw professionals washing car windows. On the whole, those people are not there to beg, but to survive. They will do whatever they can, and they are the lucky ones.
The unlucky ones are those who are still in Venezuela and who have no medicine. Forget complex cases; if someone is diabetic or HIV-positive, at the moment, they are simply counting down the days to their death because they cannot access treatment or basic healthcare in hospitals. Some 90% of urgent care in Venezuelan hospitals has gone. At the end of last year, Channel 4 produced a documentary, Unreported World, which was one of the most powerful pieces that I have seen.
In the time I have left, I urge the Minister to work with the Lima Group. Let us ensure that we capacity-build for the Venezuelan refugees in Colombia, and that we work with Colombia to look after those people, because by goodness, they deserve better than what they are getting at the moment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham P. Jones) on securing it. This is an issue on which I have been vocal. It is incomprehensible that democracy is so vaunted but much of the world remains silent. Yet again, I am thankful that this House—the home and foundation of democracy—has not remained silent, and neither has the Minister. He too has been vocal—well done to him, as I said yesterday and say again today.
The Venezuelan Government decided to go ahead with presidential elections without instigating any of the reforms of the electoral system that the Opposition had requested. The Opposition candidates did not participate and claimed that there was widespread fraud, for which there is evidence. The UK, along with the EU, the US and the 14 members of the Lima Group to which the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) referred, has refused to recognise the result as legitimate, and with good reason. I was very shocked to read in the news on Sunday night that a teacher’s salary in Venezuela will currently buy only 12 eggs. What does she have to offer to her family and friends? There must be a swift resolution, and it is past time that we in the UN stopped hand-wringing and began to take action to help the people of Venezuela.
More specifically, the army is believed to be targeting political opponents, and the everyday person lives in fear. That is the kind of regime to which we are diametrically opposed, and the causes of democracy and freedom scream out that we put action behind words and do all that is possible to help in this scenario. The army has killed, injured, beaten, tortured and raped. I believe that it must be held accountable for its actions.
There are supposed champions of human rights whose brand of human rights murders on one hand but battles against supposed slights to human rights on the other. As usual, I will not follow the myopic trail of Sinn Féin, who are attempting to support someone who can only be called a despot, and were one of the first political parties in the United Kingdom to do so. We must do what we know to be right and support the calls for intervention.
Our intention is to do what we should for those who cannot stand alone. If we believe that there must be an interim President, will we offer advice and support? I hope that we will. If we believe that the currency issue must be rectified, will we offer advice and help? Do we have aid to help those who are working, yet are literally starving day by day as the world watches? This Government, this House and the people of this country will not stand idly by. We will do all we can to help. I ask the Minister to let us do everything that we can to help democracy and freedom.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham P. Jones) for securing the debate. I speak as vice-chair of the APPG on Venezuela. I have been following the escalation of events closely for some time and have a deep personal interest in them.
In December last year, I sent letters to the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, urging them to be more transparent on the $500 million of gold belonging to the Venezuelan people that is held by the Bank of England. In my letters, I sought reassurance over reports that the Venezuelan Minister of Finance, Simón Zerpa, who had been sanctioned by the US Treasury, and Calixto Sánchez, the illegitimate president of the Venezuelan central bank, had met Bank of England officials and were seeking to take the gold away. Unfortunately, the reply I received from the Bank of England hid behind references to “individual customer relationships” and “customer confidentiality”, rather than directly addressing my concerns.
Two weeks ago, I met the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to express my concerns about the situation in Venezuela, the illegitimate nature of the Government and the importance of ensuring that the dictatorship does not get custody of the gold—we all know what it would do with it. He undertook to repeat my concerns to the Bank of England. I thank him and Foreign Office Ministers for their reassurances as the situation has moved on. I understand that the Bank has independence from Government, but it is a pillar of the state and it is 100% owned by the state, so it is reasonable to expect a high standard from it.
For a while, protests in Venezuela had died down, as a consequence of the sheer exhaustion of the country’s hungry and abused citizens. Juan Guaidó has managed to resurrect democratic voices, gather a strong Opposition—left and right—to Maduro’s autocratic criminal Government, and offer a real chance of change. Maduro has been financially rewarding the military for its loyalty, making it harder for his regime to be overthrown.
As the UK has declared its support for Guaidó, I urge the Government to continue to be forthright with the Bank of England and not allow it to misuse its independence or to cite “customer confidentiality” in an inappropriate fashion. The hon. Member for Hyndburn expressed the bigger picture brilliantly and bravely. Although I understand the political situation for him does not make that particularly welcome, I still think he needs to be congratulated.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
In September 2017, I had a heart-breaking meeting with the Venezuelan community in my constituency. I subsequently came to this Chamber to raise the desperate realities faced by their friends and families. Eighteen months on, the economic and humanitarian crisis that they face has soared to unprecedented and simply frightening levels.
I will communicate to the House just two cases that I have been contacted about today. I was contacted by my constituent Erika, who is struggling to support her family back in Venezuela. Sadly, Erika’s sister was diagnosed with cancer four years ago, but has been unable to receive any treatment for the last two years because of the cost and the lack of medicine. I will quote from Erika’s incredibly upsetting email. She said:
“We are not talking about trivial stuff. We are talking about life or death situations. When you need to decide which one of your family members is the one who is going to eat today. If my parents get ill at the same time, my sister may be in the position of choosing which one is going to survive.”
I also heard from local resident Militza. Her brother is a doctor with over 20 years’ experience and a private practice. The Venezuelan economy is in such disarray, however, that he cannot charge more than $1 per patient visit. That solitary dollar gets paid three months later by an insurance company, with an inflation rate of over 1,000,000%. By the time it reaches him, it is almost worthless. His clinic has been robbed twice; his staff held at gunpoint; and his machinery stolen. Over 80% of his patients have lost a minimum of 8 kg since their previous visit, and can no longer afford to attend their regular check-ups.
This House and this country can no longer ignore the situation facing Venezuela. Democracy was breached by the illegitimate Constituent Assembly, and Nicolás Maduro is clearly not the legitimate leader of Venezuela. This is a regime that must be condemned loud and clear.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
This is an important debate to me. Yesterday, I was not able to make the main Chamber for the urgent question from the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), so I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham P. Jones) not only for making a superb and comprehensive speech, every part of which I agreed with and which warrants all our congratulations, but for giving me the chance to say what I was not able to say yesterday.
I come to the debate from three different perspectives: as a citizen of the world, with a lot of us seeing this appalling tragedy, one of the biggest in the world and with the potential to become much worse, as hugely worrying; as a citizen of the UK, which has a good international aid reputation, although South America perhaps does not attract quite the international aid focus that it warrants; and in the interests of Colombia, because of family connections and my work with the all-party group, which is particularly important. The scale of the crisis is shocking.
For three weeks in August, during the summer holidays, I visited Colombia. It was shocking to see Venezuelans, with all their possessions, just walking from Venezuela to Bogotá or even Boyacá, where I spent several weeks. They came in twos and threes, on the backs of lorries with all their possessions. It was incredibly sad.
I have one or two important points to make in the short time I have available. One is that we should recognise the way in which Colombia and other countries have behaved towards the refugees. It is a lesson to the world. Colombia has accepted 1.1 million refugees, registering them and allowing them to get jobs. It is an absolutely brilliant way for a country to deal with refugees. We should be incredibly proud of them for that.
In fact, I will leave it at that. I will have to look for another opportunity to say all the things that I would like to say.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
There is undoubtedly a crisis in Venezuela, but I am afraid that what we have heard today has been something of a caricature of the situation there. Clearly, the severe crisis affecting the people of Venezuela has been exacerbated by sanctions imposed by the United States of America—[Interruption]—from Barack Obama in 2015 onwards. That has led to the very real shortages to which hon. Members have referred, in spare parts, medical supplies, food and so on, exacerbated by economic sabotage by elites in Venezuela—[Interruption.]
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. There is to be no noise from the Public Gallery, or it will be cleared. This is Parliament and everyone has a right to be heard without interference.
Chris Williamson
Thank you very much, Mr Hollobone.
The UN rapporteur, the first to visit Venezuela in 21 years, clearly said that the US sanctions were illegal and could amount to crimes against humanity—
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Chris Williamson
No, I am afraid not; we do not have the time.
The rapporteur said that the US was waging “economic warfare” against the people of Venezuela. It is also important to challenge on the record the assertion about the election being rigged. I have spoken to election observers who were there, and they said that although the election process was not perfect, it was not rigged—it is impossible to stuff ballot boxes with ballot papers because each vote is twinned with the voter ID and fingerprint of each elector who votes in a Venezuelan election. A Member of this House, the hon. Member for South Down (Chris Hazzard), has said that it was complete rubbish to suggest that the Opposition were not allowed to campaign, because he saw them doing so openly during the election process.
We have seen this all before, have we not? Manufactured shortages and the intervention of the United States—we saw that in Chile, and we have seen similar influences in Honduras and other Latin American countries. It never ends well. Surely what the UK should be doing, rather than acting as Donald Trump’s poodle, is calling on the United States and the world community to urge the Venezuelan Opposition and Government to get together around the table, to meet and to reach a mutually acceptable solution. There is no place for external intervention by foreign powers.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
It is rather impressive to follow an assault on the facts as heroic as the one that the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) just presented to us. One only has to look at the whole situation of Venezuela, and to see what has happened to it and the enormous wealth with which it is endowed, to draw the appropriate conclusion about the management of the country and its economy.
I do not intend to add to the evidence adduced by my hon. Friends. In the two minutes left to me, I simply want to ask what the Government will do now. Will they identify all funds belonging to the Venezuelan Government in the United Kingdom and freeze them? Will they place those funds at the disposal of Juan Guaidó when, inevitably, it comes to recognising him on Mr Maduro’s refusal of a new election process? Will the Government provide direct funding to the Juan Guaidó Government through development assistance? Will they start a major crackdown on the stolen and laundered Venezuelan funds that are in the United Kingdom or have passed through it? Will the Government take action against individuals and institutions in the United Kingdom that have facilitated the corruption of the Maduro regime?
Over preceding years, that state has been looted systematically by its leadership, not least the military. I understand Juan Guaidó’s offer of an amnesty, but I am not sure that the United Kingdom needs to be party to that on foreign moneys. Those people need to be held accountable for what they have done to their country.
Will the Government facilitate the immediate transfer of the Venezuelan embassy in London to officials appointed by the interim President? Will the Government withdraw the visas of, and declare persona non grata, those appointed by the Maduro regime to London, inviting them to return to Venezuela? That is a list of concrete steps that one would expect the Government to take. I assume that some of that will be in anticipation of there being no response to the Government and the EU’s collective position on the need for a new electoral mandate for the President.
I also want to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) about the gold held by the Bank of England. My right hon. Friend the Minister got rather a good write-up in the Telegraph today, but I have to say that I do not think that it was entirely deserved, because I think he should have been significantly tougher with the signal he sent the Bank of England about the position of the Government on that gold.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
We now come to the Front-Bench speeches. The guideline limits are five minutes for the SNP, five minutes for Labour and 10 minutes for the Minister.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham P. Jones) for securing an important, timely and incredibly factual debate.
As we have heard, the political and economic crisis in Venezuela is spiralling into an economic and humanitarian disaster. Schools are being closed, and hunger is killing Venezuelan children at an alarming rate as stores have run out of food. The country’s hospitals are collapsing under chronic shortages of antibiotics, food and other supplies, and diseases such as malaria and diphtheria have re-emerged. The United Nations has estimated that as many as 3 million citizens—a tenth of Venezuela’s population—have fled since 2015. Almost 90% of those who remain live in poverty. In recent days, the desperate conditions have led to thousands protesting on the capital’s streets in a bid to topple President Nicolás Maduro. Amnesty International has reported that more than a dozen people have been killed in the protests in the past week alone.
Maduro and his Government have overseen Venezuela’s collapse, and yet have maintained a tight grip on power. Last year, Maduro won a widely criticized re-election, with reports of coercion, fraud and electoral rigging. The roots of the crisis lie in the country’s political corruption and economic mismanagement, and a complex combination of short and long-term factors. Venezuela holds the world’s largest supply of crude oil, which has been an essential part of its economy. However, plummeting oil prices in 2016 triggered an economic implosion, and the oil-dependent country lapsed into political turmoil and economic misery.
The economic crisis has been decades in the making, but Maduro has presided over its acceleration. There can be no excuse made for him and his Government. Now, as the parliamentary chief Juan Guaidó has declared himself the interim President, Venezuelans find themselves with two declared leaders, unrest in the streets and foreign powers divided about who to recognise as the legitimate President. What comes next? I fully understand that there will be a range of views across the Chamber, and among those watching this speech, on whether Maduro should stay or go, but it is clear that Venezuela cannot recover while Maduro is in charge.
Research has suggested that most Venezuelans want a negotiated settlement and fresh elections. Previous attempts at talks between Venezuela’s political players failed, due largely to bad faith on the Government’s side. International engagement must take the form of considered action to support Venezuelans inside and outside the country, not crude and dangerous interventions such as we saw today when the US announced sanctions that will only worsen the situation for ordinary Venezuelans. Therefore, can the Minister tell us what discussions he has had with his US counterpart about the crisis in Venezuela and the US policy towards the country?
Last Thursday, Federica Mogherini, the European Union’s foreign policy head, said in a statement that the voice of Venezuelans calling for democracy “cannot be ignored.” Constitutional order must be followed. So will the Minister confirm that the UK Government support EU calls for the immediate commencement of the political process that can lead to legitimate free and fair elections?
I turn my attention to the humanitarian crisis that has gripped the country. Venezuelan refugees need access to shelter, medical care, social programmes and employment opportunities in order to mitigate any risk of their becoming vulnerable to recruitment by armed criminal groups active along the border. Therefore, will the Minister tell us what support the UK Government are providing to border countries hosting refugees, particularly Colombia, to improve access to those services? The SNP firmly believes that any approach to the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela must address the regional aspect, as the suffering in Venezuela is increasingly felt in the neighbouring nations of Columbia, Peru, Brazil and Ecuador. Can the Minister tell us what discussions he has had with EU and UN counterparts on providing humanitarian relief to Venezuelans?
The safety and rights of all Venezuelans must be upheld, and the UK must support a return to democracy and the rule of law. Ultimately, the Venezuelan people must choose their own political future. In the meantime, the UK Government must uphold the rule of law and promote strong democratic institutions, while doing whatever possible to help those suffering during this political upheaval.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the chair this afternoon, Mr Hollobone.
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham P. Jones); he has uncanny timing in securing the debate on Venezuela. He set out very well the humanitarian crisis overtaking the country. There is malnutrition, and refugees in their millions are leaving the country. More than 1 million have gone to Colombia, which puts at risk their peace process. There are shortages of medicines and there are now more than half a million cases of malaria.
Between 2012 and 2016, the oil price collapsed. That was a problem, but mismanagement by the Government compounded it, leading to massive inflation and the collapse of the currency. None of that excuses the Maduro Government’s abysmal human rights and political failings. Amnesty reports excessive use of force against demonstrators and torture of detainees. I believe the May 2018 elections were rigged by the Government and, following serious intimidation, boycotted by the Opposition. It is not surprising, therefore, that they were not recognised by the Lima Group of neighbouring states.
The Venezuelan people should not be a battleground for other countries’ ideological differences. Their welfare and well-being should be at the forefront of our minds. Free and fair elections are the priority. Dialogue and respect for human rights, rather than violence, are essential. Humanitarian support for refugees is needed, rather than the further sanctions announced by the Trump Administration overnight.
Given the rising death toll from the latest protests, does the Minister agree that the Maduro Government must respect the rule of law and move to elections? I note his carefully chosen words in the Chamber yesterday:
“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.”—[Official Report, 28 January 2019; Vol. 653, c. 481.]
That will be 3 February. Usual practice is to recognise whoever is in charge in a country, rather than who we would like to be in charge. The Lima Group is just as concerned as the EU; it has called for elections but has not issued an ultimatum. If Nicolás Maduro does not announce elections, and is still sitting in the presidential palace, supported by the army, on 3 February, what will the UK and EU Governments do? How does the Minister see this situation unfolding?
As Chair of the International Development Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) said yesterday that the history of US intervention in Latin America is “tragic and troubled”. We all heard Donald Trump last week say that all options are on the table. Indeed, the Minister used similar language in October. John Bolton tweeted a note that said, “5,000 troops to Colombia”. The Colombian Government have not been consulted about that; their Foreign Affairs Minister issued a statement saying that an invasion from Colombia is absolutely out of the question.
Will the Minister give us some clarity? Do the UK and the President of the United States include in their list of all options the possibility of military intervention in Venezuela? Have the British Government discussed that with the American Government, and has the UK promised support in the event that the US takes action? Her Majesty’s Opposition would like military intervention to be ruled out.
We all appreciate the huge challenges for neighbouring countries of dealing with the influx of refugees from Venezuela, especially in Colombia, so will the Minister tell us what efforts are being made to ensure that those refugees receive the humanitarian support they need? Will he answer the questions on asylum that my hon. Friends have asked?
Yesterday, the Father of the House said that we should not impose further economic sanctions; overnight, the Trump Administration did just that. Instead, will the Minister use the Magnitsky powers that we gave him several months ago, and impose targeted sanctions against those who are abusing human rights?
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham P. Jones) for securing this debate. I thank him and his many colleagues for their continued interest in and support for Venezuela. I congratulate him on his re-appointment in October as chair of the all-party parliamentary group. However, I very much regret that I am unable to use such a welcoming tone for the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson). He has become a defender of the indefensible, a champion of someone who has impoverished his people, and a supporter of someone who has smashed the rule of law and usurped the constitution. I rather sense that he wants to make himself the most hated man in Venezuela. It is perhaps a race between whether he becomes so there, and whether he establishes that reputation in this House first.
Let me make no bones about it: Venezuela is a failing state in the midst of the deepest man-made economic and humanitarian crisis in modern Latin American history.
Sir Alan Duncan
I will make some progress, but if I have time, I will give way later.
When I spoke about Venezuela at Chatham House in October, I described the demise of a once vibrant nation, charting, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Derby North, the many decisions that had been taken to prove that this was a Chavista-made crisis and not a US one. Since then we have seen no improvement; in fact, the situation has gone from bad to worse. The social implications are astonishing: four-fifths of Venezuelans are living in poverty. They are vulnerable to malnutrition and disease because of shortages of food and medicines. The poor are not just poorer—they are destitute. More than 3 million people have been driven to leave the country—10% of the population. In the UK, that would equate to almost the entire population of London. That massive exodus puts enormous pressure on neighbouring states, particularly Colombia, Peru and Ecuador. We applaud the remarkable generosity towards Venezuelan migrants of those countries, and that of Brazil and other countries in the region.
As well as punishing his own people, Maduro has damaged Venezuela’s reputation and relations in the region and the wider international community. Instead of diplomacy, he has chosen confrontation. He has deliberately sought confrontation through reckless border incursions by the Venezuelan security forces. He has cut off any means of diplomatic engagement, including by announcing Venezuela’s withdrawal from the Organisation of American States in 2017, and his conduct inexcusably threatens the peace process in neighbouring Colombia.
Under the Maduro regime Venezuela’s democratic institutions, including the judiciary, the national electoral authorities and local government, have been systematically undermined, while political repression and electoral malpractice have increased. The creation of an all-powerful Constituent Assembly in August 2017 was clearly a deliberate attempt to neutralise the democratically elected National Assembly. Over the past two years, election after election has been manipulated, culminating in a presidential election in May 2018 that few apart from the Government themselves considered free and fair. At Saturday’s United Nations Security Council meeting, which I attended, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Arreaza waved a copy of, and spoke passionately about, the constitution, yet it is Maduro who has trashed that constitution and Juan Guaidó who has upheld it.
The political Opposition have been suppressed and intimidated, their leaders have fled or been imprisoned, and we will never forget that the Opposition activist Fernando Albán was detained and then found dead beneath the windows of the national intelligence facility. Some leading Opposition leaders have been imprisoned, forced into exile or banned from holding public office. Maduro has cynically used his control of supposedly independent institutions such as the Supreme Court and the National Electoral Council to cement his position. There was global criticism of the May 2018 presidential elections, with allegations of electoral malpractice and the banning of Opposition parties.
Those actions, along with the recent brutal suppression of demonstrations in Venezuela, are symptoms of an increasingly intolerant Government turning to repression simply to cling on to power. Ironically, Maduro’s re-inauguration on 10 January might just have been a catalyst for change, but a clumsy attempt to intimidate the new president of the National Assembly, Juan Guaidó, by temporarily detaining him backfired spectacularly.
We know what has happened recently. During an Opposition protest on 23 January, Guaidó declared the May 2018 presidential elections fraudulent—and they were. Citing article 233 of the Venezuelan constitution, he declared himself interim President of Venezuela, and he was swiftly recognised by the United States and 12 Lima Group countries. As of this moment, 22 countries have recognised him as the interim President.
John Spellar
If we get Juan Guaidó as the full, proper President, he will still need to reconstruct the economy, which has been wasted by the Maduro regime. Will the Minister look again at my suggestion yesterday that we need a Marshall plan to get Venezuela’s resources up and running as quickly as possible so that it can, like post-war Europe, sustain itself?
Sir Alan Duncan
One of the blessings of Venezuela is that it has resources; its tragedy is that they have been exploited and destroyed by Maduro and his cronies. The right hon. Gentleman is right. We will look at anything to try to get those resources serving the needs of Venezuelans, who I hope will be able to return in their hundreds of thousands, if not their millions, to the country they have fled.
As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in Washington on 24 January, the UK believes that Maduro is not the legitimate leader of Venezuela, and that Guaidó is the right person to take Venezuela forward. As I said at the UN Security Council meeting on Saturday, we will recognise Guaidó as constitutional interim President if new elections are not announced within eight days of that meeting. The sorts of actions called for by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) will be addressed then, as we assess what needs to be done after the world comes together, as I hope it does, to point out and act on the fact that Maduro is not the legitimate President of Venezuela.
Crispin Blunt
That deadline expires on Sunday, I think. Will my right hon. Friend lay a written ministerial statement on Monday to say exactly what measures the Government are taking?
Sir Alan Duncan
I am not going to make a commitment about what precise reaction we will make in terms of procedures in the House. As my hon. Friend appreciates, that is a matter for the usual channels.
Melanie Onn
The Minister mentioned that he accepts that Venezuela is in a state of crisis. If that is the case and that is the Government’s position, why are they wasting taxpayers’ money on trying repeatedly to appeal the asylum claim of my 73-year-old constituent Nelly Gelves, which was approved by a tribunal? Is it their intention to send her back to Venezuela while it is in that state of crisis?
Sir Alan Duncan
As the hon. Lady will well appreciate, asylum is a semi-judicial process that is handled by the Home Office. I regret that I am unfamiliar with that case and she did not notify me of it in advance of the debate, so I did not ask the appropriate questions in advance.
In addition to what I have described, the UK stands with Spain, France, Germany and the Netherlands in demanding the announcement of urgent free and fair elections within six days, and in calling for a legitimate Government to be established. We stand with the Organisation of American States and the Lima Group, whose members last September referred the Venezuelan Government to the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States in saying that the National Assembly and its president, Juan Guaidó, are best placed to lead Venezuela to the restoration of its democracy, its economy and its freedom.
Sir Alan Duncan
I have no more time, I am afraid. I have to leave the hon. Member for Hyndburn a couple of minutes at the end.
Today, we should all stand together against the tyranny of Nicolás Maduro and in support of the legitimate democratic forces in Venezuela. Venezuela can and must recover from the depths of its current despair. To do so, it needs an end to tyranny, an end to corruption and an urgent return to freedom, democracy and the rule of law.
Graham P. Jones
This has been a very worthwhile debate, and the contributions by nearly all Members were exceedingly valid. I hope the Minister reflects on the questions that Members asked and provides some sort of response to them. I think that would prove worthwhile. This issue appears not to be going away. In fact, it may deteriorate somewhat; we ought to be mindful that the crisis may become even bigger in the coming days, weeks and months.
We must think immediately about the people who are suffering. Yes, there is a political question—yes, there is a bankrupt Marxist Administration running the country down—but right now, as the vice-chair of the APPG on Venezuela, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies), said, there is a humanitarian catastrophe. We simply are not putting enough resources in. I am not backing away from attacking the failed Marxist regime, but the people who are suffering should be paramount in our thoughts tonight, this week and next week. We should all take away the experiences that the hon. Gentleman recounted as our lasting memory of this debate. I say in summary that the contribution from the UK Government needs to increase dramatically.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the political situation in Venezuela.
Written Statements
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Economic Crime (Mr Ben Wallace)
I am today placing in the Library of the House the Department’s analysis of the application of Standing Order 83L of the Standing Orders of the House in respect of the Government amendments tabled for Commons Report stage of the Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill scheduled for 30 January 2018. The analysis should be read alongside annex A to the explanatory notes to the Bill.
[HCWS1281]
Local Government Finance
(5 years, 2 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)
Today I laid before the House, the “Report on Local Government Finance (England) 2019-20”, the “Council Tax referendum principles report 2019-20” and “Council Tax alternative notional amounts report 2018-2019”, which represent the annual local government finance settlement for local authorities in England.
I would like to thank all colleagues in the House, council leaders and officers who contributed to the consultation after the provisional settlement was published on 13 December.
My Ministers and I have engaged extensively with the sector, including offering a teleconference to all local authorities, and holding meetings with representative groups, including the Local Government Association, and with councils and MPs. Representations from around 170 organisations or individuals have been carefully considered before finalising the settlement.
This settlement is the final year of the four-year offer which was accepted by 97% of councils in return for publishing efficiency plans. This settlement comprises a broad package of measures and confirms that core spending power is forecast to increase from £45.1 billion in 2018-19 to £46.4 billion in 2019-20, a cash-increase of 2.8% and a real-terms increase in resources available to local authorities.
Yesterday, I released £56.5 million across 2018-19 and 2019-20 to help councils prepare for EU exit.
Adult and children’s social care
The Government have listened and responded to the pressures local authorities are facing and announced at autumn Budget in October 2018 that we will be providing additional resources across 2018-19 and 2019-20 to support social care. This funding includes £240 million in both 2018-19 and 2019-20 to support adult social care services to reduce pressures on the NHS, and an additional £410 million social care support grant for local authorities to support adult and children’s social care services. Having considered responses to the provisional settlement consultation, I can confirm that this will be distributed according to the existing adult social care relative needs formula.
The additional resources announced at autumn Budget, alongside the adult social care council tax precept and the improved better care fund, mean that councils will have been given access to £10 billion in dedicated funding that can be used for adult social care over the three years from 2017-18 to 2019-20. For 2019-20, local authorities will have access to £4.3 billion in dedicated resources for adult social care, including £1.8 billion in improved better care fund grant.
