House of Commons
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(5 years, 10 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, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (John Penrose)
Today marks the tragic anniversary of the events of 30 January 1972, a day more commonly known as Bloody Sunday. I am sure the entire House will want to join me in marking this day, and our thoughts are with everyone who lost loved ones or who was injured as a result of the troubles.
In answer to my hon. Friend’s question, everyone agrees that we have to avoid a hard border in Northern Ireland, and I agree with him that technology will play a big part in doing so. In fact, in his excellent and thought-provoking report “Order at the Border”, he identified 25 systems that will have to be updated to cope with our new relationship with the EU. Those systems are owned and operated by different departments across government, particularly Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Cabinet Office. I am sure they will describe their progress to him should he ask.
Charlie Elphicke
I thank the Minister for that answer. What work, studies or advice the Northern Ireland Office has sought or commissioned to examine how existing techniques and processes within existing EU customs law can maintain the free flow of cross-border trade between the UK and Ireland? Will Ministers put a copy of this in the House of Commons Library?
John Penrose
I understand that the Cabinet Office commissioned work on what existing software and other technologies are available from other low-friction land borders around the world to see whether they could provide a solution to the problem. The conclusion was that no existing off-the-shelf package could deliver exactly what will be needed in Northern Ireland, so new solutions will be needed. That is why the political declaration outlines that there will be urgent work on alternative arrangements to permanently guarantee no hard border in Northern Ireland.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
May I associate myself with the Minister’s remarks about Bloody Sunday? He will know that in that same city of Derry/Londonderry just a fortnight ago the dissident republicans tried to take more lives of Northern Irish citizens. Can he understand that the Chief Constable in Northern Ireland thinks that any infrastructure at the border—any technology—will be a target for those same dissidents? Will the Minister offer a guarantee here today that there will be no technology on or near the border, and therefore no violence at the border?
John Penrose
I am very happy to repeat what I said earlier: nobody, on any side—not just the police, as this is much more broad than that—wants a hard border in Northern Ireland. Ultimately, that is the best guarantee that there will not be one.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that the alternative arrangements the Government will be pursuing in the next fortnight have to do with technology and systems, as evidenced in the European Parliament’s “Smart Border 2.0” report in 2017, rather than a customs union that may potentially tie the United Kingdom into an arrangement in perpetuity?
John Penrose
All I can do here is go back to the Prime Minister’s point of order after the votes last night, where she explicitly said that she was going to take the decisions that had commanded a majority in Parliament back in not only reaching out to people who tabled amendments yesterday, but in her discussions with the EU. I am sure that none of us would want to rule in or out any particular methods of achieving those outcomes that have mandated by Parliament. We need to make sure that those discussions can move forward as freely as possible while still delivering on the outcomes that Parliament has decided.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
This week, the EU chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, has indicated that he has a team studying how we could have checks without having any points along the border, including by paperless means and decentralisation—checks away from the border. Will the Minister confirm that he will be seeking to work with the EU to deliver on those things?
John Penrose
I can do better than that. The Prime Minister, in her comments last night, already made the point that she wishes to discuss all these things with the EU. I would regard it as immensely promising if such a team were indeed already working on it from the EU’s side.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
I join the Minister in his commemoration of the tragic events of Bloody Sunday, but may I also use this opportunity to recognise the work of and thank the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland? As he announces his forthcoming retirement, I think the whole House will agree that we owe him a debt of gratitude.
The Minister and the Secretary of State know that there is no operable technology anywhere in the world in current use that would not of itself become a target for the terrorists. The Prime Minister has said this in the past. We have to rule out the idea that a technological solution is available. If the Minister and the Secretary of State are going to use their influence to say that there can be no hard border across the island of Ireland, they have to say that they will abandon the attempts to placate those in favour of a no-deal Brexit on their own side and move towards a customs union.
John Penrose
All I think I can do is repeat my earlier comments. After examination, there are no currently available, off-the-shelf solutions, which is why the political declaration says that new solutions will be required. I would not want to rule out what those will be and what they will include or not include at this stage, because clearly they will need to be innovative.
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)
May I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister of State about Bloody Sunday? The shadow Secretary of State has pre-empted me, but I too have a debt of gratitude to George Hamilton, the Chief Constable of the PSNI.
The Government fully support efforts to promote peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. I was pleased to announce earlier this month that about £300 million of UK Government funding will be committed to projects to support peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland between 2021 and 2027.
Sir Henry Bellingham
Does the Secretary of State agree with me that no discussion of peace and reconciliation can take place without considering the plight of Northern Ireland veterans, both police and military, who put their lives on the line for their country? Will she assure the House that she personally will do all she can to draw a line under these investigations, which breach the military covenant and our pledge to police forces in the UK?
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner on these matters. He will know from the extensive discussions we have had that I am committed to delivering on the legacy proposals that were first agreed in the Stormont House talks and on which we have had a consultation. I look forward to working with him further on those matters.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
From Caroline O’Hanlon to Carl Frampton, we know the ability of great Ulster sportsmen and women to bring people together. May I ask the Secretary of State about the curriculum sports programme? It receives £1.2 million of funding each year to provide Gaelic football, hurling and soccer coaching in 450 schools in Northern Ireland. That funding has been cut. Will she restore it to bring sport back to the people in all those communities?
Karen Bradley
The hon. Gentleman has campaigned on this matter. I know he is very keen to make sure that this funding is maintained. He makes a point about the fact that we do not have devolved government, which we will come on to later during questions. We do need Ministers in Northern Ireland to make those important decisions, because the example he raises is a very good one.
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The recent events in Derry/Londonderry clearly showed that the peace we have in Northern Ireland is still fragile at times. Given that, does my right hon. Friend agree with me that, as the Brexit process progresses, it is crucial that politicians on both sides of the border and indeed in this House use language that is measured rather than inflammatory?
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We all need to be careful in our language at this very fragile time.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
The Secretary of State will recall the excellent work of the centenary committee that oversaw the world war one commemorations in Northern Ireland and sought to promote reconciliation through its work. As we look towards celebrating the centenary of Northern Ireland—this landmark in our history—will the Secretary of State assure me that she will work with us to do the same?
Karen Bradley
The success of the world war one commemorations in Northern Ireland was very much down to the right hon. Gentleman’s hard work in ensuring that all parts of the community came together. I think we saw a real moment in St Anne’s cathedral in November, when all parts of the community and the Irish Government came together with the UK Government to recognise what happened 100 years ago. I know he is very keen and we have met to discuss the 100th anniversary of the establishment of Northern Ireland, and we are working with him on it.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
To promote peace and reconciliation across the island of Ireland, will the Secretary of State confirm that, after Brexit, British and Irish citizens will of course continue to be able to cross freely the Irish border in accordance with the common travel area? Will the Secretary of State confirm that technological solutions are being looked at to ease the flow of other EU nationals across the Irish border?
Karen Bradley
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the common travel area is a very important foundation of the lives of those in Northern Ireland and Ireland, and it of course predates our membership of the EU. We are absolutely committed to ensuring the common travel area continues. We want to see that, and it is a very important point.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)
The restoration of a fully functioning Executive and Assembly remains my top priority. I am focused on bringing the parties together to work towards re-establishing devolved government at the earliest opportunity.
Vicky Ford
May I draw to the Secretary of State’s attention the very serious comments made to the Women and Equalities Committee last Friday by the chief medical officer for Northern Ireland regarding patient safety for certain women? Will the Secretary of State meet members of that Select Committee to discuss what actions can be taken?
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend has alerted me to the comments that were made, and I am very happy to meet her and other members of the Committee to discuss the matter.
Paul Masterton
The lack of a functioning Assembly creates real problems for setting Northern Ireland’s budget. Can the Secretary of State explain what steps she is taking ahead of the 2019-20 budget? In particular, is she meeting with all parties represented in the Assembly?
Karen Bradley
I would very much prefer there to be a devolved Government in Stormont setting the budget for the Departments in Northern Ireland, but sadly that is not the case. Therefore, it is incumbent on me, as Secretary of State, to ensure that we have a proper statutory basis for public spending in Northern Ireland, and I am working on that budget. I will, of course, talk to other parties about the matter.
Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
In relation to budgetary matters, the Secretary of State will be aware of the massive extra boost to the block grant as a result of the confidence and supply arrangement. Will she ensure that the Northern Ireland Office works closely with devolved Departments to ensure that progress is made on all blockages to the proper roll-out of all that money, and the other major infrastructure projects for Northern Ireland, as quickly as possible?
Karen Bradley
I want to make sure that all projects in Northern Ireland are properly delivered. Clearly, I do not have executive powers to ensure that they are delivered, but I am working closely with the Departments to make sure that money, particularly confidence and supply money, is spent properly.
Nigel Dodds
In relation to devolved issues more generally, does the Secretary of State accept that there could be a greater role for Assembly Members, who are currently not meeting, in input into decision making and policy making in Northern Ireland? It is deplorable that certain elected representatives from Northern Ireland do not take their places here, and that the same party refuses to get the Executive up and running.
Karen Bradley
I want the institutions in Stormont to be restored as soon as possible, and I want to work with all parties to make sure that that can happen. It is important that where there are roles for Members of the Legislative Assembly, they continue to contribute. I pay particular tribute to the Churches, which have organised a number of meetings to allow civic society, MLAs and others to get together and discuss important matters. Those are great initiatives.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
We have heard at first hand in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee about the detrimental effects of not having devolved government in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has no mental capacity legislation, and in education it is working to statements rather than education, health and care plans. What devolved powers can the Secretary of State give officials in Northern Ireland to help to rectify those problems while there is no devolved government?
Karen Bradley
We passed the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018 last year to allow civil servants to take decisions based on guidance issued by me, as Secretary of State. I have to be clear that those are not major policy change decisions; they are to allow public services to continue to be delivered. The way to get through this is to get Ministers back into government.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
On behalf of the SNP, I join the Minister and the Labour Front-Bench spokesman in marking the tragic and entirely avoidable events of Bloody Sunday. Earlier this month, the former Taoiseach John Bruton accused this Government of seeking to tear up the Good Friday agreement. Last night, the Government did exactly that. As a result of recent events in Northern Ireland and the implications of last night’s vote, it is imperative that we get power sharing back up and running as soon as possible. Is the Secretary of State concerned that increasingly strained Anglo-Irish relations will harm efforts to restore Stormont?
Karen Bradley
I like the hon. Gentleman very much, but I could not disagree with him more. This Government are absolutely steadfast in our commitment to the Belfast Good Friday agreement, and we will do nothing that jeopardises it.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
The House has just heard of the sad necessity of the setting of a budget for the coming financial year, in the absence of a devolved Assembly. May I ask the Secretary of State if she has begun discussions with the Northern Ireland civil service on this? While she is in such a warm and inclusive mood, may I ask her if she will follow the example of her predecessor and involve Opposition parties in the process?
Karen Bradley
The hon. Gentleman will recall that last year when the budget was set, I made sure, as Secretary of State, that all the main parties and the Opposition were part of the process. As I say, I would much rather that Ministers in Northern Ireland were setting the budget, but given the situation, we have to work together to make sure that a budget can be set.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)
I have regular discussions with the Prime Minister and others about all aspects of our exit from the European Union.
Carol Monaghan
Last October, the Secretary of State gave a guarantee that her Government would not renege on the backstop, saying:
“We are committed to everything we have agreed to in the joint report and we will ensure there is no border on the island of Ireland.”
Can she explain why there has now been a U-turn and the Government’s policy has changed to ditching the backstop?
Karen Bradley
The commitments made in the joint report remain. Those commitments were that we would find a solution to the Irish border, ideally through our future relationship. We are still committed to that being the case. Last night, the House showed that there is a majority to pass the withdrawal agreement if changes are made to the backstop. The Prime Minister is working on that basis.
Angela Crawley
The deputy head of the Irish Government, Simon Coveney, has stated that
“the backstop is already a compromise…And the European Parliament will not ratify a withdrawal agreement that doesn’t have a backstop in it.”
Again, that was confirmed last night by the EU. Does the Secretary of State agree that her Government are pursuing a dead-end policy by seeking to renegotiate the backstop?
Karen Bradley
Can I very gently point out to the hon. Lady that she voted against the backstop?
Chris Law
In order to protect the Good Friday agreement, the backstop protocol was designed as an insurance policy to prevent a hard border in all circumstances. The only major party in these islands that opposed the Good Friday agreement was the Democratic Unionist party. Did the Secretary of State consult with any other party in Northern Ireland before throwing her support behind the new Government policy of ditching the backstop?
Karen Bradley
This Government are committed to ensuring that we meet all our commitments under the Belfast-Good Friday agreement, and that we deliver on the vote of the British people to leave the European Union. That is what we are working to achieve.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
As the Prime Minister develops the alternative arrangements, will the Secretary of State remember that we have an incredibly close working relationship with the Irish Government to deliver the common travel area? It seems to me that that perhaps provides a model for how we might deliver no hard border in the future.
Karen Bradley
Clearly it would not be appropriate to speculate on what discussions the Prime Minister will have with the European Union and the European Commission, but my right hon. Friend makes a very important point about the common travel area, to which, as I have said previously, we are absolutely committed.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
Last night, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) made one of the most reckless and irresponsible speeches I have heard since coming to this place. The comments about the Good Friday agreement do not—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is supposed to be asking a brief question, and the Secretary of State has no responsibility for the pronouncements of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). Single sentence, question mark, and sit down.
Luke Graham
Will my right hon. Friend assure the House, and the people in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, that that is not the case, and that we are committed to the Good Friday agreement?
Karen Bradley
I can absolutely do that. This Government are committed to ensuring that we deliver on leaving the European Union in a way that works for all people who live in the United Kingdom, wherever that may be, fully respecting the commitments that we have under the Belfast-Good Friday agreement.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
We do not have much time to find new technological solutions. In October, from the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister said that
“technical solutions effectively involve moving the border—and it would still be a border. Some involve equipment, which could come under attack, and some involve a degree of state surveillance that, frankly, I think would not be acceptable in Northern Ireland.”—[Official Report, 15 October 2018; Vol. 647, c. 421.]
Does the Secretary of State agree with the Prime Minister?
Karen Bradley
If the hon. Lady had listened to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, in his answer to the first question, it was clear that we have said as a Government that no technological solutions, off the shelf, exist today that solve this problem, but we are committed to working to find alternative arrangements because we have all agreed that the backstop, should it ever come into force, is a temporary measure. No one wants to be in it, and we want to find ways of avoiding it.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Karen Bradley
Last year, I passed the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018, which creates a limited period in which an Executive can be formed at any time. I am actively encouraging the parties to use that opportunity to come together to make progress on restoring the Executive.
Rosie Cooper
On 31 October, at the last Northern Ireland questions, the Secretary of State answered questions on restoring devolution and said:
“The point of the legislation is that it provides the space and the time for the parties to come together”—[Official Report, 31 October 2018; Vol. 648, c. 895.]
That language almost suggests that she does not have any role in it. Will she therefore outline what she has actually done to convene talks, or have we given up?
Karen Bradley
As Secretary of State, I clearly have a role in helping to facilitate those talks, but I cannot impose a solution on the parties in Northern Ireland. That must be something that they want to do for the good of the people in Northern Ireland. I am working to find that.
Kerry McCarthy
Environmental campaigners in Northern Ireland have raised concerns with me about the fact that the push towards ever-more intensive industrialised farming is continuing unchecked because of the power vacuum. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs does not seem to be interested. May I urge the Northern Ireland Office to take an interest in the environmental damage that is being caused by that trend?
Karen Bradley
The hon. Lady will know that DEFRA does not have jurisdiction over environmental policies in Northern Ireland; that is for the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland. I am sure the permanent secretary has heard her comments.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
In endeavouring to restore devolution, will the Secretary of State ensure that there is appropriate emphasis on those who caused devolution to fall in the first place and are refusing to enter in without preconditions being met?
Karen Bradley
It is important that we find a framework in which the parties can come together. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly that a devolved Government should be in place in Stormont delivering for his constituents. That is what I want to see.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (John Penrose)
As I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware, public transport in Northern Ireland is a devolved issue. The Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018 allows Northern Ireland Departments to continue to deliver public services in the absence of a functioning Executive. There are ongoing discussions on all these issues, including services to hospitals.
Robert Halfon
The brain injury charity Headway recently supported a lorry driver who had to pay £370 in hospital car parking charges to visit his comatose son in the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast. Will my hon. Friend work with the Secretary of State to scrap hospital car parking charges once and for all?
John Penrose
My right hon. Friend is pursuing one of the energetic and effective campaigns that have become his signature in Parliament. I believe that he is also pursuing the issue at Welsh and Scottish questions. I am sure that many of us have a great deal of sympathy with the case he described, but changing the policy in Northern Ireland to deal with it is best done by a functioning Executive at Stormont. I hope that he will agree that that is the clearest possible illustration of why people in Northern Ireland need the Executive to reform as soon as possible.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
Community transport gives rural dwellers access to hospital care, but in the past four years it has been reduced by 40%. What measures will the Minister put in place to ensure that that is addressed in the new budget?
John Penrose
The difficulty that everybody faces at the moment is that all budgetary allocations have to be done on a business-as-usual basis. To make more fundamental changes and reforms—to modernise anything in any devolved area—requires the Stormont Executive to be sitting. I share the hon. Gentleman’s desire for change, but the answer, I am afraid, is that we have to get Stormont working.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (John Penrose)
At the autumn Budget, the Chancellor announced £350 million for a Belfast city region deal to boost investment and productivity, and the opening of formal negotiations for a Derry/Londonderry and Strabane city region deal. Furthermore, late last year, I was delighted to announce a £700,000 investment in Randox, a County Antrim life sciences company. That investment, through the Government’s industrial strategy, should help create well-paid manufacturing jobs in Northern Ireland.
Daniel Kawczynski
Government Members are starting to feel more and more like honorary Ulstermen. Will the Minister commit to increasing and expanding the city deal to other cities in Northern Ireland to help that integral part of the United Kingdom?
John Penrose
I can confirm, as I have already mentioned, that the Derry/Londonderry and Strabane city deal discussions have begun, following my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s announcement, and I am sure that everybody here hopes they will progress speedily and successfully.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
We know that the business community in Northern Ireland does not want a hard border, so surely, if technology and connected promises do not avoid that, the backstop is an understandable insurance policy for Dublin and the European Union, as indeed the United Kingdom agreed in December 2017. Surely the Government will not be reneging on that promise, which is beneficial to business.
John Penrose
I keep coming back to it, but Parliament voted last night and a democratic consensus has been reached. We all need to respect that decision.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will want to join me in sending our thoughts and prayers to all those affected by the collapse of the Brumadinho dam in Brazil. We are in touch with the local authorities and stand ready to provide whatever support we can.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and, in addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Toby Perkins
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s comments about the tragic situation in Brazil.
My son is one of thousands of young people to have their life chances transformed by their studies at Chesterfield College. Its funding, like that of further education colleges across the country, is 30% down in real terms since this Government came to power. Further education funding is in crisis. Why is the education of young people in further education colleges worth so little to the Government?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman could not be more wrong. It is this Government who are ensuring that by 2020 the funding available to support—[Hon. Members: “Now!”] The funding we are putting into further education is providing the best life chances for young people going into further education. It is this Government who are taking steps to ensure that young people can take up the opportunities that are right for them. For too long in this country, the assumption has been that the only way to get on in life is to go to university, and other ways, such as apprenticeships and further education colleges, have not been similarly respected. It is this Government who are ensuring respect for further education, and for technical education as well.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend raises a very important issue. I certainly agree about the important role a free press and journalists play in our democracies, and I thank him for raising an issue that I know is important to him and many Members across the House. Sadly, as he says, 80 journalists we killed in 2018; 348 are currently in prison and 60 are being held hostage around the world. We are deeply concerned because, as he said, these numbers have risen on the previous year. That is why in 2019 we are placing our resources behind the cause of media freedom. We are helping to train journalists around the world, such as in Venezuela, where we have seen an authoritarian Government suppress their critics, and this year we plan to host an international conference in London on media freedom to bring together countries that believe in this cause and to mobilise an international consensus behind the protection of journalists. This is an important issue, and the Government are putting their weight behind it.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in sending support to the victims of the Brumadinho dam collapse in Brazil. I am very pleased that all possible support is being offered to the authorities there to try to deal with the crisis.
Following the vote in the House last night against no deal, the Prime Minister is again going to attempt to renegotiate the backstop on the basis of finding “alternative arrangements”. Will she tell us what those alternative arrangements might be?
The Prime Minister
Absolutely. Last night, the House set a clear direction on the way in which it could agree a deal, and that, as the right hon. Gentleman says, is about dealing with the issue of the backstop. As I said yesterday, there are a number of proposals for how that could be done. We are engaging positively with proposals that have been put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and my hon. Friends the Members for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), for Wycombe (Mr Baker) and for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). Others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), have put forward different proposals, such as a unilateral exit mechanism—
The Prime Minister
I am just telling the shadow Foreign Secretary, if she will listen—let me give her a piece of advice: if she wants to shout things, it might be better to shout them in response to what I am saying.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have put forward proposals such as a unilateral exit mechanism or a time limit to the backstop. The political declaration already refers to alternative arrangements and raises a number of proposals that can be addressed, such as mutual recognition of trusted trader schemes.
Jeremy Corbyn
None of that was very clear to me; I do not know about anybody else. It would have been really nice if the Prime Minister had acknowledged that she did whip her MPs to try to support no deal, and she was defeated on that.
The EU said at the weekend that it was willing to renegotiate if the Government’s red lines could change. Will the Prime Minister now tell us which of her red lines are going to change?
The Prime Minister
What has been absolutely clear in my contacts with European Union leaders is that they want a deal. What the House voted for last night was to leave the European Union with a deal, but it also crucially showed what it will take to see support in the House for a deal in the future. I think that the plan that was set out last night shows that we can obtain a substantial and sustainable majority in the House.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about not being clear about positions on various things. I am very pleased that he is now going to meet me, because there are a number of issues that I want to discuss with him. For example, he talks about a strong single market relationship with the European Union in the future. I want to know whether that means that he wants to accept all EU state aid rules, because he has objected to them in the past, and he cannot have it both ways.
We need to know, with greater clarity, what it is that the right hon. Gentleman believes in. Perhaps next time one of his own Back Benchers wants to ask him about his position on a second referendum, he will actually take a question or an intervention.
Jeremy Corbyn
Last time I looked at the Order Paper, it said “Prime Minister’s Question Time”. The Prime Minister has herself said that “the only possible deal” is within her red lines, so it is perfectly reasonable to ask which of her red lines has changed.
This morning, the Brexit Secretary was asked:
“What is the alternative to the backstop?”
He replied:
“Well, that is what we’re exploring.”
Can the Prime Minister tell us which options are being explored?
The Prime Minister
I covered that in the answer to one of the right hon. Gentleman’s earlier questions. Perhaps if he listened to the answers to his questions, he would not have to repeat them.
Jeremy Corbyn
I look forward to meeting the Prime Minister later today, because I want to put forward Labour’s alternatives, which could command a majority in the House and which are about protecting jobs and people’s living standards across the country.
This morning, the Brexit Secretary said that alternative arrangements meant looking at technology. That is a very interesting question. Will the Prime Minister make clear what technological advances she is expecting to be made in the next 58 days?
The Prime Minister
May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be helpful—[Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have pointed out that there are a number of options that people are putting forward that we are working positively with them on. I have already referenced a number of things that are in the political declaration on alternative arrangements that do set out various aspects that could be looked at; I referenced one of them in my answer to his earlier question.
But I would also say to the right hon. Gentleman that last night the House did vote to reject no deal, but it also voted to do what the European Union has consistently asked this House to do since it rejected the withdrawal agreement, which was to say what the UK wanted to see changed. Last night, a majority in this House voted to maintain the commitment to no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, to leave the European Union with a deal and to set out to the European Union what it will take to ensure that this House can support a deal. That is a change to the backstop; that is what I will be taking back to the European Union. That is what we will be doing to ensure that we can avoid no deal. The right hon. Gentleman stands up regularly and says he does not want no deal; I am working to ensure we get a deal. He has opposed every move by this Government to get a deal; he is the one who is risking no deal.
Jeremy Corbyn
I would be grateful if the Prime Minister actually acknowledged that the House has voted to take no deal off the table. Can she assure the House that if she is unable to secure any legal changes to the backstop, she will work to find a solution based on a comprehensive customs union, a strong single market deal and the guaranteeing of rights and protections, rather than go back to the alternative that she has been threatening everybody with for months and months, which was to crash out without any deal whatsoever?
The Prime Minister
Last night, the House did vote to reject no deal, but that cannot be the end of the story.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman says “Of course not.” I think that is the first time he has actually accepted that you cannot just vote to reject no deal; you have to vote for a deal, otherwise you leave with no deal. So far, he has opposed everything this Government have put forward in relation to a deal, and he said previously he will reject any deal that the Government put on the table. He says this is Prime Minister’s questions, but people want to know his position as well. Will he ensure that if this Government come back with a revised deal that ensures we do not leave with no deal, he will actually support it?
Jeremy Corbyn
It really is time that the Prime Minister acknowledges that she has got to move on from the red lines she has put down in the first place, and she does not acknowledge that in answer to my questions or indeed anybody else’s.
Our responsibility is to bring people together, whether they voted—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, we are the Houses of Parliament; we are the House of Commons; we do represent the entire country; and the point I am making is that we should bring people together, whether they voted to leave or remain. Indeed, I look forward to meeting the Prime Minister to discuss a solution that could in my view unite the country. Changes to the backstop alone will not be sufficient. Businesses and trade unions are very clear that any solution must involve a customs union and the strongest possible deal with the single market to avoid the damage of no deal. The Prime Minister may have possibly temporarily united her party, but is she willing—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Ellis, you were at one time a barrister of one rank or another in the courts; there is no way that you would have been allowed to shout from a sedentary position in that way. The judge would have ruled you out of order; I do not know whether that is why you stopped practising law and came into Parliament. Behave yourself young man; you can do so much better when you try.
Jeremy Corbyn
As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted—[Interruption]—the Prime Minister may have succeeded in temporarily uniting her very divided party, but is she willing to make the necessary compromises, which are more important, to unite the country going forward to secure jobs and living standards right across the UK?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is a fine one to talk about coming together, when it was only last night that he agreed to actually meet me to talk about these issues. Time and again, he has told me to listen to the views of the House. He has just stood up and said that the backstop is not the only issue in the withdrawal agreement, but last night the house voted by a majority to say that the issue that needed to be addressed was the backstop, so he needs to listen to the House and to recognise that. He put forward a proposal last night that referenced the customs union and the single market, but his proposal was rejected by this House. I will tell him what this Government have been doing. Over the past week, we have been getting more teachers into schools, we have been ensuring that we are giving more money to councils and we have won a majority on Brexit. What did he manage? His Brexit plan was voted down, he opposed ending free movement and he will not rule out a second referendum. He has no plan for Brexit, no good plan for our economy and no plan for our country.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an important issue and points out not only the good news of the 10-year high in the number of first-time buyers but the opportunities available for local authorities to provide for this. We are clear that the planning system has a key role in delivering more affordable homes, and the national planning policy framework, which was revised last year, is central to that. It includes a wider definition of affordable housing, and local authorities are expected to consider the new definition—which includes starter homes and discounted market sales homes—in identifying the types of housing their communities need. There is an expectation that major developments will make a minimum of 10% of homes available for affordable ownership, including starter homes and discounted market sales homes. We have made good progress on first-time buyers, but there is more for us to do and this Government are doing it.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister told this House that if we voted down the deal in the hope of going back to Brussels and negotiating an alternative deal, no such alternative deal would exist, yet last night she told the House that she would go back to Brussels to seek an alternative arrangement. So what is it? Has the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House, or has this Government’s incompetence reached a whole new level?
The Prime Minister
The very simple fact that the right hon. Gentleman appears to have omitted is that the deal was brought to the House of Commons and the House rejected that deal. Therefore, we looked to see what could be changed, what we could take back to Brussels and what we could fight for to ensure that the deal could get the support of this House. I was going to respond to his point of order last night, but unfortunately, when I looked, he had left. I think he had gone to do a Sky News interview—[Interruption.] I want to confirm absolutely the commitment of this Government to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and the remarks that he made last night in relation to that were frankly irresponsible.
Ian Blackford
The only thing that is irresponsible are the actions of this Prime Minister—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman has a right to be heard, the public would expect him to be heard, and he will be heard. Attempts to shout him down are not just rude; they are irresponsible and undemocratic, and they should certainly not have the sanction of anyone who sits on the Treasury Bench. Stop it! It is low grade, it is useless and it will not work.
Ian Blackford
Thank you, Mr Speaker. That was a graceless response from the Prime Minister, who is acting with sheer irresponsibility. What she demonstrated in that answer was, “Here are my principles. If you don’t like them, you can have some more.”
Last night, a majority of Scottish MPs rejected Brexit. The Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Stop it. Chanting in the background is utterly irresponsible. Let the right hon. Gentleman ask his question and the Prime Minister answer it. That is what the public would expect.
Ian Blackford
The Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and this House of Commons have rejected the Prime Minister’s deal. The UK Government told Scotland in 2014 that being part of the UK meant continued EU membership. The UK Government told us that we would be part of a family of equal nations. Prime Minister, Scotland wants to stay in the EU. We are scunnered by this Government ignoring Scotland. Does the Prime Minister accept that she promised Scotland everything but delivered nothing?
The Prime Minister
Scotland is part of the United Kingdom and voted in 2014 to stay part of the United Kingdom, and the United Kingdom will be leaving the European Union. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about the impact on Scotland in the future, perhaps he should look at the figures for exports that came out just this morning. Over 60% of Scotland’s exports go to the rest of the UK. That is more than Scotland’s trade with the rest of the world and over three times more than with the rest of the European Union. However, he represents a party that wants to erect a border between Scotland and England. The biggest threat to the future of Scotland is sitting on the SNP Benches.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about what we are aiming to ensure that we get from leaving the EU, which is the ability to have that independent trade policy. That is so important for us as we leave the EU. Yes, I want to have a good trade relationship with the EU, but I also want to ensure that we are able to have an independent trade policy and have trade deals around the world. This country should be a champion for free trade around the world. That is the way not only to enhance our economy and prosperity and to bring jobs to this country, but to benefit countries around the world, including some of the countries whose economies need to be helped and improved. Some of the poorest people in the world would be helped by those trade arrangements. That is what we are going to deliver and that is our commitment to the British people and, as my hon. Friend says, it delivers on the result of the referendum.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman has raised a specific constituency case, and I will ask the relevant Department to look into the details of that case.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
On 12 July last year, my constituents took their son Jack to Leeds Children’s Hospital for surgery on his craniosynostosis. The surgery went well but, after that care, Jack declined post surgery. His parents raised concerns, and he had declined so much by 16 July that a nurse raised concerns regarding sepsis. Jack continued to be treated for gastroenteritis, and the next day Jack died of overwhelming sepsis. Sadly, this is now the subject of a coroner’s inquest, but my constituents want to ensure that this never happens again to another set of parents. Jack was just three days short of his second birthday. The hospital has since introduced an early-warning system for paediatric sepsis, but that came too late for Jack. Can the Prime Minister assure me that she will do everything in her power to ensure that no other parent has to go through what my constituents have been through?
The Prime Minister
First, I am sure the whole House will join me in sending our deepest condolences to the family and friends of Jack. A terrible tragedy has occurred with the loss of such a young life.
We recognise, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) will confirm, that sepsis is a devastating condition, and it is important that the NHS carries on developing its programme of work on recognising sepsis and improving outcomes. I know NHS England and NHS Improvement are working urgently with the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health to establish a single England-wide paediatrics early-warning system to improve the recognition of sepsis and the response of healthcare services to children and young people.
Obviously, nothing we can do will bring Jack back or compensate for the devastating impact on his family, but I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), and I hope he will be able to reassure his constituents, that we will continue to do all we can to improve the care for those with this devastating condition.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
When I was Home Secretary, I took measures to ensure that we improved the recording of hate crime because—[Interruption.] Actually, no. We did not have a full picture of what was happening.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has recently reviewed and revised our hate crime strategy, but the point underlying what the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) has said is that none of us should accept hate crime. We should all be very clear from this House that there is no place for hate crime in our society. Wherever we see racism, in whatever form, we should all take action to eradicate it.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
In her discussions with EU leaders, will the Prime Minister be making it crystal clear that this Government stand firmly behind all their commitments under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that absolute assurance and commitment. We stand fully behind our commitments under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and everything we do will be in light of those commitments.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
We recognise the importance of buses to local communities, which is why we spend £250 million every year to keep fares down and maintain an extensive network that benefits people up and down the country. We particularly put money into supporting free bus travel for older and disabled people, because we recognise how particularly important buses are to vulnerable people. We are looking at what we can do to further improve access for people with disabilities, but we have been putting money in to ensure that there remains an extensive bus network that is of benefit to local communities.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Last night, a majority of this House voted in favour of a deal to deliver on the democratic will of the people of the United Kingdom and leave the EU. In the next phase of the negotiations, will my right hon. Friend continue to stand firm against the fishing nations of the EU and their vain attempts to maintain guaranteed common access to our waters?
The Prime Minister
I can give my hon. Friend an absolute commitment that I will do that. Leaving the common fisheries policy and becoming an independent coastal state is so important to this country, to enable us to enhance and give opportunities to fishing communities around the United Kingdom. I recognise that fishing is particularly important in Scotland, but fishing communities around the UK will benefit from our becoming an independent coastal state. I am very clear: our position is there, we have that agreement, and it is not up for renegotiation.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Prime Minister
Clearly, this is a very serious issue, and I understand that the judiciary and devolved justice authorities in Northern Ireland are keeping it under close and active consideration. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman knows, policing and justice is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, as is the length of custodial sentences. In recently passing the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland enabled Departments to continue to take decisions in the public interest to ensure the continued operation of public services, but that is not and cannot be a replacement for a devolved Government. The example the hon. Gentleman has given is yet another reason why it is important for us all to work to get the devolved Administration back up and running.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
The Prime Minister will appreciate that the Government are spending over 50% more per head, in real terms, on education than was spent in the year 2000—and achieving much better results, might I add. However, there are still some challenges with resources and funding in many areas across Hitchin and Harpenden, especially in small rural schools. Will the Prime Minister commit to special consideration for education in the upcoming spending review? I believe that would command widespread support across the House.
The Prime Minister
I think the Chancellor was listening to my hon. Friend’s remarks and comments on funding. As he says, it is absolutely right that we have been putting more money into schools. It is also right that we now see 1.9 million more children in good or outstanding schools than there were in 2010. We will of course look carefully across all elements of public expenditure when we come to the spending review but, as I said to my hon. Friend, I am sure the Chancellor has heard the lobbying in which my hon. Friend indulged in his question, particularly for small rural schools.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I recognise that this is a concerning time for the employees at Knight & Lee in Southsea. It is obviously a commercial decision for the company to take. We will ensure that the Department for Work and Pensions and Jobcentre Plus work with the company to understand the level of employee support required. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that if he is worried about jobs in his constituency, the policies that would cause most damage to jobs there are the policies of the Labour party and those on the Labour Front Bench.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
Last week, SNP-led Moray Council announced a number of devastating cuts to local services, many of which will impact young people. From the closing of libraries and swimming pools to the ending of the Active Schools programme and increasing of fees for music tuition, young people are affected while the council’s highest-paid senior managers are not. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the SNP in Moray should focus on services rather than managers, and will she call on the Scottish Government to deliver a fairer funding deal for Moray?
The Prime Minister
Of course, the UK Government have increased the block grant that is going to the Scottish Government next year, so decisions on cutting budgets are a matter of priority for the SNP rather than necessity. Extra money has been given to them. It is a question of where they want to put that money and what they put as a priority. It is time that the SNP empowered local government in Scotland, rather than hoarding power at Holyrood.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I will ensure that the relevant Minister meets the hon. Gentleman and addresses this issue with him.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
With record numbers of women in the workplace now, more and more women will experience the symptoms of peri-menopause or menopause while they are at work. Often, the symptoms are not well understood by the general population and they include much more than just hot flushes and night sweats. Will the Prime Minister please join my campaign, which calls on employers to update their health and wellbeing policies to ensure that women can get full information and proper support so that they can continue contributing at work?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. Obviously, this is something that many Members across this House will recognise as an important issue. We recognise the difficulties that women going through the menopause face. We are encouraging employers to adopt menopause-friendly policies such as flexible working and giving women information about healthy lifestyles that may help to improve their experience of the menopause. I will certainly encourage all employers, as she is doing, to take reasonable steps, including those that she has referenced, to support employees so that they can continue to carry out their jobs and contribute to our economy in the way they have done so far.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is right that, last night, Parliament voted to reject no deal. What Parliament also voted for last night was to say that it wanted to leave the European Union with a deal, and it identified what was necessary to change in the deal in order to enable that to happen and for the House to support a deal. That is where we should be focusing. We can only ensure that we avoid no deal by having a deal, by agreeing a deal and by this House supporting a deal and voting for a deal.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
May I commend my right hon. Friend for her commitment yesterday to return to Brussels and reopen the text of the withdrawal agreement? That is the right thing to do. People in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland will welcome it because they want to leave with a good deal for our country. I commend the excellent compromise proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), which has every chance of success in uniting this Parliament and this country behind a good exit.
The Prime Minister
Obviously, there was a very clear message from the House last night as to what needs to happen in terms of returning to Brussels, but also we are engaging positively, as my hon. Friend said, with the proposals that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire and others have put forward in relation to dealing with the issue of the backstop.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
Obviously, passengers expect better. I understand from the Department for Transport that the first phase of work to protect the sea wall at Dawlish began in November, with essential repairs to the breakwaters. That is part of the £15 million wider investment to make the railway at Dawlish and Teignmouth more resilient to extreme weather. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that world-leading engineers have been carrying out the detailed ground investigations to develop a long-term solution to protect the railway in a way that minimises disruption for passengers. Network Rail will soon be reporting on how it will deliver this solution. I am clear that delivering this improvement to the south-west’s transport infrastructure is a national priority. It is essential for unlocking the region’s economic prosperity and jobs, and that is why we are giving it the focus that we are.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Cotmanhay Junior School in my constituency has increased its proportion of pupils attaining the required level of key stage 2 standards from 35% to an amazing 67% over the last year. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the pupils, the teachers and the head, Simon Robinson, and 13 other primary schools across Erewash, on all improving their key stage 2 performances?
The Prime Minister
I am delighted to hear of the increase in performance at Cotmanhay Junior School. The education of children is improving, regardless of where they live or their background, so that they can get the education that they need to fulfil their potential. I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the pupils and staff of that particular school, and of the other schools she referenced across her Erewash constituency that have seen improvements, which are important for the future of those children.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The House rejected no deal last night, but I hope that the hon. Lady, when the time comes, will play her part in avoiding no deal and will vote for a deal.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
The Prime Minister knows that I want to ensure that we leave the European Union on 29 March. She also knows that, regretfully, I could not support her deal two weeks ago because of the backstop, its impact on the relationship between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and its potential to trap us in a customs union. I welcome the fact that the House yesterday voted by a clear majority to renegotiate the backstop. If the Prime Minister can deliver that, I will vote for her deal, and I am confident that there will be a sustainable majority to get it and the legislation through the House. I ask my right hon. Friend to tell the European Union that there is a majority in this House for that deal to get us out of the European Union on good terms. I ask my colleagues to give the Prime Minister space; the EU is not going to crumble tomorrow. We are going to have to hold our nerve and we can be successful.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of the vote that took place last night. Winning that vote with a majority—agreeing what it was necessary to change in the withdrawal agreement in order to achieve a majority across this House—gave a very clear message to the European Union that a deal can go through this House, but it has to be a deal that recognises the concerns that have been expressed across the whole of this House in relation to the backstop. I am going to be fighting for the change that this House has been very clear that it wants to see in the future. Then, as my right hon. Friend says, I am confident that we can see a sustainable and substantial majority across this House for leaving with the deal.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Like one of her hon. Friends, the hon. Lady has raised an individual constituency case and the details of that individual constituency case. I will ask the relevant Minister to look into that case and to be—[Interruption.] She is asking me to take a position purely on the question that she has asked me. I am asking the Minister in the relevant Department to look into the case and to be able to assess that case and to respond to her.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
This afternoon we shall be debating the Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill, which, among other things, will facilitate the cross-border exchange of data, enabling us to investigate crimes such as terrorism and paedophilia. Is it not the responsibility of all of us in this House to wholeheartedly support that Bill?
The Prime Minister
Absolutely, yes. This is a very important Bill in the impact that it will have. I am sure that everybody across this whole House wants to ensure that we can deal with terrorism, with paedophilia and indeed with other organised crime. Exchange of data is an important way of doing that, and I hope that everybody will see the importance of support for that.
Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
In recent days we have heard the Irish Prime Minister talk about bringing his troops up to the border in the event of no deal. We have heard the Irish Deputy Foreign Minister talking of people jumping out of windows. Is not this highly reckless talk extremely dangerous in the present circumstances? That sort of rhetoric should be toned down and we should instead focus on what Michel Barnier said the other day—that even in the event of no deal, we would sit down and find operational ways to have checks and controls away from the border. Is not that the way forward? And it blows a hole in the entire concept of this backstop.
The Prime Minister
Obviously it is important—I will be speaking to the Taoiseach later today—for us to work with the Government of Ireland on the arrangements that will be in place in the future. We have obviously sent a clear message from this House about what needs to happen in relation to the backstop. We retain our commitment to no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, and look to working with the Government of Ireland and with the European Union to ensure that we can all maintain our commitments under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and that commitment to no hard border on the island of Ireland.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Last Sunday, we commemorated Holocaust Memorial Day, when we remembered the darkest period in Europe’s history. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking the Holocaust Educational Trust, its youth ambassadors, and the incredible survivors, who give their personal testimony to young people so that they will remember what the ultimate destination of racial hatred and antisemitism truly is?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the excellent work that the Holocaust Educational Trust does, and the youth ambassadors. I have met some of these youth ambassadors, who have understood the importance of learning the lesson from the holocaust, and understood the importance of acting against antisemitism wherever it occurs—and, indeed, wider racial hatred. As my hon. Friend says, the survivors from the holocaust have given their time to ensuring that nobody is in any doubt about where man’s inhumanity to man can lead. They have done a really important job. I pay tribute to them and to their continuing work. It is important that we all recognise the terrible things that can happen when we let antisemitism occur. We should all be fighting against antisemitism wherever it occurs.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
In the cold of Sunday, Kane Walker was found dead on the pavements of Birmingham. He was 31, and he became one of over 2,600 homeless people to have lost their lives in the last five years. When will the Prime Minister recognise that the scale of homelessness today is a moral emergency, and that we cannot wait until 2027 for this Government to end homelessness for good when we need action now?
The Prime Minister
First, we all want to ensure that everybody in this country can have a safe and secure roof over their head—that nobody has to be on the streets sleeping rough. That is why we are putting money into this. We have taken a number of initiatives like Housing First which are already showing benefits in helping people who would otherwise be homeless and could end up on the streets in having a home and dealing with the issues that ensure that they are able to stay in that home. This is something that we recognise the importance of. That is why we are putting money into it. That is why we are acting. That is why we are ensuring that action is being taken across the country to deal with this.
Draft Domestic Abuse Bill: Territorial Extent
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the territorial extent of the draft Domestic Abuse Bill and the consequences of this for victims of violence across the UK.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
The landmark draft Domestic Abuse Bill, which we published last week, will help to transform the response to these horrific crimes. It is aimed at supporting victims and their families and pursuing offenders, to stop the cycle of violence. The Bill will cement a statutory definition of domestic abuse that extends beyond violence to include emotional, psychological and economic abuse. The Bill does not create new criminal offences in relation to domestic abuse, because those offences are already settled law—for example, section 18 grievous bodily harm, coercive and controlling behaviour and even, in the saddest of cases, murder—and are all devolved.
In line with existing criminal law, the provisions of the draft Bill extend to England and Wales only. Contrary to the suggestion in the hon. Lady’s question, there has been no change in the territorial application of the Bill compared with the proposals in the Government’s consultation published last spring. That was made clear in the consultation paper and reflects the fact that the subject matter of the draft Bill is devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
We are currently in discussion with the Scottish Government and Northern Ireland Department of Justice about whether they wish to extend any of the Bill’s provisions to Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively. We are seeking to establish a Joint Committee of both Houses as soon as practicable to undertake pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill, and I encourage the hon. Lady and all Members to contribute to that process.
Stella Creasy
Domestic abuse affects communities in every nation in the UK, yet last week, after two and a half years of waiting, the Government published a draft Bill that restricts action to only England and Wales. I am asking this question not to debate the nature of devolution, but to ask why this Bill has been restricted when what was promised from the outset was very different.
The original consultation recognised that
“Insecure immigration status may also impact on a victim’s decision to seek help.”
We know that migrant women are much less likely to seek help because they fear deportation. Some may point to other immigration legislation going through this place, but that does not include anything on this issue either. This Bill would have been the vehicle for helping those victims, as immigration is not a devolved matter.
The then Home Secretary, who is now the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, has rightly recognised that financial destitution can hold women in abusive relationships. This Bill contains much to be welcomed regarding action in the courts and an independent commissioner, but because it is restricted, it does not address critical areas of policy. Why, after two and a half years, would the Government do this?
The Sunday Times provided the answer this weekend, with confirmation that the Bill had been vetted by the Cabinet Office and that the Government feared making the Bill UK-wide because of the Democratic Unionist party. Why? Because this Bill is also about implementing the convention on violence against women—a convention the United Nations has said that we are breaching right now, because citizens in Northern Ireland are denied the right to choose not to continue an unwanted pregnancy.
Today, a brave young woman aged just 28, Sarah Ewart, is taking our Government to court to vindicate her human rights. She suffered a fatal foetal abnormality but, as a resident of Northern Ireland, was denied the right to an abortion at home, so she had to travel to England, as 28 women a week currently do. Last June, the Supreme Court told the Government that this situation breached the rights of UK women, but because of a technicality, it could not compel them to act.
This Bill from the outset could have been the remedy, but this weekend’s revelations show that the Government have drafted the Bill with a mind not to the victims of domestic violence but to their partners in the coalition. The Bill talks about domestic abuse protection orders, which are supposed to have effect across the whole of the UK, yet there is no clarity, given the restricted scope, on how the Government intend to compel Scotland or Northern Ireland to act on them. Given that the original consultation talked of working with the Northern Ireland Executive, these problems are clearly of the Government’s own making and a direct response to the call for equal rights for the women of Northern Ireland.
Given this mess, can the Minister confirm at which of the DUP co-ordination committees this decision was taken? It is not minuted in the notes of those meetings from July 2017 to Christmas 2018. The power to veto legislation affecting all of the UK is not in the confidence and supply agreement, which I note was updated on 19 December, so can the Minister explain how the decision to restrict the Bill for this purpose was made? What implications does it have for the role of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who has direct responsibility for upholding the human rights of the people of Northern Ireland? Can the Minister explain why migrant women and those on low incomes in abusive relationships should pay such a price?
Can the Minister stop hiding behind devolution and say sorry to Sarah Ewart for making her relive the trauma of what happened to her, just because the Government need the 10 votes of the DUP to stay in power? We saw that last night, and I have no doubt that we will see it again, but this Bill shows the human consequences for women across the UK of the confidence and supply arrangement.
I know that Members across the House want to see action on domestic violence, and these restrictions will trouble women only our in constituencies but across the whole UK. Given that this is a draft Bill, will the Minister commit to going back to the drawing board and coming up with a Bill that helps to protect every victim across the UK? I ask the Minister to fight us fair and square on abortion rights in this place, not through backroom deals and bargaining. Otherwise, it will take a rape victim having to come to court to make the Government do the right thing and not block this change. Put DV, not the DUP, first.
Victoria Atkins
Home should be a place of safety and love, and yet for 2 million people in this country a year, that is not the case. That is why we are introducing this unprecedented Bill, to try to help the victims of domestic abuse.
The hon. Lady rightly highlighted the fact that the Bill applies only to England and Wales at the moment. I set out the reason for that in my initial statement: the raft of offences that would support prosecutions of domestic abuse, including section 18 GBH and coercive and controlling behaviour, are devolved.
We have not rested on our laurels. I have written to the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Department of Justice to ask whether they will replicate this legislation in their own territories. I am delighted to say that the Scottish Government are looking at their own measures. I am sure that Scottish National party Members will have their own thoughts on devolved matters and the UK Parliament respecting that.
I must bring the hon. Lady back to the central subject of the Bill. This is about tackling domestic abuse, which I know she and many Members across the House feel strongly about. We must focus on the Bill. Let us not throw taunts across the Floor of the House. Let us work together to ensure that the Bill is in a good state when it is introduced formally. She asked about scrutiny of the Bill. We have said from the very beginning that this is a draft piece of legislation that will be scrutinised by a Joint Committee of both Houses. We anticipate that taking about 12 weeks, and once the Committee has produced its recommendations, we will look at those carefully before introducing the Bill.
Whatever the hon. Lady may have read on Sunday, I urge her not to believe everything she reads in the papers. We have to remember the people whom we are trying to help through the Bill. I have been delighted at the cross-party consensus on the Bill. Let us work together to stop this cycle of violence and help the victims of domestic abuse.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I highly commend the Minister and the Government for this very good Bill, but I very much share the concerns of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). I am gravely concerned that this is, in effect, a way of stopping what should be happening: a fundamental reform of the laws in Northern Ireland so that women in Northern Ireland have exactly the same rights as women in my constituency. Forgive me, Mr Speaker, for asking the Minister this, but I genuinely do not know the answer: are there any civil remedies in this Bill? If there are, I am afraid that the Minister’s response falls absolutely flat, because civil remedies are relevant across all the UK— [Interruption.] Apart from in Scotland—and therefore the scope of this Bill immediately needs to be changed.
Victoria Atkins
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that issue. I know how passionately she has worked to help the victims of domestic abuse, not only in this place, but in her previous career. I note her concerns and she knows that I, too, have my concerns, although those are not for today. I am sure she will join me in urging all those people who can make a difference in Northern Ireland to get around the table so that they can represent people and deal with this in the devolved Administration. On civil remedies, we have sought to consolidate the range of orders that are in existence at the moment, which can be very confusing, not only for victims, but for professionals involved in safeguarding victims. We are seeking to consolidate the range of orders available to protect victims in domestic abuse protection orders. They apply across the courts—family, civil and criminal courts. My understanding does not accord with hers, but I am happy to take that issue away.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
As a Welsh MP, I have every confidence that the Welsh Labour Government are working towards delivering an excellent strategy on support for victims of domestic violence—I have no doubt that the same is true in Scotland. I totally respect the concept of devolution—when it works. But with the absence of Stormont, victims in Northern Ireland will see the progress in other parts of the UK only as further evidence of where they are falling behind in the support services and legislation available to them. We already know that in Northern Ireland they have no coercive control law and no stalking law, and the current controversy over the legality of abortion rumbles on. We need the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to take firmer action so that we can see a return to devolved government.
The good people of Northern Ireland deserve the same rights as everybody else in the UK, and currently they are not getting that. They are not protected by a devolved Government because of Stormont’s suspension. Even in today’s Northern Ireland questions we have been calling for the return of devolved institutions. We believe that support and services for victims of domestic violence in Northern Ireland are best made in Northern Ireland, but after two years of no Government the situation is stagnant. The people of Northern Ireland are suffering the effects of this political hiatus, none more so than the victims of domestic violence, as their voices reverberate in an echo chamber. I know that no MP in this place would believe that policies and strategies that support our constituents should not be afforded to the people of Northern Ireland, with one of the most notable issues being that of abortion. Human rights issues are not devolved to the Northern Ireland Executive and, as such, issues around women’s reproductive health are the responsibility of this Home Secretary and other relevant Ministers. Decisions on the provision of public services, legislation and support for the people of Northern Ireland need to be reached urgently. If there is no likelihood of Stormont reconvening very shortly, this Government need to take responsibility to protect and support victims of domestic abuse in Northern Ireland.
Victoria Atkins
As always, I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady. Indeed, I should call her my hon. Friend, as she and I are agreeing furiously on the hope and aspiration that those who can make a difference and express the wishes of the residents of Northern Ireland—I hope we can all accept that they may not agree with our individual viewpoints on issues such as abortion, but that is why that topic is devolved—will get back round the table to sort this issue, as well as many others. I am sure we all encourage them in that, as I know she does. I gently remind colleagues again that this is about domestic abuse. Although, sadly, some abortions may be as a result of an intimate abusive relationship, not all abortions fall into that category, and I am keen that we try to focus on the victims of domestic abuse in this Bill and our scrutiny of this Bill, because they are the people we really are trying to help with the passing of this piece of legislation.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Let us call this out for what it is: part of an orchestrated campaign to alter abortion laws in Northern Ireland and here, and to replace those laws with extreme proposals for which there is no public appetite whatsoever. Does the Minister agree that it is highly inappropriate for such campaigners to hijack the Domestic Abuse Bill in this way, undermining a Bill to support victims of domestic abuse and their families? Does she agree that it is equally inappropriate to interfere in a devolved matter, one that has been devolved for almost 100 years, and set a dangerous constitutional precedent—a precedent of interference that would undermine the Good Friday agreement itself?
Victoria Atkins
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She demonstrates the range and depth of views, and the passion with which they are held, across the House on this topic of abortion. I am grateful to her for reminding us that this Bill is, as it says in the title, a draft Domestic Abuse Bill. I very much note her observations about the political structure in Northern Ireland. Again, I am not sure that this urgent question is the forum in which any changes to that are going to happen. I am grateful to her for her question, which underlines that we have to keep in mind the subject matter of this Bill; we are trying to tackle domestic abuse here.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The situation in Northern Ireland as regards women’s rights, particularly on abortion, is deplorable and requires addressing. However, this Bill could never have been UK-wide, because civil and criminal justice are devolved to Scotland. Indeed, last year Scotland passed its own Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, which has already significantly strengthened statutory definitions and protections in respect of domestic violence, for example, by recognising the offence of coercive control.
There is much to be welcomed in the UK Government’s Bill, but I am pleased to hear that they are putting it through pre-legislative scrutiny, which we hope signifies that they are willing to listen to genuine concerns from Members from across the House. There are some UK-wide issues that this Government could and should legislate on. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) has led the campaign calling for default separate payments in universal credit, to protect the victims of domestic abuse from financial coercion. Scottish National party Members were dismayed that that was dismissed out of hand by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Will the Minister speak to her counterpart at the Department for Work and Pensions so as to urgently introduce default separate payments or at least to create provision for the Scottish Government to do that, because of course that is one of the many aspects of welfare powers that are not yet devolved?
As has been mentioned by others, the insecure immigration status of women who are victims of domestic violence also needs addressing. I want to know what the Minister is doing to extend the eligibility of the destitute domestic violence concession, so that it supports more migrant women. More generally, what discussions will she have with her counterparts to support migrant women, throughout the UK, who are victims of domestic abuse?
Victoria Atkins
I am very grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for her astute and concise analysis of the legal position. May I put on the record the UK Government’s thanks to the Scottish Government for the work they do with us on this and other associated crimes, such as stalking and harassment?
The hon. and learned Lady is absolutely right. I hope the House realises that we are being very open and transparent about the process for this Bill. It is a draft Bill specifically so that there can be a Joint Committee of both Houses—I think it is fair to say that this is an unusual level of scrutiny for the House—to look at the detail of the Bill and see whether improvements can be made.
On the specific issue of universal credit, I very much know about the issues that have been raised on these Benches. There is already a range of special provisions for victims of domestic abuse—for example, temporary accommodation, easements, same-day advances and signposting to expert support. However, I welcome the recent measures introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions regarding payments to the primary carer.
We will continue to work on this together, but I would make this observation. Those of us who take a particular interest in this subject all know that economic abuse, like all forms of domestic abuse, has no regard to income levels, job status or whatever. We must make sure that our answers are right not just for those on low incomes, but for women who do not need to have recourse to the welfare system.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
I echo the words of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), in agreeing that there is a democratic deficit in Northern Ireland at the moment. In Northern Ireland questions this morning, we heard that there is currently no mental capacity legislation in Northern Ireland. In our Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, we have heard that it is still working to statements, rather than to education, health and care plans. The suicide strategy is sitting there but cannot be implemented, and we have the issue of equal marriage. This is much bigger than the Bill, and just to change the Bill to deal with one issue undervalues the role of devolution. The priority must be to get the Assembly back and functioning in Northern Ireland and dealing with all the inequality issues that are so important to the people in all communities.
Victoria Atkins
Very much so. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for setting out the political complexities of this, but also the impacts on people living in Northern Ireland. Again, I am not sure we can solve the issue of devolved politics in Northern Ireland on the Floor of the House during this urgent question. However, we have contacted the permanent secretary who is currently acting in a temporary capacity in relation to Northern Ireland, because we want to see what can be done to help women in Northern Ireland as well as in England and Wales.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I have a great deal of time for the Minister, but what does she really think about how long it is acceptable to use the problem of there being no Assembly in Northern Ireland as a reason for this House not to act on the breach of women’s human rights in Northern Ireland, which we have debated at length in this Chamber? I would be interested to know what the Minister has to say about that.
Victoria Atkins
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady, and I note her campaign on the particular issue of abortion and the decriminalisation of the law regarding abortion. At the risk of overreaching myself, I am not sure it is my place at the Dispatch Box at this time to give an assessment of how long this is taking, other than to say that the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and everyone in this Government are very keen and we urge all those parties present in Northern Ireland to get back around the table. There are so many issues that need their attention.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
May I ask my hon. Friend to confirm two things? First, is she committed and determined to tackle domestic abuse in all its forms? Secondly, is she determined to improve rights and protections for women across the United Kingdom?
Victoria Atkins
As this Bill passes through pre-legislative scrutiny, but also through this House and the other place, I hope the message will go out to people who are not perhaps as passionate about tackling domestic abuse and those for whom it has not yet become a priority that domestic abuse is not restricted to acts of violence, but can encompass sexual abuse, coercive and controlling behaviour, and economic abuse. Interestingly, since we launched the draft Bill last week, I have been inundated with emails from victims of all different forms of domestic abuse seeking help and thanking me for recognising the hell they are going through. If every Member can help us to inform and educate people about the forms of domestic abuse that in itself will be incredibly powerful in helping victims.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
My party, the Democratic Unionist party, recognises the importance of tackling domestic abuse and of supporting victims of domestic violence. However, this is a devolved issue in Northern Ireland, and the need to strengthen the legislation should be dealt with by the Northern Ireland Assembly. If the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) was to amend the Bill to change the law on abortion in Northern Ireland, this would breach the devolution settlement. The emphasis should be, must be and has to be to restore devolved Government in Northern Ireland. The Government and all Members of this House on both sides of the Chamber should respect the right of the people of Northern Ireland to deal with these matters through their elected Assembly.
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Gentleman of course speaks for his constituency, and I am pleased to hear that he is urging others in Northern Ireland to get back around the table and help to deal with these many issues. As has already been pointed out, however, this is but one of the important issues facing Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
May I thank the Minister for this Bill, which I believe will transform the way in which we deal with this horrific crime? It largely impacts on women, although men can of course be impacted by domestic violence as well. I think it is totally despicable that politicians in Northern Ireland have left such a void in this and other areas for two years now. Will the Minister confirm that the devolved powers, which mean that this Bill has to be only for England and Wales, have actually been devolved for many decades?
Victoria Atkins
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am particularly grateful to her for pointing out that, although the vast majority of victims are female—indeed, of the 2 million people affected, it is estimated that 1.3 million are female—men can be victims of domestic abuse as well. That is why, through the non-legislative package of measures that sits alongside the Bill, we are also investing in, for example, a specific helpline for male victims. We understand that they face particular stigmas in being a male victim, and they may feel even greater pressure not to seek help.
On the point about the nature of the criminal laws underpinning the prosecution of domestic abuse offences, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act dates back to 1861.
Jess Phillips
I would just like to point out that in 1861 there was no devolution—the whole of Ireland was part of the UK—so things have somewhat moved on since 1861. Anyway, that was not my question, Mr Speaker; it was just an indulgence.
I am going to ask about domestic abuse. Specifically, why does the Bill in its current form—I accept that it may well change, and I will certainly be seeking to change it—not have any immigration statutory law changes in it to protect migrant women? I know that throughout the consultation there was a very strong push on how this Bill will not help any women unless it helps all women. We have to leave no woman behind, and currently migrant women are left behind by this Bill. If we extend it to cover immigration law, the extent of the Bill will of course be expanded. Would the Minister welcome that?
Victoria Atkins
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady, who needs no introduction in terms of her experience and expertise in this area. On expanding the Bill to alter the immigration status, the view was taken that, although domestic abuse does, of course, affect women who are not British citizens, or who do not have the right to remain, the Bill as a whole must focus on victims, the types of abuse and how we treat abuse.
I very much welcome the hon. Lady’s wish to assist—[Interruption.] I am sorry—I am trying to keep a straight face; the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) is gesticulating wildly from a sedentary position. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) knows that I will welcome her contributions during the scrutiny process—indeed, I hope that she will be involved in it.
I note that various provisions are in place to help women who, for example, have come across on a spousal visa, but both the Minister for Immigration and I are very alert to the challenges that those women face, and we are very keen to work with the hon. Lady.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I agree that Northern Ireland must get its political system up and running to tackle these really serious issues. I welcome the draft Bill. It is such an important step in tackling domestic abuse, particularly areas that have not been tackled previously—for example, controlling behaviour towards the elderly. I wonder whether the Minister could put the whole thing in perspective, so that we can really understand how important the Bill is. How many people does she think will be helped by the Bill in all its forms?
Victoria Atkins
I thank my hon. Friend. She is absolutely right to draw attention to elder abuse. The number of colleagues and other people who have contacted me since the launch of the draft Bill to tell me their stories of abuse by their children or grandchildren is heartbreaking. Several months ago, the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) called a very important Westminster Hall debate on abuse by children of their parents and grandparents.
It is something that we are keen to uncover and shine a light on, because if a parent is being abused by their child, the stigma and shame that victims unfortunately and wrongly feel is compounded even more, because parents feel that they should be able to control the behaviour of their children. We want to shine a light on that, and say to everyone, whether they are parents, children or grandchildren, “Abuse in your home is not right, and we are here to help.”
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
The Minister failed to answer the central question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). Who decided to exclude Northern Ireland from the Bill, and was it discussed with the DUP?
Victoria Atkins
As the hon. Lady knows, the process is that any Bill that is introduced has to go through various Government committees to ensure, across Government, given that we have collective responsibility, that it meets with approval. I do not know of any such meetings with the DUP. I will happily take that away, but as far as I am concerned, I looked at the Bill, I have examined it very carefully, and I am afraid that the central point about devolved matters seems to me to apply.
I know that that does not meet with the hon. Lady’s approval, but the fact is that the law is the law, and we have to build a Bill around it. As I say, I have written to the devolved Assembly in Scotland and to the permanent secretary in Northern Ireland, and those communications are ongoing.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Supreme Court judgment made it absolutely clear that lawmakers would have to change the law to give greater rights to women from Northern Ireland in the circumstances that were discussed. The women who my colleagues and I met and women such as Sarah Ewart should not have to go all the way through a court process to get their rights—it adds insult to injury for them. I ask the Minister, who always listens: if not this law, what law will be introduced by this Parliament, which unlike Northern Ireland is responsible for treaty compliance, to give those rights to women, who deserve them?
Victoria Atkins
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that he works on a wide range of issues tackling violence against women and girls. First, on the case that he referred to—I do not want to be legalistic about this, but he asked me about it specifically—he may recall that the Supreme Court judgment was unable to deliver a full ruling, because the litigant bringing the proceedings was not judged to have locus. I have to say that, because that is the situation.
I obviously must not comment on the specific case that has been referred to in the Chamber and that is going through the court process at the moment, but I return to the point that the Bill is about domestic abuse. We have to focus on the subject matter of the title of the Bill, and any matters in relation to devolved powers are part of a much wider debate across Government.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I welcome, as I am sure others do, the Minister’s obvious passion and commitment to tackling domestic abuse, which I think is the central issue for all of us present. I also believe passionately in devolution, but devolution means to transfer, or delegate, power to another body. That body at the moment does not exist. Devolution does not mean to abrogate responsibility.
Those women are citizens of the United Kingdom, and the United Kingdom Government surely have a responsibility to respect the views expressed by our Supreme Court and the United Nations that the human rights of women in Northern Ireland are not being protected. Does the Minister not agree that that should be the overriding principle, not whether devolution, which is not working at the moment, should be preserved?
Victoria Atkins
I thank the hon. Lady for her kind comments. She has perhaps recognised the situation in which we find ourselves, in that these matters have been devolved. I go back to the point that the criminal laws that underpin the prosecution of domestic abuse, and so on, are devolved. As we have heard, that does not have an impact only in relation to domestic abuse; a wide range of measures are affected by the Assembly not yet being able to be convened in Northern Ireland. I am sorry that it will not meet with the hon. Lady’s approval, but the only answer that I can give is yet again to urge those who can make a difference in Northern Ireland to please get back round the table and start talking to each other.
Danielle Rowley (Midlothian) (Lab)
Although I welcome the inclusion in the Bill of financial abuse as a type of domestic abuse, it is not enough to have that simply as words when Government policy is trapping women in financially abusive relationships. Universal credit payments must be automatically split. Charities have said that not having automatically split payments gives a hand to abusers. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) did not quite get a straight answer. Will the Minister recognise the problem, and meet her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to urge that universal credit payments be split?
Victoria Atkins
If I may just correct the hon. Lady, we are not talking about financial abuse; we talk about economic abuse, because we appreciate that abuse can take many forms—for example, preventing access to food cupboards in the kitchen, taking a woman’s mobile phone away, so who she can contact is restricted, and even hiding the car keys, so that she cannot get to work on time in the morning, which puts her employment at risk, with all the ramifications that that can have.
On the point about universal credit, I am in constant dialogue with my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is formerly of the Home Office manor. I very much hope that the fact that one of her first announcements was an important one about looking after primary carers gives reassurance and comfort to the House that we are looking at this matter very carefully.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Criminal justice is not yet devolved to Wales, but I draw attention to, and commend, the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015, which came into force in Wales in 2015. The 2018 progress report raises concern about the lack of collaboration and integration between the devolved and non-devolved organisations charged with taking forward the aims of the Act. What discussions has the Minister had with the Minister responsible in the Welsh Government to address that?
Victoria Atkins
I am very concerned to hear that, not least because I visited Cardiff a few months ago, as part of our domestic abuse consultation engagement events, to listen to people who are doing great work in Wales to tackle domestic abuse and to see how we can improve collaboration. I very much take on board what the hon. Lady says. If we need to improve, I hope she knows that I will not rest until that has happened.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s response today. I also welcome the support from the Scottish National party, in particular the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), with regards to women in Northern Ireland. The Minister said that the criminal elements are devolved, but the Supreme Court’s warning from last year is that human rights are not devolved but extended. Is this not a missed opportunity to empower the Minister and the Secretary of State at the Home Office with regard to the human rights of victims of domestic violence and of women in general?
Victoria Atkins
I absolutely understand the hon. Gentleman’s feelings and his reasons for raising that point. At the risk of being legalistic, the Supreme Court judgment was advisory because of the locus. I hope he appreciates that I cannot talk about the case going through the court process at the moment. When that judgment is delivered we will of course look at it very carefully, but I come back to the point that at the moment, on this and on a whole range of issues, domestic abuse is devolved. I gently remind the House, by way of explanation, that the topic of the Bill is domestic abuse and that not every abortion is as a result of domestic abuse.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I would like to start by saying to the Minister that unless she is going to devolve Department for Work and Pensions and UK Visas and Immigration functions, it will be a missed opportunity for the Bill not to tackle the issues those Departments are responsible for, particularly with regards to women in the immigration system and some DWP policies, including the rape clause, which, in the way it is formed, either forces a woman to leave an abusive relationship at a time not of her choosing, which can be extremely dangerous, or denies her support.
I would also like to know a bit more about the recommendations for training DWP staff. I have heard from some organisations that that can be sorely lacking in the advice that is offered to women. I would like to know how exactly that would operate for both England and Scotland.
Lastly, if Mr Speaker will allow, it was announced today that all judges and sheriffs in Scotland will be given specific domestic violence training, particularly around coercive control. Will she consider doing something similar for all judges in the English court system, too?
Mr Speaker
I think the hon. Lady can be satisfied that she has provided comprehensive coverage of her concerns, to which, doubtless, there will be an equally comprehensive response from the Minister on the Treasury Bench.
Victoria Atkins
I am grateful, Mr Speaker. First, I thank the hon. Lady for pointing to the fact that the draft Bill, important though it is, is not the only action the Government are taking to tackle domestic abuse. Indeed, there are some 120 commitments that sit alongside the Bill. She mentioned training. That is a crucial part of our package, not just for DWP or jobcentre workers but across what I would call the frontline, for example housing association officers, police officers and the judiciary. The judiciary in England and Wales already receive training, which we keep under review. I should also say that we are looking at the offence of coercive control and behaviour. It has been in force for three years, but we appreciate that it can be a very difficult offence to investigate and prosecute. We are reviewing it to ensure that it is as effective as possible. On the DWP more generally, I am in conversation with my counterparts there. We want a wraparound approach, which is why the announcement by the Secretary of State was so significant.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Like many Members from across this place, I am very enthusiastic about the Bill and the potential for making a real difference in our communities. That is why it is so disappointing that we are not even at the first hurdle and we are already divided. I have worked very constructively with the Minister on a number of issues, so it gives me no pleasure to ask this question but I feel that I must. When the decision was made to not put things in the Bill such as migration and welfare, therefore allowing the Government to restrict their territorial scope to just England and Wales, was it based on the best interests of women in the United Kingdom or was it a narrow political judgment?
Victoria Atkins
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I find myself being held to account by him in pretty much all of my portfolio. On the territory of the Bill, I draw the attention of hon. Members to the consultation that was launched last year. At that point, the consultation’s scope was England and Wales. I would not want hon. Members to leave the Chamber thinking there has been some kind of handbrake turn in relation to the territorial decisions made for the Bill. The fact is that this is a devolved matter. That is why I have written to the devolved Government in Scotland and our Northern Irish counterparts to see if we can reach an agreement on whether they want to implement the measures too. I hope he understands that my motivation all along has been to help the victims of domestic abuse not just today, or for the victims I could not help when I was prosecuting in the criminal courts 15 years ago because none of these measures were anywhere near coming into being, but the victims in the future. We all know the impact domestic abuse can have on children growing up in abusive households and we need to break that cycle of violence.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Earlier, an hon. Member said that there were no devolved institutions in Ireland in 1861. Of course, in 1840, under Daniel O’Connell, the first home rule movement commenced and in 1861 the second movement was well under way, leading to devolution and the creation of two Parliaments in Ireland. I think it is important to have that on the record.
It is unfortunate that some Members have tried to conflate a very important domestic abuse Bill here in England and Wales, which we will support, with what is happening in a very confusing situation in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that that confusion means we have a strange arrangement whereby at one moment in this Parliament some Members talk about protecting absolutely the integrity of the Belfast agreement when it comes to some matters that we discuss, namely Europe, but that when we move on to domestic arrangements that are specifically devolved under the terms of the Belfast agreement we can suddenly cast those arrangements aside? That confusion has to go. We either accept devolution and implement it, or we do what the Labour Front Bench seems to be saying and introduce direct rule.
Victoria Atkins
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his history lesson on Ireland and Northern Ireland. He makes the point eloquently that we cannot pick and choose between devolved matters. The mention of the Good Friday agreement reminds us all, if we need reminding, about the particular sensitivities in Northern Ireland, how we have reached where we are today and its broad history. We of course very much hope that those who can get around the table will do so, so we can sort out those and other matters.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
Was the Bill vetted by the Cabinet Office in relation to the confidence and supply agreement?
Victoria Atkins
I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman is trying to get to. I have already said that the Bill, like every piece of proposed legislation, has to go through what is called “write round”. That is where every Government Department, including the Cabinet Office, considers a Bill. I am very conscious of my responsibility as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office and that we share the Bill with the Ministry of Justice. That is how the Bill has been developed. The consultation last year was clear in its scope and we are bringing the Bill forward in good faith.
Points of Order
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for not giving you advance notice of this; it just came to me. If the Domestic Abuse Bill relates just to England and Wales, can I clarify that the rules of English votes for English laws will apply, and that Members from Scotland and Northern Ireland will not be invited to vote on anything to do with it?
Mr Speaker
It would be somewhat premature of me to offer a judgment from the Chair on that matter at this time. Certainly, when legislation is potentially open to such designation, it is the normal practice that I am advised on it, that I see the paperwork relating to it and that a view is formed. That is something of a holding response, but the matter will clearly be live.
It is, of course, a draft Bill and will be considered by a Committee. It seems unimaginable that that point will not be further explored, both during consideration by the Committee and subsequently. The hon. Lady is herself a living testimony to the truth of what I have just said. It is unimaginable that it will not be the subject of further discussion and questioning, and therefore there will be a requirement for a ministerial response. I should say, as much for the benefit of people attending our proceedings as for Members in the Chamber, that the very fact that I granted an urgent question on it—I think it is the 550th urgent question—is testament to the fact that I regard it as a matter that warrants the attention of the House and the response of a Minister in the Chamber.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I notified you earlier about the point of order that I seek to make, as I did the hon. Member I wish to mention—the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). Yesterday in Treasury questions, the hon. Lady indicated that she had received correspondence from a constituent. That is fine; we all respond to constituents. The quotation that she cited, which relates to a bomb that went off in Londonderry two weeks ago, reads:
“‘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.’”—[Official Report, 29 January 2019; Vol. 653, c. 640.]
Immediately after the bomb, the police made it clear who was responsible: the dissident republican movement in Northern Ireland. Those who planted the device issued a statement—I will not read it in full—which said:
“All this talk of Brexit, hard borders, soft borders, has no bearing on our actions and the IRA won’t be going anywhere.”
I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker, on the need for all of us to speak responsibly and deal effectively with the issues that come to us in a way that does not raise the spectre of giving incentives to those who activate violence or support or give credence to it.
Mr Speaker
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving me advance notice of his intention to raise his point of order. I am also obliged to him for confirming in the Chamber that he notified the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) of his intention to raise the matter.
It is, of course, the responsibility of each and every hon. Member to have a care for the accuracy and appropriateness of what is said in this Chamber. It must be added that, in saying what they think is accurate and appropriate, very often other right hon. and hon. Members disagree with their assessment. I say that, as people will readily appreciate, because that is the nature of political discourse.
Does anybody else wish to contribute on this matter?
Mr Speaker
Of course, I will happily hear the hon. Lady. She is not under any obligation to respond, but if she wishes to do so, she may. I hope the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) feels that he has registered his point with his usual force and courtesy. That is on the record.
Helen Hayes
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I too thank the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) for advance notice of his point of order. I hope he will respect the fact that yesterday I quoted verbatim from a constituent of mine who works and is an employer in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency in Northern Ireland, and has spent extensive time there over several years. It was not conjecture, but a report of reality on the ground.
Responsibility for individual despicable acts of violence clearly rests squarely with the perpetrator, but after 30 years of the troubles, peace in Northern Ireland was painstakingly negotiated through the Good Friday agreement. My constituent has been raising concerns with me for several months about escalating tensions in the community in Londonderry where his business is based. Those issues and the impact that Brexit is already having on the fragile and complex situation in Northern Ireland have been reported widely, but there has been very little discussion of them in this Chamber. They are of an order of magnitude that demands that they be raised. If the Democratic Unionist party will not raise them, I will do so where I have cause to do so via my constituents.
The Prime Minister has so far failed to give any details of alternative arrangements for the Irish border to provide reassurance that a frictionless border without infrastructure is possible—
Mr Speaker
Order. I have indulged the hon. Lady, who always addresses the House with great courtesy. I hope she will forgive me. She is very forensic, but she was reading out what amounted to a speech on this matter. It therefore strains credulity to suppose that it could be characterised as a point of order. I normally have no wish to cut her off. She has made her point with considerable force and insistence—[Interruption.] And she enjoys the benefit of the endorsement of her right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), who has just observed from a sedentary position that she made her point very well. I suspect that her cup runneth over, and I think she should leave it there.
The Minister for Security and Economic Crime (Mr Ben Wallace)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I rise to support your comment that political discourse of course produces different points of view. Speculation in this House on live intelligence actions and investigations is unhelpful and rarely reflects the facts. All Members should be cautious about entering into sub judice or live investigations with speculation that can add fuel to the fire.
Mr Speaker
Everybody should be responsible in his or her use of language. I can say only, however, that although I am not unmindful of the Minister’s point, no breach of order has taken place. We will leave it there. He has made his point with some force, and I do not think there is any need for me to add to it.
Mr Speaker
I have got a feeling that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) thinks that the House needs to hear him. Therefore, we will have a point of order from Mr Mark Francois.
Mr Francois
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for not giving you notice of this, but it is a very straightforward matter. I had a meeting earlier this month with Mr Andrew Haines, the chief executive of Network Rail, to discuss the delay in completing engineering works on the Southend Victoria to Liverpool Street line, which is vexing my constituents greatly. Network Rail representatives briefed me on a new plan to shorten the works, which was welcome. I then went on the media and explained what would happen in good faith. The following Monday, Network Rail contacted me and said, “I’m terribly sorry. We got that slightly wrong,” and then changed what they had offered. I think that was a genuine mistake, but they promised to write to me by the end of the month to clarify the matter. There are two days to go, and no letter has been received. Do you agree that if they give a guarantee like that, Mr Speaker, it would be a good idea to keep it?
Mr Speaker
It would be a very good idea to keep it as a matter of principle. Moreover, as the right hon. Gentleman has aired the issue in the Chamber, that seems to me to constitute an additional reason why it would be politic or prudent for that letter of response to be provided.
The right hon. Gentleman probably recalls that the late Sir Gerald Kaufman was much given to tabling questions about when he would receive a reply to a letter he had sent or a question he had posed. He was wont to observe that, shortly after tabling said question, the reply—to a letter or question from some considerable period earlier—seemed miraculously and speedily to arrive.
If that chief executive were here, I would say to him—he is not, so I cannot, but I will say it indirectly—that I remember what a persistent fellow the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford was in 1986, when he stood against me in a student election. He was a very dedicated campaigner, although he was unsuccessful on that occasion. It would be altogether wiser for the chief executive to recognise that of one thing he can be certain: the right hon. Gentleman will not go away. He will just become ever more demanding, and so that letter should arrive sooner rather than later.
European Union (Requirements Relating to Withdrawal)
Wednesday 30th January 2019
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Requirements relating to Withdrawal) Bill 2017-19 View all European Union (Requirements relating to Withdrawal) 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
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish requirements in connection to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.
We do not have the luxury of time. Unless an alternative is in place, in 58 days—just 29 sitting days—we will leave the EU with no deal. My Bill looks ahead to what happens if, as looks likely, the Prime Minister returns empty-handed from her mission impossible to Brussels, and is based on the recommendations of the 11th report of the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union, so I start by paying tribute to its Chair, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), and all its members for that excellent report.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly commented that, while the House has said what it does not want, it needs to decide what it does. In the event of there being no agreement to change the backstop, we will be back to square one, but with one important difference: we will be much nearer the no-deal cliff edge. In a nutshell, my Bill would allow the House to express its view on what could command the support of the House through a serious of indicative votes on free-standing motions, and the Committee recommended that those be taken in order.
The motions would give the House an opportunity to vote first on the Prime Minister’s negotiated withdrawal agreement and framework for the future relationship; secondly, on the option of leaving with no deal; thirdly, to instruct the Government to seek changes to the backstop—although I think by then we would have tested that to destruction; fourthly, to instruct the Government to seek a Canada-style deal, as set out in the report; fifthly, on seeking to join the European economic area through the pillar of the European Free Trade Association and remain in a customs union with the EU, or a variation of it; and finally, to return the decision to the British people by giving them the opportunity to decide in a public vote what kind of Brexit deal they want or whether they wish to remain in the EU on the current deal.
Last night, the House gave two instructions to the Government. Not for the first time, it rejected leaving the EU with no deal, but it also passed an amendment unilaterally requiring that the Northern Ireland backstop be replaced by unspecified “alternative arrangements” to avoid a hard border. It adds up, essentially, to tearing up the withdrawal agreement. Donald Tusk in his statement following the vote has made it clear that the backstop is part of the withdrawal agreement and that the withdrawal agreement is not open for renegotiation. Most people do not seriously feel that the EU will be prepared to renegotiate.
In the absence of meaningful changes to the withdrawal agreement, it is hard to see how the Government will secure support for a deal that we rejected so comprehensively, by a margin of 230 votes. If my Bill went ahead, the House would have the opportunity to express its view on where the Prime Minister should go from here by giving it the opportunity not only to reject no deal but to consider other alternatives.
I want to be clear about why the House rejected no deal. No Government could seriously, knowingly and deliberately inflict such pain on their people. We are talking about changes not just to the economy but to livelihoods and jobs. It is the real world crashing into Brexit fantasy. It would affect not only our economy but many other sectors, including health, transport links, security, food and farming—the list is very long. No responsible Government could inflict that kind of pain, but unfortunately, up until now, the Prime Minister has given the House a binary choice: “My deal or no deal.” My Bill would allow the House to say there are other routes forward.
Some colleagues want to press forward with an EEA-EFTA arrangement and a customs union, while others would prefer a Canada-style arrangement. We should all have the opportunity to vote on the way forward. I and many of my colleagues have made it clear we favour returning the decision to the British people to give them the final say. The problem with the original referendum was that it did not set out which of these many options the public were voting for. Once we know that decision, we will see that it is far removed from the sunlit uplands promised during the referendum campaign.
We need to seek the informed, valid consent of the British people; otherwise, we are pressing forward with a deal that commands the respect of neither leavers nor remainers. Nobody could realistically claim it is the will of the people, but if we give it back to the people and tell them exactly what is involved, so that they can weigh up the risks and benefits themselves, we will get that informed, valid consent, and then we could proceed together.
It is quite possible that the British people would decide to proceed with Brexit—I accept that—and they would need the absolute guarantee that it would then be acted on as quickly as possible, but a second vote would also allow them to change their minds. Everybody deserves the opportunity to change their mind. Even our first Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has famously commented that if people cannot change their minds in a democracy, it ceases to be a democracy.
I reject the notion sometimes put forward that it would be a betrayal of democracy to ask people again, and I particularly object to the assertion that it would cause civil unrest. We need to stop talking that up. Since when did this House bow or cave in to the concerns and demands of the far right? We should be standing up to them and making it absolutely clear that democracy does not stand still, and should never stand still, and that this House has a duty to give the public the right to vote and have the final say.
We must recognise that this call comes not from the EU but from the people—the hundreds of thousands of people who marched through the streets of London in the summer and the many hundreds of thousands beyond that who did not make it here but who have written to us and campaigned for the right to have the final say in a people’s vote. The House owes it to them to debate and vote on that as part of a series of indicative votes, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I rise to oppose the Bill.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) —for whom I have the deepest respect—I voted in the referendum to remain, but in my constituency, as in hers, a majority voted to leave. It seemed to me, as a democrat and as one who had voted for a referendum to be held in 2016, that as 17.5 million people—a majority—had voted in the referendum to leave the European Union, we must respect that result. And so, from that day onwards, I made it plain that I would do everything I could to ensure that the people’s vote was respected and that we executed the instructions that we had been given.
We need to be clear: the people of this country did not vote to remain. They voted to leave, which is why we must take “no Brexit” off the table. A second referendum asking people to choose between the Prime Minister’s deal and remaining would load the question in a way that would be entirely wrong and entirely unacceptable, and I think that it would be a travesty of our democracy.
Let me explain why I originally backed remain. I did so because I thought that a big project like Brexit would be very difficult for Britain. If we could not manage a basic patient record system in the NHS, what hope did we have with a really huge project like Brexit? I feared that Members of Parliament would think that their constituents might have been very clever to elect them but were not so able to make a big decision like the decision to leave the European Union. I also feared that they might not accept that decision but fight it all the way. I worried that our civil society was not strong enough. I worried that our machinery of government would blow a fuse in trying to manage a project of this sort, and in that I have not been disappointed.
The vote having taken place, however, I thought that we must respect the result. I put my shoulder to the wheel and thought about how we could be ready on day one, deal or no deal. I thought about how we could make sure that this was a success. I thought about how we did not have to hand over all the money that the EU wanted, and the EU had no legal right to demand it. I thought about how to make the best negotiating case for our country. The worst negotiating case for our country is to rule out no deal. If the other side knows that you will not get up and walk away from the table, they know that they have got you, and if they have got you, they are going to give you a really rubbish deal, so the best way in which we can get a good deal is to be prepared and ready on day one not to do a deal.
Now, what have we seen? We have seen the people who do not want us to leave the European Union finance their campaign for a second referendum with foreign money. We have seen their spokesman from Davos telling us how we should lead our lives, and how we should not leave at all. They want a loaded question, and—this is what I think is really wrong—they try to frighten people by telling them that they will die of thirst because our water will be poisoned, that they will die of starvation because no food will arrive, that our pets will die in quarantine and that our planes will never take off. That kind of irresponsible talk is what makes people so angry. They say that the establishment should be working to solve those problems and to ensure that we are thoroughly ready—not trying to scare us, not trying to tell us how bad the economy will be, but trying to make this work and to make a success of it.
So often, these “Project Fear” stories lose credibility. In my constituency, people shake their heads and say, “This is not credible.” I do not think that “Project Fear” is right, and I think it irresponsible. However, I do not subscribe to “Project Pangloss”, according to which it will all be a walk in the park. I think that if we left without a deal, there would be bumps in the road and that some of those bumps could be quite jarring, and we should be honest and open about that. However, I do not think we should try to frighten people. I do not think we should try to tell people that they were stupid. I do not think we should try to tell them that they did not know what they were doing. I do not think we should try to tell them that they did not have informed consent, or that they were too stupid in 2016 to know which way to vote.
I think that people had made up their minds about the European Union over many years and that they knew exactly what they were concerned about. When the question was put to them, they made their decision, and I strongly suspect that if they were asked again, they would make the same decision. They would say, “The establishment are not listening to us, so we will tell them again”—and they would. Worse than that, they would say, “To reverse the decision and turn our country around by 180 degrees would make our country a laughing stock across the world.” That is why I think that in a second referendum people would vote to leave by an even greater majority.
The real travesty is this. Were we to hold a second referendum, we would have endless Brexit, endless uncertainty. The key message that my constituents convey to me every day is, “Look, deal or no deal, let us just get on with it, put it in place, move on to the other things that concern us—jobs, money, schools, hospitals, and how we can build a better Britain for the future—and stop banging on about Brexit.”
Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
I wish the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) well in recovering from his indisposition.
Ordered,
That Dr Sarah Wollaston, Mr Kenneth Clarke, Hilary Benn, Joanna Cherry, Mr Dominic Grieve, Luciana Berger, Anna Soubry, Chuka Umunna, Dr Philip Lee, Heidi Allen, Mr Ben Bradshaw and Guto Bebb present the Bill.
Dr Sarah Wollaston accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed (Bill 328).
Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill [Lords]
Wednesday 30th January 2019
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Act 2019 View all Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 30 January 2019 - (30 Jan 2019)
15:45 - The House divided: - Ayes: 310 / Noes: 257 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:03 - The House divided: - Ayes: 276 / Noes: 297 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Minister for Security and Economic Crime (Mr Ben Wallace)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 19, at end insert—
‘(4A) The Secretary of State may not make regulations designating an international co-operation agreement providing for the use of—
(a) section 52 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (interception in accordance with overseas requests), or
(b) any other enactment which provides for the collection of electronic data,
unless the condition in subsection 4B is met.
(4B) The condition is that the states party to or participating in the international cooperation agreement have given assurances that the death penalty will not be imposed in any case in which or in whose preparation the intercepted communication or electronic data obtained under this Act has been used.’
This amendment would prohibit the Government from entering into a treaty for the provision of intercepted communication or electronic data without securing assurances that the death penalty will not be imposed in cases where that data is used.
Amendment 12, page 1, line 19, at end insert—
‘(4A) The Secretary of State may not make regulations designating a treaty as an international co-operation arrangement under subsection (5)(b) where that treaty provides for requests to be made by the competent authorities of a country or territory, or of more than one country or territory, in which a person found guilty of a criminal offence may be sentenced to death for the offence under the general criminal law of the country or territory concerned.
(4B) Subsection (4A) does not apply if the country or territory has, within the international co-operation arrangement, given assurances that the death penalty will not be imposed in any case in which or in whose preparation electronic data obtained under this Act has been used.’
This amendment would require that assurances be secured from the foreign country or territory concerned that the death penalty will not be applied in respect of any offence for which a defendant has been found guilty and in which the information provided from the United Kingdom contributed in any way to securing.
Amendment 18, page 2, line 3, at end insert—
‘(5A) The Secretary of State may only make regulations designating an international agreement under subsection (5) where that agreement—
(a) provides for safeguards and special procedures in respect of applications by competent authorities of a country or territory other than the United Kingdom for orders in respect of journalistic data and confidential journalistic data that are equivalent to those in this Act, and
(b) provides for at least as much protection for freedom of expression and the protection of journalists’ rights sources as Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.’
This would amendment would seek to ensure that the terms on which other states may access electronic data held in the UK mirror the UK’s own safeguards for press freedom.
Amendment 10, in clause 3, page 3, line 40, at end insert “, or
(c) confidential journalistic data (within meaning of section 12(4)).”
This amendment would bring confidential journalistic data within the definition of “excepted electronic data”.
Amendment 14, in clause 4, page 4, line 39, leave out “(6)” and insert “(6A)”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 13.
Government amendment 2.
Amendment 13, page 5, line 26, at end insert—
‘(6A) Where an application for an order includes or consists of journalistic data, the judge must also be satisfied—
(a) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the specified data is likely to be relevant evidence;
(b) that accessing the data is in the public interest, having regard—
(i) to the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation if the data is obtained; and
(ii) to the circumstances under which the person is possession of the data holds it,
(c) that other methods of obtaining the data have been tried without success or have not been tried because it appeared that they were bound to fail.’
This amendment would require a judge to be satisfied that journalistic data which is the subject of an application for an order constitutes relevant evidence.
Government amendment 3.
Amendment 15, page 6, line 9, after “section” insert—
‘“relevant evidence”, in relation to an offence, means anything that would be admissible in evidence at a trial for the offence.’
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 13.
Government amendments 4 to 6 and 19.
Amendment 16, in clause 12, page 10, line 11, leave out
“that is confidential journalistic data”
This amendment would require notice to be given of an application for an overseas production order for electronic data which is believed to contain any journalistic data, not just confidential journalistic data.
Amendment 17, page 10, line 12, at end insert—
‘(1A) Where an application is for journalistic data, the court must not determine such an application in the absence of the journalist affected, unless—
(a) the journalist has had at least two business days in which to make representations; or
(b) the court is satisfied that—
(i) the applicant cannot identify or contact the journalist,
(ii) it would prejudice the investigation if the journalist were present,
(iii) it would prejudice the investigation to adjourn or postpone the application so as to allow the journalist to attend, or
(iv) the journalist has waived the opportunity to attend.’
This amendment would give a journalist opportunities to make representations in relation to any application for data which he or she may hold.
Government amendment 20.
Amendment 9, page 10, line 20, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
‘(4) Confidential journalistic data” means data—
(a) that a journalist holds that is subject to such an undertaking, restriction or obligation; and
(b) that has been continuously held (by one or more persons) subject to such an undertaking, restriction or obligation since it was first acquired or created for the purposes of journalism.’
This amendment would redefine confidential journalistic data for the purposes of the Bill.
Amendment 11, page 10, line 20, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
‘(4) Journalistic data is “confidential journalistic data” if—
(a) it is acquired or created by a person or persons in their capacity as a journalist and is held in confidence, or
(b) it is communications data of a person acting in their capacity as a journalist, or
(c) it is held subject to a restriction on disclosure, or an obligation of secrecy, contained in any enactment (whenever passed or made).’
This amendment would amend the definition of confidential journalistic data.
Government amendments 21 to 23, 7 and 8.
Mr Wallace
May I begin by making a slight apology to the House? As the amendments have been grouped together, my speech will be in a single block, so I ask Members to be patient.
Let me begin by addressing amendments 12, 1 and 24. I recognise that amendment 24 has not been selected, but I am happy to deal with it, because it was tabled.
Throughout the progress of this Bill, as with others that I have piloted through the House, I have been keen to reach a consensus. Labour Front Benchers, as well as members of the Scottish National party, will know that I have often been open to their ideas, and that in the case of a number of Bills—such as the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill and indeed this Bill—I have taken their ideas on board and put them into law. I have done so not only because I truly care about keeping our citizens safe, but because I know that our laws work best when they do what they set out to do and are supported by the broadest consensus of the public.
The House of Commons cannot ignore the times in which we live. In the last decade, we have become more and more dependent on the internet and smartphones. In fact, 78% of people and 95% of 16 to 24-year-olds now possess a smartphone. Such technology can be a force for good, but it has also become an accelerant to those who wish us harm. Whether we are talking about county lines, terrorism or child abuse, smartphones have opened up a whole world of encrypted communications which I believe presents the biggest single challenge to our police and to law enforcement.
As Security Minister, I recall many occasions on which I was woken to deal with security issues. I remember being woken on the night of the Manchester Arena bombing, and I remember hearing the chilling news that a nerve agent had been used on the streets of Salisbury. But the day that I remember above all from the last two and a half years was the day of my visit to a regional and organised crime unit, where I had to listen, via an online chatroom, to a paedophile plot to kidnap, rape and kill a seven-year-old girl, about the same age as my daughter. If that was not sickening enough, I could sense the frustration of detectives who needed data from overseas to stop the abuse being committed, because in case after case timing is everything in these investigations.
So when the US Government, supported by Senators in the House of Congress, offered to help to solve this problem we grabbed at the chance. The House should recognise what they have offered: they have offered to remove legal barriers in the US to enable compliance with UK court orders. The Americans recognised, as we do, that the vast majority of data that we need for our investigations reside on the other side of the Atlantic—Google, Facebook, YouTube, WhatsApp, to name but a few. In fact, 99% of data that we need for child abuse investigations resides overseas and only 1% resides here.
These stark figures say two things to me. First, the reality is that we need the US data far more than they need ours. That was true before Donald Trump and it will be true after Donald Trump. Secondly, in this case, the US is doing us a favour. The Bill before us is the legislation required to give effect to a future US treaty and any other treaty we may make with another country in future, for example, Canada, so we can access that data much more quickly than we do now. These treaties will come before us separately, to this House and the peers House, at a different time, and Members will be able to scrutinise and challenge them at that point.
Let me deal directly with the Labour amendments. During the Bill’s passage in the Lords the Labour party attached to this Bill an amendment that would prevent the UK from making the necessary treaty with the US unless it got assurances that data sent across the Atlantic would not lead to the death penalty. This Bill allows enforcement agencies to access content directly from communications service providers based overseas using an overseas production order. These orders can only work when a relevant international agreement, such as a treaty, is in place between the UK and another country and as the majority of the CSPs, as I said, are based in America we expect the first such agreement to be with the United States. Both amendments 1 and 12 attempt to amend the Bill and reinsert the Lords amendments.
First, and bearing in mind how little data we hold here, having looked back over 20 years, we have not been able to find a single case whatsoever where only the data that the Bill deals with would have led to a death penalty overseas. Secondly, this is about data, not people. Extradition from the UK is dealt with by separate legislation and Her Majesty’s Government are already prevented from handing over someone without death penalty assurances. Thirdly, this Bill is about our data requests overseas in order to bring data back here for investigations and when I last looked we do not have the death penalty in this country. So to try to use the Bill as a vehicle to deal with a treaty as yet not concluded is simply wrong.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, I have been clear that the US has been generous in its offer. I have also admitted on the record that on this subject we do not have equality of arms with the US. This is not about a fantasy that we are bowing to the US. I noticed the allegations that the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) made in her column in the Daily Mirror recently saying that this was all about cosying up to Donald Trump, that the Labour party amendment
“simply blocks data sharing co-operation with all countries if the death penalty is a risk”,
and that the
“reason Ministers seem to be so keen to tear up our laws and ignore our human rights is because they are in a terrible mess in refusing to rule out a No Deal Brexit.”
Of course, nowhere does her op-ed address the central allegation that her blocking data will mean child abusers will be free to continue abuse of children for longer because we simply will not be able to get the data that we want. And perhaps I could put her mind at rest: the US offer on this treaty was initiated not under President Donald Trump, but under President Obama. This is about the reality and the decisions we need to make to put our citizens’ safety first. Members should understand that the current drawn-out methods of getting data can take months and years.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
As the Security Minister well knows, we have been working constructively on this Bill and I will not be opposing it on Third Reading irrespective of the outcome of various votes, but it is correct to say that, in the case in the summer in respect of which the High Court has just issued its judgment, the American embassy told the Government, when they failed incidentally to seek assurances at all, that if they asked:
“At worst, they will wind the president up to complain to the P.M.”—
the Prime Minister—
“and, potentially, to hold a grudge.”