Business rates growth, and the distribution of funds within the levy account
In addition, every authority in England also stands to benefit from increased growth in business rates income, which has generated a surplus in the business rates levy account in 2018-19. I can confirm that £180 million will be returned to the sector and distributed based on each local authority’s 2013-14 settlement funding assessment.
This highlights the continued success of the business rates retention system, from which local authorities estimate they will gain an additional £2.4 billion in retained business rates growth in 2018-19 on top of settlement core funding.
Business rates retention pilots
As we move towards our aim of devolving additional grants to increase business rates retention to 75% from 2020-21, I will continue to test increased business rates retention with a range of local authorities across a wide geographical spread.
At the provisional settlement I confirmed that 15 new pilots will get under way in 2019-20 in Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, East Sussex, Hertfordshire, Lancashire, Leicester and Leicestershire, Norfolk, North and West Yorkshire, North of Tyne, Northamptonshire, Solent authorities, Somerset, Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, West Sussex and Worcestershire. I will also be piloting 75% business rates retention in London and continuing ongoing pilots in five devolution deal areas.
New homes bonus
Local authorities are instrumental in ensuring the building of homes this country needs. As well as providing extra resources for social care, rewarding local authorities for economic growth and testing elements of future reform, I am keen to provide as much continuity and certainty to the sector as possible. As a result, I can confirm that the payments threshold for new homes bonus will be retained at 0.4%. To keep the baseline at 0.4%, I am investing an additional £18 million. The total budget for the bonus this year is therefore £918 million.
The consultation illustrated that the sector wants certainty on the future of the new homes bonus after next year. The Government remain fully committed to incentivising housing growth and will consult widely with local authorities on how best to reward housing delivery effectively after 2019-20.
Rural funding
The 2019-20 settlement confirms that the rural services delivery grant will continue to be £81 million in 2019-20, maintaining the highest ever levels of funding provided in 2018-19. This has been welcomed by rural local authorities from particularly sparse communities. Our review of local authorities’ relative needs and resources will consider the specific challenges faced in all geographic areas, including rural areas, to inform the final distribution formula.
Negative RSG
Having listened to representations since the provisional settlement, this settlement also confirms that the Government will directly eliminate the £152.9 million negative revenue support grant (RSG) that occurs in 2019-20 using foregone business rates.
Negative RSG is a direct consequence of the distribution methodology adopted for the 2016-17 settlement, whereby for less grant dependent authorities the required reduction in core funding exceeded their available RSG.
The Government’s decision will prevent any local authority from being subject to a downward adjustment to their business rates tariffs and top-ups that could act as a disincentive for growth, and I believe this is the most straightforward and most cost-effective means of dealing with this issue.
Council tax referendum principles
Finally, I can confirm that in 2019-20 local authorities, with the exception of police and crime commissioners, will retain the same flexibilities to increase council tax as in 2018-19, with a core council tax referendum principle of up to 3%. I have agreed with the Home Secretary that the referendum limits for police and crime commissioners will be set at £24 to address changing demands on police forces.
I have also decided to provide Northamptonshire County Council with an additional 2% council tax flexibility, to assist with the improvements to council governance and services after their serious issues. Use of the flexibility will ultimately be a matter for the authority’s cabinet and full council.
During the consultation, many local authorities called for referendum limits to be removed. However, I believe the proposed limits allow local authorities to retain the flexibility to raise additional resources locally to address local needs, whilst protecting households from excessive increases in council tax, in line with the Government’s manifesto pledge.
Future of local government finance
A strong theme during the consultation was calls for certainty on the future of local government finance. To meet the challenges of the future, we have published two consultations on future reform of the business rates retention system and on the assessment of local authorities’ relative needs and resources. These consultations close on 21 February.
Alongside the 2016-17 local government finance system, the Government announced a review to develop a more up-to-date and responsive distribution methodology for the sector. In December, I announced a new consultation, seeking views on the future assessment of relative needs and resources, and on principles for transitioning to new funding arrangements in 2020-21.
Alongside the new funding methodology, in 2020-21 we will also be implementing the latest phase of our business rates retention programme that gives local councils the levers and incentives they need to grow their local economies. The consultation seeks views on how the business rates system can be reformed to provide a strong growth incentive; strike a desirable balance between risk and reward; and reduce complexity and disproportionate volatility in local authority income where possible.
Conclusion
This settlement recognises the pressures that councils face in meeting growing demand for services and rewards their impressive efforts to drive efficiencies and help rebuild our economy.
This settlement answers calls for additional funding in 2019-20, and it paves the way for a more self-sufficient and reinvigorated system of local government.
[HCWS1282]
Convention against Torture: UN Protocol
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
The optional protocol to the convention against torture (OPCAT), which the UK ratified in December 2003, requires states parties to establish a “national preventive mechanism” (NPM) to carry out visits to places of detention to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The Government established the independent UK NPM in March 2009, and extended its membership in December 2013, and in January 2017. The UK NPM is currently composed of 21 scrutiny bodies covering the whole of the UK, and prepares annual reports on its activities. It also has an independent website at: www.nationalpreventivemechanism.org.uk.
Following previous practice, I have presented to Parliament the ninth NPM’s annual report (Command Paper CP 17). This report covers the period from 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018. This year we mark 10 years since the establishment of the NPM, and I continue to commend the important work that the NPM has carried out over this period and the NPM’s independent role in safeguarding the human rights of detainees across the UK. I also note the NPM’s observations on prisons, children in detention, police custody, immigration detention, health and social care detentions, and court custody.
[HCWS1283]
Grand Committee
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, I should advise the Committee that if there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, this draft instrument forms part of our ongoing work to ensure that, if the UK leaves the EU without a deal, our legal system will continue to work effectively for our citizens. If Parliament approves the withdrawal agreement, which includes an implementation period, and passes the necessary legislation to implement that agreement, the Government would defer the coming into force of these instruments until the end of that implementation period. Once a deal on our future relationship has been reached, we envisage that they would be revoked entirely.
Your Lordships will be aware that, as part of these preparations, the Government have published a series of technical notices to outline the implications of a no-deal exit for citizens and businesses. One of these, published on 13 September 2018, was titled Handling Civil Legal Cases that Involve EU Countries if There’s No Brexit Deal. It set out the implications of a no-deal exit for the rules on how to resolve cross-border disputes in civil and commercial cases.
The Secretary of State, the Ministry of Justice ministerial team and officials have had regular engagement with key stakeholders in the field of civil, commercial and family justice, including the Law Society of England and Wales, the Bar Council, through the Brexit Law Committee, and individuals. This has included discussions on the technical notice, to ensure that our policy proposals in respect of no deal provide the best outcome for citizens and businesses. The instruments we are discussing today are designed to implement the policy outlined in the technical notice. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments reviewed the statutory instrument and had no substantive comments.
This draft instrument makes changes to the rules in England and Wales, in Northern Ireland and in Scotland that determine which courts should have jurisdiction in cross-border civil and commercial cases involving courts in EU and relevant EFTA countries—that is, those party to the Lugano convention: Norway, Switzerland and Iceland. It also changes the rules on how to ensure that any judgments or decisions can be enforced across the EU and relevant EFTA states.
It may be helpful if I explain the current effect of EU law in this area. The current principal measure in relation to civil and commercial law is known as the Brussels Ia regulation, as it replaced the so-called Brussels I regulation. Denmark has a separate agreement with the other EU member states, based on Brussels Ia, to give Denmark access to the EU’s system of civil judicial co-operation, because it does not normally participate in EU justice and home affairs measures, pursuant to Protocol 22 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. There is also a separate but similar agreement, the 2007 Lugano convention, based on Brussels I, between the EU and Norway, Switzerland and Iceland. It also applies to Denmark. Brussels I, as distinct from Brussels Ia, remains of some continuing relevance because it applies in respect of actions commenced prior to 10 January 2015, but it is of limited relevance to the present issue.
The Brussels regime provides clear and reciprocal rules on jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters—that is, which court should hear a cross-border case. Its application is mandatory. There is no discretion for courts to act otherwise than in accordance with the regime. This means that if, for example, a UK consumer or business has a dispute with a party in another EU member state or a Lugano party, there are clear rules to follow to determine where the case should be heard. This negates the risks of parallel proceedings and more than one court hearing the same case.
There is almost automatic recognition and enforcement of judgments from one participating state in another. This means that if a business successfully sues a business in one participating state, it can enforce the resulting judgment where it needs to without going through costly and time-consuming additional processes. This is possible because all participating states must apply uniform rules of jurisdiction and can trust that jurisdiction was taken properly and appropriately.
The Brussels regime operates almost entirely on a reciprocal basis. Its effectiveness is founded on mutual co-operation between states. Countries respect the jurisdiction of each other’s courts and recognise and enforce each other’s judgments. However, with some limited exceptions, including consumer and employment cases, the Brussels rules do not apply if the defendant to the dispute is domiciled outside the EU. In such cases, EU member states and the Lugano parties apply their own national rules when dealing with cross-border matters.
What will change should we leave the EU without a deal? If the UK leaves without an agreement, the current EU regime for determining these matters will cease to apply to us. After such an exit, the reciprocity in the EU regime will no longer apply in relations between the EU member states and the UK, nor between the Lugano parties and the UK. Furthermore, there are no unilateral actions that the UK can take to compel the EU as a whole to continue to apply the reciprocal jurisdictional rules or to enforce judgments. Simply put, the rules under which we currently operate under the Brussels regime would cease to function effectively in the event of a no-deal exit.
For this reason, it is necessary to legislate now to provide clarity about how the UK will determine whether it has jurisdiction in a civil and commercial case and when UK courts will recognise and enforce judgments from EU countries. However, let me be absolutely clear: without a reciprocal agreement in this area, we cannot determine what rules the EU will apply. This will be down to member states’ own national laws.
As set out in the instrument before us, the Government’s response to this is, with limited exceptions, to revert to the rules on jurisdiction and on recognition and enforcement of judgments that currently apply to cross-border disputes where the Brussels regime does not apply—that is, for disputes involving parties from the UK on the one hand and countries outside the EU and the Lugano parties on the other. This instrument is not creating new policy but transitioning to a well-developed and understood set of rules that provide an effective framework for UK courts to work with and take into account the lack of reciprocity in this area.
There are a few exceptions to this general approach. Importantly, the rules of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005 will continue to apply, as the UK is acceding to it as a contracting state. This is being brought into UK law post-EU exit by a separate SI, which has been subject to the negative procedure—that is, the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018. Broadly speaking, this means that the courts of a part of the UK will take jurisdiction whenever a valid choice of court agreement to which the convention applies has been made and will readily recognise and enforce a foreign judgment from a foreign court validly selected under such an agreement. Courts of other contracting states to that convention will equally recognise and enforce a judgment from a UK court to which the convention applies.
The EU was a signatory to the 2005 Hague convention on behalf of all members of the EU. It is therefore necessary that we should become a signatory to that convention as an individual state on exit. The application to do so was made on 28 December 2018. It will become effective under the terms of the convention as of 1 April this year.
Secondly, we have sought where we can to maintain jurisdictional protections for UK consumers and employees contained in the Brussels regime. These rules are not restricted to EU-domiciled defendants, so we can retain to a large degree the consumer and employee-friendly approach of the Brussels regime while restating them in a manner specific to UK-based consumers and employees. This largely obviates the need for a consumer or employee to sue abroad in these cases, with the expense and difficulty that brings.
This instrument is necessary to fix the statute book in the event of a no-deal exit. We have assessed its impact and published a full impact assessment. Broadly, we have concluded that although in certain respects the common law may operate less efficiently than the existing Brussels regime to which the UK is party as a result of EU membership, only negligible costs would arise from this SI, relative to the alternative of leaving legislation on the statute book that ceases to operate effectively in the absence of reciprocity after the UK leaves the EU.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am not taking interventions during the opening speech. It is the Government’s view that removing deficient retained EU law and associated domestic legislation from domestic law will clarify the rules that apply to determine jurisdiction, recognition and the enforcement of judgments post exit. This has the benefit of protecting litigants from unnecessary expense and making UK legislation more transparent, therefore protecting its reputation. This will also ensure that the same rules apply to cross-border matters involving EU and non-EU countries.
There will be deficiencies in retained EU law, which implements the instruments of the Brussels regime, due to a lack of reciprocity. That will become obvious if we leave the EU without a deal. This SI fixes those deficiencies and establishes a practicable set of rules for dealing with cross-border disputes in civil and commercial matters in such a scenario.
Lord Adonis
That is extremely disrespectful to the Committee, if I may say so, because now there is no other way for us to ask the Minister questions before he responds at the end of the entire debate—and we will have no means to come back on his statements at that point because the Question will be put at the end.
Lord Adonis
I am happy to take an intervention from the noble and learned Lord, even though he was not prepared to take one from me. I will speak later in the debate but I just want to put on record that I find his actions extremely disrespectful to the Committee. That alone would lead me to wish to negative the instrument, because the Minister is not subjecting himself to the proper process of interrogation and answering questions on the regulations. It is immensely disrespectful and the first time that a Minister has come to a Grand Committee and not been prepared to answer questions in the normal way.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, when I looked at the instrument, I began to wonder whether the Minister was open to the charge from some of his colleagues here and in the other place that he was part of Project Fear, because the instrument sets out some consequences of Brexit, both in general and in a no-deal scenario, pretty starkly.
The loss of reciprocity is central to this instrument. I did not notice the Minister express any concern or grief at this but it represents the removal of something that we have developed in recent years, to the great advantage of litigants, and which we are about to lose, to our detriment. The consequence is that separate enforcement will be required in many cases, including judgments of foreign courts; by foreign, I mean courts in the EU or the Lugano states. Incidentally, that includes Norway, a state with which we have particularly close and friendly relations.
The Explanatory Notes to the regulations show that the Government go only this far by stating:
“The impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies of this instrument is, on balance, expected to be positive when compared to making no changes to retained EU law”.
However, in the same paragraph the notes go on to explain that,
“an increased risk of parallel proceedings … could increase the number and complexity of disputes before the courts and the cost of litigation for parties … Common law rules also involve a less efficient mechanism for recognising and enforcing judgments than using existing EU rules deriving from the Brussels regime, which will cost those seeking to have their judgment recognised in the UK more money and time”.
There is a serious loss in that and a further loss in relation to the European Judicial Network, another development that has been beneficial to this country and to justice across Europe generally. Again, a bald statement is made in paragraph 7.14:
“The inability of the UK to continue to take part in this network is as a result of EU Exit, this SI simply reflects that new status”.
Another valuable judicial development is to be simply cast aside.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I rise to ask a question and I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Keen for setting the scene. A theme seems to be developing in relation to practitioners and the recognition of court judgments with the Government’s proposed exit from the European Union. My noble friend has responded to some of my concerns as regards practitioners and trading in legal services, which I hope to address in the context of the Trade Bill.
My specific concerns relate to the remarks of my noble and learned friend and what is set out on page 5 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which sets out a number of the deficiencies that will arise if we crash out without a deal. I presume that this falls into the same category that services and the jurisdictions of courts fall into with the World Trade Organization and its General Agreement on the Trade in Services. My question is similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Beith. What will be the status of this in those circumstances? However, I have a more direct question of my own. If this is being done on the basis of reciprocity and if the instrument before us today seeks to fill the gap so that court judgments will be recognised in this country, what measures are the Government and my noble and learned friend’s department taking to ensure that reciprocity will be respected in the circumstances of Britain leaving without a deal?
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, could the Minister say something about the effect of what is being provided for here on the common-law principle of forum non conveniens? I am sure he knows very well that the doctrine of forum non conveniens was eclipsed, as regards membership of the EU, by the reciprocity principle and the rules that apply throughout the EU.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, who is far more polite than someone else—I gather the Minister did not give way earlier on. Could he explain to non-lawyers exactly what he is talking about?
Lord Hope of Craighead
Yes, certainly. There is a principle, which originated in Scotland, by which a court can decline jurisdiction in a case brought in, let us say, Scotland, on the ground that it is not convenient because there is a better place for the case to be tried. It originated particularly in Scotland out of attempts to raise matrimonial proceedings in Scotland that had a far closer connection with England. The argument developed that if it had a closer connection, it was more convenient, and so the court would decline jurisdiction and you would be transferred to England. That principle is of long standing and has been regarded as very useful in our jurisdiction. However, one of the effects of joining the EU and being subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice arises from the particular case of Owusu, which the Minister may know about, which has laid down very strict rules that the forum non conveniens principle cannot apply.
Am I right in thinking that, because it is common law and not the subject of any statutory measure, it will be for the courts to work out whether the principle applies without the restrictions that currently apply so long as we are a member of the EU?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I remind all Members of the Committee that it is a convention that a noble Lord does not intervene if they were not here at the start of the debate.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, that is a completely inappropriate intervention. My noble friend was not present at the beginning of the debate because he was in the Chamber debating no-deal regulations. It is the Government’s fault that no-deal regulations were being debated in the Grand Committee and in the Chamber at the same time.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I am most grateful to my noble friend. I take great exception to what the noble Baroness said. I am surprised that she knows a lot about convention, as she has not been here very long, but obviously she has picked it up from somewhere. Conventions are conventions, not rules that need to be and must be obeyed. I understand that one of the conventions is that when Ministers are explaining something and are asked a question, they normally give way and answer it. In all the Grand Committees that I have been in, throughout the years—I have been in a number—the Minister has given way. Of course, we are getting used to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, by now.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, it is not often that I confess to feeling sorry for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, but on this occasion I do, and in the presence of a number of other distinguished lawyers, who have considerable experience of commercial litigation involving cross-border and cross-European border disputes. It is almost impossible to overestimate the importance of the regime that we have built up across the European Union for the resolution of issues of jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement in civil and commercial disputes. We have been promised so many times, in debate after debate on the Brexit issue, that we would not be in this position. The Government were going to get a deal, and one of the first things they would insist on in getting it is that we would preserve the cross-border jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement issues, or rules that we have built up with Brussels Ia.
We are in this position now; I entirely accept that the Minister opened this debate on these regulations on the basis that the Government are still hoping for a deal and that if there is a deal, we will continue along the course of resolving this issue. But it was with horror that many of us heard the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, last night refuse to accede to the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, because it ruled out no deal—which it did not—and for him and the Government to be so prepared to countenance no deal.
In our view and that of almost every commercial lawyer with whom I speak, the issues surrounding cross-border litigation are being given far too little prominence and importance. What we are losing is clearly defined in the Explanatory Memorandum as,
“a system of uniform jurisdictional rules to identify the appropriate court in which to bring a civil law or commercial claim”—
that is the first bullet point on page 2—and,
“a simplified mechanism to recognise and enforce the judgment EU Member State/EFTA state courts in civil and commercial cases, with a view to reducing costs for litigants and increasing efficiency. The possibility for such simplified and almost automatic treatment of the judgment of one such state in another is based on the ‘mutual trust’ that each state will have applied the uniform rules of jurisdiction”.
This statutory instrument, subject to some relatively minor exceptions, effectively revokes Brussels Ia, which is at the heart of the Brussels regime. It is also significant that it abandons the European Judicial Network, which has been a forum for judicial co-operation of great use throughout the European Union, and does so with no replacement. The very limited exceptions that I mentioned were mentioned by the Minister: some consumer and employment cases—in British courts, of course—transitional cases and the choice of courts arrangements under the Hague Convention. That is, to coin a phrase used by some Brexiteers in the past, thin gruel indeed compared with the widespread benefits that we get from the system of judicial co-operation and our current arrangements.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, the noble Lord is making an extremely powerful case. For those of us who are not lawyers and are struggling to understand precisely what we are losing as a result of this no-deal regulation and the preparations, can he tell us what we as a country would lose by not being part of the European Judicial Network? It was not mentioned at all by the Minister.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
I shall move on to that in the course of what I have to say. I do not propose to deal with the detail of it, because the detail is all spelled out.
What we have at the moment is a common system for arranging which court will have jurisdiction, recognising the judgment of courts throughout the European Union and the other convention states and the enforcement of judgments across the European Union. The point of that, and what we will be losing, is the capacity for citizens and businesses to know that they can sue, wherever they are in the European Union, in the appropriate court and that that judgment will be enforced across the Union. That was not the case before the convention and will not be the case thereafter. We will effectively be thrown back on to the rules that pertained before the EU. Those rules are those we have with third countries and in many cases involve satellite litigation, duplication of litigation and duplication of costs. That means that our citizens and businesses will be left weaker and less protected. Notably, totally uncosted in the documentation surrounding this statutory instrument is that commercial disadvantage costs money.
The fact that Britain has become so successful and so attractive within the European Union owes not a little to the fact that its system of law and the mutual recognition and enforcement that it enjoys with other European countries has made it attractive as a gateway to the European Union for those outside the European Union, as well as an attractive forum in which to deal for other member states. Losing that advantage is important and will largely offset some other advantages that we have by having a stable, effective and well-respected legal system.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, both he and the noble Lord, Lord Beith, have referred to the first sentence of paragraph 12.1, which I think is highly misleading to the lay reader until you have read it twice and understand what it says:
“The impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies of this instrument is, on balance, expected to be positive when compared to making no changes to retained EU law”.
That is very different from saying “when compared to the status quo”. The ordinary reader would expect the impact being compared to be that of this new regime compared to the status quo, whereas what the Government are doing, which is seriously misleading to the House and to the public, is claiming that, in comparison with exiting the EU and then making no changes to retained EU law, we are no worse off. That misses the massive elephant in the room: we are leaving the EU in the first place and so losing all the benefits, as he and other noble Lords have mentioned, that come from being in the EU and being part of this reciprocal regime in the first place. Could he tell me whether I have understood this issue correctly?
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
The noble Lord has understood it absolutely correctly and has plainly made the point more eloquently than I did. It was the point I made when I mentioned that the noble and learned Lord had accepted that that was how the Government’s impact statement worked. The noble Lord is right to draw the distinction between the,
“impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies of this instrument is, on balance, expected to be positive when compared to making no changes to retained EU law”,
and the real meat of this, which is in the last part of the paragraph:
“However, as compared to the pre-Exit position, common law rules on jurisdiction provide for a discretionary rather than mandatory stay in the case of parallel proceedings. This creates an increased risk of parallel proceedings”—
precisely the point I was making—
“whether the court in the United Kingdom is seised first or second. This could increase the number and complexity of disputes before the courts and the cost of litigation for parties. Common law rules also involve a less efficient mechanism for recognising and enforcing judgments than using existing EU rules deriving from the Brussels regime, which will cost those seeking to have their judgment recognised in the UK more money and time”.
Addressing the Committee, I attempted to add my further point that it is not just the cost to litigants who go through all this but the attractiveness of the United Kingdom as a location for doing business that suffers from the fact that you cannot rely on a uniform system.
Before closing, I simply ask this. We are in this dreadful position of being a very short time away from the risk of a no-deal Brexit. As Sabine Weyand put it yesterday—I make no apology for her being blunt, because I think she was right to be—we could fall into it “by accident” rather than on purpose. What a travesty for a Parliament almost entirely opposed to a no-deal Brexit to be at risk of forcing our country into this calamitous outcome by accident—but that is where we are. So I ask the noble and learned Lord: in the circumstances, given that almost everybody accepts that this reciprocal set of arrangements for the justice system is of such crucial importance to our functioning legal system, what talks have there been at Secretary of State for Justice level with other members of the European Union to try to preserve some element of a reciprocal system that will replace what we have, even if we walk into this catastrophe by mistake?
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I seek your Lordships’ indulgence. I was a little late to this sitting of the Committee because I was detained listening to the wonderful oration of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, in the Chamber. He made a number of interventions.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
With the permission of the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, I intervene merely to apologise to her, because I realise that she will be as upset as I am about what we are doing at the moment. She was a very good director of ConservativesIN and campaigned very hard for us to stay in Europe, so I realise she must be deeply hurt by what her Government are undertaking at the moment. I apologise.
Lord Garnier
We are not only in danger of talking about forum non conveniens but interventus illicitus. I will advance one simple point. I entirely accept what my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has said on the unfortunate state of affairs we are in, and would be in were we to have a no-deal departure from the European Union. Surely the whole point of today’s exercise is to anticipate that and to ensure we have mechanisms in place to mitigate the consequences he has so correctly spelled out. Yes, it is all very sad and much to be regretted, but it would be even more to be regretted if my noble and learned friend Lord Keen were unable to move this Motion to its sensible conclusion.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
I will simply respond to that, because in a sense it is an intervention on me. I accept that this is conditional in the sense that the noble Lord mentions. However, my fundamental point was that the importance of this aspect of no deal has been woefully underestimated in considering how dangerous the concept of no deal is. To that extent, I regard the points I have made in highlighting that danger as valid, because no deal is profoundly to be shunned.
Lord Hope of Craighead
In fairness there is an EU sub-committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws—I cannot remember which sub-committee it is.
Lord Hope of Craighead
Thank you. The Justice Sub-Committee prepared a detailed report drawing attention to exactly what the noble Lord has referred to. There was an impassioned debate—I do not know whether the noble Lord was present—at which these points were made. The criticism is not against us, as it were, because in this House we have been taking our responsibilities seriously. However, I understand the point the noble Lord makes about the effect of leaving the EU and the distress he feels.
Lord Beith
There is one thing the Government have not made clear. The impact statement, brief as it is, is structured around there being two options—the other option being not to change retained EU law. As I understood it, that option implied that in a no-deal situation, if we did not have this instrument, the courts would be left behaving as they had previously and hoping that courts in other countries would do the same. One of the things that was not explained very well in the impact statement—perhaps the Minister can clarify this later—is what the other option the Government rejected was.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I have practised law for a long time—fortunately none of it in relation to the EU and the complications we are debating today. I defer to the more qualified Members of the Committee today, some of whom have already addressed us.
These regulations might best be described as a hors d’oeuvre to the four-course Brexit banquet we are being served today—although, curiously, neither the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments nor the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has raised any concerns.
In addition to reverting to the pre-EU membership system, the statutory instrument repeals a decision that currently allows the UK to co-operate on civil and commercial matters in the EU judicial network. What estimate have the Government made of the impact on the UK of that change, and what consultation took place with industry or other potentially interested parties given that the so-called Brussels regime operated on a reciprocal basis?
The Law Society, which is generally supportive of the statutory instrument, is concerned about the loss of the existing framework for determining which national court has jurisdiction and for recognising whether or not there is a choice of court between the parties to disputes.
The impact assessment contains a disturbing paragraph which states:
“Businesses and individuals litigating in the courts of EU countries will have an advantage over those litigating in the UK as UK litigants cannot guarantee the judgment they get from the UK courts is enforceable in the EU but litigants who get a judgment from the EU courts, will almost always be able to obtain enforcement of it in the UK”.
It is a one-sided deal, as it were. The English legal system has prospered remarkably through its participation in the EU but that looks to be one of the costs and losses that it will incur.
The Law Society notes that hitherto the existing system has fostered cross-border trade and encourages litigants to use the UK courts in the knowledge that their judgments would be enforceable across the EU and calls on the Government to accede to the Lugano convention—which, as the noble and learned Lord has indicated, is not an EU organisation although the EU is a party to it. Can the Minister indicate the Government’s response to that suggestion?
Lord Adonis
My Lords, the only noble Lord who has not been prepared to take interventions is the Minister; it is unprecedented in my experience of Grand Committees. It is a straightforward attempt by the Government, which I am afraid we have seen time and again, to suppress parliamentary debates and shorten proceedings in a Grand Committee. One can understand why the Government wish to do this: it is simply impossible now to introduce and enact all the statutory instruments relating to no deal in time for the UK to leave the European Union at the end of March unless they are not scrutinised by Parliament. If they are not, the Government can increase the volume that come before the Grand Committee day by day. The hundreds more that have to come can then be hustled through. I say to the noble and learned Lord, who we hold in high esteem as a barrister, that if these sorts of proceedings and this sort of short-circuiting of due process were taking place in a court in which he was appearing, I imagine that he would be the first to criticise it. It is our duty to hold him to account. As he is not prepared to follow the normal conventions of the Grand Committee and the House, that should lead us to refer this regulation to the House for further debate as a matter of principle, not least because of all the issues raised in the debate.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I am grateful to my noble friend for what he said. I was participating in a debate on the other statutory instruments we are dealing with, as was confirmed by the Bench opposite.
Until I heard the excellent speeches from noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, I had not realised what a vital issue we are dealing with. As my noble friend Lord Adonis said, we are not dealing with it line by line in the detailed way that we would normally deal with something so important. Even worse, there has not been proper consultation. We have not heard the views of a widespread group of lawyers: only a few have been consulted. If we had had a wider consultation, the lawyers might have been able to point out some of the difficulties that might arise. We could end up with some unintended consequences because of a lack of scrutiny not just in here but outside. Does my noble friend agree?
Lord Adonis
My noble friend makes a very powerful point. Paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum says on consultation:
“A formal consultation on these legislative amendments has not been carried out”.
I do not know why the relevant Delegated Powers Committee did not highlight that as an issue before the House. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in a very telling intervention—as a former head of the Supreme Court—talked about the wider impact of leaving the European Union on our legal system and on the recourse that individuals and bodies corporate have as a result of losing all the benefits of EU membership. Given the scale of those concerns and losses, I would have thought that a formal consultation should have been the first thing to be carried out in respect of this statutory instrument.
Although my noble friend Lord Foulkes and I lack expertise in many of these areas, we can see the common themes because we have been present for the statutory instrument debates on all these subjects. One common theme is that of the Government seeking to hustle through these regulations with minimal debate; the other is very inadequate consultation. The consultation has been so inadequate because it simply would not have been possible to conduct a consultation according to the normal Cabinet Office rules of publishing draft instruments, which require: 12 weeks of formal consultation; assessment of the consultation responses; their publication; and the Government response to the consultation, all within the timescales available. The normal standards of good government, which my noble friend and I remember in the far distant days when we had Governments that sought to improve the country and not wreck it—as we have at the moment—simply do not apply any more.
Indeed, it is not just that there was no formal consultation, which we read in paragraph 10.1. Paragraph 10.2, which is suspiciously familiar to Members of the Grand Committee because we have had variants of it time and again too, states:
“The Government’s basic approach … has been discussed with a number of members of the legal profession”.
Which members? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will tell us when he responds, if he intends to respond to any of the points raised in the debate. On what basis did the Government choose those members? Why has the list of those consulted not been published? Lastly, I put a fair question to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which examined these regulations: why did it not seek to bring before the Grand Committee a statement about the consultation processes that were actually undertaken?
My noble friend and I remember that in other cases, we have seen in Explanatory Memoranda that the Government consulted “selected” and—what was the phrase?—“trusted” members of the relevant industry. Members of the Grand Committee who were present for that debate will recall that we had a long discussion about what “selected and trusted” means. We did not think that the phrase included my noble friend Lord Foulkes and myself because, clearly, we are not trusted by the Government to engage in scrutiny or else the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, would have allowed us to intervene on his remarks. However, it is important that the Grand Committee understands who the Government are consulting so that we can also understand who they have been listening to, as well as on what basis they have made any changes to the drafts. Those who were consulted as set out in paragraph 10.2 is therefore important.
I want to make a few remarks on the statutory instrument. I was struck by the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, about the wider context. I hope that the Minister might tell us more about that in terms of what rights will be lost and what the losses will be to the country as a result of not having reciprocal arrangements. As a complete layman, what I do not understand from reading the document in its entirety as regards the Brussels regime is that looking at the dates, the Brussels regime predates British membership of the European Community. I believe that the document dates from the 1960s and is known as Brussels Ia. We have a number of different variants in the Brussels regime that go back to 1968, which of course was five years before the United Kingdom joined the European Community. That raises a big issue.
Unless someone can correct me, as I understand it, the Government are proposing to withdraw from the Brussels regime. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, made a point that ought to be brought out more; indeed, it was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, too. It appears that a very important policy decision has been taken in this statutory instrument: not to leave retained EU law static on departing from the European Union, which is the default procedure under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, but to make changes. I am not technically competent enough to understand the changes fully, but the Government have glossed over changes in paragraph 12.1 covering the difference in quantifiable terms between making no changes to retained EU law and changing it.
The question that I would like to put to the noble and learned Lord is: if we were part of the Brussels regime before we joined the European Community—he is going to correct me, which is good, because this is exactly the kind of knowledge that the Grand Committee needs—why do we not simply revert to the position before 1973 rather than go to the new position that the Government are establishing under this statutory instrument? Perhaps he could explain the benefits of the new position. Looking at all the lawyers nodding their heads in the Grand Committee, I may have misunderstood the position. All I can say is that, if I have misunderstood it, I suspect that many members of the general public will have misunderstood it, too, so I look forward to the House doing what it is supposed to do on these occasions and elucidating the real state of play.
The other fundamental point, which was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Beith and Lord Marks, is the highly contradictory and misleading impact statement in paragraph 12.1. It seeks to minimise the impact by relating it simply to the difference between making no changes to retained EU law, if we crash out with no deal, and making the changes that are set out in the statutory instrument, rather than relating it to the much wider context of the impact on reciprocal rights, the ability to enforce those rights and so on that arises from leaving the European Union without a deal. Even during this debate, because I have been so restrained in my interventions, I have not been able to understand fully what has been said. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred several times to satellite litigation. I do not understand what satellite litigation is. Could the noble Lord explain?
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
It is when you are litigating about two issues at once. You are litigating in a principal case and you have another case going on to decide one aspect.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
In this case, it is two jurisdictions. There is one case and you are having an argument, in another court, about whether it should be proceeding in court 1 or a court in another jurisdiction.
Lord Adonis
That is a very helpful elucidation, because I thought that it might be litigation that took place on a satellite.
Lord Adonis
I did not understand the concept. There are more absurd things. Given that the Government are now preparing for martial law, we are told, if there is a no-deal Brexit, litigating in relation to satellites would be a far less absurd proposition. I take the key point to mean that, under the existing Brussels regime in which we operate as part of the EU, you do not need to undertake satellite litigation, because proceedings in one jurisdiction count as proceedings in all jurisdictions. As a non-lawyer, I hope I have understood that point correctly. The satellite litigation to which the noble Lord refers is a considerable loss of benefit to people seeking to litigate. Not only is that the case, but it also makes this jurisdiction considerably less attractive to people to bring cases in, which I took to be the noble Lord’s other point. These are huge issues about the whole future of our legal system and the rights of redress that people have in it, all of which the Government are trying to hustle through in a statutory instrument subject to limited debate and with the Minister not prepared to take any interventions whatever.
The other key point that arises relates, as the noble Lords, Lord Beith and Lord Marks, said, to the final sentences in the long and highly convoluted paragraph 12. Those sentences, which completely contradict the earlier sentences, say that,
“as compared to the pre-Exit position, common law rules on jurisdiction provide for a discretionary rather than mandatory stay in the case of parallel proceedings. This creates an increased risk of parallel proceedings whether the court in the United Kingdom is seised first or second. This could increase the number and complexity of disputes before the courts and the cost of litigation for parties. Common law rules also involve a less efficient mechanism for recognising and enforcing judgments than using existing EU rules deriving from the Brussels regime, which will cost those seeking to have their judgment recognised in the UK more money and time”.
I do not understand why no assessment has been made in any quantified way of the impact of all those significant losses, as set out in the final sentences of paragraph 12.1. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why. Could he offer the Grand Committee some assessment? It is important before we agree to this statutory instrument that we have some assessment of its impact.
I am also surprised because some of the noble Lords present are members of the relevant EU committees and the Delegated Powers Committee. Why did they not ask for such an assessment to be conducted before the statutory instrument came to the House?
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
The noble Lord may have noticed that in the impact assessment, among the business assessments, it just says “not applicable”. That seems a dereliction of duty.
Lord Adonis
I take the noble Lord’s point. Is he saying that he believes that they are applicable?
Lord Adonis
So why does it say that they are not applicable? These issues are significant.
The final issue in the debate, to which I hope the noble and learned Lord will respond, was raised by my noble friend Lord Beecham and other noble Lords. It is about the losses to this country of not being part of the European Judicial Network. My understanding is that there is nothing statutory about the network. Am I wrong? Is the network a formal institution of the European Union? If it is an informal body, and if belonging to it brings us great benefits, why can we not continue to be members of it even after we leave the European Union? Indeed, to the lay man, being part of the network would seem positively beneficial because, presumably, the network co-ordinates and promotes joint understandings. If we will be separate jurisdictions, with neither wanting, as far as possible, to operate in parallel, is that not all the more reason for us to be part of the network and not seek to leave it? If we crash out with no deal and all losses as set out or implied in the Explanatory Memorandum, why we are not seeking to remain part of the European Judicial Network? Might it be in the country’s best interests for the Government to seek to keep us in the network?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, this Parliament decided that the United Kingdom will leave the European Union on 29 March this year. That is the determination that has been made. That date has been set in law. The Executive must respect the law as determined by Parliament and respond responsibly to it, as laid down by Parliament. Therefore, they must address the implications of us leaving on 29 March if, as at present, we do not have a withdrawal agreement concluded with the European Union. That is what this statutory instrument seeks to address.
In that context, we must address the difference between leaving on 29 March and doing nothing about the existing state of the law—with regard to judicial recognition, identity of choice of court and law, the enforcement of judgment and so on—and doing something about it. I quite understand the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, about the benefits of our being in the Brussels Ia system, but we can be in the Brussels regime only as a member of the European Union. According to Parliament and the law it made, we will cease to be a member of the European Union on 29 March 2019. Although the Brussels regime can be dated back to 1968, it was in that context a regime for existing European Union members and not open to non-members, to clarify a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.
The first point is that we have to consider the impact of us leaving on the date I have mentioned if we make no change to the existing law, and the impact if we change the existing law. I quite understand the point repeatedly made, that in many ways we would prefer the cake analogy: we would like to have our cake and eat it. We would like to remain within the regime, even if, as Parliament has determined as a matter of law, we are leaving on 29 March 2019. But we cannot have it, because Parliament has made that determination. Many may regret it now, and many may regret it later, but that is the law as determined by this Parliament, and we have to accept that. We can seek to change the law—of course we can—and no doubt there are many who may, even now, seek to change it. However, the law is as determined by this Parliament.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will at least address my question on what consideration has been given to applying to join the Brussels regime entirely separately. Although he says that it is a creature of the European Union, and by and large of course it is, there do not seem to be insuperable obstacles to negotiating reciprocity around the context of the Brussels regime but outside the European Union.
Lord Keen of Elie
I take the noble Lord’s point when he says “negotiate”; that is the whole point. If he looks at the political declaration, there is a reference to the desire of all parties to negotiate on this among other issues so that we may be part of a regime perhaps similar to Lugano. Let us be clear: we have not only applied to become an individual signatory to Hague 2005, which involves reciprocity between the convention members and ourselves—although I say, quite candidly, that it is not as perfect as Brussels Ia, being more akin to Brussels I. That is why it is in many ways a second best to that extent, but that is as far as we can go. We have also applied to the council of the Lugano convention to become a party to the Lugano convention—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beith. That will of course require the consent of the EFTA parties and of the EU, and it will be subject to negotiation, but we hope also to be a member of the Lugano convention.
If noble Lords have regard to the impact assessment, they will see that under option two we looked at simply leaving the UK law as it is—in other words, embracing all those relevant terms of Brussels Ia without any right to reciprocity from the EU 27. The difficulty there is that in the absence of reciprocity, people would not know what they were going to get from those provisions. Furthermore, it would raise two obvious difficulties. First, corporations, companies and associations within Europe could secure a decree there and automatically seek to secure enforcement in the UK, but companies, corporations and associations in the UK that secured a judgment from a UK court could not expect to enforce it in the EU 27 countries. That is why I stressed the concept of reciprocity. Yes, we want to negotiate and to secure reciprocity, but until we do, we have to make sure that the statute book is in some sort of order for a no-deal exit—which, as far as I am aware, no one truly wishes for.
Secondly, if we embrace the Brussels Ia regime without being a member of the EU, we would be discriminating between the EU 27 jurisdiction and all the other third-party countries. We would be giving some benefits to the EU 27 under Brussels Ia, albeit without reciprocity, but we would not be giving the same benefit to third-party countries such as the United States, India and China, and Commonwealth countries such as Australia and New Zealand. That raises real issues about discrimination in the context of wider issues on services and so on.
Lord Beith
I thank the Minister for explaining the Government’s objections to option two. It might have been a good thing if he had written the impact assessment and developed those points. I shall still disagree with him on some other matters, including the fundamental issue here, but he has clarified that very helpfully.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Lord. I know the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, made much of this, but that is why the impact assessment is between the statute book as it is upon exit and the statute book as it would be under the instrument upon exit, because Parliament has made the law and Parliament is determined to exit on 29 March. If that is reversed, so be it, but that is where we are and that is the impact that we have to properly address in this context.
On the wider point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, about the benefits of being in the EU and within Brussels Ia, I am not going to seek to disagree with him. Brussels Ia was a marked improvement on Hague 2005, for example; we all know that. Therefore, in many senses, exit from the EU without a deal is unattractive in the context of the provision of legal services in the UK, as indeed are the implications of that for those who have to engage those services and have recourse to the courts. No one is denying that either, but these are the consequences of the law that Parliament has made in these circumstances.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked what steps are being taken with regard to reciprocity. As I say, we are applying to become signatories to the Hague convention 2005, which will give us certain reciprocal rights. We are applying to the council of the Lugano convention to become a party to that, which will give us reciprocal rights with the EFTA countries. In addition, we are intent upon negotiating around the whole issue of judicial co-operation in future, which is why it features in the political declaration. At this stage we cannot demand reciprocity from the EU 27 and they are certainly not prepared to offer it at this stage. At a very early point there were discussions about, for example, the recognition of legal qualifications and mutual issues of that kind, and the EU made it very clear at that stage that that was a discussion for another day. That is where we are.
Coming on to a further point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, about what happens to the SI, if we have an agreement on the terms of the present withdrawal agreement then we go into a two-year implementation period where we will remain a part of the Brussels Ia regime, so the instrument itself will essentially be suspended by the withdrawal agreement Bill. However, it will not be completely done away with because at the end of the implementation period—two, three or four years, whatever it might be—we will then have to decide whether or not we have achieved agreement with the EU 27 on future judicial co-operation. That might be on essentially identical terms to what we have now, in which case we will not need the instrument at all, or it may be that we cannot achieve agreement at that stage, in which event we will need to revive the instrument in order to bring the statute book into proper order. That is why I have referred to it as being “deferred” in that context; it is deferred for the implementation period, whatever that period might ultimately turn out to be. That is where we are on that.
On the issue of forum non conveniens, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, alluded to, that has always been a part of our common law because we apply it in the context of third party countries outwith the Brussels Ia convention. The noble and learned Lord may recollect the litigations that took place around the Pan Am/Lockerbie case and the attempts to take it further than just applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens but rather to apply the issue of interdict against the raising of proceedings in a third party country, which is attendant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens—although I recall being in a Texas court where the judge asked it to be pointed out to me that in Texas they do not have forum non conveniens, and we have to accept that there are some jurisdictions of that ilk. Nevertheless, the courts will fall back upon these common-law concepts which have not been done away with but have not applied in the context of the Brussels Ia regime for the reasons that the noble and learned Lord very carefully pointed out.
The European Judicial Network is a very fine body but it was set up in order that there could be engagement across the EU 28 about the operation of the regime that at the moment we are referring to as Brussels Ia, but it also looks at Brussels IIa and other issues. It concerns the operation of that regime and how it may be improved. For example, it contributes to how you move from Brussels I to Brussels Ia. If we are not part of the regime, we are not part of the European Judicial Network and we really have no part to play in that. But again if, going forward, we are able to achieve a negotiated position with the EU 27 where we are, if you like, semi-detached from Brussels Ia and the other Brussels regime, no doubt they will consider allowing us a seat perhaps not at the table but at least in the room of the judicial network in order that we can contribute to it. However, that too is a negotiation for another day. It is not what this instrument is addressing and not what it is intended to do. So, with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, there is no elephant in the room. Parliament removed the elephant when it decided that, as a matter of law, we would leave on 29 March 2019. The Executive have to address that point in order to put the statute book in proper order.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, it might be helpful if I remind the Grand Committee that this afternoon we are merely considering the regulations, not approving them. Whatever the Grand Committee decides, the regulations will need to be approved in the Chamber, and Members will have the opportunity to debate and vote on it there if they so wish.
Mutual Recognition of Protection Measures in Civil Matters (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Mutual Recognition of Protection Measures in Civil Matters (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, the Committee will be aware that as part of the no-deal preparations we have, as I indicated earlier, published a series of technical notices to outline the implications for citizens and businesses. I referred earlier to the technical notice published on 13 September 2018 which made clear that we are committed to unilaterally recognising incoming civil protection measures from EU countries to ensure that vulnerable individuals would continue to be protected. This instrument amends the retained EU law to give effect to that policy.
Before I set out the effect of the instrument, it might help if I first explain what I mean by a civil protection measure and how the rules are currently applied both in the United Kingdom and across the EU. A civil protection measure is a decision ordered by an issuing authority of an EU member state in accordance with its national law that imposes restrictions on one person with a view to protecting another when the latter’s physical or psychological integrity may be at risk. The civil protection measure imposes one or more obligations on the person causing the risk. For example, they may be restricted from entering the place where the at-risk individual works or resides, or from contacting them by telephone or other means.
Examples of civil protection measures in England and Wales include non-molestation orders under Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996 or injunctions under Section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and there are similar provisions in the law of Scotland. In the law of Northern Ireland, such measures include non-molestation orders under Article 20 of the Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 and injunctions with regard to harassment.
Regulation 606/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters, which I will refer to as the civil protection measures regulation, provides for the mutual recognition of such protection measures in civil matters across the EU. The effect of this is that a civil protection measure granted in one member state must be recognised in another without any special procedure for achieving this and it must be enforceable in another member state without any need for a declaration of enforceability. It is, in effect, treated as if the civil protection measure had been ordered in the member state addressed.
If we leave the EU without an agreement then, as presently drafted, the retained EU law will become deficient as the UK will no longer be a member state and will therefore be unable to recognise and enforce an incoming protection measure from any EU member state under the terms of the civil protection measures regulation as retained. Accordingly, the instrument provides that an incoming civil protection measure from an EU member state shall, under the terms of the civil protection measures regulation, be recognised without any special procedure being required and enforceable without the requirement for a declaration of enforceability.
However, the instrument revokes the provision relevant to issuing a certificate in the courts of England and Wales and Northern Ireland which is required for recognition and enforcement in an EU member state under the civil protection measures regulation. The reason for this is that we are unable to legislate unilaterally to restore the reciprocity of approach. That is something I mentioned earlier. We cannot require an EU member state to comply with the civil protection measures regulation with respect to a civil protection measure issued by a court in the UK when we will no longer be an EU member state. The consequence is that EU member states will no longer be bound to recognise, let alone enforce, civil protection measures issued in the UK.
It is our view that to provide for courts in England and Wales to issue such certificates when there is no certainty that the civil protection measure could be invoked in the UK under the EU regulation would provide no benefit for citizens. Indeed, on the contrary, that runs the risk of giving a person at risk a false expectation of continued protection in an EU member state. To give a simple example, if after exit we were to issue such a civil protection measure to an individual who was going to Poland, they might go to Poland in the belief that they enjoyed some degree of protection because of the order made by the English court, but in reality they would enjoy no element of protection when they got there because the order would not be recognised by the Polish court. Of course, for reasons that I have mentioned before, we hope to take that forward in the context of negotiation. The instrument is designed to address the issue of a no-deal exit from the EU.
Although the Government accept that this loss of reciprocity means that those with civil protection measures issued in our courts who wish to travel to the EU will be in a disadvantageous position as compared to those with protection measures issued in the EU who wish to come to the UK, we believe that it is right that we do what we can to provide as much reassurance as possible to persons, often vulnerable persons, who have been granted a protection measure issued in the EU. This is to the benefit of all citizens living in the EU, whether they be EU or UK nationals.
Frankly, we did not come to that conclusion on our own. The proposal that, post EU exit, civil protection measures and certificates issued in EU member states continue to be recognised and enforceable in the UK was discussed with family law stakeholders and leading family law practitioners as we developed our thinking on the issue.
These regulations cover England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the issues here are devolved to Scotland. The Scottish Government are dealing with this matter separately and are determined to bring forward their own legislation in this area. However, we understand that they also intend to continue recognising and enforcing incoming protection measures.
This instrument ensures that the element of the regime for mutual recognition of civil protection measures that we can continue to operate under a no-deal scenario applies—namely, to continue to unilaterally comply with the regulation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland with respect to incoming civil protection.
The civil protection measure regime is not, so far as we are able to determine, widely relied on in any formal sense. However, it provides for hapless people in vulnerable situations an additional protection when moving from an EU member state into the UK. It is for that reason that we have decided on this unilateral approach to this particular issue. It is perhaps a pragmatic approach, but it means that we do what we are able to do in this situation for vulnerable individuals without creating a false expectation of protection for those who may be in the UK and contemplating going to other EU states. We therefore consider that this is the best and most appropriate approach to take if the United Kingdom leaves the EU without a deal.
It is in those circumstances that I commend the instrument to the Committee—adding the caveat, again, that we hope to exit with a deal and to engage in fruitful and constructive negotiations about judicial cooperation at all levels going forward.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, about half-way down page 3 there is a reference to “participating Member State” and that it means “a Member State other than Denmark”. Am I right in thinking that, although it is dealt with specifically there, there is no change as far as Denmark is concerned because it does not participate in the EU regulations? Is it purely a matter of drafting that this provision appears?
Lord Keen of Elie
The position as I understand it —I mentioned this earlier—is that pursuant to Article 22 of TFEU, Denmark has an opt out from all of these issues but has a bilateral agreement with the EU in respect of them. I have been corrected. It does not have a bilateral agreement in respect of this one but it does with the others—I apologise—and that is why Denmark is excepted.
Lord Hope of Craighead
It is really a clarification in the drafting—it does not change anything. That is my point.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, as we have heard, this statutory instrument has the effect of preventing UK courts from providing similar protection measures and certificates to secure the recognition and enforcement of their judgments in the EU while, paradoxically, recognising such measures and certificates issued by the EU courts. This is extraordinary. There is not an impact assessment as far as I know—if there is I have missed it—and no indications as to what steps will be taken to ensure reciprocity by the EU on this subject. The noble and learned Lord mentioned that possibility en passant without substantive clarification.
The Law Society recommends that there should be an explicit clarification that protective measures issued in the Scottish and Northern Irish courts will be recognised in England and Wales. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will deal with that when he replies to the debate.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has recommended that this SI should be upgraded to an affirmative, stating:
“To allow UK civil courts to issue certificates post EU-exit would, potentially, mislead protected persons as to the recognition and enforceability of their UK issued protection measures in EU Member States post exit potentially placing them at risk”.
That sounds significant and I wonder why the Government have chosen to adopt the procedure they have rather than make this an affirmative, given the potential implications identified by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It points out that it is unclear what measures would be taken to ensure UK judgments would be recognised after Brexit and that there is an assumption that the EU states will not respect civil protection measures issued in England and Wales. Can the noble and learned Lord confirm that?
Finally, there is a question about the potential cost to the UK Government, the courts and the police of enforcing EU-issued protection orders, which will still be valid, while ours will not be valid there. It looks one-sided: the cost will fall on us as a nation because contrary positions have been taken up. Can the noble and learned Lord clarify that?
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I broadly welcome this measure and that the Government has in this case taken a humane approach and decided unilaterally to accord recognition to the question of reciprocity, other than the state’s protective measures for the safety of parties, particularly for domestic proceedings and vulnerable citizens. We understand the limited exceptions where such measures being enforced here would be manifestly contrary to public policy or inconsistent with a subsisting United Kingdom judgment.
However, I take the opening point made by the noble and learned Lord that it is important to consider what can be negotiated. What contact has there been at Secretary of State level to see whether some reciprocity of consideration could be given to enforcing protective measures granted by United Kingdom courts in the rest of Europe? Why was that not done a great deal of time ago and outside the context of the other negotiations?
I do not agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that we should worry about the cost in the United Kingdom of enforcing protective measures from other member states which we have agreed humanely to enforce. That is a cost we have to absorb. In areas such as this, I believe that accepting that a degree of reciprocity is not essential to achieving a satisfactory outcome for both sides is helpful. I hope that we will get unilateral action the other way in due course. It will certainly make negotiation a great deal easier.
Lord Beith (LD)
I agree entirely with my noble friend. Oddly enough, we had not consulted each other beforehand, but we reached the same conclusion from the same basic principles: where people are particularly vulnerable, when the arrangements we make in this country can afford them some protection, we should do so without regard to the reciprocity we would prefer, which we might not be able to have.
It is particularly depressing to have to see through this statutory instrument which says to people in desperate family situations threatened with violence, “Sorry, but, whereas we have been able to issue a procedure in the past which gives you some protection, even if you are going elsewhere in the European Union”—which they may be doing because there are grandparents or aunts and uncles for their children to see—“we can no longer offer you that, and you are that much more vulnerable as a consequence”. We really must negotiate our way to a better position. Like my noble friend, I think it is right that the Government should continue to offer protection when a court elsewhere in the European Union has deemed it necessary.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions. No matter how divisive the issues that we face on Europe, we should seek to do good where we can in the present circumstances. We consider that we can do this by accepting these unilateral measures for the benefit of EU and UK citizens.
Regarding the issue of reciprocity, we would clearly like to see the development of a reciprocal regime similar to that which is presently enjoyed, but the way negotiations have been carried on is such that they will not be salami-sliced, if I can put it that way. Going forward, we are going to have to negotiate judicial co-operation as a whole. It is therefore not possible to pre-empt the Commission on these matters by taking them one by one, however regrettable the matter might appear to be.