The Foreign Office’s strong advice was to seek a death penalty assurance, so why on earth did they not do so if it was not for fear of the American President’s reaction?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman offers an incredibly selective quote from the ruling in the High Court by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales that found in favour of the Government on that case on all five counts. Every single count and every single challenge by Liberty and its glitterati up in the House of Lords failed at that test. The hon. Gentleman has also not answered the central charge, which is that to jeopardise this legislation and the treaty puts at risk children, because our law enforcement officers will not get the data in a timely fashion. Is he happy to accept that that delay should be maintained for the sake of a theoretical, never-happened occasion in the future?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am in favour of speeding up the data exchange. Under the mutual legal assistance treaty, since 1994 the seeking and securing of assurances has been commonplace. I take this from the High Court judgment. Ministers did not even bother to ask for assurances in the summer, so I am not confident that they have been as robust as they should be in their negotiations with the United States. There is no point in saying there is not equality of arms in this treaty. What if the Minister says that about a trade deal with the US—are we going to be allowing, then, US companies to come and take our NHS? The Minister should stand up for this principle.
Mr Wallace
I am going to stand up for the security of our citizens and a responsible Government have to balance abstract, theoretical, minute probabilities with keeping our constituents safe. Perhaps I should remind the hon. Gentleman of what we found in one of the cases. It is not related to this data, As I have clearly said, this Bill produces not a single example in the last 20 years, but under the MLAT process in the past no assurances have been sought and indeed the Government of the day indicated there was potentially a death penalty. It was a Labour Government who did not seek the assurances and did transfer the data. What does that mean? It means a responsible Government know the balance between keeping our citizens safe and making sure they comply with our international obligations. Members on the Opposition Benches have managed to do that in the past and I hope they do it again.
I have been absolutely clear. The hon. Gentleman may say he would do a better job in the negotiations if Labour was in power but, as I pointed out, we do not have equality of arms. Our negotiating position is this: there is 1% of data here versus about 90% of data there, which means our leverage is minuscule when it comes to demanding strings attached of the United States.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that this should not be a point of political division in this House? It is the overwhelming priority of Parliament to protect children who are being raped, abused and exploited, and data sharing is very important. One of the barriers to protecting children has been getting data to identify people who are doing this. We want to prevent the exploitation of children and to do that we need to identify those who would exploit them. Does the Minister agree that this should be the issue, not views about Donald Trump or otherwise?
Mr Wallace
I totally agree. The hon. Lady will have heard the example I had to listen to. That was a sobering and scary experience. It is an experience that our law enforcement officers hear every single day and it is our duty to find a balance. I wish we had our own Google. I wish that all my constituents’ data were held in the United Kingdom so we would have more control over it. But the fact is we live in the world we do. That is the tragedy and it makes us have to make deals that might not always be, as we would wish, perfect. But in this case, I am concerned, like her, that what must come first is the children’s needs and dealing with terrorists, illicit finance and all the oligarchs we worry about—and Labour Front Benchers also worry about—and how we are going to get them. Until we can crack that data map, this is something that is important.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is making an important case for the provisions in the Bill, and I agree that we have to have this data sharing. We have to speed this up and get on with it. His new clause 1 looks like a pretty reasonable compromise to provide the necessary reassurances. It looks fairly complete to me, and I can see no reason why the House would not unanimously agree to it.
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman is right. Further amendments that we have tabled provide for concessions to protect journalistic data. I have taken on board these points from Members on both sides of the House. Throughout the Bill, I have met many Opposition colleagues, including my shadow, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), on numerous occasions, and we have offered concessions that have never been offered before. One of them will put in primary legislation a mandate for the Secretary of State to seek assurances. In my view, we cannot go beyond that and force them to get those assurances, because a responsible Government might not have the upper hand at the time or have the leverage to do that, but the necessity for security is important.
This will be the first time that that has been put in primary legislation. It will put in place a policy that existed in loose form under the last Labour Government, when, in exceptional circumstances, Ministers were allowed not to seek assurances. The overseas security and justice assistance—OSJA—guidance was published in 2010 by the coalition Government, of which I think the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) was a member. That put in writing part 9. There are occasions on which we might be allowed not to seek a death penalty assurance, but I do not want that to become the dominant force. As I have said, we have not found a single example in the past 20 years that produced this challenge or quandary for a Minister. This is simply about comms content data; that is all it is about.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I hope the Minister recognises that all Members on both sides of the House want to find ways of sharing data so that we can go after these wicked people who abuse children. Will he therefore tell us what efforts have been made, in discussions with our American friends, to find a treaty that deals with those crimes and others but stops short of those crimes that could result in the death penalty? What efforts have been made to carve out those crimes so that they could be dealt with in a second treaty?
Mr Wallace
I have personally asked them to look at carve-outs in that area, and I know that officials are still working on the drafts. This is my point: the treaty will come before the House when it is still in its draft stage. I have not read the draft as it stands; it is too early. This is not going to appear next Tuesday as a treaty. We will try to maintain as much as we can in the treaty, but we must recognise the leverage that we have, the generosity of the Obama Administration’s original offer and the need of our law enforcement agencies to get on with these investigations as soon as possible.
Mr Wallace
I will press on, because I want to give the House an example. An operation commenced in August 2017 in which there were indications that a UK male suspect was using Facebook, Instagram, Gmail and Snapchat for the purpose of committing child sex offences. On the male suspect’s Facebook profile, he purports to be a teenage girl requesting friendship with teenage boys. He then engages them in sexual communication, asking them to send indecent images and/or videos of themselves committing sexual acts. The suspect sent indecent images of females sourced from the internet as bait to lure his victims into believing that they were communicating with and sharing indecent images with a teenage girl. The investigation has identified several individual Facebook accounts where indecent images of children have been sent to the user of the suspect Facebook account. Those individual accounts all belong to children.
The value of data evidence is apparent, because in that operation, the data has helped to identify in excess of 150 vulnerable child victims and enabled law enforcement to safeguard the children. However, the law enforcement agencies are still awaiting the authorisation from a judge in a US court to release the content that would enable us to prosecute and put away the individual who is doing this. Consequently, that individual is still at large. We have safeguarded the victims we know of, but our ability to charge and prosecute that person is being frustrated. We should not forget that a great deal of data is held for only 12 months, and some of the MLAT cases go on for two years or more. Not taking up the US’s offer would mean shutting the door on our police’s ability to stop abuse more quickly and to detect terror plots before they reach fruition.
Sir Edward Davey
I repeat that the case the Minister is making is supported on both sides of the House. I very much doubt that there will be a Division on Third Reading—certainly we on these Benches will be supporting the Bill at that time—so he does not need to make this case, because we all support him. The issue of this debate on new clause 1 and other alternatives is whether we can achieve the goals on which we all agree while also finding a way to implement existing Government policy on death penalty assurances. The Minister is recognised for working across the House—that is why he is held in such high regard—but it is our right to scrutinise legislation in this place, and in this debate we want to tease out whether we can find a way, through the treaties or through the Bill, to get those death penalty assurances that I am sure he also wants.
Mr Wallace
I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, and I do not question his heartfelt desire to ensure that we keep people safe, but actions have consequences. He does not have to believe me when I say this, but the United States has indicated to the Government that if we attach strings to the treaty in the way that the Lords amendment would, the treaty will not progress. He does not have to believe me; he does not have to believe the United States; he can decide whether he thinks the United States will change its position or not, but let me tell him my reading of it. I have met representatives from the US Department of Justice, along with my officials and representatives from our embassy, and looked at the political situation in the Senate—I live in the real world; that is not necessarily how I would vote—and I am living with the challenge of balancing those realities, as any hon. Member would do. If these amendments, including that of the right hon. Gentleman, go through, they will jeopardise the treaty. I have set out clearly what the consequence would be if the treaty were jeopardised, and no amount of “I wish it wasn’t” will change that simple fact.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Ind)
Are we not in danger of believing that there is a false choice between upholding the UK’s international obligations and taking action to secure this treaty? Will the UK not be obliged to follow its treaty obligations, including those under protocol 12 of the European convention on human rights, without needing to follow one of the wrecking amendments tabled by the Opposition parties and making the treaty that we apparently all want impossible to achieve?
Mr Wallace
Yes, and in answer to the amendment that was tabled but not selected, Ministers are obliged to act in accordance with our ECHR obligations. Throughout this process, we have a legal duty under the Human Rights Act 1998 to act compatibly with convention rights, including article 1 of the 13th protocol, which was incorporated in schedule 1 to the Human Rights Acts 1998 through the Human Rights Act (Amendment) Order 2004. Were Ministers to act unlawfully in making subordinate legislation under subsection 5(b) that was incompatible with the convention rights, it would be open to the courts to strike down that legislation by applying ordinary public law principles.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
First, I want to confirm what my right hon. Friend has said. This treaty being negotiated with United States has taken a long time to achieve. I remember being connected with it when I was Attorney General, and raising the matter subsequently on visits to the United States when I was Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee. It is quite apparent that the treaty is essential to prevent crime in this country. It is equally clear that attaching the proposed strings to it would destroy it; I have no doubt about that at all. I also endorse the point that the European convention on human rights has to govern everything that we do. In my view, in regard to the sort of data we are seeking to access and share for the purpose of fighting crime, the issue of whether the death penalty might result from an eventual criminal proceeding, which would be speculative at that stage, is entirely irrelevant.
Mr Wallace
My right hon. and learned Friend, whom I have known a long time, is the straightest politician in this House and always has the best motives. He is also the lawyer that one would want at one’s side in government, because he tells it how it is, not how one wants it to be. I thank him for his point. He knows how far back this effort goes. This Bill is not a political charge or an ideological step. In fact, without this amendment, it is probably one of the most boring Bills that we have taken through the House, but it is not a playground for ideological posturing on a theoretical issue.
There is a clear choice here: take up the offer from the United States, reject the amendment and help to keep our constituents safe, or agree with the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington who believes that this matter is a problem even though there are no examples from the past 20 years. She believes that we should say no to the US offer and put the whole thing at risk because our tiny amount of data could be combined with a criminal investigation overseas, when the crime is a capital offence and the offender is in a country or US state that has the death penalty, and our data alone could be the crucial piece of evidence that leads to a conviction. If ever there was an example of politics getting in the way for the most bizarre and abstract reason, it is here.
Mr Wallace
I will come to the right hon. Gentleman. All the amendments are grouped, so we have plenty of time.
Having said that, I have to apologise to the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington and to the Leader of the Opposition. In her column, the right hon. Lady said that I attacked her personally by criticising what was going on. I apologise that I did so, but I did so because I meant it. That is not the Labour party that I know. I have family in the Labour party. I have a relation who was a Labour MP in the 1930s and, if I remember correctly, the first socialist Lord Advocate in Scotland. The Labour party that I know would not play this type of politics with our constituents. A Labour party led by pretty much any other Labour Member would never have indulged in this type of nonsense.
The Labour party that I know in Lancashire, in the north of England and in Scotland keeps people safe and recognises the responsibility that goes with governing and that there is a balance. It is a truly difficult balance, which people of the best motives make every single day, between upholding values and keeping people safe. That is why I apologise that I had to make that attack, but I made it all the same. It is incredibly important that a Government in waiting should be led by people who recognise that their duty in government will be to make difficult decisions and to reflect the reality of the 21st century, not some abstract theoretical nonsense that panders to a few.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I regret the Minister’s tone in places, because it is clear that we have worked together on this Bill and that the Opposition are in favour of it. Let me be clear about the difference here. The Minister is essentially saying that he is happy to be mandated to secure death penalty assurances. Labour’s amendment simply sets out that in the event that assurances are sought but not obtained, the data should not be handed over. As he says, the change will affect a tiny amount of cases, but nobody is disputing the need to speed up the MLAT process to obtain the data. That is exactly what the difference is.
Mr Wallace
No. The Labour Front-Bench team are saying that if we do not get what they want, we should block the treaty. The condition from the United States or any other country could be, “Look, I’m terribly sorry, but we have 90% of the data and you have 1%, so here’s our offer and this is the reality of it.” Labour is saying, “If they do not give us the assurances we want”—they go beyond the OSJA guidance and beyond the public policy of this Government and the previous Government—“the treaty will not be completed.” I am here to say that the treaty will not be concluded if those strings are attached in that way. That is the simple reality.
The consequences of that, as I have pointed out, will be felt in our constituencies up and down the country and will also be felt should the Labour Front-Bench team become the Government in a few years’ time. The people could be facing an existential threat to their security, and that Labour Government would have to make these same difficult decisions. We have worked incredibly well together on this Bill, but this issue cannot be removed into some abstract debate when this is about giving our law enforcement agencies the tools to do their job on a day-to-day basis.
Sir Edward Davey
The Minister is being generous in giving way. I repeat that, as he knows, both sides of the House want exactly what he has just described. However, this House’s job is to scrutinise and ensure that legislation is being done in the right way so that other parts of Government policy are also upheld. He said in response to the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), a former Attorney General, that we should not worry about this because ECHR obligations, which he read out in some detail, would prevent Ministers from not complying with this policy. Will the Minister elaborate on that for the benefit the House? When the Home Secretary recently did not seek death penalty assurances, was that decision in line with our convention obligations?
Mr Wallace
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the rulings by the High Court and the Lord Chief Justice. On five of the grounds for challenge from the plaintiff—if that is the right word in a civil challenge—the rulings found in favour of the Government. I am happy to have a conversation with him about that further if he reads the whole judgment, but it was certainly the case that the OSJA guidance and other things were not found to be in conflict with our ECHR obligations or any other obligation. If my memory serves me right, it was also found that we were not breaking our own Government policy on the matter. I caution the House that we do not know whether that judgment will be appealed, but a hearing related to it is ongoing. The case does not relate to data; it is about broader evidence that would remain through the MLAT process. As I pointed out earlier, extradition is a separate process. This legislation is about the data predominantly held by Facebook and Google and everything else, and it is so much part of the 21st century that we cannot escape the impact that it has on us.
Turning to amendment 18, I recall the hon. Member for Torfaen tabling something similar in Committee, and I am afraid that I am going to make the same arguments in response. Amendment 18 seeks to ensure that terms on which other states may access electronic data held in the UK mirror the UK’s own safeguards for press freedom. Forgive me, because I know that I have made this point countless times, but this amendment relates to incoming requests for UK-held data when this Bill is only about the UK’s outgoing requests for electronic data held overseas.
I completely accept the point that this Bill cannot work without a reciprocal international agreement in place, but amendment 18 directly relates to international agreements, as opposed to what our Bill provides for. This Bill is simply not the right place to mandate what is a right and laudable protection for journalists and their data. We cannot impose such conditions in advance of the negotiations of an international agreement. It is not a constructive proposition to tie our hands. I say to Opposition Members that I hear the case for change and that the United States’ first amendment is probably one of the strongest journalistic protections, so that would no doubt be reflected in a treaty. Of course, the UK would never agree to share data with a country with insufficient safeguards, but to mandate that on the face of this Bill is neither helpful nor necessary. Amendment 18 seeks to control the UK Government’s negotiating position, which would not prove desirable to any Government of the day.
Another point that I make repeatedly is to remind hon. Members that they will get ample opportunity to scrutinise any international agreement when the agreement is brought before Parliament, before it can be ratified under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 process, and then again when secondary legislation is laid before Parliament designating the agreement for the purposes of clause 1 and under section 52 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The Government amended the Bill in the other place to make it clear that only agreements to which the CRAG process applies may be designated under the Bill, so that scrutiny process must be followed in every case. Members will get the opportunity to scrutinise all international agreements related to this Bill properly before they are ratified.
I have two other brief points. First, the initial international agreement will be with the United States, as the majority of overseas CSPs are currently based there. As hon. Members will know, the US places a high regard on protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Indeed, it is enshrined in the first amendment to their constitution.
Secondly, any additional international agreement that the UK enters into in future will, of course, be based on trust, mutual respect and each country’s adherence to principles that include the rule of law, due process and judicial oversight for obtaining and handling electronic evidence with regards to serious crime. No rational Government of the day would do a deal with a country that lacked regard for the rule of law or that failed to maintain press freedom. If a CSP moved to a country with insufficient legal safeguards, I would not push the Government of the day in any way to negotiate such an agreement, and I highly doubt that Parliament would ratify such a treaty.
This Bill is not the right place for the proposals raised by amendment 18. The amendment is not necessary for the reasons I have outlined, and therefore the Government will not support it. I ask the hon. Member for Torfaen not to press it.
Amendment 10 seeks to make confidential journalistic data an excepted category of material for overseas production orders, meaning that it cannot be sought using the Bill’s powers. Amendments 9 and 11 seek to define confidential journalistic data for the purposes of the Bill. Members have previously raised concerns about confidential journalistic data under the Bill, and I do not want to pre-empt our debate on other protections for journalists, which will come later, but the Government’s concessions in this area are appropriate and proportionate. I do not think it is right that confidential journalistic data should be entirely outside the reach of law enforcement agencies.
As with the amendment tabled in Committee, amendment 10 goes further than what is currently provided for under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Although confidential journalistic material is excluded under PACE, it is accessible if certain access conditions are met.
I repeat the point I made previously. The Bill has not been drafted to mirror PACE exactly. It also takes into account provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The whole point of the Bill is to speed up the unnecessarily long, drawn-out process that law enforcement agencies currently endure to get access to material to help keep our constituents safe. Of course, this in no way undermines the stringent tests that must be passed for an order to be granted in a court by a judge. The substantial value test and the public interest test will both have to be satisfied, and I will shortly come on to the further inclusion of a relevant evidence test.
Amendment 11 would carve out journalists’ communications data so that it cannot be accessed under the powers of the Bill. Such an amendment is not necessary, because clause 3(4) already precludes the possibility of obtaining communications data via an overseas production order. Where an overseas production order is sought against a telecommunications operator, the Bill will apply as if references to excepted electronic data included communications data.
The Bill has been deliberately drafted so as to avoid overlap with the existing regime for communications data under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. Should law enforcement agencies wish to obtain any form of communications data, journalistic or otherwise, they will need to proceed using existing legislation to obtain it. To be clear, this Bill does not allow for the acquisition of communications data.
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that journalists play a fundamental role in our society, but amendments 9 to 11 are not appropriate. This Bill will ensure that all journalists are part of the process of applying for an overseas production order when the material sought relates to them from the outset. Uniquely, they will be able to make representations to the court. I am confident that journalists will continue to be able to make a robust defence if they believe that is relevant.
Indeed, when working with the BBC on this legislation, one lawyer told my officials that not once in 10 years could he recall a court having overruled such representations. It is important that legislation drafted in the 21st century reflects the context of the day. The nature of journalism is evolving, and law enforcement officers must be able to adapt to those changes. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman not to press amendments 9 to 11.
In Committee, colleagues including the hon. Members for Torfaen and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) expressed concern that the tests in clause 4 do not fully replicate the tests under schedule 1 to PACE, under which there is a relevant evidence test as well as a substantial value test and a public interest test, whereas the Bill currently includes only the substantial value and public interest tests. The Bill does not contain the relevant evidence test. As I explained in Committee, the Bill replicates the production orders not only under PACE but under POCA and the Terrorism Act. Neither POCA nor the Terrorism Act requires the relevant evidence test when seeking evidence in relation to the proceeds of crime, as our law enforcement agencies will do with overseas production orders. Nevertheless, I promise to go away and consider the issues.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I thank the Minister for listening to those representations. As he says, I declare an interest as chairman of the all-party BBC group.
The representations from the BBC show that the amendments will make the Bill completely consistent with the provisions under PACE and will help the administration of justice, as they may mean that many applications do not need to be spoken against. I am incredibly grateful to the Minister for listening to us, for working very closely with all of us and for filtering in our ideas.
Mr Wallace
I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend for that. I am not a journalist by background; I think he is—
Mr Wallace
A lawyer—oh.
All Members have raised the importance of protecting journalistic freedom, and I think we have struck the right balance between not excluding their material entirely—because I do not believe that anyone should be above the law, no matter what their profession—and giving them notice that other people would not be given, to allow them to make representations. All the way through this process, even in considering the controversial part of the Bill, we should not forget that this is done before a judge. It is not done between officials in two Administrations: these orders will be applied for in front of a court and granted by a judge. It will be for the law enforcement agencies to satisfy the range of tests and for journalists to make their representations. That will safeguard the process while at the same ensuring that we get data if it is needed to keep us safe.
Huw Merriman
I should point out that unlike the Opposition amendment—I think the shadow Front-Bench team largely supported the same change—the amendment that I tabled was realistic about the point that if the journalist could not be contacted, that would not mean that we would end the process. Ultimately, what is important is the protection of victims of appalling offences. My amendment will make sure that we strike that balance between the protection of journalists and the protection of victims, which is at the core of this excellent Bill.
Mr Wallace
Yes, my hon. Friend makes a true point. We have put in a carve-out for some very urgent situations, including if there is a threat to life or, indeed, if the journalist is impossible to track down and may in fact be a front for a foreign state, for example, in a fake news scenario or something else. All Members have had genuine views and made their points well. I am happy to accept my hon. Friend’s amendment, but there were many good parts of the amendments tabled by the Labour party, too. This is not a party political point. The exemptions get the right balance and we will be able to protect journalists, so I hope I will have the support of the whole House in asking that the relevant amendments not be pressed.
Before I finish, I should apologise for the length of my opening address. There were originally two groups of amendments, but that was changed to one group, so I needed to deal with everyone’s amendments in one go.
I think we have struck the right balance. The Bill reflects some of the day-to-day challenges that we face in keeping us safe. I urge Members not to support amendments 12 and 18, and some of the others tabled by the Opposition Front-Bench team. As I indicated at the start, throughout the passage of this Bill and other Bills, I have accepted a number of amendments from Government and Opposition Members. That is the spirit in which I have tried to conclude the passage of this Bill, and in which I hope to do so.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before we continue with the debate, the House has the exciting prospect of the results of the deferred Divisions.
In respect of the question relating to consumer protection, the Ayes were 309 and the Noes were 268, so the Ayes have it.
In respect of the question relating to financial services and markets, the Ayes were 309 and the Noes were 261, so the Ayes have it.
In respect of the question relating to floods and water, the Ayes were 310 and the Noes were 267, so the Ayes have it.
In respect of the question relating to radioactive substances, the Ayes were 309 and the Noes were 265, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The first thing I should point out is that everyone in the House wants to see a way in which the mutual legal assistance treaty system is speeded. I do not think there is any issue with that in any part of this House. The issues to which I shall come in a moment in essence fall into two categories: first, the issue of death penalty assurances; and secondly, protections for journalistic data.
In respect of the intervention from the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), he has tabled an amendment that is essentially the same as the one that I pursued in Committee. I do not accept in any sense the difference that he suggests there is between the two. I am pleased that his amendment has been accepted and adopted by the Government.
Huw Merriman
I apologise if I have got this wrong, but my understanding is that the hon. Gentleman’s amendment would not have included circumstances in which the journalist could not be traced, whereas the amendment I have tabled takes that into account, meaning that it would not be a blocker. It is in that limited aspect that our amendments differ.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
All I will say is that I had discussions about that amendment and others with the Minister, and they were things on which we were able to compromise. I am trying to assure the hon. Gentleman that the idea that I was trying to do something to scupper the treaty is completely wrong. I am sure he would accept that that was the case, whatever the differences between us on the detail.
Huw Merriman
I absolutely accept that. The hon. Gentleman will know that he and I worked closely throughout the Committee proceedings to make sure that the intent behind what we have now was in the Bill. I give credit to him for that assistance.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that.
Let me turn to the issue of death penalty assurances, which has clearly aroused a great deal of controversy, and explain our position. I should say to the Security Minister that I totally accept that new clause 1 is an improvement. The position the Opposition have ended up in today is a procedural one: unfortunately, because new clause 1 is the lead provision in the group and is therefore at the head of the list to be voted on, the only way that the Opposition can secure a vote on our own amendment is by voting against new clause 1. That is just the procedural position we have ended up in, but accept that it is a step forward and make that entirely clear from the Dispatch Box at the outset.
Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
Just to be clear on the procedure, my hon. Friend’s direction to Labour MPs will be to vote against new clause 1, although he accepts it to be an improvement; were he successful in stripping out new clause 1 and unsuccessful in passing his own amendment, would that not put us back to a worse position?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I accept that there is always a danger that when we vote on a number of new clauses and amendments in a row, the order matters and what happens on them matters, as we have seen in recent days. Let me reassure my hon. Friend: what I am trying to say is that although I do accept that new clause 1, with its duty to seek assurances, is certainly an improvement on the case we had in the summer, when no assurances were sought at all, it does not match the position of the Labour Front-Bench team, which is that if there are circumstances—they will be rare—in which assurances are sought but not given, the data should not be handed over. That is the difference between myself and the Minister. The Minister accepts that we should be getting assurances. That is the difference: new clause 1 is an improvement, but it does not match our position.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
As a children’s doctor, I have looked after a number of children who have been sexually abused, and they have sometimes horrific physical injuries and, as we know, physical and mental scars. The mental scars in particular can last a lifetime. The House is united in wanting to be able to prevent that. Am I misunderstanding the hon. Gentleman when he says that seeking assurances is not adequate, and that if faced with a real situation in which a child is in imminent danger and those assurances cannot be got, that child should remain in danger and in a situation in which he or she is being abused, to avoid the theoretical risk of something that has not happened in 20 years?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I just do not accept that conception of how this works or, indeed, how the MLAT treaty would work. I am afraid it would not work in the way the hon. Lady suggests. The point I am making is about cases in which assurances were not secured. By the way, I totally agree with the Minister that the United States looms into view because of this treaty, but this is a framework for other treaties with countries all around the world, and the Opposition are simply saying that we should be embedding into it the idea that, in the event that those assurances are not forthcoming from whichever country it is—rare though those circumstances are—the data should not be handed over. It is as simple as that. By the way, that has been the position for decades.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will give once more, but then I need to make some progress.
Dr Johnson
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, in this situation, which is not perfect, what he is having to do is weigh up the risk of an actual child to whom abuse can clearly be seen to be happening or at risk of happening, with a theoretical possibility, which the Minister has said has not happened in 20 years, and that such evidence can potentially, theoretically, possibly, at some point in the future, be used to convict somebody in a way that may or may not ultimately end in the death penalty? Meanwhile that real child will end up being further abused while this data is waited for.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I do not accept that at all. The hon. Lady talks about theoretical possibilities, but these will be actual cases—actual cases, not theoretical cases.
Mark Pritchard
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way. Despite the fact that this is about not extradition, but data exchange and that it is heinous crimes that will incorporate this provision, does he accept that the threshold for the death penalty, both at state and federal level, is actually far higher—the bar is higher?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Yes, it is significantly higher, and the cases will be extraordinarily rare. That is what everybody who has looked at this says.
Mark Pritchard
I am very grateful. The hon. Gentleman is being more than generous. On the issue of assurances, does he also accept—I know that he thinks logically—that if those assurances were given and were not actually fulfilled, future assurances would obviously not carry the same weight as previous assurances that were carried through?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I honestly cannot imagine a situation where a country that gave those assurances did not stand by them. That would undermine the whole system if that were the case. I do need to make some progress now. I hope that the House will realise that I have been generous in giving way to Government Members.
We absolutely agree, as I have said, with speeding up the mechanism, but we believe that in this framework, which will be a framework which many reciprocal treaties will be plugged into in the years to come, we should make clear our opposition to the death penalty in all circumstances. The Security Minister has spoken about the United States. I appreciate that that is where much data is held. I also appreciate that that is the treaty that is being negotiated at the moment. First, let us look at what the practice is at the moment. It is obvious that the United States would expect us to require full death penalty assurances prior to sharing this information. It routinely complies with that requirement. It has long been the case, under the 1944 treaty on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters that now exists, that the seeking and securing of assurances is commonplace. What the Opposition are trying to put into law is what has been the norm for decades.
The Minister makes the point about his judgment as to whether or not the US would wish to conclude a treaty in those circumstances—in the circumstances that the House passed the amendment that the Opposition have proposed. I just want to examine this because the recent High Court judgment in El Gizouli, which has been published in recent days, is instructive in this regard. It is very rare that we see Government papers in the public domain so soon after a particular decision is taken. That is because in July last year the House became aware of correspondence between the Home Secretary and the then United States Attorney General that the Government had not sought death penalty assurances at all. Let me be clear that we on these Benches absolutely condemn the actions of the so-called foreign fighters, which is why I have worked with the Minister to put the designated areas offence on to the statute book—it is not quite on our statute book yet, but it will be in due course. I made various suggestions about that matter, as the Minister knows, that were eventually incorporated into the Bill. We supported that principle and it will be on the statute book. However, the fact is that that matter did lead to a court case, which is instructive about Minister’s decision making.
I go back to one of the earlier interventions. This is not about naked partisan politics. These are very serious issues on which Members from all parts of the House have very strongly held opinions, and I respect whatever those perspectives are. A number of things came forward from that case in the summer. The UK embassy in Washington was asked what was the likely response from the US Administration if the UK were to seek full or partial assurances on the death penalty. The response was that
“parts of the US machinery—notably career DOJ officials—would not be surprised if we asked for death penalty assurances. It is what they expect of us.”
That, I suggest, is what I said a moment or two ago. It then added:
“But that doesn’t go for the senior political levels of this administration...At best they will think we have tin ears. At worst, they will wind the President up to complain to the PM and, potentially, to hold a grudge.”
That is worrying to see, and it would not be a way to run any negotiation. It is no surprise really that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office gave strong advice to seek an assurance. This was cited as the Government’s consistent policy over many years, which has been maintained without exception—I appreciate the one point that was made in an intervention by the Minister that there may be an exception to that. I accept that, but this is what the advice says—and without difficulty in co-operating with allies such as the US. It agreed that a sole exception would undermine the UK’s consistent and total opposition. This is what the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said about this in the summer:
“Her Majesty’s Government seeks a comprehensive assurance that the suspects will not be subject to the death penalty. This is critical to the consistency with which we apply HMG’s policy on Overseas Security and Justice Assistance…Were we not to apply this practice to this case, it could undermine all future efforts to secure effective written death penalty assurances from the US authorities for future UK security and justice assistance. The exception made for the US in this case could also undermine future attempts to secure similar assurances from other countries with which we have a security relationship... particularly if it seems likely that there is litigation which leads to the disclosure of the level of assurance. It could leave HMG open to accusations of western hypocrisy and double standards which would undermine HMG’s Death Penalty Policy globally, including in the US.”
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Let me finish this point and then I will give way.
The Foreign Office officials were correct, and I wish that the Ministers had listened in the summer. As the Security Minister knows, this was the subject of an urgent question some months ago to which, I think, he responded.
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I wonder whether he will quote at length my response in that court case, the response of the Home Secretary, and, indeed, the other parts of the correspondence. He makes the point about the embassy. The embassy in the United States is the other part of the Foreign Office. He may like to reflect on the fact that, first, we won on all five counts, so he has picked out a few parts of the case, but not the full case. He will also know that, under this and the previous policy, one cannot seek assurances under strong reasons. He talks about hypocrisy. One of the strong reasons—a bit like some of the challenges around data, but he is referring to an MLAT case—is that the alternatives for these individuals for their rights—[Interruption.] No, I get that. The alternatives for those individuals were very much less about their rights—potentially extrajudicial killing in the back of the head and potentially being shipped to Guantanamo, to which we fundamentally object and oppose and, as that case highlighted, something in which we would not assist. The alternative for their human rights was far, far worse than a lawful trial in the United States.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am not disputing the outcome of the case; that is very clear. This goes back to the earlier point that I was making about new clause 1. It is clearly not currently set out in primary legislation that there is a duty to seek assurances. I am not questioning the genuine nature of what the Minister does or his decision making, but in that case and against that backdrop, no assurances were sought at all. The Minister has set out the reasons for that, but that is the brutal reality of what happened in that case, against the backdrop of the advice that I have read to the House.
More widely, Governments across the piece—this Government, the coalition Government and previous Labour Governments—have, on numerous occasions, sought to promote the UK’s opposition to the use of the death penalty around the world. There are multiple examples where Governments of all colours have sought to avoid any complicity with the use of capital punishment and have argued around the world for its abolition. In fact, the Prime Minister herself said in the House on 31 October last year:
“Our long-standing position on the death penalty is well known: we call for its abolition globally.”—[Official Report, 31 October 2018; Vol. 648, c. 911.]
And the Opposition say the same.
There are a number of examples where this country has agreed that it is highly undesirable that drugs used by some states in the United States for the purposes of execution could have been sourced here. We have decided not to fund counter-narcotics operations in Iran because of the risk that they could lead to the use of the death penalty. When the Prime Minister was Home Secretary, she triggered a review of all security engagement when Pakistan resumed executions after a long moratorium. Back in October 2016 the Government withdrew a bid to provide offender management services to Saudi Arabian prisons, again over the issue around the death penalty. And of course the UK will not export products for use in capital punishment. That is the well-established position, as is the seeking and securing of assurances.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will make some progress; I did give way to the hon. Gentleman about three times earlier.
What I am simply saying is that we should not move away from that norm and send any kind of signal because, in any event, this Bill goes far beyond America. I appreciate the Minister’s point about data and where it is held at present, but as the internet continues to evolve, other countries will hold more data as well. The Security Minister often said in Committee that he would only negotiate treaties with countries that shared our respect for the rule of law. I do not disbelieve him for a moment, but of course he is not going to be the Security Minister forever. Therefore, in those circumstances, we have to put the assurance in this framework now.
Opposition to the death penalty has been a bipartisan UK Government position for over half a century. Since 1965 when the work of many across this House—including the remarkable Sydney Silverman—came to fruition, this Parliament has stood as a beacon of common human values, promoting the abolition of the death penalty across the globe. For this country to continue to stand tall in the world and to use our considerable soft power, which we must, we always have to hold ourselves to the highest standards. Put very simply, for us to credibly argue for the abolition of the death penalty in other countries, we cannot be complicit in its application ourselves, and I ask that we send that strong moral signal to the world today.
It seems an odd move to now start talking about these technical issues of confidential journalistic data, important though they are. But that is of course where we are because this whole set of amendments have been grouped together. I therefore want to deal with the matter now, as well as some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle.
In general terms, I am pleased with the Government’s direction of travel on these issues, but there are still some real causes of concern. I am pleased with the movement on Government amendments 19 and 20, which were mentioned earlier. The notification requirement now extends to all journalistic data. There was a concern that, if we were distinguishing between confidential data and non-confidential data, some would not be covered. This move is therefore to be welcomed, as is the genuine notification requirement that specifically includes the journalist, which I believe is included in Government amendment 20.
There are still some concerns that I hope the Security Minister will take on board and listen to, although I do broadly welcome the measures. In proposed clause 12(2)(b), there is an override of this requirement where it would prejudice investigations into indictable offences and terrorism investigations. Now, I accept that emergency overrides are necessary, and I would expect to see them in this Bill and other similar types of Bill. There is, however, quite a low threshold in this measure. I totally accept that prejudicing a terrorism investigation may well constitute an emergency, but prejudicing an investigation into an indictable offence is extremely broad, because indictable offences are a huge category. Indicating that they can only be tried on indictment draws the provision extremely widely.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Throughout the passage of this Bill and other Bills where we have engaged with the Security Minister and the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), there has been a collaborative approach. That is again the case on Report. As the Minister said, we have had a constructive relationship with him, which is why I was quite disappointed with the change in tone this afternoon—questioning the Opposition’s motives and accusing us of essentially protecting paedophiles. Every Member, as has been said, would like to see these despicable criminals convicted, but we have to ensure that legislation is passed with adequate protections for the human rights that we are obligated to protect under the ECHR. I hope that the Minister will perhaps reflect on that.
Amendment 12, as the hon. Member for Torfaen set out in granular detail—for the sake of the House, I will not seek to repeat that process—seeks to avoid the UK being complicit in allowing for the death penalty to be practised abroad using data provided by us. We have previously heard from the Government that this would amount to driving a horse and cart through the Bill, but this is a matter of principle that the SNP will simply never compromise on. We are obviously a signatory to the European convention on human rights, article 2 and protocol 139 of which provide for the complete abolition of the death penalty.
As I have said in the past, I deeply regret that the Government resisted this amendment from the Lords and took it out in Committee, but I am pleased that we have another opportunity to put this anti-death penalty provision back into the Bill today. In opposing the amendment, the Government are setting themselves not just against our responsibilities under the convention but against their own policy of opposing the death penalty in all circumstances as a matter of principle.
In response to a written question, Baroness Anelay said:
“There has been no change in the British Government’s policy of working towards global abolition of the death penalty.
This Government pursues human rights in their universality—a more ambitious and coherent approach than focusing on a small number of single issues. Our commitment to the Rules Based International Order underpins this work, including through bilateral and multilateral support to global efforts to abolish the death penalty.”
As a signatory to the convention, we really should do everything in our power to avoid compliance in uses of the death penalty abroad. The UK at least claims to be a modern liberal democracy and a champion of human rights the world over. Opposing this amendment is entirely contradictory to those claims.
The Government have frequently refused to provide countries with aid and assistance where it is judged that that assistance could result in the use of capital punishment by the recipient party—for example, the review of UK security engagement when Pakistan resumed use of the death penalty, and declining to assist with services in Saudi Arabian prisons where juveniles were sentenced to the death penalty. Alongside this, as we have heard, the UK will not export products for use in capital punishment—for instance, medicines for use in lethal injections in the US. It would be inconsistent, not to mention a grave disregard for human rights, for the Government to refuse to supply the drugs for US executions, while providing the very information that made that execution possible.
Furthermore, the US already expects the UK to require full death penalty assurances prior to the sharing of information, and it routinely complies with this requirement—for example, in the recent “ISIS Beatles” case, when the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s strong advice was to seek a full death penalty assurance. This was cited at the time as the Government’s consistent policy, which has been maintained without exception and without difficulty in co-operating with allies such as the US. The FCO agreed that a sole exception would undermine the UK’s consistent and total opposition. No evidence has been presented on unwillingness from the US to engage in data-sharing arrangements where death penalty assurances are required. Without clear evidence to this effect, it is difficult to accept the Government’s proposition that the US would walk away from the negotiating table for that reason.
On new clause 1, while we welcome it as an improvement, it simply does not go far enough. It is restricted to a requirement for assurances in the context of section 52 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. However, data could be requested by another state through a different route that does not require active interception on the part of the UK. In those circumstances, our concern would be that these protections would not operate.
Mark Pritchard
The shadow Minister, rightly, gave a litany of examples where the Government have set out to abolish the death penalty worldwide. The SNP spokesman has referred to assurances on ISIS cases and other assurances. Given that we heard from the shadow Minister that assurances have been sought previously, I am a little puzzled about why that should change.
Gavin Newlands
Words are great but it is deeds that are important, and we think that this should be in this Bill. As the Bill is, to use the Minister’s term, the docking station for future agreements, we think that this should be in the Bill, which sets the tone of the regulations for future agreements.
Mark Pritchard
To help the House and to help me—I need all the help I can get—could the hon. Gentleman perhaps give an example of where assurances have not been sought in such cases?
Gavin Newlands
That is not the point—it is about the principles. We have spoken at length about this and listed some of them. It is about the principles, and we are signatories to the ECHR as well. We should ensure that these principles and obligations are in this Bill; otherwise, in my view, we are not following those obligations.
Amendment 1, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, is an improvement on new clause 1, but my only small concern—the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) may address this in his speech—is that it might not cover instances where data could be requested by another state through a different route, similarly to the issues that I set out with regard to new clause 1.
Amendment 12 simply refers to
“where the treaty provides for requests”
and therefore provides the most comprehensive level of protection. I urge Members from across the House to back this amendment, as our international reputation may well be degraded even further—if that were possible given the Brexit situation at the moment—if we enable this barbaric practice anywhere else in the world.
On journalistic protections, I very much welcome the amendments tabled by the Government and by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), but they still do not go far enough. They are fine in and of themselves, but other areas of journalistic protection still need to be looked at.
Mr Wallace
If the hon. Gentleman was sitting where I am and he had a choice before him where the United States Administration was saying, “Look, here’s the deal—we’ve got 99% of the data and you’ve got 1%. We haven’t got equality of arms. This is the deal—you either take it without strings attached or you do not,” and if there were no deals and no treaty, as the amendment would provide, what would he do?
Gavin Newlands
That is almost a false choice. The Minister is painting it as a black-and-white issue. At the end of the day, on an issue of such grave importance as the death penalty, I would bring it to the House and seek the House’s view. It would not be for me to try to override our principles as set in the ECHR. The USA might well hold all the data, but if we do not hold to our principles, then what is the point? That is our view.
Clause 12 provides for a journalist to be given notice of and made a party to an application that pertains to their confidential journalistic material, but this does not apply to non-confidential but none the less extremely sensitive journalistic material. As I said in Committee, that is at odds with the domestic situation as outlined in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The system proposed in the Bill will allow for a significantly reduced opportunity for journalists to engage in arguments about what is, and is not, suitable for disclosure, removing the opportunity for a journalist to make submissions on the issues that this gives rise to in the context of their work.
We believe that the Bill does not provide adequate protection of confidential journalistic material. This could seriously threaten journalistic inquiry and prevent a free press from doing its job, and the implications for our democracy are worrying. We are not alone in having those concerns; the BBC and many others have raised deep concerns about this part of the Bill. Amendment 18 is essential because it ensures that any protections afforded to our journalists in this Bill are not simply domestic but that other states that the Government enter into an agreement with must mirror the UK’s press safeguards.
Amendments 19 to 23, tabled by the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, would introduce a requirement that notice must be given for all applications for journalistic material. It is vital that journalists can operate freely in the knowledge that Government cannot just seize their information on a whim. As I said, we very much welcome those amendments. However, I echo the concerns aired by the hon. Member for Torfaen about proposed new subsection (2B) and in particular the indictable offence override. I hope that the Minister can give us some comfort on that. Under the Bill, journalists would have a significantly reduced ability to engage in arguments about what is and is not suitable for disclosure, removing the opportunity for them to make submissions on the issues that give rise to that.
In conclusion, there have been clear improvements to the Bill, and we very much welcome those concessions. However, new clause 1 and the journalistic protections simply do not go far enough, and that is why we will back the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Torfaen.
Sir Edward Davey
This is a very good Bill overall. It is much needed, and it is not controversial, which is why we will not vote against its Third Reading. However, our debates have shown that there is a chance to improve the Bill. Back Benchers have been able to improve the Bill, as we have seen with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman). I strongly support his amendments, which are well judged, and I know that the BBC supports them, too. I also support Labour’s amendment 18. It is not unreasonable to expect Government to try to ensure that there are protections for journalism and free expression in these treaties, and the world would expect Britain to uphold that. We hope to get agreement across the House on those amendments.
It is a shame that there is disagreement on the death penalty assurances. The Minister has been trying to reach out, but he will know that new clause 1 is only about seeking assurance, not receiving assurances, which is the issue at the heart of this disagreement. I intervened on the Minister earlier to ask whether there had been discussions about a carve-out for the types of offence that we are worried out. I would have thought that that would be incredibly easy, because the number of death penalty executions and cases that will result in it is tiny. I therefore would have thought that the US—a very practical people—would accept a treaty with that carve-out. The amendments tabled by my party and the Labour party would enable such a carve-out to be pushed forward. That is not unreasonable.
The Minister talks about the inequality of arms, and I get that—America is rather bigger than we are—but this is not about the Americans doing us a favour. We have data to offer them, too. It may only be 1%, but they want it. They want to catch their criminals—they want to catch the bad guys, too. We have a great record of working with them, and we should continue that. It is not as one-sided as he portrayed.
Let us remember what we are trying to achieve. A huge number of people in Congress and across America are campaigning to get rid of the death penalty. Nineteen US states no longer have the death penalty, and six of those have changed their laws since 2007 because of successful campaigning. That is one reason why we should stand up for this principle. This debate is live in the US, and it is important for not only the people we are talking about but US citizens that we send this signal. In addition to the states that have got rid of the death penalty, 11 states have not executed anyone for 10 years—it is de facto not used—so that makes 30 states. The federal Government have not executed anyone since 2003. The facts do not bear out the idea that we are pushing at a closed door and that there is massive opposition in the US political system.
Mr Wallace
The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. He also highlights how very rare this is, which goes to the point about balance. This is not just about death penalty assurances. This is about the United States Administration saying, “You can’t have your cake and eat it. You want all this help and all this data, and you want us to take back foreign fighters and try them, but no sooner do we say yes than you start telling us how to do it and giving us conditions.” That is part of the overall assessment that the Government made in some other cases. In this case, the data has never been an issue in the past 20 years. That is why our judgment and the clear message from the United States Administration is that that would jeopardise the treaty.
Sir Edward Davey
I hear what the Minister says, and I know that he knows there is not a lot between us on this, because we are all trying to get to the same objectives. However, the points he makes could be argued against the US position, and because we are close allies, we could close that gap. It would not be terribly great for Senators to oppose this Bill—they have Senate ratification —as they would be held to account by their citizens for getting in the way of sharing information to catch paedophiles.
As British politicians here, from all sides and including the Minister, we should stand up for British principles. Yes, we want to catch these appalling criminals, but we must make sure that we advance justice and human rights. I do not think we should see these things as separate and deal with them separately—we can bring them together. It would be a good step for this House to stand up for this principle, which we all share and which is and has for a long time been Government policy, and say to our close friends in the US that we believe we can come to some agreement.
The Minister made it clear in his response that the treaty is still in development. The hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) talked about how a lot of people in the US, particularly in the State Department, are expecting us to do this, so it is not unreasonable that we do, and I hope that the Minister, who is highly respected across this House and whose Bill we utterly support, can understand why we are trying to make this extra push. We are doing this to help him in his negotiations.
John Woodcock
Listening to this debate, I found myself nodding along with the shadow Minister, as often I do. He made a well-honed speech about the bipartisan approach that has long been taken on the death penalty and the UK’s opposition to it on both sides. I tried to reconcile that with his party’s position, which is to oppose new clause 1. I was agreeing with what he was saying and I have some sympathy because the reasoned approach that he characteristically takes at the Front Bench is not matched by the diktat that comes down from the shadow Home Secretary and the leader of his party.
I have to say to the shadow Home Secretary: for the second time this week, she has ended up in a position where I and others are further to the left than her on a key issue. I sat behind her on Monday night, when she was explaining to the House why it was right to abstain on the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill. The Lords have rightly, and in a way that is welcome, forced a concession from the Government—to me, new clause 1 seems substantive in writing into the Bill the requirement for this and any future Government to seek assurances on the death penalty. As has been rightly said, that approach has long been practice but it was, in terms of extradition, in a way that was quite troubling, disregarded in the instance of Mohammed Emwazi and others.
New clause 1 has been tabled after pressure from the Lords. It is a step forward in legally codifying opposition to the death penalty. As I understand it, the Labour party is going to try to force its Members of Parliament to vote against it, in the hope that they will then get to an amendment which would be unworkable and would indeed wreck the chances of a treaty, as the Minister has convincingly set out. Assuming that new clause 1 goes through—I will certainly be voting for it and I am encouraging many Labour colleagues to vote for it or abstain—we are not, as I understand it, going to get to the Labour amendment, by which they appear to be setting store. I am afraid that that epitomises the deep oppositional politics that has always been a hallmark of the shadow Home Secretary and the Leader of the Opposition. It is an example, I am afraid, of why it would be so deeply troubling for the nation if they were given the chance to stand at the other Dispatch Box and have the authority to act as Home Secretary and Prime Minister.
This seems to have been another week when precedents are changing in this House. As I understand it, the Labour Whip is no longer binding on either Back-Bench or Front-Bench MPs, and it seems to be possible for Labour Front-Bench MPs to break their own Whip and remain on the Front Bench. I do not know if there is a requirement to go and sit in the Smoking Room to be exempt from what would otherwise be the strictures of the Front Bench.
This means that Labour MPs are being forced into making a false choice on human rights. We have to uphold human rights as a country. If we do not uphold them, the law will bring the Government into line, as it may yet do in the case of the so-called “ISIS Beatles”. The Labour leadership are forcing a choice on this incredibly important action to gain the treaty to speed up action against paedophiles, and on action to be able to convict British terrorists. They are forcing their MPs to choose one or the other. It is a false choice and one that I hope MPs will reject. I hope they will vote for new clause 1, so that we can go ahead with a strengthened Bill, which the country needs.
Mr Wallace
With the leave of the House, let me say that the amendments have been well heard and well argued. Following what the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) has said, it is true that this is a false choice. This is real: it is about giving power to our law enforcement agencies to get data—data only; not the wider MLAT evidential packages, which are already covered by the overseas security and justice assistance guidance. Nor is it about extradition. It is simply about recognising the 21st century we live in, where the data is stored and the vital need for us to get it.
It is just wrong to tie this up with Trumpian ideology or anything else. It is not true. The shadow Home Secretary may like to note that it started under President Obama. We are not kowtowing to President Trump at all. This suggestion from our allies will help us to cut the time—from years and months to months and days—to get the vital data we need to protect our children and to protect us from terrorism.
Mark Pritchard
May I reach out to the Opposition? As the joint chairman of the all-party group on the abolition of the death penalty, I, like the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), did have some concerns. However, I have addressed them with the Minister, who has listened. I think the Government have listened and I appeal to the shadow Minister and the Opposition Front-Bench team to think again in the national interest and in the interests of victims.
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has campaigned against the death penalty for very many years and who, as co-chair of the all-party group, knows a thing or two about it. I do not think he would say that lightly if he did not feel it.
My shadow made some points about the judgment in the “Beatles” case, which is not of course related specifically to this data, but makes the point about exceptional circumstances. I urge him to read the judgment in full.
Mr Wallace
Then the hon. Gentleman has quoted so selectively. If he has read it in full, he will know that all five points of allegation—
Mr Wallace
Yes, but the hon. Gentleman did not expand on them. If he had, he would have said, for example, that the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales made it very clear that
“the Government recognises and responds to the realities of political life in the state concerned, whether or not it likes those realities. It would be very odd indeed to ignore them. Ministers, diplomats and other officials are engaged in a constant process of evaluation, making judgements about the differences between what is said and what is meant; between what is threatened, explicitly or implicitly, and what is likely to happen; about the impact of action of the UK. That is what was done here. The Home Secretary had the advice of the British Ambassador…The suggestion that he was not entitled to take it into account and rely on that expert assessment when making his own judgement is misconceived.”
The Lord Chief Justice recognises the political realities within which we operate in the course of trying to keep people safe in this nation. It is a great shame that the shadow Home Secretary cannot manage to recognise those realities when the Lord Chief Justice can.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It came to my attention earlier on that the Secretary of State for Scotland is visiting my constituency tomorrow. I first became aware of the visit via lines in the local press about an announcement of funding for the Ayrshire growth deal. I have since received a ministerial notification, but it contains no details whatsoever. The information even has the wrong name for the venue—imagine that. My office has since asked the Scotland Office for more information, and we are still being told that it is just a simple visit to a local college, but that is completely contrary to the details in the press.
Of course, I welcome the potential announcement of £100 million for the Ayrshire growth deal. It has cross-party support, and everybody has worked hard to get it over the finishing line. However, it would be more appropriate to maintain such cross-party co-operation and, at the very least, to show due respect to me as the constituency MP by sharing the information that the Scotland Office has shared with the press. I am looking to you for guidance on the matter, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving me prior notice of it. I understand that he has also informed the Secretary of State for Scotland that he would be making it. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s annoyance at not being properly informed regarding the details of the visit, because that is what is expected. However, having raised the matter, I hope that he will get further clarification. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench have noted what he said and will ensure that the proper information is sent to him.
Third Reading
Mr Wallace
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Throughout the process, the Bill has been about giving our law enforcement agencies a step change in capability to access the vital data needed to investigate some of the worst crimes perpetrated against our constituents. The House has spoken. We examined the Opposition’s amendment 18 and the amendments that mirrored those attempted in the House of Lords. A majority of 53 in rejecting amendment 18 sends a clear notice that Members in this House have considered the delicate balance between obligations and security and have favoured that we should send the Bill back to the Lords with the amendment rejected. I hope that their lordships will reflect on that.
This Bill is about the security of our children and our constituents and about taking up an offer made by President Obama’s Administration to help us with vital investigations where time is of the essence, so that we do not have to go down the long bureaucratic route of the MLAT process, which can take months or years. Indeed, I meet police officers who tell me that they cannot actually progress investigations as a result. When that process of obtaining vital data is turned into days and weeks, this House should be proud not only of our special relationship with the United States that has enabled this to happen, but of the fact that our police will be able to get the necessary data.
Members from across the House often quite rightly complain that data from faraway CSPs, such as Facebook and Google—data that is corrupting the internet and radicalising our families and our children—is being used to prosecute cybercrime and that we need to do more about that. We need to take action to stop such things happening. This Bill contains a strong measure offered by the US Administration, and it means that we will be able to do much more to keep our citizens safe. It is the responsible thing to do.
I have listened to suggestions throughout the Bill’s progress and have taken them into the Bill where and as much as possible, including on the protection and notification of journalists. I hope that the other place recognises the consensual way in which we have made progress on 90% of the Bill. We will be the first nation to have such an arrangement, although there is more work to be done around the treaty.
I do not know whether the Lords will send the Bill back—I pray that they do not—so I will say a grateful thanks to my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who has done great work; to the usual channels; and to the Labour and SNP Front-Bench spokespeople, the Democratic Unionist party and the Liberal Democrats, who have all either accommodated offers or had the time to listen to me in private to try to resolve matters. I thank my officials and the Bill manager. This is her first Bill, and she was allocated a Bill that looked so boring and innocuous that there would be no controversy. Little did she know how our friends in the upper House would behave—I can only apologise for that. I thank the team for doing a sterling job. I hope that the Bill does not return and that we can look forward to its coming into law.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I echo the Minister in saying that 90% of the Bill has been consensual, and a number of parties, including the SNP, the Liberal Democrats, Labour and others, have sought to contribute constructively throughout its passage.
The issue of death penalty assurances generated a great deal of controversy, but the Minister will have noticed that I indicated earlier that we would be supporting the Bill on Third Reading, irrespective of the outcome of previous votes. That remains our position, and I join him in his frustration with the slowness of the MLAT process. MLAT is a well-established process but, clearly, we need to look at speeding it up, and this Bill is a mechanism by which we can do that.
The Minister rightly focuses on America, partly because of the extent of the data it holds and partly because that treaty has been negotiated, and it will be a framework for other reciprocal treaties all around the world. Of course, he would expect me and the Opposition to scrutinise every single one of those treaties when they come before the House in due course. Parties on both sides of the House share the long-cherished principle of international human rights.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I apologise for missing some of the debate on Report. Will my hon. Friend reassure us about the sources of intelligence information? There have been stories in the past about how our intelligence has been gained. Is he satisfied that there are enough safeguards to ensure those stories are not repeated?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Clearly, I do think the safeguards in the Bill have been significantly improved, which is one reason why I am content to support it. Obviously that is not to say there might not be legal challenges to aspects of the Bill in due course—there may well be—but I am pleased and content with many of the improvements that have been made. Throughout my time in this role I have tried to work consensually with the Minister, as has been the case with this Bill and others, and that will continue in the years ahead.
I join the Minister in thanking the Bill team. I have spoken to different members of the team over the course of the Bill’s passage. People did not necessarily expect the Bill to end up in this place when it began as a non-consensual Bill in the House of Lords. I also thank their lordships, the Minister and all the members of the Committee who contributed to the Bill. The time has come to move forward and to try to put in place this mechanism to speed up the exchange of information, with appropriate safeguards for keeping our citizens safe.
Gavin Newlands
Every hon. Member would accept that the current wait times in the MLAT process are unsustainable. Notwithstanding the arguments made on Report and at earlier stages, we welcome the Bill and believe that investigations and proceedings relating to serious offences in Scotland will benefit from the use of overseas production orders as a quicker, more streamlined process for obtaining that data.
I am, of course, disappointed that we were unsuccessful in securing full death penalty and journalistic protections. The death penalty protection, at least, may come back to us. Despite the Minister’s tone at the start of the debate, I thank him for his approach to this Bill and to the other Bills on which the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) and I have worked.
I thank the hon. Members for Torfaen and for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin). It has been a somewhat easier and more enjoyable—if that can be the word—experience for having worked together so well. I also thank the Clerks in the Public Bill Office and the various organisations that have provided briefings for Members.
The Minister was right—and he reiterated it—when he said that this was an important but essentially boring Bill. The Minister, the shadow Minister and I find ourselves in a lot of Committees considering Bills that could easily be described as boring, and I am sure that after last night’s vote that may well be the case again very soon. So I shall see them soon, I imagine.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
Business of the House (Today)
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Private Members’ Bills
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I should inform the House that the Speaker has not selected any of the amendments.
Ordered,
Notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14(8), Private Members’ bills shall have precedence over government business on 8 February 2019, 15 March 2019 and 22 March 2019.—(Andrea Leadsom.)
Sittings in Westminster Hall (31 January)
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Business without Debate
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
16:33 - The House divided: - Ayes: 289 / Noes: 245 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Delay Repay: Great Eastern Main Line
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
We are starting this debate somewhat early, and it happens to be a debate on rail delays. Looking at the time, I can work out that I have approximately two and a half hours, which the House will be pleased to know I have no intention of filling. Ironically, though, it does happen to be the longest delay I have ever encountered, personally, on a Greater Anglia train—and that is a fact.
I am hugely grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of Delay Repay 15 on the great eastern main line. It is an issue that is hugely important to thousands of my Colchester constituents who are regular rail users and commuters. To set the scene, as a rail user myself, I know that sadly—as commuters regularly, in fact almost daily, remind me on Twitter and via email—our rail service is often lacking, with short forms, delays, dirty trains, poor communication, and regular line, points, overhead wire or signal faults. My constituents and I have experienced every kind of delay possible, whether it is snow, ice, leaves, rats, or being too hot or too cold. It is quite incredible to think how other countries run effective rail services.
It is hard to feel convinced, and certainly to convince constituents, that we receive good value for money when the situation appears to be getting worse while rail fares and car-parking charges increase. I would never seek to presume or know what the Minister may be thinking, but I would hazard a guess: that complaints on social media are common enough, and that very rarely will anyone tweet their local MP to say, “My train’s arrived perfectly on time—please thank the Transport Minister on my behalf.” Perhaps he is thinking that this issue, while important, may be over-inflated by grumpy rail users like myself. I find the situation to be the complete opposite. I think that people have got so fed up with complaining about rail services that they have given up complaining about rail services.
Before we get off on the wrong track—there will not be too many bad puns—let us adopt a more statistical approach. The national rail passenger survey of more than 25,000 passengers in autumn 2017 has made something clear. For the avoidance of confusion, I have stripped the dataset down to the 1,493 Greater Anglia passengers involved in the survey. It is starkly but unsurprisingly clear that we are experiencing the lowest overall satisfaction with Greater Anglia services for over five years. On delays, which is the subject of this debate, only 32% of commuters are satisfied with Greater Anglia’s track record. The punctuality and reliability of services was also consistently ranked the single most important consideration for commuters.
Things have not improved much since autumn 2017. In the past 48 hours, we have seen in the press that Greater Anglia passengers have become significantly less satisfied with their journeys over the past 12 months. According to new figures from the rail watchdog Transport Focus, only 73% of passengers were satisfied with their journeys on Greater Anglia. That figure was 81% in its survey the previous year.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which I welcome. He is a great campaigner on this issue. One cause of dissatisfaction among our constituents on this line is the fact that they so often have to stand. Does he agree that we should look at compensation for not only delays but standing? Is it right that someone who stands, often for two hours or more, pays the same fare as someone who has a seat?
Will Quince
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right; nobody should be standing on a train for this length of time. Nobody should be standing to get to London Liverpool Street from average commuter towns like Chelmsford or Colchester, or even as far as Norwich. The journey from Chelmsford is about 40 minutes, from Colchester it is about 55 minutes and from Norwich it is one hour and 45 minutes or even two hours; we hope to get that down to one hour and 45 minutes with the new trains. Increased capacity will come with the new trains, but there is a massive issue with standing. It is not uncommon to see people—indeed, I have done it myself—standing between Colchester and London. That is not acceptable.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The west coast main line is not as bad, but we often have cancellations, and people stand at Euston waiting but are not told the reason for the cancellation. There is an argument for new rolling stock, whether on the hon. Gentleman’s line or the west coast main line. I agree with his point about fares. The public have got so used to fares being increased that they feel helpless to do anything about it. Fares are far too high now.
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Fares are an interesting point. Of course everyone would like to see rail fares come down, but most people say that they want their fare to represent better value for money. We are fortunate that we are getting a brand new fleet of trains, at a cost of some £1.4 billion, but to set that in context, we have waited in some cases 40 years for it. Some of our rolling stock is decades old—in fact, I think some of it even breaches standards in 2019, so it needs to be replaced in any event.
I think the public are clear about what they want: punctual services. In the unfortunate event that that is not possible, adequate compensation for the delay must be available. I would be the first to argue that we should focus our efforts on improving the reliability of the service. Rail users would rather not face delays than receive compensation.
I have raised this issue numerous times with Greater Anglia, which has assured me and colleagues that it is investing more than £20 million in improving the performance of its existing trains. As I mentioned, it is also engaged in a £1.4 billion investment programme over the next two years to replace its current models with new trains, the first of which are due to enter service on the line this year. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), that will increase capacity on our line, with 1,043 carriages available compared with 937 at the moment. That is good news. It is long overdue—sadly, like some of the trains leaving Colchester—but I welcome these announcements.
We must not forget Network Rail, as most of the delays on our line fall under its remit. Members of Parliament from across our region, ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), have called for repair and renewal work on our line as part of the great eastern main line taskforce. We have helped to secure £2 billion as a funding settlement for our line, and we will start to see the benefits of these works in reduced delays and disruption.
I wish to touch on the sensitive and incredibly sad issue of suicide, as I know that fatalities on the line are often the cause of the longest delays. I want to reassure rail users that Members of Parliament from across this House on our line have been working closely with Greater Anglia, Network Rail and the Department to do all we can to put measures in place to try to reduce and minimise the number of people who are, tragically, taking their own lives on our lines.
I hope I have set out why there are good reasons for optimism. I appreciate that I was relatively disparaging about our rail service to start with, but a lot of constituents would feel exactly the same.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
Although we are in the same region, I have a different rail line, with a huge variety of rail providers involved on that line. We have had a 100% increase in capacity, lots more seats, a huge range of wi-fi on some of the trains, yet passengers remain frustrated about value for money and the challenges on punctuality. How does my hon. Friend feel we can tackle that value for money problem?
Will Quince
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I used to live in his constituency, so I know that rail line well. I understand that the trains have improved somewhat since I lived there. When we ask rail users what they want, most of them say that they want reliability, a punctual service, a plug socket and to be able to get a seat. Ideally, they would also like wi-fi. So speed is important, but it is usually a factor that is further down the list. Those are basically the core component of what people want and expect in terms of value for money, and I hope the Minister will address that in a little more detail.
As I said, I hope I have set out why there are good reasons for optimism about the great eastern main line. We have an entire new fleet of trains coming, with a significant investment in rail infrastructure, which should lead to a reduction in disruption and delays. However, that cannot and must not be used as an argument against the rapid introduction of Delay Repay 15 on the great eastern main line.
On 13 October, we had some welcome news from the Department, as the Secretary of State announced an improved compensation scheme—Delay Repay 15. Under this scheme, passengers are able to claim 25% of the cost of a single fare tickets for delays of between 15 and 29 minutes. The scheme would go a long way towards incentivising improved efficiencies in the franchise and compensating commuters for the inconvenience suffered as a result of delayed services. Delay Repay 15 has already been rolled out on Thameslink, Southern and the Great Northern franchises, but not on the great eastern main line under Greater Anglia.
As I know from my own train journeys between Colchester and Liverpool Street, the smallest delay to a daily commute can cause, over time, significant disruption to our professional lives, especially in the mornings, and significance inconveniences to our private lives in the evening—it can make the difference between being able to tuck one’s kids into bed at night or not. We should not underestimate the importance of that. Ultimately, like most of my fellow rail users, I would rather the reliability of the service be vastly improved first, but I know that my constituents would also welcome the introduction of improved compensation rights.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this Adjournment debate, and I apologise for not being here for the start of his speech. I absolutely agree with the whole campaign, which is brilliant. Our passengers deserve this. Does he agree that any compensation scheme needs also to be easy to use and that Greater Anglia needs not only to introduce Delay Repay 15, but to make its current scheme more user friendly, so that when people try to claim compensation, they are not blocked from doing so?
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and for the role he plays on the great eastern main line taskforce. One reason why it has been so successful is that all the MPs from our region have spoken collectively with one voice, taking the politics out of the issue, and have focused on the main issues that are going to drive improvements on our line. We work closely together on that.
On the specific point about Delay Repay, the hon. Gentleman made a very good point. There is little point in having a compensation scheme if it is so hard and difficult to operate—it is not user-friendly—that people do not use it. There are of course people who will not bother with it or, for whatever reason, choose not to use it. Some choose to make a charitable donation, and the figure to date for what people across our region have chosen to donate, instead of receiving that money back, is somewhere in the region of £8,000. I agree entirely with him that it is important—in fact, imperative—that we make these Delay Repay schemes as easy and as user-friendly as possible. We should ensure people know how to do it, so it is important that the information is there in the first instance, and then make it as easy as possible for them to complete and to get the refund.
The Secretary of State rightly said back in October 2016 that when things do go wrong for commuters on our rail network
“it is vital that they are compensated fairly.”
The stated policy of the Department for Transport is to move all franchise operators to Delay Repay 15 as new franchises are let. I welcome this decision, but there is one big problem. Currently, Delay Repay 15 has been rolled out only on franchises that were let after October 2016. Herein lies our issue: the Greater Anglia franchise started in October 2016, but the franchise agreement was signed in August 2016. Eligibility for Delay Repay 15 has therefore been denied to the great eastern main line for a number of years as a consequence of a handful of weeks or even, dare I say, days. The irony is not lost on me that it is a timetabling issue that has delayed the introduction of Delay Repay 15 on our line. [Interruption.] That was poor, I appreciate.
Passengers on the great eastern main line are still only offered the original Delay Repay scheme, which compensates customers for the occasions on which they are delayed for 30 minutes or more, not the improved Delay Repay scheme for delays of 15 minutes or more. I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is quite incredible how many journeys are 27, 28 or 29 minutes late. I have been on many of them, and 29 minutes is quite a long time to be delayed, even when it affords a good opportunity to take in some of the beautiful north Essex countryside. [Interruption.] And, indeed, Suffolk, which I believe is also very beautiful.
What I am concerned about—hence this debate—is that if Delay Repay 15 is rolled out if the franchise is re-let on the same timetable as its predecessor scheme, passengers on our line will not have access to the DR15 scheme until October 2025, when the current franchise ends. That would be totally unacceptable. Fortunately, in November 2016 the Government stated their intention to explore the roll-out of Delay Repay 15 during that Parliament. Subsequently, in February 2018, the former Minister of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), confirmed in a written response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham:
“The Department has received a proposal from Greater Anglia in relation to implementing Delay Repay 15 before their present contract expires. This proposal is in the early stages of being reviewed and analysed to determine whether it is affordable and represents value for money.”
May I ask the Minister what progress has been made in these talks, which were in their early stages one year ago? I am calling on the Department for Transport to ensure that talks with Greater Anglia are fast-tracked to ensure that great eastern main line rail users have the same compensation rights as rail users in other parts of our country. The current situation only entrenches a postcode lottery in a system in which those who use the great eastern main line are less protected from delay and less entitled to compensation than users in other parts of our country.
It seems to me that it is certainly time that Delay Repay 15 was introduced on the great eastern main line. I hope to hear from the Minister that he can offer me and the many rail users on our line—the tens of thousands of rail users—some assurances on this matter and update me on the progress in the talks with Greater Anglia. I really hope that, in the next few weeks and months, we can get this nailed and make sure that our constituents and rail users have exactly the same rights as other rail users up and down our country.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I rise to speak in this Adjournment debate to give my extraordinarily strong support to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) and colleagues from across the east of England in the campaign to improve the Delay Repay compensation for users of the great eastern main line and specifically to ask the Minister to introduce a 15-minute Delay Repay scheme.
The price of a season ticket from Chelmsford to London is now £5,168. People are paying a huge amount of money to travel on our trains, and when they are delayed or fail to show up, people should be compensated. We must hold the train operators to account. Other parts of the country offer 15-minute Delay Repay services to commuters and rail customers. We rail users in Essex, Suffolk and throughout East Anglia should not be treated as second-class passengers.
This is not the first time I have spoken on Delay Repay in this House; according to Hansard, I have raised the issue four times in ministerial questions. I remember once running into the House from the train station because my train from Chelmsford had been so delayed that morning—I arrived only just in time to ask my question. The Secretary of State has said on the Floor of the House that he hopes that Delay Repay will be introduced this year. I hope that the Minister will be able to give further reassurance.
In Chelmsford, my constituents have faced continual delays and cancellations, especially over the past 12 months. They have also faced situations where trains that were promised to be 12 carriages long turned out to have only eight or four carriages. Chelmsford railway station is the busiest two-platform station anywhere in the country. When trains are shortened or cancelled, it becomes incredibly overcrowded very quickly, putting passengers in danger.
Sometimes passengers cannot get on to the next train. Even though they turned up and hoped to get on a train that in theory was leaving on time, they simply could not get on to it, because it was overcrowded. It has been a complete nightmare, particularly last summer in the heatwave when the air conditioning did not work on many ancient carriages, some of which are 40 years old. Many carriages were taken out of service, so we had more and more short-formed trains.
The good news is that new trains are coming. The vast amount of money—£1.4 billion—that will be spent on brand new trains and rolling stock is really welcome, but my constituents have waited a very long time for those trains. They need to get fair value for money for the service that they are receiving today.
While I have the Minister’s ear, I shall refer to some other issues surrounding the rail service. The new trains will help, but as I said, we are the busiest two-platform station anywhere in the country. We have waited at least 20 years for the promised second railway station in Chelmsford. We are building tens of thousands of homes across the Chelmsford district and more widely across our neighbouring district, and a second railway station has been promised for at least 20 years.
I was delighted to hear today that plans are afoot for that railway station in north Chelmsford to become a passing loop, which will help passengers from all across the east of England. A passing loop north of Chelmsford will allow more trains to run along the whole network, so it will be a significant infrastructure improvement. However, we still have to wait many years before that promised railway station comes online, and we still do not quite have the full commitment for funding. I ask the excellent Minister to look at how we can speed up plans to get that second railway station built in Chelmsford, not just for the people of Chelmsford, but for rail passengers up and down the region.
Will Quince
My hon. Friend refers to the Beaulieu Park station, which is important not just for Chelmsford but for the whole great eastern main line, because it affords us the opportunity to create two passing loops between Chelmsford and Colchester. That will hugely increase capacity on our line.
Vicky Ford
Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point so clearly. The passing loop will provide the incredibly overcrowded train line that goes across the east of England with more capacity, and that will enable stopping trains to be overtaken by fast trains. That will help people at Colchester and the people who then travel on from Colchester to areas such as Clacton and the stations in between. It will help the people of Norwich and Ipswich, because their trains will be able to overtake at that key point. Rail Minister, this would give us not just a train station but a passing loop—two bits of infrastructure for the price of one. We really must bring it on board.
We have waited many, many months for our 15-minute Delay Repay. As I have said, other parts of the country already have it. Let us get it in the east of England. We should not have a second-class railway service. I will continue to fight for the service my commuters deserve.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) on securing this debate on a perennial concern for my constituents.
I have lost count of the number of times I have received contact, through social media, email and written correspondence, from my commuters about the Braintree branch line to Liverpool Street. Even from the start of this year, my private office has been inundated with correspondence about the service—the lack of service and the delays to services—my commuters receive. Braintree, the town after which my constituency is named, is the last station on a branch line. This debate is rightly about the introduction of Delay Replay, but my hon. Friend is completely right that ideally we want a situation where my constituents and commuters do not have to rely on repayment or compensation for delayed services. What they really want are regular and reliable services.
All of us who use the railway line understand that, as a branch line service, we have a limited number of trains at our disposal—typically about a train an hour. It is therefore so very important that reliability is at the forefront of the train operating company’s priorities. If a train is delayed or cancelled, my constituents are presented with a tough choice: find some means of transporting themselves to Witham, which is where the branch line joins the main line; go into town to Chelmsford for the availability of car parking spaces; or phone work to make their apologies and excuses. That is not a decision that anyone would wish to have regularly forced upon them.
My constituents want to know that, when they turn up at the station, the train that is meant to depart at a certain time will depart at that time and get them to work on time. I have heard anecdotal reports of a number of people losing their jobs or being refused job opportunities because they are unable to get the reliability they need in their working lives—a direct result of the unreliability of the service on my branch line.
Will Quince
I have heard similar anecdotal cases. We must not forget that people do not just have issues getting to work; they need to get home, too. A lot of people have childcare providers. If parents are not back by a particular time, there is a real issue. People are in effect having to make a choice about whether they take a job that involves commuting into London. That affects our economy, and it affects people’s personal, social and family lives. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is not acceptable?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Work-life balance is very important. We recognise that commercial activity underpins the funding of public services—that is key—but life balance is also really important. My hon. Friend is the father of two lovely little girls, and I know that he is very proud of them. All of us want to be able to make a commitment to our families, but that is detrimentally affected when services are cancelled and delayed.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
We suffer in Clacton, too, as we are at the end of the line, as my hon. Friend knows. I have a very large number of letters in my mailbox about cancellations and delays. That also happens at weekends—some of my constituents work at weekends—and we have many replacement bus services. That must be dealt with, too. We must have a good weekend service for people who travel not only for work but for leisure activities.
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester rightly focused on Delay Repay, and I echo his calls. I will not repeat the requests he made of the Minister—from where I am standing, I can see the copious notes that the Minister has written, so I know he has made a note of that point. There are other things that I would like him to consider. I wrote to him recently about this issue, and he assured me that I will have a reply in good time. I will not chase him on that, because I know that mine is not the only correspondence he has received about this issue.
On encouraging people to use more environmentally friendly modes of transport, I find it difficult to have a meaningful conversation with my constituents about leaving their cars behind. It is very difficult for me to persuade even people who live in Braintree, who have the best opportunity to step away from the internal combustion engine, because their immediate response is, “Well, James, I have to rely on my car because I cannot rely on the trains.” The lack of reliability therefore has an impact not just on train services, but on more environmentally friendly modes of transport.
One of the issues that I brought up with Greater Anglia and that is linked to Delay Repay is the importance of speedy and accurate communications when things go wrong. Everybody is frustrated if a train is delayed or cancelled, but there is perhaps nothing more frustrating than waiting at the station not knowing whether the train is delayed and not having enough facts to make choices about credible alternative methods of transport.
When trains are delayed, my constituents must decide whether to walk back to their house to get their car to drive to another station and to park there, or whether to make alternative arrangements and change their childcare. If they decide to get in their car and move, there is little more frustrating than seeing the train that they could have been on pull out. Communication is therefore key.
Vicky Ford
I want to reinforce my hon. Friend’s point. The national rail passenger survey results have just been published, and the satisfaction of our railway users has dropped significantly. They are particularly dissatisfied with the information and complaints process. Some 48%—nearly one in every two passengers—report that they are dissatisfied with how information and complaints are dealt with. I back my hon. Friend up on this. Minister, we have to get clearer information to passengers. There is no excuse not to; that really could make a difference.
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
The final point that I want to make is that my commuters—I am sure this is true of all commuters across the region—are not unreasonable people. They are pragmatic. They understand that the rolling stock is old and is in the process of being replaced. They recognise that the route into London is going through a refurbishment and upgrade programme, which causes disruptions. Even though they pay the same amount of money for their season ticket as people on the main line, they recognise that they are on a branch line, which has certain disadvantages. They are sensible, pragmatic, reasonable people. That said, their patience is not an ever-filling well. When I hosted a public meeting last spring, the passion—I will put it no stronger than that—of my commuters and their desire to see the service and the communication improved and to see Delay Repay introduced in a timely manner cannot be overstated.
I have no doubt that the Minister has heard the concerns of colleagues representing this area, and he knows what we want first and foremost, but I hope that, if he can get a resolution on Delay Repay, he will then turn his mind to other enduring challenges, such as improving communication and wi-fi.
Giles Watling
On communication, it is all very well having Delay Repay—it is good to have it being communicated to passengers—but when Delay Repay 15 is introduced, it must be splashed widely so that everybody knows how to use it and that it is there. Surely that is the point.
James Cleverly
Yes, indeed; it would be good news, and I would strongly urge both the Department and the train operating company to be very vocal if we get it introduced in a timely manner, because it would be welcomed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) on securing this debate and on giving us the opportunity to discuss these issues. I thank other hon. Members for their contributions. We have had a very positive debate.
I fully recognise the importance of the rail service to the communities my hon. Friends represent. It is not just a question of access to the beautiful landscapes of north Essex or south Suffolk; the line serves areas of economic growth, where we are seeing innovative businesses, high-tech and state-of-the-art businesses, and growth in life sciences and renewable energy. The great eastern main line plays a significant role in unlocking the economic potential and improving quality of life in the areas my hon. Friends represent.
I also fully acknowledge the passion that rail can generate. As people have said, the constant struggle to know what is happening on a network and the impact of delays on people’s ability to make connections, get to work on time and handle childcare arrangements can be incredibly stressful and frustrating and we should be working flat out to minimise the need for any compensation to be paid at all.
I will address some of the issues raised. Obviously, we have focused today on Delay Repay, as that is the key point of the debate, but I will also touch on the issues of the performance of the network and the new trains that colleagues have raised. On Delay Repay, I recognise that, when things go wrong, we must have some means of appropriate redress. As my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) said, people are pragmatic and understand that things can go wrong; they just do not want them to go wrong regularly. Exceptional events we can understand.
These services are critical to how we run our lives. Delay Repay compensation is in place on most of our franchises. In its original form, it offered compensation for delays of 30 minutes or more, but we are improving the scheme by rolling out Delay Repay 15, under which compensation is paid for delays of 15 minutes or more, which will give passengers a better deal. It provides compensation of 25% of the ticket price for delays of 15 minutes or more and of 50% for 30 minutes or more, whatever the cause of the delay or the cancelation and whatever the ticket type.
James Cartlidge
The principle underpinning Delay Repay is that people should be compensated for any inconvenience caused, which brings me back to the intervention I made on my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince). Given that a seat is part of a person’s understanding of the contract of their ticket, if they have had to stand for the entire journey, is there not a principle that they should be entitled to recompense?
Andrew Jones
It would be very challenging to introduce that extra condition to the compensation structures. We must try to ensure that there are enough seats, but it is hard to guarantee that everyone will have a seat on every occasion. The right to a seat is not actually included in the ticket—the ticket entitles the passenger to ride and to complete the journey, but not to have a seat—although of course we want passengers to have comfortable seats, along with access to wi-fi, power sockets and so forth. I am aware of the issue that my hon. Friend has raised, and I will certainly give it further consideration.
We introduced Delay Repay 15 in Britain’s largest rail franchise, Govia Thameslink, on 11 December 2016, and it was introduced in c2c in February 2018. It is also part of the new South Western and West Midlands franchises, and was introduced most recently in the Northern franchise, last December. It will be a contractual requirement for all other Department for Transport franchises when contracts come up for renewal, so it will become a regular feature of what our rail service looks like up and down the country.
Greater Anglia currently offers Delay Repay 30. We have been actively engaged with the company to secure an affordable and value-for-money scheme for the Delay Repay 15 launch, and the process of agreeing on commercial terms is at an advanced stage. We are not quite there yet, but I can tell Members that I am confident of being able to bring them some news within weeks. I will, of course, ensure that I keep everyone informed of our progress. The Department is doing significant work in liaising with Greater Anglia. The delays in introducing the scheme in franchises are due to the complications involved in changing the nature of the contractual arrangements, and that is the only reason for the delay in this instance.
Vicky Ford
I thank my hon. Friend for telling us that he hopes we will be able to hear more news about Delay Repay within weeks. We have talked a great deal about the complaints that are received, and I receive many, but when we do positive things for our commuters, they really appreciate it. On 2 January I received this little message from one of the younger commuters in my constituency:
“I just got my millennial railcard and will be saving…£1,000 this year! All thanks to a Conservative Government!”
The introduction of this compensation scheme will be greatly appreciated.
Andrew Jones
As ever, my hon. Friend has made a very wise point. On 2 January, the industry introduced the millenial railcard for those aged up to 30, as well as a railcard for 16 and 17-year-olds. Everyone up to the age of 30 now has access to discounted fares via a railcard. We want to ensure that more people have access to our railway.
There have been a few questions about how the rail operating companies handle compensation claims. The Office of Rail Regulation recently published the figures for delay compensation claims settled within the industry target of 20 working days during rail periods 1 to 7. Greater Anglia achieved 99.7% compliance, which means that passengers are receiving their compensation in a timely manner. Figures published by the Department in October last year showed that Greater Anglia is among the leading train operating companies in terms of its passenger compensation claim rate. The research also showed that Greater Anglia is the most proactive TOC on Twitter, accounting for 72% of tweets.
Will Quince
I thank the Minister for giving way again. He is being incredibly generous. May I suggest that one of the reasons why Greater Anglia is so prolific on Twitter is the fact that it has so many rail users who tweet complaints to it, which it has to respond to?
Andrew Jones
I do not quite accept that. We can see passenger numbers. We can see when performances fall. Since taking this role 10 weeks ago, I have found my inner train spotter, and I now look at the train performance of franchise operators several times a day. So my hon. Friend’s claim that Greater Anglia is among the worst performers in the country is, I am afraid, not correct.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I apologise for joining the debate late; my train was late. More seriously, however, I am pleased to see the Essex posse here in strength this evening, including my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) sitting on the Treasury Bench as the Whip, who unfortunately therefore takes the vow of omertà but who I am sure is with us in spirit.
The problem on the Southend Victoria line operated by Greater Anglia is long-running engineering works, which have been running for two years. We have had some good news from Network Rail that they will now end in the spring of 2020 rather than May 2021. My constituents welcome that, but all the time they are still paying over £5,000 for a season ticket from Rayleigh when they can barely use the service at weekends because there are so many bus services. I have asked Greater Anglia repeatedly to give at least a small discount to my constituents, basically to say, “We share your pain,” and I wonder whether the Minister would have any sympathy with long-suffering commuters who pay a great deal of money to Greater Anglia for what is basically essentially a glorified bus service.
Andrew Jones
I am always keen to see value delivered, and I recognise that passengers have to endure a degree of inconvenience or worse when the industry is working on maintaining the network. I am not sure whether we could go as far as to say that that should be a part of compensation, because we can see looking ahead increased investment. We are investing more in our railways than any Government in British history. We have to try to do this in a way that inconveniences as few people as possible, but at the same time recognise that the benefits will be profound and we are catching up on historical underinvestment. It is fair to say that Governments of all colours have underinvested in our transport infrastructure, but that is not an accusation that can be made against this one.
Mr Francois
I thank the Minister for giving way again; I realise that he is tight for time. We have been hearing from Greater Anglia for several years about these new trains, which are going to be the Concorde of the 21st century on rails, with wi-fi and better seats and all the rest of it. However, we can have the best train in the world, but if it is stuck in the depot because the line is closed because engineering works are going on, it is no good to us. I am just trying to convey to the Minister, who is new in the post but I know personally is an excellent Minister—I say that dead straight—the sense of genuine frustration from my constituents that they pay a lot of money for a line that they cannot use for many days of the year, even if the trains will be the best in the world.
Andrew Jones
There is no doubt whatsoever that we do sometimes test the patience of constituents who are enduring delays and constant bus replacement services beyond a pleasant and comfortable level, and the constituents of Rayleigh are well represented by my right hon. Friend.
Andrew Jones
I am more than happy to give way; I do not think we are under quite the time pressure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) thinks we are.
Mrs Badenoch
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being exceedingly generous. It would not be right for me to hear about an Adjournment debate on Greater Anglia without talking about the issues in my constituency. While I am not on the great eastern main line, I am on the west, and I cannot help but pick the Minister up on his point about how well it is doing. I want to add my voice to echo my colleagues’ concerns. I get lots of letters from constituents who are dissatisfied. Is there something the Minister can do to look again at these statistics that show how well Greater Anglia is doing, because I think many of us would dispute them?
Andrew Jones
I am coming on to the performance of the company, so I will address that point, if I may, in a few moments.
First, let me pick up where we left off on communication, a key point raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) and for Braintree. I entirely agree that it is appropriate for the train operating companies to work extra hard to keep passengers informed when things go wrong, or when new services become available. I am not sure that this is a strength of our rail industry as a whole, but I have certainly raised it with the industry. I have talked to most of the TOCs over the past few weeks and have highlighted one thing above all, which is that I want to see a focus on operational excellence to deliver the most punctual network we can. I want them to focus their attention on customers and their communication with customers.
Stephen McPartland
I welcome the massive investment that the Government are making in our railways after many years of underinvestment. Does the Minister accept that a lot of the problems on the railways are the responsibility of Network Rail, a state-owned operator, and that local people feel that it is often unaccountable?
Andrew Jones
My hon. Friend makes an informed point. About 70% of the delays on our rail network are caused by works by Network Rail rather than by the train operating companies, so it is appropriate that we put the focus where the cause is.
I am not in any way trying to suggest that Greater Anglia is perfect; I am just trying to put this in context. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin) raised a point about the compensation scheme currently in place. Greater Anglia is one of the better rated companies in that regard. Contact and payment details can be stored in passengers’ online accounts so that they do not have to fill in their details each time they make a claim, and delay compensation claims can be made via the Greater Anglia app. The principle of keeping things simple and easy for passengers is absolutely paramount, and I agree with his underlying point on that. We have spent a bit of time talking about Delay Repay, and I want to confirm that that is an absolute priority. Colleagues have asked for my assurance that we will be putting our energy into bringing this over the line as soon as possible, and I am happy to provide that assurance. This is work in progress, and I will ensure that everyone is kept informed of the progress being made.
I want to talk bit about some of the other issues that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester talked about the new trains, and they are indeed coming down the line. I am particularly keen that the current performance of Greater Anglia and Network Rail should continue to improve. Their performance is starting to improve, although there was a difficult autumn period with a mixture of infrastructure faults and train faults—as well as some fatalities; a powerful point was made about the number of suicides on our lines—and that has an impact on people. Every single case is obviously an appalling personal tragedy, and that must be borne in mind in any comments that we make. It is also worth noting that the suicide rate in the UK is at a 30-year low. We have seen a fall in the suicide rate on the railways in the past year or so, but it has not been so marked as across the country as a whole.
We have a secure station scheme, which involves an accreditation run through the British Transport police. It has been running for 20 years, and it was refreshed last year to include measures to combat suicide and self-harm. I would be keen to hear from colleagues of any problem areas on the rail network, because I am keen that we should do all we can to help in this regard. That is why we have renewed the secure station scheme to include training and to focus on trying to minimise suicide and self-harm. This is an important point. It is not just about the delays, obviously; it is also about the practical nature of dealing with the intense personal tragedies involved in each case.
Sandy Martin
I believe in giving praise where it is due, and in this particular case I believe that we should give praise to Greater Anglia for the project that it is running—I believe in conjunction with Mind—to help staff to deal with these problems and to reduce the number of suicides on the railways. I really hope that that scheme will be successful as well.
Andrew Jones
That is an important point well made. Up and down the country, we see TOCs partner with either public bodies or, as in this case, successful and important charities. The British Transport Police and the secure station scheme work with the Railway Children and the Samaritans, for example, and such partnerships can make and are making a difference.
I mentioned that performance has been mixed over the autumn period, but it is starting to improve. Looking at the public performance measures, Greater Anglia’s PPM for the period ending 5 January was 89.7%, which should be compared with the target in the franchise agreement of 88.7%. However, we want to go even further. We want all passengers on our network to receive the best possible service.
Giles Watling
We are at the end of the line down in Clacton and Walton-on-the-Naze, and it feels like the further away a place is, the more it gets ignored. Will the Minister please give some reassurance to my commuters that their train times will improve?
Andrew Jones
I can absolutely confirm to my hon. Friend that trains cannot go beyond the end of the line, because it then gets very wet. However, there is no way that different parts of the network are being treated disproportionately. There is an even approach, and everybody is entitled to a good service. That is what we are working towards. The Department’s work with the train operating company looks at performance as a whole, not individual parts, so I assure my hon. Friend that his concerns are being addressed.
I was talking about how we want to go further. The target is to have over 92% of trains arriving on time by the end of the franchise. Together with Network Rail, the train operating company needs to manage day-to-day performance and ensure that passengers see performance improve. It is my priority to see our trains provide an excellent service that delivers a network upon which commuters and passengers can rely every day.
Many colleagues have mentioned new trains. Greater Anglia has a great initiative, but it is part of a bigger scheme right across the country. Some 7,000 new carriages will be entering service on our network over the next two years, and the change is comparable to the UK’s move from diesel to steam. It is that kind of scale of development. The new trains will deliver significant improvements for passengers. In Greater Anglia’s case, the entire fleet of trains will be replaced, with over 1,000 new carriages on order. They are being built by Stadler and Bombardier, with manufacturing and construction well underway. The first five of the new Stadler trains have been delivered to Norwich Crown Point depot, where they are undergoing testing and acceptance processes.
We expect that the new trains will start to be rolled out across the network from the middle of this year, with the full roll-out completed by the end of 2020. These state-of-the-art trains will provide many more seats for busy services, which relates to points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) and the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham). The new trains will be more efficient, accelerate faster and have much better customer information. They will also provide a much-improved on-board environment with wi-fi, air conditioning and power sockets, which goes back to the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree .
I want to inform the House that Greater Anglia has a franchise commitment to deliver two direct trains each weekday between Liverpool Street and Norwich in 90 minutes and two direct trains each weekday between Liverpool Street and Ipswich in 60 minutes. Those new services follow long-standing campaigns from both sides of the House, and they will commence in May. Since the start of the franchise, Greater Anglia has invested over £100 million at stations and depots and in ticketing initiatives. Major station upgrades have been completed at Norwich, Ipswich, Cambridge and Chelmsford, but I will have to take away the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford about the second railway station there. I will need to do a bit of research to provide the exact up-to-date position, but I will write to her with that information. I recognise the point about two for one and the passing loop, which has improved resilience across the entire network.
Vicky Ford
I thank the Minister so much for saying that he will do some up-to-date research. Will he also arrange to meet me to discuss the issue?
Andrew Jones
I would be delighted. We will get that in the diary rapidly.
Let me give the House a degree of context, because the Government are continuing record levels of spending. The budget for control period 6, which is the next period of rail investment funding starting in April 2019 and running through to 2024, is around £48 billion, the largest in British history. We are delivering the biggest rail modernisation programme in over a century, which means faster journeys, longer trains, longer platforms and more seats for passengers. We use giant numbers in the rail sector, but it comes down to what we are delivering for the rail journeys that our constituents make every day.
I am aware of the renewal work as part of the upgrade, and I recognise that it is not possible to work on the railways without causing some degree of inconvenience, but it is all about improving the reliability of our network. In the past we saw a bias towards enhancements, new services and new infrastructure, rather than maintenance. That will change in control period 6, with a bias back towards maintaining the network to reduce things such as speed restrictions and to make services more reliable by unscrambling some of our rather ancient Victorian infrastructure.
The national rail passenger survey results have been mentioned, and they were published yesterday. Overall satisfaction with Greater Anglia has dropped by eight percentage points, compared with the same period last year, to 73%, and no company would want to go backwards. The most significant falls in satisfaction, compared with last year, are on: punctuality, down 10 percentage points; the helpfulness and attitude of staff, down nine percentage points; and connections with other services, down nine percentage points. That decline in satisfaction is disappointing, and it is for Greater Anglia to work closely with Network Rail to improve its performance and to deliver the service and punctuality its customers expect. I include communication improvements within that, as that has been mentioned by colleagues. I will be holding Greater Anglia to account for delivering it.
The Government set the maximum amount by which regulated fares can rise, and train operators can choose to raise their fares by a lower amount. There is no requirement for rail operators always to raise by the maximum. This year we have capped regulated fare rises in line with inflation for the sixth year running.
Mr Francois
I am grateful to the Minister for squeezing me in. He may be aware that Greater Anglia went right to the top of the cap by imposing an increase, from memory, of 3.1%, whereas c2c, which runs the line along the Thames coast, went for only 2.5%, or thereabouts. A lot of commuters on Greater Anglia, who have all the issues that I will not repeat, are particularly put out by the fact that Greater Anglia basically charged the full whack, whereas c2c, which runs one of the most efficient and effective services in the country, felt that it did not need to do so. Does it seem equitable that the people running the better, more punctual service had a lower increase and the people running the worse service went the whole way?
Andrew Jones
It is difficult to comment on that, because each individual company sets its own fares. Frankly, I want to see, as we all want to see, people retain more of their own money, which is why, from a broader Government perspective, we have had the increase in the personal allowance and the fuel duty freeze and why, from a rail industry perspective, we are in the sixth year of regulated fares. I want us to have lower fares all round, although I recognise that 98% of the money that comes in via the farebox is automatically reinvested in the network, so the farebox is a critical part of delivering the upgrades that we seek for passengers.
Mr Francois
There is a strong rumour among commuters in my constituency that Greater Anglia borrowed the money for the new trains in the City at something like 8% interest. If that is true, given current interest rates, it would be completely financially incompetent, and I can only imagine that Greater Anglia’s finance director was educated at the shadow Home Secretary’s school of mathematics. Is that true?
Andrew Jones
I do not know the commercial terms of that particular arrangement. These are private matters. The particular school to which my hon. Friend refers is, I think, mercifully not that full of students.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I think we are being good natured and ought not to be tempted to start scoring political points on what is an important matter to Members’ constituents. I am sure the Minister got the point but did not want to answer it.
Sandy Martin
Will the Minister accept that although the regulated fares have gone up by something approaching 3%, there were unregulated fares that went up by very much more than that? Can he explain why, for instance, the Anglia rover ticket went up by something approaching 30%?
Andrew Jones
I am afraid we will have to take up that individual question with the rail operating company. The position we are taking is that we impose the cap on regulated fares, where customers do not have a choice, so that they do not become the victims of insufficient market choice. That is how the system was created and that is why we have run it for six years in a row.
We have been talking about how we can take cost out. As we look into rail inflation, we recognise the need to move away from RPI towards CPI. The Secretary of State has discussed this with rail operating companies and written to the rail trade unions to ask for their understanding and co-operation. I have also discussed the issue with the rail trade unions when I have met them, although we have not yet made quite the progress that I was hoping for.
One thing highlighted has been the nature of value, not just the absolute price. The point about value is well made, because it is a question of the absolute price for the goods and services received. I hope we will be able to demonstrate significantly greater value as some of the benefits of the investment come through. We will see those benefits in more reliable journeys, greater resilience in the network and, in particular, the new rolling stock.
I appreciate that passengers across the region, including Colchester, have not always had the service that they deserve. The maintenance of a high standard of customer service performance is the absolute priority, but I recognise that when things go wrong, passengers should receive the appropriate level of compensation. The focus of our discussions with Greater Anglia are to ensure that the key criteria we have been talking about today are satisfied and delivered, and that we reach agreement to implement Delay Repay 15. My commitment to the House is that I will focus on this over the next few weeks.
With the record level funding on our network services and new rolling stock being rolled out this year by Great Anglia, I am optimistic about anticipated improvements for constituents in Colchester and right across East Anglia.
I hope that, in a year’s time, passengers across Colchester, and right across the east of England, will see the very real benefits of the investment that matches our railway vision—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I can help the Minister. He did not have to give way. Come on, Will Quince.
Will Quince
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was actually rising to thank the Minister for being so generous in taking so many interventions during this debate.
Andrew Jones
That is extremely kind of my hon. Friend. I have to say that I want to make absolutely sure—
Andrew Jones
I want to make absolutely sure that I answer colleagues’ concerns wherever I can and keep colleagues posted. Do you want to hear a bit more about rail investment in East Anglia, Mr Deputy Speaker? [Interruption.] Well, that may have to wait for another time.
We have had a very good debate on the issues today. I just want to make sure that colleagues do not leave the House feeling that we are not bold in our ambitions. We have a plan to deliver the services that they want and expect for the constituents that they serve.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I have just one quick question for the Minister. Did you get an apology from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)? We have missed him tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Deferred Divisions
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
That the draft Consumer Protection (Enforcement) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 4 December 2018, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 309 / Noes: 268 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the Draft Credit Rating Agencies (Amendment, etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 13 December 2018, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 309 / Noes: 261 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft Floods and Water (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 5 December 2018, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 310 / Noes: 267 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft Carriage of Dangerous Goods (Amendment) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 20 December 2018, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 309 / Noes: 265 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Draft Jurisdiction and Judgments (Family) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Draft Civil Partnership and Marriage (Same Sex Couples) (Jurisdiction and Judgments) (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Jurisdiction and Judgments (Family) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Civil Partnership and Marriage (Same Sex Couples) (Jurisdiction and Judgments) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Lucy Frazer
As always, Sir David, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. The two draft instruments form part of the Government’s preparations for the event that the UK should leave the EU without a deal. They relate solely to our no-deal preparations.