On the matter of costs, I concur with the noble Lord, Lord Beith: in a sense, it is a matter of no real concern whatever that cost might be, given the individuals that we are concerned with. However, I understand that these orders are very few and far between and that there will be no major impact on our public authorities.
On Scotland and Northern Ireland, the regulation does not apply intra-UK; it applies to the UK as a member of the EU. Intra-UK, these matters are determined by our domestic law, and I see no reason to anticipate that the Scottish Government will alter the present system whereby within domestic law you can have suitable reciprocal enforcement of orders in this area. It is a matter for the Scottish Government to bring forward their own instrument in this regard, and I am not in a position to pre-empt them on that.
Against that background, I am obliged to noble Lords for having welcomed this instrument, at least to the extent that it is doing some good. I therefore commend the draft instrument to the Committee.
Jurisdiction and Judgments (Family) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Jurisdiction and Judgments (Family) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I turn to two further draft instruments that form part of the preparations for a no-deal exit. They are, as before, concerned solely with no-deal preparations. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has reviewed these SIs and has no substantive comments to make about them.
I have already referred to, so shall not return to, the terms of the technical notice published on 13 September 2018 that covered these issues as well. I should say that prior to the publication of that notice my officials met on several occasions with key family law stake- holders, including leading family law practitioners and representative bodies, to ensure that our policy proposals provide certainty for citizens, legal practitioners and the court system in so as far as is appropriate as we transition to a post-exit arrangement in the event of no deal. That engagement has continued alongside the development of the instruments that we are discussing today, which are designed to implement the policy outlined in the technical notice of 13 September last year. I will come on to comment on a number of points that will arise concerning a further instrument in connection with some of the somewhat technical issues here, which I will endeavour to deal with as shortly as I can.
The first regulations we are considering in this debate are the draft Jurisdiction and Judgments (Family) (EU Exit) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2019. These make changes to the current EU rules governing cross-border family law disputes that involve courts in the UK and EU member states. Again, the instrument remedies deficiencies that would arise from retaining these EU rules in the event of us exiting without a deal.
The second set of regulations are the draft Civil Partnership and Marriage (Same Sex Couples) (Jurisdiction and Judgments) Regulations 2019 which amend rules governing the jurisdiction and recognition of orders in relation to the dissolution of civil partnerships and divorce of same-sex married couples, which currently correspond to the EU rules. The effect of these regulations is that the rules relating to the dissolution of civil partnerships and the divorce of same-sex married couples will instead correspond to those for the divorce of opposite-sex married couples made by the first set of regulations—namely, the first instrument that I refer to. In other words, we are concerned to ensure that all these parties remain aligned.
It may be helpful if I outline the existing EU rules in this area. There are two applicable EU regulations: Brussels IIa, as distinct from Brussels Ia, and the maintenance regulation of 2009. The Brussels IIa regulation provides rules to determine, in cases where those involved come from or live in more than one member state, which court has jurisdiction—that is to say, has the right to hear a case—in relation to divorce and matrimonial disputes; matters of parental responsibility such as disputes between parents as to residence of and contact with their child; or care proceedings. It also provides rules for recognition, and enforcement where necessary, of a judgment from one member state in any of the others.
This includes a provision supplementing the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. That provision empowers the court of the EU member state of the child’s habitual residence to make an order requiring the child’s return to that state even if an order has been made by the member state to which the child was taken or in which the child was retained, that the child should not be returned. The regulation also provides rules on the availability of legal aid in these cases and for co-operation between central authorities in EU member states. As far as jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in matters relating to parental responsibility is concerned, the Brussels IIa regulation covers similar ground to the 1996 Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children, to which I will turn later.
The second applicable EU regulation, the maintenance regulation, sets out in a similar manner to Brussels IIa the rules governing which EU member state court has jurisdiction in cross-border cases concerning family maintenance, together with rules governing the recognition and enforcement of decisions in these cases and provision about legal aid and central authority co-operation. This covers similar ground to another Hague convention: the 2007 Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance. It is interesting to note that many regulations of the Brussels regime developed from Hague convention provisions. Like the 2005 convention, the 2007 convention was signed by the EU on behalf of all member states; again, we have taken steps to apply to become an individual state signatory to the 2007 convention. That application has been accepted already; on exit, we anticipate that in the absence of a no-deal exit, we will be a party to that convention from 1 April 2019.
Should the UK leave the EU without an agreement covering these matters, the Brussels IIa and maintenance regulations will no longer operate between the UK and EU member states since these regulations rely on reciprocal action between member states. Even if the UK were to purport to apply these rules after exit, the UK’s status as a third country would mean that the regulations as they bind the EU member states would not apply to the UK. For example, EU member states would not be bound to afford recognition or enforcement under the regulations to decisions of courts in the UK. Retained provisions of the regulation would also overlap with the Hague convention provisions to which I have referred; that in turn would be liable to create confusion and potentially undermine the operation of those conventions because people would be left in doubt over which regime they should have regard to or recourse to in such circumstances. It is this deficiency in retained EU law, which would otherwise remain on the statute book, that we seek to remedy.
The principal means of addressing this deficiency is to revoke the Brussels IIa and maintenance regulations, subject to transitional arrangements for cases that are in train on exit day; there would be recognition for those cases for transitional purposes. However, they will be removed, as they form part of retained EU law, by the jurisdiction and judgments regulations. As I touched on earlier, this will not, however, leave us without rules or international co-operation in these areas. The UK is already a contracting state to a number of Hague conventions in the field of family law which cover many of the same areas as the Brussels IIa and maintenance regulations. In particular, I would mention the 1996 Hague convention, which covers similar ground in respect of jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments and co-operation between authorities as the Brussels IIa regulation; all EU member states are bound by that 1996 Hague convention. The UK is already a contracting state to that convention, so it will apply upon exit with no deal.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, again, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for being clear and relatively concise about the matters he is taking through this Committee today. It was important that he should explain the Government’s approach in this statutory instrument and he has done so very well.
The first of these two statutory instruments is the one in today’s batch which appears to have raised the most concern. It is disturbing that no impact assessments were published until 24 January and even more disturbing that they contained next to nothing of interest. It is fair to say that the Law Society “broadly supports” the statutory instrument on the basis that,
“it would be inappropriate to unilaterally continue the existing mechanism in the event of no deal”.
The grammatical error is theirs, not mine. Can the noble and learned Lord indicate whether there have been discussions with the EU about the future position on this, or on any other basis?
The Law Society stresses,
“the scale of loss of international functionality in family law in the event of no deal”,
It points out that,
“the lives of UK and EU 27 citizens have become intertwined in the last 40 years”.
It goes on to cite five significant benefits enjoyed by UK families, the future of which are at risk.
These are: the regulations on mutual recognition of protection orders, which help the protection of victims of domestic violence or harassment across borders; the European enforcement order, which facilitates the enforcement of uncontested claims; the maintenance regulations facilitating cross-border payment and maintenance; and the Brussels II regulation, which allows mutual recognition of divorce orders and determines the jurisdiction for them in domestic cases in close collaboration with courts and welfare services on issues affecting children, including child protection and abduction. Finally, the system provides mutual recognition of contact orders, and the enforcement of orders such as, in effect, custody of access.
Without a deal, we would have to fall back on less comprehensive provisions. There are, however, a number of additional concerns. Although the Minister in the other place, Lucy Frazer, informed the Justice Select Committee that there is an agreement to apply current rules to cases ongoing on exit day, the Ministry of Justice has confirmed that there is no such guarantee that the EU states will do this—they will treat us as a third state, and it will depend on their own law. This raises the risk of a rush to the courts to secure a decision under the present regime, which would cause real difficulties in cost to our own system.
Alternatively, people may find that a case started under one set of rules will be concluded under another set, with consequential delay and at greater cost. If the new system is deemed by one party more likely to assist his or her claim, there might be competing petitions. Will the Government therefore be addressing these issues—at the very least, seeking to ensure that the current rules will continue to be applied in all cases begun before Brexit?
I understand that the EU has issued a notice saying that only orders that should have been registered in the relevant member state would be recognised. There is also concern that the instrument, as drafted, could mean that a prenuptial agreement that is the subject of negotiation at the date of Brexit may not be upheld. We are dealing with issues potentially affecting large numbers of people, with 1 million British citizens living in the EU, and 3 million EU citizens living in the UK. The Bar Council points out that there are currently as many as 16 million cross-border family disputes in the EU, 140,000 international divorces and 1,800 cases of child abduction. What is the Government’s estimate of the number of cases of these three kinds affecting UK citizens, and EU citizens resident in the UK? I do not anticipate that the noble and learned Lord will have that information today, but I am sure he will convey it after today’s events.
The Council points to two EU instruments that impact significantly on our family law. One is on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial cases, parental responsibility, and crucially, on international child abductions. The other deals with maintenance, including child maintenance. But the Bar Council cites a range of other benefits, including the protection of victims of domestic violence and forced marriage protection orders, together with a streamlined process for enforcing uncontested claims—for example, where the parties agree an out of court settlement.
While departure from the EU without a deal would not affect UK law, the Bar Council points to the risk of uncertainty, duplicate court proceedings, possible problems with enforcing UK court decisions in the EU, and significantly, costly pressure on an overstretched court system here. There are possible alternatives, which the Bar Council cites, under the Hague and Lugano conventions. But these are not, apparently, without problems. For example, we would have to join the EFTA or secure the agreement of all Lugano state members to adopt those systems.
There are also problems over financial provision for children. For example, these will be made only where the child and its resident parent live abroad, and the non-resident parent lives in England and Wales—whereas now it is the other way round. Should not the position be as it was before? As it stands, children living in the UK with fathers in the EU are likely to lose out. Further, it will be possible for the court only to make an order for periodical payments and lump sum or property orders.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I do not propose to address the same matters of detail that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has done. I said a great deal of what I wanted to say about the general impact on judicial co-operation and co-operation in legal matters in the debate on the first of these statutory instruments. But let the Minister and the Government be in no doubt that the issue of co-operation in family justice, and the replacement of the system we have now by the bitty and only partial system he has outlined, is the substitution of a much less satisfactory and much less smooth step backwards—which is to be deplored—from the extremely well-respected and widely understood system that we have now across the European Union.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, mentioned 16 million cross-border family disputes. The European Parliament estimates that 10% of European citizens are married to people of a different citizenship, and a very large number of those are married to other European citizens. I am one of them; many in your Lordships’ House and the other place are also married to other EU citizens. Even Nigel Farage is—or was—married to an EU citizen of another state.
We have a system now that works well and is widely respected across the whole gamut of domestic law. Jurisdiction is the area where I think there has been the most difficulty because the first court is the place of jurisdiction in divorce rulings, which was difficult to accept but is now widely understood. Recognition and enforcement are absolutely crucial. Going back to the Hague rules will be unhelpful by comparison with what we have now. The system of child abduction goes back to the Hague convention of 1980. Yes, it was there but the override that we have under Brussels IIa makes the system work far better, far more effectively, far more cheaply and with far more co-operation.
Judicial co-operation across the European Union has generally been helpful and beneficial and we have all gained immeasurably from the co-operation across different jurisdictions. Legal aid is available in respect of cross-border disputes within the European Union, which will not be available after we leave it. The new arrangements for the maintenance regulations are absolutely hopeless compared with what we currently enjoy for intra-European disputes, as anybody who is involved with divorces between, for instance, UK and US or other third-country litigants well knows.
I entirely accept the Government’s argument that we simply could not insist on losing reciprocity and nevertheless maintain unilateral arrangements in the case of these convention advantages, the reason being that we would put UK citizens at severe disadvantages when their relationships with other EU citizens broke down. Nevertheless, the Minister and the Government should not rest on the consultation that they have had by discussion with some family lawyers. The Government should be in no doubt that family lawyers generally deplore the loss of the European regime, which is what would face us if we went through with a no-deal exit.
The Explanatory Memorandum produced by the Government is in similar terms to, and shares the faults of, that in respect of civil and commercial cases. It says at paragraph 12.2 on page 6:
“In the event of a no deal EU Exit, the impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies (being those that advise, represent and support individuals and families engaged in cross-border family law matters) of this instrument will, on balance, be positive. The amendments provide a basis for continued reciprocal cooperation with most EU Member States through the UK’s participation with those Member States”.
It then goes through the Hague conventions that will be available. That is a comparison with the prospect that we would enjoy if we had no statutory instrument to cover this position. The Explanatory Memorandum faces reality later on in that paragraph, where it says:
“However, the change to Hague Convention rules and the new domestic rules on divorce etc jurisdiction, maintenance jurisdiction and parental responsibility legal aid will require relevant businesses, charities and voluntary bodies to familiarise themselves and adjust their administrative arrangements to deal with the new rules. In some cases (especially divorce etc jurisdiction) the new rules could lead to greater disputation and complexity”.
Greater disputation and complexity always means greater cost. In family cases it is greater stress, unhappiness and mental health issues, and severe damage to children. One sees in so many of these cross-border cases the added damage to children, even with the present benign arrangements, because their parents are in different jurisdictions. The Explanatory Memorandum goes on:
“In the event of a no deal EU Exit, the impact on the public sector is expected to be an increase in case volume and complexity of cases before the family court due to the changes in divorce and maintenance jurisdiction rules. However, this instrument will have positive impacts on the family court as it ensures there will be workable rules governing cross-border family law disputes”.
Once again, this is confusing the two issues. Yes, there will be workable rules and, yes, that is better than no rules at all, but it is far worse than what we have now.
Of course, I accept the other statutory instrument that same-sex marriage and civil partnerships should be put on the same basis as opposite-sex relationships, but we are once again facing a situation where it is my view—and, I suggest, a view that ought to be taken seriously by the Government—that the loss of co-operation in family law and relationship law generally would be very serious, and that those prepared to countenance no deal should take that into consideration far more than they do at present. I know that the noble and learned Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, take these matters seriously. I wish other members of the Government would do the same.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to noble Lords for their contributions. I reiterate what the relevant comparators are for impact assessments in consideration of these instruments. This Parliament determined to make a law by reason of which we leave the EU on 29 March 2019. The Executive not only have to respect that law, as made by this Parliament, but have to make appropriate plans and arrangements to allow for that in the event that no withdrawal agreement is in place as at 29 March. So, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, we are carrying out a relevant comparison within the impact assessments in that context.
I will not gainsay the comments about the benefits we have enjoyed from the Brussels regime, whether in the context of divorce, maintenance, child abduction or the wider issues we have already discussed today of commercial and civil cases. We have all benefited from that regime, but we cease to be a party to it because this Parliament has made a law determining that that would be the consequence on 29 March 2019.
On the issues of family law, fortunately we have, in essence, the foundations for all that we find in Brussels IIa. We have the 1970 Hague convention on recognition of divorce and separation and the 1980 Hague convention on child abduction. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, is quite right that it does not contain the override, but then it cannot because we will not be in a position to make an order overriding an order of an EU state court when we have left the EU. We simply cannot do that unilaterally, so we have to accept that. We have the 1996 Hague convention on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition, enforcement and co-operation in family matters. In the context of maintenance, we have the 2007 Hague convention. All of that will be in place and, as I indicated earlier, we are also applying to be a party to the Lugano Convention, although my understanding is that the Lugano Convention is on civil and commercial rather than family matters. Nevertheless, we are taking all the steps we can at this stage to cover all bases.
On the question of future co-operation, the political declaration refers to the intention to negotiate these matters, but it takes two to tango—as is sometimes observed—and therefore the pace at which we can negotiate these issues is dictated not only by us but by the EU, and we have to take that on board.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to the European protection order. That is a particularly difficult issue because the European protection order is in the form of a directive, which is quite specific in its terms. It says that an EU court can issue an EPO only to another EU jurisdiction, and that an EU court can recognise an EPO only from another EU jurisdiction. It is simply not possible even to apply a unilateral aspect of the EPO, but we have done that with regard to the civil protection orders that I referred to earlier.
We have done as much as we can in preparation for a no-deal exit—a no-deal exit of which no one, as far as I am aware, is truly in favour. But we have to plan for that contingency given the state of the law as it has been determined by Parliament. It is in these circumstances that I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Lord Beecham
I am grateful to the Minister. He cites the difficulty with the restriction of the powers of the European court. Could that be addressed, not as part of a no-deal situation, but in the event of a negotiated deal? I assume that it would, but it would be welcome to have that on the record.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am not in a position to say what will or will not be addressed in the context of negotiations that are not yet under way, and that are pursuant to a political declaration that is attendant upon a withdrawal agreement that is not yet an agreement. So I am reluctant there. I observe, however, that it would be necessary for the EU to amend the relevant directive. It would have to amend it quite significantly to afford that benefit. No doubt parties will bear in mind the potential benefits of such an order going forward.
There is only one other matter that I will mention. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to me meeting the Resolution Foundation—in fact, it was my officials who met it, not me, to be clear on that. With that, I commend this draft instrument to the Committee.
Civil Partnership and Marriage (Same Sex Couples) (Jurisdiction and Judgments) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Civil Partnership and Marriage (Same Sex Couples) (Jurisdiction and Judgments) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Equality (Amendment and Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Barran
That the Grand Committee do consider the Equality (Amendment and Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I am honoured to present to the Committee the Equality (Amendment and Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018. This statutory instrument, in common with many others currently proceeding through this House and the other place, is necessary to enable the Government to ensure that the equalities statute book remains appropriate as we leave the European Union.
The regulations make purely technical changes to the Acts listed and ensure that our equalities legislation continues to operate effectively after exit day. They are wholly consistent with our commitment to upholding equalities protections across the United Kingdom as we leave the European Union, including those previously conferred by EU law, which have now been incorporated into domestic law through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This commitment was most recently repeated by the Prime Minister in the other place on 21 January, when she guaranteed that,
“not only will we not erode protections for workers’ rights … but we will ensure this country leads the way”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/1/19; col. 1258WS.]
A majority of the amendments are to the Equality Act 2010, an Act that constitutes one of the strongest pieces of equalities legislation in the world. That includes provisions to provide comprehensive protections from discrimination, harassment and victimisation on the grounds of nine protected characteristics. We are determined to ensure that the 2010 Act will continue to give certainty and continuity to, among others, employees, employers and service users, creating a stable environment in which the UK economy can grow and thrive. By passing the regulations, Parliament would ensure that those hard-won protections continue to operate after we have left the European Union. These regulations are purely concerned with ensuring that the legislation remains fit for purpose, by removing or replacing references relating to the European Union, its laws and institutions that will become redundant at the point of exit. This package of changes additionally includes the revocation of two pieces of peripheral, and in one case entirely moribund, retained direct EU law.
I am unsure how much detail the Committee may require about the proposed changes, many of which are merely the replacement or removal of one or two words. It would not be practical to address every change in this speech, but if noble Lords have questions about specific regulations, I will endeavour to address those in my closing remarks.
For the time being, it may assist the Committee if I set out the legislation being amended, together with an example for the purposes of illustration. The draft instrument amends: references to enforceable EU rights, references to EU law and the European Economic Area, and specific EU directives and harmonisation provisions. These provisions will become deficient after we leave the EU unless they are amended. While a majority of amendments are to the Equality Act 2010, the regulations also contain amendments to: the Civil Partnership Act 2004, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2006—which establishes the Equality and Human Rights Commission, its governance arrangements and powers at its disposal.
The regulations also amend, in a minor way, the Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) Regulations 2012, which implement a 2011 ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union that sex should not be used as a risk factor in determining individuals’ insurance premiums and benefits—the Test Achats ruling. A further regulation then replicates this change in the Sex Discrimination Order 1976 (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012. This is the only change to Northern Ireland legislation proposed in these regulations.
At this juncture it may be helpful to the Committee if I mention our approach on devolution when preparing this instrument. The amendments to the Civil Partnership Act and Gender Recognition Act relate to policy areas within the competency of the Scottish Parliament, and accordingly we have worked closely with the Scottish Government, and through them, the Scottish Parliament, to ensure there is agreement and to secure the necessary legislative consent. We have also consulted the Welsh Government on these regulations.
Importantly, we have also consulted the Equality and Human Rights Commission in the preparation of these regulations, to ensure it agrees with the legislative need for the changes and that it is content with the approach taken overall, and, in particular, in relation to the amendment that impacts the commission.
Lastly, I will briefly address the two pieces of retained direct EU legislation that we are proposing be revoked. One is Regulation 1922 of 2006, which established the structure and governance of the European Institute for Gender Equality—the research papers for that institute are available on the web. The regulations simply concern the structure of the organisation, which will not be of relevance to us following our exit. The other is Decision 771 of 2006, which established the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All of 2007. As the title suggests, this is outdated and no longer has any practical implication.
I draw noble Lords’ attention to the equalities transparency statement in the annexe to the Explanatory Memorandum. This is prepared in line with the commitment that the Government gave during the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act that every EU exit-related statutory instrument would state whether and, if so, how it amends the Equality Acts of 2006 and 2010. Unlike the vast majority of such SIs, these regulations amend those Acts, and this fact and its effects are duly recorded in the statement.
In conclusion, I hope that noble Lords will recognise that the regulations in this statutory instrument are intended solely for the purpose of correcting deficient or redundant provisions in the legislation that I have outlined. Put simply, this legislation will no longer work exactly as Parliament intended once we have left the EU if this SI is not passed into law. Without making these small technical changes, we would risk leaving in place legislation that is no longer fit for purpose, at best, and which simply does not operate effectively, at worst. I beg to move.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the full explanation she has given as to why this SI is before us today and why it is necessary, and for outlining the parts of the regulations that have been revoked and the reasons for that. We support this technical statutory instrument, and I am pleased that this action is being taken now. No doubt the Minister is aware of the concern of the #FaceHerFuture campaign that the UK could fall behind on gender equality once we leave the EU. Will she say what measures the Government will take to ensure that we keep pace with the EU to maintain gender equality? We need a broad commitment from the Government to set out a positive post-Brexit agenda for the promotion of women’s and girls’ rights and gender equality; to ensure that the UK keeps pace with EU measures that maintain gender, race and LGBT equality; and to ensure that women’s services providers, including women’s refuges and other domestic abuse services, receive stable funding. That must remain on the agenda. The UK Shared Prosperity Fund must ensure adequate funding for women’s services.
The Explanatory Memorandum states,
“removing these references will not alter the present effect of EU law domestically in the field of equalities, which the Government is committed to retaining under the principle of ‘non-regression’”.
That is good news, and I hope that it will continue after we leave the EU. If the principle of non-regression is to be maintained after we leave the EU, will the Minister ensure that your Lordships’ House is provided with the information necessary to keep pace with the EU in all matters relating to equalities? Will the Government act on that information if it suits our legislation? I believe this is necessary in order that we do not fall behind the EU in equality for all. I look forward to the Minister’s response and I thank her for explaining this SI.
Lord Deben (Con)
Will my noble friend help me by kindly explaining what is meant by paragraph 3.10 in Part 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum, because I have read it carefully and I do not understand it?
I am concerned that although the Government have made all these promises about maintaining our standards, in the substantive legislation we have had in front of us, none of these things have been entrenched. I point in particular to the Trade Bill, where there is nothing to say that we will insist in future on having trading arrangements only with countries that maintain the same standards that we have. This is marginal in cost terms, but very important in principle. In the European Union, we have common views and our trading is done under common standards. That will not be true in future. Therefore, when we have substantive legislation, I am looking for the Government to entrench those standards so that they are taken into account in the trading negotiations. At the moment, they are not taken into account and Parliament is excluded from any discussion of the trading deals that will be done, whereas we are not excluded—at least, the European Parliament is not—when it comes to European trading deals.
If my noble friend cannot answer that question now, I hope she will explain why the Government insist on generalised statements but do not include such statements whenever they can be justiciably insisted on. I like it when the Government’s feet can be held to the fire, not when a particular Prime Minister has made a generalised promise. I have no doubt that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has every intention of carrying through what she says, but she will not be Prime Minister for ever—I think that is an uncontroversial statement. I should like a commitment from the Government that in all the substantive legislation they bring forward, they will insist on having the same attitude towards the issues we have discussed today: civil partnership, gender recognition, sexual discrimination and the like.
That is particularly important when it comes to some parts of industry. I know that people say that it really does not matter very much. It certainly matters to our standards on agriculture. In some countries that we propose to have agreements with, there are no standards of this sort. They are able to do things we would not, which reduces their costs and enables them to compete unfairly.
I say one other thing to my noble friend. It is very difficult for those of us who have looked at these matters seriously not to be extremely angry that the Government continue to believe it is even possible to contemplate a no-deal exit. The damage done by that would be so serious that the Government make themselves look pretty ridiculous by not standing up and saying, “We will not allow this to happen and therefore we will not put through this legislation”. In any case, they cannot get it all through in time.
When my noble friend replies, she might be kind enough to avoid two phrases that she uses, neither of which help us. The first is, “not be of relevance to us”. The fact is that what the European Union decides in future, if we leave it, will be of relevance to us. It will not be of relevance in the sense that we will have to obey it, but the idea that we will not be affected by the decisions the European Union makes seems to me pretty barmy. This is one of the problems: we are putting ourselves in a position where we will be affected by decisions the European Union makes, even though we will have no say in those decisions, which will not directly be imposed on us. To use a phrase such as, “not be of relevance to us”, is to mistake the situation. What we mean is that, were we to leave the European Union, we have to amend our laws to exclude those bits that refer to the European Union. That is not the same as saying that it is not of relevance to us.
There is another little word that my noble friend used: merely—that this “merely” changes the situation to the new situation. This is not a “mere” change; it is another piece of legislation that makes Britain less able to deal with these matters, less influential and, frankly, less safe. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, perfectly properly said, we need real acceptance that if we remove ourselves from the European Union, we do not have the same guarantees of continuing with these standards. Most of us find unacceptable the idea that leaving the European Union is merely a matter of transference.
I hope my noble friend will accept that it is much easier if we just say, “This is an attempt to put our law into a position in which it would not totally collapse were we to leave with no deal”. Let us not use any of these words that diminish or reduce the seriousness of what we are doing—the barminess of the whole process and the fact that, if we were to leave the European Union with no deal, we would not be bothering much about gender recognition but about whether people could be fed and whether we could get things on to the supermarket shelves. This is the problem with our discussion: it is all in fairyland. It is all as if things would just go on and that somehow we could have these little changes at the edges.
This is not my noble friend’s fault. She has not started it and I have no idea what her views about it are—she would, of course, not be able to state them whatever they were. I want her to understand that this is an extremely painful process for any of us who have cared about Britain’s role in the world and in Europe, and Britain’s leadership. Therefore, we have to be very careful if we use the words “merely” or “not be of relevance to us”. I leave it to another time for my noble friend to explain precisely what paragraph 3.10 is, but if she can do that today I would be very pleased.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this SI and for setting out the Government’s position. I should like to raise a few points. I speak as someone who has been involved in equalities issues for many decades. I recognise some of the hard-fought rights people in our country now have as a result of the EU and grassroots campaigns from women, people from different minority backgrounds and the LGBT+ community. These have all been hard-fought, as has been said. They were never given; they were fought for.