The Jurisdiction and Judgments (Family) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations relate to the arrangements in family law that will apply when we leave the EU. They deal with the rules that determine which court should hear a family law matter, and they cover co-operation between the courts in the recognition of the judgments of EU courts. They will repeal the EU rules, because the reciprocity of those rules across member states will be lost when the UK leaves the EU; EU member states will no longer apply them to cases that involve the UK. The relevant matters will be governed instead by existing international conventions and a combination of new and pre-EU domestic rules.
Before I go into the detail of the draft regulations, it may be helpful if I outline the existing arrangements in the EU in respect of the law on this area. There are two applicable EU regulations: the Brussels IIa regulation and the maintenance regulation. The Brussels IIa regulation provides the rules that determine which court has the jurisdiction to hear various family cases—for example, whether a divorce hearing in a case with a cross-border element should take place in the UK or in another EU member state. The regulation covers divorce and matrimonial disputes; parental responsibility disputes, such as disputes between parents over the residence of their child or contact with their child; and care proceedings. It also provides for the recognition and enforcement of one member state’s judgment in all member states. Similarly, the maintenance regulation sets out rules about which EU member states’ courts have jurisdiction in cross-border cases that concern family maintenance, and about the recognition and enforcement of judgments.
What will change if we leave the EU without a deal? Without an agreement to cover these matters, the Brussels IIa regulation and the maintenance regulation will no longer operate effectively between the UK and the EU. Even if the UK tried to apply those rules after exit, the EU27 would no longer be obliged to apply them in relation to the UK because we would be a third country. For example, they would not be required under the regulations to enforce or recognise decisions of courts in the UK. In the light of those circumstances, the draft regulations will revoke the Brussels IIa regulation and the maintenance regulation, but that does not mean that we will be left without rules on international co-operation.
The UK is a contracting state to a number of Hague conventions in the field of family law that cover many of the same areas as the Brussels IIa regulation and the maintenance regulation. In particular, the 1996 Hague convention covers similar ground to the Brussels IIa regulation in respect of jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments and co-operation between authorities in matters of parental responsibility. All EU member states are bound by that convention: the UK and all EU member states are contracting parties, so it applies between us and each of them.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
I am confused by paragraph 7.3 of the explanatory memorandum to the draft family regulations, which states that the
“instrument amends domestic law so that the 1973 Hague Convention…will again operate between the UK and those EU Member States party to them where appropriate.”
Are all EU states party to the convention, or are there cases in which certain countries are not?
Lucy Frazer
There are the Hague conventions of 1970 and 1996. All EU member states are party to the 1996 convention. In addition, we have the 2007 Hague convention, which contains similar recognition and enforcement rules and provisions on co-operation between authorities as those in the maintenance regulation, and which applies to all EU member states except Denmark.
We have ensured that the UK will, in the event of a no-deal exit, be a contracting state under the 2007 Hague convention after exit. We will continue to use the wide rules in the Family Law Act 1986 for the recognition in the UK of overseas divorces, and those in the Civil Partnership Act 2004 for the recognition of such dissolutions. There will be some gaps in coverage and the potential loss of effectiveness and efficiency. In particular, there is no Hague convention covering the grounds of jurisdiction for divorce or maintenance.
For jurisdiction in maintenance cases, the draft statutory instrument makes provision to return, therefore, to the rules of common law or statutory rules that operated before the maintenance regulation and other relevant instruments came into force. We will also amend our common law in relation to the jurisdiction for divorce cases. The Brussels IIa jurisdiction grounds presently apply to all cases, regardless of whether there is any overseas connection or whether any overseas connection is to an EU member state or to a state outside the EU.
Those grounds have applied for a long time and will have the benefit of familiarity, having been tried and tested. We will replicate in domestic law the applicable Brussels IIa grounds for England and Wales and Northern Ireland, and make a further ground of sole domicile applicable to all cases.
Mhairi Black
I am grateful to the Minister for indulging me. To be absolutely clear, does this mean that there will be some EU states with which we will not have a framework for the recovery of such payments, or is it a blanket framework that every EU country will be under?
Lucy Frazer
I understand that all member states sign up to the Hague convention. In fact, the EU signs up to the Hague convention, and therefore the member states are signed up as parties under the umbrella of the EU.
There are a number of additional matters to raise. In relation to the first statutory instrument, we are very grateful to family law practitioners for raising two issues about maintenance that we are urgently considering. Both are technical and complex. The first relates to jurisdiction and remedies under the Children Act 1989 and whether, in returning to the pre-EU position, the instrument has inadvertently narrowed the jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts and the type of financial awards they can make. The Government’s position is that the current position is appropriate, and there is no intention to reduce or narrow the provision available to families. The Government will bring forward a further SI to address that.
The second issue relates to whether, post exit, an English or Welsh court will have the power to rule on pension-sharing arrangements in cases where a person does not have a connection to England or Wales but is unable to bring the claim elsewhere. Although only a small number of cases will be affected, we will consider whether that issue should be addressed.
I shall now deal with the draft Civil Partnership and Marriage (Same Sex Couples) (Jurisdiction and Judgments) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The UK Government’s position has always been that we will apply the same rules on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement to same-sex divorce and civil partnership dissolution as we do to opposite-sex divorce.
As Brussels IIa does not apply in relation either to civil partnership dissolution or to divorce between same-sex couples, our domestic law mirrors the relevant provision for those cases. It is entirely appropriate to take a similar approach to determining jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement as that taken for opposite-sex couples. That is what the regulations will do.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Many of us in this place would like civil partnerships to be extended to different-sex couples. Would further changes to the regulations be required for their provisions to apply in such cases, or would that happen automatically if we extended civil partnerships to non-same sex couples?
Lucy Frazer
That is a matter that we would consider at the appropriate time, but my right hon. Friend makes a very good point. We are looking at those issues and are committed to them.
In conclusion, without a deal in place, there would be no overarching framework between the UK and the EU, as there is under existing mechanisms. We are therefore ensuring that, if we leave without a deal, our legal system will continue to work effectively for our citizens through the international arrangements we have in place and by going back to common law. If Parliament approves the withdrawal agreement, which includes an implementation period, and passes the legislation necessary to implement that agreement, the Government will defer the coming into force of these instruments until the end of the implementation period. If a deal on our future relationship is reached, we envisage that the instruments will be revoked in their entirety.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. We will abstain on both statutory instruments. Colleagues will be relieved to hear that most of my comments will relate to the draft family regulations; we understand the need for the draft civil partnership and marriage regulations, and I have no observations on them.
It is important to observe that the draft family regulations will ensure that the existing reciprocity between EU member states and the United Kingdom in matters pertaining to marriage, divorce, annulment, parental responsibility and maintenance no longer applies after exit day. The draft regulations make some provision for cases that start before exit day. Disappointingly, however, an impact assessment for the instrument has not been published.
We would support the draft regulations in the event of no deal, as it would be inappropriately unilaterally to continue those mechanisms. However, the scale of the loss of international functionality in family law in the event of no deal must be stressed. The lives of UK and EU27 citizens have become intertwined over the past 40 years. There are approximately 1 million British citizens living in other EU member states, and some 3 million EU nationals living in the United Kingdom. To illustrate the scale of all this, at the moment there are approximately 16 million cross-border disputes on family law matters, 14,000 international divorces and approximately 1,800 child abduction cases in the European Union.
Currently, families in the UK have the following benefits. The regulation on mutual recognition of protection orders helps to enforce orders made to protect victims of domestic violence or harassment across borders. The European enforcement order provides a streamlined procedure for enforcing uncontested claims, for example where there has been an out-of-court settlement, which is extremely useful. The maintenance regulation provides for a series of measures aimed at facilitating the payment of maintenance claims in cross-border situations.
The Brussels II regulation allows mutual recognition of divorce orders, decides the jurisdiction and forum of divorce cases, and promotes close collaboration of courts and national welfare authorities in matters of children and jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of children orders, child protection and child abduction. Brussels II also provides an automatic system of recognition of contact orders; ensures easier enforcement of child arrangement orders, which decide where a child lives and how much time they spend with each parent; and allows cases to be transferred to the court that is best for the child and the case.
If we were to leave without a deal, we would have to fall back on the international arrangements, which are not as comprehensive. While we are pleased that the 2007 Hague convention has been signed by the United Kingdom in its own right, rather than through its European Union membership, and while I hear what the Minister said about signing up to various international conventions meaning that the situation would not be as bad, they are limited as to what they can do. Our current arrangements are far superior, very easy and straightforward.
One of the issues is that the arrangements that we will have to fall back on—the international agreements or the common law—were often something that only affluent people could have afforded. People who have lower incomes, do not have access to decent legal aid or are vulnerable adults are the ones who will suffer the most, because they do not have the resources or knowledge to deal with such cases.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very worrying that no impact assessment has been published before the regulations have come before us today? Would she like to know when those impact assessments will be published?
Yasmin Qureshi
I totally agree with my hon. Friend, which is why I alluded to that issue earlier. Without a formal assessment by the Ministry of Justice, which I hope it will carry out, we can say that under the current arrangements seamless laws are applied and we do not have to worry about getting judgments or orders. Of course, most people are able to take advantage of those arrangements, especially—to reiterate what I said earlier—people who do not have much money or assets and vulnerable adults. Those people are able to access their rights, which they will not be able to do in the same way once we exit the European Union.
Leaving the European Union without a deal will cause a tremendous amount of problems for many families and people across the United Kingdom, especially people who are not financially well off, those who are on benefits and those who cannot access legal aid. They are going to have a horrific and horrendous time.
Mhairi Black
I want to start by saying that I appreciate that the instruments are very dense and technical. Will the Minister write to me to clarify a couple of things? The part that particularly concerns me is child maintenance. I would like clarification that child maintenance comes under the Hague convention and that there will be no EU member states where we do not have a framework in respect of child maintenance in particular. I appreciate that that is something that the Minister can go away and find out.
I am keen to find out exactly when it is intended that the full impact assessment will be published, as was said by the hon. Member for Cardiff North. If we do not have a date for the full impact assessment, I would appreciate the reasoning behind why we are ploughing on ahead when we have not had the chance to review things properly.
At the moment, I am still going to vote against the motions, for the simple reason that I find it incredible that neither of the instruments has been subject to formal consultation, when we have such an unprecedented event about to happen. That is the first thing that is a real red flag for me.
I also find it incredible that there are no plans to issue any guidance. The explanatory memorandum to the draft family regulations says that the Government have spoken to
“law stakeholders and leading family law practitioners”,
but at the bottom of the same page it says,
“rules on divorce etc…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.”
The Government themselves recognise that the regulations will have a huge impact on many bodies that people are incredibly reliant upon.
Mr Goodwill
I understand the hon. Lady’s point on consultation. However, the Government are surely trying to maintain the current situation. Governments consult when changing things, but the Government are currently endeavouring to ensure that, following Brexit—whether with a deal or without a deal—people can maintain their rights and maintain the same opportunities to bring cases, whether on child maintenance or divorce.
Mhairi Black
I fully appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s point, and I have to say that, in essence, I agree. It is the job of Government to try to think of things that will actually work. However, with the greatest of respect, the Government have had the last two years to organise all this. To be doing it at the last minute, without providing enough information, is not good enough. The attitude is almost, “This will have to do,” because we are near the deadline. I find it hard to see how the Government can assure us that the statutory instruments will have a positive impact, when their one reason is that there will be workable rules. That is like saying, “Och, at least we have something.” I am really unimpressed with what has been provided. It is certainly not enough to change my mind at this moment in time.
With the greatest of respect, the Government are not exactly renowned for their transparency or for keeping their opinion the same on everything. With that in mind, the draft instruments do nothing to inspire me with confidence. They are not good enough and they are not adequate to fill the gap, so I will have to vote against them.
Lucy Frazer
Thank you for the opportunity to reply, Sir David.
The hon. Member for Bolton South East was absolutely right to identify the importance of this area. Three million EU nationals live in this country, and the EU has recognised that if we move forward with a deal, it would be interested in co-operating in this area, such is the importance of family law.
I will touch on a couple of important points that were made by Members from across the Committee. On guidance, the Government released a technical notice last September dedicated to civil judicial co-operation that set out what will be our approach in the event that we are unable to reach a deal, so people have had some time to analyse our approach and to think about it carefully.
There has been the suggestion that we have not done a formal consultation. I assure Members and the public that my Department has engaged fully with legal practitioners and the judiciary to understand these complex areas. We have a Brexit Law Committee that advises us, comprised of professional lawyers—both barristers and solicitors—and representatives from the City and the judiciary. It has sub-committees, including a family sub-committee, which regularly meets my officials. I have also done a roundtable on family law matters, to ensure that the difficult issues we face are dealt with.
Mhairi Black
I appreciate the Minister’s giving way; she has been very kind to me throughout our proceedings. However, we can only go by what is in front of us. I have no doubt that the Minister has a jam-packed diary, but the explanatory notes to the draft family regulations clearly say:
“There has been no formal consultation on this instrument.”
Given the importance of the kind of stuff we are talking about, we need more than that to be able to support the draft instruments.
Lucy Frazer
I understand what the hon. Lady says. While there might not have been a formal consultation, in the governmental sense, I assure her that we look at these issues with professionals, internally and externally, to ensure that we take the right course.
There are impact assessments. They are published online with the draft instruments themselves. I am happy to share those with any Member. My officials have undertaken a full impact assessment for these draft instruments, which found that we should expect a cost increase for Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, because we expect case volumes to increase and there might be the risk of parallel proceedings in other EU countries. However, we are taking steps in relation to those matters.
On the point the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South made about the 1970 Hague convention on divorce and legal separation, it is true that only 12 EU member states are party to it. The convention was implemented in the UK by the Family Law Act 1986. Its rules allow generous recognition provisions for overseas divorces to be recognised in the UK, whether or not the country in which the divorce was granted is a party to the 1970 convention, providing minimum criteria are met. We have been clear that, regardless of the outcome of Brexit, we will support developing the scope and coverage of international family law conventions, including the 1970 divorce recognition convention.
To assuage the concerns of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South about Scotland specifically, Scotland is not necessarily taking the same approach as England, Wales and Northern Ireland to all such matters. The draft family regulations revoke Brussels IIa for England and Wales and Northern Ireland; it does not revoke it for Scotland, except for the provisions of Brussels IIa relating to the child abduction override—otherwise, Scotland is making its own provisions. The instrument revokes the maintenance regulation for all parts of the UK, except in relation to ongoing proceedings. Obviously, the Hague convention issue will apply across the UK.
I hope that I have dealt with the points that have been made. If any remain, or if there are others, I am happy to write to Members. I therefore recommend that the provisions of the draft statutory instruments become law.
Question put.
Draft Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Order 2019
(5 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Order 2019.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. Following the UK’s decision to leave the EU in the 2016 referendum, the Government have been working tirelessly to develop a positive future relationship with the EU. The Department for Transport is currently working on the mutual recognition of driving licences and the possibility of achieving an agreement with EU member states. We must prepare for all scenarios, however, and that is what this draft legislation does.
If approved, the order will enable a charge of £5.50 for an international driving permit, to be levied for an IDP issued in the format specified in the 1968 Vienna convention on road traffic. The document will guarantee the recognition of UK driving licences after exit day, and recognise 1968 format IDPs when presented by overseas visitors to Great Britain, in the same way that this country already does for IDPs issued under the earlier 1949 Geneva convention on road traffic and the 1926 Paris convention on motor traffic.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
Can the Minister confirm that the permits will be available in the post office for people up and down the land?
Jesse Norman
I am fully able to confirm that. If I am allowed to finish my speech, I will say that 2,500 post offices are already primed and ready to issue the permits.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Paragraph 7.2 of the explanatory memorandum refers to two conventions: the 1968 convention and the 1949 convention. If someone applies for an international driving permit, will it cover only one of those conventions, or will it be a dual-purpose permit that covers both?
Jesse Norman
We are presently discussing the 1968 convention. Applying for such a permit now enables travel to countries that it would not have been possible to travel to post EU exit. For countries governed by the 1949 convention, a further IDP will be required.
Sir Greg Knight
My concern is that most British holidaymakers go to Spain—it is the No. 1 destination—but, as I understand it, Spain is covered by the 1949 convention and not the 1968 convention. Someone who wishes to go to Spain and who applies for the 1968 convention permit will therefore not be allowed to drive in Spain. I am anxious that the public are not misled, with ensuing chaos.
Jesse Norman
My right hon. Friend’s point is well taken; he is absolutely right to point out that Spain is governed by the other convention. People travelling to Spain will need that IDP. If they are travelling to Spain through France, they will need an IDP for both countries. That is well set out on the Post Office website and other websites, including gov.uk. We hope that will do a lot to alleviate any possible concerns.
The document would guarantee the recognition of UK driving licences after exit day and will also recognise 1968 format IDPs when presented by overseas visitors to Great Britain, in the same way we already do in this country for IDPs issued under the earlier 1949 Geneva convention and the 1926 Paris convention. All formats of IDP will cost £5.50, which, it is important to emphasise, is a charge that has not increased since 2004.
Although UK nationals will not be required to purchase an IDP if, as we expect, this country achieves agreements across the EU, the amendment is still required as the 1968 format IDP will be required to guarantee licences when driving in over 75 countries outside the EU. It is therefore important that the amendment is approved, since the 1968 Vienna convention will still come into force on 28 March 2019, irrespective of whether the UK ceases to be subject to EU law on 29 March or at the end of the implementation period.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I apologise to the Minister for arriving late; my Whip sent me to Committee Room 12, where I sat rather bemused because the wrong statutory instrument was being discussed.
This issue is becoming increasingly complicated, is it not? Yesterday I had a delegation from the insurance industry in my office. They pointed out that the green card that goes with the driving licence will not be valid after we leave the European Union, which means that no British driver in Europe will be protected against being hit by an uninsured driver. Does that not make life very dangerous for anyone from this country intending to drive in Europe?
Jesse Norman
The fact of the matter is that, at the moment, many countries may be required to recognise it by law, but on the ground they may not do so. One of the effects of an IDP is precisely to give a recognisable, international-standard document that allows any police or enforcement agency to see under what licensing arrangement the person is travelling. There is no doubt a slight increase in the complexity, which is a result of the requirement needed to exit the EU. However, this provision is activated only in the unlikely contingency that we do not have an EU-wide relationship that allows for mutual recognition, but we fully expect to.
Mr Sheerman
Will the Minister meet the insurance industry? They are exercised about this. If someone gets hit by an insured driver in Britain, there is a security that automatically delivers protection. The one called the green card for people driving in Europe will end, so every driver from Britain who goes through continental Europe will be at risk of being hit by an uninsured driver with no insurance cover. Will he assure me that he will meet the insurance industry to talk about that?
Jesse Norman
I have learned over many years that interventions from the hon. Gentleman are rarely short, and this has been no exception. I meet the insurance industry very regularly, and I promise him that its representations have not been unheard or unmade in this context. He is right to highlight them, but they are only one part of the wider picture. This order has no direct effect on insurance as such; it is about the driving permits themselves.
UK motorists drive to Europe every year, using ferries or the Eurotunnel, and they drive in Europe, whether for business or leisure. UK holidaymakers rightly want the option of hiring a car while abroad. Although the Government are still in the process of achieving agreements with the EU, as I have described, we are committed to minimising disruption to UK motorists following our exit. The Department is taking the appropriate measures to facilitate that.
The 1968 convention facilitates international road traffic and increases road safety through consistent traffic rules. In preparation for exit day, this country ratified the 1968 Vienna convention on 28 March 2018. That international agreement will come into force one year later, on 28 March—the day before the UK leaves the EU. Following exit day, the convention will guarantee the recognition of UK vehicles and driving licences when used in 23 EU member states, plus Norway and Switzerland and more than 70 other countries globally. The earlier 1926 and 1949 conventions also remain in place, guaranteeing UK licences in four EU member states, plus Iceland and more than 40 countries globally, including Japan and the USA, if the motorist presents the supporting IDP with their driving licence.
Sir Greg Knight
The Minister is being very generous in giving way. Is there any legal reason why the Government cannot issue a comprehensive permit that covers all the conventions? Otherwise, a motorist will have to have two or three permits in his pocket.
Jesse Norman
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to ask that question—as he can imagine, it was the first question that I and officials asked. It is not possible in law because of the nature of the conventions and the relationships they bear to one another. We are fettered by the way in which the international structure of those conventions works. I would like nothing better than to have a consolidated format that could be applied for, but unfortunately it is simply not possible because of the way the treaties work.
The changes made by this statutory instrument will provide certainty for UK motorists driving in the EU following exit day in a no-deal scenario. The SI specifically will amend provisions of the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Order 1975 to implement provisions of the 1968 convention concerning IDPs. These amendments will extend the 1975 order to the 1968 format IDP and extend the power to charge a fee for the issue of IDPs to IDPs issued under the 1968 convention in addition to those issued under the earlier conventions. The 1968 format IDP will cost £5.50 and will be valid for three years. This amendment therefore ensures that UK motorists can exercise their international legal rights to drive in the countries that are party to the 1968 convention once it comes into force for the UK on 28 March of this year.
The amendments also provide for the recognition of a 1968 IDP issued to non-UK residents by another country that is party to the convention, for those who may be temporarily visiting the UK. Although the UK will continue to recognise both EU and non-EU driving licences for up to 12 months, IDPs may provide immediate recognition and legitimacy at the roadside if the licence is not printed in the Roman alphabet. While we are still seeking agreements with member states on licence recognition and exchange, the SI will ensure that IDPs provide certainty for UK motorists who seek to travel in the EU following exit day.
IDPs under previous international conventions have been issued for many years, so the concept is not new, but the SI will expand the number of countries in which IDPs can be used and will enable the Government to issue a document covering them for the 1968 convention. The 1968 format IDP has a longer validity period and therefore reduces the frequency of reissue. To ensure that UK drivers will be able to get hold of these documents, we have significantly increased the numbers of issuing post offices: from this Friday—assuming that the Committee is content with the SI—2,500 post office branches will be issuing the document to licence holders, a huge increase compared with the 89 post offices that issue them today. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the order, which I commend to the Committee.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Evans, and a privilege to serve under your chairmanship. This instrument is necessary. As we have heard, it applies specifically to international driver permits for those UK residents driving within EU member states, but, as we have also heard, there is a cost to it, because those applying for a permit will have to pay a fee. It is only necessary if we leave the European Union without a deal, which is why the Prime Minister should categorically make it clear that we will not be leaving without a deal.
We support the instrument, but I have one or two questions for the Minister. First, is the Department ready with any additional resources that might be required to administer permit applications? Secondly, what will that additional administrative cost be? Thirdly, we are very close to leaving the European Union—I happen to believe that it is a terrible mistake, frankly, but the reality is that the date looms very large indeed—so is the Department ready to provide guidance to members of the public who will, in my view unnecessarily, have to apply for these permits?
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I am grateful for the summaries from the Front-Bench spokespersons. I have one question, which the Minister partially answered by indicating that there would be 2,500 post offices geared up by Friday. In July last year the Department suggested that up to 4,500 post offices could be issuing the permits, so could the Minister update me on whether that will be rolled out to the others, and on the timescale for doing so?
Jesse Norman
I think, Mr Evans, that the decisive and energetic interventions have exhausted the volcanoes on my side of the Committee. I am grateful to the Opposition and Scottish National party spokesmen for their contributions and for their support for this small but important piece of legislation. I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East will understand that this is not the place to rehearse the already considerable arguments over the benefits or no of no deal, but I will pick up on the three specific points he raised about the order.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Department is ready with additional resourcing. As he will be aware, the vast preponderance of the resourcing for this falls on the Post Office. To pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, we have talked historically about up to 4,500 post offices. The first 2,500 of them are primed and ready to go; were it required, in the case of extreme levels of demand, we would be able to go to 4,500, but it is a staged process. That seems sensible, because at the moment we issue about 110,000 IDPs a year. Obviously that will go up, for reasons that hon. Members have described, but we want to be able to address whatever the demand may be, and we have made that contingency arrangement.
The price of £5.50 has been set on a cost recovery basis and therefore covers the cost involved. With regard to DFT guidance, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East will be aware that it is already on the gov.uk website, on post office websites and on the AA and RAC websites, at least—I am sure that other motoring organisations will feature it in due course. There will be no absence of available guidance for people who are making journeys. Of course, it is widely understood that one of the effects of Brexit may be to create some complications for international travel, so we expect that guidance to be widely sought and reviewed.
Sir Greg Knight
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again; the volcano is not entirely exhausted. Does he have any plans to introduce an international driving permit app or to make the permit available so that motorists can have it on their phone, rather than needing to carry a paper copy around with them?
Jesse Norman
That is a very interesting and helpful suggestion. As my right hon. Friend will be aware, at the moment it is not possible to apply online for the 1968 convention permit. We are therefore unable to offer that service, because the format is determined by the conventions, but I am very grateful to him for that constructive suggestion, and I will ask officials to look again at whether the applicable law may permit something. I recognise, and I am sure the Committee recognises, that that would have considerable value. I will leave it there. I am grateful for all the interventions that have been made and for the support of the Opposition parties and my own colleagues.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Collective Investment Schemes (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Draft Long-term Investment Funds (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Collective Investment Schemes (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Long-term Investment Funds (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
John Glen
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey.
As the Committee is aware, the Treasury has been undertaking a programme of legislation to ensure that if the UK leaves the European Union without a deal or an implementation period, there will continue to be a functioning legislative and regulatory regime for financial services in the UK. To deliver that, the Treasury is laying statutory instruments under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and a number of SI debates have taken place in this place and in the House of Lords. The draft SIs to be debated today are part of that programme. The approach taken in this legislation aligns with that in other SIs laid under the Act, providing continuity by maintaining existing legislation at the point of exit but amending where necessary to ensure that it works effectively in a no-deal context.
The subjects of the two sets of draft regulations being debated together today are collective investment schemes and long-term investment funds. The draft SIs relate to the management, administration and marketing of investment funds, which are investment products created to pool investors’ capital and invest it in financial instruments such as shares, bonds and other securities.
Within the EU, the framework covering regulated funds predominantly sold through retail investors is provided by the directive on the undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities, commonly known as UCITS. Long-term investment funds are a sub-category of alternative investment funds that promote long-term investment such as in infrastructure, small and medium-sized enterprises and real assets. They are often sold to institutional investors, such as pension funds.
Alongside the regulations on alternative investment fund managers, on venture capital funds and on social entrepreneurship funds that were approved by this House on 16 January and in the other House on 22 January, the draft instruments under discussion will ensure a functioning UK investment fund regime if we leave the EU without a deal.
In a no-deal scenario, which is not the policy or aspiration of the Government, the UK would be outside the single market and outside the EU’s legal supervisory and financial regulatory framework. Therefore, retained EU and domestic law relating to the regulation of UCITS and long-term investment funds needs to be updated to reflect that, to ensure that the provisions work properly in a no-deal scenario.
I will first outline the changes in the collective investment schemes regulations. Overall, this instrument will maintain the investment rules of UCITS, as set out in the EU directive. However, it will make changes to address deficiencies and to ensure a functioning regime. First, the draft regulations remove references to the Union and to EU legislation, which will no longer have legal effect, replacing them with references to the UK and UK legislation where appropriate. That includes removing references to the passporting system and binding requirements for information sharing. The instrument will also establish a distinction between the UCITS regimes in the UK and the EU. Funds authorised in the UK will be called UK UCITS.
Secondly, all UK UCITS must have a depositary that is incorporated in the UK or another European economic area state. Currently, it is possible for an EEA firm to establish a branch in the UK and to carry out the functions of a depositary. To ensure proper regulatory oversight, however, the draft instrument will remove that provision and will instead ensure that all depositaries of UK UCITS are incorporated in the UK.
Similarly, the instrument will ensure that management companies of UK UCITS are incorporated in the UK, whereas currently they may be incorporated in the UK or another EEA state. However, to align the changes with the temporary permissions given to EEA firms passporting into the UK by the EEA Passport Rights (Amendment, etc., and Transitional Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, the draft regulations provide a transitional arrangement so that the requirements for managers and depositories of UK UCITS to be incorporated in the UK do not affect such depositories or managers if they have temporary permission to operate in the UK.
Thirdly, the draft regulations will transfer the power to make binding technical standards from the European Securities and Markets Authority to the Financial Conduct Authority. As the UK’s national competent authority within the EEA, the FCA is already responsible for supervising investment funds and has extensive expertise and experience making rules relating to the sector. The draft regulations will give the FCA the power to specify the information that the operator of the fund must provide to the FCA for the operation of a UCITS fund.
To offer continuity for EEA funds and the UK customers they service, the regulations create a temporary marketing permissions regime for EEA UCITS to continue to market into the UK. That was part of the announcement by the Government in December 2017 to create a temporary permissions regime for EEA firms and funds. It will allow an EEA UCITS that currently markets into the UK under a passport, and subsequent new sub-funds of an existing umbrella fund, to continue to market to UK customers, as it could before exit day, for a period of up to three years.
Following an assessment by the FCA on the effect of extending or not extending the period, the Treasury will have the power to extend the period for a maximum of 12 months at a time, in line with other transitional regimes that have been put forward. In order to ensure transparency in the process, the Treasury will make a written ministerial statement to both Houses in the event of the Treasury seeking to extend the temporary power, prior to any statutory instrument being laid.
By the end of the temporary marketing permissions regime, the fund will need to gain recognition to continue to market to retail investors in the UK, as any other third-country fund is currently required to do. That will be under the current procedure outlined in section 272 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The Government are committed to reviewing the process and bringing forward legislation as necessary to ensure the UK can continue to efficiently recognise overseas funds.
The draft regulations also amend the Alternative Investment Fund Managers (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, to bring forward the commencement date of the provisions relating to the temporary marketing permissions regime for alternative investment funds. That will allow the FCA notification window to operate as intended and at the same time as the regime outlined in the regulations.
I move on to the draft long-term investment funds regulations. Long-term investment funds are a further sub-category of alternative investment funds, which was introduced in 2015. However, it has to be said that the take-up across the EEA has been extremely limited. The FCA states that, as of December 2018, there are currently no such funds set up in the UK and therefore we believe there will be no impact on businesses or consumers. However, in line with the Government’s approach to European legislation and powers granted under the withdrawal Act, the regulations ensure that there is a functioning framework for long-term investment funds in the UK.
Like the collective investment schemes regulations, this SI maintains the existing investment rules for funds domiciled in the UK and addresses any deficiencies in legislation, including removing references to the EU and replacing them with references to the UK. It will also create a UK-only label of “long-term investment fund” to reflect that these funds will be in the UK and subject to UK rules.
Finally, as long-term investment funds are a sub-category of alternative investment funds, EEA managers of European long-term investment funds will be able to make use of the temporary marketing permissions regime for alternative investment funds, as legislated for in the Alternative Investment Fund Managers (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, debated earlier this month. The Treasury has been working extremely closely with the FCA in the drafting of the instrument and has engaged with the financial services industry and will continue to do so. In November and December 2018, the Treasury published the instruments in draft, along with explanatory policy notes, to maximise transparency to Parliament and industry.
In summary, the Government believe that the proposed legislation is necessary to ensure that there is a functioning investment funds framework in the UK, which would provide continuity for UK investors and our asset management sector should we leave the EU without a deal or an implementation period. I hope colleagues from different parties will join me in supporting these regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with you in the Chair, Mr Bailey. I am very grateful to the Minister for his explanatory remarks. Once again, I sit opposite him to discuss a statutory instrument that would make provisions for a regulatory framework after Brexit in the event that we crash out without a deal, which I hope is less likely following the House’s decision last night. On each previous occasion, my Labour Front-Bench colleagues and I spelled out our objections to the Government’s approach to secondary legislation.
The volume and flow of secondary legislation on our exiting the EU is deeply concerning for accountability and proper scrutiny. The Government have assured the Opposition that no policy decisions are being taken, but establishing a regulatory framework inevitably involves matters of judgment and raises questions about resourcing and capacity. Secondary legislation ought to be used for technical, nonpartisan and uncontroversial changes, because it allows limited accountability. Instead, the Government continue to push through contentious legislation with high policy content by using this vehicle. As legislators, we have to get this right. These regulations could represent real and substantive changes to the statute book, so they need proper, in-depth scrutiny. In this light, the Opposition want to put on record our deepest concerns that the process regarding these regulations is not as successful and transparent as it should be.
The Minister spelled out the fact that the first SI relates to the 2009 UCITS directive, which sets out a common set of standards for investor protection for regulated investment funds that can be sold to retail investors in the EU. The directive established a passporting system to enable UCITS to be marketed and sold to the general public throughout the EU, and to enable UCITS management companies to manage UCITS that are located in other member states. The directive was transposed into UK law through domestic legislation and FCA rules. Many would say that the directive has been successful: it has facilitated far greater choice for investors, and I understand that there are now more than 10,000 funds available to UK investors as a result of the directive. Almost three quarters of those are passported in from the EU27 under the UCITS directive. A large number of non-UK UCITS funds are managed by UK businesses under the directive—by asset value, it is £1.8 trillion-worth out of the £9 trillion industry across Europe. Some £375 billion-worth of that is held by UK investors.
I should express my gratitude to the industry for providing me with those figures. It has indicated that in the event of a no-deal Brexit, UCITS funds from the EU27 could not be marketed to UK investors in a straightforward manner. Furthermore, it would not be easy to list UCITS exchange-traded funds on the London Stock Exchange. Given that this SI largely preserves the status quo on the availability of UCITS funds and exchange-traded funds—albeit temporarily—there is support in the industry for the intention behind it, because there would undoubtedly be problems under a no-deal Brexit.
None the less, the Minister needs to answer some questions on this SI. It is essential that we properly understand its impact—not least because, in common with so many others that we have considered in Committee, it uses secondary legislation to amend primary legislation, which is of course the definition of Henry VIII powers. In addition, the FCA and others have raised considerable concerns about unregulated collective investment schemes, or UCIS. Many of us have heard horror stories about these, with examples that have badly let down their investors or even operated as Ponzi schemes. In the circumstances it is essential that regulations are sufficiently encompassing and do not lead to unsophisticated investors being presented with overly risky products. At the same time, the asset management industry, particularly people who are involved with investment in UCITS, is an important part of the financial services industry. Given that the industry supports one in 10 jobs in our country, it is a matter of regret that our Government have failed to prioritise seeking a better deal for financial services as part of their negotiations, and that the quest for passporting rights was quickly dropped in favour of some form of equivalence. Of course, whether to agree that will be entirely in the European Commission’s gift.
That has already led to economic activity in this area shifting out of our country. Companies from Hermes Investment Management to Legg Mason, Janus Henderson Investors, Jupiter Asset Management and Polar Capital all appear to have created additional positions, functions or operations in the EU27 rather than the UK because of the need to secure service continuity for current and future investors. As I understand it, the issue of delegation, which is essential in this area, is still not fully resolved. It remains unclear on what basis UK companies will be able to manage investments for fund companies based in the EU27. I hope that the Minister updates us on when he expects the Commission to give ESMA the green light to enable concrete discussions to take place on that score.
My second question relates to the legal basis for the draft regulations. They are said to be made under both the European Communities Act 1972 and the EU (Withdrawal) Act. Surely it is rather peculiar to have those two parent Acts, given that one is about giving effect to EU law whereas the other is about inherited EU law. Perhaps the Minister can explain why those Acts form the basis for the draft regulations.
Thirdly, we have been provided with an impact assessment for the draft regulations, albeit we received it just this morning. Clearly that is better than nothing, but it gave us limited time to acquaint ourselves with the impact assessment.
Anneliese Dodds
Thank you. That impact assessment suggests there will be a need to charge inbound EEA passporting firms as third-country firms, but that to
“reduce the impact of leaving the EU on funds, the government has committed to reviewing Section 272,”
which governs this process. It adds:
“This will be done through a future legislative vehicle.”
It would be helpful if the Minister provided us with some details about that. Does he envisage that happening at the end of the three-year temporary permissions regime or at some other point? It would, of course, require legislative change.
I turn to the draft Long-term Investment Funds (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations. I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the basis for that instrument. As he explained, the EU regulation has been used far less than many would have hoped, given that it was intended to encourage long-term investment.
There are two issues with the SI. The first concerns empowerment of the FCA. My colleagues and I have frequently referred to the fact that the process of legislating for no deal has in many cases provided the FCA with unprecedented powers, potentially overshooting what is required to transpose the EU acquis. Indeed, colleagues will not have missed the conclusions by City A.M. following the recent Treasury Committee hearing on this subject; it stated that the process involves regulators being given “‘unprecedented’ powers”—its words, not mine. However, in this case, we seem to have undershooting, specifically in relation to the FCA’s powers to create a register of ELTIFs.
ESMA, the EU-level regulator, does not merely have the ability to create a register of ELTIFs; it is under a duty to do so. However, the draft regulations only empower the FCA to keep such a register; they do not require it to do so. There is a direct contradiction between regulations. Article 3 of the 2015 EU regulation on ELTIFs states:
“ESMA shall keep a central public register”.
The draft regulations do not just substitute “FCA” for “ESMA”; they give the FCA a power, rather than a duty, to keep a register. Regulation 6 states:
“The FCA may keep a central public register”.
I note the use of the word “may”, not “must” or “shall”. The Minister needs to explain that discrepancy before the Committee can accept this SI.
There seems to be a drafting mistake. The draft regulations seem to empower the FCA to designate ELTIFs as such across the EU, rather than empowering it to recognise them as such within the UK for the purposes of then recognising them as the new category of LTIFs. To try to explain this horrendously complicated area, I am going to differentiate my pronunciation of ELTIFs—European LTIFs—and LTIFs, the new category the Government suggest they are creating. This point is very difficult to explain without having the relevant pieces of legislation in front of us. The Minister will remember the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) in a previous Committee.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification, if that is the case. However, even if it were not the case previously, there is a prima facie argument that it would be useful for Committees of this type to be able to see in the committee room the previous regulation and be able to compare it with what is being suggested. Otherwise, it is extremely hard for us to understand exactly what is being proposed in some of the very complex changes that are being implemented.
That difficulty had its apogee with the MiFID—markets in financial instruments directive—transposition regulation. I will not go into all the details; I have discussed the matter with the Minister many times. The Opposition had hoped to debate that subject on the Floor of the House because it was recognised in that case that a Keeling schedule was necessary, effectively to track changes. It would be helpful for Members in all such Committees to be able to see the direct impact of changes from this no-deal legislation. Otherwise, it is very difficult to understand.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Even if the documentation that was made available to MPs beforehand related to the relevant legislation, that would be a slightly better position than the one we are in now, and it would not require a Government Minister actually to bring the legislation with him.
Anneliese Dodds
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. She is right that it would be helpful. In many cases, we are talking about the initial legislation, which itself was relatively complex and has often been amended. It would be useful for all of us during this complex process to have some aid in that regard.
In its amendment of article 5.1 of the EU regulation, the statutory instrument would give the FCA an extra-territorial power that it should not have. That is obviously fairly problematic because, whatever kind of Brexit occurs, ELTIFs will continue to exist under EU as well as UK law. It is EU-level authorities that will provide their initial designation for the EU27. To explain that quickly, articles 4 and 5 of the ELTIF regulation set out the conditions for the designation and authorisation of ELTIFs. In the draft regulations presented to us today, article 7 amends articles 4 and 5.1 of the EU regulation in quite a strange direction.
Article 4 refers to LTIFs, but article 5.1 talks about applications for authorisations of ELTIFs and says that application for authorisation as an ELTIF shall be made to the FCA, and sets out the process for application for LTIFs. I am sorry that this is very complicated but it underlines the confusing nature of the SI.
It seems that the proposed article 5.1 as amended is wrong because ELTIFs will continue to exist under EU law after Brexit. It will not be in the FCA’s gift to recognise and authorise them outwith the UK. We need just a small change to article 5.1, which should read: “An application for authorisation within the UK as an ELTIF shall be made to the FCA.” Will the Minister assure us that he will look into that and seek to amend the legislation accordingly, if that concern proves genuine and is not just my reading of the text?
Kirsty Blackman
I will make a few comments. My colleague on the Opposition Front Bench has spoken about various things, including the register of ELTIFs that the FCA will be empowered to hold. It would be useful if the Government, although not necessarily changing the wording from “may” to “shall”, would let us know whether it is their intention that the FCA hold the register.
If the Minister made a statement in that regard, it would make it clear whether it is the Government’s intention for the FCA to use the power that it will have. That would be helpful to the Committee’s understanding, and that of anybody poring over this legislation, of whether the FCA should be doing this or whether it is something it could get away with not doing. I am not suggesting that the FCA would try to get away with not holding a register, but if it does not have to, it might decide that doing so is less important. A Government statement on that would be incredibly helpful.
I will raise a couple of other things. In a recent Delegated Legislation Committee I raised draft legislation appearing on the Government website and individuals’ access to it. It did not feel as if I received a very good answer that time, so I will press the Minister on it again. How many people access draft legislation on that website? How many hits are there? Is it the case that only five people view it, or is it significantly more? The explanatory memorandum to the draft instrument says that it has been on that website. Knowing how many people accessed it would be helpful in our understanding of whether the Government publicise it enough and that people know about it and access it. That would be incredibly useful.
On the policy direction of the draft instrument, one thing it does—as do many things we are doing around no-deal planning—is remove reciprocity with the EU. I understand the desire for that in many cases, but it is not clear whether attempting to remove reciprocity is Government policy in all cases or whether they are prioritising some of these things for a reciprocal agreement with the EU. If it is the latter, it would be helpful for Ministers to make clear to us whether the Government will seek a standalone reciprocal agreement on these specific things, in order to make things smoother in the event of no deal. That is particularly the case with the recognition of what we are discussing. If the LTIF and ELTIF regulations are similar, at least in the initial stages, before there is any kind of regulatory divergence, the UK’s recognising EU certifications of these things on day one would be relatively sensible, rather than assuming that there has been divergence by day one, which we all know there will not have been.
I understand that the Minister will probably not have this information today, but it would be useful if in future Committees he could provide information on whether it is the Government’s intention to seek a reciprocal agreement on these specific standalone measures in the event of a no-deal Brexit. That may be less important for some of the draft instruments that are coming through and more important for those around flight, for example.
Finally, I am very pleased that the Minister ensured that the impact assessment was sent to us, although I am concerned about the short timescale available to look at it. I confess that I have not had time to look at it in nearly the level of detail that I would have liked, because we only received it this morning and I have been quite busy today.
However, the Minister was quite good in the last DL Committee on which we served in explaining the impact assessment process and how we reached the stage we are now at. My understanding is that they are drafted by the Treasury and then go to the Regulatory Policy Committee, which assesses whether they are fit for purpose. I received some information that basically suggests that that committee did everything it could to turn those assessments round in the quickest possible time, and did its best to comply when asked to do so in a truncated timescale. The impact assessments sent to the committee by the Treasury have been responded to in eight days on average.
Impact assessments have not been provided to us in several of these DL Committees, which does not appear to be the fault of the Regulatory Policy Committee. The Minister held his hands up and apologised for not having those impact assessments, which I appreciate. My concern going forward is that, when the Treasury creates impact assessments that go to the Regulatory Policy Committee, it should learn from what has happened so far and ensure that those impact assessments going to the Regulatory Policy Committee are fit for purpose in the first place so that, if possible, they can get through at the first time of asking, rather than taking a bit longer.
That is a big issue because I think it is unreasonable to expect Committees to take decisions without having the impact assessment provided to us. If we are going to see more statutory instruments being introduced than we have ever seen before, which is the case, given that there are still hundreds that have not even been to the European Statutory Instruments Committee at this point, then we need to ensure that any impact assessments sent to the RPC are turned around as quickly as possible and are fit for purpose in that first instance. If that means that the Government cannot present an SI to us next week and must do so the week after, I would prefer that, so that the Committee is in the best possible position to take decisions on it.
Those are a variety of questions, and the Minister will probably not be surprised by any of them—he may have been surprised by the questions from my Opposition colleague, but not so much mine, because they were pretty much par for the course, so I hope he has answers to at least some of them.
John Glen
Once again, I will begin by thanking the hon. Members for Oxford East and for Aberdeen North for their thorough examination of the statutory instruments; I will do my very best to answer in detail the points that they have made, and where I cannot, I shall write to them as soon as I possibly can.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North discussed impact assessments. We now have an impact assessment, which was circulated, as she acknowledged, at 10 past 10 this morning and covers all the statutory instruments that will be laid until 11 February. There has been a desire on my part and that of my officials to meet the necessarily exacting standards of the RPC. As I say, that is my responsibility, but I would point out that this is an unprecedented process, doing 53 SIs for financial services, 45 of which have now been laid, and working on each one individually. I hope the existence of the impact assessments up to 11 February—obviously there will be some more after that—will give her some comfort, but the points that she made have been heard.
I will come on to the other points that the hon. Lady made, but I will now turn to the issues raised by the hon. Member for Oxford East. She made some initial observations with respect to the volume, flow and appropriateness of the SI mechanism that I may have heard before, but I acknowledge her sincerity and take them in the spirit in which they are intended. We are acting within the terms of the withdrawal Act, and I have never sought to pretend that this process is optimal, but it is a practical measure to give business continuity and give the industry the answers they are concerned about.
I also recognise that the degree of uncertainty is not helpful, but I draw the attention of the hon. Lady and the Committee to the remarks of Sam Woods, deputy governor of the Bank of England, who said in April last year that we would have 5,000 to 10,000 jobs moved by day one, which is between 0.5% and 1% of financial services jobs in the UK. There is an enormous resilience in the financial services sector, and this process is about ensuring that there is minimal disruption in the event of no deal.
Moving on to the specific points made by the hon. Lady, she said that in a no-deal scenario, EU UCITS could not be marketed in a straightforward manner in the UK. The temporary marketing permissions regime is intended to prevent the market disruption that would result from a sudden end to passporting rights. The regime ensures that the business model of EEA fund operators marketing into the UK can continue for a temporary period while we transfer to the UK-only regime. That includes the new sub-funds, and reflects our intention to allow EEA firms and funds to continue their business operations for a temporary period.
If we did not allow new sub-funds to enter the temporary permissions regime after exit day, there would be a significant risk to the role of the London Stock Exchange as a global hub for exchange-traded products. Therefore, including sub-funds in the temporary marketing permissions regime reduces the risk to the London Stock Exchange and ensures continued access for UK customers to new EEA funds in future. That was a direct change from laying this SI in November and December; we laid it again on 6 December in response to feedback from the markets. There is an iterative process, hence the time constraint that puts pressure on the impact assessment.
The hon. Lady raised the issue of assurances on ESMA and on portfolio delegation. I refer to the comments of the chair of ESMA, who said on 3 October that in the case of a no-deal Brexit, EU regulators and ESMA
“should have in place with our UK counterparts the type of MOUs that we have with a large number of third country regulators…ESMA has coordinated the preparations for such MOUs together with the EU27 NCAs.”
More recently, the Luxembourg regulator stated that the
“delegation of investment management, portfolio management and, or risk management to UK undertakings shall continue to be possible without any disruption post-Brexit”.
I wish it could be more transparent and sooner, but I am convinced and assured that that work is going on and that it will be completed in time.
The hon. Member for Oxford East raised the issue of why the FCA was not required to keep a register of LTIFs and the issue of the power not the duty. The power to keep the register is being transferred to the FCA. As there are currently no LTIFs set up in the UK, there is no register of those funds online. The FCA keeps a register of small UK AIFMs that manage similar funds, European venture capital funds and European social entrepreneurship funds.
The best thing is for me to obtain some assurance from the FCA about its plans, which are, in reality, at a relatively early stage because we are simply trying to transition over at this point. The detail of its ongoing regime and responsibilities will be a matter for it to convey in due course.
Anneliese Dodds
We have been told throughout the process that there will be no watering down of regulations under the withdrawal Act. I appreciate that this is an abstract case, because we do not yet have a category of investments operating in the UK that would fall into that designation, but that is not to say that one will not be created in future. If we do not have that requirement, there would surely be that resiling. Will the Minister endeavour to talk to the FCA to make sure that, if such investments start to operate in the UK, it will keep a register of them? Surely that is what the EU legislation requires.
Kirsty Blackman
It would be helpful if the Minister explicitly said, “Yes, we would like the FCA to keep a register of those new LTIFs as they arise in the UK.” The form of that register could be decided later.
John Glen
I am sympathetic to what the hon. Lady says, but she has to understand that the regulator is the regulator, and it will have reasons in terms of the market actors around that. My view is that it would be entirely appropriate for the regulator to have that register, and I would expect to see clear market-driven reasons for why it would not be necessary. Again, it would not be responsible for me to make a commitment without knowing all the background factors, but I will write to the regulator to express the Committee’s concerns and ask what its approach would be in the circumstances where those funds existed in the United Kingdom.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said, but the regulator is required to carry out what this House requires it to do. If we are talking about ESMA, it is meant to carry out what it has been required to do by EU-level policy makers. That EU legislation requires that the register shall be kept, so we need something more emphatic if we are to stick to the existing distribution of responsibilities.
John Glen
It is an interesting debating point. Had the hon. Lady seen the report of my appearance yesterday before the Treasury Committee with the chief executive of the FCA and the deputy governor of the Bank of England, she would know that we work collaboratively with the industry to do what is right. The intention of this process is not to deregulate in any way—there is no attempt by the Treasury to create some wriggle room to remove the obligation of the FCA. I understand the hon. Lady’s point, and I expect there to be continuity between the current and future regimes on the FCA’s reporting requirements. I will seek clarification on that point.
Kirsty Blackman
One last time, Minister. If the UK Government are trying to do what they tell us they are trying to do—to replicate EU law in UK law—the most sensible thing to do would be to start with a requirement for the FCA to keep this. Should there be a change and it is decided that it is not necessary, we can then legislate down the line with secondary legislation to say, “Actually, we feel like this is not appropriate for our regulatory regime.”
John Glen
I think I have said all I can on that matter at this point. I will move on to the drafting point on territorial power for the FCA, which the hon. Member for Oxford East raised. I will consider that point carefully—there may be a drafting error. It is difficult for me to be certain about that now, but I will respond in due course.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North raised the issue of how many people engaged with the draft legislation. She will probably not be surprised to know that I do not have the numbers in front of me, but we have sought wide engagement with the industry and stakeholders as the legislation has developed, which can be seen in the fact that we relayed on 6 December following engagement on the sub-funds point. I am happy to examine any data on that and write to her on that matter.
The hon. Member for Oxford East made a point—I think it was also made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North—about the Government’s general policy of reciprocity in the prioritisation of certain areas in a no-deal scenario. We want to continue to engage constructively with EU partners and be in a position to deliver on the political declaration in a negotiated deal, in which we would respect the autonomy of both sides but would be ambitious about the degree of collaboration on recognition. We think that that is realistic—there is a very strong relationship with our regulators across the EU, and we expect that to continue.
I have answered most of the points that have been made. If there are any others, I shall write to both hon. Ladies on the Opposition Benches. I have demonstrated why we need this SI to pass in the event of the UK leaving the EU without a deal, and I hope the Committee can now support the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Collective Investment Schemes (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Draft Long-term Investment Funds (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Motion made and Question put,
That the Committee has considered the draft Long-term Investment Funds (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(John Glen.)
Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill (Twenty Seventh sitting)
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chair
As usual, I ask Members to turn electronic devices off. I call Afzal Khan, the Member in charge of the Bill, to move the sittings motion that stands in his name on the amendment paper.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That, notwithstanding the Order of the Committee of Wednesday 4 July 2018, during further proceedings on the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill the Committee do next meet at 10.00 am on Wednesday 27 February and thereafter at 10.00 am on Wednesday 27 March and Wednesday 24 April.
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries, and I thank Committee members for being here once again as I amend the sittings motion. I have proposed that the Committee meets once a month. Disappointingly, this Committee has been meeting every week for over a year and yet we still have not drawn any closer to a money resolution. I have pressed the Minister time and time again for an update, but have received no indication of any development. It is clear that the Government have no desire to prioritise this Bill.
Yesterday’s vote reinforces that Brexit continues to dominate the parliamentary agenda. As such, I have moved a motion that will ensure that the Committee meets regularly enough to maintain emphasis on this important issue, but also ensure that we do not waste time unnecessarily. Although the Government wish to use delaying tactics, rest assured that I will not stop championing my Bill. I am fully aware that it has cross-party support, and therefore I will continue to encourage the Minister to seriously consider pressing ahead with it in order to produce the new boundaries that our democracy needs.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
What a great pleasure it is to see you again in the Chair, Ms Dorries. Before I start, the Minister is obviously not in her place this morning. She has written to the Member in charge explaining why, and those reasons are entirely routine. Opposition Members send our best wishes to her given the entirely understandable reasons why she is not here, and perhaps the hon. Member for Torbay will convey those best wishes to the Minister and send her our continued support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton has been stoic in his determination to maintain a presence in this Committee. Having had discussions through the usual channels, he has now decided that we should meet less frequently. I will make two points in addressing the Committee this morning: first, that the Committee will be meeting less frequently does not mean in any sense that the urgency or importance of the Bill is diminished or has gone away. We will maintain pressure on the Government to bring forward the orders on the existing proposed boundaries so that they can be agreed or disagreed to by the House as soon as possible. That urgency has not gone away, and we will continue to press for that.
My other point is that, as we head towards Brexit, the Government and the House are considering all the legislation, including secondary legislation, required for either a Brexit shaped by a deal or—dare I say it?—no-deal. The amount of work that the House is being asked to undertake is increasingly clear, particularly work on secondary and delegated legislation. It will continue for a good while after we leave the European Union. The management and consideration of delegated legislation is putting a lot of pressure on colleagues across the House.
I simply say to the Committee that such pressure once again emphasises the folly of reducing the capacity of the House by reducing the number of hon. Members in this place from 650 to 600, which is why it is important that my hon. Friend’s Bill is given consideration. We are reducing the capacity of the House at a time when we should not be, and the legislature not being able to properly scrutinise the Government would be a bad thing for this House and for democratic scrutiny. Ms Dorries, I look forward to seeing you in the Chair again in a few weeks when this Committee sits again.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I want to reinforce the points made by the hon. Member for City of Chester. A substantial number of hon. Members in my party entirely agree with both points. First, we should keep pressure on the Government to get this sorted and get back to 650 and, secondly, the amount of legislation we must deal with puts pressure on Back Benchers much more than normal. Let us get it done and get back to 650.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I will briefly reply to thank hon. Members for understanding why the my hon. Friend the Minister is not here. I will certainly ensure that the good wishes of the hon. Members for City of Chester and for Manchester, Gorton are passed on to her. Other than that, I have no further update to offer the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
The Chair
As the Committee cannot consider the clauses of the Bill until the House has agreed a money resolution, I call Afzal Khan to move that the Committee do adjourn.
Ordered, That the Committee do now adjourn.—(Afzal Khan.)
Westminster Hall
(5 years, 10 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
Early Parenthood: Supporting Fathers
(5 years, 10 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
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered supporting fathers in early parenthood.
As always, Mr Davies, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I hope you will forgive me if I make any minor procedural errors; it has been a while since I have been on the Back Benches of the Westminster Hall Chamber, rather than closer to the wise counsel of the Chair.
I begin with two quick disclaimers. First, although my debate is about supporting fathers in early parenthood, I am extremely conscious that there is still much to do to combat inequality during maternity. I am an avid follower of Maternity Action and support many of its campaigns, some of which I know are making good progress. Secondly, this debate is not meant as a dismissal of the wonderful mums out there who are single or in same-sex couples. It is not about mums versus dads, nor am I pontificating only about married parents—not least because that would make me a hypocrite. I simply want to speak up for the many brilliant dads out there who, in an evolving society, are doing an incredible job of bringing up children. I want to highlight some of the real challenges that they too face.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way so early in her speech. She is making a fantastic return to Westminster Hall from the dizzying heights; she is a principled person and we on the Opposition Benches all love her.
The hon. Lady mentions challenges. Is she aware of Dads House, which does all sorts of things to represent single dads? There are 400,000 single-parent families headed up by dads, which is 13.7% of all single-parent families. Dads House has its own food bank and does buddying, breakfast clubs and football—a sport that is close to the hon. Lady’s heart. Would she be interested in meeting members of the group? In fact, everyone in this House has a good opportunity to meet them, because after Prime Minister’s questions on 20 March they are coming to Speaker’s House for a reception with the all-party parliamentary group on single parent families—and all hon. Members are invited. The group does great work.
Tracey Crouch
I would love to come. Single parents play an incredibly important role, but for various reasons they are often maligned. Meeting single dads who are doing their very best, in whatever circumstances they find themselves bringing up their children, is an incredibly important part of that conversation. I would be delighted to come to the event on 20 March.
I want to address three points: perinatal support, loneliness in new dads, and shared parental leave. The first comes wholly under the Department of Health and Social Care; the second does partially; the third might not, but is important to the debate because it relates to the overall wellbeing of our children.
In December, the Centre for Social Justice published a really interesting report, “Testing Times: Supporting fathers during the perinatal period and early parenthood”. It looked in detail at written evidence submitted to the Select Committee on Health and Social Care inquiry into the first 1,000 days of life by the Fatherhood Institute, which described support for fathers as “toothless” and noted criticisms that within health services,
“well-meaning…father-inclusive policy-making…has been more ‘rhetoric than reality’”.
On the back of those comments, the CSJ did some additional polling. It found that seven in 10 new fathers
“were made to feel like a ‘spare part’”,
six in 10 said that they had
“had no conversations at all with a midwife about their role”,
and nearly half said that they had
“received little or no advice at all…on their role as a dad.”
However, it also found that
“more than 9 in 10 are present ‘at the scans and the birth’”
and that there is
“strong correlation between active father engagement and improved childhood outcomes.”
That is a recurring theme in a really interesting book on equal parenting co-authored by one of our own lobby journalists, James Millar. It includes several quotations from the 2015 UN-backed report, “State of the World’s Fathers”, about how engagement in the first year of a baby’s life is good for the dad as well as the baby. Substantial and high-quality father involvement can encourage a child’s positive social interaction and lead to higher cognitive development scores.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing a debate on this important issue. It is hardly surprising that so many dads feel left out when the NHS guidance refers to them not as fathers or dads but as “birthing partners”. Perinatal depression in mums is linked to depression in teenagers: there is a 99% likelihood that a 16-year-old suffering from depression had a mother with perinatal mental health problems, including depression. What is overlooked is that 20% of fathers also experience perinatal mental health problems, which has a big influence on their parenting skills and on their engagement with and attachment to their own children. We need to do more about that.
Tracey Crouch
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I saw those statistics while researching my speech; perhaps the Minister’s reply will describe her Department’s work on post-natal depression for mums and dads. I do not have time to cover everything, but I agree that language is incredibly important. I appreciate that the term “birthing partners” is used in order not to cause offence, because our society and how we bring up children are very different now, but it is important that we think about the language and make our communication with fathers as inclusive as possible.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Was she struck, as I was, by the statistic cited in the CSJ report that
“95 per cent of births in the UK are to couples…with 85 per cent of these parents living together”?
Far more needs to be done to encourage and support the family and the community at that stage, to help improve life chances.
Tracey Crouch
I did see that interesting statistic. I do not want to get into the details of family make-up in a modern society, because I do not want us to inadvertently criticise those who are not in such relationships—it is important that we respect different family make-ups. The point that I wish to raise today is about fathers and the role that they play.
The excellent book on equal parenting co-authored by James Millar notes the “State of the World’s Fathers” report’s finding that
“fathers who report close, non-violent connections with their children live longer, have fewer mental or physical health problems…and report being happier than fathers who do not report this connection”.
Given the well-understood positive outcomes of fathers’ engagement in their children’s development, it is only right that we should have the infrastructure and systems in place to support them. As the CSJ report states, we need to collect more data at the point of birth to get a better understanding of participation by fathers, but also identify “cold spots” for investment in supporting father engagement.
We definitely need to be a bit more dad-friendly in our language and correspondence about children’s healthcare. I agree with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children that a “dad check” would be a valuable way for our health services to ensure that resources are open and accessible to new fathers. I also agree with the recommendation that NHS England should roll out schemes that increase support to fathers. That support should include either creating a new fatherhood fund or making the maternity challenge fund a general parental support fund and putting in additional investment.
The CSJ makes commendable recommendations for the Department of Health and Social Care to improve inspection frameworks, develop a dad test for the perinatal period and extend the reach of digital communications for new fathers. Those all seem sensible ideas; I accept that resources are always a challenge, but the long-term health and wellbeing outcomes must surely justify their consideration.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for her well-informed discussion of this important issue. She may be aware of my constituent Mark Williams, who has been a campaigner for the best part of a decade on fathers’ mental health after childbirth. He has been fundamental in pushing the campaign in all nations of the UK, including in the English NHS. He tells me frequently that—as the hon. Lady says—in the services that follow a baby’s birth the father is almost forgotten.
Mark had a breakdown—I know he will not mind my saying that on the Floor of this Chamber. It took him years to understand what was wrong, but now he champions the issue. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need more fathers like Mark to stand up and say that this is a problem? As she will be aware from her former role as a Minister, loneliness and mental health are an issue, and it is worse in men because we do not like talking about it. We need more people like Mark to speak up about what they face after having children.
Tracey Crouch
I could not agree more. It is almost as if the hon. Gentleman has seen my speech, because I am about to start talking about loneliness in new fathers. We need to talk more about men’s mental health and to look at the triggers for poor mental health. It is a well-established consideration for mothers—health visitors and other members of the health services regularly ask about the mother’s mental health after a birth. It is not necessarily the same for men’s mental health. Quite often—although as I far as I can remember, it was not the case when my son was born, nearly three years ago—mothers are asked questions by health visitors that relate to the father of the child, rather than the father being asked directly, even when they might be in the same room.
Chris Elmore
Does the hon. Lady agree that there needs to be far more training in midwifery or mental health services on focusing on the father’s mental health as well—not just asking the mother about her partner, but creating a structure from very basic training that recognises that fathers are a person, too, in this context? They need the questions put directly. Often husbands and partners will simply not tell their partner how they are feeling or how they are responding to the birth of their child, so the partner might think that everything is fine, and it is all missed. That is the important point.
Tracey Crouch
One reason why I wanted to hold this debate is that I feel it is hard for male colleagues to raise the subject. As a mother, I know that if my other half had come to me and said, “I am feeling a bit down,” I would have said, “But you didn’t give birth to the child!” For many years, we have forgotten that it is very much about a partnership. There are many issues that mothers still face—there are still huge issues around discrimination in maternity and everything else—but that must not mean that we forget the issues that fathers face, and that is why this is an important debate.
I completely understand why male colleagues might not have felt comfortable in raising this issue, because they may well feel that they would be accused of forgetting all the other issues around maternity discrimination. I feel very honoured to be raising it on behalf of all the dads out there. Perhaps I can talk about it with more ease.
The constituent of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) is doing a brilliant job in raising the issue of men’s mental health, post-baby. It is important that we do that. If that equates to having more training, that is what must happen, although I am always loth to say that our hard-working health professionals need any more training than they already get. They have a very important job to do, and by and large they are all doing it brilliantly.
One aspect of parenthood that can impact on wellbeing is loneliness. When Jo Cox stood in the Chamber and spoke of her own challenges with loneliness, including the example of becoming a mother, she widened discussion on the subject. I, too, had my own brushes with maternity-leave loneliness. While the rest of the world here was discussing the referendum campaigns, I was on maternity leave. I dealt with that by going to the supermarket every day, just for a chat.
For new fathers, it can be harder. When my other half took his three months shared parenting leave, he felt isolated from baby groups, as many were either branded “mother and baby” or were predominantly made up of mums, making him feel less inclined to go in. There are excellent apps connecting mums, such as Mush, which we profiled in the loneliness strategy, as did the CSJ in its report, but there are hardly any dad apps set up to connect full-time fathers. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, with his digital background, may be interested in upscaling that from a health perspective.
The loneliness strategy, which I was privileged to publish on behalf of the Government in October 2018, specifically, on my request, used an infographic of a dad pushing a baby to highlight becoming a parent as a trigger for loneliness while at the same time reflecting that it is not a gender issue. The more we all acknowledge loneliness as an issue, the quicker we will reduce the stigma and instead create connections that help to combat it. I was pleased that the Department of Health and Social Care was a core partner in the delivery of the strategy.
The CSJ noted that children's centres are a key part of delivering opportunities for dads to connect, and that many were not doing so, despite its being a legal requirement. I know that children’s centres are a politically contentious issue because of funding and I would hate the debate to be bogged down by that, but the centres in my constituency, some of which have restructured, could play an enormously important role in creating support networks for dads. It is a shame that because of funding pressures, gaps in services are occurring.
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The problem with the children’s centres—a fantastic asset—at the moment is that they are closed most of the time when dads can access them, particularly at weekends. Some of the best children’s centres are those that open at weekends, have football teams that dads and their children can come along to, and have computer-reading facilities latched on to that. It is a way of getting dads into the children’s centres. The centres need to be used much more at weekends and outside of working times when many fathers cannot access them.
Tracey Crouch
I agree with my hon. Friend, but it is very important that we do not fall into the trap of talking about dads as weekend parents. The point of the debate is to discuss how society has evolved; there is a lot more equal parenting. I completely understand his point. I shall come on to talk about shared parenting. The take-up of shared parenting is so low that many fathers can play that meaningful role in parenting only at weekends, so we would want those services to be open. Children’s centres have an incredibly important role, which is not just about creating a connection, but also about, for example, trying to break the cycle in domestic abuse. They play a fundamental role. I know that the Stefanou Foundation is doing some excellent work in supporting such initiatives.
I accept that my own experience is based on good fortune, and that it could easily be criticised as coming from a comfortably-off middle-class professional, but we need to do so much more on shared parenting than we do at the moment. We lag very far behind other countries on shared parenting, particularly Scandinavian countries.
What I see from my other half taking shared parenting is a very special bond between him and our son. Sadly, there are still a significant number of men who are ineligible for parental leave, and for those that are eligible there is a financial disincentive to take it. The Fawcett Society found that nearly seven in 10 people believed that men who took time off work to look after a baby should be entitled to the same pay and amount of leave as women. In Germany, fathers on leave are paid two thirds of their salary and in Sweden it is 80% of their income. Here it is £145 per week. We managed because I am paid well, but an average or low-income family would inevitably struggle, so while many might want to, it is unsurprising that take-up of parental leave is so low.
I know that much work is being undertaken to improve the situation. I thought the speeches in our debate on proxy voting on Monday evening encouraging male colleagues to take shared parenting leave were really helpful, and we could set an example in this place. I commented earlier on the wider societal and health benefits of a father’s meaningful engagement in the upbringing of a child. To me, doing more to improve our shared parenting policies is a no-brainer.
There is so much more I could have spoken about this morning, including the emerging organisations that help support fathers, such as workingdads.co.uk, which seeks employment with flexible, child-friendly hours, and the really funny social media accounts, such as Man vs. Baby, which might make light of some of the challenges that fathers face but also highlights that they exist in the first place. Ultimately, if we accept that meaningful fatherly engagement with their children is good for the health and wellbeing not just of the child but of the dad, making sure that we provide the infrastructure to support them, from neonatal to perinatal and beyond, is simply common sense, fair and equal—good economics but also really good politics.
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
Order. We have six speakers, which with my maths makes about six minutes each. I would like to introduce an advisory limit of six minutes. As with the EU referendum, it is not mandatory, but I strongly advise it. I invite Paul Masterton to start.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) on securing this debate, and I thank her for her support for new MPs who are also fairly new dads. I very much valued the advice that she gave to me in conversations in the Tea Room in my early days here, as I tried to struggle with the largely impossible balance of being an MP and having a young family.
I will touch on a few things from my own experience as a dad of two under-fives. Both my kids were born between midnight and 2 am. It is quite difficult, about 90 minutes after a child is born, for a father to have his wife and child go to the maternity ward while he is simply waved off to drive home. I am lucky; I live about 20 minutes from the hospital, the roads are good, and both my kids were born in May. Lots of dads will drive home in very difficult conditions and will be mentally, physically and emotionally exhausted. Would it not be nice if dads could spend a bit more time on the maternity ward in those early days? It sets much of the tone for how dads feel in those early months—as if they are one step removed from everything that is going on around them.
After I went back to work, my two overriding emotions were guilt and jealousy, neither of which are very healthy. I felt guilty that my wife had to do all the legwork, and jealous of the fact that she was spending all the time with the kids. I really welcome all the stuff that is being introduced by NHS England—and now also up in Scotland—to try to include dads more in those early parts of the services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford said, things are quite good on the pre-birth element. Dads go along to the scans and classes, but then they are just chucked to the side in a lot of ways. We need to involve dads much more.
A lot of the support groups are very helpful. I always used to try to get away from work as early as possible and rush home, and I wanted to do loads when I got home. My wife used to say to me, “Well, no, actually, I need you to be the best version of yourself, so don’t feel guilty about getting a good night’s sleep. Don’t feel guilty about going to the pub or seeing your friends, because if you’re in a better frame of mind and feeling better, then you’re a better support for me.” It is important to help new dads to have that confidence in what they are doing.
The last thing I want to mention is although new dads are lots of things, they are not counsellors or trained mental health professionals. It is very difficult for a dad if he is not sure whether his partner is just feeling a bit down or whether there is something that he should be more worried about. I will never forget my wife saying to me one day when she was a bit upset, “I just feel like my world is so small and I don’t know where I stand anymore.” I did not know what to do about that or whether it was something that I should be bothered about. If I am supposed to speak to somebody, who do I speak to? The health visitor comes when I am at work, and I am not going to speak to my colleagues about it. I am not going to sit at my computer at work and type in, “Is my wife depressed?” on Google.
We should not think of support for new dads as just support for them as individuals; we should think about it as supporting new dads to support their partners better. That is the best way to ensure that kids get the best possible grounding in their early years, and to keep a strong, solid functioning family unit that is needed to give children the best start in life.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I begin in the same way as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) did, by saying that we are all here for mums as well, including single mums. In fact, the last debate of this nature that I shared with the Minister was on maternal perinatal mental health. A number of men led that debate, so it goes without saying that we are all 100% behind mums and single mums, just as we are behind dads.
Mums need support, so an important issue is involving fathers and helping them to play their role in equal parenting, which is a really important phrase—I am glad it has been introduced several times in this debate. We know from the research that we are not getting this right at the moment, because 69% of fathers feel like a spare part. If fathers are supported and helped to be involved, as the vast majority of them want to be, they have the ability to offer round-the-clock support to new mums.
There are some worrying figures on what is going on at the moment. Looking at income groups, less than 31% of people earning under £20,000 turn up to antenatal classes; among those earning more than £70,000, more than 71% turn up. We are not managing to reach really important groups of fathers who need that support. The inspection framework does not look hard enough at what areas are doing to help fathers—indeed, fathers are absent from a lot of the inspection frameworks.
From Government research in 2012, we know that if fathers are involved in the care of a young child, parents are a third less likely to split up. When the Minister was recently before the Select Committee on Health and Social Care to discuss suicide prevention, she said that debt and relationship breakdown are the two major causes of suicide. That is a really powerful reason, with a number of important outcomes, as to why we should help fathers to be involved in the care of their new-born children.
In 2016, we set up a £39 million fund at the Department for Work and Pensions to reduce parental conflict in workless families, which was an excellent initiative that I really support. We need a second fund to improve the quality of relationships between couples who are at risk of separation when they have new children. There is evidence to support that, and I think there is an overwhelming need. It would be really helpful for mothers. I ask the Minister to take it back to the Department and to the inter-ministerial working group on the first 1,000 days, with which she is fully engaged. That would be a really good development.
I want to give a plug for a little programme called “Let’s Stick Together”. I am not allowed visual aids, so I better not hold it up, but the course reading material could fit into a purse or wallet very easily. I have personally handed a copy to our last two Prime Ministers and encouraged them to take it up across Government. It contains some really simple tips to help the quality of a couple’s relationship when they have a new child. I commend the work of the charity Dads 2 Be, which is active in a number of hospitals in south London. It focuses on antenatal work for groups of dads and helps them with the changes to their life, and also focuses on improving relationship quality. My question to the Minister is very simple, and it is my overriding plea to her: given that we are doing this in some NHS hospitals, can we please do it everywhere, throughout these islands, across the whole of our United Kingdom? It is sensible and a no-brainer. Dads want it, and we know there would be better outcomes for mums and children.
I commend some quite simple changes. A health visiting team in Lincolnshire managed to increase the participation rate of fathers in the primary birth visit from 20% to 70% by addressing their letter, “Dear new mum and dad” rather than just, “Dear parent”. That is a really simple thing and did not cost any money. It said very clearly to fathers, “We want you. You’re important and welcome. We expect and want you to turn up, and we’re here to help.” We can do some simple things that do not cost a lot of money; they just cost some political will. They are really needed, and I ask the Minister to do them.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Dads are good for lads—I know, because I have two boys—if only because they can share the interest of football. More seriously, it is true that fathers are good for sons in many ways. Anything we can do to support that relationship—and by we I mean the Government—we should do. I echo the respect expressed by others, which I share, for the Herculean task that single parents—most frequently, mums—do to bring up their children. Where we can, we need to look at how we can strengthen family relationships in a society where, today, over a quarter of children live with mum but not dad. More than one in seven are born into homes where there is no dad present.
The implications of that are serious; I will share a couple of sad statistics. The lack of a good male role model in young men’s lives is helping to lure them into substitute families: gangs. Apparently, most of the 50,000 or so young people caught up in county lines activities have come from homes where there has been no good male role model. Similarly, 60% of the sons of men in prison are likely to end up in prison, too. That statistic is even worse if both the father and a brother are in prison—it is then a 90% likelihood.
Those are staggering statistics that show why it is so important that we and the Government try to support families more. That support is positive for children and for the wider community.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
I hope that later on in her speech my hon. Friend will refer to “A Manifesto to Strengthen Families”, which I believe has been endorsed by more than 60 MPs and has been available to Government for over a year now. It would be good to see some of its policies championed by Government.
Fiona Bruce
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and I will indeed refer to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who introduced the debate so well, referred to a CSJ report from this year. Another CSJ report, “Every Family Matters”, which was produced as long ago as July 2009, said very similar things, such as the importance of strengthening families and of having a good, strong input into a child’s life. Yet I have here an interesting statistic: 43% of unmarried parents split up before a child’s fifth birthday, but only 8% of married parents do. That is an interesting factor for us to consider: if we are looking at strengthening family life, we should not forget that supporting marriage is part of that.
Sadly, the UK has one of the highest rates of family breakdown among the 30 OECD countries. Just two thirds of children aged nought to 14 live with both parents. In the OECD countries overall, 84% of children of those ages live with both parents. Very interesting work is being done on the link between those factors and British productivity, which is 18% below the OECD average.
Tim Loughton
I admire my hon. Friend’s determination to promote marriage, but I must give a plug for my private Member’s Bill on civil partnerships, which, if it passes through the Lords, will make civil partnerships available for opposite sex couples by the end of this year. They would be an additional incentive for those couples to stay together, as overseas statistics show, particularly for the good of the children.
Fiona Bruce
It is so important that we do what we can. In the very short time that I have left, I will touch on some of the practical policies in “A Manifesto to Strengthen Families”, which more than 60 Members of Parliament support, and express a degree of frustration that the Government have not taken them up more practically. I know that individual Cabinet Ministers are very interested, but in order to see some real progress we need a senior Cabinet-level Minister who is responsible for drawing together the manifesto’s several policies.
I will touch on some of the manifesto’s policies on fathers. Policies 8, 9 and 11 talk about promoting the importance of active fatherhood in a child’s life. Policy 8 says:
“Maternity services should maximise opportunities to draw fathers-to-be in early.”
Policy 9 proposes that, where appropriate,
“The Government should…require all fathers to be included on birth certificates.”
Policy 11 proposes that “high quality marriage preparation” should be available at a cost-effective rate for young people thinking of getting married.
Finally, one of our key policies is the promotion of family hubs. As we have heard, children’s centres are not always as effective as they need to be. Families need support bringing up children, not just aged nought to five, but nought to 19. In the teenage years particularly, the input by fathers into their sons’ lives is often critical. We believe that it would be really positive to have family hubs in each local community, to support families at every stage of a child’s development.
I am disappointed that the Government have not taken that up more strongly. We shall continue to persevere and to press them to do so. The good news is that many local authorities have taken up those ideas very strongly and family hubs are springing up across the country. I invite colleagues to a family hubs fair, which will take place on 14 February. It is convened by Westminster City Council, which is setting up its own family hubs. The fair will flagship best practice from local authorities across the country that have set up family hubs, specifically to show how we can best support families with children. I am sure that there will be many examples of how we can best support fathers to engage in their sons’ lives, which is such an important thing on which we need to focus.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for securing this debate. She showed that the role of champion that she played in ministerial office has continued into what I hope will be the short period that she is on the Back Benches. I also declare an interest: I decided to speak in the debate as a learning exercise, because I will become a father for the first time in just over five weeks.
That brings me to the point on which I want to start. This House has finally moved into the 21st century, following Monday’s decision on proxy voting. It took an awful long time to get to that stage, but it was a welcome step forward. Last night, we had the first proxy vote used in Parliament. I hope to be the first male Member of Parliament to use the proxy voting system in early March.
I commend the CSJ report for a number of points that it highlighted. One of the most shocking was that only 60% of dads had no conversations at all about their role with midwives. I am one of that 60%; I have had none of those conversations at all. My wife has had excellent care with her midwife, usually when I am down in London, that I hear about on the phone or when I get home. I am one of the 60% who have had no involvement whatsoever.
I found some of the report’s other findings shocking as well. Only 25% of fathers felt that there was enough support to help them play a positive role in family life, while 60% felt emotionally unsupported when they first became a father. Similar research in Scotland, by Fathers Network Scotland, concluded that NHS Scotland—this is not a critical point, but highlights feelings across the country—is failing to provide family-centred antenatal, maternity and health visitor services. Unless we accept that there is a problem, nothing will change.
The Fatherhood Institute identifies that poor relationship quality and engagement from fathers is a key driver in post-natal depression, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford. That is surely another good reason for more involvement by father, to their own benefit and that of the mother and child, which is acknowledged by the Royal College of Midwives.
There is a local element to the issue. I was not in Parliament on Monday for the debate on proxy voting because I had stayed my constituency to attend an extremely important public meeting on our maternity services. They had been downgraded at Dr Gray’s Hospital, and we no longer have a consultant-led maternity service. A great campaign, Keep Mum, has been running for a number of months to get that service back. Although Dr Gray’s does not have a consultant-led service, a large proportion of our expectant mothers have to travel to Aberdeen to give birth—that is more than 70 miles away.
At the moment, my wife is on a green pathway, so we will not have to do that, but we might have to travel the 70 miles to Aberdeen on one of the worst roads in Scotland—the A96 across the Glens of Foudland. This morning, there is an inch of snow in Moray. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) very ably put it, a father is almost dumped after his wife has given birth, and heads home, not in a correct state of mind. What state of mind will expectant fathers be in, as they drive through snow for 70 miles to go to Aberdeen, with the mother of their child potentially giving birth in the back of their car? That is what Moray constituents have to do at the moment, which is why it is so important for us to return the Dr Gray’s maternity service to a full, consultant-led one.
I will finish with a few of the important recommendations in the CSJ report. I was surprised that one even needed to be made, and it reads
“all official correspondence relating to the care and health of a child should be addressed directly to both parents”.
It is incredible that at the moment both parents are not addressed.
I was, however, reminded of a constituency case that I am dealing with at the moment, which is extremely sad and involves a child who died shortly after birth. The mother contacted me because, when she went to register the birth of their young child, who only lived for a few hours, only one parent had the opportunity to sign the register. That tends to be the mother, who has gone in to do that. She was shocked that the father, who had been so important a part of the process, was not allowed to have an acknowledgement on the death certificate that he had a part to play in the child being born and, sadly, dying. I have written about it to the registrars in Scotland.
Another recommendation was:
“NICE should review the evidence”—
the lack of evidence—
“on…the antenatal and post-natal period and produce a single set of standards for health care professionals…on the role of fathers.”
That, too, is very important.
To follow up on the point made by the previous speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), about a champion in Government, the report recommends that a Government “fatherhood champion” should be appointed. It adds that the champion should be either a “peer or senior MP”, so I am not auditioning for the role at the moment. It is, however, a very good recommendation. We see in our local authorities and the Scottish Parliament, where I used to sit, that where we have a dedicated champion, the issues are highlighted in Parliament and Members have the opportunity to express their views. A champion to drive things forward can be a positive step.
I am about to enter another exciting chapter in my family life, in five weeks’ time. Looking around at all the hon. Members speaking as fathers today, I can see that it is a bright future—they are all bright eyed and bushy tailed. I look forward to it, and I greatly appreciate the time that my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford secured today to allow Parliament to discuss this important issue.
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
I am sure we all wish you and your wife very well.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) on securing it.
In my constituency, many fathers are in single-parent families or play a significant role in childcare responsibilities, and it is important to recognise the invaluable role that fathers play in bringing up their children. That is not always an easy job—I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) for saying that, but he also has a lot to look forward to. Like my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton), I have two children under five myself, two boys. Parenthood can be a huge challenge, but becoming a father is my proudest achievement—even more so than being elected to this place, if anyone can believe that—and something that has changed my life entirely.
In my experience, parenting support groups are aimed largely at mothers and in the early days, weeks and even years, some fathers struggle to find support networks and others in a similar position. My hon. Friends talked about the statistics and fathers feeling like a spare part during pre and post-natal discussions and services. That mirrors my experience. My hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire talked about being sent home from hospital. My first son was born in the middle of the night, and I was out of the hospital within 45 minutes of that happening. I came back the next morning at 8 o’clock to be told that I would not be allowed in until visiting time at 10.30 am. Fortunately, in the end I managed to find my way in, but that is one example of the challenges.
Another example I remember is to do with breastfeeding. My first son was bottle-fed; I was involved in that, getting to feed him and connecting with him in that way. My second son was breastfed, and I felt thoroughly left out of that bonding process—in a way jealous, as my hon. Friend said, of that connection between my wife and son that I was not able to engage in. There are many examples of difficult and stressful circumstances that bring about emotions that are not necessarily helpful or healthy in that environment.
Young fathers need support. I represent the community of Mansfield, so I will highlight the particular challenges of working-class fathers, those on low incomes especially, who face the additional challenges of accessing housing or affording parental leave, for example. Mental health issues are not based on wealth or background, so we can all be susceptible to such difficulties. While it is widely acknowledged that working-class boys, for example, are likely to have lower educational attainment and fewer life chances, it is not acknowledged that their extra difficulties and challenges might extend to parenthood as well.
The added burden of a low income, trying to afford not only the cost of living but the additional costs of parenthood, is an extra stress that often falls on fathers in particular. We all know the shocking statistics on young men’s mental health, especially suicide, and the early weeks and months of having a first child in particular can be among the most stressful times in the life of a family and of a father, and difficult to cope with for our own mental health and wellbeing.
Since becoming an MP, I have looked at the area of early intervention for families and children, and I took part in the family hubs debate in Westminster Hall not so long ago. It seems obvious that if families do not receive that early assistance when they first need it, instead being left to deal with the issues alone, that will come out in later life, as has been discussed. The early years challenges show themselves later on, through school, when children with mental health and behavioural problems might often come at greater cost to public services than if they had received the early intervention.
The Children’s Society has produced some pretty shocking statistics to show that in Nottinghamshire alone, 1,000 children are known to children’s services because of abuse or neglect. That figure must be brought down, and I think that we can do that by being more proactive and by providing the intervention and support services in early parenthood, with training and help for fathers as well as mothers about their roles and responsibilities and the support available to raise children.
I strongly believe that a preventive approach is the right one. In such services, we tend to deal with crises and, increasingly, those services are built around crisis management rather than proactive and preventive support. Putting an emphasis on parenthood and establishing relationships between fathers and support services has to be a priority. Trust is hugely important.
I remember the experience of a social services visit after the birth of my elder son. They sent me out of the room to get a glass of water and asked my wife if I was abusing her. That is something that they do in all circumstances—it is the right thing to do, to check that the family environment is safe for mother and baby—but I felt pretty put out. Fortunately, my wife joked about it with me afterwards.
For a young man from a difficult background, however, someone who had problems at school or has been involved with social services historically, I imagine that that could add to the feeling of being labelled and held up as a bad person, a bad character, by the services that are meant to support parents. That can add to the challenges and the stress, and is another thing that might need to be discussed more openly in terms of the challenges that might face young, low-income working-class fathers in particular.
Nottinghamshire County Council is striving to achieve more co-ordinated and multi-agency support, which is vital. The more that we can do to reduce barriers between services the better. Across the piece, there is such a challenge of competing budgets and priorities, making services more difficult to deliver. I would welcome anything that the Minister can do to bring down the barriers between local authorities and health services that always exist. For example, co-ordination and support from the health service in particular is not always there for children’s services in Nottinghamshire.
That is a particular ask I have of the Minister. Effective use of funding, catching problems early, and having early preventive services, to prevent people from spiralling into crisis—saving money on more intensive intervention later—are also vital if we are to support children, families and in particular fathers in communities such as Mansfield and throughout the country.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for securing this excellent debate. As I have tweeted, what a great group of Conservative dads are supporting the debate, although I feel slightly unhappy about speaking after three people who are young enough to be my children. That makes me feel a little bit old. I wanted to contribute because my early career highlights the difficulty that dads can have. I thank my first wife for being kind enough to have our children on a Saturday evening, which meant I was dismissed from the hospital, and about an hour after my children were born I was in the pub with about 30 friends and family celebrating the birth. It all turned out damned convenient for me, although having heard stories from others, I appreciate it can turn out differently.
I started life as a civil engineer, working on a building site in an obviously male dominated environment. I will not make excuses for that, but construction, particularly the very large-scale construction I was involved in, has a particular nature. The idea that I might have gone to work one day and suggested to my boss that flexible working would be a good idea, and asked whether I could come in a bit later, is incredibly difficult. By the time I was 25, I was running a building site with a gang of up to 50 blokes who would have thought I was crazy. We were on site at 7 o’clock in the morning in a process that meant that if someone did not turn up and do their job at a particular time, other people would not be able to do theirs.
Fortunately for me, I decided that working outside was too cold, and joined an American company called Cartus, where I was responsible for maintenance of the properties in its portfolio nationally. I found the world to be a completely different place. It was a much more welcoming environment with regard to flexibility in the workplace, but I may not have appreciated at the time the majority female workforce. I mention that because, in preparation for this debate, I read documents and papers from around the world, and I had not realised how difficult legislation is in America. I read a paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research, published in 2015, when a form of parental leave was just being introduced in California. The early research from that paper showed that if parental leave was introduced, fathers were more likely to be engaged in parental support, and that, interestingly, fathers are more likely to take up that parental leave for their first child or if the child is a boy.
Clearly, there is some work to be done to ensure that men do not lose interest after the first child and that they take equal interest in daughters and sons. I have one of each, and I appreciate the stress that goes with having a daughter. She seemed considerably more difficult for me to manage and look after than my son did. It is interesting that research suggests that there might be a difference in the way they are treated.
Government have a role to play, and that does not always have to cost money. We need to show intent; we need to show men that they have a role to play and that it is important in the 21st century that they play it to their fullest ability. For that not to be the case seems counterintuitive. I loved my role as a dad; in fact, I told colleagues earlier that I am ready to be a grandparent and I have made sure my children are aware of that. There is no rush, but I will be ready when they come. Indeed, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), who recently gave birth, sent me a photo, which made me immediately feel paternal.
We have a role to play, but what will we do to play it? Documents have been mentioned, and “A Manifesto to Strengthen Families”, published more than a year ago, has some excellent ideas for Government to follow. As has been mentioned, we have a more significant male population in prison, so it is very important to ensure that men do not lose contact with their families. To reduce reoffending rates, we need to maintain that bond.
Andrew Selous
My hon. Friend may not be aware that the Ministry of Justice commissioned the Farmer review, which offered 21 recommendations to strengthen the family relationships of prisoners, because there is evidence that that leads to less reoffending and keeps us all safe. The Ministry of Justice has adopted those 21 recommendations, so there has been some progress made in that area.
Eddie Hughes
It is excellent and reassuring to hear of that progress. The point was also made about the amount of paternity pay—£145.18. When I started work on a building site, I earned £50 a day, so £250 a week. Even 30 years ago, it would have been very difficult for me, as a young man starting off with a young family, to cope on a reduced income of £145, for a couple of weeks. It is great that the opportunity is there for men to take two weeks of leave, but it is important to try to make sure that is not financially difficult.
This is a complicated area, so I conclude by referring my constituents in particular to the website of the Share the Joy campaign, where they can find more details of their rights with regard to maternity and paternity leave. They can get more details about sharing parental leave up to 50 weeks, so they can take leave together and share the parenting experience very early on in their children’s lives.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is always a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Like other Members, I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) on an excellent debate. I find coming to Westminster Hall like seeking refugee status in this place, having come out of the Chamber where there is an incredibly volatile and divided atmosphere. This debate has probably been the highlight of my week so far. We can have a debate with such consensus, and it would be better if we could do that more often. We have had an excellent debate so far. The hon. Lady kicked off by talking about perinatal depression and tackling loneliness; she made some points about shared parental leave, which I will come back to in due course.
The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) gave a very thoughtful and considered speech. Some of what he said resonated with me. He and I live relatively close to each other, so we share the geography of how far the hospital is. Later in my remarks I will return to the experience of having to leave the hospital very soon after the birth of a child. He spoke about the feelings of guilt and jealousy; I was walking across Westminster bridge this morning while facetiming my wife and my four-month-old daughter. As dads we feel guilt and jealousy, and he was right to place that on the record. The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) cited some statistics that hammer home the point that some income groups are not part of the antenatal experience; I certainly saw that in the last round of antenatal classes we went to.
The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) has a very strong record of talking about family values; I know she was trying not to go down the route of single parents, but I was reflecting as she spoke, as someone brought up by a single mum. When I came home from school for the first time, my mum asked me what I had learned. I said, “I went to the toilet and there were walls that went, ‘Whoosh!’” That had made the biggest impact on me because, having been brought up by a single mum, I had never before been in a male toilet before. Perhaps others had a more formative experience on their first day of primary 1, but that was mine. The hon. Lady made a strong case for “A Manifesto to Strengthen Families”. I have not looked at that, but after the debate I certainly will.
The hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) is about to join the crazy club of fatherhood. I think I speak on behalf of everyone in the Chamber in wishing him every success in the run-up to March. It is simultaneously the most chaotic and blessed time in life. I know we all send him our good wishes. Rightly, he made criticisms of where we have not done things right in Scotland. I have been through the process of having children twice over the last three and a half years; more NHS support should be given. I would be very happy to work with him on that. He was unashamedly, as a constituency MP, talking about the situation of Dr Gray’s Hospital. I will not seek to defend that, because he made a strong point, although I suspect I will get in trouble for saying that.
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) about the importance of family support networks. He also spoke about the importance of early intervention. The hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), in his inimitable style, spoke about his employment experience. I think we are all the richer for that, and I am sure he will become a grandparent sooner rather than later.
I hate being too personal in Westminster Hall, but I will do it anyway. I spent the weekend in Northern Ireland. I mentioned that I was brought up by a single parent. My dad spend quite a significant amount of time in prison. In November, at the age of 52, he died quite suddenly. I had been estranged from him. I have had lots of feelings as the debate has gone on—I have been thinking about prison and about being a single parent. I went to Northern Ireland to go to my dad’s grave and to meet my younger sister, who is only seven years old. Since I returned on Sunday night, I have been reflecting on the difference between me and my sister. I did not have that relationship with my dad—perhaps he did not get the support he needed when I was born—but I have taken great comfort since he passed away from the fact that my sister had such a good relationship with him. To spend that weekend with her and to see that he had made amends and moved on in life was incredibly comforting.
I want also to talk about my experience of becoming a dad. I think people know from my last question at Prime Minister’s questions that both my children were born prematurely and spent several weeks on the neonatal intensive care unit. One of the things I am trying to push in this place is an extension of paternity leave, particularly when a child is born prematurely. That relates to the point by the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire that, whether their partner is in hospital with their child for a day or for two weeks, the fact that we just send dads home as if they were the cleaner or the cook has a massive impact on their mental health.
I experienced the same situation when my son was born three and a half years ago. He was born and whipped away to neonatal intensive care, and I was left like a spare part. The only difference this time around, when my daughter was born and we went through exactly the same thing, was that about 10 days in we had the opportunity to see a psychiatrist, or a psychologist, to have a bit of counselling. That struck me as a very good thing. I certainly got more out of it then my wife did; she is one of those typical Hebridean women who is very strong—much stronger than me. It struck me as a bit unusual that we were offered that experience; it is only now, after a few months have passed, that I think it was really healthy to be able to sit down and talk about my feelings as a dad. Talking about our experiences is not something we do very well.
Finally, I want to touch on shared parental leave and the paternity leave we offer fathers. I have a degree of frustration about shared parental leave. I do not like the idea that we say, “You’ve got a certain amount of time, and the dad takes time at the expense of the mum.” I would like dads to get a bit longer for paternity leave. My experience of those first two weeks was different, since both my periods of paternity leave were spent on a neonatal ward. In any case, those two weeks tend to be full of family, with the mother-in-law visiting and the house going like an absolute fair. I would like the statutory paternity leave allowance to be doubled to four weeks. I know the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats committed to doing that in their 2017 manifestos. I just have a degree of concern that we provide shared parental leave at the expense of the other parent. It is equally important that mothers, particularly those who are breastfeeding, get that time.
This has been an excellent opportunity for us to come together to look at an area of policy where I think there is a degree of consensus. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, because I think we can move this agenda forward. For that reason, I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford for initiating the debate.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) on securing the debate and on her excellent introduction. As the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) just said, it has been a very good and well-informed debate, and it has struck the right tone. Perhaps we should take that into other arenas.
The hon. Lady raised three main issues. She referred to the important work of the Centre for Social Justice and mentioned interesting survey statistics—for example, that seven out of 10 fathers said they felt like a spare part, and that six out of 10 had no conversations with their midwife. I think a lot of us would recognise that territory. I remember being on holiday with my wife and her going up to talk to a woman I had never seen before, who turned out to be her midwife. That shows how difficult it is to engage both parents. I know that the Government are pushing for greater consistency, with the same midwife throughout the journey, but the fact that we have 3,500 midwife vacancies makes that a challenge.
The hon. Lady raised the subject of loneliness, too. I thank her for her work to introduce the Government’s loneliness strategy in 2018, building on the Jo Cox Commission, which is led by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) and the hon. Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy). That is a hugely important part of Jo’s legacy, and I am sure that Members across the House recognise the excellent contribution that the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford has made to drawing attention to that issue. There are, of course, many triggers for loneliness, one of which is being a new parent.
The hon. Lady also raised the important role that children’s centres can play. Several Members raised concerns about whether they are well enough used. Cuts of 60% to local government funding in recent years have led to the closure of 1,000 children’s centres, which provide support to both mothers and fathers in those early years. There is no doubt that that has had an impact.
The hon. Lady is right that we have a long way to go to reach true equality, with shared parenting. Shared parental leave legislation, which has been about since 2015, enables employed couples to split 50 weeks’ time off work after the birth of their child. The Government originally estimated that 8% of parents would take up the option of shared leave. However, disappointingly, take-up at the moment is only about 1% or 2%. A recent freedom of information request showed that take-up is particularly low among new parents, with only eight out of every 1,000 eligible people taking up the option. Some 8,700 new parents took up shared leave in 2016-17, and that increased by only 500 the following year.
The Women and Equalities Committee highlighted a number of problems with shared parental leave, including the complexity of the system, low uptake and low pay, and fathers’ fears about taking leave because of its perceived negative effect on their careers. There is a cultural issue here, so will the Minister say what can be done to address that?
Shared parental leave does not extend to self-employed parents. At present, self-employed mothers are entitled to statutory maternity pay of £140 per week, but they must take all that in one go and they risk losing their payments if they undertake work outside their 10 allotted “keeping in touch” days. Self-employed fathers do not have access to that at all. I hope that hon. Members will support the Shared Parental Leave and Pay (Extension) Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin), which would enable self-employed parents to split parental leave and pay between them. Given that the ranks of the self-employed seem to increase every year, will the Minister say whether the Government have any plans to legislate in this area?
Better pay and the option of part-time take-up of shared parental leave would improve access to leave for fathers, particularly those from lower-income groups. There is strong evidence of the effectiveness of non-transferable paternal leave as a lever for encouraging shared care and reducing the gender pay gap. We know that fathers want to play an active role in their children’s lives and families want to spend more time together with a new baby. That is why, as the hon. Member for Glasgow East said, we made a manifesto commitment to double paid paternity leave to four weeks. Fathers are parents too and they deserve to spend as much time as possible with their family.
The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) gave a personal and touching account of his own experiences and set out well how fathers are almost removed from the scene shortly after birth, which is an experience that most of us who have been through that will recognise. Unfortunately, I think that sets a tone for the rest of the early years, if not the whole life.
The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) drew an interesting and important link between income and antenatal group attendance. He is right that fathers are not included as much as they could be in many of the inspection frameworks. His central point—this is something that we see across a lot of the NHS—is that the best practice is only in pockets, and does not always disseminate out into the whole of the system.
The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) spoke about the importance of families and said that there can sometimes be a cycle of negative experiences throughout the generations.
The hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) gave us the good news about his impending fatherhood, and he raised an important issue about the proximity of maternity services. That does not just relate to the reorganisation of services, as in his case; it is a sad fact that last year, about half of all maternity units had to close their doors temporarily at some point, which meant that someone who was in the process of labour would have to find somewhere else pretty quickly, which can be distressing and inconvenient.
The hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) gave a thoughtful and personal account of his experiences of fatherhood; we will all recognise many of things he described. He is right that parenthood is expensive, and that can add to the strain that young families experience. He made an important point about the silo-working that we often see across public sector agencies—a situation that we all want improved.
Finally, the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) gave some contrasting examples of approaches to flexibility in the workplace and spoke of some of the cultural issues that we have already discussed. There is a need for a more consistent approach across workplaces.
As a father myself, I would like to spend more time with my children—or I certainly did until they became truculent teenagers; things got a little less pleasant then. Seriously, every parent wants to play as much of a role as they can in creating a safe, loving and stable environment for their children, so that they grow up into happy and healthy adults. We know that long working hours and the inflexible working approaches of some organisations make shared parenting duties a challenge. If we are to support men in taking a greater role in the family unit, we need to support men and women having a real and meaningful choice about how they organise their lives; that means family-friendly employment, applied equally to both parents.
It is a well-known fact that the gender pay gap is still here in 2019. The impact of women’s being more likely to be in part-time, low-paid or non-paid caring roles has implications for fathers in the workplace. We committed to tackling the gender pay gap and have pledged that in addition to reporting gender pay gap figures, companies will be required to demonstrate how they plan to close their gender pay gap, by producing action plans and taking steps to address the factors that contribute to the pay gap. That will include tackling unequal pay and discrimination and improving access to flexible working and take-up of shared parental leave, to ensure that all employees have a better work-life balance.
I note with interest the proposal from the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford for a dad test, which would be applied to the relevant commissioning and inspection frameworks for the perinatal period. We know that this country offers some of the best neonatal care in the world, along with some exemplary psychological and bereavement services. However, as we have already touched on, there is an unacceptable variability across the country. As many as 41% of neonatal units have no access to a trained mental health worker. As has been highlighted in the past few years in our debates about baby loss, that has been an unfortunate experience for some constituents, while others have had access to the very best services. I am sure that we want greater consistency across the board.
I welcome the commitment in the NHS long-term plan to enhanced support for perinatal mental health services, including assessment and signposting to professional supports for fathers and partners. The question—which is the same for a lot of the long-term plan—is, are the resources and staff there to deliver on those important aims?
In conclusion, we are on a journey—we are not there yet—towards a greater understanding and facilitation of the father’s role. Every day of a child’s early years is hugely important. The more we can do to encourage more and better-quality support during those earlier years, the better.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)
I have enjoyed listening to everyone’s contributions this morning. It is often said that MPs do not live in the real world, but we have heard some frank accounts this morning that very much prove that we do; we do share those experiences. I am proud of my hon. Friends who have been raw in their accounts of fatherhood. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) has not been put off by any of the things he has heard today.
The tone for the honest and frank accounts was set by the opening comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who was characteristically honest in her expositions. I am grateful to her for obtaining this debate. It is time that we gave a big shout-out to dads.
The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), who is no longer in her place, mentioned the 400,000 single-parent families headed by dads. My partner was one of those 400,000; he raised his son alone for the first 10 years of his son’s life. It is often challenging for single dads, as things are focused on the mums. When he first started taking George to primary school, he was viewed as a bit of a curiosity by the mums and the teachers. A lot of low-level discrimination takes place towards dads in those circumstances, which we ought to be more alive to. That is probably symptomatic of discrimination towards dads. We have heard frankly today that it is all about the mum and the baby, and that the dad is a spare part. My hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) described driving home, having gone through the trauma of childbirth, and asking, “What happens now?”, then not being able to visit mum the next morning. Collectively, society needs to be a lot more understanding and welcoming of the father’s role in those early days, weeks and months, not least because it gives children the best possible start in life if dad is fully engaged.
We know that now, more than ever. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) is my conscience on these issues. He constantly emphasises to me that good-quality relationships are critical for every member of the family. He is absolutely right. Where society can bolster that, obviously we should take those steps. He has highlighted some things for me to look at, and I assure him that I will.
Childbirth and parenthood is life-changing and my hon. Friends have shared their experiences to illuminate that. Having support from a father as well as a mother is extremely important. We know that there are very real barriers to that involvement, including the pressures of work, which a number of colleagues have alluded to, particularly where employers in particular fields of employment are less than understanding about the fact that family is dad’s work as well as mum’s. That is something that we need to tackle. We have mentioned that services are not always tailored to dad’s needs as well as those of mums.
There is a general lack of information. A life-changing thing happens, and people are kind of expected just to suck it up and go along with it. It can be extremely challenging and scary, so we need to be more understanding of that. We also need to be cognisant of the fact that it is the time of most acute stress and strain on relationships. It is probably the riskiest time for relationship breakdown. We need to make sure that wraparound support is available to dads who need it.
I would like to say that I was satisfied with progress. It is true that progress is being made, but the debate, and the research that has been mentioned, show that we need to do more. Among the things that we are putting in place and expect to deliver, our first steps clearly need to be in maternity services. We believe that they should do more to maximise fathers’ involvement, at a time that clearly offers the most important opportunity to engage them in the care of their partner and the upbringing of their children. I can tell my hon. Friends who did not have that experience that we have invested £37 million to support the involvement of fathers in labour and post-natal units, including en suite rooms and double beds adjacent to maternity wards. Clearly, that would be a much better experience for new fathers, and we will make sure that that arrangement is rolled out more and more. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance states that women, their partners and their families should always be treated with kindness, respect and dignity. We need to make sure that that is done properly. Scrutiny will be through Care Quality Commission inspections, which will be designed to ensure that maternity services deliver what we expect.
Interestingly, according to CQC’s survey of women’s experience of maternity care, 96% of women said that their partner was able to be involved as much as they wanted during labour and birth. Clearly that is not consistent with the figures that we heard today, but the explanation is probably that the question was asked of mums rather than dads. It illustrates what has been said about feeling like a spare part. My hon. Friends have been honest about their emotions at the time in question, and we know that men are not always frank in exposing their emotions. What the survey tells me is that a mum does not always know that the dad feels completely useless and like a spare part. That tells us that we have an issue to tackle. Seventy-one per cent. of women said that their partner or companion was able to stay in hospital with them as much as they wanted, but that is not borne out by the feedback today. My message going out to the health services is that in addition to inspections and standards there needs to be much more sensitivity and leadership, to make sure that dads are properly considered during such an important period.
I constantly challenge the instinctive prejudice within the system to spend the considerable amount of resource that the Government make available to the NHS on clinicians and clinical support, when we know that wraparound services, as often provided by the voluntary sector, are complementary to the services given by health professionals. When we are talking about supporting families and giving children the best start in life, the voluntary sector can obviously play a part. We have heard good examples of that today.
To move the subject on from birth to early parenthood, children clearly do better when both their parents are involved in their life. Where relationships are less strong, there is a risk of poorer outcomes in the long run, as we have heard today. The quality of fathers’ involvement matters more than the quantity of time they spend with their children and partner. We need to champion those who support their partners, which is facilitated by a father’s bonding with their baby or young child. When a father is an active parent, the secure attachment that is built as a consequence makes a big difference to the child as they develop their own relationships and resilience; it leads to better outcomes in life. For fathers it can be a positive experience, often helping them to re-engage with education, employment or training, and altering their outlook on life. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford shared the experience of her partner’s doing exactly that.
How can we best support fathers in doing what I have described and exploring how to have the most satisfactory parenting experience? I see health visitors as our army in doing that. We have clear expectations about their work with new families. They keep an eye on them, with a view to getting the best outcomes for children and making sure that the family environment is secure. I see health visitors in that way because they often build a less formal and deferential, and more trusting, relationship with the new family. Often they are the only person who interacts with the dad. We shall be expecting health visitors to do much more to support fathers in the early months and years of a child’s life. We expect them to work to ensure that fathers are part of the holistic assessment of family fitness.
Where possible, both parents should be included in health reviews. I have heard the messages from various Members who said that that was not their experience, and we shall give a clear set of messages to the system about addressing that. Such an approach can only boost the chances of intervening early and getting proper support for the mother, the child and the father when it is needed. In doing my job I have been moved by health visitors’ accounts. We know that post-birth is a challenging time for mums, when they are most at risk of poor mental health. The feelings of isolation and helplessness on dads’ part in those circumstances are extremely difficult, and health visitors are incredibly well placed to provide support then, and steer them towards additional help.
Fiona Bruce
Will that encouragement of fathers include the time before the birth? As I understand matters—this is from CSJ—only about a third of fathers with a household income below £20,000 attend antenatal classes, compared with two thirds of those who are better off. One inhibiting factor is that if people cannot get a free antenatal class, a three-day course costs about £350. That is a lot of money for those who are already financially stretched.
Jackie Doyle-Price
The package of support that we are putting together, in terms of the continuity of carer, starts before birth and is designed to involve both parents. We are aware that there will be constraints on individuals’ ability to participate, and we need to make sure that the system is cognisant and respectful of that, and that it can make the relevant changes. My hon. Friend’s point is well made.
We need to promote initiatives such as Offload—a Warrington project for men aged 18 and over, in collaboration with rugby league. It helps men to learn the mental fitness techniques of professional sports players, to understand their own needs and help them cope. Such initiatives will enable new dads—because there is an issue with men facing up to mental health challenges—to reach out and get support from their peers.
The hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore), who is no longer in his place, raised the issue of loneliness, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford has done a great deal of work on that. Every father and family will have their own individual story. There is nothing like a life-changing experience to make one feel lonely, because all the familiar support networks are thrown in the air. We will expand social prescribing across healthcare services, so that all GPs can refer lonely patients to voluntary and community organisations. I reiterate that there is a role for the commissioning of the voluntary sector to do important work leading to better health outcomes. We will support spaces for community use, working with local groups to pilot ways to use space, to test how that can improve social connections. We need to make sure that we are keeping our eyes open for signs of loneliness, so that trusted support is given early.
In the short time I have left, I want to go further into the topic of mental health. Colleagues mentioned that 10% of fathers suffer mental ill health at the time of a child’s birth. We need to do more to support them. The “DadPack” used in Cornwall to help young fathers is a great development, and I want to champion all such models. I thank colleagues for the examples they have given.
We have had an excellent debate. It is only the start of our trying to do better at supporting dads and young families. I look forward to engaging with hon. Members on this important issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered supporting fathers in early parenthood.
School Funding: Gloucestershire
(5 years, 10 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
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered school funding in Gloucestershire.
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I welcome the Minister to his place, and I welcome my Gloucestershire colleagues; I am sure they will have things to say, but I know they will be very brief, because I want to make some points.
I will start with the caveat that this debate is about schools funding. There was an excellent debate on a petition on college funding a couple of weeks ago, so I have restricted my remarks to schools funding, but many of them also apply to the college situation in our county. I will begin with four quick quotes:
“We are no longer at the ‘reduce your photocopying stage, provide your own pens and pencils’ stage in Gloucestershire. We are at the ‘don't expect a TA but do expect a class size of 35 and certainly don’t expect a payrise’ stage.”
Secondly:
“Inclusive schools like ours have to use 85% of the money intended to support vulnerable children with additional needs, to top up the Per Pupil Funding just to reach the same level as local selective schools. This is resulting in a two-tier education system where inclusive schools receive less money.”
Thirdly:
“One of the more tragic results of the cuts for our more vulnerable pupils will be the financial disincentive to give these children places. In an increasingly ‘competitive’ climate there will, sadly, be schools actively finding ways to turn these children away so they become someone else’s problem.”
Finally:
“Like many schools, we have had to set a deficit budget to protect the education of the children in our school. We are finding more children with significant complex educational needs are being placed with us who must be supported from existing budgets with a knock-on effect for the rest of the children within school.”
Those quotes were from a teacher in Gloucestershire, a headteacher of a comprehensive in Gloucestershire, a headteacher of a village primary school and, lastly, a governor.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, my neighbour, for giving way, and I have a lot of sympathy with the people he is quoting. Does he agree that we are spending a record amount on education, but the distribution system is totally unfair, and the difference between the highest-spending local authority and one of the lower-spending local authorities, such as Gloucestershire, is completely unfair?
Dr Drew
It is unfair. I will outline my own views on that; as someone who supported the f40 group for a long time, as did the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members, I think we have a distribution problem as well as a problem of how much money is in the pot.
The national background is a lack of funding. The Minister might have something to say about the 3.5% pay award, which is having a dramatic impact in all our schools. Staffing costs are rising, and we have faced particular downward pressure on pupils aged 16 to 18, with a 20% cut since 2010-11. I emphasise the cuts to special educational needs and disabilities provision, which mean that it has in no way kept pace with rising demand.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman share the experience I have encountered in schools such as the Ridge Academy, Belmont School and Bettridge School? Those schools have to deal with a cohort of pupils whose needs are far more complex than ever before, and that underlies part of the increased demand on their resources.
Dr Drew
That is a very fair point and I concur, but of course those other pupils who might have gone to Belmont and so on are now in mainstream schools, which is causing additional pressures on schools across the board. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that there was something like an 8% cut in real terms between 2009-10 and 2017-18. Although the Chancellor’s little extra might go some way, in reality it is only £50,000 per secondary school.
Let us come on to what we are really interested in: Gloucestershire and the national funding formula. In Gloucestershire, the national funding formula is still not producing a fairer redistribution of funds, as my neighbour the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) pointed out. Gloucestershire secondary schools remain near the bottom in league tables of school funding, ranked 130th out of 149 on schools block funding. According to the House of Commons Library, Gloucestershire secondary schools received £4,886 per pupil compared with the English average of £5,229, and primary schools received £3,949 compared with the average in England of £4,059.
Alex Chalk
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that some hon. Members in this House whose schools get far more than £5,200—some of them, I am afraid to say, Labour Members—were very indignant at the idea that schools in places such as Gloucestershire should get a bit more?
Dr Drew
There is a need to raise this issue for all our colleagues, which is what I am trying to do. I agree; it is not a party political issue, but crosses the spectrum, and we must all work together to do something. I am sure the Minister will have something to say about that in a minute.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. Is not one of the problems the fact that Gloucestershire is viewed as being a very rich county, but, although there certainly are areas of affluence, there are many that have special needs and deprivation? We need only look at the very different reading levels between schools even within one constituency. It seems to me that the current formulas do not take that properly into account.
Dr Drew
I agree; we know our county has areas of deprivation, which I will touch on. The new national funding formula suggests that about half of Gloucestershire’s 40 secondary schools will receive the minimum per pupil spend of £4,600 in 2019-20 and then £4,800 in 2020-21. We are not really catching up. That does not take into account the broad spectrum of need across our county.
I will move on to the acute problem of SEND. Gloucestershire has a special needs crisis; I do not use that word in anything other than its genuine definition. Gloucestershire’s predicted overspend on SEND is now set to be £4.7 million, up from £3.3 million last year. The number of children with education, health and care plans in Gloucestershire has almost doubled since 2015. The Government’s announcement in December of extra funding for SEND resulted in £1.35 million for Gloucestershire and led the council to withdraw its request to transfer funds from the schools block into high needs, which had led to some controversy, as my Conservative colleagues will know.
However, that was only a sticking-plaster; it is not a long-term strategy for addressing high needs overspend. As Gloucestershire County Council’s lead education officer, Stewart King, told the schools forum in January, the overspend puts Gloucestershire in
“a very serious and challenging position”.
GCC has also now reduced the financial support it provides for individual children with SEND. Schools are forced to pick up the financial burden of SEND support and are using general funds to meet additional needs, or are unable to meet the need of individual children. Even the Conservative-run county council has identified the problem. Councillor Richard Boyles, in letters that I have now received, identifies how much of a problem this is, and the council continues to ask us as MPs to lobby for a fairer funding formula. The impact of this funding crisis is clear: increased class sizes; a reduction in the number of teaching assistants; less support for SEND students; and a reduced curriculum. Many schools will also not be able to implement the full 3.5% pay rise, or if they are able to, they will have to make redundancies.
The pressure on places and rising class sizes, particularly in special schools, is where the acute need is most felt, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) said. We have to be sympathetic to that. However, there is also an issue with inclusivity, with schools that have taken the most vulnerable children facing the most difficult consequences, because we do not fund those children. High numbers of SEND children are hidden in the system.
The reality, as we now know, is that the majority of our primary schools are likely to face an in-year deficit. Quite simply, Minister, the schools do not have enough money. We can argue about the distribution issue, but at the moment the acute problem is that we need more money, particularly for SEND education.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman makes several good points. We would all like to see more money for schools in Gloucestershire, and he is right that secondary schools have faced considerable pressures. He is also correct to mention the £1.35 million SEND funding that the Government have given for both this year and next year. Those two years are guaranteed, and the Minister will no doubt want to say more on that. However, I am a bit puzzled by my distinguished constituency neighbour’s occasionally rather strong language. He referred in a tweet to deep, unjustified and ongoing cuts. That is not actually true, is it? The amount of money per primary and secondary school pupil in Gloucestershire has gone up and will go up further. Would he like to comment on the language we use as we lobby for more money?
Dr Drew
I will comment on that. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Although Brexit has completely overwhelmed Parliament, I have been inundated with comments from headteachers, teachers, teaching unions, parents and even some pupils. Their message is that they face cuts. We can argue about how much those cuts are and how they came about, but the reality is that they face cuts. That is what they say. I have another page of quotes that I could read out that say what the situation is like.
I hope the Minister does not feel that we disagree in any way generally. We are saying that, specifically because of the SEND situation, we now face a very difficult problem in Gloucestershire, which is having an impact across all schools. We need to do something about it, and I hope that the Government are sympathetic.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) about those people’s feelings. I suggest he talks to people from schools in his constituency, whom I presume feel very much the same as those in schools in my constituency: that is, that they have faced a lot of pressure, which is now beginning to feed into the system with dire consequences.
Richard Graham
The point is not what our constituents tell us. It is understandable that every parent, teacher and school should ask for more. The point is the language that we use. When the amount of money is actually going up, to talk about deep, unjustified and ongoing cuts is surely wrong. In a sense, the hon. Gentleman has confirmed that himself, because he removed that tweet within about four hours of posting it. Will he confirm, for the record, so that all our teachers and parents are clear, that there are not ongoing per-pupil funding cuts in Gloucestershire? That money is going up and will continue to do so, on which the Minister will no doubt tell us more.
Dr Drew
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. There are cuts. He should go into schools in his constituency and see what is happening. I have now received hundreds of responses from people at the sharp end who believe, maybe wrongly, that there are cuts. We can argue about the figures—the absolute figures may look better than the reality—but the situation is that the schools that I represent face some dire situations. That is why I am here today.
The hon. Gentleman can secure his own Adjournment debate and defend what is happening. However, I think I have more of the moral high ground, and I defend what I say because I believe that there are cuts. I do not think that it is in any way justifiable to conclude anything other than that we face a very difficult situation. I came here to pinpoint a particular problem—SEND funding—but within the wider environment of a difficult funding outlook for our county.
I intend to give the Minister plenty of time to respond, so I will not say much more. I will make three points in conclusion. First—the point I have really concentrated on—increasing SEND need has demanded a funding response that Gloucestershire has not been able to meet. That is why, despite what the hon. Gentleman says, our SEND funding will still be in deficit. That may be because more people are applying for EHCPs, but the reality is that they have to be able to meet the genuine demands of people who see their children suffer.
Secondly, this is not about scaremongering but about the reality of the impact of what has happened over a long period. The unfairness of the system dates back to the previous Labour Government, which is why I have always supported the national funding formula. The difficulty is that we are not there yet, and we will not get there for some considerable time. The reality is that the differential is getting worse in the short run, and we stand to be worse off. The hon. Member for The Cotswolds is nodding. I hope the Minister will do something about that.
Thirdly, I have just come from a drop-in session on children’s mental health. Children’s mental health is having a real impact on what we need to meet additional needs in our schools. These issues are having a real impact on our children at the moment, whether on their mental health or through our inability to deal with their special needs.
I hope the Minister is listening and that we can move forward on this. Even though we might disagree on certain aspects, five MPs from the county are here to say that the funding situation is not right and that it is affecting our pupils, staff, and parents and so on. I hope that the Minister will pay some urgent attention to us, so that we can begin to deal with this. I hope he will give me some good news.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies; I look forward to the 10 or 15 minutes ahead of us. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) on securing this important debate and on his introduction of it. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) for their important contributions. All of them continue to make strong representations to the Government about school funding in their area.
The Government are determined to create an education system that offers opportunity to everyone, no matter their circumstances or where they live. Schools must have the resources they need to make that happen. That is why we are investing more money in our schools, helping them to make the most out of every pound they receive, and delivering on our promise to make funding fairer through the introduction of the national funding formula. In 2017-18, funding was for the first time distributed to local areas based on the individual needs and characteristics of every school in the country. That will also happen in 2018-19, for the second year running. This historic reform is the biggest improvement to how we allocate school funding for a decade and directs resources where they are needed most.
We all want to ensure that all children, regardless of where they live, receive a world-class education. We have made significant progress on that, thanks in part to our reforms. The attainment gap between rich and poor children is shrinking, the proportion of pupils in good or outstanding schools has increased from 66% in 2010 to 84%, and primary school children have achieved their highest ever score on international reading tests.
While more money is going into schools than ever before, we recognise the budgeting challenges that schools face and that we are asking them to do more. Because of that, and because children only get one chance to have a great education, the Government have prioritised school spending, even while having to take difficult public spending decisions in other areas.
In total, across the country, core funding for schools and high needs will rise from almost £41 billion in 2017-18 to £43.5 billion in 2019-20. Figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies show that real-terms per-pupil funding for five to 16-year-olds in 2020 will be more than 50% higher than it was in 2000. We can compare ourselves favourably to other countries. The UK spends as much per pupil on primary and secondary state education as any major G7 economy in the world, apart from the United States of America.
As well as providing additional funding for schools, we have made funding fairer by introducing the national funding formula. Under the previous system, schools with similar pupil characteristics received significantly different levels of funding for no good reason, meaning that some schools were not getting the resources that they needed. That is why it is so important that we have delivered on our promise to reform the unfair school and high-needs funding systems and introduce a national funding formula. Government Members have been particularly active over the years, through the f40 group, in ensuring that we have a fairer funding system.
Schools are already benefiting from the gains delivered by the national funding formula. Since 2017, we have given every local authority more money for every pupil in every school, while allocating the biggest increases to the schools that have been most underfunded. The underfunded schools will attract up to 6% more per pupil by 2019-20, compared with 2017-18. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester is absolutely right to insist on care in how we use language. He will be aware that the School Cuts website has been criticised by the UK Statistics Authority for some of the things stated on that website.
Gloucestershire schools will receive gains of 3.1% per pupil by next year, compared with 2017-18. That will mean an extra £19 million in total when rising pupil numbers are also factored in. On high needs, we have recently announced that we will provide £250 million of extra funding across England over this financial year and the next. In Gloucestershire, that means that the local authority will receive an additional £2.7 million across this year and the next, on top of the increases that were already promised.
It is important to keep it in mind that the purpose of the national funding formula is not to give every school the same level of per-pupil funding. Although that would be simple, it would not be fair. It is right that schools that have pupils with additional needs, such as those indicated by measures of deprivation or low prior attainment, should get extra funding to help those pupils. In addition, schools in more expensive areas, such as London, require higher funding per pupil to reflect the higher costs that they face. That extra funding is vital to support children who face greater barriers in education, be that because they come from a disadvantaged background, have low prior attainment or speak English as an additional language. Every child deserves to get the help that they need to reach their full potential, and that is why the national funding formula has protected the £5.9 billion of funding for additional needs across the system.
We do recognise the challenges faced by the lowest funded schools. In the national funding formula, we have included minimum per-pupil funding levels to guarantee that every school will attract a minimum amount of funding for every pupil. In 2019-20, the formula will provide at least £4,800 per pupil for every secondary school and £3,500 for every primary school. In Gloucestershire, secondary schools in particular benefit from that measure, with about half of secondary schools attracting extra funding as a result. We have not limited gains for schools benefiting from the minimum amounts, so the very lowest funded schools will see their funding increase fastest, and some schools will attract gains of 10% or more by 2019-20.
Alex Chalk
Does my right hon. Friend the Minister agree that it is very important that we look into the causes of why high needs provision, in particular, is coming under the pressure that it now is? We have the Milestone School, the Ridge Academy, Belmont School and Bettridge School—so many excellent special schools—but the reality is that they face such huge demands now and we have not really got to the bottom of the reason for that. Is it issues in childbirth? Whatever it is, we need to get to the bottom of it.
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. That is something that the Department is looking at very carefully. There are reasons for it, and we know what they are. They are to do with medical advances, the use of private schools—private special schools—and so on. We are providing capital funding to help particular local authorities that have much higher high needs expenditure to address those issues. There is a capital pot and also a development fund, to help them to make those important decisions.
We acknowledge that the national funding formula represents a big change to the funding system. We understand the importance of stability to schools and we want to ensure that there is a smooth transition. We have therefore confirmed that for the next two years, local authorities will continue to be responsible for setting school budgets at local level. I may have got my years wrong at the beginning of this contribution: 2018-19 is of course the first year of the funding formula and 2019-20 is the second year. We have also confirmed that, in 2020-21, we will allow local authorities to use their local funding formula to allocate the funds. But we will allocate the funds to local authorities on the basis of the national funding formula.
We are pleased to see significant progress across the system in moving towards the national funding formula in its first year. Many local authorities have chosen to move towards the national funding formula locally, with 73 local authorities moving all their factor values towards the NFF, and 41 matching the NFF factor values almost exactly. It is the case that 112 authorities, including Gloucestershire, have introduced a minimum per-pupil funding level factor in their local formula. I am very pleased that so many authorities across the country are showing such strong support for our national formula.
Alongside the local flexibility, we recognise that there needs to be a degree of discretion locally to change the balance between schools and high needs funding. Although we want schools to benefit from all the gains and protections afforded by the national funding formula, it will take time for spending to be aligned to the allocations calculated at national level. The ongoing flexibility will help to ensure that the transition to the formula takes place in a way that best meets the needs of local schools and pupils.
We are committed to supporting children with special educational needs and disabilities to reach their full potential, and we expect all schools to play their part. That is why we have reformed the funding system to take particular account of children and young people with additional needs, and introduced a new formula allocation to make the funding for those with high needs fairer. As mentioned previously, we have recently announced that we will provide £250 million of additional funding for high needs throughout England over this financial year and the next. We recognise that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham has said, the high needs budget faces significant pressures, and that additional investment will help local authorities to manage them.
Of course, the response to pressures on high needs budgets cannot just be additional funding. That is why we have also set out plans to support local authorities in their role of providing strategic leadership and oversight of the provision for children and young people with SEND. We have announced other measures to support local authorities: a £100 million top-up to the special provision capital fund for local authorities in 2019-20 for new places and improved facilities; the removal of the cap on the number of special and alternative provision free school bids that we approve in the current wave; reviewing current SEND content in initial teacher training provision; and ensuring a sufficient supply of educational psychologists to carry out the statutory functions in relation to the EHCP process, and to support teachers and families. We will continue to engage with local authorities, health providers, families, schools and colleges to work together to manage the cost pressures on high needs budgets and ensure that children with special educational needs and disabilities get the support that they need and deserve.
We recognise that schools have faced cost pressures in recent years. That is why we have announced a strategy setting out the support that we will provide—current and planned—to help schools to make savings on the more than £10 billion of non-staff expenditure across England.
Richard Graham
Does the Minister agree that the key thing is not that funding has been cut but that costs have increased and therefore the issue is how we can share best practice among schools in order to make savings that will help to reduce any deficit that they might have?
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend is right. We do want to spread best practice. We have a cadre of school resource managers to help schools that are particularly struggling with their budgets to find savings. Other measures are national buying schemes for things such as printers and photocopiers and the roll-out of a free teacher vacancy listing website to help schools to find teachers and drive down recruitment costs, which are a big burden on schools at the moment. We have created a benchmarking website for schools that allows them to compare their costs with those of other schools.
I again thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. I reiterate our commitment to providing every child with the opportunity to reach their potential. The extra investment that we are making in our schools, the fairer distribution of school funding, and support to use those resources to best effect, will help us to make that a reality.
Question put and agreed to.
Zimbabwe
(5 years, 10 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
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the situation in Zimbabwe.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. May I say how pleased I was to secure the debate at this particular time? I welcome the fact that the present Minister for Africa, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin); the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes); and a former Minister for Africa, the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) are here.
Most people will remember the euphoria—we saw it—in Zimbabwe just over a year ago, in 2017, when the long-serving President Mugabe was ousted in what can only be called a form of military coup. There was such hope then that after the years of oppression, unemployment and fear, real change was coming. At the time, some of us did point out that Mnangagwa had been very much part of the Mugabe regime and, indeed, had played quite a sinister role in the horrendous slaughter of thousands of people in Matabeleland back in the period from 1983 to 1987. Of course, he was joined by Chiwenga as vice-president. He had been the head of the combined defence forces and also played a very important role in the terrible situation in Matabeleland. But all of us who love Zimbabwe and know the potential of that beautiful country still hoped that change was going to happen.
The elections held last summer were another crucial milestone. It is worth remembering that elections in Zimbabwe since 2002 had been both violent and rigged. In 2008, the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission took more than five weeks to declare the result, and more than 270 activists, almost all belonging to the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, were killed. The polls in 2013 were relatively peaceful, but regarded internationally as rigged. The electoral voting rolls were grossly manipulated in favour of voters in rural areas, where ZANU-PF had the greatest support.
Shortly before last year’s elections, the hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) and I visited Zimbabwe to get a feeling for what was happening there before the elections and to report back to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association on the possibilities of a free and fair election and how, if there were free and fair elections, we in this Parliament might engage with Zimbabwe’s Parliament. We met a whole range of people, from Government, political parties, business and civil society.
We reported back on the very different atmosphere—certainly compared with what I had seen on my many visits during the worst of the troubles in Zimbabwe—the open presence of troops, police having disappeared from the streets, and the roadblocks where police used to demand money having disappeared. We did query a number of issues that were seen during the electoral process and particularly the fact that the new constitution that had been signed up to was not being adhered to. Access to the media was not being honoured. There were still problems with the electoral rolls. And we felt that the electoral commission was not showing a strong enough and openly transparent view that it was determined to have free elections. We warned in our report that although there would not be the violence around the election that there had been in the past, there was a real danger of its being another stolen election, and that the bar for a free and fair election was actually set very low.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady not just for securing this debate, but for her courage and tenacity in pursuing the issues that she has. Does she agree that because there is no violence in situations such as the one that she describes, there is very often an assumption in the international consciousness that elections have been free and fair when in fact, on many occasions, including the one that she is outlining, they are anything but?
Kate Hoey
Yes; the hon. Gentleman is right. The absence of violence specifically at the polling stations and so on was remarkable—there was not any—but that does not mean that the election was free and fair. Very often elections are rigged before election day, and then there is what happens afterwards. Of course, it was what happened after the election that night, literally, that made people feel that it was not free and fair.
Mnangagwa was declared the winner by the electoral commission, which was severely criticised for its way of dealing with the count and the delay, again, in making the announcement of the presidential result. We had in the country two Members of the House of Lords, Baroness Jay and Lord Hayward, who I am very pleased is here observing today’s debate. They went to the elections formally, to represent the Commonwealth —as part of the Commonwealth delegation—because of course Zimbabwe has applied to be a member of the Commonwealth again. It was very important that the Commonwealth was there. In fact, both Lord Hayward and Baroness Jay saw some of the trouble that happened immediately afterwards. Baroness Jay was in the hotel when the soldiers came in to stop an MDC press conference. Later, some totally innocent Zimbabweans were gunned down in the street by the army—some people were shot in the back. The international community, on the whole—I think that this applies to all the observers—made the point that the election was slightly freer and fairer, but there was not an overwhelming feeling that it was a wonderful Zimbabwean election and democracy was really back at its best.
Of course, since the election, the economy has got even worse. Mnangagwa made a great issue of the fact that Zimbabwe was open for business—the world could come and invest again; there was going to be this absolute change. That did not actually happen. There are huge shortages of food and other important goods. More recently, on 12 January this year, Mnangagwa announced a huge—200%—increase in the price of fuel. That was in a country in which very few people could afford the fuel price as it was, and it led to Zimbabwe, of all countries in the world, having the highest fuel prices. It was just not tenable, and people reacted. The trade unions, which have shown great courage throughout all of this, called for a countrywide “stay away” in protest, and there were demonstrations. There is no doubt that some of the younger people, unemployed people, were very angry, and probably some looting did go on in parts of Bulawayo and Harare, but what the army and the Government did was to respond immediately with huge, excessive force, which left 12 people dead and up to 100 with gunshot wounds, and hundreds of people were lifted in the middle of the night, imprisoned and denied bail.
Over the last couple of weeks, we have seen pretty horrific images showing what has been happening to people on the ground: not just MDC activists, although that is bad enough—it is shocking that many of them have been lifted in the middle of the night, taken away and still are not getting legal representation or any support—but “ordinary” Zimbabweans who were seen to be in areas where there was support for the opposition.
What was also done—it was a very clever move, because all of us know just how much social media has changed the nature of reporting in Africa—was that the internet was closed down, shut down, and was out of action for some three days. That made a huge difference because, as is shown in all the letters that have come out and the reports that we have seen, people felt absolutely isolated in their homes. They were in the dark; there was no electricity. Roads were closed, transport had stopped, schools were closed—everything was closed—and there was no social media, no way to contact people. That was, I believe, a deliberate strategy to cut down the information getting out of the country, and of course that leads to more worry, more concern, and a feeling that everybody has abandoned them. We saw the numbers involved.
Sky News had a very good film, which again showed the army acting, in uniform and with absolute impunity, against innocent passers-by.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
I have already asked the hon. Lady to forgive me for having to leave before the end of this important debate. She has consistently done wonderful work with her group. I thank the Minister of State, who, when I returned from Zimbabwe, calmed some of my enthusiasm regarding Mr Mnangagwa and the situation there, about which she and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) have proved to be dramatically right.
Does the hon. Lady agree with me that this pattern of behaviour during this period was clearly planned beforehand, and that it looks very much like the President left the country in order to come back and criticise it when he got home, and that this is part of a pattern that is totally unacceptable? Does she also agree that we must make the strongest possible representations to the Zimbabwean Government on behalf of the British Government?
Kate Hoey
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his years of support and work. I know how much he cares for Zimbabwe. He is absolutely right. There was this idea that Mnangagwa left the country as soon as the fuel price rose, to go to Russia and begin a tour of different countries—not countries that we would necessarily see as our best friends—to try to bring in some investment. I think that was absolutely deliberate, because he could then say that he had nothing to do with what was happening. Chiwenga, who is seen as the person who wants to eventually take over, was very much in charge.
The systematic abuse and actual torture of individuals continues as we speak. The women who have been raped by soldiers have nowhere to report these crimes, because the rule of law in Zimbabwe has broken down. The Law Society of Zimbabwe has issued a statement raising its concerns about how all the legal cases of the people who were arrested have been conducted. It is a shocking indictment of what used to be a really good legal system. Zimbabwe was way ahead of most of the rest of Africa, in terms of rights and its attitude to the law.
People have said how they felt in the middle of this. People were too afraid to move around, because of the burning of vehicles. They knew that many of the soldiers were doing this, but not in uniform. The Zimbabwean Government had the audacity to think that people would believe their story that these people had gone to army barracks or police stations, stolen the uniforms and then taken part in this activity. Of course, that was complete nonsense. I could go on for a long time about all the terrible things that have happened, but there is no doubt that Mnangagwa knew what was going on. Whatever he has said about what he will do, nothing has happened—none of the responsible people have been prosecuted.
For me, one of the most dangerous things is how the constitution is being completely ignored and the level to which the rule of law has been trampled on by the Executive, the army, the police, the National Prosecuting Authority and some elements of the judiciary. One eminent politician, Innocent Gonese, who is the secretary for justice and legal affairs in the opposition party, said in a letter:
“I never thought I would ever live long enough to witness levels of such depravity, cruelty, callousness and downright disdain and contempt of the right of the citizens as enshrined in our Constitution and our statutes. While our country has had a history of serious violations of human rights starting from the years of colonial rule and repression and the epochs of gukurahundi, murambatsvina and the dark days of June 2008, the people thought that we had turned a corner in November 2017 with the demise of the former strongman Robert Mugabe.
Sadly it has turned out to be a false dawn. The actors may have changed with the removal of Robert Mugabe and some of his henchmen, but the script has remained the same if not worse.”
I find that pretty horrific, because we saw such dreadful things and now it seems that it is all happening again.
What can we do? First, we cannot ignore what is happening. I am pleased that the Minister called in the Zimbabwean ambassador. I am sure she will tell us more about that. We have to use our position where we can to influence and work with the South African Government and the Botswana Government. I know there is an Africa conference coming up in the next week or two; I do not know whether the Minister is going. We have to be clear that we are calling for the end of the deployment of the military. They have to go back into their barracks. We have to get the United Nations to say that and to make a strong statement on the rule of law.
We need a complete, absolute condemnation of the way that citizens’ internet access was closed down. We need to call for an independent investigation of the human rights violations, to be led by the African Union or the United Nations. We have to find out who gave the orders. It was the same with the people who were killed just after the election—we never really got to the bottom of who had given the orders. The investigation ended up being a whitewash. We need to investigate that, because the commission of inquiry in the post-2018 elections did not get to the bottom of it.
We have to be very clear—the United Kingdom Government have to be very clear—that the international community should completely suspend any initiatives related to re-engaging with the Zimbabwean Government. It is unacceptable, in my view, even to be talking about debt restructuring and private sector investment while so many Zimbabwean civilians are being assaulted and killed.
Ultimately, the sanctions we have now are very low. I am not suggesting that we go back to sanctions, because after the feeling that there was some hope for change, sanctions gave the Zimbabwean Government the opportunity to say, “The world doesn’t like us. It is only these sanctions that are causing all the difficulties.” Of course, there are no sanctions now, so they cannot say that. However, we may have to look at reviewing sanctions, particularly regarding travel. Mnangagwa got—I am not into aircraft—one of the top planes that can be hired, to go off on his trip. It cost thousands and thousands of dollars, while there are no medicines in the hospitals. Mnangagwa did not actually go to Davos. He left, because I think he knew that if he had gone to Davos, he would have received huge criticism, even there.
We are seeing crimes against humanity. Senator David Coltart, who many hon. Members will know, has made it very clear that crimes against humanity are still being committed. We have to engage very strongly with South Africa and Botswana, as I said. We have to ask the South African Government to really engage. We have not seen the criticism that could have come from South Africa.
Sir Nicholas Soames
Does the hon. Lady agree that, very unfortunately, this is a part of the South Africans’ failure to take seriously what is happening in Zimbabwe, and their failure on earlier occasions to criticise? They claim it is a reluctance to do so. It is a long-standing reluctance, which has been in place for many years. If they wish to be considered as a leading player in Africa on the diplomatic front, they need to exercise their will and their considerable power.
Kate Hoey
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The South African Government need to realise—I cannot believe they do not—just how important they could be in this. They could be a real beacon, acting in the interests of the people of Zimbabwe, rather than standing back and saying virtually nothing.
I want to pay tribute to the opposition in Zimbabwe. I have known Nelson Chamisa for a long time. When I first went undercover, he was one of the people who helped to show us around in very difficult circumstances. He is incredibly brave and very charismatic. He did an enormously powerful job in getting people involved in huge rallies, including young people and people who had never been politically involved before. Despite some people, perhaps even in his own party, he has continued to talk clearly about a peaceful future and a peaceful role. Despite his being accused of all sorts of things by the Government, we should give him huge credit for his role.
I have a couple of questions to ask the Minister. Although it is clear that Zimbabwe’s application for readmission to the Commonwealth has been seriously set back, there are aspects of the Commonwealth process and engagement, particularly with the people of Zimbabwe, that deserve support. We need to remind people that it is not the United Kingdom that decides whether Zimbabwe will go back into the Commonwealth, but the Commonwealth. Perhaps we have a bit more influence, but we certainly do not make that decision on our own. Are Her Majesty’s Government ensuring that the excellent work of the Commonwealth Local Government Forum on strengthening democracy at a local level is well funded and supported by the UK and other Commonwealth countries? Local democracy is an important building block at the grassroots level.
Is the Minister still engaged in helping to support charities such as ZANE—Zimbabwe a National Emergency, which has done so much to help older people who have been left destitute? The pension issue has still not been sorted. One or two hon. Members have made that a big issue. I await the Minister’s view on that.
There has been a worrying trend recently, which may stop again now, of some of the Zimbabwean diaspora being sent back as part of the euphoria about the supposedly new regime. The Zimbabwe Vigil, which carries out a vigil on Saturday afternoons outside the Zimbabwean embassy and has maintained its solidarity and support for people in Zimbabwe, is worried that the Home Office is perhaps being too quick off the mark to send people back there where they could be taken into custody.
Will the Minister confirm that the Her Majesty’s Government, and particularly the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, have learned a lesson from what I would call the ill-advised cosying-up to the Zimbabwean leadership, which owed its position, power and loyalty to the military and political machine that manoeuvred to install it and not to the people of Zimbabwe through a free and fair electoral process? I will not go into more detail; the Minister knows what I am talking about. There is no doubt that our embassy in Zimbabwe had become too identified, rightly or wrongly—I think wrongly—with ZANU-PF. A new ambassador, Melanie Robinson, has just started in Zimbabwe and there are good reports about how she is settling in. On behalf of all hon. Members present and the all-party group, I wish her the very best in that difficult job.
I want to make sure that the Minister realises that those of us who urged caution, particularly Zimbabweans who have long had to cope with the machinations of ZANU-PF brutality and the manipulation of international opinion, were rebuffed by some officials in our embassy who thought that they knew better. I hope that we have learned that lesson. I pay tribute to all the people in Zimbabwe who have continued to work for democracy, and all the members of the all-party group and everyone in this House who will not let Zimbabwe be forgotten.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I praise the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) for securing the debate and for the tireless work she does through the all-party group, which is one of the most exceptional groups in the House, among many candidates. She spoke of how members of the Zimbabwean opposition have been fearless, but she has been pretty fearless over the years in going to Zimbabwe. As she noted, her most recent trip was funded by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which I chair. I encourage other hon. Members with specific interests in countries to come to us if they want funding for that type of trip.
In private, I have occasionally accused the hon. Member for Vauxhall of being a bit pessimistic. I was always more optimistic about Zimbabwe as Minister for Africa and, subsequently, through the Commonwealth. Sadly, again, she has been proven right and a realist about the situation—the reality held up. That is a lesson not just for our ambassadors but for many others who go into Zimbabwe but perhaps do not have the decades of experience that the hon. Member for Vauxhall has.
Although I do not have the same experience, I have a long-standing interest in Zimbabwe. When I worked for Barclays in Africa, when things were doing well, all the pan-African IT for Barclays was run out of Harare—as, in fact, were all the IT systems for the whole Caribbean. That seems somewhat ridiculous, given the current situation.
Like many, I want Zimbabwe to return to being a prosperous nation state with proper elections, and I want it back as part of the Commonwealth family. Prior to the elections, however, I was premature in calling for it to be brought back into the family in a less conditional environment. I am still a bit more optimistic than the hon. Member for Vauxhall about keeping up engagement—what was called incremental engagement—which revolved around trying to move forward a little when there were some changes on the other side.
The news coming out of Zim is not only disturbing but wholly unacceptable. In the wake of peaceful civilian protests, the security forces launched brutal crackdowns across Harare and the country. Excess force and brutality, arrests and detentions are being used by the police and soldiers—and they are arbitrary arrests, because there is no law enforcement. That needs to stop.
In Rochford and Southend East, there are 889 people of Zimbabwean heritage, which is about 1% of my constituents. I have heard directly from them horrific tales and allegations about the systemic use of violence and torture by the armed and uniformed members of the Zimbabwe National Army and the Zimbabwe Republic Police, particularly in high-density areas outside Harare and in the suburbs.
One story recounted to me relates to a young man who lives in Budiriro, a high-density suburb in the south-west of Harare. He was rounded up with his neighbours and brutally set upon by police. His only crime appeared to be that he lived in the wrong street. Groups of young men had been setting up roadblocks on neighbouring streets and stopping and throwing stones at a few of the cars that remained despite the high petrol prices. The police were sent in and, instead of investigating the complaints, went round to all the homes near the roadblocks and dragged out and beat all the young men who were there, regardless of whether they were involved or not—collective punishment of the community for what had been done by a few. Some of those men are being held without charges or representation, and with no food or water. We cannot condone or accept that behaviour.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
That story is horrific, but the problem lies subsequent to that, as they have no legal remedy because the judiciary is not independent. A number of lawyers have been protesting in the streets in the last few months. What should we be doing to support those lawyers who are trying to get an independent judiciary?
James Duddridge
There is lots that we can do. The hon. Member for Vauxhall talked about the problems of the legal service. It is worse—the Government are directing the courts as to what to do. There is a series of long-term actions, such as working through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and other Commonwealth countries, but at the moment, the Government in Zimbabwe are simply not listening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) describes the situation as terrible, but unfortunately, I have not got to some of the worst bits, which gives me no pleasure to say. There have been several reports about the use of sexual violence, in particular. On 23 January, ITV reported rape claims against soldiers during the unrest. It is my understanding that ITV has met 11 women, all of whom said they were sexually assaulted—that is to say, raped—and that their attackers were members of the Zimbabwean army. This appears to have been systemic and organised use of sexual violence, which should concern us even more than isolated cases of sexual violence.
The reports of death tolls have been varied and, I suspect, understated. Amnesty said that eight people were killed when police and military fired on crowds, while the Zimbabwean Government said only three people were killed, including a policeman who was stoned to death by an angry crowd. The Zimbabwe Association of Doctors for Human Rights has said that doctors had treated 68 cases of gunshot wounds and more than 100 other cases of
“assaults with sharp objects, baton sticks”,
and they had seen people left with marks on their bodies after being kicked or stamped on with boots.
Notwithstanding the statement on Zimbabwe by my hon. Friend the Minister for Africa on 17 January and the representations that were made by the Secretary of State on 22 January, we need to ramp up our representations to our Zimbabwean counterparts. We need to remind them of their international obligations on human rights and freedom of opinion and expression, and about the results of the use of excessive force, as evidenced by the injuries that were documented in medical records; those are not just vague accusations.
President Emmerson Mnangagwa cut short his foreign trip, which had been largely aimed at raising foreign exchange and returning investment. He returned to Zimbabwe to stabilise the situation. Well, I have not seen any stabilisation of the situation. I listened very carefully to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) and the hon. Member for Vauxhall, who felt that the situation had been pre-prepared: petrol prices were put up; then, the President removed himself from the country; and there was a purge. I suspect that they are probably right.
Earlier, I had wondered whether there might be something else going on, namely that the military were taking greater control, as they did when there was the earlier coup that led to Mugabe being ousted. I wondered who really is in control of the country; is it the President or is it his Vice-President, the former army general, Constantino Chiwenga? Chiwenga was the muscle behind the November 2017 push that forced Mugabe to resign and I just wonder what is going on behind the scenes. The President is clearly responsible, whether or not he directed or planned the violence; he is the President of the country.
I support the points made by a number of people about getting South Africa involved and I urge that we try to get South Africa involved at both a Government level and an African National Congress level; the ANC contacts with ZANU-PF are even more credible than the normal channels. More broadly, there is a role for the Southern African Development Community, although Botswana, Zimbabwe’s neighbour, is particularly influential.
I am not a great fan of sending great missives from the UN, which feels very distant from African countries when they have problems. However, if the UN can do something in co-ordination with the African Union, led by Zimbabwe’s near-neighbours, such as South Africa and Botswana, through SADC, that would probably complete the loop and it would give the authority and voice of the UN to Zimbabwe’s local peers when they criticise the country.
I fear that the perpetrators and masterminds behind the systematic violence will be emboldened, not by our indifference or by what we say, but by what we do. We are very limited in what we can do, but we must try to do more. I also fear that there will be an increased open militarisation of the country, with further disregard for civil law and further unrest. In all conscience, we cannot allow that to happen.
Before the elections, I had hoped to welcome Zimbabwe back to the Commonwealth; I had hoped that more investment would come in; and I welcomed the CDC investment in Zimbabwe. I still think that that is the right route for the country to take ultimately. However, it seems less and less credible for us to support investment in Zimbabwe while the atrocities take place, although I am mindful that if British money does not come in, then Israeli, Russian or Chinese money, which would be less conditional money, will come in. I do not worry about that happening from the perspective of investment returns or British national interest; I worry about it because doing business in countries such as Zimbabwe allows us to leverage our influence within them. So, there is a fine balance to be struck.
I hope that I am proved right in my long-term optimism and I hope that the hon. Member for Vauxhall is wrong in her sometimes pessimistic attitude. However, I fear that yet again she is right. She is being a friend of Zimbabwe, but also a realist, and I thank her again for making an enormous contribution and for securing this debate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate under your chairmanship, Mrs Main.
First of all, I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) on bringing this issue forward for consideration. I will place it on the record that she is undoubtedly a true democrat—the honour that she has shown this country by honouring the referendum vote is something that I sincerely wish was emulated by others in her party. She has done that very well, I congratulate her on it and we look forward to working with her on many other issues as we move forward.
Over the years, I have had a particular interest in Zimbabwe—or Rhodesia, as it was formerly—because I have a number of Zimbabweans who have come to live in my constituency who have lost their farms, their property and in some cases everything they had bar the clothes on their back. They fled the lovely country of Zimbabwe.
When I was a young man starting off on life’s road, the Prime Minister of Rhodesia was Ian Smith; those of us who are of a certain vintage will recall him. I always remember his saying, because I have used those words myself many times, when he made a unilateral declaration of independence and separated himself from the United Kingdom and from the Commonwealth: “This is not the end. It’s not even the beginning of the end. It is perhaps the end of the beginning.”
If only Zimbabwe was at the beginning of a process. We had hoped that, with the election of President Emmerson Mnangagwa, there would be a normalisation of the economy and a repairing of relations with multilateral institutions. We had hoped that his election would bring a new beginning, but unfortunately it has not. Indeed, the most recent clashes in Zimbabwe earlier this month were prompted in part by a sharp hike in fuel prices, which has made petrol and diesel in the country the most expensive in the world. So we can understand why people are up in arms.
Inflation in Zimbabwe is very high. Probably the only country that beats Zimbabwe for inflation is Venezuela, where inflation is running at 1 million per cent. and is predicted to be 10 million per cent. by the end of the year—unless, of course, there are new elections and Venezuela’s Opposition leader is elevated to the position of President.
What has happened in Zimbabwe has been the first glimmer of democracy in many years and yet it is clear that there is not democracy there just yet; there can be no true democracy without fear-free elections.
In my constituency, I have a number of churches that do missionary work in Swaziland and Zimbabwe. They are very active in education. They are the Elim Missions, whose headquarters is in Newtownards, in my constituency. There are very active Elim churches in my constituency, and indeed in nearby constituencies. I see that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is here in the Public Gallery today; there is a very active Elim church in her constituency, and there is also one in Belfast East. Collectively, they do some fantastic work in education, health and helping young people. There is also the issue of medication and HIV/AIDS, which is very prevalent in Zimbabwe.
I am well known as someone who believes in foreign aid. I believe that we should provide help in a sustainable manner to those who cannot help themselves: rather than giving them a fish, we should give them a net; and rather than have a farming show, we should show people how to farm. The ways in which we can help go on and on.
For Zimbabwe to have gone from being the breadbasket of Africa—as it was once, in its heyday, and continued to be even when Mugabe first took over—to the poverty-stricken nation that it is now is simply heartbreaking, and I sincerely believe that Zimbabweans must be helped. In this debate, we are very conscious of how we can help the ordinary Zimbabwean people.
Successful farmers helped the economy by creating jobs and wealth, but their land and farms were seized. There has been murder, destruction, the stealing of land and, as referred to by the hon. Members for Vauxhall and for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), sexual violence and the rape of women, who have been violated. It is totally wrong that those involved in the Zimbabwe army are those who are responsible for the bestiality that we have seen in recent days.
However, it is also clear that Zimbabweans need more than simply our help in the form of foreign aid funding. The Library briefing makes something abundantly clear:
“In 2018 the UK government gave support to international and local election monitoring initiatives, including £5 million specifically to support election-related work.”
There was an onus on, and perhaps a need for us in this country to ensure that the elections were free and not corrupt, so that any illegalities did not take place. Unfortunately, it was not shown that the election was entirely fair. There were many violations and concerns were expressed. As a Christian, I pray for many countries in the world, including Zimbabwe, because we hope it can reach the democratic process, and also because I have many brothers and sisters in that country who are also Christians, and I am very conscious of that.
UK-Zimbabwe trade and investment has been at low levels over the past decade and sensitive to political and economic uncertainty. In May 2018, the CDC Group, the UK Government’s development finance institution, announced an investment facility, in partnership with Standard Chartered Bank, that would lend some US $100 million to growing businesses in Zimbabwe—a really good idea. It was reportedly the first commercial loan by a British entity to Zimbabwe in over 20 years. Again, we as a country were trying to help Zimbabwe in the new democracy that was hopefully going to unfold, and we hoped that they would do better. In 2017, Zimbabwe was the UK’s 14th-largest export market in Africa, accounting for 2% of UK exports to Africa, and the 13th-largest source of imports from Africa, accounting for 1% of UK imports from Africa. So there were key economic links going out and coming in. Globally, Zimbabwe was the UK’s 91st-largest export market and the 108th-largest source of imports. We want to trade with Zimbabwe, but we also have to ensure that Zimbabwe has a democratic process and democratic institutions that work.
Let us look at what has happened recently. The hon. Members for Vauxhall and for Rochford and Southend East have already referred to this. The internet was deliberately stopped by the Government for three days; roads, schools and banks are closed; the very fabric of society has broken down; hundreds of people have been arrested simply because they were protesting about the hike in the price of fuel and food. If people and their families are starving and the new President has told them there will be a brand-new beginning, no wonder they ask, “Where is this new beginning?” People were unable to communicate for the most basic of reasons, all to ensure that no message could be spread other than the ZANU-PF propaganda.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall mentioned some of the reports on TV, which I have seen as well. The TVs did not lie. Behind the army trucks in Zimbabwe were soldiers kicking, beating and taking violent action against innocents on the street. So I ask this question: whenever the evidential base is there, how come action is not taken?
Kate Hoey
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he has mentioned the media and television; I want to praise Christina Lamb, The Sunday Times international reporter, for her work and the reports that she has brought back, which graphically describe some of the abuses that the hon. Gentleman talks about.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She reiterates the facts of the case that we all know of. There is evidence of violence, corruption, attacks on women, and the stealing of property. I do not say that everyone is innocent; some looting has taken place, but that does not take away from the overall corruption within the new Government. Such attacks are not the actions of a democratic Government. They are the actions displayed by Mugabe during his dictatorship, which we thought we had got rid of. Very little has changed, which is so sad, but it must change if we are to continue working so closely with the Government.
It is believed that Zimbabwe’s application to rejoin the Commonwealth, submitted in May 2018, having withdrawn from the organisation in 2003, is being considered, and the Government said in April 2018 that they would
“strongly support Zimbabwe’s re-entry”.
To me, Zimbabwe has done little to engender that level of support and we need to be very careful about what we do. Membership of the Commonwealth has many facets: respect for the Queen, respect for others, and dedication to running a country in a democratic way. So are we really supporting Zimbabwe by bringing it back into the Commonwealth, which I would love to see, but with conditions that have to be met? We cannot expect it to come in willy-nilly and continue what it is doing. Should we really support that at this time? Should we be willing to observe, monitor and regulate what is happening? I understand that membership of the Commonwealth allows us perhaps to have a greater influence that we can use for the good of some countries, but if the millions that we pour in are not influencing—this is the question I ask—I fail to see how our support of membership will influence.
In conclusion, I understand that changes are not made overnight, but there has been time and there has been no improvement for the people on the farms—the breadbaskets of Zimbabwe. There has been time, but no improvement for schoolchildren and teachers who have small wages and not even books in schools; no improvement for patients and doctors, so money needs to be spent there; and no sign of change. We must make it clear that giving time is not the answer. Action is the only answer, and we must see it now.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am grateful for the opportunity to begin the summing up in this debate, Mrs Main. I commend the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) for securing the debate and thank her for a very informative summary of where Zimbabwe has been in the recent past. She put into context what has been happening there in the past few weeks. The hon. Members for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) have contributed their own knowledge, highlighting the underlying problems that have to be addressed before Zimbabwe can be returned to its people. Truly fundamental in the governance of any country is that the people should be allowed to govern themselves. The country should be governed in the interests of the people and not only in the interests of those who govern.
In any debate about alleged human rights abuses in another country there are two principles that we have to observe. First, we have to recognise the rights of nations to govern themselves. We have no right to interfere in the internal affairs of another country in normal circumstances. What is happening in Zimbabwe now cannot be allowed to become normal circumstances, because the sovereignty of individual nations has to be tempered by the fact that there are standards of behaviour and fundamental human rights that transcend all national borders. Where there is evidence that the power of the state is being abused to deny fundamental human rights, the international community, countries individually and collectively, have not only a right but a duty to intervene to set things right, initially through political and diplomatic efforts, but if necessary by the use of economic influence as well. I certainly take on board the caution advised by the hon. Member for Vauxhall about using economic sanctions, because too often the sanctions punish the victims without having any impact on the perpetrators.
There are obvious difficulties in knowing what exactly has been happening in Zimbabwe, but some things are clear and unambiguous, giving grounds for serious concern among the international community. I think they add up to overwhelming evidence that the international community has got to intervene.
There were large-scale protests after massive price increases left millions of Zimbabweans unable to afford the basic essentials of life. There were people with jobs who could not get to work because the bus fare was more than they would be paid. The police and army intervened in the protests and there has been significant loss of life, and significant numbers of people have been injured. Reliable reports are that at least 12 people have been killed, and 78 others were treated for gunshot wounds. A significant number were treated for other injuries. The Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission, a body appointed by the Zimbabwean Government, has identified at least 240 cases of assault and torture. We should commend the commission for having the courage to speak out. Many institutions in Zimbabwe, even if they are not put under the cosh by the Government, sometimes think that they are there to do the Government’s bidding. It is all the more remarkable that the human rights commission is publishing such specific, utterly damning indictments of the country’s Government.
More than 700 people have been arrested. Often, as the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East said, there are wholesale arrests, when anyone who happens to be in a house close to an alleged incident is arrested, usually with extreme violence. People are often viciously beaten before being dragged away. Boys as young as 11 have been seen being beaten by gangs of uniformed police officers in the street. There has also been clear targeting of anyone seen as a political opponent of the Government. In one case, a councillor—not even an MP or shadow Minister—was dragged from his house, beaten almost to death and arrested, in front of his three-year-old daughter. Remarkably, that wee girl was able, despite the trauma she experienced, to give a detailed account of what happened. Hopefully one day soon her evidence will help to make sure that those responsible are brought to justice.
There have been numerous allegations—and numbers are increasing—of women being gang-raped by uniformed soldiers. It is all very well for Ministers in the Zimbabwean Government to say, “If this has happened to you, come forward and make a complaint, and we will deal with it.” It is difficult in western European democracies for women to have the confidence to come forward and report that they have been raped or sexually abused. It must be difficult to the point of impossibility for a woman in Zimbabwe to report such a vicious assault to the authorities whose very people are responsible in the first place.
The changing response from the authorities is notable and revealing. Initially, as always happens in such cases, they tried to deny anything had happened. They denied that there had been violence and said that such violence as there was had somehow been the responsibility of the protestors. Then they admitted that the police and army had used force, but claimed that it had been proportionate. A Government spokesman told the BBC,
“When things get out of hand, a bit of firmness is needed”.
It was only when there was incontrovertible video evidence that could not be claimed to be fake, making it clear that police and army officers were involved in assaults, that the authorities finally accepted it had been happening. Chillingly, the President’s own spokesperson said the crackdown was
“just a foretaste of things to come”.
We have to wonder whether the few police and army officers who have been arrested are being used as examples. Their cases seem to be the ones where the evidence is so overwhelming that no one can deny what happened. We must wonder whether a cynical attempt is being made by Mnangagwa and his colleagues to look as if they are on the side of justice, when all the evidence points to their being at least complacent about, and possibly actively complicit in, the brutality.
It is clear that the vast majority of Zimbabwean citizens have no confidence in the Government’s ability or even willingness to enforce the rule of law on its own law enforcers. The Government may blame rogue elements in the security forces, but they have a responsibility to control the behaviour of everyone they put into uniform in those forces, and the international community must take steps to ensure that they carry out that responsibility. If President Mnangagwa wants to be accepted as President he has to start accepting his responsibilities as President. Being the President, Prime Minister or monarch of any country is not a way for someone to enrich themselves and their pals at everyone else’s expense.
I want briefly to share the experiences of two of my constituents who were forced to flee from Zimbabwe during the regime of Robert Mugabe. Although in some ways their experiences may not seem directly relevant to what has happened recently, they illustrate many of the fundamental problems continuing to affect the country, which make it more difficult now for justice to be done, and be seen to be done. Paul and Brenda-Lee Westwood ran a successful business in Zimbabwe in partnership with a local businessman. Their share of the business was seized by someone who at that time was an MP in Mugabe’s ZANU-PF party. The seizure was illegal even under the so-called indigenisation policies of the Government of the day. Those responsible were put on trial for a fraud valued at more than $1 million but the case collapsed in circumstances that remain unclear. After Mr Westwood lodged an appeal the prosecutor died in mysterious circumstances and several of the accused and key witnesses disappeared and, as far as I know, have never been seen again.
The Westwoods then experienced months of intense intimidation with increasingly violent and explicit threats against them and their children. Eventually in 2012 after enduring that for several years, they abandoned the life they had built together and fled the country. Since then they have been trying to have their case heard in the Zimbabwean courts but, like the victims of the recent brutality, they can see nothing to make them believe that the new Government will make their chance of a fair hearing any greater. I know that the Minister and some of her colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have been working on my constituents’ behalf, and I thank them.
The new Government in Zimbabwe is keen to rejoin the Commonwealth. I can understand why at one point a number of people and the UK Government would have been keen on that happening. I would support the UK Government in helping Zimbabwe to become fit to rejoin the Commonwealth, but it would be a disastrous mistake to encourage or support an application when, clearly, it is not fit for membership of that honourable organisation. We need to make it clear that it cannot rejoin the Commonwealth until it can demonstrate beyond doubt that it has fully re-established the rule of law and the principle of respect for the human rights of all its people, regardless of creed, colour, race, gender or political views. I have a duty to represent my constituents, and I argue that people such as the Westwoods, and others who have suffered similar ordeals at the hands of the Zimbabwean Government, must receive a fair hearing. If an impartial court so rules, they should be given proper compensation for their loss.
There must at best be severe doubt about whether the investigation of recent atrocities and the holding to account of those who committed the crimes, gave the orders, or stood by and watched can be left to the Zimbabwean Government. I do not think it can. The rule of law has become so unreliable that those incidents can be properly investigated only with outside help. That is what must happen, because what has happened in Zimbabwe is too serious to be ignored as an isolated, localised problem.
For generations—perhaps centuries—the people of Zimbabwe seem to have been misruled and mismanaged by almost everyone. That has lasted from the absurdity of their country, and often their lives, being seen as the possessions of a Government thousands of miles away, to the appalling racialism of the Smith regime and, more recently, the combination of disastrous economic incompetence and rampant corruption under Mugabe. That has meant that in a country whose natural resources are sufficient to give all its people a very decent standard of living the majority of the population are reduced to absolute poverty. I want the Government, in co-operation with other Governments and through bodies such as the Commonwealth and the United Nations, to help the people of Zimbabwe to see how to take their country back from the despots and dictators who have held sway over them for far too long.
What is sometimes called soft power, or soft influence, is often important. Exchange visits would enable elected politicians and others involved in civic society in Zimbabwe to come to the United Kingdom or other countries to see how things are and how they operate, in what looks like a reasonable democratic society. They could then see that it is possible for differences to be resolved without guns, tear gas and violence. We have to ask ourselves, just now, whether the way politics is being done in the United Kingdom is all that good an example for Zimbabwe or anyone else. Do some of the scenes that we have witnessed in the House of Commons Chamber in the past couple of days look like—
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying far off the topic of the debate. Can he please confine his remarks to the topic of Zimbabwe? I do not wish to hear too much about yesterday’s debate.
Peter Grant
I will, Mrs Main. I suggest that the United Kingdom, and any other country that wants to set an example to the people of Zimbabwe about how democracies can operate, sometimes need to make sure that they are as good examples as they think they are.
The people of Zimbabwe have been through more than the people of any nation on Earth should be expected to tolerate. I want to see the day when Zimbabwe is returned to its people, and the citizens of Zimbabwe are able to enjoy the rights that all citizens should have: the right to self-expression; the right to assemble; the right to disagree with and protest against their Government; and the right to remove their Government and replace it with a Government of their choice, if that is their wish. I look forward to the Minister telling us what the Government of these islands can do to help the people of Zimbabwe achieve that goal.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Mrs Main. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) for securing this important debate; Zimbabwe is a subject upon which she is very knowledgeable, and I thank her for her comprehensive introduction to the debate.
It is vital that we take this opportunity to discuss the violence that erupted in Zimbabwe earlier this month. A short debate on this issue also took place in the House of Lords on 21 January, which covered many of the points that have been raised today. As evidenced by the tone and content of this debate and the debate in the other place, there is clear concern about problems in Zimbabwe, ranging from currency problems to violent protests. I know that Zimbabwean people feel that way as well.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
This is an excellent debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) on securing it. My father grew up in what was then Rhodesia and is now Zimbabwe, and I remember the turbulent times during the civil war; I also remember the optimism when that country became Zimbabwe, and the recent optimism when Mugabe was ousted. However, does my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) agree that the current unrest is causing huge challenges for our charities, especially for Love Zimbabwe, a charity in Wales that operates in Chinamhora village?
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. I know that the hon. Lady might have wanted to speak in this debate, but there was a lot of time for her to do so. Interventions need to be brief.
Liz McInnes
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She has highlighted several issues, one of which is the hope that existed in Zimbabwe when Robert Mugabe finally left his position as President. Sadly, I think we have all become a little bit like the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), going from optimistic about the future to slightly pessimistic.
Zimbabwean people have expressed their concerns to me and, as evidenced by the comments made in this debate, other Members’ Zimbabwean constituents have also approached them with issues. Trade union and civil society groups in Zimbabwe regularly contact me to express their utter helplessness and despair in reaction to numerous human rights abuses, many of which occurred under the Mugabe regime and are now happening again. I was recently contacted by the TUC, which is concerned that the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions’ secretary general, Japhet Moyo, has been arrested and charged with subverting a constitutionally elected Government, along with the ZCTU’s president Peter Mutasa. Both men have been remanded until 8 February, which highlights the fact that at the moment, anyone in Zimbabwe who raises their voice in opposition to the Government is targeted.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, in addition to the speeches that have been made so far. She mentioned constituents raising concerns, and my constituent Abigail has raised with me her concerns as a Zimbabwean, particularly about the oppression that my hon. Friend mentioned. It is clear that Zimbabwe is failing to adhere to the Patterson principles that underpin readmission to the Commonwealth, and until we have a robust understanding that Zimbabwe is making steps to adhere to those principles, readmission to the Commonwealth is not going to happen. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister needs to make a clear statement to that effect?
Liz McInnes
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right to bring up the issue of Zimbabwe’s readmission to the Commonwealth; I think every Member who spoke in the debate has raised that issue, and I will be referring to it later. I am sure that the Minister will be able to speak with some authority on that topic.
The Zimbabwean people are tired of the systemic issues that have plagued their nation for so many decades. It has been said that people in Harare complain that the new Administration is akin to a new driver in an old taxi. It was recently my privilege to visit South Africa, where I met many members of the Zimbabwean diaspora who expressed to us the same views regarding the lack of any change. The figurehead may have changed, but they were pessimistic that the country itself would change. As many Members said, the current violence erupted following the Government’s hiking of the price of fuel, making it the most expensive anywhere in the world. The Government’s response has been to blame the fuel shortages that caused that violence on those who hoard fuel and trade it on the black market, and while there may be some truth in that argument, those fuel shortages have been compounded by the Government’s mismanagement of the currency crisis.
The Government must also take responsibility for their subsequent actions. The violence that followed a general strike on 14 January was utterly deplorable: in the cities of Harare and Bulawayo, protesters faced a vicious clampdown, in which soldiers as well as police were deployed to shut down peaceful protests. The figures are not totally reliable, but there seem to have been around 12 confirmed deaths; at least 78 gunshot injuries; between 700 and 1,500 detentions; and 844 human rights violations. The Government’s shutdown of internet services during the violent outbreak, severely disrupting the flow of information and hiding and obscuring the behaviour of the army and the police, is also troubling.
Here we are again, with Zimbabweans suffering as a result of Government violence. Last year’s elections represented a real opportunity for the country to change following the end of Robert Mugabe’s regime. However, despite the improvements in the election process that were noted by various election observers, those elections were not free and not fair, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall outlined in her opening speech. The subsequent violence was nothing new in Zimbabwe, but it was particularly disappointing that the opportunity for change was not taken. That opportunity for change is still there, but the new leader is falling back into old habits. If President Mnangagwa is to avoid gaining the same reputation as his predecessor, he must act swiftly to restore the hope that existed last summer and put an end to attacks on civilians. We do not want history to repeat itself, nor do the Zimbabwean people. The future could be so positive for Zimbabwe, but its people will need help in getting there.
Mr Sweeney
My hon. Friend talks about the need for help to be provided. Of course, the Department for International Development will be providing international aid, as I am sure the Minister will confirm. However, does my hon. Friend share my concern that such aid may be manipulated by the Government to punish political enemies, and does she agree that DFID must put safeguards in place to make sure that does not happen?
Liz McInnes
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am sure the Minister will be able to respond to that question. It is my understanding that the majority of DFID funding goes to non-governmental organisations, not directly to Governments. I hope that will help ensure that the aid reaches the people it needs to reach.
Many have spoken about the application for Zimbabwe to rejoin the Commonwealth. Rejoining would have benefits for Zimbabwe. It would vastly improve its relationship with our country and countries around the world, but we cannot just gift Commonwealth membership to Zimbabwe. A return to the Commonwealth must be conditional on Zimbabwe’s resolving its infringements of the Harare declaration of 1991. It would help if the Minister could explain whether her Government will prioritise human rights and do what they can to ensure that Zimbabwe is not allowed to rejoin the Commonwealth until its Government implement significant reforms and stop the violent crackdowns by security forces on the public that we have seen in the past two weeks.
I am pleased to hear that the Minister met the Zimbabwean ambassador recently, and I am sure she will elaborate on the outcome of that meeting. Will she say what she has been doing with our partners in Europe and with the African Union to ensure that the programme of reform for Zimbabwe outlined 12 months ago at the EU-AU summit is maintained? Finally, I know she met the EU and the African Union last week. What action is planned for Zimbabwe? In addition, what specific action will the UK Government take?
The Minister for Africa (Harriett Baldwin)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) on securing this important and timely debate. We have had excellent and well-informed contributions not only from the hon. Lady, but from my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) and the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes). We also had interesting interventions from other colleagues who get credible information from a range of different sources. I pay tribute to the long-standing interest of the hon. Member for Vauxhall in Zimbabwe, including as chair of the all-party parliamentary group. I add my voice to those of colleagues who have spoken so highly of her ongoing engagement.
I can only add the Government’s view to the many examples that have been cited about the situation on the ground. The recent developments in Zimbabwe are cause for significant concern for Her Majesty’s Government. The response of Zimbabwe’s security forces to protests against the petrol price rise has been disproportionate and all too reminiscent of the darkest days of the Mugabe regime. Security forces have used live ammunition, carried out widespread and indiscriminate arrests and unleashed brutal assaults on civilians, with clear disregard for the due process of law.
I have the up-to-date figures that we have sourced. We pay tribute to the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission, which has recorded a wide range of human rights violations since the protests began on 14 January. We recognise at least eight deaths and many injuries. There are credible reports that arrests may exceed 1,000. Certainly, 873 arrests or detentions were documented by 29 January. Many are still detained. The Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum reports at least 470 cases of assault, 80 of which have been gunshot-related. Many of us have seen footage of young men, and even children, allegedly scarred from beatings by soldiers. We have also seen atrocious accounts of security forces raping civilians during their violent crackdown, with indications of least nine reported rapes, some of which appear to be politically motivated.
On the subject of rape and sexual assault more generally, I confirm that DFID has extensive programming to support victims of rape. That includes shelter, counselling, case management, medical treatment and access to justice services. That includes some of the most recent cases linked to the suppression of protests. That addresses some of the points that Members raised.
We have been absolutely clear that the abuses and the failure to follow the due process of law contravene the fundamental tenets of international human rights standards and have no place in a democratic society. President Mnangagwa’s return to Zimbabwe was a full 10 days into the crisis. He committed to holding his security forces to account for human rights violations and spoke of the urgent need for a national dialogue and reconciliation. I am sure colleagues would agree that words are good, but that they need to be followed by deeds.
President Mnangagwa must act to stop the abuses and make good on those commitments. We are particularly concerned by the targeting of opposition and civil society in the wake of the protests. The abuses have continued since his return to the country. His Administration must act now and learn lessons from the events and the tragic violence that followed the election on 1 August 2018. The President must, as he promised, implement the recommendations of the commission of inquiry into the 1 August violence.
Harriett Baldwin
As I was saying, President Mnangagwa must address the finding of the commission that the use of force by his security services was unjustified and disproportionate. The Government’s internet shutdown was also a disturbing curtailing of freedom of expression and the media. I was pleased that the High Court of Zimbabwe ruled the shutdown unconstitutional on 22 January.
The UK Government have been robust in our response to the crackdown, including working with the EU. Targeted EU suspended sanctions remain in place, including on Vice-President Chiwenga. I summoned the Zimbabwean ambassador on 17 January and told the ambassador that we expected Zimbabwe’s security forces to stop using disproportionate force, and that the Government should reinstate full internet access and investigate all allegations of human rights violations. The Foreign Secretary repeated that message publicly to President Mnangagwa on 21 January.
Last week, I met the African Union Commissioner for Peace and Security to raise concerns about Zimbabwe. Yesterday, I spoke to Foreign Minister Moyo to reiterate our concern and to call for an end to ongoing human rights abuses. I am also travelling to the region this week, to urge a co-ordinated international approach to the crisis.
Our ambassador in Harare, Melanie Robinson, has delivered the same messages locally. She met Home Affairs Minister Mathema on 23 January and Foreign Minister Moyo on 25 January. The ambassador also met the opposition leader, Nelson Chamisa, on 16 January. She has also been meeting civil society groups supporting victims of the violence and working to bring perpetrators to account. The team that we have on the ground in Zimbabwe has been absolutely outstanding throughout. I pay tribute to our entire diplomatic service and to our DFID civil servants.
At the end of the day, Ministers are advised by civil servants, but it is we who decide. The programme of clear-eyed engagement with the new regime to encourage free and fair elections is one that I am happy to answer to in Parliament.
DFID supports the Commonwealth Local Government Forum. In fact, the UK provides extensive financial and technical assistance to a range of civil society organisations in Zimbabwe. They help to support Zimbabwean citizens to hold the state to account. I am sure that colleagues will understand that we do not publicise the names of our partners, to avoid putting them at risk. That in itself is an indictment of the Zimbabwean regime.
I assure colleagues that extensive work is being done on the humanitarian side, that no aid is channelled through the Government of Zimbabwe, and that the UK will continue to play a key role in ensuring that the very poorest in Zimbabwe will have their suffering minimised during this period when economic reforms need to be undertaken. It is vital that Zimbabwe’s political leaders focus on doing what is best for its people, with all parties rejecting violence and upholding the rule of law.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
There is a Division in the House. Does the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) wish to respond to the debate? She is indicating that she does not. In that case, we will conclude the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the situation in Zimbabwe.
English Channel: Illegal Seaborne Immigration
(5 years, 10 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 (Kettering) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered illegal seaborne immigration across the English Channel.
May I say what a joy it is to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher? I am sure that we will all benefit from your benign chairmanship. I thank Mr Speaker for granting me this debate, and I welcome the Minister and other hon. Members present.
The debate is about the number of people who are crossing the English channel illegally—often in very small unsailable, risky craft—to get to the United Kingdom. That is extremely dangerous; it has been described by the police as like
“trying to cross the M25 at rush-hour on foot.”
It is also driven by illegal people trafficking. Far too many of those who are successful remain in the United Kingdom, whether or not their claim is justifiable.
As I understand it, in 2018, 543 asylum seekers crossed the English channel illegally, including 438 in the last few months, October to December, of 2018. I invite the Minister to confirm those figures in her response. A lot of people are making that very risky crossing and those figures account only for those who make it. I would like to know from Her Majesty’s Government if there is any estimate of the number of people who have died at sea trying to make the crossing.
The main route is across the short straits between Dover and Calais, which cover only 22 or 23 miles. Recent reports, however, say that some asylum seekers try to make an even longer crossing. In January, four Iranians were caught near Mablethorpe in Lincolnshire, having travelled across the North sea from Belgium—a journey 10 times longer than across the short straits between Dover and Calais. A lot of those people arrive along our coast, either on deserted stretches of the coastline or in small towns and villages. Their aim is to seek asylum. What concerns me and my constituents is that it is not only extremely risky activity that is dangerous to those seeking to cross the channel and to shipping, but it is effectively fuelled by horrendous people—the people traffickers—who charge those poor people a lot of money for the equipment to try to get across the channel.
There is also a security risk. The No. 1 priority of Her Majesty’s Government is to defend this nation. We do not know who those people are, where they come from or what their intentions are, and that activity needs to be stopped. The simplest way to stop it is this: if people are intercepted crossing the channel, they should be taken back to the ports from where they came, whether in France, Belgium or elsewhere.
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
When I was a television reporter I lived undercover in the Sangatte camp in Calais, and spent several weeks trying to get into the UK. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend; the only way that we can stop the economic migrants—I would do exactly the same in their position, but they are economic migrants, not refugees, because they pass through many safe countries—is to break the idea that getting into Britain or Europe means they can stay there. Until we do that, the problem will go on and on.
Mr Hollobone
I could not have put it better myself; my hon. Friend is exactly right. Those people need to be taken back to France, whether they are intercepted trying to cross the channel or after they have arrived in the United Kingdom.
I would like to know what we are doing to stop that illegal people trafficking. My understanding is that two Border Force cutters are bobbing around somewhere in the English channel. I am told that two more are on the way, because we had lent them to the EU to patrol the Mediterranean. Can the Minister confirm that there are two Border Force cutters in the English channel and that two more will be added to that number, and when that will happen? I understand that Border Force has a total of five cutters and six coastal patrol vessels at its disposal. Where are all those vessels deployed and what are they doing?
The Royal Navy has a patrol vessel in the channel, but I am reliably informed by sources in the Government that the Royal Navy actually has very little to do with Border Force operations. Its deployment is therefore probably just a cosmetic exercise by Her Majesty’s Government in order to seem tough on the issue. I have the highest regard for the sailors of the Royal Navy and for those who serve on the Border Force cutters—they do their best in difficult circumstances—but I am not convinced that the Home Office or the Ministry of Defence is taking the issue seriously enough. In her response, can the Minister outline what vessels we have in the English channel and what they are doing exactly? Have they intercepted any asylum seekers and, if they have, have they taken them back to France or Belgium, or have they simply ensured safe passage to these shores?
The Government have spent £6 million on new security equipment for the French, including CCTV, night goggles and automatic number plate recognition equipment, for deployment in ports on the French coast. I welcome that if it is true, but I am not quite sure why we, rather than the French, have to pay for it. That compares with the £148 million that Her Majesty’s Government have spent since 2014 on extra security at the port of Calais. I would like to see aerial surveillance close to the French coast, so that if small boats are detected trying to cross the channel, information can be relayed quickly to the French authorities, who can intercept them. Will the Minister tell the House whether the French have any vessels patrolling those waters? The rumour is that they have one French navy patrol boat doing something off the French coast. Is that true? Have any French vessels intercepted any asylum seekers and, if so, do they take them back to France, or do they offer them safe passage across the channel?
I understand that we have a comprehensive naval agreement between the Royal Navy and the French equivalent, covering a variety of defence and security issues. Under that agreement, is there any way in which we can have shared patrols so that wherever people are intercepted in the channel, they are taken back to France? It seems to me that the picture painted from all the television coverage is that if people are intercepted at sea, they have effectively made it—if intercepted at sea, they will be brought to the British coast. That acts as a magnet for people to try the passage, because they know that they do not have to get across the 23 miles; they only have to make it to the 12-mile limit and, once they have crossed it, they will be picked up and brought over to this country.
There is something called the Dublin convention, or the Dublin regulation, whereby if someone claims asylum in the United Kingdom and has been in a safe country on their way here, we are entitled to return them to that country. Are we using that? My information is that since 2015 we have returned only 1,186 asylum seekers under those rules, but the number of people claiming asylum in this country is absolutely enormous—33,780 in 2017, I understand—so we seem to return a very small number to the safe countries through which they came.
It might be an accident of geography, but we are surrounded by safe countries—pretty much all those 33,780 asylum claimants will have come through one, two, three or more safe countries before reaching our shores. Under the EU regulation, they should be returned to the first safe country in which they arrived. Those EU countries, however, do not fingerprint arrivals when they come in, so no documentation proves that they entered the EU via Italy, Greece or Spain. Especially before we leave the EU, we should insist that our present European partners enforce the regulation.
What will we do once we have left the European Union? Non-EU countries are attached to the Dublin regulation, so the idea that we have to be in the EU for it to work is simply not the case. Are we preparing the ground so that, once we leave, we can still be a member of the convention and return asylum seekers?
I also understand that 80,813 asylum applications were refused or withdrawn between 2010 and 2016, which is 80,813 asylum claimants whose claims were refused or withdrawn. Is that figure correct, and is it correct that of that number only 26,659, or 33%, were actually deported? If we are to turn down people applying for asylum in this country, we need to deport them, because they are not legal asylum claimants—but we are simply not doing that. The problem is that if those people stay in this country, even though their claim was illegal, after five or more years they can claim indefinite leave to remain. That whole problem is fuelling people coming to this country illegally: basically, they know that they can get away with it.
Civitas published an excellent report recently. The author was one David Wood, who was dangerously overqualified: he worked at the Home Office for nine years, including as deputy chief executive of the UK Border Agency and as director-general of immigration enforcement; and before that he was 31 years in the Metropolitan police. He probably knows what he is talking about. I agree absolutely with what he makes clear:
“There needs to be a two-pronged approach to the problem: to reduce the numbers of illegal immigrants who enter in the first place, and to improve the rate of removal for those who are refused asylum.”
The report goes on:
“The difficulty is that if claimants know that all they have to do is to reach the UK, or Europe, claim asylum, and then disappear if the claim fails…then that is an incentive to pay criminals and take the risk of crossing the Mediterranean and, ultimately, the English Channel. The asylum system then becomes a tool of abuse for those we, as a country, have not provided with an entitlement to be here. Once an individual has been in a country unlawfully for a number of years, the courts are very reluctant to order their removal and many can then regularise their stay. Again, the unlawful entrants know this, and the systems incentivise deceptive behavior.”
He is absolutely right about that. What will the Minister do to tackle the issue?
A lot of the asylum seekers who cross the English Channel in small boats are, I understand, Iranians.
Mr Hollobone
I shall draw my remarks to a close.
What nationality are the people crossing the English channel illegally? It is reported in the media that most of them are Iranian. I understand that is fuelled by Serbia giving Iranians visa-free access to Serbia for a four-month period. Some 40,000 Iranians took advantage of that and are seeking to disperse themselves around the EU, including coming to these shores. Apparently, we let 63% of Iranians in; France keeps 69% of Iranian applicants out. Two and a half thousand Iranians applied for asylum here each year between 2008 and 2017—more than in any other EU country except Germany. Why are they all seeking asylum in this country and not in other EU countries on the way? Less than 4% of the total have been forcibly removed or have chosen to leave. What action have we taken or are we taking with the Serbian Government to ensure that the visa programme is closed down?
This is a big issue of huge concern to many people. We must be able to defend our coastline from illegal immigration. We must not encourage, by either doing nothing or doing very little, the people traffickers who are driving this horrible trade that puts many lives at risk. Above all, we want to ensure we have secure borders and can control who comes here and who does not.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
The Minister has until 5.13 pm, if she wishes to extend her remarks until then. That is because the previous debate finished early and we have been interrupted by Divisions.
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. Thank you for that clarification about how long I may speak for.
It is a great credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) that he secured this important debate. As many Members will know, this issue first came to prominence over the festive period, but it started significantly before that. We are very conscious that since October there has been a sharp increase in the number of migrants attempting to cross the channel to the UK in small boats. During 2018, more than 500 migrants, most of them Iranian, attempted to travel to the UK on small vessels. Some 80% of them made their attempts in the last three months of the year. As a result, the Home Secretary announced a major incident and this issue has become an operational priority for the Home Office.
The decision to announce a major incident was taken not least to protect the lives of those attempting to make this dangerous crossing; my hon. Friend was absolutely right to point out how perilous it is. However, it was also taken because we have an absolute duty to protect the border and stop organised crime gangs exploiting vulnerable individuals who want to come here by sending them through the busiest shipping lane in the world. That is why we must stop this incredibly dangerous route becoming the new normal for those wanting to enter the UK illegally.
My hon. Friend pointed out the hazards to individual migrants and shipping, but there is also a very real hazard to brave volunteers from the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, many of whom have been deployed from Dover to effect rescues in the channel, and to coastguard and Border Force officials, who have been on both our cutters and the coastal patrol vessels.
My hon. Friend was right to point out that this migration is driven very much by organised crime gangs. Just last month, five members of an organised crime group received a combined custodial sentence of 21 years and 10 months for smuggling migrants across the border, and last year alone, Immigration Enforcement’s criminal and financial investigation teams successfully disrupted 405 events of organised crime groups and their activity.
As well as those investigations, the Home Secretary has redeployed two Border Force cutters from overseas to the channel. While they are returning, other Border Force vessels have been supplemented by a Royal Navy offshore patrol vessel. There has been some criticism from people who ask why the cutters have not returned sooner. It is important to note that those vessels are designed and built to work around coastal areas rather than to make longer distance or open ocean deployments. For the crews to transit the bay of Biscay during winter—especially while deep Atlantic pressures are sweeping across, causing high swells, at times of up to 14 metres—is a dangerous pursuit, which must not be taken carelessly. I fully support the principle that the safety of our Border Force commanders, crews and vessels is paramount.
All essential maintenance activity has now been carried out on the cutters. Both are fully crewed and await a favourable weather window to return to the UK safely and securely. Currently, our forecast for their return is early February. Upon their return, we will have four cutters available to operate in the channel, but Members will appreciate that I will not discuss operational deployment in detail. As I said, until the cutters’ return, we are supplementing coverage with a Royal Navy vessel. In addition to the cutters, we have Border Force coastal patrol vessels in place. I visited Dover over the Christmas period to see the great work Border Force officers are doing there. As the Home Secretary said last week, we have also started to deploy aerial surveillance of the English channel. However, Members will appreciate that that is covert surveillance and I do not wish to discuss those actions in detail.
It is important to note that we have not taken those actions alone. We have worked very closely with the French authorities to tackle the issue. Around 40% of people who attempted the crossing last year were either disrupted by French law enforcement or returned to France via French agencies. Just last week, along with the French Interior Minister, Christophe Castaner, I visited the joint co-ordination and information centre in Calais to see at first hand the great co-operation between French and British authorities. In London last week, the Home Secretary and Mr Castaner signed a joint action plan to commit to reinforcing our border control. That builds on the 2018 Sandhurst treaty and demonstrates our determination to secure our shared border.
Through those efforts, we have reduced the number of individuals attempting the crossing from around 250 in December to 90 so far in January. However, we must not be complacent, and I am determined that we make further efforts to deter both the facilitators and the individuals who seek to make the crossing.
As Members will be aware, there is a widely accepted principle that those seeking asylum should claim it in the first safe country they reach, be that France or elsewhere. Therefore, if we establish that a migrant first entered another EU member state, we will always seek to return them to that state, in accordance with the Dublin regulation. For arrivals from safe non-EU states, asylum claims in the UK may be deemed inadmissible if the claimant has already been recognised as a refugee or given similar protection, if they have claimed asylum elsewhere, or if they have already spent five months in a safe country in which they could have claimed asylum.
We expect refugees to claim at the first reasonable opportunity. Indeed, that is a widely held international principle, and it certainly does not involve travelling through safe countries to reach the UK. Upholding that principle does not mean we will remove those who face persecution to their country. However, we will seek to return migrants to the first safe country in which they should have claimed asylum. Last week, a small number of migrants who entered the UK by small boat over Christmas were returned to France.
In the majority of cases, if a migrant is picked up in UK waters they are taken to the UK, and if they are picked up in French waters they are taken to France. The action plan we signed with France last week makes a commitment that migrants encountered in the channel will be taken to the nearest safe port, in accordance with international maritime law. Too often, migrants in the channel dictated to those who came to their rescue where they should be taken. That is not right, and I have asked officials to do all they can to prevent that “asylum shopping”, whether on land or at sea.
It is an established principle that those in need of protection should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, and if we establish that a migrant first entered another EU member state, we will seek to return them there, in accordance with the Dublin regulation. We do not want people to think that if they leave a safe country such as France and get to Britain they will get to stay, which is why we are working out, with our French counterparts, ways to increase the number of returns we make.
As part of the joint action plan agreed last week, the UK and France made a renewed commitment to return migrants who attempt to cross the channel to the country they came from. That plan, which comes into force immediately and builds on the existing framework of co-operation in the Sandhurst treaty, states specifically:
“Migrants rescued at sea will be taken to a port of safety in accordance with international maritime law. The respective maritime authorities will liaise with each other about rescue operations to provide mutual assistance as necessary at sea, and to determine the appropriate port of safety for a rescued migrant.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering rightly raised the issue of funding. The UK has agreed to allocate more than £6 million to support France’s comprehensive regional action plan. As he pointed out, that has led to additional surveillance and security on French beaches and ports, as well as greater co-ordination between the French authorities on land and at sea. Just over half the investment will come from money already allocated under the Sandhurst treaty, which was signed back in January 2018, and an additional £3.2 million of new funding will be used for equipment and measures to tackle illegal migration via small boats.
The structures in place to co-ordinate operations in the channel include the joint maritime operations co-ordination centre and the national maritime information centre. They are both supported administratively by Border Force, but the Department for Transport is responsible for their governance. The Border Force maritime intelligence bureau and maritime co-ordination centre also maintain a close dialogue with the French authorities operating both at sea and in the air.
The UK’s obligations to those seeking asylum are clearly defined in UK law. Those obligations will continue to be met after Brexit, and the UK will continue to recognise refugees under the 1951 convention. If a deal is secured and finalised with the EU, we will continue to participate in all EU asylum directives we are part of, including the Dublin III regulation, throughout the implementation period, but my hon. Friend will be aware that we have not opted in to Dublin IV. The UK’s position on granting protection to those who need it will not change as a result of leaving the EU. As well as providing sanctuary to those who need it, we intend to continue to work together at every point in the migrant journey, to address push factors, to importantly tackle organised crime and to limit pull factors and abuse of claims.
Mr Hollobone
I am listening to this good speech very closely. One of the pull factors for asylum seekers is that so many of those who make an asylum claim that is then rejected get to stay here anyway. Some two thirds of rejected asylum claimants remain in this country, which is an appalling figure. What will Her Majesty’s Government do about that?
Caroline Nokes
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. He will be conscious that I have been in post as Minister of State for Immigration for a year now. One of the real concerns we have is how we address people who remain here without status and without a right given to them by the courts to be here. Both my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are working very hard on promoting voluntary returns and, where appropriate, using means of returning people to their safe country of origin by enforced measures. That does not always make us popular. I am conscious that we have an absolute duty to uphold our asylum system, to make it robust and to make it firm but fair, and part of that process is indeed returns.
My hon. Friend also mentioned pull factors in his speech, with specific reference to Iranians and he asked me to confirm that the majority of those making these small vessel crossings are Iranian. We believe in the region of 80% are Iranian, so that is a very high proportion. He also commented on the visa route through Serbia. I met—I am not sure if it was last week or the week before—the Serbian ambassador to raise this. She shared our concerns that Serbia had been used as a transit country. The visa route is now closed, but we are having close co-ordination with Serbia about the problem that has occurred there. The ambassador was positive about the role that Serbia could play, working with the UK.
There are many pull factors when it comes specifically to Iranians coming to the UK, one of which is language. I am well aware from my own constituency that a high number of Iranian citizens have come here, largely back in the 1970s. They have settled in the UK and been very successful. One of the big pull factors that we see for migration, throughout the middle east and north Africa region and beyond, is that when family members have come here, migrants often use that as reason to choose the UK, rather than other safe countries. The Home Secretary has been very clear on this point, and I hope I have been today as well. It is firmly our view that people should claim asylum in the first safe country and not the last, which in many cases is the UK.
Our position on granting protection will not change, as I said. We will still provide people with sanctuary, but we must continue with a strategy on the whole route of migration. The focus at the moment is very much on the channel, but we continue our work with our EU partners and beyond, across the MENA region, in the Aegean and the Mediterranean, looking at those strong routes of migration and working out how we can best counteract them.
Some of the best work that the UK does in counteracting the pull factors is through our extensive aid programmes, led by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, that make sure people can be safe, whether it be in the countries immediately surrounding Syria or further afield.
It is a month since the major incident was declared and the number of arrivals and attempts is around half that of the previous month. I would not want my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering or other Members to think that we are in any way complacent about that. We have seen these crossings attempted during perhaps the most dangerous part of the year. As spring and summer are approaching—I say that somewhat optimistically—it is imperative that we remain vigilant and continue our work with the French, to make sure that they too keep up the surveillance and observation on their beaches. When I was in Calais last week, I was conscious that it is a sparsely populated coastline, which is difficult to monitor closely. They have aerial surveillance and the French have been proactive in making sure they are playing their part. The Mayor of Calais was forceful in his message to me about how we could provide further help. It is important that we continue our work on a joint basis.
I am pleased by the progress we have made thus far, but more remains to be done. It is imperative that we go forward in the vein of joint co-operation, because migration across the channel is sadly not an issue that we will solve on our own.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered illegal seaborne immigration across the English Channel.
World Cancer Day
(5 years, 10 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
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
We now come to the next debate, which can continue with the benefit of unused time until 13 minutes past six.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered World Cancer Day.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for being here to debate an important issue that sadly affects too many of our constituents.
This debate comes ahead of what will be the 20th World Cancer Day, which will take place on Monday 4 February. I am delighted that following a suggestion from Elaine Monro, who is a constituent of mine and a Cancer Research UK volunteer, the Palace of Westminster will mark World Cancer Day by lighting up in pink. As far as I am aware, this will be the first time that Westminster will be illuminated for World Cancer Day, so I would like to place on the record my thanks to the Speaker and the Lord Speaker for agreeing to that request.
World Cancer Day is an initiative led by the Union for International Cancer Control. Each year, the global cancer community is united in seeking to raise awareness about cancer prevention and treatment, and about the importance of Governments working together, tackling cancer globally. Last year’s World Cancer Day involved more than 1,000 activities in 139 countries, culminating in half a million social media mentions and over 14,000 press articles and broadcasts in 145 countries worldwide.
Cancer is a global problem. Last year, more than 18 million people worldwide were diagnosed with cancer, but the story of those patients varies hugely depending on where they were born; many countries have no access to basic treatments, such as radiotherapy. This is all about working together—a global push to tackle a global issue. As Cancer Research UK has put it:
“No single person, organisation, or country is going to beat cancer on its own. We must all work together.”
In the UK, a number of charities mark World Cancer Day through campaigns or fundraising activities. Cancer Research UK and CLIC Sargent both sell wristbands, which I am pleased that I and colleagues are wearing today, to raise funds and awareness about the day. Children with Cancer UK and the Institute of Cancer Research are also running campaigns to coincide with World Cancer Day, and in previous years many other charities, including Macmillan Cancer Support, Marie Curie, Breast Cancer Now and Anthony Nolan, have also marked the day. Events are taking place across the United Kingdom, from the Scottish cancer prevention conference in Edinburgh to Cancer Research UK’s winter run in London.
I pay tribute to each and every one of those charities, their staff and volunteers; they do incredible work. They are truly a credit to our country and contribute significantly to the global effort to tackle cancer, doing hugely valuable work with global partners. Cancer Research UK is the largest independent funder of cancer research in the world and it has played a role in developing eight of the world’s top 10 cancer drugs. Can the Minister touch upon how the Government support this work and how they help the UK to continue to contribute to the global effort to tackle cancer? I know that some charities have concerns about the impact that Brexit may have on the UK’s continued contribution to this work.