As the Equality and Human Rights Commission rightly says, the EU has played a pivotal role in ensuring that the underpinning of these rights has been embedded in our laws. For example, EU law has led to changes in UK law to protect equality and human rights, which, let us not forget, includes things such as human trafficking, including greater protections for victims and victims’ rights; disability rights, with huge changes due directly to EU laws, such as improved protections at work and Braille labelling for medicines; workplace discrimination, including protections on grounds of religion or belief, sexual orientation or age; and equal pay. These were all very hard-fought for.
There are concerns. I hear what the noble Baroness said, but these nevertheless have to be addressed. For example, in the event of no deal, which is what we are addressing with the SI, the Government will be looking for other international trade deals. The Government have always been looking to reduce the burden on business and business leaders, who, in some quarters, are always pushing for workers’ rights to be reduced. That is a fact. It might be part of new trade deals. These things have to be addressed and we have to have some answers and reassurances that we will not water down any of our hard-fought equality laws or rights.
For example, a briefing from Liberty states that there will be “serious consequences” for human rights after withdrawal. According to Liberty, the EU withdrawal Bill,
“will not retain the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union”,
and will remove the ability,
“to bring legal claims based on the general principles of EU law”.
I am not a lawyer or an expert, but these things seem quite concerning.
Also, under the same fundamental principles, Liberty says that there are rights that do not have equivalents in our domestic law. For example, Article 3, on bioethics, provides,
“a right to physical and mental integrity, prohibiting eugenic practices, the use of the body and its parts for financial gain and the reproductive cloning of human beings”.
I did not know that until I read that. Another example is Article 14, which provides,
“a right to vocational and continuing training. Unlike its analogue under the ECHR, Article 14 is framed as a positive right—rather than a right not to be denied an education”.
It turns it round in that way. Another example is perhaps pertinent to Members of your Lordships’ House:
“Article 25 (rights of the elderly): recognises the right of older people to lead a life of dignity and independence and participate in social and cultural life. This right is unique and has no equivalent under the ECHR or any justiciable international treaty”.
Lord Deben
Is not the fundamental problem that because we have not taken that into our law, there is no justiciable ability of people to take the Government to court? When the Government say, “This is merely moving from European law into British law”, that is not true. It is moving those little bits in detail, but it is not moving the fundamental rights which are enshrined in these very important statutes and which we can refer to in the courts. Now we will not be able to take the Government to court on a full range of these matters, which is a serious diminution in our rights.
Baroness Hussein-Ece
The noble Lord advances my case. I was giving a few examples of some of the rights that currently protect different sections of society, but they will not necessarily be protected—and probably will not be—under what is proposed in the SI, which simply harmonises and takes out some of the laws that we currently enjoy and puts them into domestic law. If it is not already something that we recognise, it will not be there. Therefore we need some answers to these issues.
Article 10, which is important and which we discuss a lot in your Lordships’ House, is on freedom of thought, conscience and religion. It,
“includes a right to conscientious objection not recognised in domestic law”.
That is another example of what will not necessarily be harmonised or merely slipped into our domestic laws, because it does not already exist.
The question with the EU withdrawal Act as it stands is: is it not the case that we risk losing protections for sections of society that we have enjoyed for many decades now? An example is the loss of protection for women in work. The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, mentioned gender equality and how we must keep pace on that and not slip back. In addition, as I mentioned earlier, some business leaders see some of these rights as a burden. We need some reassurance from the Government of today, but they may not be the Government of tomorrow, a future Government, so reassurances in themselves will not be enough, because Governments come and go. We need something more fundamental enshrined in our law, which will provide the protections that we do not currently have.
Can the Minister address some of these issues? Another example is that European law has recognised the right of older people to live a dignified and independent life. There is no equivalent of that in the ECHR or a treaty, as I said. While I understand the sentiments the Minister expressed today, we need more than assurances; we need something more cast-iron, and even copper bottomed, which we will probably not get today. That will probably be for another day.
There are a lot of questions and concerns about how we keep pace with issues such as gender equality, race equality measures, LGBT rights and disability rights. Those laws are always evolving to keep pace. The EU has been a positive force for change, enabling us to keep pace and harmonise with those laws. If we are outside the EU, what will be the force for that? Will equality legislation and priorities simply slow down? They may not be a priority any more; other legislation will probably be seen as more of a priority. Quite simply, they could just be weakened and diluted and rights could be lost.
I ask the Minister to address the points that I have made and give more reassurance as to how these issues will be tackled. The UK has proudly played a pivotal role in bringing these protections for protected groups into EU law—we have been at the centre of that, if not the forefront—so how will we ensure that we do not fall behind?
Lord Smith of Finsbury (Non-Afl)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, I suggest a very clear example of exactly what she has been talking about. In 1997-98, the only reason why we in this country were able to change the rules on the age of consent for gay male sex was that two brave gay men took the case to the European Court, and the court gave a judgment that meant that not only were we able to change the law here but we had to change it. That is a very good example of exactly the impact, which the noble Baroness is talking about, that it has had over many years.
Baroness Hussein-Ece
I was just concluding but I am very grateful to the noble Lord, who I know has himself been pivotal in equality. In fact he was my MP at one time, and I remember that he was in the vanguard of changes in equality legislation.
I have many more examples, which I shall not itemise today, but we are looking for an example like that. There might be something in future involving the rights of people who need protecting. Where do we go for that if the Government of the day are not interested or do not see it as a priority? What will be put in place to ensure that future generations have the same protections that we have enjoyed?
Baroness Barran
My Lords, this has been a very constructive and heartfelt debate, and I thank noble Lords for their helpful points regarding both a recognition of the progress made in this country over many years in relation to equalities and the challenges that we face in future. I hope that noble Lords are reassured to some extent by my opening remarks about the nature of the proposed amendments in this specific instrument, as a number of the points raised are obviously broader than its scope. These changes are necessary to ensure a properly functioning statute book after EU exit while not in themselves amounting to substantive changes in policy.
I shall deal with a number of the points raised by noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, asked how we will keep pace with the EU to maintain gender equality specifically, while the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, and my noble friend Lord Deben raised broader points in that regard. I reassure all noble Lords that we are committed to keeping all the protections in the Equality Act 2006 and the Equality Act 2010, which include gender equality but also go much broader.
My honourable friend the Minister said last week in the debate on this instrument in the other place that from the date we leave the EU, the UK will be free to set its own priorities, including those on gender equality and women’s rights. The UK has often been in the vanguard of developing new legislation and policies that support women in the workplace, tackling violence against women and girls, and ensuring that women are represented in political and public life. Our recent regulations, for example, requiring employers to publish their gender pay gap go further than anything required by the EU or any other member state. The other area where this country differs in a very positive way from the rest of the EU, is in relation to the public sector equality duty. I hope that noble Lords will reflect on the balance; there are definitely areas where this country is significantly ahead in terms of equality legislation.
Lord Deben
My Lords, all that is very true and I am proud of what this Government have done in both of the areas to which my noble friend refers, but could she explain why we have not transcribed into British law the requirements of the document to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, referred? Those are the fundamental rights. We may be free to make changes, but humans in this country are no longer free to take the Government to court. We are losing a basic right. This is not a freedom at all.
Baroness Barran
If my noble friend will be patient, I will cover that point in a moment.
We will continue to engage with leading academics across Europe and internationally, bringing together the latest research on what works to deliver gender equality in the workplace through our Workplace and Gender Equality Research programme and our Gender & Behavioural Insights programme. Once we leave the EU, we will remain close to our European colleagues. We will continue to share good practice, collaborate with others and follow developments in Europe closely—a point which my noble friend Lord Deben questioned. The EHRC will remain part of Equinet, which is the European Network of Equality Bodies, and continue to be engaged with their work. Through bodies such as the Council of Europe, where a UK official now chairs an important gender equality body, the ILO and the UN, we will ensure that we are engaged with institutions and countries that are committed to achieving gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gale also asked about funding for specialist women’s services. She will know that this is a cause dear to my heart and I understand very well why she raises this point. The Government are absolutely committed to protecting victims of domestic abuse. Since 2014, MHCLG will have invested £55.5 million in services to support victims of domestic abuse, which includes funding refuges. The department is carrying out a review of how domestic abuse services are commissioned locally and funded across England. The review has been informed by an audit undertaken by Ipsos MORI for the provision of domestic abuse services across England which will enable us to understand what impact they are having and identify any gaps. MHCLG is also working with the domestic abuse sector and local authorities, drawing on their expertise and data, to develop sustainable delivery options for domestic abuse services in future. The noble Baroness will, I know, also welcome the introduction in the other place of the draft Domestic Abuse Bill, which I am sure will provide an opportunity to address some of these issues.
She also asked about the issues of non-regression and how this House will be kept updated. As I have already said, the Government are absolutely committed not to roll back workers’ rights when we leave the EU. This has been confirmed most recently by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. I cannot ensure that your Lordships’ House will be updated formally with changes in EU equalities law. Obviously, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Women and Equalities Select Committee will continue their important work and produce their reports, which noble Lords will be interested to follow.
The noble Baroness asked for an assurance about the shared prosperity fund. We will be consulting on this and are concerned to ensure that disadvantaged groups are not left out of the fund. I am pleased to say that the Government Equalities Office is discussing gender issues, which are clearly very relevant here, with those in government leading on the fund.
My noble friend Lord Deben asked me to explain paragraph 3.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum—
Baroness Barran
I am sorry. Paragraph 3.10, which relates to Regulation 5(9)—I have to warn the noble Lord that this may not shed entire light on the matter—states:
“Regulation 5(9) amends Schedule 23 to the Equality Act 2010. This provision currently contains an exemption which allows a training provider to provide training to a person who is not ordinarily resident in the European Economic Area (EEA) where the training provider thinks that the training recipient does not intend to exercise the skills obtained in this country. The amendment recognises that the UK will not form part of the EEA after exit day and so ensures that this exception now applies to any country outside Great Britain”.
If the noble Lord would like me to write to him to clarify that any further, I would be delighted to do so.
The noble Lord also asked about future trading arrangements. I cannot speak for any future Government, but this Government have absolutely no intention of diluting workers’ rights, which was noted by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister very recently, as I mentioned. He also questioned whether we were trying to “diminish the debate”—I think those were the noble Lord’s words. I will try not to say the “M” word, but I am trying to focus only on the specifics of this statutory instrument. To repeat the words of my right honourable friend the Minister for Women and Equalities in the other place, this gives us a chance to choose our priorities going forward. It is really important that all noble Lords acknowledge the leadership we have shown. I have a table here that shows a number of areas, particularly in relation to goods and services, where this country is leading the way in rights. I already mentioned the public sector equality duty.
Turning to the questions of the noble Baroness about the Charter of Fundamental Rights and wider human rights issues, this statutory instrument does not have any bearing on the charter, which applies only to EU law or EU-derived law. It catalogues a range of EU rights and principles, the original sources of which are found elsewhere in EU law. The charter itself is not needed after EU exit because EU law, which is the source of these rights, will be copied on to our domestic statute book. I hope that the noble Baroness may take some reassurance from the fact that the Women and Equalities Committee acknowledged this in its 2016 inquiry, agreeing that,
“it would be difficult to apply the Charter so that it would function in a domestic context alone”.
In addition, the protections from the European Convention on Human Rights, which have been given further domestic effect by the Human Rights Act 1998, are unaffected by EU exit. The noble Baroness also raised a number of other issues, but if she will forgive me, I will just pick one, in relation to equal pay protections. These existed in Great Britain long before any EU rules were introduced and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 will retain Article 157 of the treaty of fundamental rights of the European Union in domestic law.
House of Lords
Brexit: Security
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Quin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions ministers from the Home Office and the Ministry for Justice have had with the heads of police forces about security issues relating to Brexit.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, Ministers are in continued dialogue with a range of operational partners on policing and security co-operation. The Government are preparing for all eventualities, and this includes continuing to work closely with our operational partners on EU exit planning.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, while the economic consequences of a no-deal Brexit are dominating the headlines, is it not the case that the consequences of no deal on vital security co-operation with the European Union are equally alarming? Did the Minister see the item in the Belfast Telegraph yesterday about the retiring chief constable there who felt that he was in the dark over Brexit? Surely, he and other police chiefs around the UK need to be fully involved in preparing the vital future security relationship with the European Union.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I totally agree with the noble Baroness and, to that end, we had a useful debate on that subject last week. For her information, at his Home Affairs Select Committee appearance, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Richard Martin, who is the Brexit lead for the National Police Chiefs’ Council, confirmed regarding policing:
“If we crash out on 29 March, we will have the team up. We will have everything written. We will have the whole system and the network developed, and we will be there, sitting on the shoulders of forces across the country from a policing point of view to help them through what that looks like. We will be fully prepared”.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister be so kind as to say what the extradition arrangements will be for each of the 27 member states on 30 March in the event of no deal? If she does not have those details at her fingertips, could she write to me and ensure that the letter gets here before 30 March?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I will try to make sure it gets to the noble Lord by 29 March. I shall not go through every one of the 27 states, but in the event of no deal we would rely on the Council of Europe European Convention on Extradition of 1957. Just for noble Lords’ information, it is already used for other non-EU countries—for example, Norway.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, Cressida Dick, has said that the way in which we currently quickly extradite and arrest people will have to be replaced, but it will be more costly and slower and will potentially put the public at risk. Does the Minister agree? Will the Government admit that the UK will be less secure outside the European Union, deal or no deal?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I do not necessarily agree with the second statement, but one thing I can say to the noble Lord is that the way to avoid no deal is for the House of Commons, which is currently deliberating on it, to agree to a deal.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
Can the Minister tell the House of any Brexit dividend on leaving the EU in relation to security matters?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord makes a very constructive point—
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Yes, it is a good question, and it is going to get an answer, if I can get a word in edgeways.
We have to work very hard to make sure that there are no gaps in capability and that, if we leave the European Union without a deal, some of the alternative mechanisms and instruments are in place.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
Does the Minister agree that there has been great success in co-operation between the United Kingdom and European forces? Can she assure the House that the same systems, under another name, will still prevail and be as efficient as previously?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Under a deal situation, the political declaration has provisions for Eurojust, Europol, Prüm and PNR. Leaving without a deal would necessitate us relying on other mechanisms to fulfil those obligations.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, we will be relying on a 63 year-old convention from the Council of Europe. Will the Minister tell us how long, on average, extradition requests take with those countries where we currently rely on it compared with the European arrest warrant that we have with the 27 EU nations?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
It is certainly the case that the European arrest warrant is a very smooth process. I cannot give the noble Lord an estimate of the exact time relying on the Council of Europe convention because it has not happened yet. I can give estimates of what happened when we relied on the convention, but I cannot give an estimate on what has not happened yet. There is no doubt—I think this goes to the nub of the noble Lord’s point—that the European arrest warrant is a very smooth process.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
Order. The House will hear from my noble friend Lord Cormack.
Lord Cormack
Can my noble friend assure the House that, although it would be very much a second best, bilateral negotiations are already taking place with all the countries of the European Union, particularly the larger countries—France, Germany, Italy and Spain—to ensure that we have bilateral agreements if we have the very unhappy result of no deal.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My noble friend is absolutely right. With particular reference to Europol, this is pertinent, as we would have to have a series of bilateral co-operation mechanisms. In addition, we would be moving our Europol liaison bureau to The Hague.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the case in Georgia is likely to be an example of how long extradition takes when a country is not in the European arrest warrant. On access to databases such as the SIS and Europol, the Government are going to have to seek a data advocacy decision. Is not their unreliability on upholding European human rights standards going to prove an obstacle to getting that decision?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, it is important to point out that Ireland is not part of SIS II. Of course, we used alternative channels such as Interpol up to 2015, so it is clear that alternative systems do work. Our nearest neighbour, Ireland, is not actually part of SIS II.
Social Metrics Commission
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the report A new measure of poverty for the UK, published by the Social Metrics Commission in September 2018.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Buscombe) (Con)
The Government welcome the work that the Social Metrics Commission has done. Measuring poverty is complex, and this report offers further insight into the nature of that complexity. The Social Metrics Commission report acknowledges that further work needs to be done, particularly around data availability and quality. We want to carefully consider the detail that underpins the methodology that the Social Metrics Commission has employed when this has been made available to us.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the commission, so ably led by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, on achieving such wide support for its innovative relative poverty measure. David Cameron pledged that the Conservative Party would recognise, measure and act on relative poverty, yet now Ministers repeatedly cite only the so-called absolute poverty statistics when challenged. What has changed to negate that pledge, other than the worrying increase in relative poverty since 2011-12, especially among children, and the Government’s regressive social security and other austerity policies that have taken their toll?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, the Government accept that the current suite of measures is not without limitations. However, the relative poverty line, for example, moves across with average income, which is useful when looking at whether groups are or are not keeping up with the middle of the income distribution over time, but it does not show whether the average income of those on the lowest incomes is improving in real terms. Therefore, if everyone’s income were to double tomorrow, the number of people in relative poverty would be unchanged. The absolute poverty line, on the other hand, moves with inflation, providing a better measure of how the income of those on low incomes compares with the cost of living.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, do the Government believe that the inclusion of debt and assets and the extra costs of disability and childcare are an improvement to the measure and give us a better understanding of the nature of poverty?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, this is a very important point. I thank my noble friend for introducing a debate on this very subject last week. It is right that we take note of the unavoidable extra costs of disability and childcare. However, so far as we understand it, the Social Metrics Commission does not include, for example, the unavoidable cost for the elderly of social care. In regard to disability, it is important to note that we spend more than £50 billion a year on benefits to support disabled people and those with health conditions. It is encouraging that 973,000 more disabled people have entered into work in the last five years, and we now have much more generous childcare provision.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, we share my noble friend’s enthusiasm for the approach adopted by the commission, particularly the focus on relative poverty. This is a measure that takes account of both income and inescapable costs to which the Minister has just referred, such as childcare, housing and the impact of disability. Under the commission’s new measure, there are 14.2 million people in poverty, nearly half of whom are living in families with a disabled person. Do the Government think that this is acceptable? Measuring is all very well, but what are the Government going to do about it?
Baroness Buscombe
To answer the last point first, the current measure shows that in 2016-17 23% of people in households where someone was disabled were in poverty, compared with 24% in 2010-11, so that shows that poverty levels among disabled people are not rising. Compared with 2010, there are now 1 million fewer people—300,000 fewer children, 500,000 fewer working-age adults and 200,000 fewer pensioners—in absolute poverty.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, given the variations in poverty rates across the regions—as much as 10%, according to the report—what plans do the Government have to address the specific causes, issues and needs of the regions and to improve the conditions of those in poverty across the country?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, it is important to say that we are committed to action that will make a meaningful difference to the lives of disadvantaged children and families, and that goes beyond a focus on the safety net of the welfare system to tackle the root causes of poverty and disadvantage. I am taking a particular interest in debt, working with my honourable friend the Minister for Pensions and Financial Inclusion. We are also very much looking at housing, working across government with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. These issues matter very much when looking at the root causes, as does low pay, and that applies not just to the private sector; it is important that we also look at the third sector and other institutions that might not be paying sufficient wages to those whom they employ.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that the availability of a new and more informative measure of poverty must be the springboard to new action to alleviate poverty? To start with, will she insist with her colleagues in the MHCLG that their proposal to remove the deprivation factor from the foundation formula for the allocation of grants to local authorities would further impoverish urban communities already impoverished by this Government’s disproportionate reductions in grant, further widen inequality and, indeed, put further pressure on the social security budget?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, as well as doing the work that I have just referred to, over the coming months we look forward to the release of further information from the Social Metrics Commission and to working with the commission. In particular, the department is keen to be involved in the stakeholder discussions on some of the critical and more complex issues which the noble Lord recognises and which the commission is taking account of in its measures.
Baroness Couttie (Con)
My Lords, I would be very grateful if the Minister could tell us what action the Government are taking to help working households which are struggling with the cost of living increases and to stop them falling into poverty.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, we are supporting those on low incomes through the national living wage, which was increased from £7.50 to £7.83 in April 2018, and this April it will increase again to £8.21. The party opposite may make noises but it did not introduce the national living wage.
Baroness Buscombe
Noble Lords might laugh but we introduced the national living wage, never mind the minimum wage. We have also raised the personal allowance from £11,500 to £11,850, which will make a basic rate taxpayer £1,075 better off in 2018-19 than in 2010-11. We have doubled the amount of free childcare available to working parents of three and four year-olds to 30 hours a week, saving them in total around £5,000 per child per year.
Drones: Consultation
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Balfe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consultations they are conducting on the operation of drones in United Kingdom airspace; and whether they will include the British Airline Pilots Association and the Guild of Air Traffic Controllers as members of draft Airspace Modernisation Strategy committees.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and draw attention to my interests as listed in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have a wide range of engagement with industry on the operation of drones in UK airspace, and the government response to the latest formal consultation was published on 7 January. The Department for Transport will continue to work with the British Airline Pilots Association and the Guild of Air Traffic Control Officers, airports, drone manufacturers and other key stakeholders on all issues relating to the operation of drones in UK airspace, including airspace modernisation.
Lord Balfe
I thank the Minister for her reply. I refer, in particular, to the airspace modernisation strategy committee and point out that a very good reason for including BALPA and GATCO on it is that they have first-hand practical experience of the complex operations of both flying through airspace and regulating it. They will have a lot to offer when this new strategy is developed.
Baroness Sugg
I thank my noble friend for the work he does in his role as president of BALPA and his highlighting of aviation issues both inside and outside the Chamber. It has not been possible to offer every stakeholder a seat on the airspace strategy board, but the DfT and CAA are working with GATCO and BALPA to ensure they have the appropriate representation in the governance structure. Given their expertise and, as my noble friend points out, their practical experience, we really value BALPA and GATCO’s ongoing input and we will continue to work with them to consider what sub-committees they should sit on as part of the new airspace modernisation programme.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, Gatwick and Heathrow are now purchasing equipment to combat drones, but it is very expensive. Does the Minister believe that all airports have to equip themselves with this expensive equipment? This could be beyond the financial capacity of some small airports, but a small airport being interrupted by a drone could be just as dangerous. Precisely how are the Government working with airports across Britain to ensure a rapid response to another drone attack?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a very important point. Of course, we need to ensure that all our airports are protected, but there is a degree of proportionality to that. I met with airports recently and will continue to work with them on ensuring that they have the best capability possible. Also, the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure is working on standards for counter-drone technology and offers advice to organisations, including airports, on the availability of current technology.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend will know, I am chairing an all-party parliamentary inquiry into lower airspace in the United Kingdom. Apart from the guild of air pilots and other interested organisations, is she consulting or likely to consult with the responsible advocates of drone flying—those who want to abide by regulations and controls? To what extent is she in touch with those people as well as other stakeholders?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, of course it is very important that we take the needs of general aviation users into consideration, as well as drone flyers. As my noble friend points out, the vast majority of drone users behave safely and responsibly. We will continue to work with them as airspace modernisation and drones develop.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister used the word “proportionality” today, and in a previous answer. Could she explain the principle of proportionality between a drone closing Gatwick for two days and people being allowed to do what they like with them elsewhere? It is a bit of a challenge, is it not?
Baroness Sugg
The noble Lord is quite right; it is a challenge. We have brought in laws governing the use of drones within airport exclusion zones and across the country. It is against the law to fly your drone above 400 feet, but the noble Lord is right to point out that this is a complex issue.
Lord Palmer (CB)
My Lords, when are these committees hoping to report? Will they do so to her department or to Parliament as a whole?
Baroness Sugg
The airspace modernisation programme is under way and the process will take a number of years. We have not modernised our airspace for over 50 years, and doing so will bring a lot of benefits to the users of our airspace and the communities living around airports. We will ensure that the House is kept updated as plans develop.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, given the disruption at Gatwick and Heathrow, can we be clear about who is authorised to destroy a drone? Will those authorisations be extended in forthcoming legislation, and who is likely to be authorised under future legislation?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, the police have the power in certain circumstances to access and use equipment to take drones out of the sky. That, of course, will be subject to police weighing up the risk to the public and of wider collateral damage against the scale of the offence being committed. The Home Office is leading a cross-Whitehall effort to improve the police’s ability to tackle drones quickly and effectively.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Can my noble friend confirm whether all commercial airports now have a 5-kilometre limit for flying drones? If that limit is not in force, why can it not be brought forward in emergency legislation? Otherwise, thousands of passengers will be at real risk.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, we announced earlier this month that we will extend the airport restriction zone to the air traffic zone, and 5 kilometres each side of the runway. That is not in force at the moment but we are working on statutory instruments to amend the air navigation order, and that will be completed very shortly.
Health: Vaccines
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the report by the Royal Society for Public Health Moving the Needle: Promoting vaccination uptake across the life course, published on 24 January, what steps they intend to take to counter misinformation about vaccines propagated in social media.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom has a comprehensive vaccination programme that achieves high uptake nationally. Although there is misinformation about vaccinations circulating on social media, the public have a high level of confidence in the immunisation programme, health professionals and the NHS, and prefer to obtain information from those sources. Public Health England works closely with NHS England to ensure that health professionals and the public have up-to-date, accurate information on the benefits of immunisation.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Earl to the health brief. There is a little bit of complacency there. He is right that, overall, vaccinations for children are at a high rate but he will know that, in relation to MMR, this is not reaching the levels we would like. Throughout Europe, there have been record outbreaks of measles. This report, which came out a couple of days ago, showed that two out of five parents get highly misleading information on social media; obviously, this has some dampening effect on vaccination uptake. My understanding is that companies such as Facebook and others will not take down wholly inaccurate information in the interests of some kind of spurious balance. Will the Government reconsider their response, show a bit of gumption and take on the social media companies on this?