There is some great work being carried out in my constituency; I shall mention a few examples. The Cancer Research UK team from Selkirk, led by Elaine Monro, has developed an official tartan scarf, which is produced in the Borders by Lochcarron and continues to sell like hot cakes, not only in Selkirk and Scotland, but throughout the United Kingdom. The Marie Curie team in the Borders, who now help patients with terminal illnesses generally, not just cancer, do some incredible work caring for people in their final days. I must not fail to mention that I will be running the London marathon in a few weeks to help raise funds to support my local Marie Curie nursing team. I hope that by raising £5,000 I shall be able to support their work in caring for people with terminal illness in my constituency.
In partnership with Macmillan, NHS Borders runs a dedicated, world-leading cancer centre at the Borders General Hospital, which pulls together specialist staff and treatments all in one location. NHS Borders is very good at meeting its cancer treatment waiting times, as well as targets for cancer screening, not least because of that Macmillan centre.
Although World Cancer Day is focused on tackling cancer globally, we are understandably focused on the UK’s record. Like most other developed nations, the UK has higher rates of cancer, but we also have quite high mortality rates—just above the average, according to the 2018 Global Cancer Observatory figures, and higher than many other developed nations. Given that the UK leads the way in vast amounts of cancer research, and that we have some of the world’s best cancer professionals and a universal health service, our mortality rates are simply too high.
Cancer continues to affect far too many people in the UK. More than 360,000 Brits are diagnosed with cancer each year, and that is expected to rise to the equivalent of one new case every minute by 2035. Every day, 12 children and young people are diagnosed with cancer, which remains the biggest killer of children by disease in the United Kingdom.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his excellent speech and for securing this debate. When he mentions children’s cancer, he will be aware of a case that I have raised in Parliament and a guest that I had at Downing Street last week. Abbie Main, who sadly died on Christmas day two years ago, died of a very rare disease—sarcoma. Her legacy, through a difficult period, was to set up a charity. While great work is done by charities to raise funds for research into cancer, great work is also done by local charities such as Abbie’s Sparkle Foundation, raising money for people who have to live with cancer, to give them better facilities and better care in hospital.
John Lamont
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point; I was delighted to meet Abbie’s brother at the Downing Street Burns supper last week. He has done an incredible amount of work to raise funds for Abbie’s Sparkle Foundation in memory of his sister. He is one of many examples, not only in Moray but in all our constituencies throughout the United Kingdom, of fundraising groups that are raising the profile of cancer and also raising much-needed funds to tackle it.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this important debate to the House. Does he welcome the initiative in my constituency, run by the Maggie’s Centre in Dundee, which helps and supports many people who are suffering? We had a penguin parade in which 80 penguins were decorated across Tayside, and children through their summer holidays had to go on a penguin search. In the end, we raised £540,000 for the local Maggie’s Centre. It just shows that there are initiatives all across Scotland and the United Kingdom that are beneficial in raising as much money as possible.
John Lamont
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that example, which demonstrates that it is not just in large cities, but smaller communities, whether they be in Angus and Dundee, in Moray or across our county, that people are coming together to produce such great work to tackle this dreadful disease.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. One issue that is not often raised is that of people with cancer who have disabilities. Wendy Douglas, a constituent of mine, died of breast cancer aged just 36. She had very severe autism, and her cancer was caught too late because she was not able to communicate any symptoms or pain verbally to her family or doctors. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to Wendy’s mother Eileen, who raises money for all kinds of cancer charities, and particularly for her work trying to raise awareness of cancer in those who cannot communicate it?
John Lamont
Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a powerful case and example. I suppose the question is what would happen were it not for all these volunteers, raising huge amounts of money and raising awareness of cancer, and filling a gap that otherwise the NHS and the state would have to provide for. That is something we should not forget.
That is not to say that we have not made huge progress in tackling cancer. While diagnosis rates have risen significantly in the past decade, the number of people dying from cancer in this country is falling.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. On the question of diagnosis, I congratulate Leeds Teaching Hospitals and the University of Leeds; their pathology department is the first in the world, I believe, to move away from glass slides to fully digitised diagnosis, and is now working with artificial intelligence, which will improve diagnosis rates and move us forward, so that many more people can get early treatment.
John Lamont
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and raises a very good example. My brother’s father-in-law sadly died a couple of weeks ago. His treatment was provided by Leeds hospital, so I know the tremendous amount of resource and expertise they have in that particular hospital.
For breast cancer in Scotland, the mortality rate was 53 per 100,000 women in 1992. That has fallen to 32 per 100,000, despite the incidence of breast cancer increasing. In short, we are much better than we used to be at both identifying and treating cancer. That is because the UK has taken the steps that World Cancer Day promotes—in particular, tackling tobacco use and obesity levels and rolling out national cancer strategies.
Big issues clearly remain; pretty much all the cancer charities I have spoken to ahead of today’s debate agree with that. We need to get better at early diagnosis, because we know how much of a difference it can make. For example, if bowel cancer is diagnosed early, nine in 10 people will survive, but with a late diagnosis, the survival rate is only one in 10.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that research shows that the awareness around breast cancer means that women come forward quickly, but with bowel cancer people do not? Research done in the west of Scotland showed that the biggest delay was in going to the GP. We need to get people to talk about it, be open about it and go and get help.
John Lamont
I could not agree more. There is an awareness issue. Often, when people develop some symptoms that they are unsure of, they are nervous about going to the doctor. People need to be encouraged to step forward and go to their GP, to ensure that if there is an opportunity to get an early diagnosis, that is achieved, because the results are clearly much more positive if that is the case.
That is why we have early diagnosis targets across the UK, and why it is so serious that in Scotland, more than 20% of patients are waiting for longer than the six-week standard for diagnostic tests. Too many people are waiting too long for treatment. NHS boards north of the border are meant to take no more than two months to start treatment, but that target is being missed for every type of cancer. In some health boards, one in five patients did not meet that target. I am sure we have all received emails from patients who are faced with an agonising wait for treatment, knowing that they have cancer. While the missed targets are by no means unique to Scotland, I hope that we can all come together here—Scottish National party colleagues included—to call on the Scottish Government to make clear that that needs to get better.
I should also be interested to hear the Minister’s views on whether any consideration has been given to reviewing treatment target times with a view to introducing faster treatment targets for certain types of cancer. It strikes me as odd that across the UK our targets are the same for all cancers, regardless of type.
One significant reason for the time taken to diagnose and treat is problems to do with workforce. Demand for tests is only going to increase, due to a growing and ageing population, but we already do not have enough staff in a range of areas.
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me on the impact of no longer having nursing bursaries? When I was a nurse, I had a nursing bursary. I could not have trained without that. We really must bring back the bursary. It is all right saying, “We have all these vacancies and we are going to have all these nurses,” but if people do not train, we will not have the people to fill those vacancies.
John Lamont
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point. There is a range of options that we need to consider. I recently met my local NHS health board, and I meet a number of my GPs frequently. There are vacancies in all different parts of the health service, and we need to consider how we get more people in to do the jobs that we need. There is a particular challenge in my constituency—many rural communities do not have enough GPs or get enough nurses. Bursaries may be part of that. There are a range of things that we need to do, and that the Scottish Government and the UK Government can do, to address those issues.
For example, there is a 10% vacancy rate for radiology consultants across Scotland. One in five of the current workforce are expected to retire over the next five years. So, yes, there are challenges just now, but there are future challenges coming down the line.
Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He talks about access to existing treatments, but does he agree that more work has to be done on conditions for which treatment is not yet available? The late Tessa Jowell worked very hard on this issue, right up to the end of her life, trying to improve access to new treatments and to improve care for people with conditions for which there is perhaps no treatment out there. Does he agree that we should pay tribute to Tessa Jowell and continue that work?
John Lamont
I absolutely agree. We need to do much more to promote awareness of those conditions. I will come on later to the availability of drugs.
The Scottish Government recognise that the high number of vacancies is a problem, but missed their target for increasing the number of nurse endoscopists by 40%. In England, nurse vacancies are similarly too high. The availability of drugs is also an issue that concerns charities and patients alike. The most high-profile example is the breast cancer drug Perjeta, which was rejected for use three times in Scotland but was finally approved just a few weeks ago. Quicker and more cost-effective access to the latest and best treatments must be a priority in future.
I know that colleagues will want to press the Minister on what the UK Government are doing to tackle cancer in England, but all these issues need to be addressed across all parts of our United Kingdom. As a Scottish MP, I am conscious that the Minister is not directly responsible for the cancer waiting times and treatments for my constituents. However, UK-wide approaches should be taken to help us tackle cancer head on, together.
World Cancer Day is all about recognising that cancer knows no boundaries, and that individual Governments cannot address these challenges in isolation. That gives rise to the question: are the UK Government and devolved Governments working as well together on this issue as they should be? For example, should we buy some drugs and equipment on a UK-wide basis? Current practice is that four separate bodies approve new drugs across the UK. While that allows different parts of the UK to make their own decisions, surely a UK-wide approach would make sense in some cases. We could make ultra-orphan drugs more affordable or use economies of scale to deliver common drugs at lower cost.
I am therefore interested in the Minister’s views on this suggestion. Have there been any discussions with the devolved Administrations about this possibility? Are health boards across the UK as good as they can be at talking to each other and sharing best practice? Representing a constituency on the border with England, I all too often see examples of that border acting as a barrier to co-operation. I certainly hope that that is not the case when it comes to cancer treatment.
I hugely welcome the extra funding coming the NHS’s way, which will of course mean an extra £2 billion a year for the Scottish Government to spend on health, if they choose. Will the Minister outline what that means for cancer treatment in England, and how much of that extra funding will be used to improve treatment and reduce cancer waiting times?
Can we do more to support families with the cost of cancer treatment? Parents spend an average £600 a month in additional expenses as a result of their child’s active cancer treatment, much of that on travel costs. Young people in my constituency often have to make a 100-mile round trip to Edinburgh for tests and treatment. Children’s cancer charity CLIC Sargent is calling for a cancer patient travel fund, as well as a review of the disability living allowance and personal independence payments, to backdate young cancer patients’ financial support to their day of diagnosis. I certainly think that these are reasonable suggestions.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
As a parent who supported a child through cancer, I know at first hand how much a child going through cancer costs and the financial strain, as well as the emotional and physical strain, on parents and families. Universal credit does not take account of the cost of cancer; both parents often have to give up work to support one child in hospital and other children at home or at school. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is absolutely crippling for those families?
John Lamont
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for sharing her experience. This all needs to be looked at. As I said, DLA and PIP should at the very least be backdated to the date of diagnosis. Additional support, particularly for parents like those in my constituency who have to travel such long distances to access treatment, should be factored into the calculation of how much they might be entitled to. We need to ensure that the system at least recognises those extra financial pressures.
Dr Whitford
I utterly agree with the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George) on financial support. Macmillan Cancer Support estimates that having cancer costs £570 a month, which is very difficult for some families. Will the hon. Gentleman suggest to the Minister that removing the expensive parking charges at hospitals in England would make a little difference? At the moment, a parent being stuck in hospital for eight hours and then paying through the nose for parking adds insult to injury.
John Lamont
I am grateful for that point. I am certainly aware of constituents, including hospital staff, facing huge penalties from the health board for parking at Borders General Hospital, because of the limited parking spaces—that is a consequence of the hospital’s parking arrangements. There are lots of dynamics, but Scotland has just as many issues as England.
It is great to see so many colleagues present today. I am pleased that Parliament will mark World Cancer Day in such a public and clear way on Monday. We have made great strides in treating cancer in recent years, thanks in no small part to the work of charities, researchers and health professionals across every part of our United Kingdom. World Cancer Day is an opportunity for us all to come together to make a strong commitment to continue the fight against this dreadful disease.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
As I mentioned earlier, I have personal experience of cancer, both as a parent and a child; my mother died of breast cancer when I was five years old. From a very young age I have seen the impact of cancer on families. I have also seen treatments improve over the decades, from the time that my mother was suffering and had what appeared to me, at that young age, to be fairly rudimentary treatments, to what are now much more sophisticated treatments, which are available to children and adults in centres of excellence such as the Christie Hospital in Manchester.
The support has also evolved greatly. I pay tribute not only to the very brave people going through cancer, and their families who support them, but to amazing organisations such as Mummy’s Star, a national charity set up in my constituency to support families with children whose parent is dying or has died of cancer. It does amazing work counselling children and helping them through the process of treatment and grief, and often bereavement as well.
I also pay tribute to our hospices. Blythe House Hospice in my constituency has a brilliant “Breast Friends” group, which I have visited and spoken to. They are very brave survivors of cancer, often two or possibly even three times over. The support they get from the local hospice and community really helps them to keep going through the emotionally and physically gruelling trauma of cancer treatment.
We have very particular concerns in High Peak. At the end of last year, just after Breast Cancer Awareness Month, breast services for patients in north Derbyshire were withdrawn from our local hospital. As that is our nearest hospital, it was incredibly traumatic for patients and families, who were faced with possibly very long distances to travel for treatment. It is extremely difficult to drive and no public transport is available. That is exceedingly worrying for them, on top of the worry and trauma of their diagnosis and treatment.
Services were also withdrawn from gastroenterology patients in Macclesfield Hospital in north Derbyshire—our other nearby hospital. On both occasions, that was due to staffing shortages; there are 42,000 vacancies for registered nurses. I urge the Minister to look at the amount of investment that is going in to support not just the nurses, but the radiotherapists and radiologists who are so important in cancer diagnosis and care.
Early diagnosis is important for people’s outcomes. We do not want to see any more people than have to going through treatment, and we certainly do not want them to find out about their cancer at a late stage, when it is much more difficult for them to recover and when the prognosis is much worse.
I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) about the costs of cancer. Again, universal credit is an extremely complicated system for people—not just the parents of children with cancer but cancer sufferers themselves—to go through. It took six hours at a computer for one young man, Neil, who is cited by Macmillan Cancer Support, to complete the claim form for universal credit while suffering from the treatment for a brain tumour. We are putting cancer patients through an absolutely sub-human system when they should already have as much support as possible.
I ask the Minister to speak to colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions about the strain and lack of support available to parents of children with cancer or to cancer sufferers in claiming universal credit. At the moment, almost one in five patients with cancer struggles to pay their bills, which should not be the case for people who need to put all their efforts and energy into getting well.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for securing this important debate.
It is staggering that about 4,600 women and more than 20 men in Scotland are diagnosed with breast cancer each year. Sadly, few people, particularly males, realise that men can also be affected. My researcher was diagnosed with breast cancer nearly 16 years ago and remains eternally grateful for the care and support she received from the national health service. Her paternal grandmother and great-aunt were of a different, less fortunate generation and lost their lives to breast cancer shortly after diagnosis, although a delay in seeking assistance was undoubtedly a factor in their demise.
Regrettably, previous generations were often reticent to seek assistance, perhaps due to a lack of knowledge or embarrassment. Encouraging openness and interaction, as World Cancer Day does, and media campaigns from the national health service and various cancer charities are vital if we are to empower people through education and advocacy, including peer support, to improve their quality of life and life expectancy following a cancer diagnosis.
Dr Whitford
I welcome the mention of embarrassment. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that we have a particular job to do with men to get beyond the embarrassment of talking about bowels, bowel motions and other bodily functions? If people cannot talk about it with their families, they will struggle to talk about it with a GP.
Bill Grant
I totally agree; I am of the embarrassed generation. It is challenging for males—I concede that it is men in particular—to go to the general practitioner, but we need to educate them about making that first contact and being conscious of the risk. It is particularly my generation; the generation following are a bit less self-conscious and more eager to go to the GP, where they will find that help.
As a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, I have become acutely aware of the importance and benefits of research. In 2014, the city of Glasgow, not far from my constituency, hosted the European breast cancer conference. Such conferences bring together experts in their respective fields to share knowledge and experience for the benefit of patients and to consider preventive measures for the future, such as developments in immunotherapy that harness the body’s immune system to target cancer cells. As I understand it, such developments may be able to complement, if not replace, radiotherapy and chemotherapy, the side effects of which many breast cancer patients find more challenging than the cancer itself.
Treatment has very much improved, recognising the importance of body image in an era when the media often seek to portray the perfect person. The charity Breast Cancer Care stages regular fashion shows in which those who take to the catwalk have themselves been cancer patients. The male and female models, resplendent in their latest outfits, send a very clear message that they have beaten or are robustly fighting cancer.
Tamoxifen, a common medication for breast cancer treatment, is now just one of a range of drugs available to patients. It was heartening to learn of the Scottish Medicines Consortium’s decision to approve the life-extending drug Perjeta for routine use in treating secondary breast cancer on Scotland’s national health service. Compared with existing treatments, the drug apparently has the potential to offer valuable time to those with incurable HER2-positive secondary breast cancer.
Nowadays, cancer is treated by multi-disciplinary teams that include GPs, surgeons, oncologists, radiographers, radiologists and clinical nurse specialists. It is crucial that we have appropriate succession planning so that we can replace those vital experts as they reach retirement age or change career for whatever reason. It is quite concerning that 20% of breast radiologists in Scotland are predicted to retire before 2025, according to the charity Breast Cancer Now. We need to get the wheels in motion to replace those very important individuals.
Cancer is a challenge to our society. It changes people’s lives in different ways, and sadly some go on to develop lymphoedema. However, collectively we can meet that challenge. Some countries have a lesser incidence, so it may be prudent, as an aspect of self-help, to reflect on diet and lifestyle choices in the UK that may have a bearing on development or outcomes. The potential effects of obesity, cigarettes and alcohol need to be seriously addressed. That apart, we need to focus on the future needs of the researchers and medical professionals to protect the population who are at risk of cancer.
Finally, my constituents and I thank the national health service professionals, the volunteer drivers, the penguins of Dundee, the marathon runners from the borders and the charities. They all make the challenge of living and dealing with cancer that wee bit easier.
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I will keep my speech fairly brief. I speak as an ex-nurse who worked in gynaecology outpatient clinics every Tuesday morning and as a mum whose daughter died of breast cancer at just 35. She was not overweight and she did not smoke—sometimes it is just the luck of the draw, sadly.
I will make a few short points, but the most important is that although we talk about a lot of issues related to cancer, we need to consider the people—the patients with families and lives. It is not just a disease in the abstract; it affects people. That should make us determined that, austerity or no austerity, those people should get the very best treatment possible.
We must ensure that we have the best screenings processes, because everybody knows that early detection means more positive outcomes. We need to put an end to people not being called for mammograms or waiting 12 weeks for the result of a smear test, as they do where I live—surely we can do better than that. If people have a positive diagnosis, treatment must be prompt. There should be no geographical inequalities in access to care or to a clinical nurse specialist, whether for the psychological or physical manifestations of disease.
That level of treatment should be there and everybody should be able to access it, but that is just not happening. I work with a lot of cancer groups because of my experience, and it really is not equal out there. As for surgery—fancy going into hospital and having the surgery cancelled! That is what happened to a constituent of mine. It is stressful enough going in, never mind having it cancelled and then having to go back. I spoke to another constituent recently who could not access a particular drug. People just should not have those battles; the disease is enough of a battle in itself.
If a patient is lucky enough to be successfully treated, it is vital that they can access regular follow-ups as necessary. I am a patron of Westminster Health Forum and we had a day last summer when we looked at cancer treatment in the round. One of the things we talked about was having Skype sessions instead of cancer patients having to trail all the way to a hospital and sit around. Because there are not enough nurses or doctors—I speak from experience—appointments are often an hour or an hour and a half behind. People spend hours and hours sitting around when they could have had a Skype session. That is not for every patient, but some can do it. It is about looking at what is most appropriate for that patient.
We must ensure that patient experience surveys are completed so that we know what is happening to patients and can collate that and act on it. If the disease progresses, we must ensure psychological support and medical treatment are as good as they can be. There should not be variations in end of life care. There are not enough nurses in our NHS. We have nurses in hospitals at the end of life, and we have nurses in out-patient clinics. They are a vital part of the treatment. We have lots of vacancies and apprenticeships are not being taken up at the rate that was hoped for. We need nursing bursaries back. It is not just me and Labour politicians who are saying that; the Royal College of Nursing is saying that, too. We need more nurses and more radiologists, and to get that we need bursaries.
Patients should not have to struggle with the benefits system. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Ruth George) talked about filling out a form. I remember the film “I, Daniel Blake” was shown recently and a very thoughtless person—a senior politician—put something on social media saying, “It is just a film, you know.” Actually, it is what people are going through. What was said was shameful, and I do not think any apology was ever forthcoming.
Recently, I had a constituent whose husband died of cancer. He should have been on a very high level of benefits at the end, but his benefits were messed up. She tried to claim them after his death because she had to borrow money to bury him. My office fought and fought for several weeks, and we got that backdated money, but if we had not done that, she would have not got it. She would still be paying money back for that funeral, and that is shameful.
As politicians, I think we have the best of intentions, and I mean everyone in every party, but it is important that those intentions and words are matched by effective actions that ensure that people get the treatment they deserve.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on securing the debate and giving us all an opportunity to participate. This issue is very close to my heart. My father battled and had the victory over cancer three times during his lifetime, but watching him and my mother go through it was incredibly tough. My dad survived those three times due to the clinical and surgical skills of the doctor, the care of the nurses, who were excellent, and, as a man of faith, the prayers of God’s people. That is the experience of so many people throughout my constituency and throughout the UK.
Cancer is no man’s respecter and the reality is that in our lifetime one out of two of us in this place will have an experience of it. I was in touch with CLIC Sargent—indeed, it was in touch with all of us. It is a wonderful charity that is very active in my constituency and I am happy to support it. It gave me the following figures, which are simply heartbreaking. Some 4,450 children and young people under 25 are diagnosed with cancer every year. That is 12 children and young people every day. Those are extremely worrying figures. Around four in five children and young people survive cancer for five years or more, yet cancer remains the disease that is the biggest killer of children and young people in the UK aged from one to 24 years old.
Cancer impacts on young people and parents’ mental health. Undergoing cancer treatment is challenging, isolating and deeply personal. Young people’s ability to cope is often seriously affected by the emotional pressures and the mental health impact of a diagnosis and months of treatment. CLIC Sargent’s 2017 “Hidden costs” report found that 79% of young people felt cancer had a serious impact on their emotional wellbeing. During their cancer treatment, 70% of young people experience depression, 83% experience loneliness, 90% experience anxiety and 42% experience panic attacks. More than half of parents—63%—say they experience depression during their child’s treatment. It affects not only the child, but the family and the parents. More than a third of parents experience panic attacks and 84% experience loneliness.
I stand with CLIC Sargent, Macmillan, Marie Curie and all the other charities that are too numerous to mention, but which do great work. They are asking the Government to improve support for young cancer patients and their parents by making changes to the way benefits such as PIPs and DLA are accessed. The stories that I have heard from others in the Chamber, in my constituency and elsewhere, and in the news are disgraceful. I know that the Minister is not responsible for the DWP, but he does, I believe, have compassion and a heart, and hopefully he will pass these issues on to the Minister who is responsible. I have written to that Minister about these matters as well.
Not only do I need to see change; the system needs to see change. As treatment starts immediately and often takes place a long way from home, the costs start building up from day one. There must be a review of access to DLA and personal independence payments for young cancer patients, so that they can get their financial support backdated from the day of diagnosis. It is so important to have that financial support in place, because that worries the parents, the families, and everyone else at a time when they need that support most desperately.
Following the Prime Minister’s announcement in April 2018 of the establishment of a children’s funeral fund in England, I ask the Minister to further clarify when that fund will be introduced. Again, that is not his responsibility, but perhaps he can ask that question of the Minister who is responsible. Furthermore, will the Minister provide an update on what the Government are doing to ensure that parental bereavement leave, which would give all employed parents a right to two weeks’ leave if they lose a child, is ready to be introduced in 2020?
I will quickly mention the importance of partnerships between universities and businesses to develop cures for cancer and other diseases: Queen’s University Belfast does that extremely well, and that partnership works. I will also mention that I had the opportunity to speak with Bowel Cancer UK the other day. Every year in Northern Ireland, 1,100 people are diagnosed with bowel cancer and 400 people die. By 2035, 332,000 more lives could be lost to that disease in the UK. There are some things that Bowel Cancer UK has asked for, but I will not go into those in the time I have left.
These topics are heartbreaking, but they need to be addressed. I ask the Minister for a response, either in this place or in writing, on how changes are going to be made to support the families of children with cancer throughout the UK. How can we make these impossible, dark, soul-wrenching things a little bit better? We can make them better by using common sense, and using funding in appropriate ways to provide support as and when it is needed, lightening the load in the only way that we can. That will not take away the pain of watching a child go through this, or losing a child, but it will take away pressure that should not exist in the first place.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
Thank you for calling me to speak in this debate, Sir Christopher, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on having secured it. World Cancer Day reminds us all that although much progress has been made, there are still many challenges to be tackled in improving treatment, support and outcomes for individuals with cancer.
Today, the importance of World Cancer Day could not be greater. Macmillan Cancer Support estimates that 2.5 million people in the UK are currently living with cancer, and about another 360,000 people will be diagnosed with cancer this year, with nearly 1,000 diagnosed every day. Those people are our colleagues, neighbours, friends and family: everyone will have their own experience of a loved one who has been taken from them because of this dreadful illness. Tomorrow, I will be attending the funeral of my brother-in-law, Jimmy Boyle, who was taken from us by cancer. He was a loving husband to my sister Mary Jo and a fantastic father to my niece Lorna. Both spent the last six months caring for and looking after Jimmy, and both know that he will be in peaceful rest, free from pain, and will never stop loving them.
This Saturday, I will be attending a teenage cancer fundraiser with my other nieces, Eva and Lia, who along with their friends wanted to do something for teenagers who are living with cancer. It is my family’s experience and those of families across the country that motivate all of us in this House to campaign for better support for those living with cancer, or living with someone who has cancer. I am sure that other Members have been contacted in the days leading up to this debate, be it by those living with cancer, their loved ones, or charities fighting on their behalf. It is staggering to me that when a person is undergoing cancer treatment, as mentioned earlier, the average cost to their family is £600 a month. The idea that people undergoing treatment and their families should face such a financial burden at a time of emotional and personal distress is shocking, and we have heard from hon. Members about universal credit.
The UK, Welsh and Scottish Governments could and should do more to provide financial support for these families. Young Lives Vs Cancer has proposed that a young cancer patient travel fund should be established to help families with the cost of transport to and from treatment, as other Members have already mentioned. That is a great idea that is worth exploring and indeed we should look at reducing the cost of travel for treatment.
We should also look at improving the public transport links to our hospitals. My local bus and rail services are at their worst level. That is another debate. In my own area of North Lanarkshire, Breast Cancer Now estimates that around 120 local women develop breast cancer every year and it is expected that there will be a 27% increase in breast cancer diagnoses in Scotland by 2027. Yet Breast Cancer Now suggests that 20% of Scotland’s cancer radiologists will have retired by 2025.
I call on the Scottish Government and NHS Scotland to ensure that we recruit the next generation of radiologists, so that women can access the service they need. Whether we are considering breast cancer or other types of cancer, we must ensure that the NHS is properly funded and staffed, and capable of improving the treatment, care and positive outcomes that those who are living with cancer deserve. That matters not just in Scotland; it matters here as well, and across the whole of the UK.
I conclude by paying tribute to my local Maggie’s Centre, the Lanarkshire Beatson and of course St Andrew’s Hospice, which cared for my brother-in-law, Jimmy, for their care and support, and the services that they provide for those living with cancer, their families and their friends, and I urge everyone in this House to show their support for World Cancer Day.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
It is great to have this debate on the 20th World Cancer Day and I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont)—we need shorter constituency names—on securing it.
Obviously, it is very clear in my record and from my previous speeches that I have been a breast cancer surgeon for over 30 years. When I graduated in the 1980s, the survival rate from breast cancer at five years was approximately 53%; we are now in the high 80s and approaching 90%. However, breast cancer is not just about survival. In those days, treatment was incredibly destructive. Women lost their breasts through mastectomy and had very harsh radiotherapy, the side effects of which were awful, and there was very little in the way of other forms of treatment.
Now, we practice much less destructive surgery; we have computed tomography-planned radiotherapy; and our drugs are designed and developed, such as the immunotherapy that the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) mentioned. So the treatment has moved on, the survival rate has moved on and the impact on patients has moved on.
Critical to that movement, as is said over and over, is early diagnosis; that is the importance of screening. However, what we are seeing in many screening programmes, particularly in breast cancer screening programmes, is a gradual fall-off. So it is important that we encourage people to attend the screening that they are suitable for, whether that is cervical screening or breast cancer screening, or—as I say—people putting poo in the post once they reach that age, examining themselves, and not being embarrassed to go and see a doctor.
We have raised this issue in previous discussions, but we are lucky enough in Scotland that bowel screening—the poo in the post programme—starts at 50, and because the endoscopy that results from a positive test does not just treat cancer but gives us the opportunity to remove a polyp, the incidence of bowel cancer in men in Scotland has fallen by 18%. So bowel cancer screening is not just finding cancer early; it is a chance to prevent the cancer from developing. The Government said last August that they would also move to that earlier screening age instead of 60, and I would be grateful to know from the Minister roughly when that change will happen.
However, what challenges screening, as Members have already talked about, is workforce. Radiology is not just an issue in Scotland; radiology is an issue right across the UK. I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on breast cancer and our report last year—“A Mixed Picture”—showed very clearly that as three radiologists retire, they are likely to be replaced by only two.
The other group is endoscopers. If we are running screening, and if screening in England is going to start earlier, that will generate more endoscopies. The NHS is not buildings and machines; it is people. That is a challenge for all of us and I have to say that unfortunately I think Brexit will make workforce more difficult as we go forward.
The number of cancers increases as we get older, as does the complexity of treatment. We are discovering new drugs by design, genetics and cell biology rather than just by accident, as many drugs in the past were found. We have to turn that around. We talk about access to a new drug that might be £100,000 a treatment, but how much cheaper to try to prevent the cancer in the first place? Most members of the public know that smoking is the No. 1 cause, but smoking has been going down, particularly since the smoking ban in the mid-2000s. In fact, lung cancer incidence in men is down by just over 17%. That means 17% of men not getting lung cancer, not having a big operation and not dying from it. There is absolutely no treatment that will achieve that.
What many people do not know is that obesity is the second commonest cause. We have discussed things such as childhood obesity strategies, and the need for a watershed on advertising, high-quality school meals and active transport, so that it is easier for people to maintain a healthy weight and to remain fit. We live in an obesogenic society; it is really hard for people to resist things when they are bombarded from every direction. Low-quality carbohydrate food is still much cheaper than fresh vegetables and protein. That always means people are slanted in the wrong direction.
Alcohol is also a cause of cancer. I am proud that, after five years of being dragged through the courts, the Scottish Government have managed to introduce minimum unit pricing, particularly to tackle white ciders—the really poor-quality alcohol at the lower end of the spectrum.
To tackle cancer, the best strategy is to prevent it. That requires a health-in-all-policies approach right across every Department and Government. As well as preventing cancer, that would prevent many of the chronic illnesses that cause debility in older life. As well as preventing cancer, it would prevent other suffering; we would improve the quality of life of our senior citizens. That is something we should all aspire to.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for securing this timely debate, and the other hon. Members for their excellent contributions: my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak (Ruth George), for Lincoln (Karen Lee) and for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney), and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant), and for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford).
World Cancer Day gives us an opportunity to come together and celebrate how far we have come in cancer diagnosis, treatment and care. It also gives us a chance to reflect on what more needs to be done to fight cancer. The Minister and I have previously worked closely together as co-chairs, as we often say in debates, on breast cancer, as I also have with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire. That shows that all the main parties’ spokespersons are committed to working together on this issue.
Cancer is a very emotive issue, as we have heard in this debate in some passionate contributions. One in two of us will be affected by it in our lifetime. Most of us in this Chamber will be here today because of the personal effect that cancer has had on our or our family’s lives. In the UK alone, more than 360,000 people are diagnosed with cancer every year. That figure is expected to rise to more than half a million cancer cases every year by 2035. That is equivalent to one new case every minute. That makes the Prime Minister’s commitment to diagnose three in four cancers at an early stage by 2028 all the more ambitious.
Our NHS workforce do a fantastic job every day in caring for us and our loved ones, but as we have heard, there are chronic staff shortages across the NHS. There are vacancies for 102,000 staff, including 41,000 nurses. That makes it harder and harder for them to do the jobs that they want to do. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln, who as a former nurse powerfully made the point about the effect that the lack of the bursary has on the situation. Cancer Research UK has also pointed to the chronic shortages in the diagnostic workforce, with over one in 10 positions unfilled nationally. This is a worrying trend, as more people are expected to be diagnosed with cancer over the years and the NHS cancer workforce are already struggling to keep up with demand.
We covered a lot of this ground with the Minister in the debate earlier this month, in which we also discussed the long-term plan. The Minister said that,
“we must ensure that we have the right staff with the appropriate skills and expertise to ensure that patients receive the best care.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 60WH.]
I agree with him. Therefore, will he tell the House when he plans to publish the workforce implementation plan and when the budget for Health Education England will be set? Patients have a right to the best possible care and it is crucial that the NHS workforce are able to provide that. That is why I believe the Minister should consider it—as he probably does—a top priority.
It will be World Cancer Day on Monday, and I am proudly wearing my wristband. We must recognise the contribution the UK in particular has made to cancer diagnosis, care and treatment around the world. For example, Cancer Research UK has played a role in developing eight of the world’s top 10 cancer drugs. More than a quarter of the clinical trials that Cancer Research UK funds involve at least one other country. Cancer Research UK’s international grand challenge scheme brings together researchers from the UK, Europe and around the world on three five-year programmes, to take on some of the toughest challenges in cancer research. Cancer is an international challenge, which is why we should all unite together against cancer.
It is not just about surviving cancer. As we have heard today, it is about living well with cancer. According to Macmillan, 70% of people with cancer are living with one or more other serious health condition, often as a result of cancer and its treatment. Similarly, a third of people who have completed their treatment in the last two years say that their emotional wellbeing is still affected. As we have heard, during and after treatment, the cost of cancer can be a major issue with regard to not just loss of earnings, but travel and transport costs, and the increasingly expensive parking charges.
I have supported Macmillan’s Cost of Cancer campaign for over 10 years now. It is sad that we still need to debate and discuss this, but it is still a major issue. The issue of parking could be very easily solved. The cost of cancer also includes access to benefits, as we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak and for Lincoln. That can also be solved easily by some joined-up action across Government. That is why, when thinking about cancer, we must not forget about after-care, advice and support, especially when it comes to further symptoms that could become secondary cancer. In this regard, I believe that it is vital important that GPs are aware of all symptoms of secondary cancer, so that it can be picked up as soon as possible.
Finally, in this World Cancer Day debate, I want to pay tribute to all the NHS cancer workforce for all the hard work they do, day in, day out. Whether diagnosing, treating, caring or advising, they do a difficult but fantastic job, which we are all very grateful for. I also pay tribute to the scientists and researchers who discover the groundbreaking new treatments and information. Finally, I thank the campaigners and volunteers. We cannot beat cancer alone, which is why we must all come together to do so. As always, I look forward to working with the Minister to do just that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Brine)
As ever, time is short, so I cannot answer everyone’s questions, but that is the nature of Westminster Hall. It is nice to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher.
It is an honour, as always, as the Cancer Minister, to respond to these debates. As the shadow Minister said, we have been here before many times. The three Front Benchers are consistent and other hon. Members move around us. This time I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on securing the debate and on lighting up Parliament pink next Monday. It will be my wife’s birthday, so she will enjoy that. I look forward to seeing my hon. Friend for the event on the Terrace.
The title of the debate, World Cancer Day, suggests two things to me—the fact that cancer is recognised as important enough to have its own world day, and the fact that it transcends every international border and, tragically, affects everybody, regardless of their standing, their age and the wealth they accumulate. It touches everybody, including those of us here in the Chamber. I offer my condolences to the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) and his family. I hope that tomorrow goes well, and I am sure they will honour his late brother-in-law. I wish the hon. Gentleman well.
The hon. Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee) always speaks with great passion in cancer debates. She is another one of the consistencies in such debates—it is always nice to see her. She talked about the screening review. She was not here on Monday, when we had a very big debate on cervical cancer. There was a Petitions Committee debate initiated by a young lady who died of cervical cancer at the age of 31, leaving four very young children. It was a heartbreaking story, and all her friends were in the Gallery. There was obviously a lot of talk about cervical cancer and the screening age for it. As I said in that debate, Sir Mike Richards is doing a big piece of work for the Department on screening programmes, including for cervical and breast cancer. I am optimistic about what the review will bring, and I know the hon. Lady will take great interest in that report.
The hon. Lady mentioned the national cancer patient experience survey. As she knows, I agree that it is very important, because we need to know what patients are saying. She will therefore be pleased that I decided to give that a permanent opt-out from the new Data Guardian rules, to ensure that that can continue and that the data can be good. She also mentioned technology and Skype interactions, and I know that she will be pleased that technology is one of the three priorities of the new Secretary of State, and that it is at the centre of the long-term plan. She is right to say that words should be followed by action—indeed, that is why the 10-year plan for the NHS has been produced and there will be £20.5 billion a year of extra investment for the NHS in England.
As always, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) spoke from great experience and raised many good points, which I shall not repeat. She is right to say that smoking is still the biggest preventable killer in our United Kingdom. We must and will do better, and we have a very ambitious tobacco control plan in England. We had an interesting ten-minute rule Bill in the House yesterday on smoking in NHS properties in England, which provoked an interesting debate. The Bill was promoted by the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin).
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire asked about bowel cancer screening at 50. I cannot give a firm commitment on timescales for lowering the age to 50, but the NHS long-term plan makes it clear that we are committed to doing so as soon as practically possible, which is the key phrase—it has to be practically possible. NHS England and Public Health England, for which I am responsible, are working hard on that. They know I am on their case about it, and I hope to be able to confirm a start date very shortly. I am following it incredibly closely and will say more as soon as I can—I know that she will be watching like a hawk.
The hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George) and my shadow, the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), talked about the workforce. As I have said many times, the NHS is nothing without the 1.3 million staff who patients depend on day in, day out. With the right workforce in place, we can deliver the long-term plan. In December 2017, Health Education England published the first ever cancer workforce plan, in which we set out our ambitious plans to expand the capacity and skills of the NHS cancer workforce. That was a welcome first step, and the Secretary of State has now commissioned Baroness Dido Harding—she is working closely with Sir David Behan, formerly of the Care Quality Commission—to lead a number of programmes to engage with the key NHS interests and develop a detailed workforce implementation plan. In March they will present initial recommendations to the Department and Secretary of State, who will then consider the detailed proposals to grow the workforce rapidly as we move towards the big spending review.
The sponsor of the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, raised many great points. He asked about the health boards that they have north of the border, and about those boards’ collaboration with the 19 cancer alliances that we have in England. My cancer alliance is down in Wessex—I should not think that they have an awful lot of interaction. He raises a good point, and I am always up for more collaboration—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) often raises that subject with me, certainly in the absence of an Executive at Stormont. He knows that the offer is always there. In answer to my hon. Friend’s question on health boards, to be honest, there is not much interaction between them and the cancer alliances at that level, but I would say there is significant collaboration at the clinical level, particularly on research. The original bowel cancer screening trial was based at sites in England and Scotland. Indeed, the chair of the UK National Screening Committee, Professor Bob Steele, is based at the University of Dundee. There was therefore a lot of clinical interaction, but maybe not enough practical interaction. I am happy to explore ways to make that happen.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned research, and I think that our record is clear: we are, and want to remain, a world leader in cancer research. That is made clear in the long-term plan. The National Institute for Health Research spent £137 million on cancer research in 2016-17, and the largest research investment in a disease area was in cancer.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen), who is no longer in his place, made the point about the late Baroness Jowell and her work on brain tumours. Her great legacy there is to stimulate the research community to come forward with decent research proposals that we can back. We heard the same in last week’s debate on the treatment of ME: it is not for Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care to decide what research projects will and will not happen. The projects have to come from the research community, and they have to be good to be backed by the NIHR. That is the same for cancer as it is for every area.
How much of the extra NHS funding will be used to tackle cancer? The funding breakdown for the long-term plan is still being finalised, but the plan has significant ambition for England around the 75% stage 1 to early diagnosis standard. I am very proud of that. We have already put £600 million into the 19 cancer alliances in England, and there will be more. They are very much our delivery mechanism and, as I said, I would be very keen to see any interaction between those two across the border—especially on behalf of those who represent seats close to the border.
Many other points were made—those around PIP and DLA were well made—and I know that CLIC met the Minister for Disabled People, my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton). She, too, will take notice of all the points made in the debate.
I wish to give my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk 60 seconds to sum up, so I will conclude. We have made great strides in cancer in the past 20 years, and we have the best survival rate ever. On research, diagnostics, treatment and, ultimately, survival rates, however, there is so much more to do. Anyone who knows me or listens to me when I respond to such debates knows that I certainly do not lack ambition in this area, nor is there an ounce of complacency in me.
John Lamont
I am grateful to all Members who contributed to the debate. I am struck, as ever, by how many of us have had friends, families or people in our community—as well as people through casework—affected so personally by this terrible illness. I am also grateful for the Minister’s comments. I make a final plug for 4 February, the coming Monday, which is World Cancer Day. If people are able to join the team from Cancer Research and others on the Terrace at about 5.30 pm on Monday, they will see the Palace of Westminster lit in pink to mark that important day.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered World Cancer Day.
Written Statements
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Public Service Pensions
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)
The Government are announcing a pause to one element of the valuations of public service pensions, following a Court ruling on part of the 2015 pension reforms.
The coalition Government introduced reforms to public sector pensions, meaning most public sector workers were moved to new pension schemes in 2015.
In December 2018, the Court of Appeal ruled that the “transitional protection” offered to some members as part of the reforms amounts to unlawful discrimination. The Government are seeking permission to appeal this decision. If this is unsuccessful, the Court will require steps to be taken to compensate employees who were transferred to the new schemes.
A mechanism for assessing the value of pensions (the “cost control mechanism”) was also introduced as part of the 2015 reforms. In September of last year, the Government announced that provisional results indicated that the cost control mechanism would be engaged, triggering automatic changes to member benefits.
However, given the potentially significant but uncertain impact of the Court of Appeal judgment, it is not now possible to assess the value of the current public service pension arrangements with any certainty. The provisional estimate is that the potential impact of the judgment could cost the equivalent of around £4 billion per annum. It is therefore prudent to pause this part of the valuations until there is certainty about the value of pensions to employees from April 2015 onwards.
The value of public service pensions will not be reduced as a result of this suspension. If the Government are successful in court, we will implement the changes to employee benefits as planned. If the Government are defeated, employees will be compensated in a way that satisfies the judgment.
In order to ensure employers are meeting the increased costs of providing pensions, the part of the valuations of the unfunded pension schemes which sets employer contributions (which existed before the 2015 reforms) will continue. Employers in unfunded schemes have been planning for these changes in employer contributions to be implemented in April 2019, and the Treasury is in the process of allocating funding to Departments to help with these costs.
Whatever the Court outcome, we know the costs of providing public sector pensions are increasing. The 2015 reforms were to ensure public service pensions are affordable and sustainable in the long term, maintaining intergenerational fairness and ensuring the burden on the working population remains proportionate.
[HCWS1286]
Afghanistan: Locally Employed Staff
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)
I am responsible for overseeing and assuring the delivery of the ex-gratia redundancy scheme and intimidation policy, in support of former Afghan locally employed staff (LES), on behalf of the interested Government Departments.
All former staff have now selected their redundancy option, provisioned through the ex-gratia scheme. Some 200 former staff chose the finance option, and around 150 former staff are in education having selected our five-year training offer; 18 people began their training in 2018, while the first cohort are due to complete their five-year package by mid-2019. Within the training package, the Government have also provided additional resources to support in their studies scholars with disabilities. The Government are proud to have assisted these men and women in achieving their potential and ensuring they, their families and their country have a brighter future with improved employment prospects.
In June 2018 the Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) announced an amendment to the relocation offer of the ex-gratia scheme; this changed the eligibility date from 19 December 2012 to 1 May 2006. All other criteria remain the same, namely that the former LES must have been directly employed by the UK Government, have worked for 12 months continuously outside the wire on the front line in Helmand province and have been made redundant. Following the announcement, Ministry of Defence (MOD) officials are on target to complete a review of approximately 4,500 personnel files to assess each individual’s eligibility under the amended criteria; this task will be completed by Easter 2019. In addition, officials have received enquiries from over 440 callers regarding the amended criteria; 95% of these callers have been informed of the outcome of their enquiry with officials seeking clarification and further evidence for the remainder.
The scheme has relocated 437 former staff and their families, a total of 1,279 individuals, to the UK, and we expect around 10 families to relocate this year; this does not include those who might now be eligible under the amended eligibility criteria announced in June 2018.
Last year a review was initiated into the ex-gratia compensation payments made to 12 individuals for injuries they sustained while working with UK forces. They had each subsequently decided to relocate to the UK through the ex-gratia scheme and the review sought to uplift their original payment made while residing in Afghanistan to reflect the economic conditions of life in the UK. Thus far the review has resulted in payments totalling £3.35 million to support these brave people, some of whom sustained profoundly life changing injuries. Our hope is this money will improve their quality of life and support them and their families to build their life in the UK.
Our intimidation policy continues to support all former staff who experience intimidation within Afghanistan as a result of their employment with the UK. This policy is delivered by an expert team based in Kabul, including a member of either the Home Office Constabulary or MOD Police to investigate the claims. To date this dedicated team have assisted over 530 staff by providing bespoke security advice and, where applicable, funding relocations to safe areas within Afghanistan. It remains the case that the level of intimidation faced has not so far been such that an individual has had to be relocated to the UK in order to ensure their safety. However, the changing security position in Afghanistan is kept under careful review. The UK remains the only nation to have established an in-country specialist investigation unit to address concerns of intimidation.
I chair the cross-Government locally employed civilian assurance committee, which has continued to scrutinise the application of the intimidation policy to ensure that it is effectively administered and that former Afghan staff who feel threatened owing to their employment by the UK are properly supported. Committee members include peers from the House of Lords (the former Chief of Defence Staff, Lord Stirrup, Baroness Coussins and the Bishop of Colchester), a suitably experienced Police detective, a former local staff member who relocated to the UK through the ex-gratia scheme and cross-Government representatives. The Committee met three times in 2018 and reviewed a total of 18 cases; in each case the Committee members felt the policy has been applied effectively. The Committee has continued to review the security situation in Afghanistan at each meeting, as it relates to the risk of intimidation and the viability of mitigation measures. No issues have so far been raised in this respect. The Committee also considered elements of the guidance that supports the in-country delivery of the intimidation policy and made recommendations to enhance the advice provided. Furthermore, a selection of closed intimidation cases were also independently assured by the Government Legal Service, who have continued to conduct regular reviews of closed intimidation cases to ensure that the decisions are robust; no significant issues were raised.
It is the Government’s belief that our ex-gratia redundancy scheme and intimidation policy remain fit for purpose and properly meet our responsibilities to men and women who played such an important part in our efforts to bring peace and security to Afghanistan.
[HCWS1284]
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018: Section 4 Report
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)
This statement is issued in accordance with section 4 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018 (“the Act”). Section 4 of the Act requires that I, as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, report on a quarterly basis on guidance issued under that section of the Act, and report on how I plan to address the impact of the absence of Northern Ireland Ministers on human rights obligations within three months of the day the Act was passed.
The Act received Royal Assent on 1 November 2018. Following careful consideration of the sensitive issues section 4 deals with, and in consultation with the Northern Ireland civil service, guidance under section 4 was published on 17 December 2018.
The guidance notes that it does not, and cannot be used to, change the current law on abortion or same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland. Both issues remain devolved matters in Northern Ireland. The guidance provides that all relevant Northern Ireland departments should continue to have regard to all of their legal obligations, including the Human Rights Act 1998 and sections 24 and 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, in exercising any relevant functions in relation to abortion and same-sex marriage.
I have consulted the head of the Northern Ireland civil service in the preparation of this report. He has reaffirmed the continuing commitment of the NICS to have regard to their legal obligations when exercising any relevant functions in relation to abortion and same-sex marriage.
I will keep the Government’s position on these sensitive devolved issues under review in light of the UK Government’s legal obligations, and in light of any relevant emerging legal judgments, as appropriate.
I believe, however, that the current absence of devolved Government in Northern Ireland should not dislodge the principle that it is for the devolved Administration to both legislate on, and ensure compliance with, human rights obligations in relation to such devolved matters.
Restoring the Executive remains my top priority and I am continuing to encourage the parties to come together to work towards restoring devolved Government. I am firmly of the view that the people of Northern Ireland need their elected representatives back in Government to take important decisions on the issues that matter most to them.
[HCWS1285]
Grand Committee
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Offensive Weapons Bill
Wednesday 30th January 2019
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Offensive Weapons Act 2019 View all Offensive Weapons Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 149-II(Rev) Revised second marshalled list for Grand Committee (PDF) - (29 Jan 2019)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes.
Amendment 40
“Sale etc of bladed articles to persons under 18
(1) In section 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (sale etc of bladed articles to persons under 18), in subsection (3) (articles to which the section does not apply)—(a) at the end of paragraph (a) insert “or”, and(b) omit paragraph (b) and the “or” at the end of that paragraph.(2) In Article 54 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (SI 1996/3160 (NI 24)) (sale of bladed articles to persons under 18), in paragraph (3) (articles to which the Article does not apply)—(a) at the end of sub-paragraph (a) insert “or”, and(b) omit sub-paragraph (b) and the “or” at the end of that sub-paragraph.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would modify the offences of sale of a bladed article to a person under 18 in section 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and Article 54 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. Currently these offences do not apply to weapons to which section 141 of the 1988 Act applies and the new Clause would remove that exception.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of the amendments in this group is to remove loopholes in the law relating to the sale of offensive weapons to persons under the age of 18. Amendment 40 amends Section 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which prohibits the sale to a person under 18 of knives, knife blades, razor blades, axes and other articles with a blade or sharp point made or adapted for causing injury.
The prohibition does not apply to weapons covered by Section 141 of the 1988 Act. Section 141 prohibits the supply of certain offensive weapons that are set out in secondary legislation. These include knuckle-dusters, push daggers and zombie knives, which are excluded from Section 141A on the basis that their supply, including their sale, is already prohibited and therefore the prohibitions on their sale to a person under 18 and their dispatch to a residential premise or locker is not relevant.
However, a significant number of exclusions and defences apply to the supply of weapons covered by Section 141. These include an exemption for antique weapons and defences for swords with a curved blade of 50 centimetres or more made before 1954 or by traditional methods and for sporting, re-enactment purposes and religious reasons. Given these defences and exemptions, it is possible that offensive weapons covered by Section 141 could be sold to a person under the age of 18. Amendment 40 therefore removes the exclusion of offensive weapons covered by Section 141 from Section 141A of the 1988 Act. Amendments 48 to 53 to Clause 19 are directed to the same end.
Clause 19 defines a “bladed product” for the purposes of the new offence of arranging delivery of a bladed product to a residential premise or locker under Clause 17. “Bladed product” excludes any weapons in an order made under Section 141 of the 1988 Act. It is therefore possible that offensive weapons covered by Section 141 could be dispatched to a residential premise or locker on the basis that they were covered by one of the exemptions or defences available to Section 141 articles—for example, if they were an antique or intended to be used for sporting purposes. Amendments 48 to 53 therefore remove the exclusion of Section 141 from Clause 19.
I hope that, with that explanation, noble Lords will agree that these amendments sensibly close a gap in the existing law and the provisions in Clause 19. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I am glad as always to have the Government’s explanation for their amendments, and my comments are not about substance. Earlier in the Bill as well as on this clause, I found that I spent quite a lot of time going to and fro between Section 141, the order, Section 141A and so on. That is okay for us—it is our job—but one would not like to think of members of the public having to scour through all this to find out what sort of offensive weapon they might have. Will the Home Office give some thought as to how they can produce a Keeling schedule for the public?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I can utterly appreciate the noble Baroness’s point. When I look at legislation, I have to refer to other legislation, and it can be a minefield, but such is the nature of legislation built up over time. The guidance will help people in that endeavour and, as I said on Monday with reference to another issue, it will be very helpful to members of the public in knowing exactly where the offences are and what aspects of the Bill strike out other aspects of legislation.
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
The noble Baroness was on her feet very quickly but I hope that I can still ask a question. As was said a few minutes ago, this is a bit like a Russian doll—you uncover one thing and it leads to another. Having been rather green on this subject, I would like to know where these exceptions are contained, as I cannot find them in Section 141.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
They can be found in regulations associated with the Acts I have just mentioned.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
I echo the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It is a problem throughout our legislative activity; this is bad enough but FiSMA 2000 is even worse, having been amended so often.
I hope that after the madness of Brexit has settled down, we can give some consideration to helping these debates by providing richer Explanatory Notes, particularly where a single theme is being carried through. However, we have no objection to the amendment.
Lord Paddick
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for a statutory basis, in addition to police and CPS discretion, to rely on reasonable precautions and diligence before the seller is charged.
Lord Paddick (LD)
In moving Amendment 40A in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, I shall also speak to the other amendments in the group.
Amendment 40A is simply about the wording of the legislation, somewhat contrary to the Member’s explanatory statement. The other amendments are similar to those in our debate on Monday. Amendment 40A questions the way in which proposed new subsection (3) of new Section 141B is worded. It currently states:
“The seller is not to be regarded as having proved that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence unless, as a minimum, they prove that the following conditions are met”.
Surely it would be better to say that the seller is to be regarded as having taken all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of an offence if, as a minimum, they prove that the following conditions are met. That is effectively putting it positively rather than negatively.
Amendments 42A, 43F, 57B and 57C again turn the offences of delivering a bladed article to residential premises and delivery of bladed articles to persons under 18 from those for which there is an offence if charged into offences where, if the accused has taken all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence, they do not commit an offence. We debated this way of legislating at our last sitting. In criminal law, there are two elements—actus reus and mens rea: the guilty act and the guilty mind. The offences in this Bill are completely without any examination of the mens rea until after someone has been arrested, detained and potentially charged. As this legislation is drafted, only after arrest and charge is it necessary to consider the mens rea; it is a defence for a person charged with an offence to prove that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of an offence. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said on Monday,
“we should stick to the normal principles that have worked well for us: you are not guilty of anything and have not committed an offence unless your mental state was simultaneously as criminal as the actions you committed … This way of legislating for criminal justice is inappropriate and we should avoid it. We should certainly be very careful not to allow it to happen without us spotting it and stopping it”.—[Official Report, 28/1/19; GC 153.]
My Lords, we spotted it and we are trying to stop it. I beg to move.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I agree—particularly with the last observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, says, these amendments return us to the debate we had on Monday about the proper construction of the offences in the Bill. We had a good discussion on Monday, and I will not cover the ground in the same detail as I did then.
Amendment 40A would alter the defence provided in relation to the sale of bladed articles. Section 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 provides that it is an offence to sell, with some exceptions, articles with a blade or point to persons under the age of 18. It is a defence for a person charged with an offence to prove that he or she took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence. Clause 14 modifies the operation of the defence in relation to remote sales to include a number of conditions that must be met as a minimum. Amendment 40A removes the post-charge element of the defence and instead requires the enforcing agency to make a judgment whether the seller took all reasonable precautions before a charge is made.
I understand the noble Lord’s intention, but the defence provided in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 has been in place for quite some time. I am not aware of any problems or concerns with how the police, prosecutors and the courts apply the legislation. It has been in place for over 30 years, so it cannot be said that we are introducing a new construct into the criminal law.
Amendments 42A and 43F provide that failure to take all reasonable precaution in relation to the offence of delivering a bladed product to a residential address would be criteria to be taken into account before a person is charged. This is in contrast to the defence provided under Clause 18, which can be invoked when a person is charged with the offence.
Amendments 57B and 57C apply the same principles to Clause 20, which is concerned with the delivery of bladed articles sold by sellers based outside the UK. Clause 20 applies to delivery companies that have entered into an arrangement with a seller based abroad and provides that it is a criminal offence for a delivery company to deliver a bladed article into the hands of a person under 18. It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under Clause 20 to prove that he or she took all reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence to avoid committing the offence.
In practice, the enforcing agency—the police, the CPS or local authorities—will always consider whether the seller or the person who delivers the article has taken reasonable steps and exercised due diligence before bringing a charge. It would not be in the public interest to bring a prosecution if the enforcing agency considers that it is very likely the court will find that the seller had taken all reasonable precautions to avoid committing the offence. As I said before, this type of defence has been in place for some considerable time in relation to the sale of articles with a blade or point, and we are not aware of any issues in its operation.
In short, the approach taken in the Bill both in relation to knives and corrosives is well precedented. The existing law has operated for 30 years without difficulties, and it would further complicate the law and lead to confusion if we now adopted a different approach in the Bill. I suspect—as in the discussion on Monday—noble Lords will want to return to this issue, but for now I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for his brief intervention and to the Minister for her response.
The fact that the defence is similar to that in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, but contrary to almost every other piece of legislation on the statute book, including the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 which specifically deals with offensive weapons—that is, you are not guilty if you have a reasonable excuse for your actions—does not persuade me, I am afraid, that the Government are right in this case and that we are wrong. The Minister mentioned that the prosecuting authorities would not bring a prosecution if the person had taken all reasonable steps, but that does not stop the person being arrested and detained before that charging decision is made. The problem is still there. It is contrary to most criminal law on the statute book and it is the current legislation, rather than the amendment, that adds to the confusion. We will return to this on Report, but at this juncture I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“(aa) the seller is not a trusted trader of bladed products, and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would create a trusted trader status for those selling bladed products.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendments 41 and 43 in the name of my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe are intended to enable a trusted trader scheme and status to be set up for sellers of knives and other bladed products in the UK. As drafted, the Bill will prohibit the delivery of bladed objects and products to residential properties. The concern is that this will have a detrimental impact on the business of small and medium-sized knife manufacturers and retailers here in the UK. As more and more sales move online, consumers normally expect to receive their deliveries at home. My colleagues in the Opposition fully support the aims of the Bill, but have concerns that this is a legislative sledgehammer that will affect small and medium-sized businesses here in the UK, while having very little impact on knife crime. To achieve the objectives we all want to see delivered—a reduction in knife crime and violence, but at the same time not damaging or destroying businesses—I suggest that we need a greater enforcement of existing legislation that prohibits the sale of knives to under-18s and the carrying of a knife without good reason. The amendments we are debating will seek to enable good, well-run businesses to operate in a trusted trader scheme, while not causing difficulties or putting their businesses at risk.
I understand that the Home Office carried out a consultation between October and December 2017 on these issues, with more than 10,500 responses. On 25 July, the Minister for Crime, Safeguarding and Vulnerability, Victoria Atkins MP, wrote to my friend the Member for Sheffield Central in the other place, Mr Paul Blomfield MP. In her response, the Minister indicated that there were concerns over the delivery of knives purchased to residential premises, and concerns about the sale of knives online to under-18s—which, of course, is already illegal—but that some sellers were not doing enough to stop children buying knives.
My friend Paul Blomfield, Clive Betts and some Sheffield knife manufacturers met the Minister on 15 January. The department had looked at the trusted trader scheme, but seemed to rule it out on the basis that it would add more bureaucracy and burden to the businesses. They looked at placing the burden on delivery companies, and the measures in this Bill.
It is an offence under the Criminal Justice Act, as we know, to sell knives and other bladed products to a person under the age of 18. But there is a defence if the person can prove that they took steps to make all reasonable precautions and exercise due diligence to avoid committing an offence. The sellers will have to meet these conditions to rely upon that defence but the industry also agrees with the objectives of the Bill: to reduce knife crime and make it more difficult for people under the age of 18 to order knives. Many businesses already exercise robust age-verification checks and label their packets accordingly. Their concern is that the Bill’s prohibition on selling bladed products to residential premises will cause them particular damage.
This is about the damage to small and medium-sized businesses, with its knock-on effect on UK manufacturers. The larger retailers and a lot of companies often buy their knives from overseas, so there is really no issue for them. But these small producers are selling niche and often highly priced products, which are not sold anywhere by the large companies. The industry would like some evidence. What is the evidence of people purchasing knives online to commit crime? Apparently, there are roughly 424 million knives in the UK at the moment and there is little or no evidence that people buy knives online to go out and commit a crime. There are plenty of knives around everywhere. The Metropolitan Police and the Cutlery and Allied Trades Research Association have suggested that most knives used in violent crime are old knives, which people can get their hands on from a variety of sources.
The trusted trader scheme would in effect mirror what is presently in place for the delivery of alcohol. Such a scheme would help to drive up standards across the board while providing protection for responsible businesses. Coupled with better enforcement of existing legislation, the scheme would help and not impede small and medium-sized enterprises. The industry wants this, so the objection from the Government that it would mean more bureaucracy does not really hold water for me. If there is a choice between a ban—not being able to sell your products for delivery to homes—and having a scheme which ensured that you verify who you are selling to, this would be better for them. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, while I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is trying to do with his amendment, if he is quoting the Government correctly then I agree that it would be an expensive, bureaucratic scheme and difficult to enforce. It would be impossible to enforce in relation to sellers outside the United Kingdom. It would be to the benefit of large retailers. Perhaps the amendment is trying to appeal to the Home Office’s usual approach to these things by saying that it should be self-financing. Membership of the scheme would clearly involve a fee; large retailers would easily find the money for that, whereas it would disadvantage small businesses.
As we discussed previously in relation to corrosive substances, we are again heading for a situation where UK sellers of bladed articles are unable to sell such products for delivery to residential premises, whereas overseas sellers will be able to sell bladed articles for delivery to home addresses. In the case of overseas sellers, the courier has to ensure age verification at handover but UK sellers are unable to use this scheme. The real solution to the problem that the noble Lord is trying to solve is to allow age verification at the handover of bladed articles at residential premises for all sellers, both UK and overseas, so that both corrosive substances and bladed products can be delivered to people’s homes.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has just asked, what evidence is there that gang members, for example, are ordering ordinary kitchen knives, such as carving knives, online in order to use them in crime? I am not talking about prohibited knives, such as zombie knives or the type of knife that the Government seek to ban in the Bill. The evidence from the police is that most people carrying knives have got them from the kitchen where they live because they are there already. Why would a criminal who is looking to commit knife crime create an evidential trail by ordering online rather than going to a shop and paying cash to get their hands on a weapon? I seek the Government’s explanation as to why this provision is necessary.
We discussed on Monday whether a residential premises is used for carrying on business. I have had a communication from a company that deals with the sale of bladed items online. It says:
“Our information after consulting Royal Mail and UPS is that there are no means to quickly and robustly identify tradesmen who operate from home as opposed to individuals who might pose as tradesmen. These so-called defences are wish fulfilment from the Home Office and are unworkable in the real world”.
I agree.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I sympathise with the request made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for some information from the Minister on why this clause will make anything better. I have been unable to find any evidence that knives delivered in this way are a measurable, let alone a serious, source of supply for knives used in offences. It seems entirely wrong to penalise ordinary people, particularly British traders, when no good will come out of it; it is mere virtue signalling by the Home Office. If this is a real danger, let us deal with it properly—my next group of amendments seeks to do that—but none of this is justified if it is not real. We have allowed age verification for sulphuric acid to be at the gate. What is the difference between that and a kitchen knife? They are equally dangerous items; it is exactly the same process that one is asked to go through, and you get a system that is completely sensible and useable by British traders. One can see the reasonableness of it. In other words, it is a small addition to the bureaucracy that people go through for a small addition to safety. I do not see that the Government have produced any evidence to justify the approach that they are taking in this clause.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I support what has been said by other speakers on this amendment. I believe that we are engaged in something of a futile pursuit in this part of the Bill. Hundreds of millions of knives are broadly available. This measure will not stop one single person getting hurt. I agree with an awful lot of what the Government are trying to do in the Bill. Flick-knives, zombie knives and products of that type are terrible and every effort should be made to prevent them being sold and held, but anyone can put an edge on a screw driver, chisel or kitchen knife—they are everywhere.
We are using up parliamentary time to put in place regulations that are highly unlikely to make a contribution to what we are all looking to achieve. The Government have to be careful not to bring the law into disrepute to pursue an easy target, when measures such as those highlighted by Members of the Committee far more knowledgeable than me about the subject are needed to deal with the reality of people holding knives on the street. There is a terrible epidemic of knife crime and I empathise with all the measures being taken to stop it, but preventing the delivery of knives is unlikely to have any effect in preventing a single stabbing incident.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, since our Grand Committee sitting on Monday we have heard from the police that they identify 10,000 children who are being exploited by organised crime to deliver drugs in county lines. This is newish and important information relevant to this debate as an important conduit for children to access knives. On Monday we debated mandatory sentences for children. We are hearing that children are being groomed to deliver drugs and are provided with weapons—not guns, but knives and so on. This may put a very different complexion on our debate. Will the Minister provide the Committee with a note before Report responding to this new information in the context of our discussions on mandatory sentencing for children?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for explaining the trusted trader scheme. I hope to set out the context of the provisions of the Bill. I agree with the Committee that evidence is important to this end.
It is already an offence to sell a knife to somebody under the age of 18, but we know that some sellers are not doing enough to stop children buying knives online. Evidence from online test purchase operations shows that a worrying number of online sellers sampled failed to have effective age-verification procedures in place. Trading standards conducted two online test purchase operations in 2008 and 2009. A test purchase operation commissioned by the Home Office conducted in 2014 showed that 69% of the retailers sampled failed the test. This was a slight improvement on the exercise five years previously but showed that a large majority of online test purchases failed and retailers were breaking the law.
A further test purchase operation was carried out in December 2016. The results showed that 72% of retailers tested failed to verify the age of the purchaser at the point of accepting the order and only 19% went on to require further evidence of age and refuse the sale when the evidence was not produced. Recent test purchases targeting online retailers conducted in late 2018 under the Government’s new prosecution fund show that 42% of the retailers sampled failed the test and sold knives to persons under the age of 18. We have evidence that online retailers are selling to people under the age of 18.
Lord Paddick
Can the Government give any evidence about how many under-18s are buying knives online other than those people masquerading as being under 18 and carrying out test purchase operations?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
All the information I have is the test purchases. If test purchases show a failure in the system, that suggests to me that there is an ongoing failure in the system. It does not matter whether the person is actually 18 or is pretending to be; if the system is failing, the system is failing. If an online seller is selling to someone who says they are under 18, the system is failing and the Government are concerned by that. We know that test purchases show that under-18s are being sold knives. In most cases, it is not possible to determine whether the knife purchased is being used in crime, but we have evidence that young people say that buying a knife online is easy. That information was obtained when we were researching the knife-free campaign.
We know through the test purchases that the sellers are breaking the law and we hear the evidence from young people. With the provisions in the Bill, we are sending a clear signal to online sellers that their age- verification processes must improve. The fact that there is still a high rate of failure should be a matter of concern to noble Lords and tell us that the provisions in the Bill are needed. It is not enough for retailers selling remotely simply to ask the purchaser to tick a box to say that they are over 18. It is unacceptable when it comes to delivering the article simply to hand it over to a person without verifying their age or, worse, simply to push the package through the letter box or leave it on the doorstep without any checks about the age of the recipient. We know the tragic consequences of not having strong checks in place to prevent under-18s buying knives online, from the beginning of the transaction through to the end of the sale process.
I utterly understand the thinking behind the noble Lord’s amendment, but it would in effect transfer the responsibility for complying with the legislation and responsible sales from the seller to the Government, by requiring the Government to set out the details of the proposed trusted trader scheme, which would then allow for the delivery of bladed products to residential addresses. The scheme would require sellers to demonstrate that their age-verification systems and procedures, from the point when they receive the order to when their designated delivery company hands the item over at the point of delivery, are robust and that it is not possible that a knife will be handed to a person under 18. In the light of the results of recent test purchase operations, however, we are not persuaded that sellers can provide such reassurance in a systematic and consistent way. We believe that only by requiring age verification at the point where the item is physically handed to a person, at a dedicated collection point, is it possible to guarantee that a bladed product will not be handed over to a person under 18.
There is another point. Setting up, administering and overseeing a trusted trader scheme would create burdens of its own, although I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that it could be self-funding.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am sorry—well, I would have accepted the point. In addition, simply being part of a scheme or being in possession of a seal of approval as a trusted trader does not guarantee compliance with the conditions in the scheme. I hope that I have been able to set out the Government’s explanations—
Lord Paddick
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She repeated something that she mentioned on Monday, which I questioned but did not receive a response on. Why is age verification at the point of handover at a delivery point likely to be more thorough or more successful than age verification at the point of handover at the front door of a residential premises? The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggested a scheme whereby the delivery agent would take a photograph of the driving licence or passport to show proof of age at the front door. I accept from what the noble Baroness has said that the age-verification process that online retailers put in place must be thorough and rigorous and that there must be penalties for those who fail to comply, but I do not understand the blanket ban on delivery to residential premises when people have carte blanche to order online and collect from what could be a local newsagent. Last week, I ordered something from Amazon and collected it from a convenient store where the people are very busy. I do not see what advantage there is, when it comes to age verification, for such an article to be handed over at a collection point rather than at the front door of a residential premises.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I do not want to be unhelpful to my noble friend the Minister, but can she point to any cases involving knife crime where the knife was acquired online?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am sure that I could point to such cases if I had them in front of me. What I can point to is the evidence I have just given to the Committee that young people have said it is easier to buy knives online. I am not saying those young people are the ones going on to commit crimes, but the fact that it is easier for an under-18 to purchase online says to me that it is an easier route, should that person have criminal intent, to make that purchase online. I hope that is helpful to my noble friend.
The Duke of Montrose
Will the Minister tell us what sanctions have been imposed on people failing to obey the law in this way? It seems to me that there is plenty of scope for people to be charged. That will still apply. On the trusted trader scheme, perhaps the one point that has not been mentioned is that the designation could be taken away were there any doubt that somebody was not complying with the law, rather than having to go through some legal process that might deter people or make them more certain to check.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I hope that I have outlined what the Government have found through these test purchase failings. They have improved over recent years, but there is undoubtedly a basic failure in the system of the online purchase. Regarding the sanction for current failures in the system, it is a criminal offence, although it has been shown not to be a terribly compliant environment. It is far easier to have robust arrangements in place at a central delivery point rather than on each and every doorstep. That is the thinking behind the delivery point rather than the residential address.
Lord Paddick
I am grateful to the Minister. There is no such thing as a central delivery point. When you ask for these articles to be delivered to a delivery point, they are all over the place. There are five within a mile of where I live—corner shops are the places where these items are being delivered. In support of that, does the Minister have any information on these test purchase operations? Specifically, how many of these knives were successfully delivered to somebody who appeared to be under the age of 18 at a residential premises, and in how many of the offences were the knives delivered to a collection point? This might provide the evidence that the Government seem to have that it is much safer for it to be delivered to a collection point than to the front door of a home.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I have provided the detail on the test purchase failures. To return to my noble friend the Duke of Montrose on how many persons or companies who sold knives to under-18s have actually been prosecuted, I understand that there have been 71 prosecutions between 2013 and 2017 under Section 141A of the Criminal Justice Act. If I have any further information for the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I will certainly put it in writing. I hope I have given a general overview of some of the failures within the system of the online sale.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am still at a loss as to why we have two systems in this Bill—Clause 4 and Clause 17 —applying to products which the Government say are equally dangerous. If we need Clause 17—prohibition of delivery to residential premises for knives—why are we not asking for that with corrosive products? What is the difference?
Lord Paddick
I think I may be able to help the Committee. The noble Lord is right that we are in a parallel situation, but you cannot order online from a UK company and have corrosive substances delivered to your home address. You can order corrosive substances from a company that is outside the UK and have them delivered to your home address. The parallel situation also applies with knives, which shows how absolutely ridiculous this whole thing is.
Lord Lucas
I am clearly reading Clause 4 wrong. It appears to permit delivery to residential premises. I am sure the noble Lord has read the clause better than me. It just appears to ask for age verification when it is delivered.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is right. I am very grateful to him because now I do not have to explain it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I probably forgot to ask the Minister to meet a delegation of Sheffield MPs and businesses concerned before Report. I am sure she will.
There have been some really interesting figures in this debate. We have 424 million knives in circulation and 71 prosecutions of companies selling knives online incorrectly. If the Bill goes ahead, we will ban businesses operating in the UK selling knives online, but if they are based in France, Germany or the United States, it will be fine—off you go, no problem at all. That is some of the nonsense that we have here.
I respect the Minister very much, but I was disappointed by her response. I do not believe she has made the case for this. As other noble Lords have said, we are not convinced that this part of the Bill will do what it seeks to achieve. If that is the case, I would be very happy if it were not in the Bill at all. I moved this amendment because the industry is keen to avoid this ban and to have something else in place, and it has been working with Sheffield MPs on this. This amendment was put forward in the Commons and I have put it forward again today. This is not a scheme we have dreamed up.
These businesses sell niche products that are not available in most shops. If you go into a big shop, the knives in them are likely to have been made in China and elsewhere. These are businesses whose products have not been bought by high street retailers and which now survive by selling their products online. We are now going to make that harder for them without any particular evidence that it is causing problems. If you are going to go out and commit crime with a knife, where would you go? I would go to my knife drawer at home—I have a load of knives in there. That is what people would do. I do not believe that people are buying these knives online to commit crimes. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, they would be creating an evidence trail if they are then hauled up. For me, that is a problem.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I hope the noble Lord will not mind if I intervene on that point. He is right that, if you want to commit knife crime, you could go to your kitchen drawer and probably get a fairly effective weapon out of it. But that is not the nub of this legislation or of what we are trying to achieve. There are a number of interventions we are trying to make. I think I explained right at the outset when I introduced the Bill that no one intervention is going to solve the problem in and of itself. It is the range of measures that we have in place, including this legislation, that we hope will reduce what has become a scourge in society which is blighting the lives of young people.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I should first declare an interest as chair of National Trading Standards which is a recipient of Home Office money and was responsible for the test purchases that have been talked about. However, I do not intend to comment on the detail of those test purchases—partly because I have not been briefed on them—but to make a specific point on the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about creating an evidence trail.
One of the issues of concern is young people who decide they need to carry a knife notionally for their protection. It is not that they intend to use it, but they carry it for their protection and unfortunately it then gets used. One has to be particularly concerned about that category of person. They may well have a careful parent who would notice the disappearance of a knife from a knife drawer, or they may believe that they would be stopped or other social pressures be applied if they tried to get one in a way other than online; they would therefore be attracted to the online route. So while this particular mechanism may or may not be the most effective way of dealing with it, this is the category of person one should be concerned about. It is about dealing not with those who are intent on committing knife crime but those who seek to have a knife that no one else knows about, which they can carry with them, because they think it will defend them.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord makes a very good point. Young people are being forced to carry knives for protection. We have an awful situation where young people become both victims and perpetrators of knife crime, both in self-defence and, perhaps, more maliciously. I thank him for making that point.
The Earl of Listowel
I wonder how the Minister can say that young people are forced to carry knives for their own protection and, at the same time, bring in mandatory prison sentences for children who carry knives. There does not seem to be much consistency in that. I do not expect the Minister to respond but, if children are feeling forced to carry knives in fear for their own safety, how can one introduce mandatory prison sentences—they have already been introduced— for children who carry knives? It seems a bit of a puzzle to me.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The challenge is to get to a situation where children do not feel they need to carry knives for their protection or in order to attack others.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank my noble friend for that point, although I am not sure that I agree with him.
As I was saying, I do not believe the Government have made their case on this. We have seen 71 prosecutions and the evidence here. There are issues with knives and we all want to see knife crime reduced. This is the classic case of the Government using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
The Minister nodded to say that she would be happy to meet the Sheffield MPs and knife manufacturers. This is about the high-end, niche manufacturers who do not, or very rarely, sell their products in UK stores any more but almost wholly online. We will potentially damage their businesses but, at the same time, allow firms abroad to sell here with no restrictions whatever. That is regrettable.
I will leave it there for now. I will bring this issue back on Report—I guarantee that—but before then we can have that meeting and try to persuade the Government to look at this again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas
“( ) For the purposes of this section a person in the United Kingdom is to be regarded as a seller if they perform fulfilment functions for a seller outside the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to ensure that UK fulfilment operations are liable under the Bill.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, in moving Amendment 42 I will also speak to Amendments 54 and 57. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for educating me in the course of the last amendment. I apologise for my misreading of the Bill.
If we are going to take online purchase and delivery so seriously, we must deal with overseas purchases. While the noble Lord was speaking, I managed successfully to order a pretty nasty-looking knife online. There was no hint of age verification. It appeared to be a British company that I was ordering from but, actually, I happen to know that this company is based in Holland. The knife will be shipped from Holland by ordinary post. How will this be prevented? The company is a big, well-known retailer of knives online. It is an ordinary place that a lot of people know; it carries a good variety of knives and other things. Nothing in this Bill, as it is at the moment, prevents someone ordering in that way.
I am not saying that my amendments have any particular merit in the mechanisms they propose. But if the Government are serious about this, we need to tackle things that are obviously going to happen and make it possible for us to prevent—since the Government are convinced that this needs preventing—the delivery of knives that are ordered with great ease and facility from overseas suppliers.
First, we should deal with fulfilment in this country. Amazon has a very large fulfilment business. You appear to be purchasing goods from an overseas supplier, but actually they are sitting in an Amazon warehouse, where the instruction comes through and they dispatch. There are a number of independent people in the fulfilment business too; they know exactly what they are sending out. They are the ones who do the packing, and must be caught by this legislation. We cannot allow that obvious loophole—that is my purpose in Amendment 42.
When we are dealing with standard imports by post, we have systems to prevent people sending in guns. It is a fairly obvious thing, to make sure that if guns are coming in postal packages, you intercept them. People who are shipping them in bulk in engine blocks are a different kettle of fish, but wrapping one up and sending it as a parcel is something which we believe there are mechanisms to deal with. Those mechanisms will work for knives, but we need to empower the border authorities when they come to their notice to open the packages, confiscate the knives and not compensate anyone. It needs to be easy for our border security people to do, in the same way that it is not easy for someone to send guns through the post. That is what I am trying to do in Amendment 54: to replicate or allow for the replication of the system that we have for controlling guns sent through the post, and extend that to blades sent through the post.
In Amendment 57, I am merely trying to strengthen the contractual obligation that people are under when they are delivering these things; they cannot pretend, like the three monkeys, that they did not know that they should have taken sensible steps to know that they are dealing with a seller who deals in bladed products, and therefore need to take care. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick
I see what the noble Lord is trying to do with Amendment 42, but again I am not sure it is a practical solution. He talked about buying a knife from a company in Holland where it is going to be delivered by ordinary post. How does the post office know what is in the parcel? One can think of circumstances where they would not know what is being delivered.
In relation to Amendment 54, I understand that there is a scheme for firearms and you need a licence before you can import them. But if you order a set of cutlery to use for Sunday lunch from a German manufacturer, which includes knives, do you need an import licence in order to buy it and have it delivered to your home? The problem here is that firearms are a very narrow type of good, whereas knives cover a whole spectrum—I think we get on to palette knives and butter knives later—through to zombie knives and very dangerous items.
I come back to the issue that if it is a foreign seller, the Bill has to provide that age verification has to happen at the front door of residential premises. If the Government are placing so much weight on preventing under-18s getting hold of knives generally, why that age verification at the front door of a residential premises can … not also apply to UK sellers as it does to overseas sellers?
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I had not really intended to intervene but I have come here and it is a fascinating series of amendments.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is an extremely interesting one and has much wider ramifications than the purposes for which he has put it forward. There is a real issue—again, I refer to my interests as chair of National Trading Standards—about fulfilment houses in relation to all sorts of trading standards offences and issues. The noble Lord talks about Amazon, but that is at the upper end of the fulfilment house market. There are plenty of fulfilment houses that have essentially been set up by people in their front rooms. I am not sure which of those is more or less likely to know the content and precise nature of some of the orders they are fulfilling. There are a lot of attractions in going in the direction that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, wants us to go, which would place an obligation on that stage of the distribution process as well as on the point of sale. But I suspect it raises much wider issues around how other laws—for example, consumer protection laws—would apply to fulfilment houses.
I would quite like to see fulfilment houses having to take some of that responsibility, but it is the same argument about internet service providers taking responsibility for the content of what appears on their services. There is a lot to be said for that as well. I suspect, however, that tackling the issue may not sit easily in this Bill, as opposed to perhaps a rather more widespread look at the role of fulfilment houses—an area that will grow inevitably with the increase of online markets.
Lord Tunnicliffe
I want merely to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for putting forward a proposition which means that the Government have to give a comprehensive answer to it.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I would hope the noble Lord thinks the Government always try to give comprehensive answers to things raised.
Moving swiftly on, Amendment 42 would in effect extend the offence created by Clause 17, which is concerned with the delivery of bladed products to residential premises, to any UK-based company that assists in the process between the sale of the item over the internet and the delivery of the item to the buyer where they provide fulfilment functions. I will take a minute to explain fulfilment functions.
We understand what my noble friend is referring to: activities such as stocking, dispatching the order, customer service and returns for sellers outside the UK. In the Bill, the word “seller” carries its normal meaning and is therefore unlikely to cover circumstances where an overseas seller uses a platform in this country to complete or facilitate the transaction, if the company here is not involved in its actual sale. The offence created by Clause 20 is intended to address the issue of overseas sellers. The Government are of the view that it would be a step too far to apply Clause 17 to companies that provide a fulfilment function but are not themselves the sellers. The Government expect that companies facilitating sales online will make sellers who use their platforms aware of the legislation in relation to the sale of knives in the UK, but it is not in their power to compel a seller based abroad—or in the UK, for that matter—to comply with the legislation. They can, of course, remove the seller from their platforms if they fail to comply with UK legislation. I hope that they consider doing so, as sellers that do not comply with the law will damage the reputation of their company.
This does not mean that sellers based abroad, whether they use online platforms or sell directly, will not be affected, albeit indirectly, by the provisions in the Bill. We cannot enforce legislation on to sellers based abroad, and that is why Clause 20 introduces an offence for a delivery company to deliver a bladed article into the hands of a person under the age of 18. Where a platform provides a fulfilment function relating to delivery, Clause 20 may apply to them.
Amendment 54 seeks to introduce measures to ensure that imports of bladed products from sellers based abroad are subject to checks. This is achieved by introducing a licensing scheme for bladed products as defined in Clause 19. The scheme would require importers to have a licence. The amendment would therefore have the effect of limiting the number of persons who would be able to import these items. At the moment, anyone can buy bladed products from abroad. However, if a licence were required, only licensed buyers would be able to import these items.
I believe that the amendment—the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was quick to click on to this—has been modelled on the registered firearms dealer scheme. However, as the noble Lord pointed out, there are significant differences between firearms and bladed products, as bladed products have much wider application. Whereas it is desirable to have a control mechanism to ensure that only authorised persons can import firearms, I am not persuaded that it would be proportionate to introduce a similar scheme for bladed products. Everyday products present in most households, such as a wide range of knives, gardening tools and the like, are capable of being bladed products. These items can be purchased in the UK freely without a licence, provided that the buyer is over 18.
The Government’s intention is not to stop people buying bladed products or bladed articles in general. We want only to stop these items being sold and/or delivered to people under the age of 18. In relation to remote sales, the Bill already provides for measures to achieve this aim. It does this in relation to domestic sales through the provisions in Clause 17 and in relation to sellers based abroad through Clause 20. A licensing scheme is likely to place burdens on sellers and, either directly or indirectly, on local and central government, which will need to provide administration of the scheme and monitor compliance.
My noble friend is rightly concerned about whether the Bill provides adequate provisions to prevent bladed articles from sellers based abroad being delivered to persons under 18. I believe that the provisions in the Bill are adequate to achieve this end. I state again that we cannot enforce the legislation against sellers based abroad, but we can place the onus on the person who delivers the merchandise here. That is the reason why Clause 20 introduces an offence for a delivery company to deliver a bladed article into the hands of a person under the age of 18. If a bladed article is being delivered on behalf of a seller based abroad, the delivery company has the responsibility to ensure that the item is not handed over to a person under 18, whether the item is delivered to a private address or to a collection point.
Finally, Amendment 57 is concerned with the online sale of bladed articles by sellers based abroad. It would prevent bladed articles from being delivered to under-18s by ensuring that the deliverer takes adequate precautions to ensure that this does not happen. As I indicated, we cannot apply Clause 17 to sellers who are beyond the jurisdiction of UK law and our courts. Sellers based abroad may not be able to determine when they sell a bladed article whether the delivery address is residential or business or whether the seller is under 18—indeed, they may not care. That is why Clause 17 will not apply to sellers based abroad.
The Government consider that it is fair and proportionate to adopt a different approach in relation to delivery of items from sellers based in the UK. In the case of UK-based sales, the Clause 17 offence is committed by the seller, not the person who delivers the article. We think that this is a sensible and practical approach, which will go further in restricting the sale of these items to under-18s. Clause 20 deals specifically with sellers based abroad and the offence is committed by the person who makes the delivery in the UK, who, in this instance, will be the person within the jurisdiction of the UK courts. This addresses the perennial problem of tackling illegal sales made by those based abroad who can otherwise circumvent the intent of our domestic legislation.
Lord Garnier (Con)
Clause 20(1)(d) requires that,
“that person was aware when they entered into the arrangement that it covered the delivery of bladed articles”.
Is there any provision which requires a foreign exporter of bladed instruments to identify on the outside of the packaging what is inside it so that nobody can be in any doubt that what is being posted from, let us say, Holland is a knife with a 10-inch blade? If it says on the outside of the packet, “This is a butter knife”—subject to one believing the description on the label—that might prevent a number of the problems that we seem to have been discussing. It seems fairly simple to stick a label on the outside which places the burden on the original seller, makes the importer or functionary aware of what they are handling and makes the postman or parcel deliverer to the address or corner shop concerned equally aware of what is going on. It could not cost very much to stick a label on.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
The noble Lord make a very valid point. I shall certainly read Hansard carefully, because some of the Minister’s responses may have been contradictory. If I was a manufacturer of high-end knife products in Holland or Germany, I would be very pleased when the Bill became law because I could then launch a big campaign. I would know that the British Government were attempting to hamstring manufacturers in their own county but that I could carry on selling this stuff with no problem at all. We have no jurisdiction beyond our own borders. All we are doing here is hurting British business on the basis of very little evidence.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, as usual, I need educating. How is even a British business to know that a particular address is residential? What source of information do the Government expect a seller of knives to use to establish whether, for instance, 1 Lavender Hill SW11 is a residential or business address, particularly when in such a location there is probably a shop on the ground floor and flats above? What source of information will be reliable and satisfactory in a prosecution for someone to demonstrate that they believed reasonably that it was not a residential premises?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
We had that debate on Monday, but I am happy to go over it again. On my noble and learned friend’s point about labelling bladed products, it would be very good practice if foreign sellers did that, but we do not have the legal jurisdiction to make them do it.
Lord Garnier
I am sorry to be tiresome and to interrupt yet again. We could prevent the import of a parcel or the continuance of its progress if it arrived at Dover, Felixstowe or wherever it might be with no label on. It could then be held up. If on the other hand it said on the outside, “butter knife”—assuming that we could trust the writer of the label—or “hand grenade” or “sharp knife”, the answer seems self-evident.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My noble and learned friend would have a very good point if it was clear that the object contained in the package was a knife. It becomes a lot more difficult where it is not clear what is in the package. I do not disagree with him that it would be good to label such packages, but we cannot compel foreign companies to do it and it might not always be clear what is in the package to stop it at the port. My noble friend makes a very practical suggestion—I am sorry to be the blocker of practical suggestions—but that is the explanation.
My noble friend Lord Lucas asked how one proves an address—we went over that on Monday a couple of times. There are various ways in which a seller can ascertain whether a premises is used as a business. The buyer could provide evidence that their house was registered for business purposes or confirmation in writing of their business entity and that their business was run from home.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I think the Minister referred to premises that are registered for business purposes. That could be a home, could it not? If I work from home, knives could be delivered to my home.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is right that a house could be registered for business purposes because it could be a business. I think we went through that on Monday. Clause 20 creates an offence relating to overseas sales, with the focus on ensuring that the delivery company does not deliver a bladed article into the hands of a person under the age of 18. I think that was all I was going to say on the subject and the amendments. I know that the foreign company versus the UK company issue will come back again and again, but I hope the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
On that point, this is very anti-British business for no obvious reason or benefit for anybody concerned. If I were a German company or a French company, I would be delighted with this legislation.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord will know that the last thing this Government want to do is to make things difficult for British companies, but we want to clamp down on some of the terrible effects of knife crime.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, the Government have certain contradictions in the way they are approaching this. Suppose a Dutch company sells a knife to a residential address. It drops it into the post, nicely wrapped as a parcel with nothing on the outside to indicate what the contents are. Who puts the contents of a parcel on the outside? I cannot recall when a package came to me containing something I had ordered over the internet which said obviously on the outside what was on the inside. The Royal Mail, which looked at this, has no ability to know that the parcel contains a bladed product. The only point at which it becomes possible to know that is at the point of importation.
I know the Government have systems—and I know what they are, but I am not going to describe them in public—for preventing the importation of weapons, firearms in particular, which would apply very nicely to the importation of knives. That is the point at which we as a country know that there is a knife, and since the Government have oversight of the process through which it is being imported, that is the point at which they can establish whether the address is likely to be residential premises. If we want this to be an effective prohibition against a company abroad sending a knife to a residential address here, we need to give those authorities the power to confiscate the knife at that point. I propose one way of doing that, and there are surely many others, but we absolutely need to do it.
The other way in which an overseas sale can get into residential premises is if I apparently order from a website abroad. That website abroad telegraphs its fulfilment house here and someone in that fulfilment house takes the knife out of a box, puts it in a package, addresses it and pops it into the post. There we have someone absolutely within our jurisdiction who knows that it is a knife and who should know that the premises are residential, but we are not catching them. We cannot expect the poor old postman to know what is in the package. We have two very good opportunities to intercept knives and other bladed products coming in from abroad. I do not mind how the Government achieve that, but it is so easy to get knives from abroad. If someone really wants to get a knife delivered to residential premises all they have to do is order it from overseas and it will happen without interruption because sellers will organise themselves so they do not get their delivery agents into trouble. They will just use the Royal Mail. These are small items that do not require special delivery and fit through postboxes.
The amendments show that there are good, easy, efficient and effective ways in which the Government can get a bite on the main streams of supply from overseas agents. As my noble friend said, overseas agents will respond by sticking a label on the outside. If that is what they are asked to do, and if that is what it takes to get it through customs, that is fine—in supplying all over the world, they are used to customs regulations. This is not hard or expensive for us to do; it is easy, and it is the only thing that makes sense of the Government’s interest in stopping the ordering of knives over the internet. If we stop only UK sellers and leave the door wide open to overseas sellers, we are not achieving anything other than obstructing UK business.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Does the noble Lord agree that the Committee generally agrees with the laudable aims of the Bill but on all sides we are highlighting the large holes in it? It is easy to make a mockery of what is being set out here. I hope that the Government will listen carefully to this. We want to have discussions between now and Report so that we can get this legislation right. Where we are at the moment is honestly ridiculous. The more discussions I hear now, the worse things seem to me.
Lord Paddick
I echo the noble Lord’s comments. We want to do whatever it takes to reduce the availability of knives for use in knife crime. I hope that, in all our discussions, it has not gone unnoticed that we oppose this group of amendments and the previous group.
I will probably be disciplined by my party for saying so but, presumably, if you are buying from a supplier outside the customs union, there needs to be a customs declaration on the package as to what is contained in it. That is a legal requirement. It is not about trying to get a foreign supplier to comply with British law; rather, it is internationally accepted that you need to put a customs label on a package describing what is inside. I do not know whether that applies if the supplier is within the European Union, but certainly if you buy something from the United States of America, for example, there has to be a visible customs declaration on the outside to say what the product inside the parcel is. That would enable whoever is delivering the parcel to the end delivery point to take the appropriate action in accordance with Clause 20, if the label describes that it is a bladed product.
The Duke of Montrose
If noble Lords will allow me, rather than pointing out what might be missed by this legislation, I want to draw to the attention of the Committee places where people will be caught. One that strikes me, given my background of having been responsible for the sheep industry, is this. In the clipping of sheep, we use largely foreign clippers, often from New Zealand. They come here and stay in bed and breakfasts. As they move around, their blades have to be sharpened and replaced. I am sure that, in the current system, they just ask the company to supply it by post, but they do not have a residential address. They could probably work their way round it, but I want to highlight the problems that people will have.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
Is it the noble Lord’s wish to withdraw his amendment?
Lord Lucas
I was still mid-flow. Having allowed those interventions, I very much hope that the Government will listen to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and consider whether there is something we can do here.
I know that there is a system of customs declarations and that misdeclaration on small packages is responsible for the UK losing about £1 billion in VAT every year. I am not confident, therefore, in that system—someone has to check what is inside. We have the ability to do it, and I agree that a bad customs declaration would result in inaction. But, by and large, we do not open small packages to see what is inside, or else we would be better at collecting the VAT when something said to be worth 5p is actually worth 50 quid.
We can do better in preventing knives coming in from overseas. I very much hope that the Government will look again at the opportunities. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I apologise to the noble Lord for trying to cut short his remarks.
Baroness Hamwee
Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment, along with the amendments to page 17, lines 38 and 41, is to probe the extent to which the offence in Clause 17(2) covers delivery to a person who works from home.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, in moving this amendment I will speak also to Amendments 43B and 43C. We are still on the issue of residential premises, and I will not go down the route of customs declarations or indeed of the Immigration Bill as it might apply to New Zealand sheep-clippers and so on. There are a lot of aspects that could be raised.
On Monday, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, asked about farm-houses. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and my noble friend Lord Paddick asked how you know about residential premises. My noble friend, referring to UPS and Royal Mail, quoted comments made by a company in this sector about unworkability in the real world. The Minister convinced me on Monday about not wanting to criminalise Royal Mail through my amendment. She mentioned then that Clause 17(6) was there to satisfy concerns about small traders—individual craftspeople and those running relatively small businesses from home. I would like to raise aspects of that in this group of amendments.
The first of my amendments would provide that residential premises are premises used solely or principally for residential purposes. We have gone round in so many circles on this, but it seems to me that the amendment would be of reassurance to individual craftspeople, to take just one group, who use a shed at the back of their house or a room in the home for their business.
Amendment 43B is a drafting point, and not a very good one. I am afraid that Amendment 43C would create a double negative, but, again, it deals with the owner or occupier who resides in the premises. It probes whether the premises can be residential for somebody other than the resident carrying on a business in it, even if the residential area is only a small part of the whole of the premises.
I have been trying to apply the terminology of the clause to what one knows goes on in all sorts of different types of premises, because we are causing—certainly for me—a good deal of confusion. As I have said before, one wants to get it right, and, as my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said, we are trying to make this Bill workable and fair. I beg to move.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining these amendments. I do not think we are far apart in what we want to achieve in relation to deliveries to residential premises. I hope that I will be able to clarify our intentions and assuage any concerns that might remain.
Clause 17 makes it an offence for a remote seller of bladed products to send them to residential premises or a locker. When developing the offence, we were keen to ensure that it did not apply to the delivery of products to residential premises from which a business was run—the noble Baroness gave the example of a craftsperson in a shed. We heard during the consultation from builders, plumbers and others who ran businesses from their homes. These people sometimes needed to have tools and other bladed products delivered to them quickly to allow them to carry on their businesses. We were also keen to ensure that farms would not be affected by the prohibition on delivery to residential premises. This point was made on Monday by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, and again today by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose.
To achieve this, the definition of a residential premises at Clause 17(5) is limited to those that are,
“used solely for residential purposes”.
This means that anyone who runs a business from their home can continue to have bladed products delivered there. To put this beyond any doubt, Clause 17(6) explicitly states that, where a business is carried on from a premises, it is not to be regarded as a residential premises. I hope this addresses the example that the noble Baroness gave; her face suggests that she is not entirely convinced.
Amendments 43A, 43B and 43C would achieve the same effect but are unnecessary. Where a person runs a business from residential premises which they own or occupy, the Bill already ensures that they can have bladed products delivered to such premises. It will be for the seller to satisfy themselves that they are not sending the bladed products to an address that is used solely for residential purposes. The noble Baroness raised the earlier example from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, of UPS, the delivery company. The noble Lord is right that there is no fool-proof way of establishing whether a property is a genuine business address. However, we are creating in Clause 17 a new offence for the seller, and in Clause 18(1) we set out the defences to that offence. We hope that these together will motivate the seller to take “all reasonable precautions” in verifying the address, although we acknowledge that there is no fool-proof way of doing that.
There are various ways that a seller could ascertain whether a premises is used as a business. The buyer could provide evidence that the house was registered for business purposes or they could provide confirmation in writing of the business entity and confirmation that the business is run from home. In many cases the seller will also have a relationship with the buyer as a business, possibly having supplied them with bladed products over many years. I hope this provides the clarity sought on these provisions and that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendments.
The Duke of Montrose
Again, going back to my problem of sheep-clippers, or itinerant workers, do the business premises being delivered to have to be in the name of the person carrying out the business? If you happen to land with somebody who is running a business, could you have something delivered there?
Baroness Barran
There is no restriction on delivering to a business premises.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the Official Report has already recorded my response, as noted by the noble Baroness.