The Earl of Courtown
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, makes some very good points. It is outrageous that rumours circulating on social media or in any form on the internet dissuade people from taking up proper immunisation. The noble Lord is aware of the highly successful immunisation activities in this country and how effective they have been. As far as social media is concerned, the noble Lord will be aware of the internet safety strategy White Paper, which we will introduce this winter and which will have a statutory code of practice to ensure that social media firms take action on harmful content.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is almost exactly 300 years since Lady Mary Wortley Montagu came back from the British embassy in Constantinople and spread the practice of inoculation throughout this country and the whole of western Europe by her example? Does he think we can celebrate this tercentenary to press home the point about the great value of vaccination, and indeed the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has mentioned, by putting her on the new £50 note?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ridley makes a good point. I must admit that I was not totally aware of Lady Mary’s tercentenary but my noble friend is quite right that this country leads the world on this issue. For example, as I mentioned before, the work we have done on vaccination programmes, particularly since the introduction of the measles vaccine, has prevented an estimated 20 million cases and 4,500 deaths in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, reaching every child, eligible working-age adult and older person with vaccinations must be a priority for the Government and the NHS. Experts might not be trusted, but health professionals, as the Minister said, command a high level of respect when it comes to giving advice. What assessment have the Government made of the “making every contact count” approach among health professionals to ensure that vaccine advice is delivered across the health system?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, there are a number of areas where there is good contact between patients and healthcare professionals, particularly in early years with babies. A record is now kept of immunisation targets. When they have to be given, patients are given reminders by their doctors, and these are chased up. Later in life, students attending university are made aware through Universities UK and UCAS of what vaccinations are available and what they should have. The noble Baroness makes a very good point.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that pernicious and damaging misinformation about vaccinations not only threatens children’s lives in Europe and America, where there are good health services, but is even more damaging to children in the developing world, where there are not those services to deal with the consequences of low levels of vaccination and where childhood immunisation has been perhaps the greatest weapon in reducing childhood mortality?
The Earl of Courtown
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is quite right. We in this country are very lucky to have the NHS and, for example, the numerous leaflets that are trusted by so many people and available in surgeries across the country, which are not available to people in Africa. Any misinformation found on the internet can have very harmful effects. I could not agree more with the noble Baroness.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, the issue here is the herd immunity provided by mass vaccination. As my noble friend rightly points out, the influence and effect of social media are probably not assisted by unhelpful and ill-informed tweets by, for example, the President of the United States. Has the department done research that addresses when a population is at risk? Parents who do not get their children vaccinated are actually freeloading on the immunity created by parents who are responsible and do get their children vaccinated. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell me whether the department has researched when immunity cover is compromised and put it in the Library.
The Earl of Courtown
I thank the noble Baroness. She makes a very important point about lowering immunisation where other individuals are not immunised themselves. I think the available figures say that 5% of parents refuse to let their children be immunised. This can have an effect. One can see blips in uprates in diseases. I will of course try to find out any further information and I will write to the noble Baroness and send a copy to the Library.
High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Bill
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
That if a High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Bill is brought from the House of Commons in the next Session of Parliament, the Standing Orders of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in this Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the next Session.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I will briefly ask the noble Baroness a couple of questions on this Motion. It is good to have it before the House—it shows progress with HS2—but I am wondering why today. It is probably because we do not have much else to do in your Lordships’ House. Could she give us any idea as to when the Bill will complete its passage through the House of Commons and when we might see it?
Before the Bill comes to your Lordships’ House, will the Government publish a new business case and cost estimate for phase 2a—the subject of the Bill—taking into account the latest information about land purchase and design development? I am already hearing stories about quite difficult ground conditions on the route, including salt mines. There are lots of salt mines in Cheshire. Let us hope that the costs estimate does not go shooting up. I ask this because on HS2 phase 1 we are still working on the 2013 business case, which is six years old—six years of the Infrastructure and Projects Authority’s amber/red designation, which I think is a record.
This was raised in the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee hearing last week, when Nusrat Ghani, the Minister, and officials gave evidence. When the committe quoted higher costs to the Minister—I think she had probably gone to vote by then—the officials said, “We don’t recognise these figures”. When the committee went back to them and said, “If you don’t recognise the figures we’re quoting, what figures do you recognise?” The answer was, basically, “None”. I do not know whether this is the first of many Treasury blank cheques, or whether in fact the Minister will confirm, as she did in a Written Answer to me about six months ago, that before permanent work starts on phase 1, the Government will come up with a new cost estimate and a new business case.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, perhaps I may add a couple of question to those of my noble friend Lord Berkeley. I must admit that I am a wee bit worried now that he has told me about the salt mines in Cheshire—but I will have a go nevertheless.
This Motion refers to,
“the next Session of Parliament”.
I am glad to see that the Government Chief Whip is here, because my first question is: when is the next Session of Parliament? When are we going to get it? Will the Queen ever come here again? Will we have a Queen’s Speech—because we have a whole range of things to get though? With what is happening down at the other end of the building, this Session could go on and on. So, before we agree to this, it would be useful to know when the next Session of Parliament is due to begin.
My second question relates to the question of publishing the business case, which my noble friend raised. The original business case, which seems to be being forgotten—I know that my noble friend Lord Snape will not have forgotten it—envisaged that the high-speed rail would go all the way up to Glasgow and Edinburgh in Scotland. Therefore, the business case was based on competition: competing with the airlines that fly now between London and Glasgow and Edinburgh. If it is not going up to Glasgow and Edinburgh, that business case does not arise—so I would be grateful to know whether the business case does include the extension of high-speed rail to Glasgow and Edinburgh.
Those are my two questions. I hope they are not enough to get me sent to the salt mines of Cheshire.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, before the Minister responds, and without wishing to send my noble friend to the salt mines or anywhere else, could she offer some reassurance to those of us who have long supported this particular scheme, as far as costings are concerned? My noble friend who asked the first question of the Minister is, like me, regarded as a supporter of HS2. I am tempted to say, “With friends like us, who needs enemies?” I think that the costings we have had so far are causing considerable concern—although the Economic Affairs Committee has never been well disposed to this particular scheme and has criticised it on financial grounds on previous occasions. Can the Minister offer some reassurance to those of us who support this scheme that the costings are sensible and that we will not have to keep defending it against people who appear to believe that if you think of a figure and double it, that would be the cost of HS2 in future.
Finally, would the Minister agree that it is essential, whether or not the scheme gets to Scotland, that pressure is taken off the west coast main line, and alternatives are offered in the way that, we all hope, HS2 will bring about?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
I thank noble Lords for those questions. On phase 2a costs, in July 2017 we published the business case for phase 2a, which included the funding envelope of £3.48 billion at 2015 prices. We still believe that cost estimate to be correct and so do not intend to publish any further cost information at this stage, but we will publish a further incremental estimate of expenses with the Additional Provision 2 shortly, which I hope will provide noble Lords with some reassurance.
On timing, the Bill is currently at Select Committee stage in another place. Once it completes all its stages there, it will come here. I am not able to give an exact date to the noble Lord, but we expect it to be the summer—of this year. I think it is fair to say that announcing the dates for the next Session is well beyond my purview.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
That is a new way of putting it; it is usually “above my pay grade”, so “beyond my purview” is new. Sitting two down from the Minister is the Government Chief Whip, who is paid a lot more than she is. I wonder whether the Chief Whip would care to intervene and tell us when the next Session of Parliament is due to start. If he cannot do so today, maybe he will do what he did when I raised the issue of Recess dates and announce them a week later.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I will restrict myself to answering questions on HS2, which is within my pay grade. On HS2’s costs in general, of course all major projects face challenges and it would be unrealistic to expect HS2 to be straightforward. We are absolutely committed to delivering HS2, and HS2 Ltd has been set an ambitious target of starting phase 1 services in 2026. HS2 Ltd is currently working with contracted suppliers to keep phase 1 on track, which includes updating and agreeing an assessment of schedule confidence. We will make those schedule details public as part of the full business case for phase 1, which is due to be published later this year. The spending review in 2015 established the long-term funding envelope for delivering HS2 of £55.7 billion at 2015 prices, and we remain determined to deliver HS2 within that.
On timing, there was no particular reason for debating the Motion today. It is simply when it was scheduled as a formal procedure. The equivalent procedure has already passed in another place and it follows the precedent for hybrid Bills in this House. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Snape, on the necessity for HS2. We have seen a doubling of passenger numbers on our railways; we are at capacity and we urgently need a new railway to help deal with that demand. I beg to move.
Merchant Shipping (Recognised Organisations) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 12 November 2018 be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 23 January.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, the next four Motions on the Order Paper were down to be moved en bloc but I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for her courtesy in advising me in advance that she wished to speak to one of them. I will therefore move the Motions separately. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I will not delay the House for long but I have to question the point of this SI. It seems to try to ensure that we have the same safety regulations for passenger ships and many other things as we had before Brexit, this being a post-Brexit SI. But I do not think that we have the same regulations at the moment, because I happened to go on a passenger ship in Brittany last summer which looked exactly like what I thought would be a nice idea for a ship to go to the Isles of Scilly. I had a long chat with the skipper and got hold of all his certificates and the regulations on the board. I asked him, “Can you operate across the English Channel and to Scilly, in all weathers and at all times of day?” He said, “Yes—when do you want me to start?”
I thought this idea would be interesting, so I sent that information to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency but the answer that I got back said, “We do not recognise French legislation”. I thought that there was one common European system for ferries which could go across the English Channel, or anywhere else, to help interoperability so I was a bit distressed that this did not happen. Maybe the Minister will not be able to answer my point but I would be glad to have some response from her, perhaps in writing.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Newhaven coastal communities team, in which capacity I have spent some time going through port-related regulations. I have a general question about all four of these statutory instruments. They are to come into play if there is no deal. As that is the only course against which there is a parliamentary majority, is it really a good use of our parliamentary time to scrutinise these instruments?
Baroness Sugg
I thank noble Lords for those questions. This first piece of secondary legislation is about the recognised organisations, which play a vital role in ensuring that ships are built and maintained so that they operate in compliance with standards for safety and to prevent pollution. The MCA delegates about 85% of its work to recognised organisations. These regulations will simply make changes to adapt an EU system for approving, monitoring and assessing recognised organisations in the UK system. I am afraid I will have to take the Scilly Isles point back to the department and look into that, and will come back to the noble Lord on it.
This is a no-deal SI. During an implementation period, the SI would not be needed because the withdrawal agreement will provide that EU law should continue to have the same effect. I fundamentally believe that it is important that as a responsible Government we continue to prepare for no deal. The long programme of statutory instruments is all about ensuring that we have a functioning statute book should we leave with no deal on 29 March. As long as that remains a possibility, we will need to continue the scrutiny of these SIs.
Ship and Port Security (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 21 November 2018 be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 23 January.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I have a very quick question on this one, to do with air pollution and the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) Regulations 2008. This basically moves the responsibility for ensuring minimum air pollution from ships from the European Economic Area to the United Kingdom. I do not want to go into any detail at all, except to say that I hope the Minister can confirm the statement that has been made many times before by Ministers in this House—that when we leave there will be no reduction in environmental standards. I am particularly interested in:
“In Schedule 2 (engines excluded from regulation 21) … before ‘the European Economic Area’ insert ‘the United Kingdom or’”.
I hope the Minister can confirm that there will be no reduction in environmental standards from this change.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friend. Newhaven, like many others of our working ports, is also a residential town. People live very close to the port area, so environmental protection from the emissions from ships is extremely important.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
Can the Minister confirm if this is one of the statutory instruments required only in a no-deal scenario?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
Again, I thank noble Lords for those questions. These regulations will make appropriate amendments to the existing ship and port security legislation, and will ensure that the current regime remains operable following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. I confirm that there will be no reduction in environmental standards, and that this SI is needed only in the event of no deal.
Merchant Shipping and Other Transport (Environmental Protection) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 27 November 2018 be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 23 January.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, exactly the same points apply about the protection of citizens.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
Can I also ask in relation to this one if this is required only in the event of no deal?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, I confirm that this is another SI that is required only in a no-deal scenario. It makes changes to legislation on controlling sulphur dioxide emissions from ships, substances used to prevent the fouling of ships’ hulls, and transport and works legislation in relation to environmental impact assessment. It corrects deficiencies that would mean that environmental legislation did not work as intended. It is designed to ensure that we continue to maintain our high environmental standards.
Ship Recycling (Facilities and Requirements for Hazardous Materials on Ships) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 December 2018 be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 23 January.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I seek an assurance from the Minister. I promised her after our discussion in the Moses Room that I would look at Hansard carefully to see what she had said in response to my questions. I regret that she did not address my concerns. Although the letter that I received this morning attempted to do so, it basically conflicts with the Explanatory Memorandum.
Again, this is a no-deal SI. I keep hoping that the House of Commons will rescue us from this dystopian nightmare, but it looks again today as if it might not do it, so I accept that we have to prepare for this and I do not seek to interrupt that process. Unlike the three SIs that we have just approved, this SI involves new policy. As your Lordships will be aware, ship recycling is a very dangerous process. If done without high levels of safeguard, it can be dangerous to both the environment and the individuals involved in it.
To tackle this, EU regulations have created a list of approved facilities for ship recycling, not all of which are in the EU—the Minister told us last week that some facilities are in Turkey and the USA. The approval process for those facilities involves inspection, which is complex and expensive, particularly for those outside the EU.
Like the other no-deal SIs, this one removes references to the EU and gives substitute powers to the Secretary of State. However, it goes further. Paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum makes it clear that the UK list would initially include all facilities on the EU list. However, it also,
“establishes a new procedure allowing ship recycling facilities worldwide to apply for inclusion onto the new UK approved list”.
Given that there are some very dubious practices in ship recycling in some parts of the world and that it would be very costly for us as an individual country acting alone to inspect and constantly police standards in a yard on the other side of the world, I regard this as a worrying new policy.
I can see that the policy is in the buccaneering spirit of the Brexiteers—“We can do this more cheaply. There are easier ways of doing this. Cut some costs”—but it could mean a dangerous lapse in standards and controls. The Minister assured me this morning that it would not lead to a lapse in standards, so my purpose in speaking is to invite her to reassure us on the Floor of the House that the Government are not looking to expand their list in the way in which the Explanatory Memorandum states, and will take a precautionary approach so as to maintain the highest environmental standards.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I very much support the noble Baroness’s comments on this SI. It is designed to put some regulation around the breaking up of ships. As we all know—and as the noble Baroness said—it is a difficult and possibly polluting process. There was a time, a few years ago, when a shipyard in the UK was breaking up ships that had been towed across from the United States because they were not allowed to be broken up there. I have always thought that our environmental regulations were supposed to be better than theirs. They certainly were not then. Why they were not towed to India or Bangladesh, heaven only knows, because it is even worse there.
I share the noble Baroness’s worry that there may be one common list at the moment, but it is very easy for UK commercial interests to put pressure on the Government here to enable UK shipbreakers’ yards to compete with those on the continent by lowering standards. The paragraph in the Explanatory Memorandum that the noble Baroness quoted also says:
“To allow UK flagged ships the widest choice and to minimise administrative burdens on ship recycling facilities, our policy is to align the UK list with the European list as far as practicable”.
This is the dangerous bit. When the Minister responds, I hope she will confirm that there will be no reduction in any environmental or other standards, compared with Europe’s, if and when we leave.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, this is yet another of these statutory instruments. I share the exasperation of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. It is almost as if a collective madness has overtaken this Parliament. We are spending hours and hours on this, using up the time of brilliant officials and keeping excellent Ministers working. While we are discussing these statutory instruments, some of our colleagues in Grand Committee are discussing other statutory instruments relating to legal issues. All of these will be required only in the event of no deal—which, apparently, none of us wants and which we are trying to get off the agenda.
I read the contribution from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, to the debate yesterday, and how wise it was. If only we would do what the noble and learned Lord suggested and take some decisive action. For goodness’ sake, have we become collectively enthralled and caught up in this interminable process?
We are told that even after today’s votes this may not be the end of it. On 13 February—the day before St Valentine’s Day, of all choices—we will have yet another opportunity. The Prime Minister is unbelievably adamant and stubborn. Despite the fact that leader after leader in Ireland and everywhere in Europe is saying, “No, this agreement that has been discussed and debated over the last two years, and which has been agreed, is legally binding and cannot be changed; it is a legal agreement”, she wants to say, “Oh, no, no, no, I am going to try yet again”.
Where are we? What use is this Parliament? What use is this House if we cannot do something to stop it? We should be doing something. We had a third debate yesterday. It was like Groundhog Day, going through the same arguments again and again. With no disrespect, I have heard the wonderful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on half a dozen occasions now, with little bits added here and there. I do not pick him out for any particular reason. The same applies to almost everyone who has spoken in all three debates. It really is outrageous that we are put through this.
What else could the Minister and her excellent officials in the Department for Transport be doing? We heard earlier from my noble friend Lord Snape about the importance of HS2. These things all need to be pushed forward and considered. We are having problems on the railways, such as with Northern rail. The Secretary of State seems to have constant problems in relation to transport. If he had more time, instead of being preoccupied with Brexit, he might just be able to cope with some of them—maybe—and the officials might be able to deal with them. Why? This really is outrageous. Admittedly, this is not all to do with this particular statutory instrument, but I feel a lot better having said it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Lord feels a lot better for having got that out of his system. I absolutely agree with him about the excellence of the civil servants in my department—and across Whitehall—who are working incredibly hard to ensure that these statutory instruments are correct and that they are in place so that we have a functioning statute book in the event of no deal. I share the noble Lord’s desire to reach agreement on the withdrawal arrangements. I am sure that we will be watching the other place with close interest today and on Valentine’s Day. I should probably leave it there.
This SI will ensure that the legal framework for ship recycling remains legally operable when the UK leaves the EU. It will make amendments to the EU ship recycling regulation and three Commission implementing decisions. I hope that I will be able to provide the noble Baroness and the noble Lord with assurance on our standards. All UK ship-recycling facilities with a valid permit are eligible to be included in a new UK list. That list will also include all the non-UK ship-recycling facilities on the European list when we exit the EU. We expect those two lists to remain closely aligned with each other. In effect, any changes to the European list after we leave the EU will almost certainly be mirrored on the UK list. As a consequence—
Lord Berkeley
Does the list include places such as Bangladesh, India and other places outside the EU or the UK? They are major centres for ship recycling and I am sure that many noble Lords will have seen the revolting conditions that people have to work in to cut up old ships on the beaches.
Baroness Sugg
It does include some non-EU countries. I am afraid I cannot find the list in my files, but I will write to the noble Lord to confirm which countries are on it. The EU has very high standards of recycling and we will continue to match them after we leave.
The Secretary of State reserves the right to change the list. The power to add new facilities to it is included so that it does not become static. If we did not include this power, it would not be possible without primary legislation to add ship-recycling facilities to the UK list and to mirror what the EU does on its list. Over time, that could reduce the choices that UK ships have, compared with their EU counterparts. Because we will be retaining the standards and criteria for approving ship-recycling facilities used under the current EU regulation, the UK and EU lists will continue to be compiled to the same high standards. The powers in this instrument cannot be used to lower the standards of ship recycling.
If the EU changes its criteria, we will of course consider revising ours along similar lines. We do not think that this will happen for a few years, until the ship recycling regulation—which is fairly new—beds down. The Commission is committed to reviewing the EU regulation 18 months before the Hong Kong convention comes into force. That could lead to amendments to the criteria for ship-recycling facilities on the European list to align it more closely with that convention. If this happens, we will liaise closely with the EU, as our two regimes are virtually identical. Again, any change to those criteria would need to be done through regulation.
The EU regime is one of the strictest in the world. We are committed to maintaining those high standards, regardless of our membership of the European Union. I am happy to confirm that there are no—
Baroness Randerson
I appreciate the Minister’s attempts to reassure us. I ask her to go back and look at paragraph 7.3 yet again to see whether the Explanatory Memorandum needs to be recast, because both I and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, have quoted things from it which give a different impression of government policy. I am relieved to hear what the Minister has to say. I accept it totally, but there is a gap between what she is saying to us here today and what the Explanatory Memorandum appears to suggest. That could lead to confusion in the future.
Baroness Sugg
I have read the Explanatory Memorandum a number of times. I do not think it is contradictory, but I acknowledge that perhaps further reassurance could go into it. I will certainly follow up in writing and place copies in the Libraries of both Houses to provide that reassurance.
No facilities on the UK list are in Bangladesh, India or Pakistan, but I will send the noble Lord the full list.
As I was saying, the EU regime is currently one of the strictest in the world. It has incredibly high standards, and we are committed to maintaining them regardless of our membership of the EU.
Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 29th January 2019
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill [HL] 2017-19 View all Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill [HL] 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 143-R-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF) - (25 Jan 2019)
Lord Bates
“(1A) In subsection (1)(b) “adjustments”—(a) in relation to legislation mentioned in subsection (2)(a), (b), (c), (d) or (f), means provision to mitigate or remedy deficiencies in the legislation arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU, and(b) in relation to legislation mentioned in subsection (2)(e) or (g), means changes to reflect, or facilitate the transition to, the United Kingdom’s new position outside the EU, but does not include changes that result in provision whose effect is different in a major way from that of the legislation.”
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their engagement in this Bill not just in Committee on 8 January, when we had an excellent session looking at the Bill to see how it could be strengthened, but also when we followed that up in various interactions with Peers in the gap after that. There was a meeting on 22 January in which we shared some of the ideas at that point, and that conversation has continued. I place on record our gratitude particularly to the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Tunnicliffe, but also to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles and Lady Kramer, and to my noble friends Lord Hodgson and Lord Leigh for their interaction. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for his impromptu legal advice in Committee.
Amendment 1 has been grouped with an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the convention is that I cannot pre-empt what he will say. I will listen to him very carefully, and will simply move my amendment at this stage and address the concerns and issues raised in the noble Lord’s amendment at the end.
Amendment 1 is designed to perform two functions. The first change, as set out in the proposed new subsection (1A)(a), is in response to a recommendation by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—I again place on record my thanks and appreciation to it for its scrutiny, published in the 42nd report of that committee, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. In its report, the committee noted that, for those files listed in the Schedule which are still in negotiation, the justification for the power to adjust is that it is not now possible to know what the final form of that legislation will be. However, the DPRRC noted that the same justification could not be used for files already agreed, and it recommended that the power to adjust be limited only to the files in the Schedule to the Bill. I can now say that the Government are able to implement the DPRRC’s recommendation. These files have been settled while the UK has been an EU member and has been around the negotiating table at all stages with a full voice. We accept the principle that this is settled law that has received UK sign-off and that, as such, an ability to fix deficiencies is more appropriate than one to make policy adjustments.
The proposed new subsection (1A)(a) therefore ensures that, for the first category, the Treasury will have no ability to make policy adjustments when these files are domesticated. These files are: the prospectus regulation; articles 6 and 7 of the central securities depositories regulation; article 4(1) of the securities financing transactions regulation; and articles 37 and 38(2) of the markets in financial instruments regulation. Instead, the Treasury will only be able to fix deficiencies in the manner of the current onshoring process under the established terms set out in the EU withdrawal Act.
Lord Davies of Oldham
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is to be congratulated on the way in which he has handled this Bill. In Committee, we raised several significant issues and pressed him to consider our arguments carefully. He has certainly done that and has brought back to the House Amendment 1, a position with which we are in agreement.
We are mindful of the background that all these efforts are being conducted against. This very afternoon, the House of Commons is struggling to achieve a position, and the Prime Minister hopes to achieve a position in which this Bill will be utterly redundant because we will have left the European Community with an agreement. But it is obviously right that, in an area of such importance to our economy as the services industry, we have legislation in place that takes account of the extremely serious situation that would arise if we left the European Community without a deal.
The Bill would, however, play its part in fulfilling the regulatory machinery necessary for the services industry, but without doubt additional work would have to be done at that stage. Given that we have done a great deal to help create European law in this area, it would be remiss if we left the services industry without effective regulation and less equipped than it was while we were part of the European Union, if in fact we leave without a deal.
As he would expect, I join the Minister in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, who has played a significant part in examining the Bill and producing insights into what could be done, upon which the Minister has been able to build quite successfully. I also pay tribute the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. He has stayed involved with the Bill and has offered the best possible advice on a number of occasions. His persistence and insights on these issues have been invaluable, together with those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Bowles, both of whom have played a significant part in these discussions.
We are grateful to the Minister for the way he has handled this Bill. He appreciated the anxieties that we articulated as best we could both at Second Reading and in Committee. He has met the most crucial point of all: that the Government were initially seeking powers for the Treasury that could not be justified. Subsequently, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee came to share that position, as it made fairly clear in a detailed submission to the House. That obviously informed our contribution to the debate. However, the Minister has gone a considerable way to allaying the anxieties that we have expressed about the Bill and I am therefore very much in favour of his amendment.
I turn to Amendment 2, to which I am meant primarily to speak. I have only a short comment because there is not a great deal at issue. It again gives me the opportunity to appreciate the efforts of the Minister. We had a useful meeting with him that ironed out all but the narrowest of differences. There is not much in the difference between “significant” and “major” but I am strengthened by some help from the other place. Apparently, in her speech to the House of Commons this afternoon, the Prime Minister said that she would return to Brussels to seek a significant change to the Brexit withdrawal agreement. She did not use the word “major” but “significant”, a word that we are seeking to enjoin the Minister to appreciate. However, I will not press that rather minute point.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, we welcome all the government amendments to the Bill. We particularly welcome Amendment 1, which greatly improves the Bill’s structure and clarity. As we pointed out in Committee, it was not helpful to try to deal with two different categories of legislation via one mechanism. Amendment 1 puts that right.
Proposed new subsection (lA)(a) deals with settled EU legislation now in force in the same way in which Section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act does and narrowly restricts the adjustments that can be made. Proposed new subsection (lA)(b) deals with legislation not yet in force in the EU but under current discussion—legislation that is in flight. Here the adjustments are less constrained. I note the Minister’s comment that the legislation contained in subsection l(2)(e) dealing with the prospectus regulation may come into force before Third Reading and could therefore be moved at that stage into the proposed new subsection (lA)(a), leaving only the in-flight legislation in the schedule to be covered by proposed new subsection (lA)(b).
In their amendment, the Government have significantly tightened the meaning of the previously rather controversial word “adjustments”, as it applies to the in-flight legislation in the schedule. Their amendment sets down what in this context adjustments may and may not do. When it comes to what adjustments may do, the new wording has it right. The changes are,
“to reflect, or facilitate the transition to, the United Kingdom’s new position outside the EU”.
I think this is close enough to the restrictions in Section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. When it comes to what adjustments may not do, the new text states that they may,
“not include changes that result in a provision whose effect is different in a major way from that of the legislation”.
I am pleased that this is a much tighter restriction than that contained in the original text but I have some concerns about the use of “major”, which is why I have added my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, which proposes the word significant in place of major. In the ordinary use of those words, “significant” imposes more constraint than does “major”. It seems to be entirely possible for some difference in effect to be significant without in itself being major. An OED definition of “significant” is:
“Sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy”,
and seems to support this view. Unfortunately the OED also defines “major” as “important, serious or significant”.
The real issue is how the word “major” will be interpreted in practice by the Treasury, and probing that is the purpose of Amendment 2. What will it mean when applied in this context? In particular, what tests will the Treasury apply to the differences contemplated in proposed new Section (1A)(b) of the Government’s amendment to determine whether they are major? I would be very grateful if the Minister could set out explicitly what those tests will be.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
I shall speak briefly in support of the Government and the clause as drafted, primarily because of the points just made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. When I went to the Oxford English Dictionary to check, I got the results he has just described, but it seems to me that the Government’s choice of word is better than the one now being advanced by the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Davies. I urge my noble friend to be of good courage and stick with it.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for a good set of amendments that respond across the piece to concerns that were raised in Committee. I shall probe a little further on what can and cannot be done for the purpose of clarification.