I think we will all want to spend some time after this stage of the Bill looking at the various provisions that together make up what can and cannot be done. I would add to the mix the point raised on Monday which arises under Clause 18—it is not only my noble friend’s campaign about offences and defences—about the terms “all reasonable precautions” and “all due diligence” and how “all” applies in this situation. I want to spend quite a lot of time understanding what we have been told, how it is reflected in the Bill and what we should pursue at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and the other to page 18, line 5, would replace the short-term custodial sentences in Clause 17 with community sentences.
Baroness Hamwee
I shall speak also to Amendments 43E, 63A, 63B, 64A, 65A, 65B, 65C, 65D, 65E and 65F. This takes us back to community sentences. We debated their value and the problems associated with short custodial sentences extensively on Monday. I do not want to rerun all the same points today on Clauses 17, 22, 23 and 24, although I have noticed that Clause 23 brings in the possibility of an indictment where the term would be much longer. To the extent that that is relevant to this discussion, it strengthens my view that seriousness can be reflected by the prosecution being sent up to the Crown Court. The Minister directed the Committee to Section 150A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 reminding us—or in my case, informing me—that a community sentence can be imposed only if the offence might attract a custodial sentence. I would say that was game and set—or some other sporting analogy—but I am not sure it is quite yet match, at least not until I am convinced that this is a good way of going about sentencing as there is a much wider issue behind this.
Section 150A does not apply if Section 151(2), which confers power to make a community order, does apply. Section 151 is about community orders for persistent offenders previously fined. Am I right in thinking that this is not yet in force? Has it been shelved? Is there an intention to review it? More widely, does the Minister accept that, given the potential value of community orders, the generally acknowledged problems with short custodial sentences and the state of our prisons, it would be a good move to review Section 150A as she explained it on Monday? I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, this group of amendments echoes one of our debates on Monday; namely, whether it is appropriate to provide for custodial penalties of less than six months’ duration for certain new offences in the Bill. It will not come as a surprise to the noble Baroness to learn that I remain unpersuaded of the case for replacing custodial sentences of up to six months with community sentences for the knife-related offences in the Bill. As we have already discussed in Committee, we all know that the impact of knife crime on society is devastating. Young people getting hold of knives by using remote sales can have tragic consequences if they go on to use the weapon for a crime. The possession of prohibited weapons is and should be a serious offence. The Government believe it is proportionate and fair that those committing these offences should expect robust sentences.
The noble Baroness will recall that I explained on Monday that community sentences cannot be set as a maximum penalty for an offence as, under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, community sentences are available only for offences which are imprisonable. In providing this maximum custodial penalty, we are providing the courts with a range of penalties. This gives courts the option to impose a custodial sentence, a community sentence, and/or a fine as they deem appropriate, having regard to all the circumstances of the offence and the offender. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, welcomes this flexibility and the range of sentencing options which we considered earlier in the week.
As I mentioned on Monday, there is also the requirement under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 that the court has to be satisfied that the offence is so serious that only a custodial sentence can be justified. I therefore remain confident that the courts will sentence offenders appropriately, taking into account the circumstances of the offence and the offender. Where a custodial sentence is justified, they will impose it, but where a community order would be better for punishment and rehabilitation, while protecting the public, then nothing in our provisions prevents that.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, is not in his place, but he said on Monday that,
“some short sentences do some good because they punish the offender”.—[Official Report, 28/1/19; col. GC 169.]
I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment, and we should not now be depriving the courts of the full range of sentencing options.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked whether the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act she referred to are in force. I will have to write to her on that specific question, if she is amenable to that. On that note, I ask that she withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
I would expect the Minister to answer no less. She started by saying that I would not be surprised by the Government’s response, and she will not be surprised to hear that we are not persuaded either.
I accepted what she said about Section 150, which is why I looked it up and spent the usual frustrating few minutes trying to work out whether something that applied to it was in force or not. I think it is not, which is why I took the opportunity to ask the question. My overall question is whether it would be a good move to review Section 150A and bring that part of our attitude to sentencing up to date. But we clearly cannot pursue this any further today and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I will, however, ask the Minister to accept that I have fulfilled my undertaking to be very quick—the clock had not even reached one minute by the time I had finished.
Baroness Hamwee
Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to seek clarity as to how the seller can necessarily know the purpose for which the buyer intends to use the knife; and why adaptations are not dealt with in the same way as design.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, Clause 18 sets out defences to an offence under the previous clause. One defence, in subsection (3), is if the person charged proves that,
“the bladed product was adapted for the buyer before its delivery in accordance with”,
the buyer’s specifications and that,
“the adaptations were made to enable or facilitate the use of the product by the buyer or its use for a particular purpose”.
My amendment would take out the latter part of that provision.
I wrote down “designer knife” as a heading for my notes and then thought that it has a very different and much more sinister connotation than referring to a chef’s knife, which is the sort of thing that I understand this provision is aimed not to block, especially when we talk about adaptations in the context of designer knives. No doubt the proof— there has to be proof here—would in the event be a matter for the jury. But in view of the wording I referred to a few moments ago about the defence of taking all reasonable precautions and exercising all due diligence, it is important that the person who may commit an offence knows what precautions to take.
Proof that the product was designed in accordance with specifications that the buyer provided seems likely to be easier. They would be unlikely to make an order which does not set out the specifications but that may not be the same with adaptations, because they might have a conversation on the phone about their requirements. I want to pursue that issue, and why the activities which amount to the defence are to be undertaken “before its delivery” when those words are not in Clause 18(2). I do not see the distinction there nor the distinction between the two subsections, given the words “for a particular purpose”. How does the person who may be charged know the purpose? I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for setting out the amendment in the name of her noble friend Lord Paddick. As we have seen from earlier debates, these are complicated provisions but unavoidably so, I am afraid. She wants to know two things: first, how the buyer can know what purpose the bladed product will be used for and, secondly, why the provision relating to the adaptation under Clause 18(3) differs from that for design and manufacture under Clause 18(2). I hope to be able to provide some clarity but perhaps I may first summarise what we are talking about.
The defences at subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 18 are aimed at allowing the dispatch of bespoke, handmade knives to a person’s home address. One issue that came out clearly from the consultation is that there is a significant number of makers of handmade knives. These are often individual tradespersons who make specialist knives for individual buyers. The most commonly cited example, which the noble Baroness gave today, is chef’s knives, which are made or adapted to specifications provided by the chef—for example, on the length or shape of the blade, or the weight of the handle. Such handmade bespoke knives are very expensive and, in most cases, there is a relationship between the seller and the buyer, which means there is no risk of these knives being sold to a young person. We therefore wanted to allow such knives to continue to be sent to the buyer’s home address.
Clause 18(2) covers where a buyer asks a seller, who in such cases is also likely to be the manufacturer, to design or make specific knives to specifications that they have provided. This would cover where a chef, for example, asks the seller to make them a set of knives to very specific specifications. The seller in these cases will often have a relationship with the buyer and it should be easy for the seller to prove that they are making the knife to specifications, because they will have correspondence with the buyer setting out the requirements.
Clause 18(3) covers where the buyer wants an existing knife adapted to meet specific specifications—for example, where a chef wants a blade shortened or changed in shape or where they want the handle changed, or where a disabled person wants changes to a knife so that they can use it—and these changes are to enable the knife to be used for a particular purpose, such as catering, outdoor pursuits or other activities. Again, in these cases the seller will often have a relationship with the buyer and they will easily be able to evidence that the bladed product was adapted in accordance with specifications of the buyer and the purpose for which it was going to be used, because this would be part of the conversation or communication on which adaptations to make. For example, the maker would know that the knife was needed for gutting fish—that issue was raised the other day—or because the buyer had one hand and needed it for sawing branches, as that would be part of the decision on what changes needed to be made. The purpose of Clause 18(3)(b) is to exclude the etching of a person’s name on a bladed product, as we did not want to provide a defence for bladed products where the only adaptation to the product was the engraving of words on, or similar superficial adaptation to, the product.
I hope that, in light of that explanation, the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the Minister’s last point about engraving a name had not occurred to me, although I do not quite see how it is distinct from the situation under subsection (2), where you might ask for a product to be manufactured with the specification of adding your name. I will go through what the Minister said, but for the moment, at any rate, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe and clarify the definition and use of “bladed article” under Clause 20.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I will also speak to the other amendments in this group. Most of the amendments were tabled just to give me an opportunity to listen to the Minister on why the Bill contains two definitions of bladed items: “bladed article”, which is the current definition in legislation, and “bladed product”, which is introduced just for the purposes of Clauses 17 and 18. I would like to know the reason for the choice of application and the need for two definitions.
On the definition in Clause 19, why does a pointed article appear to be excluded? If I was to wander about the streets wanting to do people harm, a sharpened knitting needle would be a pretty good thing to take with me. It would be easy to shove through clothing and it has a nice little button on one end, so that it does not go into me. Under the clause as drafted, it appears to be exempt. Why is that?
If we are going to use such a wide definition, we need to help people who are in the business of selling products to understand that it has a wide application. As I read it, it would apply to a helicopter—not that many helicopters get delivered to residential premises—as a helicopter is a bladed article. It would also apply to fans, if not to Mr Dyson’s fans, and it would apply to lawnmowers and various other things that have blades. It ought to be clear to people who have to obey this law whether they will be caught by it. I do not object to how widely the Government draw it, but its extent should be made clear, as it should in respect of which items people are likely to have to apply it. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I too look forward to the Government’s explanation of the difference between “bladed product” and “bladed article”, and of why there is a distinction between the offence of delivering of a bladed product to residential premises and that of delivering a bladed article to persons under 18. I thought the whole point—no pun intended—of banning delivery to residential premises was to prevent under-18s getting their hands on it. Why does it need to be a bladed article in one part and a bladed product in another?
In relation to Amendment 45, I agree with the noble Lord and would go further. In the course of my duties as a police officer, I have seen daggers with very sharp points, but with blades not necessarily sharp enough to cut—the dagger is specifically designed to stab people, but is not capable of cutting. It would be exempt from the definition as written in the Bill. I am not sure whether it is necessary to list examples of what are and are not bladed products, but we certainly need a much better idea of what we are trying to do here.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I was not intending to come in on this item, but the more I sit here listening to this Bill, the more concerned and confused I get. I support the intentions of the Government in trying to deal with knife crime and violence—they are absolutely right there—but, listening to this, I am not convinced we are on the right track.
Is the Minister aware of the Better Regulation Executive? It is part of BIS, or whatever the department is called now, and is in charge of regulatory reform across the British Government. Its policy is described in these terms:
“Some regulations are ineffective and unnecessary. Complying with them costs businesses time and money, and can restrict economic growth … Governments generally attempt to ensure regulations are fair and effective. The Better Regulation Executive's purpose is to effectively strike the right balance between protecting people’s rights, health and safety and freeing them from unnecessary bureaucracy”.
If it has not gone there already, the Bill needs to go there straightaway. Clearly, there is a lot of mess in this Bill. I say it should go there because we are affecting lots of British businesses and putting them at a competitive disadvantage to other businesses in Europe and around the world. We need to get our businesses up and working well, and I do not see how this is helping. Maybe it has gone there already and been improved by it. If it has not, I hope we can get the Bill off to it and maybe get something back before Report.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, would the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, agree that perhaps his trusted traders scheme would also need to go through that process?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I certainly would. I would be delighted for it to go through the process, because the scheme I have been keen we talk about has come not from me, but from the industry. They want the scheme, so I would be delighted for it to go there, since they are the people who make these niche products and are worried that the Government are putting them at a competitive disadvantage.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I wonder how the rest of the world deals with these issues. The Minister may have described that to us at some point. The situation clearly seems to cry out for international co-operation if there are serious issues in other nations with knife crime and corrosive substances. For instance, what does Germany do with regard to these issues? I know that recent circumstances here have changed very rapidly, so it may be an issue just in this country. The United States probably has an even more significant problem with it and may be more resistant to intervene than we would be.
Knife crime is a symptom of many other things, including, as we were hearing yesterday, our issues around drugs. We heard from two police officers, one a retired undercover drugs detective. He was saying that since the introduction of the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Regulations 1988, we have seen a soaring in the number of people using drugs. He pointed out that 10% of users take up 50% of the supply of serious drugs; so 10% of chronic heroin users are consuming 50% of the drugs market.
If one addressed the needs of these drug users, as we used to do before the misuse of drugs Acts—if we provide users quickly with methadone and with safe places to take drugs—the demand would disappear and the supply would shrink. These would perhaps be more effective options. Maybe the Minister can write to us about what happens in other nations and how they deal with these issues.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for outlining his amendments. Amendments 45 and 46 are intended to bring weapons such as stilettos and—as he mentioned—knitting needles within the definition of “bladed product”. We have deliberately not defined the word “cutting” in the Bill. It will carry its normal meaning. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the verb “to cut” as, among other things, to,
“make an opening, incision, or wound in (something) with a sharp-edged tool or object”,
and to,
“trim or reduce the length of (grass, hair, etc) by using a sharp implement”.
The normal meaning is therefore capable of capturing a wide range of items with which cutting, in all its ordinary meanings, can be done, including knives, scissors, axes, machetes and the like. It follows, therefore, that items such as stilettos, knives or daggers are already caught by the definition of “bladed product” in the Bill because they have a blade and are capable of cutting the skin.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, perhaps I may address that particular point in relation to Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which refers to,
“any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed”.
Clearly the drafters of that clause felt the need to define “or … sharply pointed”. In other words, something that is sharply pointed does not have, and is not, a blade. It is essential that in Clause 19(1) the object we are talking about is, or has, a blade, whereas Section 139 clearly differentiates between an object that has a blade and an object that is sharply pointed. I do not see how we can have at the same time in legislation one clause that says these two things are separate and another which maintains that they are the same.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I hope that I will get some inspiration from behind me in the course of what I am going to say. I started by saying that items such as stiletto knives or daggers are already caught by the definition of “bladed product” in the Bill, because they have a blade and are capable of cutting the skin. There is, therefore, no need to add a further reference to piercing the skin, which would be the effect of my noble friend’s amendment. I note that he has clarified that his concern is to ensure that the definition covers “weapons such as stilettos”. I hope he will accept that the definition in the Bill is already sufficient to capture stiletto knives. I do not think that he has in mind stiletto heels—or does he?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That is good. These would not fall within the definition in the Bill as they do not generally have a blade. It is our intention that the definition of “bladed product” excludes those articles with a blade that are unlikely to cause serious injury if used as a weapon. They might include cutlery, fans and lawnmowers—which he mentioned—among other things. We believe that it is unlikely that such items will be procured by persons under 18 to be used as weapons. We also want to exclude articles that can cause serious injury only other than by cutting, for instance when used as a blunt object. Ultimately, it will up to the courts to determine whether an item is or has a blade and is capable of causing serious injury by way of cutting the skin. However, we will issue guidance in consultation with the police and business to provide further clarity on this and other provisions in the Bill.
Perhaps I might add that Amendment 46 highlights the risk of including an indicative list of examples in legislation, which brings complications of its own. For example, one might ask why the list includes screwdrivers but not chisels, or lawn mowers but not hedging shears and so forth. It is better, I suggest, to leave it to the police, prosecutors and the courts, supported by the guidance to which I have referred, to determine relevance in the circumstances of each situation.
This leads me to Amendments 44, 47, 55 and 56, which would change the types of articles to which Clause 20 applies from “bladed articles” to “bladed products”. My noble friend Lord Lucas has rightly asked why, in Clause 20, the term “bladed articles” is used rather than “bladed products”. A bladed product is defined in Clause 19 as,
“an article which … is or has a blade, and … is capable of causing a serious injury to a person which involves cutting that person’s skin”.
“Bladed article” is defined by Clause 20(11), in the case of England and Wales, as an article,
“to which section 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 applies”.
My noble friend referred to this.
Section 141A applies to: any knife, except a folding pocket knife with a blade of three inches or less; any knife blade; any razor blade, except those permanently enclosed in cartridges; any axe; and any other article which has a blade or which is sharply pointed and which is made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person. “Bladed article” therefore captures a wide range of articles with a blade from kitchen knives to cutlery knives, scissors, and so on. This is the language used in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 in relation to the sales of knives and possession offences. “Bladed product” refers to a smaller set of items with a blade: those which can cause serious injury by cutting the skin, as defined in Clause 19. The effect of Amendments 44, 47, 55 and 56 would therefore be that the range of articles to which Clause 20 applies would be smaller than is currently the case in the Bill.
I hope that my noble friend is reassured by the provisions in Clauses 17 to 20. If a bladed article is delivered on behalf of a seller based abroad, the delivery company has the responsibility to ensure that the item is not handed over to a person aged under 18, whether the seller uses a marketplace platform or sells direct, or whether the item is delivered to a private address or a collection point. As I said earlier, we cannot enforce legislation against a seller who is based abroad but, in this instance, we have the ability to place the onus on the person who delivers the merchandise here to ensure that they do not deliver a bladed article into the hands of a person aged under 18.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about the business impact. I concur with him that we should be concerned about the impact on British businesses. We have published an impact assessment alongside the Bill, which can be found on the Bill’s page on GOV.UK.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
So would this not have gone to the Better Regulation Executive to look at?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
In terms of better regulation, I do not think that it has but I will double-check before Report. It probably has not.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked about the position in other countries and the approach we have taken. Of course we always learn from other jurisdictions, and I hope that they learn from us, but we must legislate as we consider it appropriate to address the position as we find it in this country. Regarding the problems underlying drug addiction, we will come on to that when we reach Amendment 63 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who I do not think is in her place at this point.
I want to make one final point about articles with a blade or point: we do not want to capture items such as screwdrivers and crochet needles because they are not usually used for harm—that is not to say they are not used for harm, but not usually. Hence we are referring to “blade” and not “sharp point”. I hope that, with those explanations, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Before we get to that point, the Minister has mentioned guidance, which will certainly be very welcome. Can we be assured that the practitioners—I do not mean those with real knives, but those in the criminal justice sector, prosecution, the Bar Council, police and so on—are consulted about how the guidance is presented? I can see a nod at that. That will be very helpful.
I cannot help observing that whoever gave the Minister the note about crochet needles is not someone who uses them, because they have a curved end.
Lord Lucas
I am very grateful to my noble friend for that explanation. I shall read it with care in Hansard. I expect, as with the previous amendment, that I might like to ask her to put the requirement for guidance in the legislation, because it is important that people should know what the ambit of this legislation is. I thank her on behalf of vampire hunters everywhere that they can have their wooden stakes safely delivered to their houses without obstruction. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the Minister’s amendments at page 19, lines 16, 21, 22, 30 and 31 would modify the offences relating to delivery of a bladed product in Clause 17. Currently these offences do not apply to weapons to which section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 applies and the amendments would remove that exception.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanation of the Minister’s amendment at page 19, line 15.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanation of the Minister’s amendment at page 19, line 15.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanation of the Minister’s amendment at page 19, line 15.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanation of the Minister’s amendment at page 19, line 15.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanation of the Minister’s amendment at page 19, line 15.
Baroness Hamwee
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to probe why this exemption exists.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I did not move Amendment 55A because there was an equivalent that we debated on Monday. Amendment 57A would have had an equivalent amendment, but I missed it—nobody is perfect. However, this allows us to return yet again to the distinction between sellers outside the UK and sellers carrying on the,
“business of selling articles of any kind from premises in any part of the United Kingdom”,
at the time of the sale.
I was curious about that distinction, and have one or two points I would like to check. Am I right to think that “carrying on business” does not mean that the business has to be based or domiciled to fulfil that description? I assume that the seller does not have to have his own premises and can operate, for instance, from a contractor’s premises; and that the description “selling articles of any kind” will be met if the seller sells teddy bears, for instance, rather than knives from within the UK.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I am sorry to have missed a bit; the Committee may have dealt with this. On overseas and online sales, on Monday I mentioned Amazon. I have confirmed that Amazon is an international seller. It is headquartered in Ireland and qualifies as such, but the delivery mechanism is within the UK. Apparently, that is a clear ruling from elsewhere so there is a big problem, as the noble Baroness has just said. I was also told, because I was chairing a meeting on the subject, that retailers are now dropping the sale of ordinary kitchen knives and such things. It is just too difficult. They will drop all sorts of other household products if they think they might fall under the Act. It will just cause great inconvenience for UK households.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Baroness for outlining her amendment. I understand that its purpose is to probe the meaning of Clause 20(3). Obviously, we will have a discussion before Report and I am happy to discuss the unwillingness of companies, but I go back to the first group of amendments, where I outlined the failing in the system of test purchases.
Clause 20(3) sets out when a seller, other than an individual seller, is to be regarded as outside the UK. Where an overseas seller is an individual, it is relatively easy to establish that they are based overseas, but where a seller is a company it might not be so obvious where they are based. For example, the company might operate mainly from China, where its headquarters are based, but might also have offices and shops in the UK.
The provision is constructed so that a company selling bladed articles is considered to be based outside the UK only when the business is not conducted from premises in any part of the UK—that is, where the company is based solely overseas and does not sell articles in this country. If the seller conducts the business in any part of the UK, it would be subject to the provisions in Clause 17 and prohibited from dispatching bladed articles to a residential premises or locker. I hope that that explanation helps the noble Baroness.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I hear what the Minister says, but this would not cover Amazon, because at the moment the selling is done from abroad.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I do not agree with the noble Lord on that point.
Lord Lucas
Well, my Lords, perhaps we could enter into some correspondence about that. What Amazon does in this country is the fulfilment; the selling is done from Ireland or Liechtenstein, but certainly not from within this country. We need to be clear that these activities can get split, particularly in the case of big companies. The whole action of selling the knife, preparing it for delivery and delivering it is what should be considered as selling it, not just the technical act of selling.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, that is why I asked some of my questions, as the activities can be split—although I do not want to promote Amazon. These issues may not be far from the taxation points that arise in connection with some of these organisations. As it happens, I do not quite agree with the noble Lord about who is selling. Last night, I looked up an item that I have only been able to find to buy through Amazon and the website said, “This is dispatched from and sold by” somebody else. However, a lot of questions remain.
Lord Lucas
That is an Amazon Marketplace thing and not an Amazon own product.
Lord Deben (Con)
I was here at our last meeting, when this issue was discussed. It has obviously caused us a great deal of misunderstanding and we have found it quite difficult to undo. I am concerned about the customers; I am not sure that they would understand it at all. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will agree to try to work this out in a way that the public can understand. Part of what we are trying to do is to make suitable controls. I was not able to be here earlier, but I have been here for this discussion. Even so, I am in the same position as I was when we talked about this before: I do not understand it wholly and I am not sure that the noble Baroness does, although she is very clever and often understands things when I do not. Clearly, we do not understand it, so is it possible for us to look at it again? If it means that it is better to be a seller from abroad than to be a seller at home, frankly I would not like to have to explain that on a platform to the public. I would find that difficult. In the end, we ought not to help people who are domiciled abroad in order to avoid paying taxes and who undermine people who are here paying taxes. I am not terribly keen on that and, again, I would not like to explain it on a platform. I always think this about the small “p” political things: if I were standing on a platform and someone asked me the question, could I give them an answer that would not mean that the hall threw rotten apples? I am afraid that this is rotten-apple time.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am grateful for that. I do not think that I would manage even to get as far as the rotten apples, because I would have bored the audience. It is not just the buyer who needs to be clear about this; it is the seller and everybody in the chain. There needs to be more clarity than I have obtained and I look forward to the meeting when we will discuss this further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
“Prohibition of bladed product displays
(1) A person who in the course of a business displays a bladed product in a place in England and Wales or Northern Ireland is guilty of an offence.(2) The appropriate Minister may by regulations provide for the meaning of “place” in this section.(3) The appropriate Minister may by regulations make provision for a display in a place which also amounts to an advertisement to be treated for the purposes of offences in England and Wales or Northern Ireland under this Act—(a) as an advertisement and not as a display, or(b) as a display and not as an advertisement.(4) No offence is committed under this section if—(a) the bladed products are displayed in the course of a business which is part of the bladed product trade, (b) they are displays for the purpose of that trade, and(c) the display is accessible only to persons who are engaged in, or employed by, a business which is also part of that trade.(5) No offence is committed under this section if the display is a requested display to an individual aged 18 or over.(6) The appropriate Minister may provide in regulations that no offence is committed under subsection (1) if the display complies with requirements specified in regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would prohibit the open display of bladed products in shops.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, this amendment in the name of my noble friend seeks to insert a new clause after Clause 20 to prohibit the display of bladed products in shops. The honourable Member for Lewisham Deptford, Vicky Foxcroft, the chair of the Youth Violence Commission, has done some excellent work on this matter. Members from all sides in the other place, along with academics, practitioners, youth service workers, the police and experts connected with youth violence have been very involved in the work of the commission. I commend the commission’s report, which was recently published—it should be read by all noble Lords. One of its important recommendations is the prohibition of knife displays in shops. During consideration in the other place, USDAW—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—was asked whether it believed that putting knives behind displays would be helpful. Doug Russell, representing USDAW, said:
“It would be. Obviously, now big retailers are increasingly going down the route of making it more difficult for customers to get their hand on the product until they have been age-checked”,—[Official Report, Commons, Offensive Weapons Bill Committee, 19/7/18; col. 98.]
and they have assured themselves that a transaction is safe. I want people’s ages to be checked properly when they seek to purchase knives.
We must also protect against the theft of knives. There are several restrictions in law relating to other products, most obviously the extremely restrictive provisions for the sale of tobacco, which prohibit the display of tobacco products in relevant shops and businesses in England. The Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002 refers specifically to under-18s, so the principle already exists in law to protect under-18s from harm by prohibiting the open display of goods. I see no reason why this should not be extended to bladed products. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, if I understand this amendment correctly, I do not feel I can support it. Clearly bladed products should be displayed in a way that ensures they are safe and cannot easily be stolen, but I cannot agree with the suggestion that they need to be hidden in case they lead people into being tempted to use them for criminal purposes, if that is what the noble Lord is saying. The noble Lord mentioned cigarettes. They are now hidden from view and advertising them has been banned because they are always and in every circumstance bad for your health and addictive, but the same cannot be said for knives. We do not conceal alcohol or glue as they have legitimate uses, and we do not believe it is necessary to conceal knives.
Baroness Barran
As the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, has explained, this amendment would make it a criminal offence for a businessperson to display a bladed product. The amendment seeks to replicate for knives the legislation in place on the display of tobacco products.
As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has just pointed out, the prohibition on the display of tobacco products is to help reduce the major risk to public health that comes from smoking: it is to help reduce smoking uptake by those under 18 and to support adult smokers who want to quit by removing temptation from open display. We do not want to stop people buying knives, only to stop their sale to under-18s. Requiring businesses to remove all bladed products from open display and to have them hidden away could have significant cost implications in terms of staff to operate the secure displays and for fixtures and the layout of stores. Our estimate shows that the cost to business of a requirement to lock bladed products into cabinets would be very significant. The Government believe a legal requirement not to display knives for all sellers, regardless of whether knife crime is a problem in the area where the business is placed, is not a proportionate measure. We believe that voluntary action on a risk-based basis will achieve the same aim.
The Home Office voluntary agreement with retailers including Wilko, Morrisons, Tesco and Argos includes an agreement that retailers will ensure knives are displayed and packed securely as appropriate to minimise risk. This includes retailers taking practical and proportionate action to restrict accessibility, avoid immediate use, reduce the possibility of injury and prevent theft. Retailers are also looking at more technology-based measures to prevent theft and to ensure that age verification takes place consistently in every case. For instance, retailers tell us that the use of tagging and more advanced bar-coding have proven to be an active deterrent in relation to both theft and age verification.
Lord Tunnicliffe
I thank the Minister for her response. I felt that it was more persuasive in favour of the amendment than my own words, but I cannot agree with the conclusions she came to. Sadly, given the widespread support for the amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Lord Tunnicliffe
“Enforcement of sections 1, 3, 4, 17 and 20
(1) It shall be the duty of every authority to which subsection (4) applies to enforce within its area the provisions of sections 1, 3, 4, 17 and 20 of this Act.(2) An authority in England or Wales to which subsection (4) applies shall have the power to investigate and prosecute an alleged contravention of any provision under sections 1, 3, 4, 17 and 20 of this Act which was committed outside its area in any part of England and Wales.(3) A district council in Northern Ireland shall have the power to investigate and prosecute an alleged contravention of any provision under sections 1, 3, 4, 17 and 20 of this Act which was committed outside its area in any part of Northern Ireland.(4) The authorities to which this section applies are—(a) in England, a county council, metropolitan borough council, unitary authority, district council or London Borough Council, the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority and the Council of the Isles of Scilly;(b) in Wales, a county council or a county borough council;(c) in Scotland, a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994;(d) in Northern Ireland, any district council.(5) In enforcing any provision under sections 1, 3, 4, 17 and 20 of this Act, an authority must act in a manner proportionate to the seriousness of the risk and shall take due account of the precautionary principle, and shall encourage and promote voluntary action by producers and distributors.(6) Notwithstanding subsection (5), an authority may take any action under this section urgently and without first encouraging and promoting voluntary action if a product poses a serious risk.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause, for the relevant authorities, would create (a) a duty for them to enforce the relevant sections of this Bill, and (b) a power for them to investigate alleged offences under this Bill.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Amendments 59, 60 and 86 in this group, which are tabled in my name, seek to give trading standards powers to enforce the relevant provisions of the Bill and a power to investigate alleged breaches of the relevant provisions contained in the Bill. There are excellent examples of good work already going on, which this amendment seeks to build on. Croydon Borough Council has worked with local retailers to improve their understanding of the law around knife sales through training and to encourage them to go further than required by law through responsible retail agreements and has caught traders willing to break the law on underage sales by using test purchasers in person and online. Croydon trading standards now has 145 retailers signed up to its responsible retailer agreements. It ran eight “Do you pass?” training sessions with retailers over the past year, encouraging additional measures, such as Challenge 25 and the responsible display of knives in stores. The training sessions are a good indicator of which retailers are keen to work responsibly and which might not be. Finally, 61 test purchases of knives have been carried out in the past year to identify those retailers which are not complying with the law. We have also seen excellent work done in this regard by the police in Greenwich through test purchases by cadets.
These additional responsibilities will create a resource issue as this will be an additional power and an additional requirement, but one that I think is needed. I recognise that the Serious Violence Strategy released by the Home Office contained the promise of a prosecution fund for trading standards for two years to support targeted prosecution activity against online and instore retailers in breach of the law on the sale of knives to underage people. The strategy is not clear about how much funding will be made available and gives no clarity to trading standards about support two years down the line. Perhaps the Minister can update the Grand Committee on this.
In putting these amendments forward, I am aware that the budget for trading standards has been cut by half since 2010, from more than £200 million to barely £100 million, while the number of trading standards officers has fallen by 56% in the same period. The cuts I refer to have led to the downgrading of the protections that consumers depend on. In many cases, they have been reduced to a system based on consumer complaints. Relying on such a system is not an effective way to enforce laws, particularly when we talk about the purchase of knives or corrosive substances. I hope to get a positive response and that the Minister will speak to her amendments in this group. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am not sure whether the Minister wants to introduce the government’s amendments now, so perhaps I should just ask some questions. At Second Reading, I raised the role of trading standards so it is obviously welcome that it is being addressed.
There are some obvious questions about the Government’s amendments. First, why weights and measures authorities? I confess that I have not looked up the statutory definition of a weights and measures authority, but there must be one. Why is it that rather than local authorities? The Chartered Trading Standards Institute makes the point that if the obligation was placed on local authorities as a whole, they might have more flexibility in how they dealt with the issue. Secondly, why is it not a statutory duty? On that point, the institute says that, in its experience, local authorities are less likely to provide the resources to deal with a problem, let alone with the training and recruitment of staff. The issue of resources is huge, and it is the elephant in the room in this context. We are all aware of the constraints on local authorities. It is a while since I was a local councillor, and I used to think that we had problems then. I do not know how local authorities manage now to juggle the calls on their resources, so I must make that obvious point as well as asking these few questions. It is right that the role of trading standards is recognised here, as is their role with offensive weapons as a whole, given their understanding of how the communities where they work actually operate.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I apologise for missing the first few words of my noble friend’s introductory remarks on this amendment. I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said because I wonder whether the wording in the government amendment is as precise as it is intended to be. The Chartered Trading Standards Institute—I refer to my interests in terms of trading standards—says that a correct definition, if you mean just weights and measures authorities, would be,
“a local weights and measures authority”,
in Great Britain,
“within the meaning set out in section 69 of the Weights and Measures Act 1985”.
The Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland may enforce within its area, rather than simply talking in those terms. I wonder whether a broader definition would not make sense, given that in many local authorities now the trading standards function, which is so diminished, is often spread with other responsibilities. That may be something the Government want to take away and look at to make sure that what they are trying to achieve meets the obligation.
The second point about whether this should be made a duty is important as well. People I know very well in the Chartered Trading Standards Institute try to get this both ways: they complain constantly about all the statutory duties placed on local authorities, and therefore the inability of local authorities to take them seriously, but they also say, “Here is something which ought to be a statutory duty”. The psychological effect of making it clear that the Government wish to place a responsibility on local authorities to pursue their role in this matter would be extremely helpful and valuable. If the Government were to find some way of making the resources available, so that, rather than just placing the duty, they could also ensure that local authorities had the wherewithal to take effective action, that would be extremely helpful.
Baroness Barran
My Lords, the amendments in this group are directed at a common end—namely, to support the effective enforcement of the provisions of the Bill by local authorities. Amendment 59 introduces a legal duty on local authorities to enforce the legislation in relation to the sale and delivery of bladed articles and corrosive substances.
Local authorities in England and Wales already regulate the sale of bladed articles using general powers in Section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972. Under that section, where a local authority considers it expedient for the promotion or protection of the interests of the inhabitants of its area, it may prosecute, defend or appear in legal proceedings and, in the case of civil proceedings, may institute them in its own name.
There is no reason why local authorities could not use the general powers under the Local Government Act 1972 to enforce the provisions in the Bill in relation to the sale of corrosive products. It is also possible for the legislation in relation to sales of bladed articles and corrosive products to be enforced by the police. Consistent with these existing powers, the Government do not believe that it is necessary to impose a duty on local authorities to enforce the legislation in relation to the sale of bladed articles and corrosive products.
That is not to say that local authorities’ enforcement powers in this area cannot be strengthened. This leads me to Amendment 60, which seeks to extend the application of the investigative powers provided for in the Consumer Rights Act 2015. These powers enable local authorities to: require information from sellers; observe the carrying on of business; enter premises without warrant; inspect products; test equipment; require the production of documents; or seize and detain goods.
Lord Tunnicliffe
I am very slow today. The Minister has spent a lot of time agreeing with me and then she has not suggested that we should adopt the amendment. Is she suggesting that we should adopt the amendment or is she trying to persuade me that it is not necessary?
Baroness Barran
I am trying to persuade the noble Lord that the Government’s amendments will achieve the same aim.
Baroness Barran
Returning to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about weights and measures, I am advised that this approach goes with the grain of existing legislation. We believe that weights and measures authorities are in fact local authorities, but I will confirm that in writing.
Baroness Hamwee
When that is done, could examples —not a whole list of the grain to which the Minister refers—be given to us?
Baroness Barran
We will gladly do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked for more detail about the prosecution fund that was announced in the Government’s Serious Violence Strategy. The Government committed £500,000 in 2018-19 and another £500,000 in 2019-20 to support local authorities to bring prosecutions, where appropriate, in relation to age-restricted sales of knives. The prosecution fund is managed by National Trading Standards, which is the body that brings together trading standards representatives in England and Wales. The fund will be used by 11 local areas identified as having a knife crime problem to test compliance with sale of knives legislation. I think the noble Lord will be pleased to hear that Croydon is among the 11 areas since he referred to the good work that is going on there.
Amendment 86 would enable local authorities and companies to establish partnerships with the purpose of complying with the provisions in the Bill. The noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but I suspect that this amendment is aimed at extending the benefits of the primary authority scheme. The primary authority scheme was created in response to recommendations in the Hampton report published in 2005, which noted widespread inconsistencies of regulatory interpretation between different local authorities. It was introduced in April 2009. The Enterprise Act 2016 included measures to amend the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 to enable many more small businesses and pre-start-up enterprises to participate in primary authority.
The primary authority scheme provides greater regulatory consistency for businesses operating across a number of local authority areas. This is expected to improve compliance with the legislation. The scheme is based on the creation of a statutory partnership between a business and its primary authority. The primary authority acts as a key point of contact for a business that it partners with, in relation to the business’s interaction with local authorities that regulate it, known as enforcing authorities. The primary authority acts as co-ordinator of other local authority inspections of that business. The primary authority supports businesses in meeting their obligations by helping them to understand what needs to be done to achieve or maintain compliance: setting out a way of doing so, or providing information that the method of compliance chosen by the business is acceptable. For the benefit of noble Lords, I will mention that all the major supermarkets, Amazon and the Association of Convenience Stores—given that your Lordships have mentioned the importance of smaller retailers several times—are all part of the primary authority scheme. The scheme has been received positively and has had widespread uptake and support from businesses, professional bodies and local authorities. Government Amendment 82 therefore extends the scheme to the sale of bladed articles and corrosive products. Amendments 88 and 90 are consequential on the earlier amendments.
In short, the government amendments in this group achieve much the same end as the amendments in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Kennedy. On that basis I hope that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw Amendment 59.
Lord Tunnicliffe
I shall read the Minister’s response with some care, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to exclude from the provisions of the Bill knives that are opened using pressure from the thumb on a small protuberance on the blade (rather than a nail nick), to enable climbers, fishermen and others to make use of knives that can be opened one-handed.
Lord Lucas
In moving Amendment 61, I shall speak also to Amendment 62. Amendment 61 is intended to remove or make it clear that certain knives do not fall under the prohibition in Clause 21. There are a number of occupations and trades where it is very important to be able to have a knife that can be opened with one hand. This is often a safety-critical feature—if you are a climber, an at-sea fisherman, a parachutist or in various other trades that involve the use of ropes, you need to be able to cut and at the same time use your other hand to hold on to something. The way that is generally achieved is to have a small button looking something like a wart on the blade that you can push using the pressure of your thumb to open it; sometimes the alternative is a large opening in the blade.
I want to make sure that the Government are clear that those sorts of knives are not intended to be caught by this clause, because—coming on to the history behind Amendment 62—when Clause 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 was promulgated, allowing folding knives with blades shorter than three and a half inches, it was widely assumed that that would allow blades that locked, because nobody who is going to use a knife wants a blade that does not lock. A folding knife with a blade that does not lock is a toy—you can use it to sharpen a pencil and nothing much else safely. If you have any use for it in hobbies or business, you need a blade that will lock open. The locking requirement was introduced as a result of case law.
If the Government wish to maintain that, I would like my noble friend to make it absolutely clear that “good reason” is understood to be really quite wide. A tradesman will generally have among his tools a knife with a blade that locks, because that is all that is safe to use. You can therefore expect to find it in and about their vehicle, when their vehicle is in a public place, or when they are moving between, or might be going to, places where they will need to employ their knife.
At present, people who use knives in such ways tell me that the police are understanding, but if we reach the point of being much harder on the carrying of knives, I want to be sure that it really is understood that a locking knife is an essential tool of the trade, that people who have a trade or hobby that requires it will often have it in their possession and that the police take an understanding attitude to that at a time of heightened tension. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee
My noble friend and I have given notice that we oppose Clause 21 standing part of the Bill. Our concern was that expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about people who need to be able to open a knife with one hand because their other hand is otherwise engaged in the same operation. We wanted also to know how the needs of disabled people who may have the use of only one hand are to be dealt with. A button, spring or other device that the noble Lord has described seems to be exactly the sort of knife that would fall within this clause. I see a problem there, and I am glad that he has identified it more specifically than we have done. I could not quite see the way to deal with it, so I took the rather wider approach of opposing the clause standing part, but we have to pin it down in a way that satisfies everyone—and not just by the police being understanding.
Viscount Goschen
My Lords, I draw to the Committee’s attention that that this type of knife is often contained in a multi-tool type product, for which there are numerous applications. Motorists, hobbyists, farmers and all sorts of people regularly carry them. They often have small blades which, because of the multiplicity of functions within the product, are accessed by a knob or protuberance of metal. It would be regrettable if such products were caught by accident within the clause.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question to which I would be happy for her to reply in writing—it refers to something that we have recently passed. If an individual were to steal a knife from a shop, would they be considered to be guilty also of being in possession of that knife, of carrying it? If not, I suggest that it might be looked at in regulations and that the law should consider it a more serious offence than stealing something of the equivalent value of a Mars bar or some other food item, but it is a technical point.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank my noble friend for clearly outlining the intention of his amendments. On Amendment 61, I say from the outset that it is not the intention of Clause 21 to prohibit knives that can be opened manually. The types of knives covered by the legislation are those which can be opened automatically, from either a closed position or a partially opened position to the fully opened position. The legislation makes no reference to knives that can be opened manually and therefore those knives that can be opened with one hand using pressure from the thumb on a small protuberance, usually known as a thumb stud, do not fall under the legislation.
Amendment 62 would exempt folding knives which may be locked into position when fully extended, provided that the blade is less than three inches long. In responding to this amendment, it may assist the Committee if I briefly outline the current legislation regarding possession of bladed articles. Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 makes it a criminal offence to carry a knife in a public place, except for folding pocket knives if the cutting edge of the blade does not exceed three inches. Section 139(4) and (5) of the 1988 Act provide a good reason or lawful authority defence for persons to have the article with them in a public place. In addition, and without prejudice to the generality of this defence, there are specific defences where the bladed article is for use at work, in a person’s possession for religious reasons, or is part of a national costume. Therefore, if a person needs to carry a folding locking knife owing to the nature of the activity to be undertaken—for example, to participate in outdoor activities such as fishing—they can avail themselves of one of the defences provided in the legislation.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Sorry, may I intervene? I have been referring to the noble Baroness but I meant my noble friend.
Lord Lucas
I am very grateful—whoever I may be —to receive that answer, which, in respect of Amendment 61, was all the comfort I could have asked for. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I have the greatest difficulty in understanding how a person with one hand can open a modern milk bottle. There are greater tests than opening a pocket knife. I understand what my noble friend says about folding knives that can be locked open, but one very much relies on the police to take a sensible attitude to the necessary prevalence of these items among people who use knives for a purpose. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Meacher
“(1AA) A person charged with an offence under subsection (1A) who is certified by the relevant police force as being addicted to drugs must be referred for treatment to an addiction rehabilitation service, and, if they comply with their treatment, must not be referred to court.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require those charged with the offence of carrying a flick or gravity knife who are also certified by the relevant police force as being addicted to drugs to be referred to a rehabilitation service for treatment before attending court. Charges would be dropped if they complied with their treatment.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I must first apologise to the Committee that I have been horribly absent, but there was an event in the other place that I had to attend—I will not bore your Lordships with the explanation, but there really was no option.
Amendment 63 aims to ensure that vulnerable children or young people found with an offensive weapon in a public place are assessed for addiction. So many of these vulnerable children and young people are addicted to drugs. If they are found to be so addicted, they should not be processed through the criminal justice system; rather, they should be referred to a rehabilitation service for help with their addiction and related problems. Many of them are homeless and have all sorts of mental health problems and so forth. The Government have recognised that short-term prison sentences are generally unhelpful. Re-offending rates following such sentences are very high. In the case of drug addicts, a prison sentence will generally achieve—I really mean this—absolutely nothing positive, but it is very likely to increase the vulnerability and addiction, and therefore the criminal activity of these young people.
Several noble Lords attended an interesting meeting yesterday where senior police officers and a police and crime commissioner from the West Midlands explained this. I quote one of the officers, “The police cannot reduce the illegal drugs market, however many drug dealers we arrest and imprison”. That is a powerful statement on behalf of men on the front line who deal with these things day in, day out. Those people spend their lives that way. Neil Woods, who has written two books about his time as an undercover officer arresting drug dealers over many years, explained that he came to realise that he was not achieving any reduction in the availability of drugs. He was completely wasting his life away, so he changed to a very different view about how these things should be dealt with.
The police officers also talked about how much more effective alternatives to punishment are in persuading young people to back away from the illegal drugs market. Ronnie Cowan MP talked about the work in Glasgow where young people are diverted from the criminal justice system and helped to return to a normal life. Perhaps the Minister will tell the Committee whether she is familiar with the work in Glasgow. If she is not, it may be worth her looking into it before Report.
This amendment is really important from the pure efficiency point of view on reducing addiction and crime in this context, but let us also look at it from the point of view of the children and young people involved. As I said at the beginning, a very high proportion of children found carrying a knife or another offensive weapon in a public place will be vulnerable children, who have become addicted to drugs or been targeted by the drug gangs. The Children’s Commissioner estimates that at least 46,000 children in England are involved in gang activity. It is estimated that about 4,000 teenagers in London alone are being exploited through child criminal exploitation in what has come to be known as county lines. These vulnerable children should be seen as victims of trafficking and exploitation rather than as criminals.
Gangs are deliberately targeting vulnerable children. They watch for a child walking home from school day after day alone, head down, looking miserable. These children are unsafe, unloved or unable to cope for one reason or another. Gangs take advantage of their vulnerability. They threaten or trick children into trafficking their drugs for them. They may threaten a young person physically or threaten a family member. They often offer food, which the child or family may desperately need, alcohol or clothing to the child or their family in return for co-operation.
Once children have received gifts, they feel indebted to the gang. They quickly feel they have no option but to continue. As many noble Lords will know perfectly well, the gangs use these vulnerable children to store their drugs and to move cash proceeds or the drugs themselves. No doubt they give them a knife or something else to protect themselves with. The county lines groups use high levels of violence, including the ready use of firearms, knives and other offensive weapons, to intimidate and control members of the group and its vulnerable victims. The victims are exposed to varying levels of exploitation including physical, mental and sexual harm. Some of the young people are trafficked into remote markets to work. Others are falsely imprisoned in their own homes, which have been taken over using force or coercion. I must say that I had not heard of that until I read it rather recently.
The National Crime Agency report County Lines Violence, Exploitation & Drug Supply 2017 analysed the exploitation of vulnerable people, including those with mental health or physical health problems. Sixty-five per cent of police services reported that county lines activity was linked to the exploitation of children. The police know perfectly well that we are dealing with victims here. Once involved, victims may want to get out of their situation but do not want to involve the police for fear of self-incrimination or retribution by the perpetrators. They are really caught in the middle. These victims may carry a knife or other weapon for self-protection, as I have mentioned. The real question is whether they are really criminals for carrying that knife for self-protection. Other noble Lords talked about what is in the mind. These children have got a knife not to attack others, but to protect themselves. That surely makes all the difference to one’s approach to dealing with these children.
This is a very complex problem but the courts and the prison system are not the right vehicles for dealing with victims. Yes, send the gang leaders to prison, though retraining and psychological treatment will be essential for them, too, if they are not to spend their time in prison, come out of it later and then start all over again, with just a little more bitterness added to what they already had. I hope we can have a discussion—a serious discussion—before Report about drug issues in relation to the Bill. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and I beg to move.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment because it advocates one public health approach, along the lines advocated in the serious violence strategy. The sad fact is, however, that too many of the intervention and preventive measures outlined in the strategy are not sufficiently resourced and may not materialise.
Last week, the drugs, alcohol and justice cross-party group that I co-chair heard about an initiative from Thames Valley Police, about which I immediately wrote to the Home Secretary, encouraging him to take an interest in it. It is a diversion scheme—modelled on the mental health diversion scheme so successfully introduced after the report by the noble Lord, Lord Bradley—requiring those found to be in possession of drugs to attend for voluntary treatment. The interesting thing was that the constables on duty in the Thames Valley streets reported that they found it extremely simple and clear to use.
As many other noble Lords have pointed out, knife carrying is a symptom of wider social issues. Many young people carry them because they fear for their lives. However, in confirmation of my warning that too many of the intervention and preventive measures outlined in the serious violence strategy are not sufficiently resourced, the Institute of Mental Health in Nottingham —I declare an interest as a member of its external advisory board—has found that only 18% of the community commissioning groups recognise that they have any responsibility for funding probation, which includes mental health and drug treatment. This emphasises the need for this significant programme of work—words used by the Home Secretary to describe the strategy—to involve a wide range of government departments, including liaison between the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Health on this issue.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment. She referred to cuckooing, which is when a vulnerable adult has someone move in who then uses their home to supply drugs. I have heard of this happening in the past among care leavers. Sometimes a local authority will provide a young person leaving care with a flat but they are vulnerable and feel isolated, so it is very easy for people to take advantage of them and start misusing their premises in that way.
I attended the meeting yesterday with the former undercover detective and a senior detective from the Midlands police force. They were talking about drugs and county lines. I asked them, “Since we are dealing in Committee with knife crime and corrosive agents, do you have any advice relating to your experience on them?”. The detectives’ response was that dealing effectively with drugs would probably be a more effective way of tackling the problem than the legislation we are working on at the moment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the Minister will expect us to support the principle of what is encompassed in this amendment. I do not need to repeat what has been said about the importance of diverting—in every sense of the word, with or without a capital “D”—people away from the criminal justice system and towards something that can help them to deal with the problem in all its manifestations. I am not quite sure about some of the wording of the clause—about the need to look at whether there has been a charge or certification by the police force—but those points do not detract from our general support for the approach.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
I agree with a lot of what the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has been saying. In fact, I am involved with a charity in Gloucestershire which deals with women who would otherwise go to prison; instead, the criminal justice system sends them to us. We have three houses in Swindon, Gloucester and Somerset. Most of the women who come to us have been drug addicts and we find that in most cases their problems started when they were teenagers. We have had terrific success in treating them in our houses, giving them the chance of a much better life and of moving on. I ask the Government to think seriously about this amendment.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for affording us the opportunity to discuss her amendment and to outline the Government’s approach to tackling that combined problem of drug misuse and knives. Noble Lords will have heard the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, talking about the link between knives and the growth of the drugs market. It is absolutely right that she has tabled this amendment. I pay tribute to all the work that she has done in this area and to the work done by the charity of the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, to divert vulnerable women from prison.
Clause 22 prohibits the possession in public and private of flick-knives and gravity knives. A person guilty of this offence is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months’ imprisonment, a fine or both. However, under this amendment, a person who is dependent on drugs would have charges dropped if the police refer the person to treatment and the person complies with the rehabilitation treatment. It is worth noting that Clause 25 prohibits the possession in private—the possession in public is already a criminal offence—of offensive weapons to which Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 applies, for example push daggers and zombie knives.
The aim of this amendment is that a person who is addicted to drugs would have charges for possession of a flick-knife or gravity knife, but not any other prohibited knife, dropped if the police refer such a person to treatment and the person complies with the rehabilitation treatment.
I know the noble Baroness and others are keen, as we all are, to deal with the underlying issue where offenders have a substance misuse problem. We will not break the cycle of offending unless we do just that. She and other noble Lords said that. I assure the noble Baroness that the Government are already taking action to address the links between drug misuse and offending. A key aim of the Government’s Drug Strategy 2017 is to take a much smarter approach to drug-related offending to address the drivers behind the crime and prevent further substance misuse and offending.
The police have a range of powers at their disposal to deal with drug-related offences in a way that is proportionate to the circumstances of the offender and the public interest. This includes the appropriate use of out-of-court disposals. We continue to encourage wider use of drug testing on arrest to support police forces in monitoring new patterns around drugs.
Baroness Meacher
The West Midlands police and crime commissioner made the point that the police do things almost outside the law, if you like, but it is quite uncomfortable. They want a change in the law to make it clear that the right thing for the police to do is to get drug-addicted young people into really good services that will move them on and get them right away from the illegal drug market. I do not think it is okay to say that the police are doing things—even though they are—because they are not really happy about it. They want the Government to lead.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
We have to get the balance right between protecting vulnerable people from becoming further involved in drugs or crime generally and criminalising some of the people who caused them to get into that life in the first place, which may involve drug abuse.
I shall outline some of the things the Government are doing, which go right to the heart of what the noble Baroness is talking about—early prevention, intervention and treatment. Noble Lords will have heard me talking about the Home Secretary’s commitment to a public health approach to drugs, taking into account all the resources that different agencies have at their disposal to tackle such problems. The noble Baroness was talking about the work in Scotland, which is very effective and very good in terms of intervention.
NHS England is rolling out liaison and diversion services across the country. They operate at police stations and courts to identify and assess people with vulnerabilities, substance misuse and mental health problems and criminality, which are quite often interlinked. They refer them into appropriate services and, where appropriate, away from the justice system altogether. If we went back 10 years, the noble Baroness could talk about the police operating aside from the law, but there is much more understanding now that early intervention and diversion are the way forward. The schemes that the NHS is currently running cover around 80% of the population in England, and we are looking to full coverage by 2021.
The Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Justice are working with NHS England and Public Health England to develop the community sentence treatment requirement protocol. The protocol aims to increase the use of community sentences with drug, alcohol and mental health treatment requirements as an alternative to custody, to improve health outcomes and reduce reoffending. It sets out what is expected from all involved agencies to ensure improved access to mental health and substance misuse treatment for offenders who need it. The Department of Health is currently leading an evaluation of the implementation of the protocol across five test-bed sites to inform further development.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, also talked about funding. I do not know whether he knows, but a youth endowment fund of £200 million is being introduced—quite a substantial amount of money. It will run for 10 years, so it is not a short-term approach. The fund will open shortly, so I hope that alongside some of the things we are doing, it will help us in our endeavours to tackle some of the root causes with early interventions and diversions from that type of activity. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
The Earl of Listowel
I shall briefly raise a matter I should have raised before. I thank the Minister for her reply, for the tone of what she said and for her recognition of the need to get to the underlying problems. I omitted to develop the concern about children and young people in care and care leavers. As the Minister will know, there is a long-standing concern about the criminalisation of young people in care and care leavers. Very few arrive into care because of criminal activity, but far too many are represented in our prisons, both as children and as adults. My noble friend Lord Laming led an inquiry into reducing the criminalisation of children, and he is concerned to see all agencies working together to keep young people—both those who have left care and those who are in it—out of the criminal justice system. What the Minister and the noble Baroness have said is helpful in this regard. But there is also a new strengthening duty on the corporate parenting responsibilities of all agencies to support young people leaving care. These are important matters to relate to this particular issue, and I thank the noble Baroness for allowing me to make those points.
Baroness Meacher
I thank the Minister very much for her thoughtful response, but she did not respond to my reference to Report stage or to whether we could do something to align this Bill with the Government’s thinking on people addicted to drugs who get into these awful situations with gangs. Does the Minister feel able to say something about what we might do between now and Report?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am happy to discuss this further with the noble Baroness. She and I have had many discussions on this subject—we have not had one for a while, so perhaps it would be worth having another. Early intervention and prevention, and a multi-agency approach to assist in diverting people away from the criminal justice system, need to be balanced with the fact that there are quite hardened criminals out there involved with drugs and gangs who we need to capture via the legislation. We need to run both in parallel.
Baroness Meacher
I thank the Minister, and could not agree with her more. In my little remarks, I also made the point that there are such hardened criminals who are turning these young people into victims. It would be good to discuss all that before Report. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lucas
“(2I) It is a defence for any person charged in respect of his or her conduct relating to a weapon to which this section applies—(a) with an offence under subsection (1) or (1A), or(b) with an offence under section 50(2) or 50(3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (improper importation),to demonstrate that his or her conduct was only for the purposes of functions carried out on behalf of the Crown or of a visiting force.(2J) In this section—reference to the Crown includes the Crown in right of Her Majesty’s Government in Northern Ireland; and“visiting force” means any body, contingent or detachment of the forces of a country—(a) mentioned in subsection (1)(a) of section 1 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952; or (b) designated for the purposes of any provision of that Act by Order in Council under subsection (2) of that section,which is present in the United Kingdom (including United Kingdom territorial waters) or in any place to which subsection (2K) below applies on the invitation of Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom.(2K) This subsection applies to any place on, under or above an installation in a designated area within the meaning of section 1(7) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964 or any waters within 500 metres of such an installation.(2L) It is a defence for a person charged in respect of his or her conduct relating to a weapon to which this section applies—(a) with an offence under subsection (1), or(b) with an offence under section 50(2) or (3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979,to show that his or her conduct was for—(a) the purposes of theatrical performances and of rehearsals for such performances;(b) the production of films (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 – see section 5B of that Act);(c) the production of television programmes (within the meaning of the Communications Act 2003 – see section 405(1) of that Act).(2M) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) or (1A) to show that the weapon in question is one of historical importance, as certified by subject matter experts from museums or auction houses or militaria experts as designated by the Secretary of State in regulations.(2N) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) or (1A) to show that the weapon in question is an antique, manufactured before 1945. (2O) For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown a matter specified in subsection (2D), (2E), (2I), (2L), (2M) or (2N) if—(a) sufficient evidence of that matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would widen the defences for those charged under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 or the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 to cover conduct relating to a weapon for the purposes of functions carried out on behalf of the Crown or a visiting force, for the purposes of theatrical performance or filming, or in relation to a weapon of historical importance or manufactured before 1945.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, in moving Amendment 64 I shall speak to Amendment 65. The purpose of these amendments is to explore the potential for defences for the weapons covered under Clause 22 to bring them into line with the defences that are available to weapons to which Clause 24 applies. Clause 24 will cover, for instance, samurai swords. There is a substantial set of defences available under Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, so the second amendment in this group simply has the effect of closing down the relevant bit of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, and dropping all those weapons into Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act, so that we have a common set of defences whatever the particular type of weapon.
If, however, we are keeping it in Section 22, there are a number of defences that we ought to explore: first, for forces of the Crown and visiting forces, and, secondly, for theatrical use. Both of these are reasonably self-explanatory. The third defence is for items of historical importance.
Baroness Barran
I am grateful to my noble friend for his explanation of these amendments which relate to the provisions in Clause 22, updating the prohibition on flick and gravity knives. Amendment 64 seeks to widen the defences for those charged under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 or the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 to cover conduct relating to a weapon for the purposes of functions carried out on behalf of the Crown or a visiting force, for the purposes of theatrical performance or filming, or in relation to a weapon of historical importance or which was manufactured before 1945. It may be helpful if I describe briefly the current legislation and the changes provided for in the Bill.
Section 1(1) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 makes it a criminal offence to manufacture, sell, hire or lend a flick-knife or a gravity knife. The importation of such knives is prohibited by Section 1(2) of the Act. Clause 21 amends the 1959 Act to update the definition of a flick-knife. The current definition is quite old, and new designs are available that mimic the speed with which a flick-knife can be opened, but do not strictly fall under the existing definition. For example, in many models currently on the market, the mechanism that allows the blade to open at great speed may not be in the handle—as required by the current definition—but the knives nevertheless mimic a flick-knife.
Clause 22 extends the current offence of possession of a flick-knife or gravity knife in a public place to cover any possession, whether in a public or private place. These weapons have no legitimate use, and we believe that it is appropriate that they are prohibited both in public and in private. This will ensure that the police will be able to seize these weapons if they come across them.
Clause 22 provides a defence for a person charged with an offence under the 1959 Act if the person shows that they have the weapons in their possession for the purpose of making the knives available to a museum or gallery, or if the person is acting on behalf of a museum or gallery. We have included this defence following responses to the public consultation that informed the Bill. In relation to whether a defence should be provided for the purposes of functions carried out on behalf of the Crown or a visiting force, flick and gravity knives have been prohibited for a long time. As my noble friend would expect, we have consulted the Ministry of Defence about these provisions and it has advised us that there is no need for such a defence to cover the Armed Forces. In relation to a defence for the purpose of theatrical performance or filming, new subsection (2F) already allows the lending and hiring of flick-knives and gravity knives by museums or galleries for cultural, artistic or educational purposes.
Nor am I persuaded that a defence should be provided for items of historical importance or which were manufactured before 1945. I am concerned that this defence may be used by people who want to use these weapons in crime. Such a person may deliberately seek to acquire a knife made before 1945, or they may argue that the knife belonged to their parents or grandparents and that the weapons were manufactured before 1945. I believe that we need to be cautious and should not provide defences under this legislation that could be easily abused. I hope that my noble friend agrees with me on this point.
Amendment 65 also seeks to exclude from the ambit of the law flick and gravity knives manufactured before 1945. As I understand it, my noble friend’s intention is also to future-proof the legislation to ensure that, irrespective of the passage of time, a flick or gravity knife manufactured after 1945 can never acquire the status of an antique. Again, I hope I can persuade my noble friend that this amendment is not needed. The 1959 Act does not provide an exemption for antique flick and gravity knives. The antique exclusion applies only to weapons to which Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 applies, which brings me to the beginning of my noble friend’s earlier words. I accept that there is a disparity between these two provisions, but it is one that has been in place since 1988. Moreover, the prohibition on flick and gravity knives has now been in place for 60 years and has operated successfully without an exception for antique knives. That being the case, I am unpersuaded that we should now alter this approach by merging the regimes under the 1959 and 1988 Acts as the amendment seeks to do. I hope I have been able to persuade my noble friend that these amendments are unnecessary and that he will be content to withdraw them.
The Duke of Montrose
The question of exception for use for theatrical purposes was included in the 1988 Act under Section 141. Is it necessary to repeat it here?
Baroness Barran
The advice I am getting is that it is necessary because they are subject to different legislation. If that is not entirely clear I am happy to write to my noble friend.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I hope that I will have the opportunity to pursue some details of this with my noble friend afterwards. I am particularly interested in what the Government propose to do about the major item to be prohibited under this legislation, which is World War II German paratroopers’ knives. Since these are of no conceivable use—they are gravity knives but without a point—they are not something that can sensibly be used in knife crime. I do not know whether the Government intend to compensate people who are currently legal owners of these objects and let themselves in for a large bill or whether they are to be turned in without compensation, but I am happy to cover those matters in conversations between Committee and Report. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Barran
“(2A) In paragraph 1, after paragraph (s) insert—“(t) the weapon sometimes known as a “cyclone knife” or “spiral knife” being a weapon with—(i) a handle,(ii) a blade with two or more cutting edges, each of which forms a helix, and (iii) a sharp point at the end of the blade.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make it an offence under section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to manufacture, supply or possess a weapon known as a “cyclone knife” or “spiral knife” in England and Wales or Northern Ireland.
Baroness Barran
My Lords, these amendments add a knife often referred to as a “cyclone knife” or “spiral knife” to the list of offensive weapons prohibited under Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The prohibition will apply in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Sections 141(1) and (1A) of the 1988 Act prohibit the manufacture, sale or hire, and possession in private of those offensive weapons specified in an order made under Section 141(2). Currently 19 weapons are prohibited in England, Wales and Northern Ireland under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988, with separate legislation applying in Scotland.
So-called cyclone knives are designed and manufactured in a way that has no purpose other than to cause injury. We have not been able to identify any legitimate alternative uses for such knives. The way they are marketed in the USA is purely in terms of their ability to inflict significant harm to individuals and cause maximum injury. We have also seen videos on several platforms where the weapon is promoted for its ability to pierce police armour and to leave a wound which is “difficult to stitch up”.
Although there is no evidence that these weapons are being marketed in the UK in the same way, we believe that there are no reasons why they should be on sale. There is no evidence, as yet, that cyclone knives have been used in criminal activity in the UK, although a cyclone knife was discovered by Metropolitan Police officers in a dawn raid in Lewisham in August, along with class A and class B drugs. We believe that it is right to act pre-emptively and prohibit these knives now.
In defining a cyclone knife, the most important elements are that it has a twisted blade, a point and a handle. The handle is important because we want to avoid capturing large screws and drill bits in the definition. Certain types of drill bits will have sharp edges along the length of the bit, but it is the presence of a handle that would make any item useful as a weapon. An implement with twisted blades but a blunt point would also be limited in its utility as a weapon. Finally, what distinguishes a cyclone knife from others is that it has more than one cutting edge along the length of the helix. I am sure noble Lords would agree that there is no place for such knives where their only conceivable use is as a weapon. I beg to move.
Baroness Barran
“(8) The Schedule to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons)(Scotland) Order 2005 (SSI 2005/483) is amended as follows.(8A) In paragraph 1, after paragraph (q) insert— “(r) the weapon sometimes known as a “cyclone knife” or “spiral knife” being a weapon with—(i) a handle,(ii) a blade with two or more cutting edges, each of which forms a helix, and(iii) a sharp point at the end of the blade.”(8B) In paragraph 2”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make it an offence under section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to manufacture, supply or possess a weapon known as a “cyclone knife” or “spiral knife” in Scotland.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 28, line 40.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 28, line 40.
Lord Tunnicliffe
“Kirpans
(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows.(2) After section 141A, insert—“141B KirpansFor the purposes of sections 139, 139A, 141 or 141A it shall be lawful for a person to possess a Kirpan for religious, ceremonial, sporting or historical reasons.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the Kirpan, a mandatory article of faith for a Sikh, possessed for religious, ceremonial, sporting or historical reasons is exempt from provisions relating to the possession of offensive weapons under the relevant sections of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Amendment 70, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Kennedy, and with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, would place in the Bill a provision to exempt the kirpan from the provisions relating to the possession of offensive weapons under the Criminal Justice Act. There is no question that the Sikh community is fully behind tightening the law on offensive weapons. We are all appalled by the toll that knife crime is taking on innocent young lives. The Government have responded to this issue in the Commons but I seek to go further, and that is the purpose and intention of what I am moving today.
The noble Lord, Lord Singh of Wimbledon, raised the issue during the Second Reading debate, and my noble friend Lord Kennedy responded to those legitimate concerns in his speech. Observance of the Sikh faith for practising Sikhs requires adherence to keeping what I understand is called the five Ks, one of which is to wear a kirpan. Larger kirpans are used on many religious occasions such as during Sikh wedding ceremonies. It is fair to say that noble Lords in all parties and on the Cross Benches would be concerned if restrictions in this Bill had unintended consequences for the Sikh community in observing and practising their faith or caused upset or concern where a member of the community was using a kirpan for ceremonial, sporting or historical reasons.
My first ask of the Minister is that she meet my noble friend Lord Kennedy, the noble Lord, Lord Singh of Wimbledon, and representatives of the Sikh community. In asking for a meeting, I put on record that the status quo is not adequate, as it only provides a defence of religious reasons if a person is charged with a criminal offence. It does not cover other reasons such as ceremonial, historical or sporting, where kirpans are offered as gifts to dignitaries. The status quo only provides a defence if a person is charged—the amendment in the name of my noble friend will provide an exemption for the possession of kirpans. The amendment will provide specific reference in the law for the kirpan, which Sikhs have been calling for. Sikhs are a law-abiding community who make a wonderful contribution to the United Kingdom. However, the community still faces difficulties in workplaces, education and in leisure with their kirpans, and this amendment will provide great assistance in education about the kirpan. I beg to move.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. I shall give just a little background. Sikhs are sometimes referred to as a martial race. The description is wrong on two counts: we are neither martial, nor are we a race. Sikh teachings criticise all notions of race or caste, emphasising that we are all equal members of one human race.
The martial assumption comes from the fact that Sikhs have had to endure being a persecuted minority for many years—at one time, there was a price on the head of every Sikh caught dead or alive. Sikhs have had to develop dexterity with a sword to survive, and, importantly, to protect the weak and vulnerable of other communities in society. Kirpan, the Sikh word for sword, means “protector”, and figures prominently in religious practice and ceremony.
This amendment is particularly necessary to protect the Sikh tradition of presenting a kirpan as a token of esteem. Recipients have included royalty, a former Speaker of the Commons and a police chief. Sikhs are grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Tunnicliffe, for introducing this amendment and for a large measure of cross-party support.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak to the amendment initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. As a member of the Sikh community, I know that the kirpan is an important part of our identity. As the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, rightly pointed out, it is part of the five Ks, particularly for all practising Sikhs.
Adding to what the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said, the Sikh community is one of the most law-abiding in this country. This symbol is often very well hidden when worn; it is there as a symbol and nothing more. As the noble Lord, Lord Singh, said, it is often gifted to those who come offering friendship to us. I hope that, given its essence as part of the Sikh community’s cultural identity, this will be one area around which we will all coalesce. I know that both my noble friends take these cultural issues seriously, as does the Home Secretary, and we need to try to find a way of being able to ensure that the Sikh community does not feel that it has not been heard properly by Parliament. I hope that, when the Sikh community comes, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, will extend his invitation to all Members who are interested in meeting with them.
Lord Sheikh (Con)
My Lords, I begin by saying that I agree with Amendment 70. The amendment seeks to protect the tradition of the kirpan and those who possess it. It permits individuals to possess the kirpan for,
“religious, ceremonial, sporting or historical reasons”.
There is disquiet among those in the Sikh community, who feel that their right to possess a kirpan is being threatened, and they need assurances to be able to do so. There needs to be a comprehensive solution which is acceptable to the Sikh community.
I was born and brought up in east Africa, where there were people of different religions and racial backgrounds. I learned to speak several languages and developed an understanding and respect for all religions. I am actively involved in promoting harmony and peace between various racial and religious groups. Although I am a Muslim, I am a patron of non-Muslim associations, including the Sikh Forum and the British Sikh Association. I am also the chairman of Guru Nanak Worldwide, which promotes the teachings of Guru Nanak Dev Ji, the founder of the Sikh religion.
I have a strong connection with the Sikhs and have visited their temples, which are called gurdwaras, on numerous occasions. I have studied Sikhism and have written a book on the life and times of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. In this book, I have included some principles of the Sikh religion and also mentioned the teachings of the 10 Sikh gurus. The 10th and last human guru was Guru Gobind Singh Ji, who transformed the Sikh faith. In 1699, he created the Khalsa, a community of the faithful who wore visible symbols of his faith and trained as warriors. Today, the Khalsa community comprises a significant proportion of the Sikh community. As has been mentioned, Guru Gobind Singh Ji also proclaimed five kakars, which were kacha, karha, kesh, kanga and kirpan.
Sikhs are proud of the five Ks and therefore comply with what has been proclaimed. The kirpan represents the values of the Sikh faith and is an essential article of faith for the Khalsa Sikhs. The kirpan is curved, contained in a sheath. It is often made of steel or iron and can be of varying sizes. It is normally worn in a strap, which is called a gatra. In the Sikh community, the kirpan is used for ceremonial and cultural practices such as during weddings and processions. It is also used in martial arts and can be given as a gift. In fact, I was presented with a kirpan in Amritsar when I visited the Golden Temple. My family’s connection with Amritsar goes back nearly 200 years, so I was privileged to be presented with a kirpan, among other items, in the Golden Temple.
The UK as a whole has a long history with the Sikhs, stemming from colonial India and the World Wars. We recently celebrated the centenary of the Armistice ending the First World War, and I have spoken in your Lordships’ House on the contribution of the soldiers from the sub-continent of India. India raised an army of over 1 million soldiers, 20% of whom were Sikhs. We owe gratitude to the Sikhs for the sacrifices they have made to preserve our way of life. This amendment is an opportunity to provide a specific defence for those who possess—I emphasise “possess”, as they do not necessarily wear it—the kirpan.
I cannot recall any occasion where a Sikh possessing the kirpan has used it as an offensive weapon and caused physical harm to anyone. This afternoon, in fact, I spoke to an ex-commander of the Metropolitan Police who verified what I say; it has not been used as an offensive weapon by the Sikhs. I therefore feel that a kirpan should not be deemed an offensive weapon and provision must be made for that in this legislation. As has been mentioned, the Sikhs are law-abiding people. The kirpan needs to be exempted from the relevant sections of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I support this amendment, which is why I added my name to it. There is little that I can usefully add because, as members of the Sikh community, the noble Lord, Lord Singh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, have already articulated exactly why this amendment should be accepted. I hope that the Government can accept it.
Baroness Barran
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for setting out the case for exempting all kirpans from the relevant provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. I can reassure him from the outset that both I and my noble friend Lady Williams would be delighted to meet representatives of the Sikh Council UK and other noble Lords as the noble Lord sees fit to discuss their concerns.
Before I go on, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Singh, and my noble friend—
Lord Singh of Wimbledon
Could I just correct that to the Network of Sikh Organisations, not the Sikh Council?
Baroness Barran
I thank the noble Lord for the correction. The spirit of my comment is that we will respect whoever he feels it is appropriate for the Minister and me to meet. I also thank him for his very helpful introduction, which gave us a sense of the historical context of the discrimination that Sikhs have faced over the years, despite their values, which he outlined for us. I thank also my noble friend Lady Verma for her explanation of the importance of the kirpan to the cultural identity of the Sikh community.
While I have great sympathy for the issue raised by noble Lords, a key difficulty with this amendment is how to define a kirpan in legislation in a way that does not open up a glaring loophole that could be readily exploited. A kirpan is only a kirpan in relation to Sikh culture and faith, otherwise it is simply a knife or a sword. In our discussions with the Sikh community, it was made clear that there is no such thing as a standard kirpan. They can come in all forms: some have curved blades and some do not; some have long blades, while others have short blades. The fundamental problem with the noble Lord’s amendment is that it depends on a legally sound definition of a kirpan which until now simply does not exist. The only thing that distinguishes a kirpan from other swords and knives is its use for religious purposes.
Under Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 it is already a defence to possess a bladed article, including a kirpan, in a public place with good reason or lawful authority. The legislation is clear that good reason includes religious reasons. Similarly, Section 139A of the 1988 Act, which prohibits possession of a bladed article or offensive weapon on school premises, includes a good reason defence which again includes religious reasons. As the noble Lord is aware, Clause 25 amends the Criminal Justice Act (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988 to provide a religious reasons defence for the possession in private of weapons covered by Section 141 of the 1988 Act, which can include large ceremonial kirpans where they have a curved blade of more than 50 centimetres.
The possession of kirpans for religious reasons is therefore covered under all of the possession offences. In addition to religious reasons, the offences include other defences—for example, for re-enactment activities and sporting purposes, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, and for items of historic importance—but these are not just aimed at kirpans.
Finally, we should be clear that when a kirpan is possessed for non-religious reasons it should be treated like any other bladed article. Crime is unfortunately committed by all parts of our society including, sadly, the Sikh community. Just because something is claimed to be a kirpan does not mean it cannot be used as a weapon, and it is quite right, for example, that the police might want to question why someone is carrying a ceremonial kirpan at three in the morning if they are hanging around a former partner’s home. Clearly Sikhs should be able to own and carry kirpans in public and use them in Sikh martial arts where this is part of their faith. The law already provides for that.
Baroness Verma
I hope I can be helpful to my noble friend. The kirpan is worn as part of the five Ks. We do not carry the kirpan in any other form. It is worn. Where the difficulty will lie is that it is always worn for religious purposes. People who are practising Sikhs have to have it as part of their five Ks. I am looking to the noble Lord, Lord Singh, who is much more experienced in this than I am, as I do not know how we would be able to differentiate the carrying from the wearing for religious purposes. I understand what my noble friend says about gifting it to a non-practising Sikh when it could be seen as a weapon, but in worship through the Sikh faith the kirpan is worn as a religious item. I hope that clarifies this rather than muddying the waters.
Baroness Barran
I thank my noble friend for her helpful explanation. I hope we can explore these things in detail when we meet, before too long, I hope.
The Sikh Federation (UK) and the Sikh Council UK raised concerns via the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Sikhs about the provisions.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon
I wish to put in context that the Sikh Federation (UK) is not a representative body of the Sikh community. Concerns have been raised by the Network of Sikh Organisations. They are trying to capitalise and muddy the waters. It would be helpful if the Government dealt with the Network of Sikh Organisations, which represents the vast part of the Sikh community.
Baroness Barran
I thank the noble Lord for his advice. As I mentioned earlier, the spirit of our meeting is that we will take his steer on who we should talk to about this. The point I raised simply reflected the fact that those organisations raised concerned with the All-Party Parliamentary Group on UK Sikhs about the provisions in the Bill.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon
The All-Party Parliamentary Group and the Sikh Federation are one and the same thing. They are exactly the same, and everyone knows it.
Baroness Barran
I thank the noble Lord for clarifying that point. Concerns were raised on the possession of long kirpans. As a result, the Government amended the Bill to include a defence for religious reasons rather than religious ceremonies, which is narrower. No concerns were raised in relation to any other provisions of the Criminal justice Act. Moreover, members of the Sikh community have been able to carry kirpans in public, including long kirpans, in religious parades—I am not sure whether that addresses my noble friend’s earlier point—and the Bill will not change that. I am therefore not persuaded that a wholesale exemption for kirpans from the provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 is needed. I fully understand the importance the Sikh community attaches to this issue. Indeed, I understand it better thanks to the interventions of noble Lords. With the reassurance of a future meeting, I hope I have been able to persuade the noble Lord that we have the balance right and that he will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
This takes me back to those heady days when we had a Labour Government and I was a lowly Whip. That sounds like a very Treasury counterargument. One day when I was handling a particular clause, I was told that it was impossible to frame the legislation to meet the need. I said, from my lowly position in the massive meeting, “You’d better try because otherwise you will get the words that are in the amendment because it will pass at the next stage”. At that, there was a great writing of things and, lo and behold, the Government managed to find an amendment which was satisfactory. I strongly recommend that the Government make an intense effort to frame an amendment of their own which meets the across-the-board support for the spirit of this amendment.
Lord Paddick
Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, it should be said that concerns are being expressed at the impression being given by the Government of there being no room for negotiation on this issue. I hope that they will at least approach that meeting with an open mind rather than giving the impression, as might be inferred from what the Minister has said from the Dispatch Box, that there is no room for manoeuvre.
Baroness Barran
I can reassure the noble Lord that the Government will approach the meeting with an open mind. I tried to be clear that the key issue is achieving a specific definition for a kirpan, which we will obviously make every effort to work with. We will see whether that is possible.
Lord Sheikh
I have had representations from various Sikhs in the past few days—not members of the association but ordinary Sikhs—asking me to speak on this subject. They feel very strongly about it. What is being asked for is reasonable. As I said, there is great disquiet among Sikhs that this is happening. I therefore suggest to my noble friend that she enter dialogue and not close the door. That would be greatly appreciated by the community—I do not necessarily mean the association; the noble Lord, Lord Singh, has already alluded to that. Let us have a discussion with the community to see whether an amicable settlement can be reached that is acceptable to it. I speak as a Muslim and not as a Sikh.
Baroness Barran
I hear the concerns of several noble Lords. I reassure them again that we will enter the conversation with a very open mind.
Lord Tunnicliffe
I cannot remember the last time I had such broad-based support. I feel that I need to bask in it for a few seconds, but enough is enough. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
House of Lords
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
National Health Service: Missed Appointments
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Dobbs
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their latest estimate of the annual cost to the National Health Service of patients missing appointments with their general practitioners.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, as data on the number of missed appointments in general practice is available for only six months of the period 2017 to November 2018, we are unable to provide a precise estimate of the cost. However, NHS England produced an approximation using the limited data available, which suggested that the cost to the NHS of missed GP appointments was over £216 million a year.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend. If you add in the number of missed appointments at hospitals as well, the figure from NHS England—not from the Government because they do not have figures—rises to over £1 billion. It is a huge amount of money, yet recently the Government in a Written Answer discussing missed appointments said it did not really matter because,
“staff are able to use time resulting from missed appointments productively … This may include”,
giving,
“support to other patients, or spending time on personal development”.
I hope noble Lords will accept that perhaps that is not sufficient. Does she accept that while of course all patients have a right to the National Health Service, they have a responsibility to it too? I ask her to go back to the department and shake a few sticks there, so that it accepts that the department itself and not just NHS England has a responsibility for this problem, institutes some research as to why so many patients miss their appointments, and comes up with policies that will tackle this massive drain on the resources of the National Health Service.
Baroness Manzoor
I am always happy to go back and shake the tree to find out the answers. I am a little bit like the Chief Medical Officer and believe that what you can measure you can manage. To that degree, I agree with the noble Lord that we need greater understanding of where patients are missed and exactly how that is managed. I also agree that there are rights but also responsibilities. However, some patients miss appointments for very good reasons, and we have to understand those reasons so that we do not just think it is irresponsible behaviour; I know it is not. I agree with the noble Lord that if somebody misses an appointment the GP could use the time to cover another issue. It is important if patients miss appointments because 70% or more of them will come back.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, some 15 years ago when I retired from the health service, we accurately costed how much the lost appointments in my out-patient clinic cost. The figure then was over £200 per patient in a clinic that was grossly oversubscribed, so we lost a lot of patients as a result. It is not good enough to say that we have looked at general practitioners. Can the noble Baroness answer the important question put by the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs? It is an effective drain on the health service and results in salaries being paid unnecessarily.
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, I agree that it is a very important issue, and the NHS is looking at it. If you miss an appointment with a consultant or GP, the costs of that service are stated very clearly. We take this issue seriously and are tackling it.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, this morning I had an appointment at a hospital in Wales, for which I had two reminders on my mobile phone, yet because I live in Wales I do not have access to the NHS app to make appointments with my GP. First, as the app develops, would it not make sense to add reminder functionality to it to remind people of their GP appointments? Secondly, what discussions have taken place with the Government of Wales to allow patients in Wales the same advantage from digital health management as patients in England?
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, of course the NHS is a devolved service, so that is a matter for Wales. It is important to have technology, and in fact some GPs send reminders by text to let people know that they have a forthcoming appointment.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)
My Lords, building on the last question, can the Minister please update us on the ambitious targets in the 10-year plan for doctors’ appointments by Skype? I believe that these will greatly reduce the number of missed appointments, but investment in infrastructure and skills for GPs and patients alike is vital.
Baroness Manzoor
The noble Baroness is absolutely right that we need to ensure that the workforce is skilled enough to utilise this technology. I do not have the exact numbers for Skype consultations, but the Secretary of State is very keen that we use technology for patients who are able and have the competence to use it. However, there are other methods of contacting GPs, so it is not just a case of using that new technology.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, the Minister says that she is not able to disclose the numbers because they are not monitored, but NHS Digital very helpfully gives the number of mental health service appointments that are unfulfilled, as it calls them, with children and young adults not turning up. In the year to October 2018, there were 600,000 unfulfilled appointments. Given that the Government know the nature of the problem, can they not take steps to resolve it?
Baroness Manzoor
The Government are taking steps to try to resolve this situation but, as I said, it is not straightforward. It is not sufficient to look just at the number of missed appointments, because patients miss appointments for a range of reasons, particularly in mental health services, and we need to better understand that information. NHS England is collating that data. It is not at the level at which we would like it to be but we will of course take appropriate actions as we better understand it.
Lord Tomlinson (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are two sides to this Question? Particularly with hospitals, there is also the problem of cancelling operations at short notice. I required surgery for a very inconvenient complaint, my operation was cancelled the day before, and I had to go for private medical treatment—where I was treated by the same surgeon who would have treated me had my operation not been cancelled.
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, it is always regrettable when any patient has an operation cancelled. No hospital or clinical team will do that lightly; they take the whole situation into consideration. I am sorry about the noble Lord’s experience.
Defence Safety Fire Authority: Fire Safety Review
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Lee of Trafford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report by the Defence Safety Authority Fire safety review—defence single living accommodation, published on 4 January.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, the Ministry of Defence takes the safety of its people extremely seriously and is committed to addressing the areas identified in the Defence Safety Authority’s report Fire Safety Review. The MoD has taken action on recommendations and has established a new committee to deliver improvements. The Defence Safety Authority will hold the MoD to account for progress on the recommendations through its annual assurance report.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, I am not surprised that this report was sneaked out on 4 January, during our Recess, having been sat on since last August. It is an appalling indictment of the Ministry of Defence’s whole approach to fire safety and to the care of personnel in its charge, despite earlier warnings. To quote from the executive summary,
“The majority of the issues identified in this report result from a failure by Top Level Budget (TLB) Holders and Heads of Establishment (HoE), as Accountable Persons (AP), to comply with Fire Safety legislative duties requiring them to have adequate arrangements in place to manage Fire Safety”.
How does the Minister react to the news that some military personnel deliberately interfere with and disable fire safety systems for their benefit, and others apparently illegally cook meals on camping stoves in their living quarters to save cash? Do we not have a military Grenfell just waiting to happen?
Baroness Goldie
The report in itself is an admirable piece of work—thorough, analytical and robust. It has been pivotal in ensuring and securing improvements to fire safety in MoD single-living accommodation. The specific issues to which the noble Lord referred were indeed in the report—my recollection is that they form part of paragraph 6.6, and led to recommendation 5, which, importantly, is a priority 1 recommendation. I can say that the MoD has already addressed those areas of concern. The Defence Fire and Rescue Service has provided a signposting document that details a hierarchy for fire safety management across Defence. This includes terms of reference for adequately trained individual building fire focal points, who have been appointed by their heads of establishment, so that they can appropriately manage all fire safety risks, such as those identified by the noble Lord, within their respective buildings.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, would this be a case of the defence fire safety establishment benefiting from training in this regard? I commend the work of what used to be called the Civil Contingencies Centre—the EPC, as it is now called—in Easingwold, which does great work in training many of the civilian fire services. Would my noble friend investigate whether this would be a possibility for defence fire establishments if they have fallen short of best practice?
Baroness Goldie
The report made a swathe of recommendations, leading to a total review of governance and governance structures. The committee to which I referred in my first Answer, the fire safety management committee, is new, and I can reassure my noble friend that it meets quarterly to review progress by recommendation owners. If progress is unsatisfactory, the chief fire officer will raise concerns directly with front-line commands or other top-line budget holders. There is a process in train to ensure that progress is monitored and that any tardiness or deficiencies in meeting recommendations will be identified and addressed.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lee, is right that this is a damning indictment of the situation in single-living accommodation. There is no doubt that a lot of the single-living accommodation onshore for the military is not really up to standard, and we have to put a major effort into this. I have to say that, in the naval sense, the best place for single-living accommodation is at sea, but sadly we have too few ships to have many of them there. I am sure the Minister would agree that more ships would be a good idea. The report really is a damning indictment, though, and is it not true that it was rather sneaked out? If the noble Lord had not brought this to my attention, for example, I would have been completely unaware that such an appalling report had been produced.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, to take the noble Lord’s last point first, I would observe that this is an internal report so there is not an obligation to publish, but it is important that it is in the public domain. I have already reassured your Lordships that, following the report being made available to the MoD, immediate steps were taken to progress recommendations, and that has been done to very good effect. On the specific issue that the noble Lord raises about single-living accommodation, I entirely support his desire to have a well-structured Royal Navy, which I believe we have, but I want it to be attending to front-line activity, not being a B&B facility. I say to him with reference to single-living accommodation that, in the last decade, 50,000 bed spaces have been delivered through a modernisation programme. He will possibly be aware that, in the financial year 2018-19, £4 million was programmed on SLA fire safety works, and in addition £9 million has been programmed on SLA refurbishment works that include fire safety upgrades.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, we can be grateful that changes have been made, but how was it that the circumstances were allowed to arise in which the committee said there had been a lack of priority afforded to fire safety, major weaknesses and an unacceptable degradation of barracks? We ask our young men and women to risk life and limb in action. Surely we can go out of our way to ensure that they are safe in their own barracks.
Baroness Goldie
I entirely agree with the noble Lord. The issues were identified in the AAR of 2016-17, when it was realised that steps had to be taken. Since then there has been a systematic review and efforts have been made, culminating in the excellent report that we have just been discussing, to provide the necessary safety and the improvements that we all want to see.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, I read this report. I did not find it that clear at all; it was something of a bureaucratic emulsification. It was virtually impenetrable to the common reader and gave you the view that the sole answer to fire safety was the application of layers of bureaucracy. It reached something like the truth in paragraph 8.2, where it talked of people disillusioned and fatigued by the universally accepted situation that the infrastructure was underrepaired and underresourced and there was a complete absence of suitably qualified personnel. Does the Minister agree that this is another example of the Ministry of Defence attempting to bridge the gap between true capability and resources by the application of hope and risk?
Baroness Goldie
I do not agree with the noble and gallant Lord at all. I think there is a widespread understanding across the Chamber that this report has been pivotal in ensuring that improvements have been forthcoming. I have some sympathy with him over the opacity of some of the language; I too struggled with the sea of acronyms. I finally got the department to provide a diagram for me showing who is doing what, who is responsible to whom and where they rest in the chain of command. I am very happy to put that diagram in the Library.
Sepsis: National Register
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Grade of Yarmouth
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to create a national register for sepsis and severe infection cases.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, we are making good progress in recognising sepsis and improving outcomes. The Government’s new five-year national action plan for antimicrobial resistance includes a commitment to develop a real-time patient-level data source for patients’ infection, treatment and resistance history, which will be used to inform their treatment. NHS England is co-ordinating this work across the health system, ensuring that all infections, including severe infections and sepsis, are appropriately managed and outcomes improved.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con)
I thank the Minister for that reply. I do not think the House will need reminding that 250,000 UK citizens are affected by sepsis each year and at least 44,000 of them die as a result—too many of these deaths are preventable. I am sure the House will welcome the Government’s recently published antimicrobial resistance strategy; developing real-time patient data for serious infections, especially sepsis, is a major step forward and should be welcomed. Can the Government assure the House that they will work with partners, particularly the UK Sepsis Trust, and that sufficient resources are allocated to achieving this vital, life-saving project?
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, this is a very important area of work. The UK Sepsis Trust has done incredible work to raise awareness of sepsis and ensure that we continue to focus on improving outcomes for patients. NHS England is co-ordinating work across the health system, including working with the UK Sepsis Trust. Of course, we are ensuring that sufficient resources are made available to tackle this devastating illness. The noble Lord has my reassurance on that.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
I declare an interest as someone who luckily recovered from a total-body sepsis and organ failure. Although more attention is now being given to this devastating illness, thanks to the UK Sepsis Trust among others, I understand that in its early stages, it is very difficult to diagnose. What kind of training and awareness-raising is being given to GPs and other primary care staff to enable them to identify it at an early stage?
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, that is a very good question. We are working very closely with clinicians to ensure that they have the tools to diagnose this very serious condition. We do not yet have good data on all the long-term effects of sepsis, but we have developed data analysis tools that look at all people admitted to hospital with infections, or sepsis, to see the impact of actions over a long time. Of course, we are training junior doctors and others to recognise sepsis in the early stages of the illness, as people are admitted to accident and emergency, and we have set up data collection for serious incidences of sepsis.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
Do the Government recognise that such a registry must go right across primary and secondary care, given that patients present at all parts of the pathway and 25% of survivors have long-term sequelae from sepsis? In that process, will the Government undertake to look at and learn from the 1000 Lives Improvement project in Wales and the HealthPathways project in Cardiff and the Vale, which have themselves learned from experience in New Zealand?
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, the NHS takes this issue very seriously. NHS England and clinicians are working together very closely to make sure that we have good, clear datasets to enable us to diagnose this illness at a very early stage. Where good work is being done, we are looking at that very carefully.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, sepsis does not respect age; it is our biggest killer, killing more people than breast, bowel and prostate cancer combined. A national register for sepsis could save thousands of lives and reduce the economic burden by £2.8 billion through improving access to healthcare and basic care for sepsis. To collect the necessary data, however, the public need to be brought alongside. What stage have the Government have reached in their conversation about a register with clinicians, patients and the third sector?
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, there is a clear need for better data collection on sepsis, but a registry uses retrospective data collection. Through the Government’s new national action plan on AMR, we will go beyond this and develop real-time patient data collection through data linkage. We will be working on this very closely.
Lord O’Shaughnessy (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is quite right to highlight this issue, and collecting this dataset is incredibly important. One of the ways it can be useful is in developing new diagnostic tools that will diagnose sepsis earlier through the use of technology. Can the Minister reassure the House that the dataset that she says will be collected will be available to the researchers and innovators developing these tools, to make sure we can diagnose sepsis quickly, fight it and deal with some of the deaths that my noble friend has highlighted?
Baroness Manzoor
My noble friend is right. Data linkage will make it easier to identify those most at risk of infections and sepsis, and to get them treated much quicker. Once that data is available, we will ensure that clinicians and everybody else in the NHS has that information so that they can deliver treatment as quickly as possible.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, this is about leadership. When the Department of Health and Social Care decided to bear down on hospital-acquired infections, MRSA and C. difficile, and to collect the data and act on it across the NHS, it happened because it was led from the top of the NHS. Would it not be possible to bring the same determination to bear on sepsis in hospitals? We know that GPs have to record diseases and infections, so the infrastructure to do this is there. It requires the political will to make it happen.
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, I can reassure the noble Baroness that the political will is there, and it is being done. This is what data linkage is all about—getting that data much sooner, with patients assessed much quicker than they have been in the past.
Military Equipment: Sales
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord West of Spithead
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, following the liquidation of Used Equipment Surplus and Storage Ltd, what assessment they have made of security concerns over the proposed sale of military equipment held by that company on behalf of Leonardo S.p.A.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, the Ministry of Defence takes the safety and security of the disposal and storage of military equipment extremely seriously. Officials have visited the site on a number of occasions. I understand that Leonardo has today had further discussions with the liquidator, and is confident that the identified equipment is not sensitive. The two parties are now working closely together to bring this matter to a sensible conclusion.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. I remain concerned about this. Having been deeply involved in the intelligence world for many years, I know the value of getting hold of equipment such as defensive aids, because you can reverse-engineer it, and look at it to see how that country is developing techniques, even if it is an old bit of kit. I am aware that a police investigation in December 2017 highlighted the fact that the police felt that some items were sensitive. Was this a List X firm and a List X-bonded warehouse? Are we now going to go through in detail the equipment listed by the liquidator to see if there is anything we should not have allowed to go on to the open market? It sounds very dangerous indeed.
Baroness Goldie
The storage company, UES&S, was contracted by Leonardo to provide secure storage and disposal of military equipment that Leonardo no longer required. There was no contract between that disposal company and the MoD. I reassure your Lordships that the MoD has investigated Leonardo’s disposal practices, and concluded that the company is following all relevant processes and disposing of equipment in accordance with government policy and its List X obligations. As the noble Lord will be aware, these obligations are onerous, and apply to all items of equipment listed as secret and above.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, what monitoring does the Ministry of Defence carry out in relation to arrangements such as those between Leonardo and the storage company? In particular, given that the national interest may be at stake, what legal advice have the Government taken on whether or not it would be appropriate to seek an injunction against the auction proposed for 6 February?
Baroness Goldie
As we now know, there is reassuring evidence that the items are not sensitive, but the noble Lord asks an important question. The MoD has the power to stop the sale of items, if that sale would be contrary to national security. I reassure your Lordships that the MoD has made it clear to the liquidator of the storage company that the sale of potentially sensitive items, if that is what they were, would have been a breach of national security. Where criminal activity is believed to have taken place, such as a breach of the Official Secrets Act, we would engage further with the MoD Police for them to access the site and reclaim any sensitive items with a view to potentially stopping any auction.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that if any person allowed a foreign power to use defence equipment in the way the noble Lord, Lord West, suggested, they would still fall foul of the Official Secrets Act?
Baroness Goldie
My noble friend makes an important point. The Official Secrets Act, as your Lordships will be aware, is a far-reaching piece of legislation designed to protect the national security of our country and its citizens. It is very easy to breach the provisions of that Act.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, according to the Times, officials had to go to this warehouse and physically inspect what was there. Does the MoD not have systems that track the whereabouts of sensitive equipment? If not, why not—or is this another example of the MoD cutting corners under budgetary pressures?
Baroness Goldie
No, and I would not want any credence to be given to such an interpretation of the position. As I said, this is a situation where a respected defence contractor subcontracted a function to another company. That is not unusual in defence procurement contracts. What is important is that the proper protocols and standards are observed. As I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord West, where there is a List X category, companies have to comply with the security policy framework to ensure that they are protected appropriately under the List X clearance requirements. We are satisfied that Leonardo is discharging all its obligations in that respect.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, what steps did the Government take to find out where the Times got its information? Are they satisfied that that information was totally inaccurate?
Baroness Goldie
We can only speculate that the information was provided either by the liquidated company or by the liquidator. There were visits to the storage facility by Defence Equipment and Support, security officials, MoD Police and the Defence Land Safety Regulator. They all asked UES&S for a list several times but, disappointingly, it was unable to provide one. This may seem strange to the observer, but apparently this facility has been used for more than 20 years. It is full of defence and non-defence related items. UES&S has not catalogued each item. This is apparently why it could not produce a list, but it would have been helpful if, when a list finally emerged, it could have been passed to the MoD.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, surely one point becomes abundantly clear: the Government, through the MoD, were not monitoring the contract correctly. Surely they should have known that this was happening.
Baroness Goldie
That might seem an easy interpretation to make, but I suggest that it is misconceived. I shall explain why. It is a common commercial structure for the MoD to contract with a defence procurement company. That company will then subcontract other obligations. What is important is that, where we are dealing with List X materials and equipment, the company with which the MoD contracts is under clear and enforceable obligations, which all companies are. I emphasise that Leonardo is discharging these responsibilities. But where we are dealing with below-secret category items, the company is expected to ensure that storage and disposal facilities are appropriate for that equipment. There is no suggestion that Leonardo had not been observing the situation. There seems to have been a genuine breakdown of the relationship, where, I understand, over time items that were going to be disposed of were not disposed of and remained in store. The important feature is that these items, as has been confirmed today, are not sensitive.