Clause 1(1) states that this is about converting,
“the provisions, or any of the provisions, of any specified EU financial services legislation”.
So the option is still there not to convert it or to convert only parts of it. At an earlier stage, I suggested that that could be adapted. I noticed that when the Minister spoke, he used the word “files” as if the files were all transposed at once, but we must recognise that some things may not be transposed. I believe that is the intention. Here, I should give my usual reminder to the House of my interests as set out in the register, in particular as a director of the London Stock Exchange. In the first set of EU legislation—that which is completed but not yet active—you could still omit some or all of it and do an EU-type adaptation, but you could not adapt it if you chose to convert it. It has got to be relatively straightforward.
For the not yet completed, there is greater flexibility. I have a few little tests of my own to see whether this would be allowed. First, what if you wanted to keep a current provision instead of having a new one? That is quite simple: you probably just leave it out and do not convert it, which falls within what is allowed. If you want to reflect more closely an international standard—let us say that the EU has embellished it in some way—could you do that? I think you probably could because you are still going back to the originating international standard, but it would be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say about that. What if you want to reflect more closely UK market data because it has been calibrated on EU data, by then absent us? I expect most of that happens in technical standards, but it would be interesting to have the Minister’s view on whether the Government could make such a change. I think it would be allowable.
What about aligning with alternative provisions made in other major international markets? That would be departing from alignment with the EU into alignment with somewhere else. Let us say that you wanted to align tick sizes with Hong Kong or the US, rather than staying with the EU regime. Would that be allowed? I think that is quite a marginal issue. The Minister does not have to use that particular example, but it would be interesting to know where that would lie in the tests. If you want to avoid disrupting the functioning of UK markets—the sort of comment you often hear—you are probably left with the option of not converting that element.
My final test is, what happens about proportionality for SMEs and SME markets? I am not sure how that would work out: if the legislation has not included proportionality, is it reasonable and within scope to put some proportionality in? That measure is probably relatively popular from a UK perspective, so it would be nice to know whether that could be covered.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I too refer to my declaration of interest in the Members’ register, which has not changed since I last spoke. Despite my interest, I confess that I had some difficulty understanding all of subsection (1A)(b) of the proposed new section. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, read out the easy bit. The difficult bit is the words,
“but does not include changes that result in provision whose effect is different in a major way from that of the legislation”.
I think I understand the intent, but I am not sure that the words are exactly as another draftsman might have chosen to put it.
I am today looking for an assurance from the Minister that the adjustments he proposes will allow the Government the flexibility needed: in particular, if there is a restriction on changes that might be significant or major, that these will not bite where change really is needed if we leave the EU with no deal. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, has said, this legislation will come into play only if we have left without a deal—which nobody in this House seeks as a primary option—and in those unfortunate circumstances, we might need to be as flexible as possible.
By way of example, in respect of article 2(e) of the prospectus regulation, the alleviations granted by the EU were a compromise designed to suit all member states’ markets, all of which are very much smaller than the UK’s. The Government should adjust these to make them proportionate to the scale of the relevant UK markets. For example, the threshold below which public offers—an area I am particularly interested in—are exempt from the requirement to publish a prospectus, which is a huge cost, has been set at €8 million. By the way, initially it was agreed to be €2 million, then it went up to €5 million without any issues and then it became €8 million. For the UK market alone, a more appropriate level might be, say, £20 million.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, referred to the definition of SME growth markets, which is a very important term. The definition was of course a compromise designed to suit all member states’ markets, and to avoid in some instances classifying members’ entire national stock market as an SME growth market, which would be a bit unfortunate. Perhaps the Government want to adjust this to make it proportionate to the scale of the relevant UK markets, possibly increasing the maximum market capitalisation from €200 million to £500 million.
Outside of article 2(e), I have mentioned at earlier stages of the Bill some issues relating to CSDR settlement discipline which are perhaps inappropriate and, in some cases, highly damaging to the unique, quote-driven liquidity provision of the UK’s SME market. I hope that I have satisfied the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that short selling in those markets is not damaging or dangerous to the UK economy. This would not apply to EU-based dealers, thus putting UK market makers at a competitive disadvantage because it would apply to them.
I hope the Minister can assure me that the Government will retain the power to have the flexibility needed to allow the UK to set its own rules for our financial services market, which is very different from the EU’s. I appreciate that this provision applies only in respect of in-flight rules but it sets the tone, and hereon in we will want to create our own bespoke laws, which may well diverge from the EU’s but will be more appropriate for our market. Rather than just hanging around hoping for some small alleviations in the circumstances of a no-deal Brexit, we really will need to act in a way that suits us in these areas.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful not to be the Minister, who has to respond to my noble friend Lady Bowles and the noble Lord, Lord Leigh. I can see that it is a challenge and I hope that if I talk for a few minutes, it will give the Box a little more time to get notes to him.
I think that the House knows that my underlying question has always been how we draw the line so that we know when it is appropriate for change to be carried through by an SI and when it should come to this House as primary legislation, particularly in this field. What happened in the weeks and months immediately following a no-deal exit would shape whether we were in a position to maintain access to the EU market for our most significant industry—the services sector—and indeed for the economy as a whole. I think that in the changes he has made the Minister has got us to a better place and to a much clearer understanding of the Government’s intent. If he wanted to split the difference, he could say “major or significant” and deal with the problems all in one go.
I want to say how much I appreciate the listening that the Minister did and how much we appreciate the listening, thought and effort that his officials put into responding to the queries and issues that we raised. It gives me the feeling that we in this House, including the Government, are all essentially on the same page in understanding the significance of the period that would follow no deal and how carefully and sensibly we would have to approach regulation in the financial services area because of the potential knock-on impacts and unintended consequences, which could be extraordinarily severe.
With that sense that the Minister understands when an issue should be brought to the House because it is a fundamental change of policy and critical to an underlying key sector of the economy, and when it is an issue that can rightly be dealt with under a statutory instrument, I can say that I am very happy with the changes that have been offered and, again, I thank the Minister for them.
Lord Bates
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for moving his amendment and giving us the opportunity to comment. I very much concur with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, about how the officials have engaged in this process. I do not know whether it is appropriate to refer to them on the Floor of the House but I will do so anyway. I think that they too found it a very useful interaction. This Bill is beginning its journey through the legislative process in your Lordships’ House, and the ability to shape and craft it so that it will have been improved by the time it leaves this House will make the job of the other place, which has quite a lot on its plate at the moment, a little easier.
I also agree with the tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for the work being done by officials and, indeed, by UK Members of the European Parliament and the industry on shaping EU financial regulation over the years to make it effective and proportionate.
I believe that the intent behind the noble Lord’s amendment and behind the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, putting his name to it was to give the Government an opportunity to put further flesh on the bones of what is meant by “major” and “significant”. They will become the new version of “corresponding” and “similar”, which we discussed in Committee. I do not want to hark back to that debate; instead, I shall focus on these key words. I will put some remarks on the record and then turn to the point made by my noble friend Lord Leigh.
It is clearly important that we find a way of limiting this power appropriately, and I am very grateful for the proposal in Amendment 2, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. However, the noble Lord’s amendment could have the unfortunate and unintentional effect of rendering the power and therefore much of the Bill almost unworkable. The reason the Government settled on the term “major” rather than “significant” in drafting this amendment was the greater clarity provided by the term “major”.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, the Minister’s reply puts me a little on trust in that, until I read Hansard tomorrow, I am not too sure I will be able to follow the detail with sufficient accuracy. I was somewhat appalled as I was thrust back to my old tutorial days as a rather vulgar split infinitive came right in the middle of one of the denser parts of the Minister’s text. But I know that he has set out to meet the challenges that we have put in our questions to him, so I will more than give him the benefit of the doubt—I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Bates
(a) ”
Lord Bates
My Lords, I again thank noble Lords for their contributions and in particular my noble friend Lord Hodgson. Our debate on the previous grouping focused on what limitations would apply to the power under this Bill. This grouping looks at the complementary subject of reporting to ensure that the Government are as transparent as possible in the exercise of the power. The Bill, as introduced, placed a duty on the Government to publish a report annually on their exercise of the power. It was clear in Committee, however, that there was some room for improvement. I am again grateful and indebted to noble Lords from across the House for their work in Committee and in the period between Committee and Report.
I turn to Amendments 3, 4 and 5. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, proposed that, where adjustments or omissions are needed when implementing the files, the Government should publish a report beforehand setting this out in detail to make sure that Parliament has sight of this, and can consider the merits of the proposals. Given the exceptional nature of the Bill and the powers being sought, it can only be right that the Government are clear with Parliament and the industry about how they intend to implement these files. The Government therefore propose introducing a new requirement, as set out in Amendments 3 and 4. These would ensure that, before laying any statutory instruments before Parliament under the affirmative procedure, the Government must first publish a document detailing the proposed text of the regulation with an accompanying report. The report would have to outline what, if anything, has been omitted from the original EU legislation, where there had been any adjustments to the original EU legislation, and provide justification for these adjustments.
As I noted in Committee, the three-month requirement could risk being too long. The essence of this Bill is the speed with which it will allow the UK to keep its regulation up to date and responsive to the uncertainty of a no-deal scenario. The amendment therefore proposes a one-month deadline. However, the Government will of course commit to publishing these documents earlier where possible.
On Amendment 5, in Committee my noble friend Lord Hodgson suggested a more regular reporting cycle than the yearly proposal in the Bill as introduced, and that these reports should set out the Government’s reasoning for why any adjustments might have been necessary. I again reassure noble Lords that it was always the Government’s intention to set out such a justification. This underpins the spirit behind the proposed new subsections (8) and (9) in Amendment 5. This requires the introduction of a more regular requirement for the Treasury to report—now every six months. It requires the Government to specify both how the power has been exercised over the previous six-month period and how they intend to exercise it over the coming six-month period.
This change has the further benefit of clearing up an inconsistency helpfully highlighted by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its 42nd report. Previously, the reporting deadlines were set out on calendar dates, whereas the power was to be commenced with reference to “exit day” as defined in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. This amendment now tidies up the drafting to ensure that the reporting periods are set with reference to the commencement of the power itself. I again convey my thanks to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
Finally, proposed new subsection (9A) in Amendment 5 responds to the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, in Committee. Here we propose to introduce the same requirement for the financial regulators—the Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority—to report on their exercise of any powers sub-delegated to them through the Bill. This follows the model established in the EU withdrawal Act. We agree that it is right that, as they will be implementing much of the legislation contained in this Bill, Parliament and the public should be kept informed of how their functions are being discharged.
I hope these amendments demonstrate the extent to which we believe it is vital that Parliament can properly assess and consider legislation taken forward under the Bill. These amendments on reporting, alongside clearer limitations of the power itself, substantially improve the safeguards that apply to the Bill. I hope these will provide the reassurances that I know the Committee sought.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
My Lords, I thank the Minister for listening to everything said in Committee. There really is little else to say other than that he has taken on board three of my amendments. I am very pleased to see them there. I accept that he has cut down the timescale in the pre-legislative report, if I can call it that, to one month from three months because it might be necessary to do things more rapidly.
If I can pick out a theme from the several speeches I made before, it is that Parliament should not be surprised by what the Government intend to do and do. This suite of amendments, including the more frequent reporting suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, makes it very clear: we are told before and afterwards. In fact, we might be told before twice by the two reports—the generic one, if I might put it that way, and the precise one. We will also know where things are so that the diligent individual, possibly when dealing with things in the Moses Room in Grand Committee, will not have to search around wondering where things have or have not gone.
I thank the Minister. He has served me and us very well in this.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I add my thanks to my noble friend and his officials for Amendment 5, which in large measure answers the points I tried to raise in Committee. I am extremely grateful to him and to the Government.
An epochal event such as Brexit will obviously require a certain degree of statutory flexibility. That is why I support the principle of the Bill, but that does not mean that the powers under it should be exercised below the radar. I am therefore extremely grateful to my noble friend for having set the reporting periods, when he made it clear that it is not just a question of reporting: it is a question of why it is being used, as well as that it has been used. That is important to maintain confidence.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, with that provocation I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that perhaps we should look at the quality of enforcement. I would far rather that we had too many warning signs, but captured a large part of the wrongdoing, than missed major wrongdoing because there were so many options where people could avoid early warning signs. I suspect we have an enforcement problem, and often in this House we have heard that echoed. It sits entirely outside what we are dealing with today. For goodness’ sake, let us be very wary of the seductive argument that where we fail to enforce we should not even investigate.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendments 3, 4 and 5. They are the product of ideas from all parts of the House: from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and particularly from Lib Dem Members. Amendment 4 strikes me as a very important innovation. Other parts of the Administration may want to ponder what should be done here, because while it will all be down to the Government how they use it, it creates a mechanism by which we get will close to being able to amend an SI. Clearly, no great measures are going to fall because we have no great power to influence them and we all know that we are not going to vote on such SIs.
However, to be able to discuss an SI with the Government—obviously not on the Floor of the House but perhaps by approaching Ministers on particular issues—before it is laid would be an important step forward. Proposed new paragraph (b)(ii) and (iii), inserted by Amendment 4, is also important for making how such an SI is generated much more structured. I hope this will give real transparency to SIs, which can at times be very complex. I end by thanking the Minister for his efforts on the Bill and almost by celebrating, for want of a better term, the extent to which we have been able to come to consensus.
Lord Bates
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for his last intervention. In effect, I think he was saying that in the way we have been working together we have perhaps somehow pioneered a new way of approaching financial secondary legislation. I am pleased that he feels that.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hodgson for his support for the amendments. He was tempting the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, to rehearse the vigorous and full debate which took place in Committee on these provisions. Perhaps I may step out of the middle simply to reiterate that the Bill is not the Government’s proposed long-term solution for all financial services legislation. The Government will take forward their proposals for a sustainable, long-term model in due course, when there will be lots of opportunities to discuss the important issues which have been raised.
Lord Bates
(b) that draft was laid more than 1 month after the Treasury published a document (which may be one published before the passing of this Act)—(i) setting out what is proposed (subject to any revisions prior to laying for approval) as the text of the regulations,(ii) detailing which provisions (if any) of the particular EU Directive, or EU Regulation, would not be covered by the regulations, and(iii) detailing any adjustments that would be made by the regulations in reliance on subsection (1)(b) and giving the reasons for considering those adjustments appropriate.”
“(8) For the purposes of subsection (9)—(a) there are 4 reporting periods,(b) the first begins with the passing of this Act and ends 6 months after exit day, and(c) each subsequent reporting period is the 6 months beginning with the end of the previous reporting period.(9) No later than 1 month after the end of each reporting period, the Treasury must prepare and publish a report—(a) on the exercise of their powers under subsection (1), or by virtue of subsection (4), in the reporting period,(b) on their proposals for exercise of the powers in any future reporting periods, and(c) tabulating, in relation to regulations made under subsection (1) in the reporting period— (i) the provisions of specified EU financial services legislation to which the regulations relate, and(ii) any adjustments made by the regulations in reliance on subsection (1)(b) and the reasons for considering those adjustments appropriate.(9A) Paragraph 32 of Schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (annual reports on exercise of sub-delegated powers) applies also in relation to exercise of any rule-making power given to the Bank of England, or the Prudential Regulation Authority or the Financial Conduct Authority, by regulations under this section.”
Lord Bates
“14A The European Commission’s proposal of 24 May 2018 for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment.14B The European Commission’s proposal of 24 May 2018 for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on disclosures relating to sustainable investments and sustainability risks and amending Directive (EU) 2016/2341.”
Lord Bates
My Lords, I again thank noble Lords for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, made a contribution in Committee in which he expressed concern about the omission of some files from the Schedule and Clause 1. At Second Reading and in Committee the omission of two sustainable finance files, which complete the EU’s sustainable finance package, was raised. I am pleased to confirm to the noble Lord and the House in general, and to the sustainable finance industry, that the Government are happy to add these two files to the Schedule via this amendment. I thank him for pointing that out and I beg to move.
Teacher Recruitment and Retention Strategy
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat as a Statement the Answer given yesterday in the other place in response to an Urgent Question on the Government’s teacher recruitment and retention strategy. The Statement is as follows:
“Last year, we recruited over 34,500 trainee teachers into the profession—over 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 have launched the teacher recruitment and retention strategy, outlining our priorities ahead of the spending review. First, we are creating the right climate for head teachers to establish the right cultures in their schools. Secondly, we are transforming the support for early-career teachers. Thirdly, we are building a career offer 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, head teachers, 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 a 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 early-career framework delivery in full. 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 are going to create the right climate for head teachers to establish supportive cultures in their schools, where 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 government and the profession about how best to deliver on the promise of this strategy”.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, and welcome much of the strategy, as well as the fact that the teaching unions were fully involved in formulating it. It was certainly a long time in the making. The Government published their response to the Workload Challenge consultation four years ago next month, and the Secretary of State promised this strategy 10 months ago.
With official figures showing that teachers leave the profession at the same rate as they enter it—and with secondary school rolls due to rise by 15% in the next six years—we welcome the clarification from the Schools Minister yesterday that the £130 million annually pledged to support the strategy is indeed new money, but we shall watch closely to ensure that that commitment is delivered.
I have two questions for the Minister on issues with which I am sure he will be familiar, as they relate to academies. First, will the requirement in the early-career framework to give second-year newly qualified teachers time off-timetable be extended to every school, including academies? Secondly, the plans for a teaching school review are vague, but it seems the Government want to hand their responsibilities over to multi-academy trusts. Can the Minister say how schools that are not part of a MAT will be able to participate in these collaborative partnerships?
Finally, there is the elephant in the room in this whole debate: teachers’ mental health, which is in crisis, with studies showing that 40% of teachers are on medication. You cannot have a meaningful policy on retention and recruitment—I have advisedly reversed the order because in many ways retention is more important—without properly addressing mental health issues encountered by teachers. The Statement makes passing reference to fully funded mental health training, but what does that mean? Does it refer to teachers’ own mental health or that of their pupils? Even that brief reference relates only to early-career teachers. What do the Government have to say about support for those whose careers have developed further than that, and where is the issue of mental health in the strategy itself? I have been unable to locate it where it most sensibly should have been placed: in Chapter 3 or, failing that, Chapter 2—but no. It cannot be assumed that workload is the sole contributing factor. Making assumptions is always dangerous, and failure even to acknowledge mental health is more dangerous still, not just for the valued professionals who are our teachers but for the children to whom we entrust them.
I accept that the Minister may be unable to respond to all these issues, but we believe they are important and I ask that he writes to me to set out the Government’s position, if that is more convenient.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I thank the noble Lord for his questions. Dealing with the ones that I can address straight away, I reassure him that academies will be included in the early-career framework. This is a strategy for the entire state-funded system.
Regarding the question on teaching schools, we are reviewing this at the moment and have not fully completed our thinking. One issue of concern to us is that there are too many teaching schools that between them are not receiving enough money to meaningfully engage with the surrounding areas that they are being asked to help. We are looking to rationalise that. We hope that good multi-academy trusts will play a role in that, but we are certainly not seeking to exclude good schools.
I agree with the noble Lord that retention is more important than recruitment, because there is no point pouring people into a bucket with a hole at the bottom of it. We have given a lot of consideration to how we improve retention. A big problem is the workload and how it is being imposed, particularly on young teachers. We are aware from the figures for those leaving the profession that the percentage of younger, newly qualified teachers leaving the profession is one of the highest categories. We are working on that. There are several areas of concern; for example, the pernicious expectation that young teachers should be responsible for planning their own lessons, when we want to encourage schools to provide much more support.
I shall write separately to the noble Lord to address his concerns on mental health.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his Statement, in which he gave the context and rationale for the teacher recruitment and retention strategy that was published yesterday. I am delighted that the Government have worked with the co-signatories listed on the inside cover. The tone of the strategy is very positive.
I do not agree however, that it is a full national strategy, as there is more work to be done. How are middle leaders to be developed, and do those who manage MATs need knowledge and perhaps experience of how schools work? While the partnerships in the document reflect a new beginning for schools, what role do the Government see for local authorities, which, after all, are the largest employers of teachers? What a pity they were not involved in the formation of the strategy.
The strategy starts by stating that,
“there are no great schools without great teachers”.
Hear, hear.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, the focus is on early-career teaching at this stage. We have outlined four key areas. One is funding, which will allow teachers in their second year to reduce their timetable by 5%. We are encouraging a reduction in teacher workload, which I covered a moment ago, and a more diverse range of options for career progression, which will help teachers further along in their career. We want to continue to make sure that teaching is considered a great career for those coming into it. We launched an initiative last year called Discover Teaching. Some 13,000 potential recruits have been through that system.
We need to see how the first phase of this programme evolves. We are rolling out some pilot areas in September next year: Bradford, the north-east and one other area which I shall find in my notes in a moment. We will learn from our experience of how those work before we implement the programme across the country.
Lord Pickles (Con)
I have always been quite surprised at the lack of support for new people entering the teaching profession, compared with other professions. My noble friend has spoken about some of the burdens. Can he talk a little about the positive help that the new strategy will give to newly qualified teachers in the first couple of years?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
Yes, as I mentioned a moment ago, newly qualified teachers in their second year will have 5% taken off their teaching timetable—that is in addition to the 10% taken off the timetable in the first year. High-quality, freely available curricular and training materials will be designed to complement the early-career framework. There will be funded early-career framework training programmes and support from a trained mentor, including funding to take into account the additional call on mentors’ time in the second year of induction.
The Lord Bishop of Ely
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his Statement and for this way forward. First, he knows that the Church of England runs many small rural schools, and recruitment and retention is always a creative challenge. Have the Government considered how the strategy is to be rural-proofed for full application across the country? Secondly, Chapter 3 talks about further leadership development. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government are going to continue to encourage bodies such as the Church of England Foundation for Educational Leadership in developing professional qualifications for middle leaders and heads of MATs?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I share the right reverend Prelate’s concerns about rural schools. We have particular funding pots within the overall formula—sparsity funding, for example—which give a typical small rural primary school an additional £135,000 a year and a small secondary school £175,000. We are committed to the various ongoing training programmes. Only this morning, I was addressing a group of some 80 people involved in professional development training and encouraging them in what they were doing. I absolutely support what the right reverend Prelate has said.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I broadly welcome the announcement. There is a lot in it that offers hope for the future. The challenge will be in implementing it. I think it is overclaimed. I do not think it is the biggest change since teaching became an all-degree profession. Indeed, there are not many individual proposals that have not done the rounds before, so it is worth learning from them. The advanced skills teacher has been redesigned under a different title.
I have two questions. I very much welcome the protected time that will be offered for new teachers. I listened to what the Minister said about the amount of money that will be put into the system. Can he confirm that it will be ring-fenced when it gets to school level? Otherwise, in times of diminishing budgets, it will not get spent on the purpose for which it was intended. Secondly, how is he going to overcome the problem of making excellent schools that are not academies part of the school-led improvement system if he is going to give a lot more power to multi-academy trusts?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I will have to write to the noble Baroness to confirm whether the money will be ring-fenced at school level. Certainly, our preference is to give autonomy to schools, but I will check on it and come back to her. Support is aimed beyond academies at all state schools. Only just over 50% of pupils are in academies today, so it is not our intention to see those still in the local authority system left behind.
Higher Education (Fee Limits for Accelerated Courses) (England) Regulations 2018
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 29 November 2018 be approved.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, during the passage of the then Higher Education and Research Bill two years ago this month, I noted that, following our call for evidence, the Government were considering how best to support accelerated degrees. During those two years, we have conducted a detailed assessment of the literature review of global accelerated degree provision, published a consultation on our proposed fee changes, evaluated the detailed and quite varied responses and published the Government’s response to the consultation late last November. I am therefore delighted to bring these regulations before you today.
The regulations should be read alongside the wider fee limits regulations, which set tuition fee limits for standard degree courses from August 2019, and which were approved by Parliament last summer. The Higher Education and Research Act 2017—known as HERA—enabled regulations to set different fee limits specifically for accelerated courses. The regulations before you today set out various fee limits in respect of accelerated degree courses starting from August 2019.
I believe we share the same fundamental aspirations for higher education in this country: it must remain autonomous; quality of provision must be safeguarded and strengthened; it must offer genuine benefits, including value for money, to students, graduates and, indeed, our wider society. These aspirations underpin the Government’s overall ambitions for diverse and flexible post-18 education, embodied in the wide range of measures set out in HERA, which were debated here in considerable depth. Those debates included the amendment enabling these very regulations, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. The Government’s ambitions are being further developed through the ongoing review of post-18 education and funding.
I want to pause a moment to set out the details of these regulations, and the impact they will have on higher education. For the first time, public universities will be able to set a higher annual fee specifically for accelerated degree courses. This will allow providers to charge up to a maximum of 1.2 times the equivalent annual fee cap for standard, non-accelerated courses which, as the House will be aware, currently comprise the vast majority of all undergraduate provision in this country. Without these regulations, accelerated degree providers can only charge for each year of accelerated tuition at the standard fee rate, regardless of the actual volume of teaching delivered in the year. For example, they can charge only 67%, or two years of fees, for delivering the same teaching modules and content that are delivered over three years with a standard degree. With these regulations, public universities will be able to secure up to 80% of the total standard degree fee income for each accelerated degree that they deliver.
It is worth noting that accelerated degree courses are already offered by a handful of public and private universities. This form of degree teaching offers clear and unique benefits to many. When surveyed by the Student Loans Company in summer 2018, accelerated degree undergraduates were emphatically positive, with 92% saying that they were glad they had chosen to study an accelerated rather than a standard degree. In their own words, students responding to the survey make it clear why they are glad. For example:
“It’s cheaper. Faster. Keeps you motivated throughout the process. Better understanding of summertime modules, due to class sizes being relatively small. Asking lecturers direct questions more often”.
“I feel like I’m not wasting time—the course still allows me time for volunteering and enjoying my hobbies, and also allows me to study—and it saves me a year”.
“It has not only meant I can get into a job quicker, but it means that the work is constantly challenging you. It is super exciting to work like that”.
“Saves money and minimises time at uni”—
says another—
“I am a mature student—a career changer—so this reduces loss of earnings”.
Finally:
“Being older, saving a year of loans and time is a big deal to me”.
Providers who offer accelerated degrees concur with these positive comments. Accelerated students are highly focused on effective study. Accelerated teaching timetables are more flexible than the standard model, with year-round opportunities for research breaks.
In spite of these benefits, and the positive testimonies of accelerated degree students themselves, current provision of accelerated degrees is tiny. In part, this limited provision simply reflects the financial challenge of delivering the content of a three-year degree over two years, meaning that the university can only receive two-thirds of the income it would be entitled to, were it to deliver the same content over the conventional three years. This is the challenge that the regulations before the House today will squarely address.