Overseas Aid
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government in the light of recent press reports what plans they have to meet their statutory obligation to spend 0.7% of the UK’s GDP on overseas aid.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the UK’s commitment to spend 0.7 % of GNI on aid is enshrined in law and has been reaffirmed by the Secretary of State for International Development in another place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his most recent Budget, and the Prime Minister on her recent visit to Africa. The aid budget is fully funded and we have firm plans in place to continue to meet that important commitment.
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, last autumn, the Secretary of State acknowledged that public funds alone would not deliver on the sustainable development goals. Seeing 0.7% as the target rather than the baseline will not deliver either. The key to eradicating poverty globally is building public services that deliver health and education that are accessible to all; that will encourage greater economic activity and greater investment. The Minister has a proud record on overseas development as both a DfID and a Treasury Minister. I hope he will confirm that at next month’s spending review, there will be no attempt to renege on the UK’s commitment—enshrined in law, as he said—to spend 0.7% of the UK’s GDP on overseas aid.
Lord Bates
I am very proud to give the noble Lord the commitment and reassurance that he seeks. The commitment to 0.7% was made by the international community way back in 1970; it was not actually introduced—under this Government, with our coalition partners—until 2013. I am immensely proud of that and we remain committed to it. His point about the SDGs is crucial. Achieving them by 2030, to which he and I are committed, will require some $3.9 trillion per year, according to World Bank estimates. Total global flows amount to some $150 billion. The only realistically possible way to bridge that gap in time is through leveraging and capitalising to get greater private flows through trade and development. We are very committed to that, but the commitment to 0.7% stands.
Baroness Northover (LD)
The UK commitment to spend 0.7% of GDP on development was made via a Lib Dem Private Member’s Bill, which in this House was in the capable hands of my noble friend Lord Purvis. It passed with all-party support, for which we were very grateful, in the last days of the coalition. The UK has indeed signed up to the sustainable development goals, which aim to eradicate to extreme poverty by 2030. Does the Minister agree that it is it right that the world—and we are part of the world, regardless of what appears to be happening politically at the moment—signed up to these goals, and that they are vital for global stability? Does he also agree that aid helps to pump prime the economic and human development that people in poverty so desperately need?
Lord Bates
I absolutely agree with that. The noble Baroness pointed to the proud record of the Liberal Democrats in actually providing the legislation. I remind her that a Conservative Chancellor is currently delivering on that pledge, giving £14 billion a year to the poorest in this world.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister be ardent in his pursuit of match funding, particularly for health projects, which will valuably use up at least 0.7% of the GNI? There are many countries without the basic GP facilities that we all take for granted, let alone equipment for their health services. We could do far more using training and second-hand equipment from this country as part of the 0.7% spending on those who are the poorest.
Lord Bates
I pay tribute to the work of my noble friend as Overseas Development Minister some time ago, before that commitment was met. She is right: health is absolutely central. We need to work in partnership, and that is the reason why we work with the World Health Organization, the Gavi alliance and the Global Fund in doing precisely that work.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the World Bank estimates that some 800 million people are racked by starvation, despair or living below any rational definition of human decency. The Minister is right to remind us that, as long ago as 1970, in Resolution 2626, the United Nations urged us to find this 0.7% figure. Does he agree that people expect their money to be spent well? I draw his attention to a Question that I asked him on the Order Paper today concerning discrimination and persecution in countries such as Pakistan, which is the biggest recipient of British aid—£383,000 each and every single day. Will he ensure that where British money is being spent, it will tackle the plight of minorities, particularly by preventing people from religious minorities from being subjected to discrimination, persecution and even genocide?
Lord Bates
I am delighted to give that reassurance. This Government have been at the fore on this issue. The Prime Minister has made announcements on it and has appointed her first Special Envoy on Freedom of Religion or Belief, my noble friend Lord Ahmad. We are proud of that, and we have to uphold, keep to and maintain those standards.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, as a former International Development Minister, I completely respect the Minister’s record. However, Priti Patel has been quoted regularly as wanting to undermine our international development programme; she also has very close links with the newspapers. How did those reports get into the papers today, and will he make it absolutely clear that they are completely wrong and that the Government are sticking to 0.7%?
Lord Bates
Of course, Priti Patel, sadly, resigned as Secretary of State for Development a couple of years ago. However, Penny Mordaunt is absolutely committed to the 0.7%—delivered by his kinsmen in Abercrombie House up in Scotland—which is of crucial importance. We remain committed to it.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I was the Member who took the Act through the House, and I was able to do so only because of the wide cross-party consensus in this House—including the Minister’s predecessor, my noble friend Lady Northover, the Labour Front Bench and the Minister himself in another capacity. That consensus had a core, which could be a component of British leadership. We are the only developed country in the world to meet this target and to enshrine in law that we will continue to do so. Therefore, language such as “unsustainable” raises questions as to whether other developed economies should seek to meet their obligations. The Minister and I are wearing our SDG badges close to our hearts. We know that under the current expenditure profile, those targets will not be met. British leadership in this area can be critical. Can the Minister say categorically that language such as “unsustainable to meet our obligations” will not be heard from a British Cabinet Minister?
Lord Bates
First, I pay tribute to the noble Lord for taking through that legislation, which I was delighted to support myself from the Back Benches; it was crucially important. We need to keep at the forefront of our minds that there is a huge need out there. We need to build on the commitments we have already given and the pledges we have made, but as he rightly points out, we also need to encourage others to step up to the plate. Increasingly, however, we see that Governments cannot do this alone. We need to leverage in trade and private investment to bridge that gap if we are to lift people out of poverty.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, may I ask the Minister what proportion of the 0.7% goes via EU projects or other EU conduits?
Lord Bates
Doing the maths quickly, I think that DfID spends about 72%, 18% goes through other government departments, and the remaining 10% goes through the EDF, ECHO and heading 4, but a proportion of that needs to be stripped out because it relates to gift aid. If my noble friend can do the calculations, that is the net effect.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, at the heart of some of the suspicions about the delivery of the commitment lies the spending of ODA through departments other than DfID. Will the Minister take this opportunity to reassure us that in the Government’s Agenda 2030 voluntary national review to the United Nations this summer, they will take the opportunity to explain how overseas development assistance spent by the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence or other government departments contributes to the delivery of the sustainable development goals?
Lord Bates
I am happy to do that. As the noble Lord knows, having done a lot of work in this area, the majority of the least developed, most fragile countries that we drive our aid spend towards are in that position because of conflict. We need to recognise that although development is one part of this, there is a development, diplomacy and defence nexus. We need to work together, and that is what those cross-Whitehall funds are doing.
Trade Bill
Wednesday 30th January 2019
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Trade Bill 2017-19 View all Trade Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 127-III Third marshalled list for Committee (PDF) - (28 Jan 2019)
“Rules of origin
It shall be the objective of an appropriate authority to negotiate as a term of all international trade agreements implemented under section 2 that goods subject to the agreement which have originated in the European Union shall be treated as if they had originated in the United Kingdom.”
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 31 is a short amendment but an important one. This is my first Bill and first amendment from the Opposition Front Benches in your Lordships’ House, so please forgive any mistakes from the outset.
Nowhere, as far as I can see, are rules of origin mentioned or dealt with in the Bill. This is worrying for a number of reasons. Most importantly, rules of origin will have a huge impact on the UK’s efforts to replicate our current EU trade agreements with other countries. Rules of origin are about how we define where a product or products really come from, and what “Made in Britain” actually means. It is important to the Bill because, if we are to take the Government at their word, this is just a Bill to allow the rollover of existing trade agreements—agreements that we currently have because of our membership of the EU and customs union. Without changes, rules of origin locally should be expressed in exactly the same way as they currently are. My concern is that they will not be. Post Brexit the EU will no longer be classified as “local”. The UK will be the new “local”. So a new definition will need to be written into these rollover trade deals, where “local”—which until leaving the EU meant inside the whole of the EU—will now mean not just the UK but the UK and the rest of the EU.
The issue of rules of origin is inextricably linked with our membership of the customs union. The big advantage now of being inside the customs union is that no tariffs or taxes are placed on imports or exports of goods traded between member states. Fulfilling the country-of-origin principle ensures that products can enjoy zero tariffs as part of free trade deals if they meet the requirement: conversely, if they do not, they will not. To give a practical example, trade deals in the car industry usually require about 55% of the components of a car to be considered as local. But most cars made in the UK have just 40% of UK-only content. If we then look at the fact that many of the subcontractors source many of their parts from abroad, a UK-made car could be less than 30% made in the UK. This is improved and passes a 55% threshold due to the fact that other manufactured parts of the car come from EU countries, currently classified as local. I ask the Minister: when we leave, how will this be addressed in each of the possible exit scenarios, as this is pertinent to the rollover of existing trade agreements? I also ask the Minister to clarify, if amendments need to be made to the text of existing trade agreements, how parliamentary scrutiny of those changes will be handled. I beg to move.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on moving his first amendment to a Bill. It does not get any easier—I do not wish to offer any false reassurance—but I happily concur with his remarks in moving the amendment. I have little to add except to reinforce the point that, for the UK in particular, the majority of our imports from our biggest market and an even larger majority of our exports are intermediary. They include components that are from a number of different countries and not from here.
This issue was raised briefly with the Minister on the cross-border taxation Bill. It is the complexity not just of the components but what is necessary to ensure that many UK exported goods and our imported consumer goods have a seamless transaction process. It is less about the tariffs applied and much more about the regulatory aspects and checks that will be necessary, which I shall turn to in a moment. Therefore, for our key sectors—the noble Lord mentioned automotive, but for wider engineering and overall production and for our exporters— this issue is critical.
I will cite one example from HMRC’s advice to businesses that is close to my heart, living in an area that has a rich tradition of manufacturing in textiles. It shows some of the complexity when rules of origin have to be applied. Each business has in effect to do its own certification. The advice states:
“For example, yarn spun from non-originating man-made fibres in France”,
would not be considered as originating within the EU for preferential purposes when considering whether rules of origin apply.
“However, cloth woven from that yarn in the UK would be an EU originating product, just as if the weaving had been done in France or Germany”.
That is one tiny example of where, if we do not have a customs union with our biggest market, we will have difficulty with rules of origin with our largest market and then, as we move to trade with other countries outside the customs union, we will have difficulty in deciding which are applicable for other preferential or other trade policies.
That is part of the complexity that leads to Amendment 51 in my name, which is in the view of these Benches necessary to align with our biggest market in order for us to exploit trade with other markets. We need to triangulate as little as possible, which seems to be what the Government seek. The best way to do that is through these arrangements. I understand that there is tacit agreement from the Government on this point, because the announcement last week of an in-principle agreement with Israel to roll over our agreement means that it seems that the United Kingdom is in principle considering what is in effect a rules of origin regime with the EU, the EEA, Switzerland, the Faroe Islands, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia and Turkey—all countries that have in effect a rules of origin regime.
It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify the Government’s intention for rules of origin in the existing rollover agreements and how they consider the future. However, even if we operated under such a regime, necessary checks and certification still have to be done electronically; each exporting company has to apply its four-digit tariff heading and carry out its own checks on whether rules of origin are being complied with. If we are to have a separate anti-dumping and corrective measures system—which, incidentally, the Government promised us for consideration before the final stages of the Bill—and if we are to have a preferential rules of origin system for developing countries, we will have to have some form of check system to ensure that those countries comply with it. It is one thing to say that we will have an electronic system for our closest trading partner—but how will we know that it is not being abused by other countries that wish to circumvent it?
Up to the Lords stage, the Government said that the language as set out in these amendments would necessarily tie their hands and weaken their negotiating flexibility by having them take all necessary steps—but this is no longer the Government’s position because we see that language in Clause 6. This is now government language, where it relates it to the European medicines regulatory network. The Government seemingly do not intend to bring forward any amendments to delete that from the legislation, so if they do not then that is the government language. That means that the Government should not have any problem with accepting this language.
Secondly, the Government said, prior to yesterday, that it would be inappropriate for Parliament to set a mandate for how the Government should take forward negotiations. That is clearly no longer the case because, as the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and the Prime Minister herself have said, Parliament has set the Government a mandate with regards to the Northern Ireland protocol. So there is no barrier to the Government accepting the language of these amendments. As to the necessity of them, it is very clear that this is what most of the industrial sectors of this country are seeking.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, if I may add something to this group of amendments, first, I say well done to the noble Lord, Lord McNicol. He passed the first test: one of the Opposition’s central jobs is to know which subjects should be raised in Committee and make sure that they are raised. He has done us a service by doing exactly that.
Turning to these two amendments, neither is practical as drafted, but we can probably leave that to one side and focus on what we want to achieve on rules of origin. The first reason it is not mentioned in detail in this Bill is that Section 17 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act effectively puts the rules of origin requirements into law. They are the same, as far as I can see, as would apply generically to rules of origin under the revised Kyoto convention. The country of origin must be identified as that country or territory in which the last substantial process took place. But that does not really answer the point.
This is where we come to the existing international trade agreements that we might roll over. They will have been constructed on the basis that any processing that took place in the United Kingdom was processing within the European Union. We cannot assume that, when these international agreements are rolled over—whenever that will be, but a couple of years from now, I hope—products originating in the United Kingdom will be defined as including processing inside the European Union. We will have become a third-party country. That is unless, in the form that they rolled over, the countries with which these agreements have been made, and with which we enter into our future agreement, accept that origination should be cumulated between us and the European Union.
If I am asking a question of my noble friend the Minister it is: can we look to cumulation between the United Kingdom and the European Union as being a feature of the rollover agreements, such that, from the business point of view, what they have understood to be the situation prior to exit day becomes the situation after exit day? That is essentially what we are looking for.
Declaring an interest, 28 years ago I was deputy director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce. That movement was and is responsible for the issuing of certificates of origin, so it understands this rather well. Of course, that applies outside the European Union at the moment. If we are in a customs union, all those problems go away, but we had that debate on day two of Committee.
If we must deal with this issue, I say to my noble friend that I hope the Government’s discussions with the British Chambers of Commerce have been productive. I know that two years ago, the movement said that, given the nature of international supply chains, ensuring that a “Made in Britain” badge can continue to be displayed proudly on products originating in this country will require us to re-enter some complex definitions of the relationship between international supply chains and origination in the United Kingdom. It also said that it was happy to work with government to look at how that might be achieved in future. I hope that this will come forward in our discussions on Report to demonstrate that the Government have an idea of what future trade agreements might say about origination to ensure that the “Made in Britain” scheme is not frustrated in circumstances where we think of a product as British.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, on taking his place and on his performance today. Given his history, I am sure that negotiating procedures in your Lordships’ House will be less turbulent than in other places where he has worked. I thank both him and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for giving us the opportunity to, in my case, put questions to the Minister and probe the issue.
In particular, what will be the position in the interim period of our leaving the European Union? My noble friend the Minister pointed out in our debate— on Monday, I think—that there would be a period for these agreements, having been initialled, to be signed and approved by the relevant Parliaments. My understanding is that if we leave under World Trade Organization rules, agreements in this interim period will be on the basis of non-discrimination. So, if we, as a third country—my noble friend Lord Lansley correctly identified that we would be—chose to extend agreements to current European Union members and said, as many noble Lords have suggested, that we wished to impose zero tariffs, those agreements would have to be extended on a reciprocal, non-discriminatory basis. Is my understanding correct? In an interim period of what might be one or two years before such agreements are rolled over, whatever our preference, whatever we offered to our existing European partners would have to be offered to every other country with which we wished to trade, on the basis of non-discrimination. I do not think we have grasped that point. Obviously, it would be helpful to understand the implications for our trading arrangements.
There is deep concern among the farming community that tariffs imposed could be as high as 40% for certain products and 60% for lamb, at a time when we are exporting more meat than we ever have, historically. That would hit our producers particularly hard. It is causing real hardship in the hills because many of our farmers do not know whether to produce lamb; the supply of lamb to the home market could dry up. We would therefore import more lamb, beef and pork at a time when we should be increasing our exports there. I simply want to take this opportunity to seek answers to those queries from my noble friend.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I have questions that arise from the previous speeches which I hope the Minister will be able to help me with. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that I am sure she recognises that, while in a no-deal scenario, for example, we could make the decision that we would reduce our tariffs to zero, she is absolutely right that we could not make them zero only for the European Union; that would also have to be done for everyone else under WTO rules, but there is no requirement for us to be treated in a reciprocal way. In fact, we would be very unlikely to be treated in a reciprocal way, because if the European Union was to look at us and say, “We will be reciprocal and offer zero tariffs to the UK”, it would then be required under its various trade agreements to offer a whole raft of countries across the globe zero tariffs, thus convoluting its entire trading system. There is an imbalance in that argument which sometimes does not quite get heard.
I cannot think of a worse situation for our farmers than finding that they have high tariffs on their exports but no tariffs to protect them from imports flowing in. Some people have said that that is ideal because it means that food costs would fall, but they would do so at the cost of wrecking, frankly, a swathe of one of our much-loved industries.
I want to pick up on rules of origin in a slightly different way, and I will refer to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has been making. When the Minister was kind enough to invite us around the table to ask questions ahead of Second Reading, I did try to press on some issues around rules of origin. As I understand it, for these rollover agreements, the UK would turn to the country with which it wishes to keep the trade agreement and say, “We would like you to treat goods made in the European Union as British content in the way you do now, in order for us to have zero tariffs when we export the goods”. I shall take a simple example, “When we export this car, we would like you to treat the European content in it basically as local content for the purposes of a zero tariff”. The officials were quite clear that the UK could do that unilaterally and that we would not need the permission of the European Union.
I then raised this with a number of people outside this environment who said, “You must be joking. Which country is going to infuriate the European Union by allowing its goods to be treated as local content for the UK unless there is some form of balancing agreement with the European Union on this issue?” In other words, the thought that you can cut the European Union out of this discussion and simply do it on a bilateral basis is incredibly fanciful. For most countries, keeping a good trading relationship with the European Union is, frankly, far more significant than having a trading relationship and rolling over the existing deals with the UK. The European Union is going to have to be engaged in some way or allow itself tacitly to be used in this way.
The Government are currently negotiating these deals, and we understand that they are currently in the process of establishing the rollover agreements. Can they tell us whether they have an understanding with the European Union that will indeed permit EU content to be treated as local content for the purposes of these trade deals, or will they be having some stern discussions with the various countries with whom we wish to have these ongoing continuity bilateral arrangements? It would be very interesting to know.
My understanding is that when South Korea was first approached about treating EU content as local content for goods whose final point of export is the UK, its answer was, “That is interesting and we think that it would be a fair thing to do, but of course we would expect goods originating in China and forming part of the content of South Korean goods to be given the same kind of benefit. We think that there is an opportunity to make sure that there is an equal playing field in this area, because negotiating with the UK is not the same as negotiating with the EU. We are now in different circumstances”. I wonder how many countries aside from South Korea which are involved in these rollover agreements have come back to the UK—I can see that Israel would not because it is not particularly in that situation—saying that they wish to have the new flexibility that we are requesting reflected in a change in the flexibility that they are being offered. It would be helpful if the Government could let us know if that is happening.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, the fact that, if the Government have their way, in two months’ time we shall be dragged out of the single market is a tragedy of great proportions which will affect everyone in this country with not the slightest doubt. That is particularly sad and ironic because of the great efforts that were put into the creation of the single market, particularly by this country. There is no question that the major movers were not Lord Cockfield and Margaret Thatcher. What is more, the single market has been an inspiration around the world. As others seek to imitate the achievement and derive the great benefits that we have had, the British Government can think of nothing better than to take us out of the original single market.
This raises many practical problems, as we have seen. We have heard three extraordinarily well-briefed, considered and well-informed speeches on this subject by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and by the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Kramer. The noble Lord spoke particularly about the difficulties which will arise in connection with the definition or redefinition of rules of origin; and the noble Baronesses spoke extremely well about the threats and complexities we shall face because of the rules of the WTO and the possibility that we will suffer considerable perverse costs as a result of leaving the single market. These have never been properly considered in this country by the Government and, therefore, private individuals, trade associations and businesses up and the down the country have also not had enough time or opportunity to consider and reach a conclusion as to what the concrete impact will be in all probability on their own businesses.
That is the point of my intervention. It is not reasonable to ask tens of thousands of businesses which may well be affected by the changes that the Government are trying to enforce on the country in this regard to pick through all the volumes of Hansard in the House of Commons and the House of Lords where these matters have been debated, even supposing—which was not the case on the last occasion we debated this matter—that the Government give informative answers to the questions that have been raised.
My question to the Minister today is: does she propose, or has she already perhaps set in motion, an effort to inform businesses directly about these matters; to set out for the benefit of British business in different sectors the potential threats—or indeed the opportunities, if there are any—from the policies that the Government are pursuing in this area; and to answer definitively the questions that have been raised today about rules of origin, the impact of the WTO non-discrimination rule and principle, which has been set out so well, and any other WTO rules which may have an impact on the trading conditions for British companies which are trading with either the European single market after the end of March this year or with countries which currently have trade agreements with the Union?
In that latter context—my final remark today—can we please have some absolute clarity about what is happening to those countries which currently have free trade agreements with the European Union and where we have the ambition to roll over those free trade agreements? How many countries have accepted in principle to roll over the agreement as it currently exists without any substantive change? How many countries have expressed the willingness in principle to roll over an agreement but are asking for substantive changes?
Most people, I suspect, will ask for a particular concession of interest to them. They will take the opportunity to get something if they can. At the very least, this will result in many months of discussion and negotiation. In some cases, it may require us to make concessions that will be expensive for British industry or business. We need to know exactly where we stand here. I hope the Government themselves know the answers to these questions—I sometimes get the feeling that they do not. If the Minister thinks that that is unfair she has the opportunity this afternoon to make the position absolutely clear to the House and the whole country.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on introducing this debate and focusing on rules of origin, which is the main complexity that will arise with trading goods. I suggest that this should not be exaggerated. It is the big difference between free trade areas and customs unions but I note that the Swiss, who have a free trade agreement with the EU—not a customs union—do not seem to be too upset about that. They do not seem to be calling for a customs union. They seem to be coping with all the problems that noble Lords have told this House are insurmountable; the Norwegians likewise.
The Canadians have a free trade agreement with America but are not calling for a customs union. Even our Canadian Governor of the Bank of England, when he returns to Canada and joins in the political process there, is not going to call for Canada to have a customs union with the United States to overcome all these supposedly insurmountable difficulties. They are not insurmountable and they are going to get somewhat simpler.
The EU is bringing in the REX system for self-declaration of rules of origin—you will have to do the calculations but you will not have to buy a certificate; you will just declare the origin of the goods. Of course, you will have to get it right; as with any self-declaration, you will be open to investigation and checks if there is any reason to suppose you are cheating, but it will simplify the process greatly.
Can the Minister confirm that we will be able to join the pan-Euro-Med convention on rules of origin if we have a free trade agreement with any member of that convention—for example, Israel? I believe that when you belong to it you can begin to assess diagonally, as they say, the components of your goods when you export among them. If that is open to us, it will ease things as far as we are concerned for a large group of countries.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
It is less a point of the inability to trade with countries on WTO rules of origin principles—they have been established for many years and will continue, and the EU uses them with non-EU countries. The difference the noble Lord is alluding to is a mutual recognition of the rules of origin principles that we have agreed through the EU with, for example, Norway and Switzerland. This means that, as far as cumulation is concerned—and given that the majority of British imports and exports are cumulated products with our biggest market—the critical factor is the non-burden that comes with other checks that we would not have if we were a non-member of either a customs union or, indeed, a grouping that meant that all other regulations were aligned, as those countries have opted to do, and I think his position is that we should not do.
Lord Lilley
I am not sure that I said any of the things that I think the noble Lord is both telling me I said and that are not true. I suspect what he said is true but it is not what I said. Forgive me if I do not really respond to his point, which I do not fully understand.
My point was that there is the pan-Euro-Med convention which has the same rules of origin among all the countries. Cumulation is allowed between them. You can join the convention when you have a free trade agreement with one member of it—at least, that is what I am asking the Minister to confirm is the case and will be the case when we have a free trade agreement with Israel, to start with.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, talked about the costs. I do not know if she is familiar with the study of the costs—which I think is the most recent and the most authoritative—carried out by the World Customs Organization. It searched through all the previous studies and found them to be deficient. The level of cost is actually much lower than had previously been thought. That must be true if the Swiss assessment of the total cost of their trade across the borders is correct, because they believe that it is only 0.1% of the value of their trade, including the cost of complying with rules of origin.
I advise the Committee as a whole to read that report. I am sorry that I cannot give the reference but I can give the reference to a document in which the reference is given—namely, a document that I myself wrote called Fact—NOT Friction. I urge noble Lords to read it, as they will find the appropriate reference.
Baroness Kramer
The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is right that I have not read the document. I have just taken my information from fairly extensive conversations with companies. Perhaps they do not know what they are doing.
Lord Lilley
Perhaps the World Customs Organization knows nothing about customs, but we have to reach the judgments that we can, and certainly under the REX system the fees that the noble Baroness referred to will not have to be paid, as I understand it. However, again, I ask the Minister to confirm that.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, waxed eloquent about the single market. I take that as personal praise, as I had to introduce the whole single market legislation back in the early 1990s and spoke eloquently about how it was going to boost our trade. How sad we, and he, must be that in the ensuing 25 years our exports to fellow members of the single market have risen by just 18%. It did not have quite the big and wonderful impact that I hoped it would have and which he in retrospect believes occurred. Our trade with the rest of the world rose by 72%, so let us get these things into perspective.
Lord Davies of Stamford
The noble Lord is, once again, moving into the dangerous business of making elementary errors in the interpretation of statistics. Quite clearly, where we had a relationship with mature markets, as we did when we joined the single market, we were not going to have the same rate of growth in trade as we had with countries that were still very poor and were maybe just beginning to embark on international trade. A mature economy is not going to have the same rate of growth in trade as a newly emerging economy. It is an absolute falsehood to try to compare the two and draw the conclusions that he has drawn.
Lord Lilley
It is always a pleasure to be patronised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. As someone who passed only parts 1, 2 and 3 of the Institute of Statisticians exams, I suppose that I must give way to him if he passed part 4. I fully know the difference. If he looks, for example, at a group of countries which are at a similar level of development to ours and which trade with the EU single market, he will see that their exports rose significantly more than ours did over that 25-year period. I do not know quite why that is but it is clear that trading within the single market has not had such a big impact on our exports to the rest of the EU as I certainly expected it to have at the time and as he believes in retrospect it has had.
Lord Davies of Stamford
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but I will just correct him on this matter. If he looks at the figures, he will see that France and Germany have increased their trade at a much faster rate than we have while being in the single market. The reason is that, sadly—we know that it is a big handicap for us all—productivity in this country has risen much less fast than that of Germany, France and other members of the EU.
Lord Lilley
It is quite true that other countries within the single market have increased their exports to each other more than we have—but that is not purely because of differences in productivity. Indeed, our GDP over most of that period has grown rather more rapidly than that of many other members of the single market. I do not know what the factors are but I would not just assume that it is all due to the wonders of the single market that somehow have not yet reached us.
The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Baroness Fairhead) (Con)
My Lords, before addressing the amendment directly, I too warmly welcome the noble Lord, Lord McNicol of West Kilbride, who is making his first contribution at the Dispatch Box today. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that it probably will not get any easier, but I very much look forward to our debates.
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord McNicol and Lord Purvis, for tabling Amendment 31. As the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, said, it is a short amendment, but it covers an important area. I confirm that the Government share the objective of the amendment. We are committed to ensuring that the rules of origin used in our continuity agreements enable businesses to continue to operate, as much as possible, through their established value and supply chains. That is particularly important where integration with EU supply chains is significant.
I wish to reassure noble Lords about the concerns that may have prompted the amendment. As I have stated, there are technical issues in continuity agreements that cannot be simply cut and pasted. Rules of origin are among those. We are continuing to work with third countries to deal with the issues involved, with the objective of ensuring continuity for businesses and consumers when the UK leaves the EU.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked about negotiations with partners without involving the EU. Just to clarify, the ROOs for each agreement are negotiated bilaterally between the parties. The sequence of such agreements is such that we need to negotiate bilaterally with partners before negotiations open with the EU. EU producers and exporters will benefit from EU content being treated as UK content in our continuity trade agreements, as their business arrangements will not be disrupted. I can confirm that the UK does not need to ask the EU for permission to do this.
Our approach includes using standard rules of origin mechanisms to remain as closely aligned with the status quo as we possibly can. Importantly, as Amendment 31 advocates, this approach includes seeking to ensure that UK and third-country exporters can continue to make use of EU content in their exports to one another. As my noble friend Lord Lansley correctly said, this is referred to as cumulation.
As with many other aspects of international relations, our partners understandably view our negotiations and discussions as sensitive, so we are unable to give precise details on progress at this time. Nevertheless I will reassure the Committee that discussions on rules of origin are progressing constructively. As my noble friend Lord Lilley pointed out, because there is mutual benefit there is a willingness to engage.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
The Minister is clear that it is the Government’s intention unilaterally to say to all third countries that components from the EU would be considered part of UK goods. What comes with that is certification, and showing the evidence from the European Union suppliers. Currently, the European Union has its set of certifying conditions as to where products originated. Is the Government’s position that we are unilaterally saying that those component parts should be considered as from the UK? Will we be using in perpetuity all the European certification and proof of origin processes?
Baroness Fairhead
Let me clarify for the noble Lord. As he will be aware, rules of origin determine the origin of goods. Regulations then implement those rules of origin in domestic legislation, under the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. The certification and verification of the ROOs of each good will be consistent with current practices under the EU’s trade agreements. Exporters will need to certify the origin of their goods, as they do currently.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
May I press that point a little further? Currently, a British exporter will require a movement certificate—EUR1, or EUR-MED if it applies to the pan-European Mediterranean cumulation that we have already discussed under this group of amendments —or a declaration of an invoice or commercial document, such as a packing list or consignment note. These are European Union certificates, which are recognised solely by the European Union. If we are no longer in the EU, how will our certificating process match the EU process, given that it would concern exactly the same component part?
Baroness Fairhead
I hoped and believed that I had addressed that question. The answer is yes: that certification would continue as it currently does. That is the information I have but if the situation is any different, I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Lansley
I hope my noble friend will forgive me for interrupting. Just so that we are absolutely clear on which question we are having answered, it is about reciprocity. If, in relation to these agreements, we in this country are treating EU content as UK content and having it accepted as such, the question that we are looking to have answered is: will the EU’s continuing agreement with that same third-party country mean that UK content is treated as EU content for the purposes of its origination?
Baroness Fairhead
I believe my noble friend is posing a slightly different question. I will come on to the EU negotiations. The response was about third countries and the certification required.
Baroness Kramer
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is crucial, because otherwise there is a huge incentive for anyone in the EU to find an alternative supplier. Finding alternative suppliers in the UK for a product produced in Poland, Spain or wherever else is quite difficult because frequently we do not produce those particular goods. However, across the whole of the 27 it is likely that there would be a number of alternative suppliers. Our companies need to know if they are in jeopardy, which is why the question matters.
Baroness Fairhead
It is of course for the EU to determine what they recognise. Our priority for the EU/UK trading relationship is for it to be as frictionless as possible. What the UK has proposed is no tariffs, no quotas, no routine requirements for rules of origin for goods traded between the UK and the EU, and cumulation provisions with trading partners. Clearly the final outcome will be for negotiation between the UK and the EU.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
I am sorry to intervene. I was not here for the opening speech, which is very bad of me. As I understand it, at the moment, on the assumption that we are going to reach an agreement with the EU, the EU is being very co-operative in saying that British goods should be treated as EU goods for the purposes of our agreements with other countries. There is of course a problem if we have no deal, particularly if we have an acrimonious no deal. What would the situation be then? I cannot believe that the EU would exercise the degree of co-operation on this question that it is presently demonstrating the willingness to do.
Baroness Fairhead
That is exactly why the Government are clear that the preference is for a deal. That is what we are trying to achieve, because it is in the best interests of the UK.
Amendment 31 also aims to tie Ministers’ hands and compromise their ability to reach agreements that are in the best interests of the UK. As the Committee will be aware, it is neither beneficial nor appropriate for this House to fetter the Government’s capability in that regard. Therefore, as it is already an objective of the Government to seek continuity through cumulation or any other technical process, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to place a legal obligation of this kind in the Bill.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
The Minister might be able to help me. Clause 6(1), as introduced into this House, states:
“It shall be the objective of an appropriate authority to take all necessary steps to implement an international trade agreement, which enables the UK to fully participate after exit day in the European medicines regulatory network partnership”.
Why does that not bind the Government’s hands and restrict their freedom, when the Minister says that exactly the same language used in this amendment seems to bind the hands of the Government? Either the Government will seek to change the language in Clause 6 or they should have no problem with the language in these amendments.
Baroness Fairhead
As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, will be aware, that was an opposition amendment, with which the Government did not agree. The Government are reflecting on those words and I do not think he can assume that they will necessarily accept that.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh raised the issue of what would happen in a no-deal scenario and asked whether non-discrimination would apply. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is correct; there is no reciprocal obligation if we set our tariffs at zero. That is why the Government have been clear that a deal is the best thing and we are doing all we possibly can to achieve that.
Amendment 51, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, seeks to secure a binding commitment from the EU on the EU’s own future trade agreements. As I said, our priority for the UK-EU relationship is for it to be as frictionless as possible. Regarding the objective of this amendment, we believe it is inappropriate for one sovereign state to seek such a commitment from another sovereign country or territory. Moreover, the EU would not offer the UK such a binding commitment because the EU’s own trade agreements are a matter for negotiation between the EU and its third countries. For this reason, the objective of this amendment would be an empty one for the Government. Furthermore, if the EU chose to recognise the UK content, it would be for the EU to choose how to implement that with its trading partners.
I come again to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on the cost of certifications and certification of origin. The certificates of origin used to export to each partner country will be the same as they are now. Businesses will use those certificates as they currently do. For UK-EU trade, the UK is proposing no routine rules of origin, so no additional burden will be placed on business. That of course will be for negotiation with the EU. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lilley, first, for his expertise on this matter, but also for pointing out the report—which I confess I had not read either—on the costs of compliance.
Baroness Kramer
May I ask something? I do not know the answer to this question. We are talking about a no-deal scenario here, obviously. Under WTO rules, if the UK says that it will import from the EU without any requirement for rules of origin, is it required to extend that same preferential treatment—not just a tariff preference but preferential treatment—to other countries outside the EU? I thought that was embedded in the WTO regime, but I could be wrong.
Baroness Fairhead
My understanding is that, because it would be part of an overall agreement with the EU, it would therefore be a trade agreement under WTO terms and the same rules that apply to any other FTA would apply. Therefore, that would be accepted as one of the terms.
Baroness Kramer
I am sorry, but I was asking about a no-deal scenario, because that is what this legislation is about—preparation for no deal.
Baroness Fairhead
I stress one more time that this legislation is not about no deal. It is about making sure that we have the capability and powers to implement, whatever happens. Plan A is for a deal and the clauses in the Bill aim to achieve the powers and make sure that we can put them into effect. We have to be prepared for no deal. I reiterate that it is not the desired outcome, but we have to make sure that the Bill has the ability to cover both.
I hope that the statement I have made, and my answers to questions, have provided clarification and some reassurance to the Committee, and I therefore respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw—
Lord Lansley
If my noble friend will permit me, I wanted to ask one question. I know we are not debating future agreements but the manner in which rules of origin are to be established in UK legislation in future. We should work with the chamber of commerce movement to try to make that work with the business community as well.
My noble friend might also like to note that Clause 6, which was new Clause 17 on Report in the other place, was an amendment tabled by Dr Phillip Lee, the Conservative Member for Bracknell.
Baroness Fairhead
I thank my noble friend for that clarification. I should have said that it was not a government amendment. But I take the point.
I meant to respond to that question. We are trying to do whatever we can to provide help to SMEs and other organisations to help trade. That includes working with them on procedures and practices which will reduce the cost of, and barriers to, trade. I confirm that we are actively engaging with the chambers. If it is not on this particular point, I will take that back to the department and make sure that we include this too.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, what is now Clause 6 was an amendment introduced by a Conservative Back-Bencher in the other place. Did I hear the Minister correctly when she said that it was still the Government’s contemplation that this might be amendable? I point out to her, in case she is in any doubt, that this would require a government amendment, which I have not seen on the Marshalled List so far. Is she saying that this is something they are actively considering for Report?
Baroness Fairhead
The Government do not endorse the wording of the amendment, and consider that the wording has legal and technical difficulties, so we are reflecting on what should be done.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride
I thank the Minister for her response, and the noble Lords, Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for their contributions and kind words. This is an important amendment, as it looks to protect the current benefits of rules of origin classification. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said, there are benefits for both the UK and our EU partner countries, through cumulation and clarification of local goods.
A lot has been said, so I will read Hansard with interest. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 31.
“Trade agreement impact assessments
(1) Before the end of the initial five year period after an international trade agreement has been implemented under section 2 of this Act, the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament—(a) an assessment of the qualitative and quantitative impact of the agreement on—(i) the economy, broken down by the different parts of the United Kingdom and different regions of England,(ii) the environment,(iii) human rights standards,(iv) labour standards, and(v) individuals with protected characteristics under section 4 of the Equalities Act 2010,in the United Kingdom; and(b) an assessment of the qualitative and quantitative impact of the proposed trade agreement on—(i) the economy,(ii) the environment,(iii) human rights standards,(iv) labour standards, and(v) individuals with protected characteristics under section 4 of the Equalities Act 2010,in any other state which is a proposed signatory to the agreement.(2) Before the end of the initial five year period after an international trade agreement has been implemented under section 2 of this Act, the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament an assessment of the extent to which the provisions of the agreement conflict with, or are consistent with—(a) the provisions of international treaties ratified by the United Kingdom;(b) the provisions of the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015;(c) the provisions of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights;(d) domestic human rights law;(e) international human rights law and international humanitarian law, including but not limited to—(i) the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,(ii) the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,(iii) the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,(iv) the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women,(v) the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, (vi) the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families,(vii) the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance,(viii) the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and (ix) the Convention on the Rights of the Child;(f) the United Kingdom’s obligations on workers’ rights and labour standards as established by the United Kingdom’s commitments under the International Labour Organisation’s fundamental conventions, including but not limited to the Declaration on Fundamental Rights at Work;(g) obligations relating to animal sentience by which the United Kingdom is bound, or any principles relating to animal sentience to which the United Kingdom adheres, and any provision in domestic law (including retained EU law) relating to animal welfare standards and the welfare of animals in the production of food;(h) the principle of eliminating poverty;(i) the United Kingdom’s environmental obligations in international law and as established by, but not limited to—(i) the Paris Agreement adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,(ii) the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), and(iii) the Convention on Biological Diversity, including the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety;(j) offences under section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour);(k) the sovereignty of Parliament;(l) the legal authority of UK courts;(m) the rule of law; and(n) the principle of equality before the law.(3) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for the assessment to be laid before the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly.(4) In preparing the assessment under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall consult—(a) the Scottish Ministers, the First Minister or the Lord Advocate,(b) the Welsh Ministers, and(c) a Northern Ireland devolved authority.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, we move from future prospects and problems around definitions and what other partners will do to a matter which will lie very much in the hands of the Government as we go forward. As and when trade agreements become the responsibility of this Parliament, there need to be procedures for establishing how and on what basis these are agreed, but also, as is the subject of Amendment 32, for reviewing our progress in carrying these forward.
The amendment is rather full. It contains a long list of issues so it is perhaps not a probing amendment, but I hope the Minister will accept that we would be open to further discussion on the wording. It is meant to set out broadly all the issues that we think need to come into play on this issue but the detail itself could be subject to discussion.
I hope all Members of the Committee will agree that we need to have a system under which we have confidence that any trade negotiations taking place on behalf of the people of this country are subject to effective periodic review of the issues involved, what the process will be and how many dimensions are involved in the consultations and engagement with the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments, as well as the involvement of those affected by the negotiations, such as consumers, those who work in the industries concerned and the companies themselves.
Of course, there is an issue about what impact these trade agreements will have regionally, not just across the national regions but within England in particular, with variations that will need to be picked up. We need to make sure that Parliament, in assessing how these trade deals are done, has access to all the information that is required.
The whole process is set out in Amendment 32. Amendment 81, in the name of my noble friend Lord McNicol—he did so well with his previous amendment that we have given him the afternoon off to recover, so I am speaking for him on this amendment; we are working together, of course, as noble Lords would expect—sets out in more detail the question of independence for the responsible body. There are many candidates for that. We do not need to go into it, but it is important that there is separation between those who set up and agree trade agreements and those who review them for the benefit of the public interest.
This issue can be developed across various activities. I think there will be contributions from those who will wish to see more stress placed on the social rather than the economic issues. The Government are involved in international treaties that will come into play on this. There is a great deal to be said about how you would do this, with what process and everything else. The amendment attempts to set that up. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 64 in my name in this group. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord McNicol of West Kilbride, to the joys of tabling amendments. They provide the ability to lead scrutiny and discussion of significance in a very freewheeling way. I was also going to say “succinct”, except that the previous group, on rules of origin, took nearly an hour.
My amendment is inspired by Amendment 32, which was just moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. However, having studied other amendments to the Bill and the Government’s reaction to them, I have opted for a simpler formula in the hope that this might attract support across the Committee. It provides for a review, after five years, by the Secretary of State of the impact and effectiveness of each international trade agreement under Clause 2, but it deliberately omits the long list of criteria in Amendment 32. That is because I believe in simplicity. I do not believe we should lay down detailed areas that the review should cover, worthy though they may be. As we know, policy priorities change over time and the review should be conducted from a contemporary perspective.
I pray in aid a precedent that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, will remember well: the report on innovation and economic growth provided for under the Intellectual Property Act 2014. I believe that was the result of an amendment that he tabled during the passage of that Act. As a Minister, I found the process of producing the report every year very helpful, as did the Intellectual Property Office. In fact, its CEO confirmed that to me only last week.
I have some doubts about the wisdom of setting up a special compliance monitoring agency, as proposed in Amendment 81, which is also in this group. It seems a big stick, given the Bill’s scope. However, on a separate point, compliance would appear to be in the purview of a general review of effectiveness. I have provided for such a review to be laid before the devolved Parliaments, to which the noble Lord attached importance, because I believe this would be a good way to keep them up to date, ensuring that the reviewers, looking back, think about their interests as well as English and UK interests. Such a review would also cover SMEs, which we discussed in another long debate last week. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend the Minister.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
My Lords, I have great sympathy with Amendment 81 in the noble Lord’s name. It struck me, as a former Member of the Scottish Parliament, that one result of our leaving the European Union will be that we have, in effect, a single market within the United Kingdom, while, for the implementation of trade agreements, some elements of those agreements will be under the auspices of the devolved Administrations. Therefore, if it comes to compliance, the body that has entered into the agreement with the third country will be the United Kingdom if the United Kingdom Government are also a regulatory body to the devolved Administrations for areas for which they have executive and legislative competence. That is potentially an uncomfortable situation. There is merit, therefore, in considering how the United Kingdom might have, in effect, the equivalent of the European Commission. What will be the bodies that operate across the United Kingdom that will consider compliance with trade agreements? It sits uncomfortably if the UK Government are that body when it comes to the component parts of the UK that have both ministerial and legislative competence for those.
Turning to my Amendments 52 and 60, one of the issues concerning what the Government call continuity agreements, which they are seeking, is that they might not just be temporary rollover agreements: they might last a long time. They will be treaties in their own right which, by definition, will be permanent, but the regulations that come with them to translate them for ratification could well be permanent or, at the very least, operate for three-year terms, which could be indefinite if they are renewed. On the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, made about a five-year period, the option I have put forward is that, in advance of Parliament being asked at the end of the initial three years about the impact on the United Kingdom, before decisions have been taken on whether they should be renewed or whether the Government might seek to go back and consider the contents of those agreements, that is the appropriate time for reporting to be carried out. Therefore, it is important at that stage, in advance of the end of the initial three-year period, that a review is carried out of the impact on the UK and specifically on the nations and regions. We know from both Governments’ data, information from the devolved Administrations and academic research that trade deals with countries that have a particular bias in certain sectors affect some parts of the United Kingdom more than others, whether car manufacturing in the north-east of England or food and drink in Scotland. Therefore it is very important to specifically mention the nations and regions.
It is also important, as suggested in subsection (2) of my proposed new clause in Amendment 52, that we have a means by which we can test what has been said repeatedly—that we could trade with those countries better if we were not part of the single market than if we had continued to be part of it.
Amendment 60 looks forward to any proposed future trading relationship between the UK and the EU and its impact on the British economy. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to this amendment because it has already been agreed in principle to publish modelling of what the impacts on the British economy would be for some of these areas, even if—and this is the most charitable way of describing it—the Government had to be persuaded to publish this information rather than allowing MPs to enter a darkened room to study it in private. Now that this information is out in the public domain and the principle is there, economic modelling of the impact of our relationship with the EU, depending on the way forward and the options taken on that trading relationship that are to be negotiated, is very important. After last night’s vote in the House of Commons, it is even more important, given that whatever alternative arrangements are considered which have an impact on our future trading relationship, we will need to know what kind of impact they will have on the British economy and its different parts.
Regardless of that, it is necessary now for us to consider what architecture we put in place to consider the impact of our trading relationships with countries around the world on the different parts of the United Kingdom and then on the United Kingdom as a whole. It will be even more important given that the European Union has been and will continue to be our biggest trading partner, so that we do not repeat the process we have had over the last two years and try to reverse engineer what the likely impact will be. We are starting to establish some of that framework now, which is why Amendment 60 has been tabled. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to it. If it is not accepted in this precise language, I hope that the Minister may be able to present in some form of language that there will be consideration of the architecture of how we look at the economic impact across the UK of the future relationship with our biggest trading partner.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I will intervene on the Bill, which is not my normal territory, although I have 20 years’ experience of working on equalities issues in your Lordships’ House. I will speak in support of Amendment 32, in the name of my noble friend Lord Stevenson, which requires the Government to lay before Parliament a qualitative and quantitative assessment, after five years, of the impact of new international trade agreements on human rights standards and people with protected characteristics under domestic equality law, among other things. It also provides transparency on the impact of such agreements on fundamental rights. As far as I can tell, the UK Government are a party to all the bodies mentioned in this amendment, so this should not be an issue and there should be no question about it. I should like some assurance from the Minister that, over the next five years, we will comply with all these international treaties on human rights and equalities.
I agree with noble Lords who said that compliance with equalities has to be judged by an independent body—I certainly know that. It should not be judged by the Government themselves. I thank the Equality and Human Rights Commission for its briefing on this subject. Its concern is that we,
“retain the UK’s equality and human rights legal framework as we leave the EU”,
and we ensure that,
“the UK remains a global leader on equality and human rights”,
after we leave the European Union. That is consistent with the UK being an open and fair place to live and do business. Certainly, if the Government do not accept the length of this amendment, I hope that they will accept the spirit of it, and that that will be expressed at the next stage of the Bill.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, I also have sympathy with the concept of impact assessments. After all, they will apply equally to rollover agreements and future trade agreements, so it is perfectly appropriate to raise this issue and discuss it at this stage of the Bill. I also agree that it is important to have an independent body and not the Government themselves as a monitoring body, and that there should be arrangements to cover all parts of the United Kingdom equally and fairly. I am persuaded by the argument for simplicity in all this; therefore, I support my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s amendment in particular. There is a danger in making lists, because they can become out of date.
Lord Lilley
My Lords, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and others of the same gist are remarkable. In my 35 years in Parliament, I do not recall Parliament ever having subjected any trade agreement negotiated by the European Union to the level of scrutiny which it is proposed that future trade agreements negotiated by ourselves should be subjected. This is remarkable evidence that the Opposition are converted to the merits of having an independent trade policy because it will mean that we can influence it and work it to our own advantage. Of course, that would not be the case if we had a customs union-type arrangement similar to Turkey. Turkey does not participate at all in the negotiation of European free trade agreements with others, but is simply a pawn in those agreements. We would be too, if we were in a customs arrangement with Europe but not part of Europe—in other words, if the policy of the noble Lord’s party were to become effective, as I am sure he would agree—and those sorts of assessments would become irrelevant.
More substantively, in the past when I was involved in negotiating the Uruguay round, for example, one thing that disturbed me was the difficulty of becoming accountable to the House—then the House of Commons—for what I was doing. It is quite difficult for Ministers to be accountable for something that they are negotiating, because they can always come back and say, “We got the best possible deal. If it hadn’t been for my brilliant negotiation, it would be even worse”. It is very hard for the House to respond to that. That left me feeling uneasy. If we can find a way to ensure that negotiations are properly reported, assessed and held accountable to the House, that is a good thing. One of the bad consequences of them not being accountable is that officials did not take the job of being accountable to Parliament at all seriously. They felt they were accountable to the international organisations with which they were negotiating. One needs to be worried about that and it is why it is important that we have accountability. If Parliament holds Ministers accountable, officials will be responsive to Ministers and to what the House wants—not to what international organisations and their peers in other organisations want.
That is not a party-political point. When I made that point in the Commons, my Labour opposite number came up and said it was exactly the sort of thing she experienced, not in trade matters but in other matters. Where she was not responsible to the House, officials did not take that responsibility seriously. The noble Lord and his colleagues are on to something important with their approach, which I prefer to the simplicity of the approach of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. When we have our independent trade policy, it will be important to find ways to hold Ministers to account.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, these amendments strike at the heart of the issue, because the Bill contains no provision for greater parliamentary involvement in trade agreements. Parliament’s role in UK treaties is much more limited than the democratic scrutiny given to EU trade agreements. It has no formal role in negotiations, does not have to debate, vote on or approve them. I follow on from what the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, said: for EU trade agreements, the Council gives the European Commission a mandate to negotiate on behalf of member states and authorises the signature and conclusion of agreements. The European Parliament does not take part in the negotiations but is kept fully informed at all stages, questions the Commission and can issue non-binding but politically important resolutions. The European Parliament’s consent is usually required before trade agreements can be concluded. National parliaments also scrutinise EU trade negotiations through their own EU scrutiny processes. In the UK, draft Council decisions on signing, provisionally applying or concluding an agreement are deposited and scrutinised by the EU scrutiny committees in both Houses, and may be debated on the Floor of the House or in committee.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, as he has said a great deal of what I was going to say, and I am not going to repeat it. I would underscore, to the Minister, the general frustration at this point in time of knowing that we, the UK Parliament, know far less about the negotiations that are proceeding with these rollover and continuity agreements than we would have known had we been in the European Parliament and this was a trade deal that was being negotiated by the EU. We would have been far more informed, consulted and engaged. That loss of democratic input is exceedingly frustrating. This is not a terribly good sign for the future. I hope very much that, having decided secrecy is the way forward for these continuity arrangements, the Government change their mind before they go on to any new arrangements.
Amendment 60, in the name of my noble friend Lord Purvis, would insert a new clause, “Additional review of the impact of the proposed future trading relationship with the EU on the United Kingdom economy”. Another general frustration is that, at this point in time, we still do not have the Government’s assessment and analysis of the impact of the deal that Theresa May has negotiated—never mind the one that she may negotiate—on the future economy of the UK.
If noble Lords will remember, in November the Government published EU Exit: Long-term Economic Analysis, which modelled a number of scenarios including the Chequers deal, but did not actually model the deal that was on the table. I am sure it was inadvertent—I said it on the day—but the Chancellor, when speaking on various media outlets, therefore quoted the economic consequences that came from an analysis of the Chequers deal, not from an analysis of the deal that Mrs May had then staked as her option and choice. The numbers were starkly wrong as a consequence. All of us had advice from various different institutions—I cannot remember whether it was the IFS in this particular case—that, if we wanted to dig through the numbers and find something close to the May deal, we had to choose a set of numbers called “modelled White Paper with 50% non-tariff barrier sensitivity”. We were told that would give us better numbers, and they were dire compared to the numbers that were in the charts for the Chequers deal. I never want to see a Chancellor of the Exchequer—I fully believe it was inadvertent—quoting and talking to the British public about a set of outcomes which his own document counters significantly.
It seems to me that, if the Government were to undertake to provide us with accurate figures or their best estimate of an accurate forecast, that would be exceedingly helpful for the complicated discussions we are involved in. It would be helpful, even today, to have the figures for the May deal, never mind the May deal as it is to be adjusted. I am really quite shocked that, having known they handed us wrong numbers in November, the Government have not given us reasonable and rational numbers now.
Baroness Fairhead
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Purvis, for tabling Amendments 32 and 52. I note the noble Lord’s statement that we should not focus too much on specific wording. I am very taken by the suggestion of my noble friends Lady Cooper and Lady Neville-Rolfe that simplicity is a good approach, but I would welcome any conversations about specific wording.
As the House is aware, we are seeking continuity as far as the existing EU trade agreements are concerned. This means the existing impact assessments of the existing trade agreements that the EU is in will continue to be relevant. They have already enabled Members of both Houses, as well as the public, to consider the impact to the UK. There is an impact assessment, for example, of the EU’s free trade agreement with South Korea. It is online, and it has been available since February 2010, alongside many others that are also available online.
As for a broader evaluation of policy, the Government also undertake evaluations of the impact of their policies as a matter of course. In addition, I am happy to confirm that we are developing proposals for how monitoring and evaluation can best be conducted when the UK takes responsibility for our own trade policy. I would be happy to meet noble Lords to reflect their views, and I take to heart my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s suggestion of a contemporary approach.
Further, the Government have already committed, through Clauses 3 and 5 of the Trade Bill, to lay in Parliament a series of reports explaining our approach to delivering continuity in each of our existing trade agreements. They will also explain, if any, significant changes to and the economic impact on the new UK bilateral agreement when compared to the existing impact assessment. We believe that this is proportionate and better suits this unique programme, which seeks to preserve existing benefits rather than establish new ones. In the earlier debate before Committee, we made a firm commitment to bring forward proposals on our future trading relationships. We have been clear: we will ensure that Parliament plays an appropriate role when the UK has its own independent trade policy.
I am not trying to avoid the questions of my noble friend Lord Lilley and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, about future parliamentary scrutiny. On the Floor of the House, I have been clear that we will bring forward proposals because we understand fully how critical proper parliamentary scrutiny is. I have stated, and am happy to restate, that I am open to suggestions. We are looking at the suggestions of the ITC in the other place and waiting for input from the Constitution Committee. This issue will be covered in much more detail by my noble friend Lord Younger in the debate on the next group of amendments, so with the leave of noble Lords I will leave that to him.
On Amendment 60, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, the Government have met their commitment to provide Parliament with a robust and extensive analysis of the long-term economic impact of our future trading relationship with the EU. As I understand it—we can discuss this if I am incorrect—the amendment asks for a short-term analysis. However, as the Chancellor said in his letter in reply to the Treasury Committee, the cross-government group is not suited to provide analysis of short-term impacts. Within their statutory mandates, the Bank of England and the OBR produce short to medium-term forecasts for the UK economy. The Bank of England has already provided the Treasury Committee with its analysis of short-term impacts and the OBR will continue to update its forecast in line with its mandate.
The amendment also asks for the economic impacts of the backstop to be modelled but, as the Chancellor made clear, the backstop is an insurance policy that neither side wishes to use and, if triggered, would be explicitly temporary. Furthermore, there is not yet sufficient specificity on detailed arrangements for modelling purposes. This would be a matter for further discussions through the joint committee; without such detail, the Government would not be able to model its impacts meaningfully. Ahead of further discussions on those arrangements, Ministers have a responsibility not to release information that could reveal or imply potential negotiating positions.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
I am sorry, but the Minister has rather shocked me by saying that she will not handle the next amendment. It is probably the most important amendment we will discuss, concerning negotiation mandates and so on. The Minister gave an answer on the Government’s thinking that her noble friend will, I am afraid, find inadequate if he repeats it. I assume she is aware that this House has said that the Report stage will not proceed until the Government have tabled amendments on this matter. Can she confirm that that is the Government’s understanding?
Baroness Fairhead
I am happy to confirm that.
I turn to Amendment 64. Trade continuity agreements, which Clause 2 would be used to implement, simply continue the effects of existing EU trade agreements. Many of the benefits are already being reaped by UK businesses. I hope that my noble friend can take comfort from my reassurance in my responses to Amendments 32 and 52, and I would like to reassure her further by confirming that any impact assessments published at the time the agreements we are transitioning came into force remain valid. On the international agreements referenced by my noble friend, I can confirm that we have not changed our commitment to them. The process of exiting the EU will not alter the UK’s commitment to upholding either international laws or our international commitments. These include commitments on climate change and the sustainable development goals.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and my noble friend Lady Hooper both raised issues in a number of areas such as human rights, labour and environmental standards around the world. In an earlier debate in Committee we confirmed that we will proudly continue to comply with those international obligations. In response to the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on monitoring by independent bodies, I can confirm that that too will continue.
I turn now to Amendment 81, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol. Let me be clear that the Government will continue to ensure that Parliament and the devolved Administrations play a crucial role in the scrutiny of the UK’s trade agreements. We are in discussions at both official and ministerial level on this.
Specifically in relation to compliance, I must stress that the UK will not bring into force any international agreement without first ensuring that it is fully compliant with its obligations. Where we are transitioning existing ratified EU trade agreements, we have been complying with those agreements as a member of the EU. We are working hard to ensure that we continue to be compliant after leaving the EU, for example by using the powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act to make UK law operable without reliance on the European Communities Act 1972. Any secondary legislation necessary to ensure that we are in compliance will be made before ratification, following the usual parliamentary processes. This means that we will start from a point of being in compliance with our agreements. We would expect the same of our international partners. This is simply what is required when it comes to making international treaties.
Normally within trade agreements there are mechanisms for monitoring and reviewing the agreement through bodies such as joint committees. This applies both to our compliance and the compliance of our partner countries. We will of course look to replicate the functions of these existing mechanisms. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, mentioned that we should make sure that we reflect the regions and the devolved Administrations. Again, I am happy to meet with him to discuss how that can be done. We will operate the mechanisms according to the terms specified in the relevant agreement. These will of course differ by agreement, but we will be accountable for compliance overall. I hope that this reassures the Committee, and I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, it is pretty much an open secret that amendments of the type we have just spoken to are usually tabled by Oppositions when they have very little to say about a topic. You call for a review and that usually ties up the civil servants for days trying to work out what that is supposed to do. It gets the Minister into a knot and allows you to have a relatively easy passage, especially if the Bill is a bit boring at that particular point. That is not what has happened today, and indeed we have been reminded that it has worked in the past. I recall the discussion during the passage of the Intellectual Property Act and it has worked out well.
There is a case here for thinking really hard about what we want to see happen as a review. I accept absolutely that my amendment is ridiculously overspecified and gold-plated. I am happy to learn from noble Lords who have served as Ministers and those who have experience of this on the other side. We could probably with advantage put together quite a sensible, minimalised amendment which would cover the ground. The Minister spoke about wanting to meet to discuss this; that would be worth while. If we can get sensibility, scale and scope in a reasonable approach, we can make some progress here.
I do not think this can just be left to the passage of time. It is true that the Bill as currently drafted has considerations of reviews, but these were late additions and are not well drafted. We have already noted earlier in Committee that while Clauses 3 and 5 make provision for reports to be provided, Clause 4 provides an opportunity for Ministers to duck out of that; and they deal with the process of agreement, not of review. I therefore think there is a bit of a lacuna here in the Government’s approach. We may be able to resolve it by statements in the House, but there may be a case for having at least something in the Bill to cover it.
Other points were made in this very rich debate. I do not think we need to look too hard—I was going say to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, but he is not in his place. The EU model, although it exists and operates, is not perfect, and there is already much documentation on how it needs to be improved if it is to be effective. The question of independence is not dealt with in the current drafting of the Bill. I think there is a sense around the Committee of a coming together on this issue. We should take advantage of that—a meeting would be very useful—and I look forward to being able to make some progress on this in a relatively easy way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Establishment of Committee on Trade Agreements
(1) A body corporate called the Committee on Trade Agreements is to be established consisting of nine members who are to be drawn both from the members of the House of Commons and from the members of the House of Lords in accordance with the provisions in Schedule (Committee on Trade Agreements).(2) Negotiations towards a free trade agreement may not commence until the Secretary of State has laid a draft negotiating mandate before the Committee and it has been approved by a resolution of that Committee.(3) Prior to considering a resolution approving a mandate relating to the negotiation of a free trade agreement, the Committee must produce a sustainability impact assessment in accordance with the provisions in Schedule (Committee on Trade Agreements). (4) Before either House of Parliament may approve by resolution the text of a proposed trade agreement in accordance with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, the Secretary of State must lay the text of the proposed agreement before the Committee and that text must be approved by a resolution of that Committee.(5) Prior to considering a resolution approving the text of a free trade agreement under subsection (4), the Committee must produce a report setting out a recommendation in relation to the ratification of the agreement.(6) The Secretary of State must lay the report produced under subsection (5) before both Houses of Parliament.(7) Schedule (Committee on Trade Agreements) contains further provision about the Committee.(8) In this section, “free trade agreement” refers to any agreement between the United Kingdom and one or more partners that includes components that facilitate the trade of goods, services or intellectual property including but not limited to—(a) Free Trade Agreements (FTA);(b) Interim Association Agreements, Association Agreements (AA);(c) Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA);(d) Interim Partnership Agreements;(e) Stabilisation and Association Agreements (SAA);(f) Global Agreements (GA);(g) Economic Area Agreements (EAA);(h) Cooperation Agreements (CA);(i) Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreements (CETA);(j) Association Agreements with strong trade component;(k) Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnerships (TTIP);(l) Investment Protection Agreements.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, in moving Amendment 33 I will introduce some of the discussion topics raised by the other amendments in this area. I look forward to the response from the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, who is standing in on this issue. The subject of the amendment is, as previously described by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, a key—probably the most important—part of the Bill. I take his advice and am happy to try to man up and make sure that I establish the case in the sorts of terms he would like to see. We have also had contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Bilimoria, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, which have set out some of the scene, so I do not think we need to go right down to the very basics of it. I would like to focus on some of the principles that are important in trying to assess this issue.
We are talking here about how Parliament and wider civil society get engaged with a process that we in this country have not really had much direct involvement with since 1972 because the function we are talking about—trade—has been a sole competence of the EU. Yes, there have been occasions when issues have come back but, as we heard in earlier discussions, they have not been very detailed and there has not been proper scrutiny. I think there is a general feeling that the procedures set out in the CRaG Act 2010 do not now satisfy those with an interest in this area.
I have eight principles that I think should inform our discussion. These are: how do the Government intend to ensure that formal consultation with external stakeholders, in advance of any negotiation mandate being drawn up, is exercised? How do the Government intend to ensure proper transparency of trade negotiations and negotiating mandates, and what role will Parliament play in that process? How do the Government intend to ensure maximum transparency in advance of those consultations? Obviously, they are constrained to some extent by issues that would be regarded as necessary to be taken under some level of secrecy if they involved security or other issues, but how will that transparency happen? In particular, how will the Government prepare proper impact assessments and make these available to inform the debate?
There is a general question about reviewing reporting on trade agreements after a specified time period, but also in relation to progress—we touched on this earlier, but it is part of a principle that we need to build in from the beginning. How do the Government intend to ensure that parliamentarians are able to access the negotiating texts? Without knowledge of the texts, very little scrutiny can take place. Some texts will be very sensitive, but nevertheless it is important that there is a mechanism under which they can be reviewed and discussed.
What will be the formal process or procedure for the ratification of trade agreements? The current arrangements under CRaG are not satisfactory. What will be the formal procedures for changes that need to be brought forward—not new trade agreements but how, particularly in light of the need for broader discussion and debate, we amend and change agreements found to be deficient, unfair or working badly in relation to any aspect of our economy or our part of the country?
Those are the issues the amendment seeks to open up. Again, it is gold-plated—I accept that—but it is important that we see the full range and depth of the issues raised and I hope to have a good debate around that. I beg to move.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I support Amendment 33, about which a great deal was said in the debate on the previous amendment, although some of the contributions more properly belonged to the discussion of this amendment. I have no hesitation whatever in suggesting that this is probably the single most important article in this legislation—except that it is not there, of course, at the moment, but it needs to be there.
Why is it so important? It is because until now the British Parliament has had no clear role in giving mandates or setting out the broad lines under which the Government should negotiate trade agreements, nor has it had any proper system for oversight of them. Possibly that did not matter in the far distant days before we joined the European Union, but it certainly matters now when free trade and other trade deals are, as the Government have said again and again, at the heart of their Brexit strategy. Britain’s ability to negotiate on its own on trade is at the heart of the Government’s pleading to back their deal.
This is really urgent now because the Government have made it urgent by refusing to take no deal off the table. If they took no deal off the table, as the Spelman amendment passed by the House of Commons did last night, we would have time to look at this. However, if no deal remains on the table—and the Prime Minister has said that it does—we have to realise that the Bill we are now discussing may be operational in 60 days’ time on 30 March this year. As currently drafted, the Bill says nothing about approving mandates before the Government can negotiate on trade with a particular country. That is a lacuna which cannot be left unfilled.
When he replies, I would like the noble Viscount the Minister to repeat what the noble Baroness the Minister said: that the Government will table amendments before Report and explain how they believe that Parliament’s authority should be established in the context of an independent trade policy. I agree that it may not be needed on 30 March and we would be mad to leave without a deal on 29 March. But the Government have decided to go on saying that we may and therefore we had better be prepared. I hope the noble Viscount will deal with that point as soon as he starts his response.
The substantive issue at stake relates to the provisions—or lack of them—for parliamentary mandating and oversight of all negotiations with third countries once we are able to conduct them on our own. They are important because without them, if the Bill remains as it is currently drafted, together with the provisions for the approval of international agreements, the only say that Parliament will have will be after the Government have conducted and concluded negotiations and then put before Parliament an up or down, yes or no agreement to what is in them. That is what we call in this House, when we are talking about statutory instruments, the nuclear option. It would be absurd if we went into the conduct of an independent trade policy with nothing for Parliament except the nuclear option. What does the nuclear option mean if it is ever deployed? It means that the Government would in good faith have negotiated with a third country—reached agreement with it, settled all the tariff details and the non-tariff barriers—and then the deal gets rejected. How much negotiating credibility would we have left after that? Zero.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 59 and 71 to 74. They are quite distinct. Amendment 59 most certainly does not meet the Hooper test of brevity but I can dispatch it fairly quickly—no doubt to the great relief of colleagues in the Committee—because it may be considered a continuity amendment. It replicates the need for a meaningful vote process for the future relationship with the EU as we go through the withdrawal agreement process. It need not be controversial but it provides for the necessity for Parliament to authorise the agreement. It provides for that to be in primary legislation and sets out the procedures should the Commons resolve against the agreement. If we leave, this will be necessary for our future trade agreement with the EU to avoid a repeat of the “running down the clock” situation. Therefore, it is right that we have this put in place now.
Amendments 71 to 74 are perhaps the core of that element and have formed part of the discussions so far about the role of Parliament going forward. In a moment I will come to a live case study of a continuity agreement to show that this is not just about the future policy but is relevant now. Fundamentally, the reason that Parliaments around the world—the elected bodies other than simply the Executives—are now involved at early stages of trade negotiations is that trade negotiations are now markedly different from how they were 30 or 40 years ago.
By definition, the European Union now enters into discussions on deep and comprehensive trade agreements. In the past, the agreements were primarily about tariff rates and little else, but now trade agreements take into consideration the impact on domestic law of environmental standards. The social, economic, environmental, gender, human rights, labour, development and regional impacts are all core components. If you look at the most recent trade negotiations that the European Union has carried out with British participation, whether it is with Singapore, Japan or Canada, they have included sections on the development and sustainability goals. There are now clear positions when it comes to human rights, labour development and the impact on local communities. These are core parts of the trade negotiations that we have embarked on, and that is why the United States, Australia and the European Union have a much wider role for their Parliaments throughout the process. The Government’s position is in stark contrast to that: we would simply use the existing treaty provisions, which are not only out of date but will prove ineffective.
The only other aspect of ratification of treaties under the Constitutional Reform Act concerns what Mr Hollingbery, the Trade Minister, said in oral evidence to the International Trade Committee. He said that, although he did not want Parliament to have binding votes on these agreements, there was one aspect where he thought that Parliament should have an overrule. He said:
“But I do believe that Parliament should be able to opine upon the outline approach”.
Parliament being able to opine on the outline approach of trade negotiations might be a slightly unfortunate turn of phrase but the Government have given some indication that they are willing to consider it. I think that on the previous group the Minister gave an indication of that kind, and I agree. We are looking forward to hearing the Government’s position on the amendments to the Bill and to them giving a clear steer.
In the spirit of assisting the Government, these amendments in my name, with back-up from many civil society organisations, suggest what I consider a quadruple lock of parliamentary involvement from the outset in considering the sustainability impact so that there is a degree of transparency for all the different aspects that I mentioned earlier—the social, economic, environmental, gender and human rights impacts and so on.
One reason why that is important to me is that when I co-chaired with the Nigerian Trade Minister a commission for an all-party group on trade and development in the Commonwealth, it became abundantly clear to me that, to be a force for good in the world, trade also now has to take into consideration all those components. The British trade approach could be an especially good force for good for development around the world. We know that until recent years trade agreements have not been proactive in the areas of gender, human rights or those parts of society that have not been economically empowered. We could see trade agreements not simply as protective measures or as things where we are fearful of giving away British negotiation positions; we could see them as potential forces for good.
The second element of Parliament being involved in setting a mandate by resolution is a proactive mechanism for that. It is why this is now established in the European Union and I believe it would be of great merit for our Parliament to be involved in it. The third component proposed in the amendments is transparency, involving Parliament and the people, whom ultimately we all represent, because they are likely to be a key part of these trade negotiations. We know from the previous examples how difficult some trade negotiations can be, and that is when we look at the impact on both our communities and those of the country with which we are signing up to an agreement. The final component is scrutiny before signing, which I believe to be of fundamental importance. That quadruple lock is important. In essence, it is simply a way of replicating British representation through the European Union.
We have elected representatives in the European Parliament who take part in the early stages of negotiations. There is a very helpful document called Negotiating EU Trade Agreements: Who Does What and How We Reach a Final Deal. It is very straightforward and simple. It shows that even in preparing the position that it will take, the Commission publishes its negotiating directives online and sends them to the Parliament. The Parliament is informed at the earliest stage of the process and even prior to that. After each negotiating round, reports are presented to both the Council and the European Parliament, as was the case in the latest round involving Australia. I tried looking on the British Government’s website to find out about our discussions that led to the mutual recognition agreement with Australia but there was nothing. That was in stark contrast to the position with the Commission.
The fourth stage is that, when the Commission plans to table negotiation proposals, it informs the European Parliament about them, and it then informs the European Parliament at every stage of the developments, keeping it updated. The Parliament is then able, through its Committee on International Trade, to pass resolutions on the progress of those processes. When the negotiators from the two sides come close to finalising the text, the Commission tells the Parliament. The Commission also informally sends the text to the Parliament. In finalising the process, the chief negotiators of both parties usually initial the text of the proposed agreement to mark the end of the negotiations and that text is sent to the Parliament. The 10th element of the process is that, after both sides sign, the Council examines the proposal for conclusions and sends the agreement to the Parliament for its consent. The 11th stage is consideration by the committee of what to recommend to the plenary, and consent or no consent is then given to the agreement. There are 12 parliamentary stages in the negotiating process.
We understand that the Government have made only two agreements so far. One is with Switzerland. The text from the Swiss party was immediately put online; the text from the British side came subsequently. But we should do a case study of the announcement last week of what our Government said was an agreement in principle to sign a free trade agreement with Israel, while the Israeli Minister, Eli Cohen, said that the text was “concluded” on 23 January. I asked the Library to find a copy of that agreement—but there is none. I understand from the Government that the text will be placed in the House alongside an explanatory memorandum and an associated parliamentary report in due course, once the agreement has received signature.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
The noble Lord has drawn attention to the issue of scrutiny by the European Parliament. In listening to him, it occurs to me—he may wish to agree—that one of the difficulties is that the UK Parliament is so underresourced. Do we have the resources to carry out the type of scrutiny to which he draws attention?
Lord Purvis of Tweed
I believe we do. Not only are we resourced in Parliament, but we are resourced in this House. Our committees do a remarkable job in scrutinising both European legislation and secondary legislation. As we approach the Bill, many noble Lords stand ready to scrutinise proactively and constructively some of the proposals. But we cannot do that if our role is only at the last stage. Indeed, the Government would be much more effective in securing final agreements on such arrangements if Parliament were involved at the early stages. If that principle had been applied to the process of negotiating our withdrawal, we might now be in a different position.
Lord Fox (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, before he had to hurry off, spoke of transparency as if it were a threat to negotiation. Speaking to another amendment earlier, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who has more contemporary experience than the noble Lord, spoke of her regrets about the TTIP negotiation, and the fact that the NHS brouhaha that blew up around it scuppered, or terminally injured, that negotiation. Transparency is not a prerequisite just because it is a good thing; in the modern world it is needed to get consent for such things to happen. In the world we live in today, such negotiations can be stopped—and if we think the TTIP negotiation was an example of that, we have not seen anything until we have seen a US treaty being negotiated. Transparency is not just a good thing; it is an enabler, which allows us to have such treaties.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, forgive me for stretching the definition of repetition, but before I address the amendments in detail I would like to underline the fact that the Bill concerns continuity for our existing EU free trade agreements as we leave the European Union. I mention that without wishing to revisit the emphasis that we placed on the word “continuity” on Monday last week. Scrutiny of new free trade agreements is not part of the Bill, nor is scrutiny of our future relationship with the EU.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I really plead with the noble Viscount not to say that again. We all know that if, through inadvertence or incompetence, the Government take us over the cliff on 29 March, this Bill—by then, presumably, an Act—will be the only instrument we have to guide our trade policy. Therefore, will he please stop saying that it is only about continuity and admit, as his noble friend Lady Fairhead did when replying to an earlier amendment, that it is meant to be capable of providing for both eventualities? Will it provide not only for the eventuality in which it is a continuity measure that lasts for the transitional period—what is sometimes laughingly called the implementation phase, in which nothing is implemented—but for circumstances in which we have to operate an independent trade policy on 30 March 2019?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I had only just started, and I stand by my words, because I was about to go on to say that, none the less, I understand the desire of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, to debate these issues today—and that is what we have just done. I also appreciate the desire to understand how the Government intend to fulfil our commitments to transparency on and scrutiny of future FTAs as we exit the EU.
The amendments on future FTAs pursue many aims, which the Government understand. To be helpful to the House, during my remarks I will give as much information as I can on progress and process on FTAs. I will also answer the question raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—but not just yet—and will agree with the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Fairhead.
Amendments 33 and 99, which the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, spoke to, seek to ensure that Parliament has a significant role in free trade agreements via the creation of a new Joint Committee. Amendments 71 to 74, which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, spoke to, seek to achieve similar outcomes through imposing obligations on the Government in relation to mandate-setting, transparency and scrutiny before signature. I will address those amendments together.
First, I shall give a little context. Brexit does not change the fundamental constitutional principles that underpin the negotiation of international treaties. The making of treaties, including international trade agreements, is a function of the Executive. At the same time, it has long been held—and this Government continue to hold—that Parliament should have the opportunity to scrutinise treaties effectively. In 2010, the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act confirmed, after a process of consultation, the respective roles of the Government and Parliament in treaty-making. The Government will continue to support and facilitate parliamentary scrutiny of treaties under CRaG.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked about the Israeli trade agreement. There is agreement in principle on an FTA, but subject to—
Viscount Younger of Leckie
If I may be allowed to complete this point, I will then give way to the noble Lord. There is agreement in principle on an FTA, but it is subject to a few remaining technical issues so the final text is not quite ready. When a continuity agreement is finalised, it will be laid with an Explanatory Memorandum and report.
Lord Bilimoria
I thank the Minister for giving way. He mentioned that the Government are for scrutiny, so why are these amendments required? The amendments have been tabled because there is a complete lack of parliamentary participation in the Trade Bill. Surely he can understand the uneasiness of this House. The Government tried to railroad the implementation of Article 50 without the permission of Parliament, and the case had to go all the way to the Supreme Court for Parliament to have a say. The Government then tried to withhold a meaningful vote from Parliament, and Parliament had to fight for that. The Government tried to hide their legal advice and Parliament had to fight for its disclosure. Now we have Henry VIII powers being implemented left, right and centre and a Trade Bill acting in a similar way over future trade agreements.
Those agreements are going to be hugely difficult to negotiate. They take a long time to implement, as I know. India has only nine bilateral free trade agreements with other countries, and not one with a western country. This process is going to be hugely difficult, and it looks as if Parliament is going to be cut out of it altogether. We are wrecking the constitution of our country and the balance between the legislature, the Executive and the judiciary. I do not think the Minister can just say, “We are allowing scrutiny”.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
If the noble Lord will allow me to continue, he will see that I am not saying that Parliament has been cut out of this altogether; far from it. I said at the beginning of my remarks that I would give as much information as I could, and I hope it will give reassurance to the noble Lord and indeed the whole Committee.
Baroness Kramer
I am sorry to trouble the Minister but I have one question. I did not quite understand what he meant just now by the word “finalised” when he talked about the treaty with the Israelis. If he meant that the treaty would be a signed done deal and would then be brought to Parliament so that we could look at it, would we scrutinise it? Would it be like an SI, whereby we cannot impact the terms in any way, so we simply have the nuclear option of accepting or rejecting it? The message of this House has been that we regard scrutiny as something far more contributory than that, involving engagement in the process at a much earlier stage. That is why we are extremely troubled. Will the Minister clarify exactly what he means by “involving Parliament”—after the fact or before the fact?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
As I said earlier, I have some more remarks to make about the process for future trade agreements. What I said about the Israeli agreement was that when a continuity agreement is finalised, it will be laid with an Explanatory Memorandum and report and will be under the affirmative procedure.
I will briefly touch on what we have already committed to in this area. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Trade reiterated in an Oral Statement that Parliament should have a crucial role to play in future free trade agreements. The Government will ensure that parliamentarians are given the opportunity to consider the level of ambition of the Government’s approach to negotiations and the potential implications of any agreements. We will lay our outline approach to each negotiation before both Houses in order to facilitate that before we begin negotiations. During negotiations the Government will keep both Houses updated on progress, including providing analysis of appropriate points. Once an FTA has been negotiated, it will need to be implemented and then ratified. I remind the House that free trade agreements cannot of themselves change domestic law.
To implement a new trade agreement with a new partner, the Government will bring forward a bespoke piece of primary legislation for each new trade agreement that requires changes to legislation where there are no existing powers. Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the new legislation in the normal way.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; his contributions are helpful. This may be a technical point, because we have had an element of that statement from the Government at Second Reading. There could be a marked difference regarding a trade agreement that could have a big impact on our country, but which does not require any changes to primary legislation. If a trade agreement does not require any changes to primary legislation because that is still on the statute book, the Government are proposing that no measures be brought to Parliament to approve—only the primary legislation, if that does not currently exist. The case made by noble Lords is that a trade agreement in its own right needs to come forward for authorisation, regardless of whether it requires additional primary legislation. That is the point we need to get across.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Lord makes a good point. I reassure him that what is also very important is that the negotiation and scrutiny of these trade agreements has to allow for a certain flexibility. I will go on to say a little more about the process, because implicit in it is that treaties between different types of countries using different types of products can be extremely different, as the noble Lord will be aware, so flexibility is very important.
The legislation must be brought forward before ratification, as I was saying. The same will be true of our future relationship with the EU, which will surely require detailed implementing legislation. I hope this demonstrates that the Government are already committed to Parliament being able to shape and scrutinise future trade agreements. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said about current processes and steps in considering trade agreements. However, since July work has been taking place in both Houses to consider Parliament’s role in future free trade agreements. The Constitution Committee has an ongoing inquiry into the parliamentary scrutiny of treaties. The Joint Committee on Human Rights is inquiring into human rights protections in international agreements, and that touches on Parliament’s role. In the other place, the International Trade Committee published a report just after Christmas that makes a number of recommendations in this area.
To assist the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, the Government are listening carefully to these views and we are conducting our own work. We have little quarrel with his remarks and aspirations, and I hope there is agreement there. We recognise, not least following the resolution of this House on Monday, that more detail is needed on how we envisage Parliament—and particularly this House—being involved in the scrutiny of trade agreements. The question of how Parliament scrutinises future FTAs must be answered, with the benefit of close and considered dialogue between the Government and Members of Parliament. I have listened to the contributions of noble Lords today, and I assure the Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that we will reflect on them seriously. I confirm again that we will bring forward our proposals with more detail before Report.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
That is very helpful. As the Minister knows, the devolved Administrations have also submitted evidence to the International Trade Committee in the Commons and are participating in the revision process. The devolved Administrations were mentioned specifically in the resolution of this House last Monday. I wonder if, in advance of the Government bringing forward any of their proposals, they could write to noble Lords or give a clear statement on how they envisage the devolved Administrations, and potentially the regions of England and the combined authorities, having an active role.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I thank the noble Lord for that. It does indeed take us back to the debate we had last week, and I hope he remembers that I gave certain reassurances on that point. What I can say—without having the details in front of me—is that, as he knows, there is ongoing dialogue with the devolved Administrations to ensure that they are kept fully in touch with what we are doing. That will be the general tenor of the ongoing discussions as we look forward to FTAs.
I would like to pick up on some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, in the last debate as they are relevant to this point. He asked how our approach differs from the role of the European Parliament in EU trade negotiations. He may well know this but I shall spell it out: the European Parliament’s role operates in relation to EU trade policy. We are offering scrutiny for the UK Parliament at every stage of the process in a way that is appropriate and proportionate to the UK constitutional context. In the UK, the power to make treaties is a power held by government, but the context of the negotiations will be different. The European Commission negotiates free trade agreements representing the interests of the 28 member states. It is given the mandate to do so by the Council, and final agreements are approved by the European Parliament and the Council before they can come into force. UK-only free trade agreements will be negotiated by the elected Government in the best interests of the UK. The Ministers responsible for the negotiations are directly accountable to Parliament.
Lord Lansley
My noble friend might also reflect that there is some truth in what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, reminded us of in previous debates. American negotiators often find there is significant benefit in having what I think they describe as “Congress reserve” in negotiations—what we might call “parliamentary reserve”. That sense of engagement with Parliament during the course of negotiations is important in itself. What happened last night in another place might give anybody engaged in such negotiations pause for thought; it is important that they know during the negotiations that they can take Parliament with them.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I said at the beginning that this is likely to be a wide-ranging debate; my noble friend’s remarks will indeed be fed into the processes being considered at the moment.
I would like to address a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who asked what access parliamentarians would have to negotiating texts. We take seriously our commitment to keeping Parliament apprised of the Government’s negotiating intentions. That is for the purposes not just of transmitting information but of inviting scrutiny and allowing Parliament and its committees to take informed views. While we support Parliament’s important scrutiny role, Ministers have a specific responsibility, which Parliament has endorsed, not to release information that could undermine our negotiating position. On transparency more generally, I reiterate our commitment to a transparent approach. We are developing proposals for the release of updates on negotiations; we will bring these forward shortly.
Let me say more about the consultation process, an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. The amendments also seek to ensure wide consultation on FTAs, which is a good idea; indeed, that is the approach the Government are taking. We conducted one of the largest consultation exercises ever undertaken for the new FTAs we are considering with partners without an existing FTA with the EU—the US, New Zealand and Australia—and for our potential accession to CPTPP. This included a 14-week public consultation open to all businesses, individuals and other organisations in the UK and abroad, and 12 outreach events throughout the UK, including in each of the devolved nations. We have also conducted ongoing engagement with stakeholders on trade policy, including “town hall” style briefings, roundtables with different groups of stakeholders, regular stakeholder briefings and webinars designed to engage with smaller and regional stakeholders.
I would also like to touch on impact assessments. I do not propose to address—
Lord Purvis of Tweed
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being very tolerant. He may recall that I mentioned on Second Reading that I took part in one of those consultations, posing—if that is the correct word—as a Scottish business and taking part in the Government’s consultation on the prospective trade agreement with the United States. I mentioned then and repeat now that in that consultation, I was presented with no information about what the parameters of any trade arrangements with the United States were likely to be. In effect, I was being asked questions the parameters of which I did not know. That is not meaningful consultation. Can the Government reflect on the consultation process they have carried out? I do not believe it was sufficiently meaningful.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I am listening to the noble Lord. I do not know the details of that negotiation, but I will take that back and reflect on it. There may have been some very good reasons why the information was not forthcoming, but I will reflect on that and write to the noble Lord with some information.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for some of the remarks he made about what the Government are likely to do before Report in tabling their own amendments on the negotiating process. That was helpful and it will be good to look forward to that. However, in everything he said, I am afraid I detect an unwillingness to give Parliament a role at a time when it would really help. Everything he said involves decorating the final stage—the approval of an agreement already negotiated—with all sorts of wonderful bells and whistles. We all know that then you have only the nuclear option. You have concluded the negotiations and, if Parliament objects, you cannot amend the text that has been negotiated with the third country. If it objects, it can reject the agreement and that will be very damaging for the national interest and the relationship with that country.
I listened very carefully to the noble Viscount. At one stage, he claimed that the Government would negotiate on trade as the Executive and under their right to do so. That is just the problem. The word “mandate” did not come into a single thing he said. All I can say—politely, I hope—is that when the Government table their amendments, the word “mandate” had better be there. If it is not, I think they will get badly stuck. It is not magic. The mandates under which the European Union negotiates are quite general; they are not specific about this or that tariff, but they are very helpful in setting the parameters under which the negotiations are conducted. I believe the Government would benefit from that, so please think a little about the word “mandate”.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Again, I listen carefully to what the noble Lord says. The best way to answer him is to say that I will indeed feed back his views. They are somewhat negative—somewhat too negative, I would argue. I have spent a lot of time spelling out the details of processes and procedures, as far as I can. Before I give way to the noble Viscount, I also mention that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said that we were going to table amendments on Report. I want to make it absolutely clear that I have pledged to come forward with proposals before Report. I give way to the noble Viscount.
Viscount Waverley
I thank the noble Viscount. With the greatest respect, I think it would be fair to describe the Government’s record on bringing ratification processes before Parliament as patchy. When the noble Viscount goes back to his department, I ask him to consider the Government’s record in the ratification timing process, so that that can be included in some way, either in this amendment or the Bill at large.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That is a helpful contribution from the noble Viscount. I think he has some experience in these matters, so I will certainly pass that on. I would like to move on fairly rapidly to talk about impact assessments, but I do not propose to address the aspects of these amendments regarding impact assessments in this speech, as the issue was addressed in earlier Committee debates and I believe the Government’s position is clear. Nor will I revisit the assurances that we have already given on our absolute commitment not to lower standards through trade agreements.
Let me move on to the future relationship with the EU. One amendment in this group—Amendment 59, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis—is targeted specifically at our future relationship negotiations with the EU. I appreciate what the noble Lord is trying to do here in replicating Section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. However, Section 13 was drafted for the very particular context of our withdrawal package under Article 50. It is not an appropriate or necessary mechanism for Parliament to approve our future relationship treaties with the EU. With Section 13, we knew what form of documents were coming to us for approval. We then judged it necessary to create a role for Parliament over and above the existing provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, or CRaG, to ensure that the withdrawal agreement treaty and the accompanying political declaration could be considered as one package.
This amendment, however, is grappling with the difficulty of trying to legislate for a treaty or treaties where the number and form of those treaties is not yet known. The amendment attempts to bypass this issue by linking its provisions to any trade agreement that,
“gives effect to any or all of the provisions set out in the framework for the future relationship so far as they relate to trade”.
However, this leaves it unclear which treaties would be caught and whether it would remain active long into the future, beyond the conclusion of our future relationship negotiations. The Committee can be reassured that our future trade agreements with the EU are bound to be subject to the provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Furthermore, those agreements will almost certainly require detailed implementing legislation, which means that the arrangements could not come into force without the authorisation of Parliament. No doubt this is a question to which we will return. I hope this reassures the Committee and that noble Lords will withdraw, or not move, their amendments.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his extensive response. He has been attempting, within the constraints he is undoubtedly under, to give us as much information as he can. I will need to read Hansard to be absolutely sure what we have and have not been promised. I certainly heard the word “amendment” in one of his sentences, but it may have been a misunderstanding on my part. If there are not to be amendments to this Bill, I am intrigued—that is parliamentary language for “a bit confused”—about what exactly the Government are going to offer us to resolve the obligation placed on the House by the Motion passed in the name of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition relating to progress on this Bill, which is a point that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has also raised.
We can hope that the two aspirations at play here come together, because despite the Minister’s valiant attempt to remind us that this is a continuity Bill—an aspiration negated in the second amendment after we started this process, and continually ignored in every amendment we have discussed so far—we should get real and understand that the mess we are in will not be helped by having an artificial distinction between what is a continuity issue and what will be a non-continuity issue, or, in other words, the real world in which we live. We need to get this right, and we on this side of the House have offered—I am sure the party on my left has also offered—to work through this with the Government, and that offer remains on the table. We will meet at any time, at the Government’s request, to see if we can come together to make something of this that will work for the future, because it is that important.
That said, I endorse what has been said by others: any attempt to rely on the procedures in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 will be doomed to failure. The Government have to get over that hurdle before we can make significant progress. The 2010 Act is inadequate as a process, and would be inadequate under any terms, because it allows the Government to use the negative resolution procedure for secondary legislation, so that the treaty we agree comes into law automatically, irrespective of any opposition or amendments Parliament might want to make, provided it has been laid before Parliament for 21 sitting days. That is not the right process, as we are talking about trying to get Parliament to engage with the process by bringing it back to the mandate arrangements, and allowing Parliament plenty of time, lots of information, a good process and a proper committee structure for proper decisions to be reached in the public interest. The Government should not play games with procedures and say, “We’ve got that already, so why are we bothering about it?” This needs to be dismantled and rebuilt in a way fit for the 21st century.
A new system is required, and the time has come. If there is any doubt about the interest in that, the Minister should be aware that six major business federations—the CBI, the BCC, the EEF, the ICC, the IoD and the FSB—have taken the unprecedented, in my experience, step of bringing forward a joint statement with the TUC, Unite, the Trade Justice Movement, the Consumers’ Association, Which? and other industry bodies calling for a proper model of consultation and scrutiny to govern the UK’s policy-making process in the future. The Government cannot ignore that; it has to be something that they will do.
We will come back to this, whether in the form articulated by the Minister, or in amendments we consider at later stages. I hope there will be a Report stage, because the Bill is important and needs to go through, but the danger is that delay or difficulty in coming forward with something clear enough for this House to respond to will mean the Government finding themselves in real difficulty on the Bill. I do not say that lightly; the last thing we want to do is use procedural issues to hold back what is, at its heart, a good piece of legislation, which we support. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Grantchester
“Division of agricultural tariff rate quotas
It shall be the objective of an appropriate authority to take all the necessary steps to ensure that after exit day the division of agricultural tariff rate quotas with the European Union remains at the same level as prior to exit day.”
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests as stated in the register. Tariff-rate quotas have been set for mostly agricultural products, to allow some countries preferential access to the EU single market below the tariff rate set for those products. The UK does not have its own national tariffs but merely shares in the amounts set for all member states across the EU. This is most important to the agricultural sector and industry, as it sets out the quantity that comes into the EU at preferred competitive rates, bearing in mind that products still have to be compliant with the relevant EU standards.
On exit, these TRQs at EU level will need to be split between the remaining states and the UK. The proposal agreed between the EU and UK is that the product quota should be split according to the relevant usage or consumption of the product in the UK and EU. The difficulty arises on the specific quantities, as there is a lack of data to inform the division. Although there is detailed information on the point of arrival of products into the EU, there is not the same detail regarding where the product may be consumed. The EU and UK, in bilateral discussions, have agreed to adjust the schedules without triggering renegotiations under Article XXVIII of GATT. This was submitted in October 2017. However, it was almost immediately challenged by the large exporting countries, such as the US, Brazil, Australia and New Zealand.
I cannot overstress how critical this issue is to British agriculture and the nation’s consumers. It is revealing that so many glib answers are often proposed in the current impasse over Brexit. From a lack of information and knowledge, poor judgments are made, leading to a lack of appreciation of the consequences. I am sure I do not need to explain to the Minister the delicate balances in the market, where price volatility results from small changes in supply, quite irrespective of the huge discrepancies in tariffs under preferential treatment and other third countries that have allowed managed change to take place.
To give one example, Britain’s sheep exports, with large implications for the Welsh economy, comprise more than one-third of production, with almost all of it destined for Europe. This trade is virtually one-way, with minimal imports from the EU. Without agreement, and a smooth transition, tariffs to the EU would render this trade immediately uneconomic. The seriousness of the issue was underlined by a joint letter from the British Retail Consortium, signed by the chief executives of all the major supermarkets—Sainsbury’s, Asda, M&S and Waitrose, among others—only two days ago. The BRC stated that it wanted to maintain the same tariff-rate quotas. The wording of the amendment signifies that it is a probing amendment to ask the Government to provide some certainty in their answers to the challenges, and their approach to the future.
Amendment 54, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, calls for a report to Parliament, and I look forward to the noble Lord’s remarks. The concern is that access to the home market—and, hence, the vibrancy and well-being of agriculture and the rural economy—will be sacrificed as a pawn in negotiations in rolling over trade deals to be ratified by third countries in the future, especially in relation to the interests of other industries. The Committee has already debated the fear that standards would also be under jeopardy. It is imperative that the UK Government continue to maintain the present TRQs. I beg to move.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
My Lords, Amendment 54 is in my name. As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, pointed out, the division of the tariff-rate quotas is of great importance to parts of the UK economy, especially the rural economy, but it is also important to our trading partners. Some likely trading partners when it comes to agriculture have already stated their concern about the agreement the UK and EU have reached.
I admit that this amendment was prepared with the expectation that there would be more than a month between the Act coming into force and exit day. That was a naive hope. I thought that the Government might have been able to have this legislation on the statute book long before, but with the delays that have occurred I admit that one month would be tight between the Act receiving Royal Assent and potential exit day. Nevertheless, the core element of the amendment, which seeks to get clarity on the UK’s position, is important. Clarity is sought in two areas: first, what our current position is regarding discussions with third countries about the division of the tariff-rate quotas; and, secondly, how the Government would consider the impact of these decisions on our economy.
As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, indicated, agreement was reached between the UK and the EU in 2017. He was right that that provoked immediate objections. The countries considered that the changes proposed by the EU and the UK for the division of the tariff-rate quotas amounted to more than simple rectification of the schedules. The European Parliament said in a report to its own committee that the changes had,
“involved less flexibility and market access for their exporters”.
Its stated objections to the EU-UK quota subdivision, saying that,
“other concessions should compensate for the loss of market access”.
These are the questions that the European Parliament is asking the Commission about what concessions there are likely to be. The questions the European Parliament is asking the Commission are ones that this Parliament should be asking our Government.
The expectation might be that we will want to trade on certified WTO schedules. As the Minister said previously, it is not necessary for us to trade under these, but they are desirable because they mean that the negotiations, on which concessions could be provided, are not ongoing, and that concessions have either been provided and then accepted and settled, or that there are ongoing negotiations in which we have to monitor what concessions are being offered to secure the prize of certification. My amendment asks for a report from the Government to be clear about what that position is.
As with the debate we had on the previous group, I was able to secure information about what had happened at the WTO market access committee in October, and the position of the other countries and of the EU. I was able to see the text of a Council regulation, EC32/2000—the proposal to modify the implementation of the tariff-rate quotas bound in the GATT. The discussions that took place between the Council and the European Parliament have been reported on. On 14 November the Parliament decided to enter into inter-institutional negotiations based on the Council’s report on its proposal. In none of that has it even been suggested that there could be a role for our Parliament in discussing with the Government the potential impacts of the concessions offered to secure approval for our TRQ division. The provisional agreement reached with the Council at the Parliament on 10 December to discuss what the European Union’s position would be is in stark contrast to this place, where there have been no equivalent proceedings with the British Government.
If we are not going to be involved as the European Parliament is on the European side, at the very least we need a report on what the likely impact will be after the Bill becomes an Act, if it does so. On that basis, I hope the Government will accept that we need much more information not only about the current standpoint but, similar to what the European Commission has provided to the European Parliament, on what the likely impact will be.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I declare my family’s farming interests. I have read and reread the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. I have a couple of queries, so I have to ask whether he and my noble friend the Minister can help me.
My worry is this: the amendment would surely tie the UK Government to whatever the rate is at that moment and not look towards the future. There is no timeframe or limit on this, as far as I can see. My concern is whether this means that the negotiation would not allow for the improvement of the UK’s share in a particular agricultural tariff-rate quota. As a result, would the amendment close the door to meaningful discussions of recent changes to the UK share of a particular quota?
I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said. He is a great ambassador of long standing for standards and equality, and on fair trading for agricultural goods in general; I hope I am as well. He is quite right to raise the whole question of fair trade and the standards that are set for our producers. When we first discussed this last Monday—I think; I lose track of where we are at—we talked in great depth about the expectations of a product, how it is produced and the responsibilities and standards set.