I will outline some of the wider concerns raised by respondents to our consultation process. Some of these perhaps reflect assumptions and misunderstandings which are not borne out in practice. We have, however, given them all careful consideration. First, it is suggested that accelerated courses could create an inferior class of degree, with cheaper and lower-quality teaching staff who will have no time to research or maintain their own academic development. Our response to that is that, although accelerated degree providers have said that their timetables can be challenging to devise, the provider experience is that this challenge is manageable and—just about—affordable. Some staff value the more flexible timetable that enables them to take research leave or vacation breaks outside the traditional summer period. These providers also assert that, to be effective, accelerated degree teachers must be high-calibre—committed, focused, inspiring similarly ambitious students.
As required by HERA, the OfS has published the registration conditions to be met by registered providers in its regulatory framework. Those conditions include ones relating to the quality of, and standards applied to, the higher education on offer. These quality and standards conditions apply to all courses, including accelerated degrees. All are treated in the same way. The OfS is also required by HERA to assess whether registered HE providers, and bodies seeking registration, meet the published conditions on quality and standards. All of this will ensure that accelerated courses are held to identical quality standards and assurances as those of all higher education courses.
Another concern raised is that the student experience on an accelerated course will be inferior to the standard equivalent, for a range of reasons. Students need time to develop learning skills. Most will not be able to sustain the workload, and with intensive study they will miss the wider opportunities and experiences integral to student life, including the opportunity for part-time work. But the reality is that accelerated students generally study at the same weekly rate as their standard peers—not more hours in the week; simply more weeks in the year. Many accelerated students work part-time. Mature students find the weekly student timetable quite manageable compared with full-time employment.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining these regulations and setting out the Government’s thinking on accelerated degrees. They were, as he said, the subject of much discussion during the passage of the Higher Education and Research Act. As he also said, currently the provision is tiny, and we wonder how much demand there will be for these degrees. How many universities do the Government anticipate will offer accelerated degrees? At the moment they are largely in the humanities; does he envisage their extension to science and engineering?
We know that the University of Buckingham has been at the forefront of two-year degrees, with considerable success and customer satisfaction. The Minister said that these have been evaluated and that the quality and academic rigour of the courses has already been looked at, but are they as robust as traditional three-year courses? I wonder how the international community will view them, given that many overseas universities have four-year courses and already express reservations about our three-year programmes, particularly in disciplines such as engineering. Will our students be at a disadvantage in that respect?
Given the concerns we have long expressed about the dire decline in adult and part-time education, will accelerated degrees do anything to stem that tide? What research has been done regarding mature students and those from deprived backgrounds and lower socioeconomic groups? The fee rates in the regulations would not seem encouraging to those of limited means. Also, students who have taken accelerated degrees are not always recognised by the student loans system as studying during the summer, which leaves them short on their maintenance loan funding. Again, that would not seem to be an incentive to those of limited means.
We recognise the need for more flexibility in the system, given the growth in online learning, although sadly, that has not been to the advantage of the Open University, which has seen a worrying drop in student numbers. Will these degrees present further competition, or do the Government anticipate a completely different student body from the OU’s?
The Minister mentioned the teaching staff; what consideration has been given to them? They are under pressure regarding research, which many have traditionally done during the long summer break. He mentioned that there are ways of juggling the timetable so they can do their research at different times, but what discussions have the Government had with university staff to assess how they feel about teaching programmes where there is little time off for non-teaching duties?
Regulation 6(3) refers to the Erasmus year. Can the Minister give any reassurance that Erasmus will continue into the future? It is a great programme that has been of benefit to many students, who have learned about living life in another country. It will be of even greater value if we do leave the EU. Can the Minister update us on Erasmus, as it features in these regulations? I know we do not have any idea what is in the post-18 review, but is it likely to lead to the stable and sustainable HE funding that we would certainly hope for?
Accelerated degrees are probably here to stay, although probably not for large numbers of students, as the Minister has said. I look forward to hearing how the Government see them developing, and his answers to the concerns I have raised.
Lord Luce (CB)
My Lords, I would like to focus on the two-year degree, of which I have considerable experience. I declare an interest as the chancellor of the University of Gibraltar, but more relevant to this discussion is my five years as vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham in the 1990s. As everybody now knows, as an independent university it has pioneered the two-year degree over the last 43 years. Started, with inspiration, by the late Lord Beloff, it is run today under the determined and courageous leadership of vice-chancellor Sir Anthony Seldon, and by a very committed team.
When I look back on my own education, I feel particularly privileged that I had three years at Cambridge and one extra year at Oxford. When I became vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham in 1992, I had an open mind about the value of the two-year degree. But, by the time I had finished, after five years, I was deeply impressed by the motivation of the students. Many of them, naturally, were mature students or overseas students, and both those groups benefit in particular from short courses of this type. I realised that it was possible after two years to reach the same standard of degree as after three years. One only has to look at the list of alumni of the University of Buckingham to see what they have achieved in life.
When I left, I was convinced that the two-year degree would expand rapidly elsewhere, but today, only 0.2% of all students are doing two-year degrees, and only a few universities have taken it up. When I think more fully about why this is the case, I realise that it is not surprising. Until the introduction of these regulations, there was no incentive for traditional universities to set up two-year degrees, which involve major adjustments in teaching commitments, research, the use of facilities and many other areas. Therefore, I fully support the objective of these regulations to establish fee structures that are an incentive for diversification and a wider range of choice.
I do, however, have reservations about whether the current fee structure will be sufficient to provide the parity of esteem that is needed between two-year degrees and other degrees. The facts are these. In a two-year degree, students pay one year less for accommodation and living costs and they start work or further study one year earlier. At Buckingham, they do this by having four terms a year, one of which, I should stress, is set aside for research for teachers. In the two years, they spend 80 weeks studying and 24 weeks on holiday—the traditional university degree involves 18 months’ holiday and the equivalent amount working—and they achieve the same standards.
What is the result of this for the University of Buckingham? According to the National Student Survey, it is near the top, and often at the top, for student satisfaction, and it is top in the Government’s teaching excellence framework. What is more—a point that the Minister made—it impresses employers because its students work hard to achieve their degrees, and many of them get very good jobs.
The general point I want to emphasise is this. We all know that there has been a serious decline in the number of not only part-time students but mature students. To my mind, the two-year degree is an extremely good opportunity for mature students to take up the challenge. My concern is with the fee structure and whether there is enough incentive for universities and providers to introduce these courses. Although the advantage is that the student will pay 20% less than for a three-year course, the university is therefore being asked to provide 50% more teaching each year for a fee that is 20% less than the total income from a three-year degree. Given the £11,100 cap being introduced in these regulations, Buckingham would need to reduce by 10% its current fees of £12,600 per annum for undergraduates.
It is therefore hard to make a business case for offering a two-year degree—other than for a few low-cost, high-demand subjects such as business law and accountancy—for engineering, science or certainly medicine. It is impossible for the University of Buckingham to go for the approved fee-cap status unless it reduces its overall standards. There are some sharp challenges here. I fear that some of the for-profit providers may well be able to adopt only the cheaper courses and that the proposal may, overall, undermine the general standard that Buckingham sets for two-year degrees.
I know that the Minister has been to the University of Buckingham among his many duties, but I ask him to reassure me and, I hope, others in the House that the regulations will be monitored and reviewed. I hope that not only will there be a review in three years, as provided for, but that the Government will carefully monitor progress and the effect the regulations are having once they are introduced. I want the Government to succeed in their objective, and the Minister to assure us that he and other Ministers are aware of the dangers of undermining the concept of a successful two-year degree—and that they will always monitor the situation carefully.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, I very much support the notion of accelerated degrees. Most of the criticisms that the noble Lord speaking on behalf of the Government went through do not stand much scrutiny. I accept his argument that the criticisms do not merit abandoning the idea of accelerated degrees. I also accept that the cost of providing them will be somewhat higher for universities than would be the case if they were simply teaching all their degrees on a normal three-year pattern—although I suspect that there may be some exaggeration of how much greater the costs will be. Imaginative universities will find ways in which to provide some of their courses in combination with students on three-year degrees, so they will not be taught entirely separately from those students.
However, my concern is different. While I accept that one has to incentivise universities—I heard the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Luce, that the additional funding may not be enough to do so, and there are of course very few such courses—my concern relates to the demand for them. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, that the demand is already small. It will be even smaller if we put the fees up. Surely the Government are aware that mature students are more debt averse than any other category of student. Most students who are likely to join these programmes will be mature students.
My view, as a former vice-chancellor and head of an institution that took many mature students, as well as being vice-chancellor of a conventional university, is that these degrees are unlikely to be suitable for most 18 to 22 year-olds, who will want to spend a little longer as undergraduates. They will benefit from doing so and from all the other things that one can do. Of course there will be mature students who want to go through faster and are able to do so. However, why put the fees up again when one knows that many people have decided not to become undergraduate students—or master’s students, for that matter—because the fees are so high and they do not want to take on the additional debt?
Why, for heaven’s sake, do the Government not consider an alternative, much more effective route of providing universities that are putting on these courses with some grant, paid directly by the Government, rather than simply loading up the cost of the course on to the graduate? Only then will demand for the programmes be maintained. The Government need to think again about the fee aspect of these regulations.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome the proposals brought to us today by the Minister. I am sure that he is right that this adds an extra element to the options available to prospective students, and it certainly therefore brings more diversity into the system. I should draw noble Lords’ attention to my interests as set out in the register as chancellor of the University of Leicester, an adviser to 2U and a visiting professor at King’s College, London.
I am sure that the Minister was right that there will be some mature students—I was fascinated by what the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, just said—for whom the prospect of studying so briskly in two years will make this an attractive option. However, for many 18 year-olds, the prospect of three years away from home studying a course at that length will remain very attractive. In fact, I would be so bold as to make a modest bet with the Minister or anyone else who will take me on that in the coming years the increase in the number of students studying for four years will be greater than the increase in the number of students studying for two years.
Believe it or not, quite a lot of students enjoy being at university. The Minister quoted a student as saying that the advantage of this would be that it would minimise the time at university. There may be some students who think like that but, in my experience, many students enjoy their three years, and the biggest single surge in demand in higher education at the moment is for master’s degrees—adding an extra year to the time at university. So if we look at where the growth in higher education is coming from, I think we are very likely to see it in master’s degrees rather than in two-year courses.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, for those of a suspicious cast of mind, when we see that this full degree is to be delivered for a total fee cost of £22,000 over two years, we wonder what would happen if £22,000 were divided by three and became a new fee total for a three-year course—something slightly over £7,000. Can the Minister assure us that it would be a serious mistake for us to worry about such calculations? Will he assure us that he will take to heart the very interesting intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Luce, who made a point about the costs that an exceptionally efficient and well-respected university, the University of Buckingham, encountered? The argument was that £11,000 times two was insufficient resource for the University of Buckingham, so we can presume that any such reduction in fees would not provide the resource that even an efficient and well-regarded university such as Buckingham would require in order to educate its students.
As we are straying into this territory, will the Minister say whether there is any information that he can share with noble Lords about the current likely timetable for the publication of the Augar review?
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I must be forgiven, but I have some misgivings about the way the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, rather glossed over the possible disadvantages of an accelerated degree. I shall speak very briefly about this. I am an employee of a Russell group university which has a minimum three-year course. Some courses are longer. One of our great difficulties, particularly with scientists, is to understand and recognise that, increasingly from the age of 15, young people are learning more and more about less and less. Knowledge is expanding exponentially, and there is a huge amount of extra learning involved. One of the problems for our society is that increasingly we have become so specialised that we forget many of the societal values, the ethical issues and the other problems that a graduate has to recognise. Universities are not just about learning to do a job better; they are also about learning more about our humanity and what makes us human.
When I was at university, I did not learn how to become a doctor—in fact, it would have been useless to try to become a doctor from my course—and I did not learn anything about molecular biology, but I am now both a doctor and a scientist. I had time to read Chaucer and Thomas Hardy, for example. I looked at a whole range of things; I learned film as an art form. That makes a very big difference to a student’s general experience at university. For me, the point of being at university was to widen my horizons, not to narrow them.
Therefore, when the Minister comes to measure the impact of these accelerated courses, which I think he has somewhat glossed over, how does he intend to ensure that the kind of metrics that we apply are not based simply on results or the number of people in employment, but also on how these students, when they graduate, see themselves as part of society so that they act in an effective way to support society; they actually understand how to communicate with people and they understand the ethics of what they are doing, whether they are in the humanities or the sciences? It seems to be something that is easily forgotten as we learn more and more about less and less.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, we welcome the development of accelerated degrees but, of course, academic integrity and excellence has to be the hallmark of any degree, and it certainly must be the same for accelerated degrees. I was interested in the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and his bet. More and more young people who go to university realise that getting a degree is good, but they think that if they want to do that particular job they have to get a first. Now they are saying that if they want to get that job, it is not just about getting a first: it is about getting a master’s, a distinction definitely and maybe a merit. I see a pattern that students might well go and do three years at university: two years doing their accelerated degree and a year doing the master’s. It would be a three-year package to get their first degree and a master’s.
I have always been slightly bemused about the student experience that we have heard about. Students usually finish at the beginning of June and go back in mid-September. Many students would want to carry on with that sort of student experience and do all the things that being a student implies. It is not just about academic work and rigour: it is about socialising, discovering yourself and so on. That will continue and long may it continue.
I have two concerns that other noble Lords have mentioned. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Luce, that accelerated degrees tend to be limited to certain subjects, particularly business studies and languages. We need to hear from the Minister how we can ensure that universities are properly funded so that they are able to offer courses for the subjects that he mentioned, such as engineering or the sciences, to increase student choice.
My second concern, which a number of people have mentioned, is the whole business of mature students. We see a decline in their numbers and a decline in the number of people doing Open University courses. What does the Minister have to say about this, because the finances do not really work for mature students and we need to ensure that they have those opportunities? I heard the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. I am not convinced that the Government would actually do that, but we need to be inventive to ensure that those mature students are actually returning to higher education.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, one matter that occurs to me in relation to accelerated degrees is the question of staff. I got the impression earlier in the debate that the staff for a quicker type of degree would be different from the staff dealing with the rest. That might be partly due to a difference in subject matter, but within the same subject, is the Minister suggesting that the staff teaching the accelerated degrees would be different from the staff dealing with ordinary, full-time degrees?
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I think it is fair to say that there is broad agreement on the urgent need to address the lack of flexibility in our higher education system. With the challenges facing us when we pull up the drawbridge on 29 March, not to mention the many unknowns around the world of work as automation gathers pace, our education system urgently needs to adapt, particularly the further and higher education sectors.
To some extent, the Government have acknowledged that, because over the past 18 months or so we have seen the publication of the Made Smarter Review, the industrial strategy, the Government Office for Science report Future of Skills & Lifelong Learning, the post-18 review, the careers strategy and the national retraining scheme, inter alia, which leads to something of a conundrum. With Philip Augar about to publish the review of his panel’s look at post-school education, why did the Government pre-empt that, as long ago as November, by publishing their proposals for accelerated degrees? Would it not have been better to await the Augar recommendations before announcing the accelerated degree proposals to fit in with the Government’s intentions thereafter?
The proposal for the increase in accelerated degrees serves little purpose in the great uncertainty that existing universities and providers face from the lack of knowledge of what the future holds in terms of our participation in Erasmus+ and the Horizon research programmes, plus the withdrawal of funding from the European Social Fund and European Regional Development Fund, from which many community-focused universities and providers have benefited.
Accelerated degrees received statutory underpinning in the Higher Education and Research Act. During the passage of that legislation, the Minister and I, together with many others, some of whom are here this evening, spent hour after hour discussing hundreds of amendments. It was the task with which we were engaged at this time two years ago, and I doubt that any of us would wish to turn the clock back to that particular period.
We support the concept of accelerated degrees but not in the form outlined in these regulations. Many universities already offer this form of study, but the new provisions will allow the two-year course funding system more flexibility to further encourage their uptake.
Many noble Lords have highlighted the fact that accelerated degrees tend to be limited to subjects such as business and languages. As others have done, I put it to the Minister that it is important that he sets out whether he intends to ensure that universities are properly funded so as to be able to offer higher course subjects such as engineering or the sciences to further increase student choice. I was taken by the suggestion from my noble friend Lady Blackstone that the Government should provide specific funding to universities to reduce the load on students wishing to study for an accelerated degree. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to that.
The Government highlight as a benefit of these regulations that students who opt for a two-year degree will save at least 20% in total tuition costs compared with the costs of a standard three-year course. More accurately, I suggest, we are being asked to support a 20% hike in tuition fees, albeit for a two-year period of study, without any commensurate guarantee of an improvement to, or at least maintenance of, the quality of tuition and …, the other provision from universities.
It is the details and the firm focus on increasing the maximum fee cap with which we disagree because we do not believe that, at this stage, it will bring the wider benefits to universities or, more importantly, to potential students that the Government claim it will. We are not alone in that view. For example, the chief executive of the Russell group said:
“Greater choice for students is always good but I would caution ministers against ‘overpromising’. The Government’s own projection for the likely take-up of these degrees is modest and we actually hear many students calling for four-year degrees, for example, to spend a year on a work placement or studying abroad”.
MillionPlus said:
“Demand for accelerated degrees has been low for many years and is unlikely to increase significantly on account of these fee changes”.
There is little evidence of solid demand for this type of course.
The real casualties from the 2012 funding changes that led to the tripling of tuition fees have been part-time students in England, whose numbers have dropped by 59% in the last six years. Those who have been most deterred from study by that increase are not those aged 18 entering full-time higher education but older, especially disadvantaged, students. It is apparent that the biggest reason for the decline is the fees and funding policy in England because, as noble Lords will know, the average student debt in England has risen to £46,000. Even more alarmingly, the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that the removal of maintenance grants from students from low-income families meant that they were graduating with the highest debt levels, which in some cases are in excess of £57,000. Therefore, the trend in those potential applicants has been away from participation in higher education.
These regulations increase the higher amount to start a degree to £11,100 on an annual basis. It is not difficult to imagine the impact that will have on the ability or willingness of less well-off students, or potential students, to enrol for these courses. Of course we shall never know how many were unable or unwilling to meet the increased pro-rata figure.
The University and College Union has said that the new arrangements are not about increasing real choice for students, but could allow for-profit companies to access more public resources through the student loans system. That was a point that many noble Lords cautioned against during the various stages of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 in your Lordships’ House and it is a strong possibility that we believe the Government should not ignore. However, I should say that it is at least open to speculation as to whether or not such an outcome would be anathema to the Government’s ambitions for the future direction of higher education.
The Explanatory Memorandum to these regulations lists the theoretical benefits for providers and students, but it also refers to the numerous concerns that have been expressed across the sector. It says:
“Students on existing accelerated degrees report a very high level of satisfaction, and highlight the opportunity to graduate and start or resume work a year sooner … together with costs savings and academic benefits”.
That ignores the fact that those degrees would be available only to students able to study all year round. That has major implications for access and participation for part-time students which, as I have already highlighted, are in freefall under this Government. Can the Minister explain how accelerated degrees will address the devastating fall in part-time higher education study?
There is another consideration about the wider benefits of student life beyond the degree itself—what the Minister called “the student experience” in his opening remarks. The University and College Union has stated that:
“Accelerated degrees result in reduced opportunities for students to engage in part-time employment over the course of their studies. This limitation is particularly acute for students from disadvantaged backgrounds who are more likely to need to seek employment in order to fund themselves through university”.
Would that students did not need to work part-time during their course, as was the case when noble Lords here today were studying. But we know that most do and perhaps that demonstrates that the accelerated degree proposals are focused not on those sorts of people, but in many cases on better-off or employer-funded applicants.
The lack of downtime—holiday time, if you like—factored into these degrees also means that they could prove difficult to student parents or those with caring responsibilities. Have the Government given due attention to such considerations? I hope the Minister might say something about that aspect of the regulations, because I suspect that the students he quoted, who enjoyed pursuing hobbies and other activities, were not encumbered by financial constraints.
The Open University says that there needs to be increased choice and flexibility for students to study at a time, pace, mode and place that they choose; we very much agree. One of the stated objectives of the 2012 funding reforms was to allow greater diversity of provision, including more short two-year courses and more part-time opportunities. With the reforms having failed to achieve that objective, it is vital to increase options. However, the Government have failed to address the crisis for the Open University and other adult learning providers. Accelerated degrees are just one form of flexibility and, as MillionPlus says, the Government have missed out on the opportunity to create,
“greater flexibility in fee structures and loan availability to enable students to access financial support for periods of study of less than a year (for example to borrow by modules rather than by year)”.
We agree with it when it concludes that:
“True flexibility…can only come when students are not penalised for studying part-time, or for shifting between full and part time study”.
Finally, it is clear that the Government have given little thought to the impact on staff workloads of accelerated degrees. There is no guarantee that existing university teachers will be willing or able to teach the new accelerated degrees as proposed. There is a risk that an increase in accelerated degrees will compromise time currently allocated by these teachers to research, as other noble Lords have said. Worse, it is likely to lead to the use of even more casualised teaching staff to deliver provision during the summer months. With threats to our existing world-class higher education institutions and research piling up from the uncertainties of an existence without the solidarity offered by membership of the European Union, that is not a chance that we should be taking.
What steps have the Government taken to alleviate the pressures on staff that these courses may create? Ministers should focus on not simply accelerated courses for a market driven by untested new providers but protecting the global strength and reputation of UK higher and further education.
We do not support these regulations in what they seek to achieve because we do not believe that they are equipped for that. When they were debated in another place two weeks ago, the Government carried the day when the Opposition put the regulations to a vote. We do not intend to do likewise in your Lordships’ House, but the concerns that I have outlined must be addressed if accelerated degree courses are to contribute meaningfully to the greater flexibility needed in higher education.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, I appreciate the broad support for these regulations, but I have also taken note of a good number of questions that have been raised this afternoon in the Chamber, which I regard as being extremely helpful.
As one lays regulations such as these, it is important to continue to listen. This will definitely feed into and impact on the monitoring and reviewing of what we have started today—and that helps to answer a question from the noble Lord, Lord Luce, who asked what we will do to be sure that we monitor these regulations and their rollout, effect and impact. I reassure the noble Lord that we will most certainly do that.
I will also say at the outset that I agree with the noble Lord about the inspirational leadership that has come from Sir Anthony Seldon, who has spoken a lot about accelerated degrees. Knowing him a bit, it is not all in favour. He has his own points to raise about it, but he has been a leading light, I think it is fair to say, in this particular respect, so I am delighted that we have reached this point today on the regulations, bearing in mind his input.
The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, mentioned the Augar review. To repeat what I have said before in the Chamber, there is no new news but the review will report in early 2019, as scheduled. Mr Augar will report at an interim stage. The Government will then consider and conclude their overall review—it is a government review—and accelerated degrees are being considered by this review. So, until the review is concluded, we will continue with the government aim to increase wider provision and access—but, of course, as the House would expect, I cannot pre-empt the review’s conclusions.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, raised an interesting and much broader point. I listened carefully to what he said about the—if I may put it this way—human side of accelerated degrees and their participation in society, and also a focus on the measures for success, which I thought was very interesting. We of course agree about the importance of higher education in developing a student’s all-round character and we will certainly reflect on this point in considering how we review accelerated degrees. Accelerated degree students’ term-time so called “free time” is the same as that of standard students. Accelerated degree students do not consider their student experience and their capacity to mature as inferior to those of standard students. I say that at the outset because it is an interesting reflection on the subject that we are talking about today.
The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, raised an interesting question about international recognition and whether the Government had considered this. The QAA does not believe that accelerated degrees pose a specific issue in terms of international recognition. An accelerated degree comprises the same number of academic credits as a non-accelerated equivalent—but it is obviously another thing that we need to reflect on.
The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, also asked about assurances and an update on the future of Erasmus+. We welcome the proposal for the successor scheme and, as stated in the White Paper, we are,
“open to exploring participation in the successor scheme”.
Timing is dependent on the wider negotiations on the future UK-EU partnership, as she will be aware, and I am sure that other Ministers have said this in the past. In addition, an updated technical notice has been published by the DfE on GOV.UK which states the current position on no-deal preparations for Erasmus+. The department is working to agree with the European Commission what continued participation in the programme post exit could look like, but we have, so far, had no formal engagement or response from the Commission—that is where we are on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, also asked about the extension of accelerated courses beyond the humanities. I say to the House and to the noble Baroness that there is no reason why many courses other than humanities could not be accelerated. It would be for providers to consider the requirements of professional accreditation bodies. I go further to remind the House that the whole point of HERA was to allow universities and providers to have the autonomy to decide for themselves what might be best for their students, and to look at the demand and how they can best market the courses. As I said, it is early days, and we think, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said, that there is the opportunity for some enlightened thinking in universities on these regulations.
Baroness Blackstone
My Lords, the Minister, as is his wont, has very courteously answered most of the questions put to him. I am feeling a bit miffed, because I put a question to him that he has not touched on. I argued that it is of course legitimate to incentivise universities to provide more of these courses, but there is more than one way of incentivising them. Why choose a route that disincentivises the students from taking these courses? Higher fees are likely to lead to mature students looking at the up-front fee and thinking, “I don’t want to do this programme”. Why not pay a government grant? You then avoid having to put the fees up. Fees are already very high and there is a huge amount of criticism out there, as the Minister is fully aware, of the size of fees and the amount already charged. This is an example of going yet higher. Could the Government come back to look at whether a government grant could be paid directly to universities, having considered carefully how much extra cost they are having to sustain, rather than laying it on the students to pay a higher fee? It is a simple question.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
It is indeed, but I cannot give a simple answer to that one this afternoon; I can only say that I very much noted what the noble Baroness said about seeking grants. As I said earlier in response to a question from my noble friend Lord Willetts, I suspect this is a matter that Philip Augar will look at in his review. The bigger issue is whether it should be tuition fees, grants or a mixture of the two. I am not in a position to answer that question today.
However, I would like to go further, because the noble Baroness raised an interesting point about mature students. It might be helpful to say that we hope and envisage that mature students will look at these proposals seriously. Points have been raised about the cost involved for mature students. It depends on how you define “mature”, but I would imagine that it is those who have had several years in employment, who perhaps are not particularly comfortable in that employment and want to make a change, and for whom a two-year degree at a total cost of £22,000 might just be within their scope. Some people might say that is quite expensive, but we think there could be some demand for that. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, raised the point that it would be more applicable to mature students, rather than younger students setting out from school. This may be the case, but as I said earlier, it is early days and I think we need to see how this is rolled out and how universities and providers grab the opportunity and market it. We then have to monitor it carefully, not just in three years but over the period up to three years, when we can have a proper review. I hope that helps, but I am not in a position to answer the noble Baroness’s first question.
Today’s debate will continue to inform and help us to meet the wider challenges of expanding higher education provision. It will also help raise awareness and understanding of accelerated degrees for providers, potential students, employers and the wider public. I commend these regulations to the House.