I do not think I need to ask the Government to pay exceptional attention to the needs of the agricultural industry, but the noble Lord raises a very important point regarding sheep farmers in particular. Sheepmeat is not eaten as much in this country as it used to be, but it is exported widely. Trade with Europe is very important and I hope there will be trade beyond Europe, but I wondered whether he could explain the way the amendment is written, because I have apprehensions about it. Will my noble friend the Minister be able to explain? Maybe she does not share my slight concerns but I felt they were worth raising. The thrust of the amendment is right but I am not sure that the wording is.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester—on what I think might be his birthday—on moving the amendment. I repeat my concerns relating to the earlier group of amendments, not just for the hill farmers of Wales but for the hill farmers of the north of England, including North Yorkshire, County Durham and Northumbria, and Scotland, as well as other parts of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord raised his concerns in an interesting way but I have to echo my noble friend Lady Byford’s concerns, which she so ably addressed. It would be helpful for the Minister to explain whether our understanding is correct and what the relationship is between this amendment and the earlier tariffs we discussed, and whether, if we were to introduce the zero-rate tariff, this would equally be of concern with this amendment.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to put in a brief word here. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will recall that, towards the end of the time when she and I were crossing swords on agricultural policy, the issue of agricultural trade multilaterally fell down in the Doha round precisely on this issue of tariff-rate quotas. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Grantchester—who was also present on those occasions—is a probing amendment to see how we are going to deal with the situation for imports.
Our exports, to which the noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady McIntosh, referred, are also vitally important, but we need to have a line from the Government in relation to the existing tariff quotas for European imports with a number of our trading partners. It is not necessarily in the interests of those trading partners to preserve what is de facto the UK share of imports from them to the whole of the EU. Some of them are fly enough to actually notice that their bargaining position in relation to the UK on its own might be slightly greater than their bargaining position in relation to the EU as a whole. It is therefore not entirely surprising that, in these existing potential rollover treaties, there might be some attempt to change the amount of imports that the tariff quota allows into the UK. That itself, of course, is potentially a danger to our domestic production in many of these areas. However, assuming that it will be an easy task simply to roll over all of these existing EU-wide treaties is one of the features of the Government’s complacency.
Of course, the issue becomes even more important when rather bigger agricultural producers might actually be approached by us, or approach us, for a free trade agreement down the line, when their interests will undoubtedly be to press for very high import quotas— from Brazil, America or Australia—in any potential free trade agreement that we are seeking to make primarily on behalf of our manufacturing and service sectors. It might well be something on which we need to put down a marker now.
The Government might have some difficulty with the wording of my noble friend’s amendment, but we need to know what their position is on this. Otherwise, we will be presented with a whole series of treaties that incorporate the existing division, which might not be to our benefit and, more importantly, will set a precedent for how we are going to deal with future treaties and agricultural trade within that context.
Baroness Fairhead
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Purvis, for tabling Amendments 34 and 54 and for giving this House the opportunity to discuss this important area. I entirely agree with the concerns that have been raised, particularly on areas such as agricultural products, affecting farmers and rural areas, which were addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and my noble friends Lady Byford and Lady McIntosh. I would like to take these two amendments together, because there is a fair amount of overlap in the questions that each amendment raises. I would also like to do so in some detail, because they cover a very technical area and I hope that my clarification will help—that is the aim of what I am trying to do.
We have tariff-rate quotas both in the existing EU FTAs that we are working to roll over and in our WTO schedules. A different approach is required for each, which I am happy to explain. In doing so, I will also address each amendment first as it refers to the EU FTAs and then as it relates to the WTO TRQs. I will first address TRQs in EU free trade agreements. The EU has been clear that it will not revise its free trade agreements with third countries as a result of the UK exiting the EU. This is because usage of those quotas tends to be low. The UK is therefore engaging directly with our trading partners to agree new TRQs to apply under the continuity agreements, and we are making good progress. We are agreeing TRQs for the same products at levels that protect existing trade flows. We will continue to report fully to Parliament on the TRQs agreed as part of our Clauses 3 and 5 reports on changes to the agreements. Amendment 34 would therefore be impossible to implement in respect of EU FTAs, as there is no division with the EU to refer back to.
On Amendment 54, as I mentioned, the Government have already committed to lay before Parliament for each transitional FTA a report that sets out any substantial changes to trade-related matters. These reports will include details of changes to the TRQs. Let me assure noble Lords that the reports will also include an indication of the impacts associated with the changes to the TRQs. However, we would not expect there to be substantial business impacts from changes to TRQs, as we are maintaining TRQs for the same products sized at a level which protects existing trade flows.
On the EU Council decision relating to the modification of TRQs, to which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, referred, I am happy to write to the noble Lord on that point and I will put a letter in the Library.
I turn now to the TRQs found in our WTO schedules. Here, the Government have taken quite a number of steps, and in addressing these amendments I believe it would be of value to noble Lords if I walked through them. To prepare to leave the EU, the United Kingdom has had to establish its own schedules of goods and services at the WTO. In doing so, we have taken the approach that we should maintain our current obligations as far as possible. This was announced to both Houses through Written Ministerial Statements on 5 December 2016. While much of our goods schedule is directly replicable—for example, our bound tariff rates—some parts, such as tariff-rate quotas, are not. Quotas are not directly replicable because they are a quantity coming into the EU 28, as your Lordships will know, and if they were exactly replicated this would lead to an expansion of market access into both the EU and the UK. This is why the Government agreed a co-operative approach with the EU to apportion WTO tariff-rate quotas, based on historic trade flows. This was agreed in October 2017 and communicated publicly through a joint letter by the UK and EU ambassadors to the WTO.
The UK schedule was finalised in July 2018. We sent it to the WTO on 19 July, and once again both Houses were informed through Written Ministerial Statements. Our schedule then began its formal three-month certification period on 24 July. That period was completed on 24 October. While most WTO members agreed with our approach, as I and the Secretary of State for International Trade once again explained through Written Ministerial Statements laid on 25 October, some WTO members have argued that their market access has been reduced by our approach to TRQs. This is why we announced the Government’s intention to enter GATT Article XXVIII negotiations on TRQs at the WTO to establish whether the apportionment we have proposed is a fair representation of the UK’s current rights and obligations.
Between October and 21 December, when the Government formally launched the Article XXVIII process, work was completed to prepare the necessary trade data and the notification for our Article XXVIII process to begin. We are now in the first phase of this, a 90-day notification period that lasts until 21 March 2019, during which WTO members can examine our TRQ trade data and register an interest in negotiating with us. After this, the UK will examine those claims and determine with whom and on which commodities we will be negotiating under Article XXVIII.
I should also mention briefly the EU’s corresponding transition at the WTO. The EU has launched its own Article XXVIII process, as it, of course, apportioned the EU 28 TRQs with the United Kingdom. It formally started this on 22 July 2018. The reason it was able to do so before the UK is because it did not have to establish a new schedule of its own. Our process and that of the EU are legally distinct and are being pursued separately. However, they are linked in that they derive from the same initial obligation, and WTO partners will need to be convinced that their access to the EU 27 and UK markets will be no less favourable once both processes are complete. So our processes are separate but complementary.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
The Minister has been exceptionally helpful and very clear, but I hope she will be able to address one question. If we leave without an agreement with the EU and this process of negotiation is under way, what will bind us to have the same position as the EU when it comes to what is being queried: namely, the methodology of the division of the timeframe and the statistics? It seems that if we leave without an agreement, there is no mechanism whereby we can consistently have the same position as the EU. At the moment, we have the same interest because of the agreement signed, but that is not a binding agreement that we have with the EU going forward. What, then, would link us to ensure that we have the same position? If that is not in place, a third country, quite rightly, would have doubts as to whether the EU position would be the same as that of the UK, and vice versa.
Baroness Fairhead
My understanding—again, I will write to the noble Lord if this is not the case—is that the apportionment approach that was being used is utterly within WTO provisions and normal practice. The WTO laws will dictate how that process works and, therefore, as I said, the EU is pursuing its own Article XXVIII and we are pursuing ours; they are separate legally but obviously complementary. On the noble Lord’s specific question about what else oversees that, I think it is more the WTO, but if that is incorrect, I will write to him.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
I am grateful for that, and the Minister is helpful. That leads on to my next point, which is that the countries themselves have said that other concessions could compensate for the loss of market access. Negotiations are therefore, by definition, discussions about whether the UK and the EU continue to hold to their agreement or whether other compensation concessions could be offered. My question applies similarly to that. At the moment, we have a united position with the European Union. If we leave without an agreement, nothing is in place to ensure that concessions that could be offered to compensate for the loss of market access will be united between the UK and the EU. That raises questions about whether, when it comes to the discussions with third countries, they will seek different concessions from the UK. That opens up the whole issue that we are fearful about: will we offer different concessions to other countries which would potentially have a negative impact on our own industry?
Baroness Fairhead
I said that I will write to the noble Lord. I tried to address that in my first answer, and this is an inevitable follow-on question from that, should my answer not have been correct. However, they are two separate legal processes.
Baroness Kramer
The Minister has been tolerant. Perhaps I lack all the understanding I should have in this area, but my understanding is that, to be effectively a member of the WTO, it is necessary that the schedules are approved by all the existing members—the Minister can correct me if that is wrong. There can be temporary permissions when one is progressing along a path, but in effect any member country has a veto, and that does not have to have a reasoned basis. If any country felt that these new arrangements—the split of the tariff-free quotas, if you like, that was on offer to them—was not fair, it could not only argue that the arrangements were unfair but could simply say, “I don’t like this. Give me something better. And if you don’t give me something better, I’m not going to sign off on your schedule”. That means that we are then hampered in functioning, even on WTO rules. Can the Minister help me with that relationship?
Baroness Fairhead
I will try. First, the UK is already a member of the WTO; it was a founder member and it is a member. When its schedules have been lodged, they become the schedules, and even if they are not certified, we can continue to operate on that schedule. I committed to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, following a conversation we had following some press reports about certification and whether one country could operate; I have the draft of the letter and am about to sign it, and again, I will put a copy of that in the Library. It is clear that a country can operate on an uncertified schedule; indeed, the EU 28 are currently operating on a schedule which is not an EU 28 schedule. All that is set out in detail in this letter, which I hope will provide satisfaction.
Having now laid before your Lordships the steps the Government have taken at the WTO, I turn again to Amendments 34 and 54. We have made our proposed apportionment of WTO TRQs on the basis of the best data available to us regarding recent patterns of trade in the relevant products, so that any apportionment does not distort existing trade patterns. However, we have always said that, should trading partners have alternative data, we would be prepared to examine that in order not to distort trade flows in these commodities. If allowed, Amendment 34 would prevent us doing this, and, in doing so, would undermine one of the UK’s obligations to our WTO partners at the moment when we are re-establishing and reasserting ourselves as an independent member of the WTO.
Amendment 54 requests a report detailing our progress on GATT Article XXVIII negotiations. I trust that the Government’s frequent updates on our WTO transition reassure this House that the Government are committed to keeping Parliament informed at every stage of this process. We will continue to update Parliament as we progress and complete our Article XXVIII process.
The report in Amendment 54 also requests an assessment of whether the objections raised by other countries that gave rise to our Article XXVIII negotiations affect the UK’s ability to trade on our goods schedule after we leave the EU. I hope that I addressed that in my previous answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. We will be able to use and base our trade policy upon our goods and services schedules even if they remain uncertified at the point they become operational—whether that be after the conclusion of the implementation period or in a no-deal scenario in April 2019. We are also able to negotiate, sign, ratify and bring into force trade agreements with uncertified WTO schedules. This situation is not without precedent. Indeed, the EU has done precisely this for years while signing several trade agreements, including with Canada and Japan.
Given the broader work already in train, the impact these amendments may have on that and the Statements that the Government have made and will continue to make throughout our trade policy transitions, I ask that these amendments be withdrawn.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her answers and explanations. Once again, I am grateful to the Committee for allowing me to come forward with this probing amendment to understand better the processes and procedures that the Government are currently undertaking. They will be of great importance to large sections of our economy. They were put forward in the context of continuity—very much, as the noble Baroness said, of rolling forward existing trade flows. Hence, I was very happy to take questioning and probing from the noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady McIntosh, on the amendment’s meaning. The answer is that I wanted to get the subject matter down for debate and to understand it better—and, indeed, to underline the difficulties of the word “improvement”, which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, used for how we might want to change things and go forward. Obviously, improvement means different things to different stakeholders in the process.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Whitty for explaining the background so comprehensively. What is really referred to is market access. Does improvement mean better market access, and for whom? How does this affect other stakeholders and the balance of interests between the countryside, the food chain and consumer interest and consumer prices? I was not really coming from the angle of an importer or an exporter, but I wanted to have the issue debated. The Minister has provided a lot of background interest and information that will certainly take a lot of reading and reflection.
Finally, the process outcome still seems far from clear. We will be talking about the apportionment that can result from it and how this may still give rise to anxieties and the balancing of those interests. Having made those remarks, I am very grateful to the noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have taken part in this little debate. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Grantchester
“Internal energy market
It shall be the objective of an appropriate authority to take all necessary steps to implement an international trade agreement which enables the United Kingdom to fully participate after exit day in the European Internal Energy Market.”
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, Amendment 35 seeks to set the objective that the UK should fully participate in the European internal market after exit from the EU. This wording may also need to be examined. However, it is once again merely a probing amendment to enable the Government to provide more clarity on their intentions in the Bill and in future scenarios. Full participation may be said to imply continued membership in the internal energy market. While the Government have now been clear that leaving the EU will also include leaving Euratom, they took some time to explain what the close relationship with Euratom would mean. We now know that it means full duplication of regulations and regimes. However, what is the situation regarding the internal energy market, and—turning to Amendment 36—how does this outcome bear on the internal all-Ireland energy market?
Once again, an industry is calling out for clarity over trading arrangements as the UK leaves the EU. In the event of no deal, the outcomes become even more precarious and pose risks to the functioning of the UK energy market. Energy and climate should be among the first topics covered in negotiations to preserve security of supply and aid completion of the modernisation of the UK’s energy system, which requires tens of billions of pounds in investment in a smart power grid, low-carbon transport and heating to underpin the competitiveness of all UK business. Electricity and gas cross-border trading is an increasingly important part of efficient markets. Net imports of electricity accounted for 4% of the UK’s power supply in 2017 and 47% of gas arrives via pipelines from Europe. Increased interconnection and a proposed doubling of these connectors with neighbouring markets are planned—for example, from Peterhead—and will help balance the security of power supplies.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord McNicol for tabling his Amendment 36, to which I am also speaking in this group. It draws attention to the challenges posed by the integration of the island of Ireland’s single electricity market. Also included in this group is Amendment 46, which proposes that there should be no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. Will the UK continue to participate through membership of the internal market to avoid disruption across both Ireland and the UK and maintain a low-cost, efficient power supply through integrated systems under common international environment laws? Losing access could lead to higher bills for consumers and potential disruptive effects, and raise critical issues regarding the EU emissions trading scheme. It is important that the Government provide clarity. I beg to move.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
I am not speaking on behalf of my noble friend Lord Teverson, the absolute expert on these Benches on these issues, but simply to ask a number of questions in support of those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. He rightly points out that one of the core relationships that currently exists between Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, is energy. It is something that has perhaps not had the same profile or publicity as border checks, but it is very significant to consumers on both sides of the Irish Sea. It is of interest to me, as someone who represented a Scottish Borders constituency, that Northern Ireland’s security of electricity supply depends on the supply of natural gas from Moffat, which is just outside my former constituency and supplies 100% of its gas requirements. After the UK’s exit from the EU, Northern Ireland will continue to source 100% of its gas from Great Britain. As a consequence, the integration of the energy market for the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland now depends on an integrated single electricity market. The interconnectedness of energy is something that political agreements will have great difficulty disentangling. The request for clarity on the current position is very important. It is even more important given that there is now a real prospect of leaving the European Union with no agreement. The Government have said in their position paper on Northern Ireland and Ireland that,
“the new framework relevant to the energy market in Northern Ireland and Ireland should … facilitate the continuation of a single electricity market covering Northern Ireland and Ireland”.
But how this is to be done separate from the European Union raises significant questions. I hope the Minister is able to respond to this.
The evidence provided by Minister Richard Harrington to the Lords committee is interesting. He said:
“Whether we are in the EU or not in the EU, it is in the interests of both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to continue a shared electricity system … We are held up in sorting this out only by the progress of the general talks in Europe”.
The question mark over where we currently are with these general talks in Europe means that it is urgent that we have clarity on the current position on securing agreement on a shared electricity system. The real question in leaving without an agreement with the EU is whether that raises issues with regard to maintaining the single internal energy market.
The final point on which I ask for clarification from the Minister is that it is not just the operation of the market on a regulatory basis that is of importance. The market operates primarily because of the free movement of people and professionals and the regulatory systems that surround it. We also know that when it comes to the operation of the market there is the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. What is the Government’s position on the jurisdiction of the legal supervision of how such integrated electricity markets will operate?
Free movement of people and clarity on jurisdiction are core elements of why we believe that moving from the European single market will cause real damage. The integrated single electricity market is a case study in itself in how it operates effectively at the moment and why question marks over its future need to be addressed. Clarity, as sought by the amendment, is necessary. I hope we can secure it from the Minister’s response.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, who made some important points about the energy market, especially on the island of Ireland.
Amendment 46 is consistent with the provision of the EU withdrawal Act after a near-identical amendment passed by your Lordships’ House was accepted by the Government last summer. The central purpose of the UK’s, Ireland’s and the EU’s shared objective of avoiding a hard border is to protect the hard-won peace and reconciliation. That peace process was begun by the Good Friday agreement of 1998 but is still just that: a process—which is now, I think, sadly in reverse. Although it would be wrong to overstate the link between that and recent dissident IRA activity, specifically the car bomb in Derry/Londonderry, it does demonstrate the willingness of paramilitaries to exploit the current Brexit uncertainty and devolved government limbo to undermine the fragile peace, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said last week in this House.
The border is often described as the Irish border. It is not just that: is the UK’s land border with Ireland and the EU. Therefore, it is our responsibility as much as it is Ireland’s and the EU’s. Some 110 million person crossings take place over the border every year. Northern Ireland, with a population of 1.8 million, exports £3.4 billion over the border. It is by far its biggest export destination outside the UK and the first export destination for new and growing enterprises. At least 5,000 Northern Ireland companies, and probably many more, trade with their neighbours over the border. Tens of thousands of people live on one side and work on the other. Supply chains operate across the border without impediment. For instance, each year, more than 400,000 lambs and 750 million litres of milk are exported from Northern Ireland to Ireland for processing; 4.6 million heavy goods vehicles and light vans cross the border every year, along with 22 million cars. These crossings take place all along a 300-mile border with 300 crossing points.
A little-noticed document published on 7 December by the Department for Exiting the European Union lists no less than 157 different areas of cross-border work and co-operation on the island of Ireland, many of which have been facilitated by Ireland and the UK’s common membership of the EU. Almost every one of those areas concerns people’s everyday lives, and almost all are linked to the European Union and Ireland’s and the UK’s common membership of it since 1973.
Life has become pretty normal for most people in Northern Ireland over the past 20 years or so. Like anyone else in the UK, people there go to jobs near to them or in the next town. They go to doctors, chemists and hospitals near to them. They buy local fresh food. They use trains, buses and roads to get around.
The difference is that for many in Northern Ireland, the next town can be in a different jurisdiction. If we get Brexit wrong, it will cause serious inconvenience and cost. But for British and Irish citizens living in Northern Ireland, getting Brexit wrong will bring immediate and harsh consequences; many aspects of normal life will be much harder or even impossible. People live on one side of the border and work on the other. Because of EU rules that the UK helped to make, cancer care and ambulance services are run jointly across that border. You can get a prescription on one side and medicines on the other because of more EU rules that we share. Cheaper energy and more choice across the island of Ireland again exist thanks to those common EU rules. Cross-border work and co-operation on the island of Ireland, facilitated by EU laws, covers livestock movement on farms straddling the border, food safety, tourism, schools, colleges, farming, fighting crime, tackling environmental pollution, water quality and supply, waste management, GPs, blood transfusions, bus services, train services, gas supply, electricity supply and so on.
All those things add up to making life feel normal after, just 20 years ago, the Good Friday agreement all but finished the violence and murder which killed thousands of people, including many in Britain. The border being invisible today is a big part of that peace process and we must not let Northern Ireland go backwards by putting up any new barriers.
It is those very low-level, ordinary aspects of daily life that are the real signs of the precious achievement of the peace process. Although I strongly reject the Prime Minister’s deal, I cannot and will not join those attacking what is known as the Irish backstop. Any Brexit deal of any kind must include this insurance policy or backstop. It is an insurance policy: a rainy-day back-up plan in the event that a new UK-EU trade deal is not ready by the end of 2020—or beyond. It is a sensible policy to be used only if needed—and everyone hopes it will not be—to ensure that the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland remains open and invisible.
It is not just that Ireland and the EU will not accept it any other way; nor should we in the UK. Whatever happens with Brexit, it is vital we protect what we have achieved together in Northern Ireland in the past 20 to 30 years and avoid any hardening of the border in any way. I call on our fellow politicians to stop playing politics with Northern Ireland, as so tragically happened in the House of Commons yesterday, and insist on an insurance policy regarding the border. We should also demand an end to attacks on the Irish Government, who, in insisting on the backstop, are merely fulfilling their obligations under the Good Friday agreement, as we in the UK should also be doing.
The UK and Irish Governments, along with the EU, were right to prioritise the Irish border in the Brexit negotiations. Your Lordships’ House has rightly focused on it too, not least because the blunt truth is that maintaining an open border always was the Achilles heel of a hard or no-deal Brexit.
Experts argue that there are four key ingredients for successful border management: first, trust and co-operation between authorities and agencies on both sides; secondly, the harmonisation of these agencies’ approaches; thirdly, the application of common standards to minimise the need for checks and controls in the first place; and, fourthly, the use of technology to improve efficiency. Those arguing that technology can solve all the Irish border Brexit problems are plain wrong. It may help, but whether a border is frictionless depends on the rules being applied to movement across it being the same either side—it is the rules themselves, not so much the means used to facilitate enforcement of those rules. Yet Brexiteers seem unwilling to acknowledge that leaving means a growing divergence of the rules on either side of the border. Their conundrum is that divergence is something they favour to build their free-trade, deregulated, low-tax nirvana— fantasy, I think—otherwise, they argue, what is the point of Brexiting?
The UK and Ireland have their common—I stress, common—obligations under the Good Friday agreement to ensure peace, stability and progress. The agreement contains two approaches to this that directly affect the border: intensification of British-Irish and north-south co-operation, and de-securitisation. De-securitisation meant not only the removal of security installations but the British Government’s commitment to bringing about measures appropriate to and compatible with a normal, peaceful society. The last remnants of the militarised border were removed only 12 years ago.
It is simply no good politicians or commentators saying, “Nobody wants a hard border so there won’t be one”. There will be if we do not stop it, because if we Brexit without a deal or without a backstop, both Ireland and the EU will have responsibilities to ensure protection of the single market and customs union. The UK will have its own responsibilities, including meeting World Trade Organization requirements, which in turn mean a hard border.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, I need to manage noble Lords’ expectations as to what I am going to be able to say. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, has given a polemic based on his deeply held views on the situation in Northern Ireland, born of great experience and service. I do not think I will be able to persuade him on this issue and Amendment 46, so he will doubtless come back to it on Report. I will, however, put some important points on the record regarding where, as of today, Her Majesty’s Government stand on these crucial issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, talked about the internal energy market. Again, I have to be careful: I am not able to give him an answer at this stage, beyond that set out in the political declaration. I know he has read that carefully, along with the explanatory note; section XI deals with energy co-operation.
Let me first put some comments on the record about the nature of the internal energy market, and then I will turn to the single energy market and north-south co-operation, addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. The Government continue to support the development of energy interconnectors—which bring benefits to countries at both ends of the cables, including improved security of supply and the lowering of prices for businesses and consumers—and support efforts to decarbonise. That is why we set out in the political declaration that both the UK and the EU should co-operate to support the delivery of cost-efficient, clean and secure supplies of energy and gas, and to ensure as far as possible that efficient trading over our interconnectors continues. Our aim is to secure the best possible future arrangements for trade in energy, and which achieve the objectives set out in the declaration, to which I referred.
On the effect of the shared wholesale market, the all-Ireland single electricity market provides significant benefits to consumers and the economy in both Northern Ireland and Ireland, as the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Hain, alluded to. It is also an example of north-south co-operation on the island of Ireland. The Government are firmly committed to facilitating the continuation of a single electricity market in any EU exit scenario. The agreement reached on the single electricity market annexe, as part of the Northern Ireland and Ireland Protocol to the withdrawal agreement, should ensure that the SEM is maintained. We also expect to reach an agreement with the EU on a future economic partnership that will maintain the SEM without engaging the backstop. As set out in a technical note on electricity trading, published in October 2018, which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, referred to, we will take all possible measures to maintain the SEM in the event that we are unable to reach an agreement. Even in this scenario, which I stress—
Lord Purvis of Tweed
Perhaps I might add some clarification. The Minister has just said that not all of the Northern Ireland protocol is now up for renegotiation—as the Commons have voted for—only part of it. He said that the energy component of it is going to carry on. So which parts of the backstop are being renegotiated and which parts are not?
Lord Bates
I have been on the Front Bench long enough to see a curveball lumbering down the crease. If the noble Lord will forgive me for not taking a swing at it, at such a delicate time, I do that in all seriousness because I want to get the wording precisely right in relation to this. The noble Lord has heard the remarks that I made in relation to the annexe to the Northern Ireland protocol, and that is the position. If we have more to say, I will certainly say that ahead of Report, but even in the worst scenario—
Lord Purvis of Tweed
I did not intend to bowl a curveball or even a googly—or anything. It was a genuine point. The Government’s position now is that they are seeking to renegotiate the whole protocol, commonly known as the backstop. If that is not the case, Parliament needs to know, because we understand that the Government are now seeking a renegotiation of part of the agreement. We know that the European Commission has said that this is not up for renegotiation. If the Government are telling the Committee that only part of it is being renegotiated, that is really significant, because at the moment we understand that the whole element is being renegotiated.
Lord Bates
I am happy to put some additional comments on the record for the noble Lord, in that spirit. Last night, the majority of MPs 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 partnership relationship, and commitments on workers’ rights. 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. We are keen to work with the Government of Ireland to ensure that the SEM will continue in any scenario, and welcomed their statement in December that they were engaging intensively with the EU to ensure that the single electricity market would continue. I hope that this provides some reassurance.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, we have been consistent in our commitment to avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, upholding the Good Friday agreement and maintaining the conditions for north-south co-operation. We are delivering on those commitments. We negotiated a withdrawal agreement that delivered on those commitments in good faith; we have worked hard to build support for it in Parliament over many months. It was clear to the Prime Minister, having met parliamentarians from all parties, that a change to the backstop would be necessary to get the agreement through. The Prime Minister was clear that there are a number of ways to do that and that she will work with colleagues from all parties, and with the EU, to secure changes that command the support of Parliament. Although the Government will seek to secure legal changes to the backstop, their commitment to avoiding a hard border and maintaining the necessary conditions for north-south co-operation remains undiminished.
In a paper published earlier this month, the Government set out their commitments to Northern Ireland, including: a legal guarantee that the backstop could not be used to alter the scope of north/south co-operation; a role for a restored Northern Ireland Executive in UK-EU discussions, through the Joint Ministerial Committee, on matters concerning Northern Ireland; a commitment to seek the agreement of a restored Northern Ireland Assembly before new areas of EU law could be added to the protocol; and a legal guarantee that Northern Ireland businesses will continue to enjoy unfettered access to the entire UK market.
Let me be clear: the Government are committed to ensuring that any arrangements to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland respect the devolution settlement in Northern Ireland. The UK recognises our unique relationship with Ireland. The UK-Ireland relationship should continue to operate through the well-established three-stranded approach set out in the Good Friday agreement. At this stage, I am unable to add to the remarks I have already put on the record, but I thank noble Lords for the opportunity to make them. I know that we will come back to this issue on Report, but in the meantime I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Grantchester
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. As the Minister said, this issue relates not only to the energy market but to crucial aspects of the UK border on the island of Ireland, as spoken to by my noble friend Lord Hain, whom I thank for his remarks.
Returning to the amendments on energy, I am sure that co-operation between industries from member states will continue on a practical basis, but against the challenges of modernisation with low-carbon energy, a clear commitment from the Government could settle the issue. Interconnectors are not the only relevant things here, as the internal energy market provides challenges to the Government on other aspects, such as continued participation in the EU emissions trading system. I note that the Minister was most careful with his words, which the Committee will study with interest. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Mental Health: Children and Young People
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the recent concerns expressed by general practitioners that children and young people with mental health problems are unable to access National Health Service treatments; and what steps they will take to address them.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, there is a growing consensus that children’s mental health services need to improve radically to address the ever-increasing incidence of children’s poor mental health. This matters because poor mental health during childhood shapes the rest of our lives: over half of lifelong mental ill health starts before the age of 14, and three-quarters by the age of 24.
As has been widely chronicled, mental health problems among children are on the rise. Recent data from NHS Digital show that: the prevalence of mental health disorders among five to 15 year-olds has risen from one in 10 in 2004 to one in nine in 2017; two-thirds of five to 19 year-olds with a mental disorder had contact with a professional in the past year because of worries about mental health, but only a quarter had contact with a mental health specialist; and the number of referrals to specialist children’s mental health services has increased by 26% in the past five years.
Many of these children receive treatment far too late or, in many cases, not at all. According to a recent report by the University of Birmingham’s Mental Health Policy Commission, the average wait for children between their first symptoms developing and being able to access support is 10 years. Following referral, the Children’s Society estimates that young people wait an average of 58 days until they are assessed, then a further 41 days until they begin treatment, although waiting times vary significantly across the country.
In a recent survey, 1,000 GPs expressed their concerns about access to children’s mental health services. It found that 78% of GPs were worried that too few of their young patients would get treatment for mental ill health, and a staggering 99% of them feared that under-18s would come to harm as a direct result of these delays in care. These concerns are not limited to GPs. According to a YoungMinds survey of more than 2,000 parents and carers, three-quarters of them said that their child’s mental health had deteriorated while they were waiting for support from CAMHS. Despite the clear need for alternative forms of support during this waiting time, such as peer support or drop-in facilities, two-thirds said that neither they nor their child had been signposted towards any other sources of support. It is hardly surprisingly, therefore, that a PAC inquiry published earlier this month concluded that most young people with a mental health condition did not get the NHS treatment they needed, and that this will be the case for years to come while many face unacceptably long waits. I make no apology for starting this debate with rather a lot of statistics because it is vital that the severity of the situation is laid bare.
As well as battling long waiting times, many children get lost in the gap between primary care and child and adolescent mental health services. The children who need these services are often too ill to be dealt with by primary care but not ill enough for CAMHS. Many GPs end up referring patients to CAMHS despite knowing that they will be rejected, but knowing that they need more support. According to the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, as many as one in four children were rejected for treatment last year. Of utmost concern, the children and young people rejected as “not ill enough” for CAMHS include young people who have self-harmed and others who have experienced abuse.
For many of these children, the only way to access the care they need is for their mental health to deteriorate to crisis point or for them to turn to private care. In fact, almost two-fifths of GPs surveyed said that they would recommend patients whose families can afford it to go private. It is completely unacceptable that we have such a growing divide between those who can pay for treatment and others who are left waiting. Seventy years after the creation of the NHS, families should not be forced to pay for the mental health care that their children so desperately need.
The problem is indeed stark but what is to be done? There is a lot to welcome in the NHS Long Term Plan. For example, the new commitment that funding for children and young people’s mental health services will grow faster than overall NHS funding is clearly a step in the right direction. However, the plan remains silent about the current thresholds that need to be met by children presenting with mental health problems. Although I welcome the commitments in the plan that 100% of children and young people needing specialist mental health care will be able to access it in the coming decade—a far more ambitious target than the 35% access-to-treatment target in the Five Year Forward View—the reality is that only three in 10 currently receive NHS-funded treatment. There is a very long way to go. My overriding point today is: where is the money and the workforce coming from to achieve the 100% target? There are huge challenges in ensuring that funding reaches the front line to enable these ambitious targets to be met amid continuing staff shortages and cuts to children’s social care.
In summing up the debate, can the Minister set out what steps the Government are taking to ensure that they meet the 10-year target for 100% of children and young people who need specialist mental health care to be able to access it? Can she also outline how progress towards the 10-year target will be measured and reported to Parliament? Indeed, I call on the Government today to ensure that this should take place at least annually. Will the Minister also commit to a timetable for introducing the proposed new four-week waiting times for CAMHS services nationally and an implementation plan to ensure that these new waiting times do not result in threshold increases?
The NHS Long Term Plan pledges that children and young people experiencing a mental health crisis will be able to access the support they need. This is welcome since the lack of children’s crisis care is of escalating concern. A survey of emergency departments carried out by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine showed that only a third had specialist CAMHS services available in the evening and only 27% had such services available on weekends. The lack of services means that, according to a recent “Panorama” programme, 1.5 million children live in an area without access to 24-hour crisis care. This is totally unacceptable. As with physical health, mental health problems occur at all times of the day and night, including at the weekends. The plan includes a new crisis hotline delivered through NHS 111, training for ambulance staff and other provisions such as sanctuaries and crisis cafés. However, it is not clear whether these commitments will be extended to all children and young people and whether they will be part of, or separate from, adult services. Could the Minister clarify these arrangements in her reply?
We all know that workforce is a huge constraint on progress. The recent Public Accounts Committee report found little change in overall mental health workforce numbers since Future in Mind was published in March 2015. According to a recent National Audit Office report, slow progress on workforce expansion is emerging as a major risk to delivering the Government’s ambitions for children’s mental health services. To make the NHS Long Term Plan a reality, the NHS will need to both recruit and retain more staff, attract returners to the profession, offer rewarding jobs and a more supportive culture, and look at job redesign. This is particularly pressing given that the number of child and adolescent psychiatrists working in the NHS in England has fallen by some 6% in four years. Of course, with Brexit looming, the prospect of finding the more than 23,000 additional staff needed to treat all young people with mental health problems seems very unlikely.
Alongside supporting children with pressing mental health problems, it is essential that we take a preventive approach. Schools clearly have a key role to play in this. The Government’s Green Paper, which was published over a year ago, seeks to increase the support available within schools through new mental health support teams and a designated senior lead for mental health in each school. As the Commons Education Select Committee and Health Select Committee concluded last May, while laudable, these plans lack ambition and the very lengthy implementation, rolling out only to up to a quarter of the country by the end of 2023, will leave hundreds of thousands of children unable to benefit from the proposals for years to come.
The Mental Health Policy Commission at the University of Birmingham has found that children with high resilience are half as likely to have a diagnosable mental health condition and concluded that early intervention schemes are greatly cost effective. There are many other early intervention approaches which have not been the primary focus of this debate, such as the importance of counselling in schools and other community settings, peer support schemes and open access drop-in mental health hubs with no waiting lists of the kind being piloted in some areas, often by the voluntary sector, which can help to prevent problems escalating to the point where specialist mental health treatment is needed.
I call on the Government to ring-fence the new money announced for mental health in the NHS Long Term Plan, so that the much-needed investment in mental health services actually reaches the front line. I also call for this to be monitored by the introduction of a strengthened mental health investment standard for children, with sanctions imposed on those clinical commissioning groups which fail to meet the standard without a valid reason. I greatly look forward to hearing the speeches of other noble Lords, who I know will have much to contribute to this debate.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for initiating this debate because it is such an important issue, as there seems to be an epidemic of mental health problems among young people. It is impossible to read or watch the media without seeing and hearing of mental health issues among this group. There are many reasons for the increase, including poverty, neglect, stress, bullying, poor physical health, social media and trauma.
Most children attend primary care. Children in the UK see their GP probably on average once a year, usually even more often. GPs have an understanding of the context of the issues of the families on their books and they are in a strong position to discover childhood mental health problems, but there are barriers which more often than not make this a difficult process. Parents may not realise that their child has a problem. Their attendance to see the GP may be for a physical health reason and, as an appointment usually lasts for only nine minutes, it is clearly difficult for the primary care specialist to get a clear picture in that time. GP recognition is the key step in assessing specialist services. Indeed, GPs are the main referrers to specialist services and failure to detect disorders may delay effective interventions. Parental perceptions of problems play an important role. Their awareness of a possible mental health issue is then relayed to the GP, which is a great advantage, and we know that GPs’ recognition of a mental health problem increases when parents express concern. There is a need for an awareness campaign for parents on the signs of possible mental health issues, along with increased training for healthcare professionals.
The majority of mental health issues start in childhood so early identification has not only a financial benefit but, much more importantly, the quality of life for the sufferer is substantially increased. Once an issue has been picked up there are gaps between mental health and childcare services creating a barrier for effective help for both children and parents. Services are patchy, with no access to psychiatrists and long waiting lists for CBT and counselling. There is a need for a community psychiatric nurse and a social worker in every practice along with an accessible community psychiatrist. There is a requirement for a joined-up approach between the department of health and the Department for Education, where career guidance at schools and colleges can be given to encourage students to go into these professions. Specialist training for GPs to identify problems, along with an expansion of primary care-based mental health services, would clearly relieve the pressure on GPs.
I can only touch on social media, but the Secretary of State issued an urgent warning on the potential dangers. They cannot be blamed for all mental health problems, but the platforms have a responsibility to sort themselves out along with an awareness campaign for parents on the dangers, signs of problems and safe use. Technology can be a force for good but how many more young people must be harmed or die before we get a grip on the problem?
I welcome the Government’s plans for new mental health support teams over the next five years working in schools and colleges, bringing early intervention opportunities along with better information and data sharing. I also welcome the fact that spending on children and young people’s mental health must increase as a percentage of CCGs’ overall mental health spend.
As mental health teams are rolled out, we need co-ordination with the child health workforce to avoid replication of the existing fragmentation, along with an increased frequency of data capture and improved transitions from children’s services to those for young adults. In the end it comes down to more highly trained professionals on the ground, joined-up thinking with the Treasury, the department of health and the Department for Education, leading to more students training in the required professions. That in turn requires financial backing to make sure that training places are available in all areas of the country. I have run out of time.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, for initiating this debate. Her concern for the health and well-being of children and young people is well known, and her speech today has confirmed that concern.
I share the anxieties of GPs, many of whom are struggling to help young people in the face of extraordinary stresses. Also under stress are services—not only youth services but health, education, social services and the police—and here lies the problem. Young people’s mental health is rarely sudden or one-dimensional. Mental health issues are embedded in experiences such as poverty and from their contacts with parents, families, friends, education, youth services, the police and health. Youth services are disappearing, while many schools are focusing less on activities such as sport, music and art as more are driven by an academic curriculum which places students under stress. This is an issue recently raised by the chief inspector of Ofsted. Of course GPs and other services are under pressure. Will the Minister agree that child mental health is the responsibility of a number of agencies and that those agencies, like schools, also need support and more emphasis on PSHE programmes, good pastoral care—such as school counsellors—and working together to focus on young people?
Two years ago in Portcullis House, I facilitated a Council of Europe-UK Parliament seminar on child mental health and child-friendly justice, with young people aged 14 to 23 and many NGOs. Children and young people were listened to and consulted respectfully. They were clear and articulate in their concerns about services and could identify factors that had gone wrong for them, now and when they were younger. Their main complaint was that services were too little and too late. They wanted services that were appropriate to their needs. One young woman, responding to an Association for Young People’s Health survey, said:
“Very often there’s no help available until the problem has become totally unmanageable”.
Above all, they want a consistent, sympathetic adult to relate to.
Apart from access to treatment, treatment for children and young people has to be customised. It is simply not acceptable to have under-18s put into treatment services designed for adults. Some young people have very specific needs for mental health, such as in relation to youth justice. A high proportion of young people in the criminal justice system have mental health problems, which may not be addressed and can only get worse. Services are a vital part of addressing mental health needs in the population. I am concerned about funding at a local level, the co-ordination of services locally and young people having to fill in questionnaire after questionnaire for different services. I ask the Minister: will the Government be imaginative and forceful in tackling this issue and encourage dialogue with young people and co-ordination between services?
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle
My Lords, this is a very timely debate, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and congratulate her on securing it. We have heard some of the alarming statistics on children and young people with mental health needs, and we know that current NHS services are unable to meet this disturbing increase. In an ideal world, we would be asking ourselves why there should be such an increase—some of the reasons were mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Chisholm and Lady Massey—and doing our best to tackle the causes rather than just attend to the consequences. But that is another debate.
For the moment, I would like to use the brief time at my disposal to focus on some of the most vulnerable young people in our society: those with moderate to severe learning difficulties, whose mental health needs can be either missed or inappropriately treated in hospitals. I believe that they and many other people with mental health needs would benefit hugely from the provision of good services in the community rather than in hospitals or other institutions. I was greatly encouraged to find that the NHS Long Term Plan, which we will debate tomorrow, comes to a similar conclusion in its treatment of this subject, on pages 50 to 53. In particular, it emphasises the need to embed mental health support for all young people in schools and colleges—a strategy that has already been shown to be therapeutically effective and cost-efficient and that was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler.
We also know that a lack of good support for children with learning disabilities and behavioural challenges can lead to crises in families and a lifetime of restrictive, high-cost, often residential treatments for individuals when they become adults. The charity Mencap is deeply concerned about this and reports that, over the last few years, the number of children with learning disabilities admitted to mental health hospitals has gone up rather than down. Between March 2015 and May 2018, the number of children under 18 in in-patient mental health units doubled, from 110 to 250. There were another 465 young people aged between 18 and 24 in in-patient units last year. The average length of stay has remained the same, at 5.4 years, since 2013. These figures contrast rather starkly with the laudable and ambitious Building the Right Support campaign launched by NHS England in October 2015. Its aim was to close up to half of the in-patient beds across the country for people with a learning disability and to ensure that local areas develop the right community support by March this year. To date, only about 20% of those in-patient beds have been closed, and I have already referred to the way in which local community mental health services are severely overstretched.
In other words, as we have already heard, we have a long way to go before the good aspirations of the NHS Long Term Plan for all young people with mental health needs—and those with learning disabilities in particular—will remotely be achieved. Given the urgency of the current situation, I would be most grateful if the Minister would comment on the proposed timeframe for closing beds in institutions and making sure that effective mental health support for children and young people is available in all our communities.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, on securing this debate. I think it is almost four years to the day since we last debated this subject in your Lordships’ House, and I read the speech the noble Baroness gave then with great care. She commented then on the need for much greater awareness of the issues and recognised the commitment to parity of esteem for physical and mental health, which of course is now enshrined in legislation—they do listen to us sometimes. No doubt this debate was in the Chancellor’s mind when in his last Budget he announced that funding for mental health services will grow as a share of the overall NHS budget for the next five years.
Although I have not spoken on this or related matters regularly in this House, it is an area of interest to me. Until recently, I was a trustee of Jewish Care, which incorporates Jami, the mental health service for the Jewish community. More recently, my wife and I have tried to spend some time helping mental health charities such as the Mental Health Foundation.
The Government have, of course, committed to provide an extra £20.5 billion to the NHS by 2023-24 and have introduced the first ever mental health waiting targets. The NHS Long Term Plan in England addresses some of the gaps in the Five Year Forward View for Mental Health, and it is particularly encouraging to see a greater emphasis on perinatal mental health care services.
It is true, as the aforementioned YoungMinds has claimed, that many local health bodies are diverting some of the new funding they have received for children’s mental health to other priorities and that, while some CCGs have made big increases in their spending, many others are using some of the new money to backfill cuts or to spend on other priorities. It seems that organisations such as the excellent YoungMinds are the safety net when the NHS, and particularly CAMHS, fails to catch young people.
However, at the very least, the NHS is to be congratulated on much better provision of data from April 2016 on mental health provision. As this was mentioned in Oral Questions this afternoon, I spent some time looking at the monthly statistics and learned that 600,000 mental health service appointments for children in the year to 30 October were unfulfilled, which means patients did not show up. Will my noble friend the Minister assure us that steps will be taken to improve this statistic?
I turn to my main point. Preventing problems from emerging in the first place must be the best way to ease the pressure on services. Early intervention is also more compassionate, as it reduces distress and prevents people reaching a crisis point. The big gains in protecting and improving mental health are to be had in our schools, communities, workplaces and, generally, the non-clinical spaces where we spend most of our time. There are some programmes that are helping to take the challenge on. The Mental Health Foundation’s Peer Education Project is a good example.
To make a real difference to the mental health of children and young people, we need to reach children before they need services and there needs to be better support for those who do not reach the diagnostic criteria for CAMHS. I have to agree with the Mental Health Foundation when it calls for greater attention to be paid to early intervention and prevention and for the investment of more resources in this area.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, for this debate on access to NHS treatments for children and young people with mental health problems. Doctors on the front line have long complained about the dire situation and inadequate resources. This in itself is a massive issue. It is placing ever-increasing demands on already stretched services.
Let us put ourselves in the shoes of a child encountering these services, possibly for the first time, at hospital A&E units. A child experiencing a mental health crisis out of hours—perhaps a looked-after child having difficulty adjusting to their new surroundings or having an argument with a parent—and brought to A&E by their guardian as the only safe place to seek assistance often has real difficulties. Self-harm is often a coping mechanism to which they turn in this kind of situation. It is not an unusual occurrence and once the child has, in many cases reluctantly, been brought to A&E they will often have to wait for hours to see a member of the psychiatry liaison team, which is already stretched to full capacity seeing the adults they are more properly equipped to manage. In most cases the healthcare professional will not have the expertise to manage the situation with the child given that most psychiatry liaison staff are not trained in child mental health. NICE guidelines recommend that they then have to admit the child overnight until the appropriate team member can come to the A&E.
Imagine then that this is a Friday night and the team member will not be available until Monday morning. I am advised that this is not a rare event and often happens in A&E. Staff are dissatisfied, A&E departments are dissatisfied, as are the children and their parents. Where are we going with all this without the appropriate resources to address the growing number of children with mental health problems turning up at A&E?
Again considering this same child, once the assessment hurdle has been surmounted the challenge remains of accessing the necessary service required. With an increase in referrals of 26% over the past five years this has stretched resources to the limits. Worryingly, however, parents questioned for a recent YoungMinds survey reported that this intervening period between the first referral and acceptance on to the clinician’s caseload can be a risky time, with 75% reporting that their children’s mental health had deteriorated further while waiting for the services to be given to them. In fact, the longer they were left to wait the more likely it was, the parents said, that the mental health of their child would deteriorate even further. There are many cases where people had waited up to six months and some had waited up to a year.
As many as three-quarters of those surveyed reported that they were not signposted to any other service during the time they were waiting for the appointment, so during this period the child’s mental health will almost invariably deteriorate, possibly leading to self-harming, dropping out of school or having suicidal thoughts which they might act on. The parents’ mental health may also be impacted on with the stress that they suffer during this period. What may begin as a seemingly relatively minor mental health crisis—perhaps an argument with parents or something like that—has the capacity to escalate into an issue which becomes pervasive in all aspects of the patient’s life or, worse still, lead to something worrying, such as thoughts about suicide and ill health later in life.
This lack of signposting further compounds GPs’ fears about a patient’s interaction with mental health services. They feel that there is little else that can be offered. However, we now have of course the new 24-hours-a-day crisis hotline, which through phoning 111 can triage children and young people. Let us hope that this will make a significant change.
Yes, we have more money coming in, which is welcome—the Government are moving in the right direction—but we need to know when the training is going to start to find the extra staff needed. Perhaps the Minister will address that issue.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I wish to focus my remarks on children and young people suffering from eating disorders, which are the most deadly of all mental health illnesses and which are affecting a rising number of young girls and boys.
I shall use the illustration of one young teenager suffering from anorexia to highlight the historic underfunding in this area. When she got to crisis point last year and required in-patient care, no beds were available. She was put on a general ward in the local hospital and while the care team were trying desperately every day and ringing round for beds—which is what they have to do rather than caring for other children—she was left there for nearly a month. When a bed became available, it was more than 100 miles away from her home. With eating disorders you are not talking about children being in in-patient facilities for weeks; you are talking about months and months. If she had been a child with a physical illness, that would not have been acceptable. We need more specialists in eating disorder facilities, and we need them now.
It is welcome that the NHS Long Term Plan, at paragraph 3.26, refers to additional investment being made in this area. When will further information be given about the size of that investment, and can the Minister clarify that it will be ring-fenced for eating disorders?
The second point I wish to raise is around waiting times. It is fortunate for children and young people who need to be referred to eating disorder services that there are waiting times in place. We are aiming to get to 90% by 2020—we are around 80% at the moment—and where I live in Surrey I am pleased to say that the CCG has found £1 million to improve the waiting times for access to treatment. However, there are huge variations around the country, as my noble friend Lady Tyler mentioned. What will the Government do to address the huge variations in waiting times for children and young people suffering from eating disorders?
As I said at the beginning, these are the most deadly of all mental health illnesses and we know that early treatment for children is critical, as it is for other mental health illnesses, as other noble Lords have said. Early treatment is essential and we need that money. I therefore ask the Minister to explain when we will get clarity about the amount of money that is going to children and young people’s eating disorder services and what the Government are going to do about the geographical variations in waiting times access.
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, I shall try to make four points in four minutes. The first point is about funding. At the moment we are often working backwards, as other noble Lords have said, to help those who are already at crisis point. The Government have shown great leadership on this—I welcome the additional funding—but I am still extremely worried when consultant psychiatrists and others in the system to whom I have spoken say that the extra investment is not getting to the front line for specialist services. I am not someone who thinks that public spending is the answer to every problem, but sometimes a big part of the problem simply does come down to money, and this is one of them. I back up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, on this and ask my noble friend the Minister how the mental health investment standard, which is excellent, will help to make absolutely sure that funding is targeted at the services most under strain, particularly specialist CAMHS.
My second point is about early interventions and I will be brief. School counselling services clearly can play an important role in preventing mental distress from escalating. I have seen some brilliant examples in schools. Even at primary school level, if you put yourselves in the shoes of a child, that is still quite a late intervention. I agree with the point made by my noble friend and I urge the Government to keep up the momentum on helping families—and I stress families—in the peri and post-natal stages.
We need to be careful about a narrative where we think that A plus B will definitely prevent C. It will not, unfortunately. We should look at early intervention but some children will end up in crisis. Mental health illnesses can strike out of the blue and we need to make sure that each part of the system works properly.
My third point is about culture change. I spend a great deal of time talking to people about this. I know that some people worry that we are medicalising normal childhood or adolescent experience, as if by encouraging young people to talk about their mental health we are somehow putting ideas in their heads and stimulating a false demand that should not be there and that we cannot address.
This shows that as a society we are on such a steep learning curve—that, unbelievably, we are still at an early stage of understanding mental well-being and, at the same time, we are trying to teach our children. For me, it is the very opposite of creating epidemics of mental illness—it is about stopping them, by teaching children that anxious or unhappy feelings at certain times are normal, but they need to be given tools to manage them. We talk a lot at the moment about what sort of a country we want to be. I want my children to grow up in a society where all those who are able to be are in control of their own mental well-being. Philip Larkin famously said that:
“Man hands on misery to man”,
and while he is my favourite poet, I have never particularly liked that poem. There is always a chance to break cycles and hand on resilience rather than misery.
My last point is about joined-up government. There are so many other points I would have liked to have covered—I am running out of time—including the new Ofsted framework, transition to adult services and welfare reform. In broad terms I am delighted to see that the Government have moved to a birth-to-25 strategy, but how will this be led across government departments in practice? When I talk to people in Whitehall they emphasise how complicated this is, with many root causes and considerations. Because that is true, it is the very reason that cross-government working needs to be gripped. Every person at every level working on this should understand which interventions are intended to solve which problems, where responsibility lies and how success will be measured. We should be following the life of a child, not the silos of departments.
Finally, at my daughters’ school they often sing a song from “Matilda The Musical”. It is called “When I Grow Up”. One of the closing lines is:
“Just because I find myself in this story, it doesn’t mean that everything is written for me”.
When I watch the kids I often remember the most harrowing calls I took as a Samaritan volunteer over a decade ago from children who simply had nowhere else to turn. Sometimes children need help to write a better story. That is our job.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, on securing this very timely debate. I also declare my health and education interests, as in the register. In the short time available I shall touch on three issues: funding, workforce and crisis care, which GPs have raised many times with me.
First, in the NHS Five Year Forward View the NHS budget was about £120 billion but mental health received only 15% of the total. As we know, one in four people will suffer some form of mental health problem during their lives and, critically, children’s mental health services receive only about 7% of the 15%, which is totally unacceptable. There is growing evidence that there is a huge rise in the prevalence of poor mental health, particularly among young women over the last decade, and a much faster rise in help-seeking and referrals to specialist CAMHS services.
The 10-year plan pledges that funding for children and young people’s mental health will rise faster than the average for the NHS and by more than it will for adult mental health services. Can the Minister indicate today the profile of this funding escalation up to 2023? Unless it is honoured, the thresholds for access to services, which GPs are so concerned about, will continue to rise.
Further, as has been mentioned, GPs have raised concerns that funding allocations to clinical commissioning groups have not always been spent on mental health services but have sometimes been used to cover deficits elsewhere in the system. This, again, is totally unacceptable. Can the Minister give further details of the mechanisms that will be employed to deliver the 10-year plan’s commitment to ensure that local NHS commissioners are held to account for the increases in funding for mental health services?
Secondly, to deliver the ambitions of the 10-year plan for mental health it is crucial that a robust and imaginative new workforce plan is published. As we have heard, the Royal College of Psychiatrists has pointed out that one in 10 consultant psychiatrist posts is vacant and the latest training programme data shows that 60% of training places for child and adolescent psychiatrists are unfilled. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Psychiatrists have highlighted that currently under half of GPs have received mental health training, while 82% of practice nurses feel ill-equipped to deal with mental health problems. Yet 90% of people with mental health problems are served in primary care settings. Can the Minister tell us when the new workforce plan will be published? Many of us were disappointed that it was not published at the same time as the 10-year plan.
Thirdly, and quickly, from my own work on the development of liaison and diversion services, I am well aware that it is essential that children in crisis need to be assessed and supported in an appropriate setting. Police cells have now been banned for the assessment of children who find themselves in some way connected with the criminal justice system but A&E departments can be equally inappropriate and a very poor environment for proper assessment. It is obviously welcome that the 10-year plan recognises this and the importance of investment in community-based crisis response services, and commits to ensuring that children and young people experiencing crisis will be able to access crisis care 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Can the Minister indicate the timescale for the delivery of that?
Finally, it is essential that we have a spread of in-patient beds across the country for people who need them, in their localities and not some distance away.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest, as in the register, as a lay member of a CCG. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, on bringing us this debate. I know that we had a slightly false start getting here but we are here. The fact that so many noble Lords put their names down to speak in this debate, meaning we have only a few minutes each, shows that this is seen as an important issue across the House and that many of us are very concerned about the mental health of our children and young people.
I thank YoungMinds, Beat and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health for their briefings. I also thank the Library. Like many noble Lords, I clicked on the links in the Library briefing and suddenly realised that they showed the journey we have been on for the last few years with some excellent reports that have been there for five or six years. The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee published its report in January. The Stem4 GP survey was published in December 2018. There was the excellent briefing from the House of Commons Library on children and young people’s mental health services. The National Audit Office published Improving Children and Young People’s Mental Health Services last October. The Care Quality Commission’s Are We Listening? A Review of Children and Young People’s Mental Health Services was published in March last year. There were debates in both Houses all the way through last year, averaging about one every couple of months or so. There was the National Health Service’s five-year forward plan, a publication on mental health well-being trends and so on.
I asked myself what the common thread running through all this was. It is the recommendations that noble Lords have highlighted in today’s debate. It really is time to stop talking and to start delivering. When will the number of weeks that children and young people are having to wait be reduced, by how much, and by what date? In a child’s life, 26 weeks is a huge amount of time and has devastating effects. My noble friend Lord Brooke and the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, mentioned this. This seems to me to be a priority. When will the workforce be increased? The figure of an additional 4,500 was mentioned in the House of Commons PAC report of last December. Are the Government on track to deliver those relatively modest figures?
Finally, the last recommendation in the PAC report reads as follows:
“By April 2019, the NHS should set out to the Committee”—
that is, the PAC—
“what arrangements are in place to collect the data it needs to: set up a robust baseline, and monitor progress on children and young people’s mental health services in the ten-year plan … reliably measure patient outcomes; and fully evaluate … the Green Paper pilot areas to inform the national roll-out of services, including information from outside the NHS”.
That is by April, which is two months away. Are the Government on track to achieve that?
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for introducing this debate and for giving us the opportunity to discuss a very important issue. I know that she is a great campaigner on this issue. Regrettably, it remains true that many young people who seek help find it difficult to access the right support at the right time, as she has clearly identified.
I also thank all other noble Lords for their contributions to this incredibly important debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, there certainly is not sufficient time to address all the very important issues that have been raised today in the four minutes that Back-Benchers have been given to speak.
I reassure my noble friends Lady Wyld and Lady Chisholm and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, that this Government are committed to ensuring that our children and young people, and their families, get the support they need at the right time from the NHS, schools, colleges, local authorities and our dedicated partners in the voluntary sector. As part of this long-standing commitment, we have already laid strong foundations for a step change in the quality and scale of support available through improving and expanding NHS mental health services for children and young people, and through the 2015 Future in Mind strategy, the 2016 five-year forward view for mental health and the NHS Long Term Plan, published earlier this month, as noble Lords have identified.
I say to the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler and Lady Massey, and other noble Lords that we know that the current system is not perfect but we are working tirelessly to improve the quality and availability of support for children. This will take time. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, rightly identified that collaborative working across the system is key to ensuring that we get it right.
I am grateful that noble Lords have recognised the additional funding going into mental health services. As my noble friend Lady Chisholm noted, after years of underinvestment, NHS funding for children’s and young people’s mental health services is now rising and will continue to rise as we work towards the goals set out in the NHS Long Term Plan.
I reassure my noble friend Lady Wyld that mental health services will grow faster than the overall NHS budget, creating a new ring-fenced local investment fund worth at least £2.3 billion a year by 2023-24. In addition, the plan includes a new commitment that funding for children’s and young people’s mental health services will grow faster than both overall NHS funding and total mental health spending. This transformative investment will mean that by 2023-24 an extra 345,000 children and young people up to the age of 25 will receive mental health support via NHS-funded mental health services.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, that we recognise that the standard of service provision varies for children and young people around the country, and I acknowledge the arguments that she has made. An increasing proportion of young people are seeking help from the NHS. We are responding by already ramping up capacity, and the NHS Long Term Plan has set out further priorities for the years ahead.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, is reassured that we are on track to meet our commitment to improve access. By 2020-21, 70,000 more children and young people will be accessing treatment each year. This equates to 35% of children and young people with a mental health condition.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, that we have introduced the first ever access and waiting standards for mental health services, as they acknowledged, including two relevant to children and young people—on eating disorders and on early intervention for people experiencing a first episode of psychosis. Indeed, we have a target to ensure that treatment begins within two weeks for more than 50% of people experiencing their first episode of psychosis. Nationally, the NHS is exceeding the target, with 78.5% of patients having started treatment within two weeks by October 2018.
More young people are getting the treatment that they need for eating disorders, and there has been a significant improvement in treatment times for NHS care. An extra £30 million is going into children’s eating disorder services every year, with 70 new or expanded community-based teams covering the whole of the country. We are nationally on track to meet the target of 95% of children and young people with an eating disorder accessing treatment with a one-week referral for urgent cases and four weeks for routine cases by 2020-21. The most recent data shows that 80.2% of young people started treatment for a routine case within four weeks.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler, Lady Massey and Lady Thornton, and my noble friends Lady Chisholm and Lady Wyld also noted the importance of recognising that there is no single defined service or model that can address the needs of all ages and developmental needs across mental health, and that existing services will need to work together. I am of course in total agreement.
An example of how this Government are encouraging partnership working between services is the Green Paper on children’s and young people’s mental health, which will deliver a new schools and college-based service to help children and young people and will be staffed by a new workforce. This brings together health and education to provide early intervention mental health support for children, as advocated by the right reverend Prelate. We are taking cognisance of preventive services for mental health, which is key and fundamental. Every school will be encouraged to have a designated senior lead for mental health, as well as access to mental health support teams that will sit in and around colleges and schools. This commitment was confirmed in the NHS Long Term Plan and will be rolled out to between one-fifth and a quarter of the country by the end of 2023.
This new schools-based service is in addition to existing provision for children and young people with mental health needs. Last month we announced 25 trailblazer sites, which will run the first wave of mental health support teams. Twelve of those sites will also test a four-week waiting time for children and young people to get mental health support from the NHS.
The workforce is, of course, integral to everything we are doing. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Brooke and Lord Bradley, on the issues that they raised. We have always recognised that a skilled and confident workforce is at the heart of delivering improvements to mental health services. That is why we have set an ambition to create 21,000 new posts in the mental health workforce in priority growth areas to be occupied by 19,000 NHS staff. The Children and Young People’s Improving Access to Psychological Therapies programme has trained both new and existing staff in evidence-based therapies. Our ambition is to have 1,700 newly trained therapists working in children’s mental health services and 3,400 existing mental health staff trained in evidence-based interventions by 2021.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle said, some children will, unfortunately, experience a mental health crisis and will need rapid mental health support. I want to thank the noble Baroness for contacting my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy on this important matter last month, when he was the Minister. Like the noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate, I am pleased with the strong focus on crisis care in the NHS Long Term Plan, which sets out around £250 million of investment in crisis care by 2023-24.
Improving provision of children’s and young people’s urgent and emergency mental health care is a priority for NHS England as part of the wider transformation of mental health support. We have supported the development of children’s and young people’s urgent and emergency mental health care services and intensive community support services, including testing and evaluating models for crisis support. The NHS Long Term Plan is clear that the expansion of age-appropriate crisis care services for children and young people is vital, and I share that view.
I am conscious that I have only two minutes left, but there are lots of questions to which I want to give answers—I have been told to keep going.
Baroness Manzoor
I have four minutes; that is good. I shall answer some specific questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, asked how the target in the long-term plan of 100% access would be measured. The NHS will publish further details about how the long-term plan will be taken forward, in an implementation plan due this spring, with more detailed plans in the autumn. She also asked about the timetable for introducing the four-week waiting time. As she may know, we have recently announced 12 areas that will test how we might introduce the four-week waiting time without the risk of perverse incentives, such as raising thresholds. Fuller plans will then be drawn up, informed by learning from those pilots.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle asked about better community service and support for those with learning disabilities. I agree that we need to increase community services, particularly for those with learning disabilities. That is why the long-term plan’s significant investment in children’s mental health services is so crucial. As I said, by 2024 an additional 345,000 children will receive this support.
My noble friend Lord Leigh and the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, also raised the issue of CCGs perhaps diverting funding for mental health services to other things. I reassure them—and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, who will probably know more, because she sits on the board of a CCG—that in 2017-18, 90% of CCGs met the mental health investment standard, which requires them to increase funding for mental health at least in line with their overall financial allocation.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and others who raised crisis care and A&E that we are committed to rolling out liaison mental health services to every A&E by 2021. The long-term plan builds on this by committing to 70% of these teams meeting the “core 24” standard by 2024. We are committed to developing alternatives to hospital.
I have already addressed the issues around eating disorders. Of course, it is vital that we continue to build on the good progress that has been made. More details of the implementation plan will be available in the spring.
To conclude, we are aware that there is much work to be done, but I am enormously proud of the work that the Government are doing to improve access to mental health services, ensuring that many more children and young people can access high-quality vital mental health support. I am confident that by continuing record levels of investment, improving access and waiting times, and championing parity of esteem through high-quality mental health support services, we will provide a brighter and healthier future for our children and young people. They deserve nothing less.
Trade Bill
Wednesday 30th January 2019
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Trade Bill 2017-19 View all Trade Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 127-III Third marshalled list for Committee (PDF) - (28 Jan 2019)
“Bilateral system of civil judicial cooperation
(1) It shall be the objective of an appropriate authority to take all necessary steps to implement an international trade agreement which enables the United Kingdom, after exit day, to fully participate in a bilateral system of civil judicial co-operation for the purposes of facilitating trade between the United Kingdom and the European Union. (2) A bilateral system of civil judicial co-operation under subsection (1) shall include agreed conditions on—(a) jurisdiction, including applicable law and choice of jurisdiction; and(b) bilateral enforcement and recognition of judgments.”
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 37 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord McNicol of West Kilbride, would make it the objective of an appropriate authority to secure a bilateral system of civil judicial co-operation between the UK and the European Union, to include arrangements for the choice of jurisdiction, the choice of law and the bilateral enforcement and recognition of judgments.
The amendment is relevant to the Bill in at least three ways: first, to new free trade agreements with third countries that currently enjoy FTAs with the EU, and therefore with us through the EU; secondly, to bilateral FTAs with third countries that might enter such agreements with us in the expectation of further trade through the UK with the EU member states; and, thirdly, in the event of no deal, when, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out earlier, the Bill—which will then be an Act—after exit day will be the only legislation bearing upon the arrangement of future FTAs.
In moving the amendment, we have every reason to believe that we are pushing at an open door. In debate after debate since the 2016 referendum, mine has been just one of many voices arguing that if we leave the EU we must maintain the whole gamut of the arrangements for cross-border judicial co-operation that we presently enjoy as a member of the EU. Every time, the Government have responded that they recognise and will maintain the benefits of these arrangements for the United Kingdom. Only yesterday we considered SIs laid by the Government on this topic. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, was very clear that the SIs were laid only against the undesirable possibility of a no-deal Brexit, and accepted that should that occur we would be losing a significant benefit; I refer to columns GC 231 and GC 233 in yesterday’s Hansard. We would be forced to fall back on less effective, more costly, extremely inconvenient and altogether inferior alternative arrangements.
Whatever outcome emerges from the current impasse, we should do all we can to replicate all the arrangements for civil and commercial cases that we currently enjoy. These stem largely from the Brussels regime and its provision for the determination of jurisdiction and for the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments. The Brussels regime principally comprises the Brussels Ia EU regulation and is supplemented by the 2007 Lugano Convention, which provides similar arrangements for Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Denmark. Choice of law in contract cases, which make up the vast bulk of commercial litigation, is governed largely by the Rome I regulation, and Rome I applies throughout the EU except in Denmark, which has an opt-out for judicial co-operation.
If we failed to replicate the arrangements of the Brussels regime, what we would lose is well summed up in two bullet points in the Explanatory Memorandum to yesterday’s SI on civil jurisdiction and judgments. The first refers to,
“a system of uniform jurisdictional rules to identify the appropriate court in which to bring a civil or commercial claim”.
The second refers to,
“a simplified mechanism to recognise and enforce the judgments of 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”.
These arrangements have been built up over decades and British lawyers, jurists and judges have played a major part in their development. The European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters, established in 2001 by the European Council, is an important forum for cross-border co-operation between courts across the EU. It seems to me that there is no significant reason why we should not be able to negotiate some continued access to the European Judicial Network after we leave the EU.
Throughout the European Union, citizens and businesses now know where cross-border disputes are to be determined. They know what law is to be applied. Crucially, they can be confident that court orders obtained in one member state will be recognised and enforced without fuss, delay or extra proceedings throughout the Union. This system has been of incalculable benefit not just to those who use our legal system but to our economy as a whole, because it is widely understood that all member states respect the arrangements and decisions of courts in other member states.
It often seems to me—I hope I can say this as a lawyer without special pleading—to be largely overlooked that our legal system has contributed significantly to Britain’s commercial success during the decades of our EU membership. One reason the United Kingdom has been so successful in attracting both inward investment from outside the EU and trade from elsewhere within the EU has been the fact we have not just excellent financial services and a sophisticated financial architecture—another plus is sometimes said to be political stability but I somehow doubt that at the moment—to add to the benefits of the English language and a convenient time zone, but a well-respected commercial legal system, one that functions without undue delays and at cost levels that are reasonably competitive in the international market, and which produces outcomes that are relatively predictable and generally accepted.
A very important component of that success is that our legal system functions internationally in supporting cross-border trade and international commerce. If we lose that, however frictionless we may make our trading arrangements, we will have compromised our future both as a destination for international investment, attracted to the United Kingdom as a gateway to the European Union, and as a trading partner for member states of the EU and the EEA. Put shortly, at a time of major upheaval, we will have needlessly thrown away a significant competitive advantage. That is something we cannot afford to do and it would be folly indeed. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for moving this amendment and raising this very important issue. He is right to highlight the contribution which UK law has made to the commercial contract area and the success of trade and financial services.
We have long made clear our intention to negotiate a new relationship with the EU which covers civil judicial co-operation. The political declaration provides a positive means for discussion on this. It makes it clear that the UK and EU have agreed to explore a bilateral arrangement on matrimonial and parental responsibility and other related matters. This goes further than the arrangements that the EU currently has with any other third country to date.
The UK also remains committed to future co-operation on civil and commercial matters with the EU—recognising that this is in both our interests, for the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Marks, set out—and to similar co-operation with other international partners. In this area, the UK will, as a minimum, continue to prioritise joining Hague 2005 in our own right and seek also to accede to the Lugano Convention. The UK will engage with EU partners to ensure that these important issues, which provide vital protections for citizens, are the focus of detailed negotiations with the EU.
On the specific issues which the noble Lord referred to, co-operation in this area makes clear that the UK and EU have agreed to explore a bilateral arrangement on aspects of law. This goes further than any arrangements that the EU currently has with a third country. The UK also remains committed to international co-operation in future.
The noble Lord asked what would happen in the event of no deal. As a responsible Government, we are preparing for all outcomes, hence the statutory instruments debated in Grand Committee yesterday. We have published a dedicated technical notice for civil judicial co-operation, detailing how the rules would change in the event that we cannot reach a deal. This is not our preferred outcome—we remain focused on getting a deal that works for the UK and the EU. The rules on civil judicial co-operation rely on reciprocity. After exit, even if the UK were to apply these rules unilaterally, there would be no requirement on EU member states to apply the same rules in the UK. Without the guarantee of reciprocity, our broad approach is to repeal existing EU instruments and revert to applying the rules which the UK currently applies in relation to non-EU matters.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this important matter, and I hope that I have provided as much reassurance as I am able to at this stage.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response, and I will be withdrawing the amendment, with your Lordships’ leave. The plain fact is that the arrangements the Government have in mind in the event of no deal are what I described yesterday as “thin gruel indeed” compared with what we have. They are inferior, bitty and involve a great deal of scope for satellite litigation where parties are having to litigate on issues such as enforcement and jurisdiction in different jurisdictions. This is so important because it highlights an area which has had far too little attention in the event of no deal. It is a significant danger for us—no deal will deprive us of the competitive advantage we enjoy as a member of the EU.
I share the Minister’s confidence that, in the event that we secure an agreement, we will also secure an agreement on judicial co-operation during a transitional period, because it is in the EU’s interests as well as ours. The danger is that people float into no deal by accident, and cost us everything involved in losing judicial co-operation. It is a significant feature that ought to weigh heavily in the minds of all the policymakers involved. With that warning, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“UK participation in Common Transit Convention
It shall be the objective of an appropriate authority to achieve before exit day the implementation of an international agreement to enable the United Kingdom to participate in the Common Transit Convention after exit day.”
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
I rise to move Amendment 38, and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for her support. This grouping includes many amendments along the same vein. Your Lordships will be pleased to know that I am not going to speak to each one individually, but I will address the common themes of this group of amendments, pulling out a few specific details. I am sure that a number of noble Lords will be speaking in more detail to their amendments within this group.
This group seeks the inclusion of new clauses after Clause 5 which will put on the face of the Bill a host of organisations, agreements and arrangements which are vital to the continuing smooth operation and functioning of life, organisations and businesses post Brexit. As I am sure the Minister is aware, many of these amendments have come from organisations, trade unions and businesses that are concerned about how they will be affected post Brexit and are seeking ways to mitigate any harm. Many of these amendments do not fully resolve the problem of Brexit, nor all the costs associated with leaving, but if the Government were to accept them it would offer a level of protection and certainty that is currently not there.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNicol of West Kilbride, for introducing this group. As he pointed out, there are 17 amendments that cover objectives for future free trade agreements. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is not in his place right now, and I would never disagree with him. He identified a different group of amendments as being the most important part of what we are debating, but, for many people and for the impact that this is going to have out there in the country, this group of amendments is the plumbing. They cover the day-to-day operations of life, so I consider this to be a most important group of amendments.
I am not going to speak to all 17 amendments, but I am going to speak to four of them, which means that, unfortunately, I will break my own rule of brevity, but I will try to be efficient in what I say. I am going to speak to Amendments 39, 43 and 44, to which my name is attached, as well as Amendment 69, to which my noble friend Lady Jolly added her name. She is unable to attend.
Amendment 39 requires the UK to negotiate with the EU an international trade agreement that creates a system for the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, as the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, set out. It must be at least as exhaustive as our current system and allow people to work across borders, allow workers to demonstrate the necessary requirements where qualifications diverge, and provide for co-operation between regulators. The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, used the example of architects; looking at the other side of the coin, 20% of the architects in this country come from an EEA or Swiss background. That is just one profession—one activity. The Government have the stated aim of building 300,000 houses; they will not have enough architects if we are not successful with this activity.
Under the current mutual recognition arrangements, for doctors, nurses, vets, dentists, midwives, pharmacists and architects the recognition is automatic, providing that conditions on minimum training and professional experience are met. For others, there is a general system whereby regulators cannot ordinarily refuse applications to practise from other EEA or Swiss nationals in this country if they hold the qualifications required by their home state. Since 1997, the UK has recognised over 142,000 EU qualifications. This is a big job. Noble Lords should remind themselves that there will be a lot of work to do around this, including for lawyers, social workers and engineers. Over 27,000 decisions to recognise UK qualifications have been taken in the EU.
The political declaration states:
“The Parties should also develop appropriate arrangements on those professional qualifications which are necessary to the pursuit of regulated professions, where in the Parties’ mutual interest”.
I suggest that replicating the system to be at least as good as the current one is in the interest of this party—the United Kingdom. On that basis, I hope that, as the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, said, we are pushing on an open door here. The four principles set out in this joint amendment are the same as the Government’s four priorities for a future mutual recognition regime. I hope that the Minister can confirm that that is the Government’s understanding; perhaps they can settle some nerves by putting this amendment in the Bill.
Clearly, a no-deal Brexit situation would make life much more difficult. A statutory instrument is running its way through the system; it has been published, but it is subject to the affirmative process and has yet to be debated in the House. I look forward to that; I say that because there are so many SIs, but I look forward to that process, because this is an important part of what we need to do.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, about UK workers working in the EU is equally important and vital. Clearly, if we leave the European Union with no agreement, we cannot mandate what happens to all our professionals in the EU 27, EEA and Swiss territories. However, I urge the Government to explain what representations they will be making in the event of a no-deal Brexit to carry over the qualifications at the very least, and then, of course, to put in place a regime that works.
Amendment 43 requires the UK to seek to negotiate an international trade agreement with the EU that binds the UK to EU rules on open and fair competition. We have had some discussion around state aid in the debate on a previous amendment, so I will not repeat that. However, this also includes mergers and anti-trust behaviour. The political declaration states:
“The future relationship must ensure open and fair competition. Provisions to ensure this should cover state aid, competition, social and employment standards, environmental standards, climate change, and relevant tax matters, building on the level playing field arrangements provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement”—
clearly, now we do not know what that agreement will be—
“and commensurate with the overall economic relationship”.
We have had this discussion in a different context, but a binding undertaking that there will be no regression on standards is important to a lot of people in this House, and other noble Lords who are not here today have made this point with strong arguments.
On Amendment 44 and REACH, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, spoke about regulatory divergence; if there is ever an opportunity for regulatory divergence, it will be around the complexity of something like chemicals legislation. I will not go into huge detail about UK REACH, but this House needs to understand the scale and the scope of this activity. I have experienced it from a business side, and the commitment of European businesses in sitting on literally hundreds of sub-committees, debating and working through the nature of chemicals, how they should be used, and the associated risks, laws and regulations is absolutely huge. I can see looks of consternation.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 63 in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Dykes and Lord Browne of Ladyton. I thank them for lending their support to the amendment, which relates not just to Amendment 39 but also, I would argue, Amendment 45—it is bizarre that they are not in the same group.
The amendment relates to lawyers in particular and the right to provide services, establish yourself in the legal profession and practise. I am a currently non-practising Scottish advocate but, as a young, recently qualified advocate, I went to Brussels to practise European law without having to take a separate qualification. I am greatly indebted, as I think are your Lordships, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, for moving the relevant statutory instrument, the Services of Lawyers and Lawyer’s Practice (Revocation etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which the House adopted. I shall quote him because I cannot put it better than him. He said:
“In the event of us exiting without any deal, there will be no reciprocal rights—which was one reason why, as I indicated, these regulations are required. They are necessary in order that we can establish a position in which all third-party country lawyers will be on the same standing in the absence of a free trade agreement or other agreement with a third-party country. There will be no reciprocity—that will be a matter for the relevant EU country to consider—but clearly it is a matter that we would wish to address in future negotiations consequent on our exit from the European Union. This is dealing with the position in the United Kingdom in light of the existing regulatory regime under EU law. Clearly, and quite patently, you could not address the question of how the EU 27 are going to treat our lawyers going forward”.—[Official Report, 15/1/19; col 177.]
What concerns me greatly is that the next generation of young, budding advocates will qualify on 30 March or 30 April and will be unable immediately to ply their trade, or to continue to ply their trade after 29 March, if we crash out of the European Union without a deal. I could not find it in Hansard, but I took a note of what your Lordships said. I would not like to attribute it to my noble and learned friend Lord Keen, but we learned when the regulations were passed that Ireland’s professional body has taken the opportunity to increase the cost of qualifying as an Irish lawyer to practise there from £300 to £3,000. That is quite an increase. I think we learned from the Liberal Democrat Benches that, in another EU member state, a rule was passed to prevent the sharing of an office or creating a partnership with a British or other third-country lawyer wishing to practise in that country.
We will have a two-tier system. Having passed the regulations, we have, quite rightly, granted those EU lawyers who currently practise here or are qualified and wish to continue to practise here rights to continue or enable them to do so. How can that possibly be? I ask that the Minister use her good offices to ensure that that position is not sustained beyond 29 March.
I entirely endorse what the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, from the Labour Benches said in moving Amendment 38, and I look forward to Amendment 45 on much the same lines. I hosted a meeting here of all the professions that are deeply concerned: architects, dentists, lawyers, nurses and so on. I remind your Lordships that the mutual recognition directive took 21 years to agree in the case of architects. That is not a position to which we would wish to return.
I had a meeting with the Irish Commissioner, Phil Hogan, who was kind enough to receive a group of us from the House of Commons when I was on the Select Committee there. I am currently a member of the all-party parliamentary racing group, and in that capacity and others I attend race meetings. I also had the privilege to represent Thirsk Racecourse, and trainers throughout Thirsk and Malton and the Vale of York, during that period. I am grateful that Amendment 48 is being discussed this evening. If the tripartite agreement existed in its own right before it became part of the arrangements of the European Union, would it not make sense if it reverted immediately to that—a backstop, if you like? Is that the Government’s intention? I see no benefit in taking the tripartite agreement forward as part as existing arrangements. It will get lost in the wash, as it has done this evening in this group of amendments—I have not counted how many of them there are. That would be a very neat way forward. I am sure it would get the agreement of the French and the Irish, and it would be very much in the interests of the business. I remember, when Ireland reduced the rate of VAT, the number of trainers and owners that left this country. Personally, it has been to my advantage because the cottage I live in when I am in North Yorkshire was vacated by a trainer, Sue Bramall, who I understand has had great success training in Ireland, but obviously it is to the UK’s detriment. I would hate to see that happen again here.
I was aghast when I heard the Minister say earlier that the Government sought to revisit Clause 6 on the European Medicines Agency. One of my outside appointments is to work with the Dispensing Doctors’ Association, whose headquarters is based in Kirkbymoorside in North Yorkshire. We are in this curious position where we are going to follow the falsified medicines directive unless we crash out with no deal. That is the only benefit I can see of crashing out with no deal. The GPs in Ireland have been deemed to be self-employed, so they are going to be exempt from the provisions of the falsified medicines directive. Why is there this dichotomy—that we do not wish to be part of the European Medicines Agency, but we do wish to be part of the falsified medicines directive? I would like a route to understanding. I would be very happy to accept a letter on why that should be.
I am not going to rehearse and itemise all the agencies in Amendment 70, but I would make a particular plea for the EASA, the European Food Standards Agency and European Environment Agency. As I have mentioned previously—I have not yet had satisfaction on this point—we should commit to remaining part of the European rapid alert system, on incidents of food hygiene and food poisoning. The need for this was never more apparent than during the 2010 Horsegate scenario. We were lucky that that was a case of food fraud, where horsemeat was passed off as beef. Whatever happens to Clause 6, I hope that the Minister will confirm this evening that we will remain part of the European rapid alert system for such incidents.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I refer to Amendment 62 in my name, which is part of a series of amendments in this group concerning mutual recognition— mutual recognition of good manufacturing practice, in this instance. I was prompted to table the amendment not least because many people in the pharmaceutical industry see this issue as an important part of our future economic partnership arrangements with the European Union, whether we continue to be EU members or in the single market or not.
Like Amendment 42 on the mutual recognition of authorised economic operators, Amendment 62 relates to instances of where the European Union has substantial mutual recognition agreements with third-party countries. In the case of authorised economic operators, those countries include Switzerland, Japan, the United States and similar countries—although not China in the instance of good manufacturing practice. It would be deeply perverse for us to start with standards that align entirely with those of the European Union, whether on authorised economic operators or good manufacturing practice, looking at the two amendments. If we lost that relationship with the European Union, it would make obvious good sense to maintain that mutual recognition.
In that context, the amendments commend themselves to my noble friends on the Front Bench because they are about continuity and trying to maintain the existing structure of agreements. Of course we want mutual recognition of good manufacturing practice with not only the European Union but the United States, Japan and Switzerland because, if we leave the European Union, four of the five largest pharmaceutical companies will be outside the European Union, with two in Switzerland and two in the United Kingdom. This issue matters a great deal to this important industry. Unfortunately, given the uncertainty and the way in which the European Commission sent advice to companies on their responsibility to prepare as if there would be no deal, pharmaceutical companies have, of course, already invested a considerable amount in ensuring that their batch authorisations and conformity assessments—and the authorisations associated with those—can be conducted inside the EU 27. That has cost quite a lot of pharmaceutical companies quite a lot of money already.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, was quite right: this group of amendments is about the plumbing, the innards, of this issue. I am afraid that day by day, evidence of the enormity of the cost—in time, energy and money—of trying to stay as close as we can to the position we would have been in if we had stayed in the European Union is mounting. It does not do to dwell on that but there we are.
Finally, I am really surprised that some of our Brexit-supporting colleagues are not here to laud Amendment 38—the lead amendment in the group— on the common transit convention, which will assist significantly with customs simplification and the achievement of some reduction in the friction that might otherwise occur in trade. It is achieved with third-party countries and is not something that the EU absolutely has to offer. However—although I stand to be corrected by my noble friends—as the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, has said, it appears to have been agreed not only that we would remain within the common transit convention after exit day but that we would continue to remain in it even if we were to leave without a deal. That is a positive development.
Associated with it is the new computerised transit system which will help us to try to make progress on some of the customs simplifications that, whatever happens, will be important to the reduction of business costs. I commend to my noble friends Amendment 62, which should certainly be an objective of the Government in their current discussions about the future relationship with the European Union.
Lord Risby (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 48. I am a director of the Horserace Betting Levy Board as a government appointee, and a former Member of Parliament for Newmarket, which, after all, is historically the world headquarters of racing. Equine matters are very dear to my heart.
The situation we have, which is a tripartite deal, developed before the European Union became involved. There is some level of involvement on the part of the European Union and negotiations have been going on in Brussels between the British Horseracing Authority and the Commission. It is important to highlight this because the system has been in existence for many years and has been absolutely seamless. The relationship between the United Kingdom, France and Ireland has flourished. We can think of Irish horses winning in large numbers at Cheltenham, French successes at Ascot and Newmarket, and our own recent victories in the Prix de l’Arc de Triomphe.
The real key is this. The system of horse passports and documentation is managed in the United Kingdom by our highly respected industry bodies: Weatherbys, the Thoroughbred Breeders’ Association and the British Horseracing Authority, with the approval of Defra and the Animal and Plant Health Agency. It works extremely well and is therefore something that should be cherished. It is particularly important to the economy of the Republic of Ireland. People in the equine industry in Ireland are extremely anxious about this situation being damaged in any way.
As a result of the support over the years of our Governments for the equine industry, stretching right across party divides, it has turned into a great success story and is the best-managed and best-organised racing industry in the world. It contributes to the pleasure of millions of people who watch horseracing either at racecourses or on television. All our facilities have been upgraded and the industry should be supported.
I will refer to the comments made by my noble friend Lady McIntosh. If it were somehow possible to retrieve this from where it seems to have landed up and see it go back to its original tripartite status, which was actually free of the European Union, that would be excellent. However, the reality is that for whatever reason there has been a process of greater and greater involvement by the European Union; in which case, I will ask my noble friend two simple questions. What will happen during the transition period in this area of activity which is so important to us? What is our negotiating objective for the longer term as far as the work of the British Horseracing Authority with our own Government is concerned?
I conclude by expressing my admiration for many colleagues both in your Lordships’ House and in another place who have done so much work over the years to keep this industry up to the highest possible standards of governance and popularity. Finally, I will praise one particular individual. When the Single European Act came in and there was a change in the way that VAT was dealt with, we nearly lost the racing industry altogether. We had a huge fight, but it was saved by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, my noble friend Lord Lamont. For anyone who is interested in and has a passion for racing, he of all people is someone to whom we owe a great deal.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I start by craving the indulgence of the Committee and offering an apology for the fact that I missed the start of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McNichol. I was racing back from Cardiff, but noble Lords will know that that involves the Great Western Railway. The train was only a few minutes late but that was the time I needed in order to hear the beginning of the noble Lord’s speech.
I have three amendments in this group, all designed to ensure that we try to keep the transport system running as normally and smoothly as possible after Brexit. I will start with Amendment 41, which relates to road haulage. We have heard the story many times about the dangers to our road haulage system. Indeed, last week the leaked Border Force document estimated that there could be a decline of up to 87% for three to six months after a no-deal Brexit if some arrangements were not put in place. We have had the preparation for the ECMT certificates that would have to come into place if we had no deal: roughly 1,200 certificates for a haulage industry that involves 30,000-plus hauliers. Clearly, this is totally inadequate. We have had the fiasco of the ferry-less ferry services to try to smooth the process.
We have talked many times in this House about Dover, but I want to say a word about Holyhead, the second-largest roll-on roll-off ferry port in Britain. Some 500 lorries per night go through Holyhead—that is three miles of queues, and the route to the port is through the town. In other words, any kind of queuing system caused by a no-deal Brexit would make it impossible for the town to function. I have had meetings with representatives of the Road Haulage Association, who have alarmed me with some information about the way in which the modern haulage industry works. They pointed out to me that an Amazon lorry can have 8,000 individual shipments on it, which—if we do not have arrangements in place—could lead to an individual customs declaration in each of those 8,000 cases. Each customs declaration has 36 different fields that have to be completed. They estimated that it would take 170 staff one day’s worth of work to deal with one lorry. We all know that Amazon will adapt, but it cannot adapt in two months.
There are numerous other cases and examples of the disruption that no deal would bring, so in this amendment I seek to ensure, in relation to road haulage, that we do not have no deal and keep the arrangements as close as possible to what we have now. We should bear in mind—I was told this by a representative of the freight industry—that it is in what it describes as a huge hole. They said, “The moment we do not apply the rules, we lose control of the border”. So it is no good for our Government to say that we will not do the checks and will take it on trust. The point the freight industry is making is that the moment we start taking things on trust, without the checks, we will have serious problems.
In Amendment 57 we move on to aviation. Many noble Lords will recall that last week the airlines came in for criticism because they had been selling tickets without drawing attention to the fact that, if there is no deal and we leave on 29 March without any arrangements, they felt that those tickets might not necessarily be honoured. That was the criticism and yet the Government have claimed that the aviation situation is arranged and organised.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, the hour is late and a large number of amendments are being debated. I shall not touch on more than one or two. I was impressed by the mention by my noble friends Lady McIntosh and Lord Risby of Amendment 48, on the tripartite agreement. I declare an interest because my brother-in-law is a racehorse trainer near Newbury and he is worried that he will not be able to move his staff and horses round Ireland and France as is necessary for his business. I see no reason why this agreement should not be grandfathered through because it existed before the European Union was founded. I fear, as my noble friend Lord Risby also intimated, that the tentacles of the European state have already embraced Ireland and France to such an extent that they will not have the freedom unilaterally to decide to continue the agreement. I hope, though, that our United Kingdom will have such freedom after Brexit but perhaps we can find a way to preserve this tripartite agreement for the future.
It is clear that all of us would like as little disruption to current arrangements as possible, but most of these amendments should not be in this Bill. They have nothing whatever to do with its purpose. I simply wish to comment on Amendment 55, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, who has not, I believe, spoken to it. Does she not realise that the City of London has suffered from the imposition of several barriers to trade in financial services as a result of having been forced to implement some new European regulations in recent years, such as parts of MiFID II, AIFMD and others? One of the benefits of Brexit is that the City will be free to adopt proportionate and sensible regulation that will enhance its business in years to come.
Brexit also provides an opportunity for the UK to play an enhanced role in the development of proportionate regulation at the global level, balancing the need to protect the consumer and the environment against the requirement to provide an innovation-friendly environment that will enable us to abandon some of the more cumbersome and restrictive parts of the European regulatory regime to which we have become progressively shackled and which is, in places, more about harmonisation and protectionism than about the genuine protection of consumers.
I shall give one example. I have known the chief executive of a Japanese pharmaceutical company for more than 30 years. He told me that when Brexit came along he was not happy, but he has spent more than $8 million upgrading his European network and is now confident that he will be able to research, manufacture and distribute medicines in both the UK and EU27 after Brexit, just as he does now, on whatever basis we leave. He told me that now that he has spent the money, he would like to see the upside of Brexit. He says that the upside is that he expects us to return to what I believe is a more natural state for this country, in which we will have a less cumbersome regulatory regime that will be more helpful for a life sciences company such as his to innovate in new therapies, new drugs and new medicines. What worries me is that, although we are about to leave the European Union, we will, through this type of amendment, promise to continue to align entirely with EU regulation, which in places relies too much on the precautionary principle, and in that case there will be absolutely no upside to leaving. Therefore, we must have a balance here.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, perhaps it is sensible to come in right after the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, following that invitation. I will try to be brief.
Amendment 55 stands in my name. In the past two and a half years I have been shocked by how little attention has been paid to financial services and to what would happen to our access to the EU 27 in the field of financial services after any Brexit. I do not suppose that I have to rehearse for this Committee the significance of this industry. It accounts for something like 80% of GDP; it pays £76 billion a year in taxes, which support our National Health Service; and it has created 2 million jobs spread over the country. It is absolutely critical but has been very largely ignored. I make a plea to the Government that they should begin to get serious about financial services and understand their significance.
If I were to describe the industry in the UK, it basically breaks into thirds. Financial services range all the way from the smallest fintech companies, through insurance, asset management and banks, right up to the global sector of the London Stock Exchange and the London Clearing House. It is huge and varied, but roughly a third is domestic-facing and relatively untouched by Brexit.
About a third is intensely based on the industry’s EU 27 clientele. About half of that business has already gone or is in the process of leaving, and if anyone speaks to government on a day when they are being honest, basically they do not think that we have much chance of keeping much of that one-third in the UK over the medium term and certainly not over the long term.
We come to the final third, which is absolutely critical and where the decisions made in the coming weeks and months will have a great impact. I refer to the global piece, which one could think of in a way as being bigger than but represented by the London Stock Exchange and the London Clearing House. The future of that final global third has a real question mark hanging over it.
I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, that London is a global centre partly due to its long-standing experience and partly due to good regulation, but critical to it is that it is the global financial centre for the euro—the second most significant global currency. That is what underpins London and its global role. Unfortunately, in all finance, where we know that risk exists, the ultimate protection and backstop in a time of risk is liquidity, and for all euro-denominated transactions that source of final liquidity is the European Central Bank. Therefore, from a European perspective, to be exposed to that level of risk, which is in euro trillions, with no ability to control the regulation, monitoring or supervision of a major global financial centre is really serious and significant.
I believe that fundamentally the Government have never looked at this issue from a European perspective and that they completely underestimate the medium and long-term interest in the European Union in pulling back much of that activity to an area where it can regulate, monitor and supervise because it carries the ultimate risk. Suggestions that have come from the City, which have been kicked around in government and in this House, have come largely from a very small Brexiteer think tank. I know the people well and have been to many of their meetings.
Viscount Trenchard
I totally agree that the bulk of the settlement of euro-denominated transactions takes place in London but, in a similar way, London is the most important centre for the settlement of offshore dollar-denominated securities—or even renminbi, or yen. That is because London is the leading global financial market in the world. I have not seen any moves by the United States Fed or Japan’s FSA to try to repatriate London’s role in their currency securities.
Baroness Kramer
I assure the noble Viscount that from the perspective of the dollar, far more of the transactions clear through New York. It is a bigger market. I know we often say that we are the largest, but if we look at the table comparisons, New York is frankly bigger. Certainly, dollar dominance is exercised through New York. The yen is less of a controversial player, and there are not a lot of renminbi. If anybody thinks that China is going to allow its currency to develop a real global presence and not be regulated, monitored and supervised by the Chinese state, they have missed any understanding of how China works. We are convenient but temporary, and we need to recognise that.
People talk about the growing market, but essentially the global markets function in the dollar, the euro and—in the future—the renminbi. They will not function in small African or South American currencies. Those are not players; they are minor currencies. Sterling is treated by the industry as a minor currency. There are two, and there will be three, major currencies that essentially underpin global activity. At the moment one is dominated by New York and the other by London—and the one dominated by London is the euro.
What worries me is that the think tanks that have been going through this process have an underlying conceit and arrogance, and imagine that somehow we are fundamentally and in the long-term superior, that no one else will have the capabilities that we have, and that in the end, Europe needs us more than we need Europe. But Europe works on a five to 10-year strategy to gradually bring back choice pieces of that industry—and we can see it.
I have a real question for the Minister in all this. The right-wing think tank came up with a solution called “mutual recognition”, which basically required the European Union to change how it made regulation and to change its legal framework completely. The think tank thought that was entirely reasonable. It was irrational, and has been abandoned. The Government have finally recognised that it was complete nonsense. There is now an idea that third-country equivalence could be the mechanism that will apply. However, we all know that third-country equivalence can be cancelled for no reason at 29 days’ notice. That is a very unstable way to provide access for a key industry.
Various attempts have been made, but little thought, effort, discussion or energy has gone into trying to find solutions. I am exceedingly worried about that. Looking at that global sector that I talked about, as I understand it, the European Union has provided an equivalence ruling for the London Clearing House for 12 months only. I am sure that it will extend the ruling beyond that—but it is a message. I understand that, as of this moment, no equivalence has been put in place for the London Stock Exchange. Again, that may come, and it may come very much at the last minute. But there is a deep message in all this. I make a real plea to the Government to take our amendment seriously and to recognise that they will have to get totally engaged and make some real compromises—I suspect around their own red lines. If they do not, they will be making absolutely sure that, over five to 10 years, significant parts of the industry will be sucked back into very capable hands in Frankfurt, Paris and Amsterdam.
This is not an instant crisis, although there may be some areas of instant crisis. But it is an area where the Government need to move now, and not lock themselves into a position from which they will see this industry, not perhaps disappear altogether, but lose its global leadership, when they could, with more intelligence and flexibility, have provided some degree of protection.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for being tail-end Charlie in this discussion—at least, I hope I am. I agree that this is a very important group of amendments. I shall concentrate particularly on Amendment 39 because that is the overarching amendment giving mutual recognition of qualifications, which has been so important for frictionless commercial activities and relationships throughout our membership of the European Union. I trust and hope that the mutual recognition and—dare I say it?—harmonisation to some extent of professional qualifications will be able to continue, to give the continuity to which my noble friend Lord Lansley referred, but also, for example, in the field of education, where university qualifications and degrees have been based on mutual recognition of qualifications and the ability to work in professional fields in more than one country.
My own interest in this is that as a solicitor I went to work in Paris in 1973, a year after we joined the European Community. Although I did not need a carte de travail—a work permit—at that stage, I still needed a carte de séjour, but that was progress. There have always been particular difficulties for the legal profession simply because of the difference between the common-law system and the civil law system. That has led to a different approach to our understanding of what we have been trying to do within the European Community throughout our membership.
I may not be up to speed on all the detail. There may have been discussions, and possibly solutions, about continuing the recognition of professional qualifications, but I am not aware of them. I am surprised that the Law Society, for example, has not provided any briefing in this respect—at least not to me. Still, I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about this. At the next stage of the Bill I would hope that we could be given more certainty about what may happen in future. I am curtailing my remarks because it is a late hour, but I feel that this would be so important, not only to British and Scottish lawyers—I look to my noble friend Lady McIntosh in this respect—but to all the European Union lawyers who have set up offices and are operating in London and other parts of the country, making our commercial activities ever more possible.
Perhaps, as a sort of PS, I might refer to Amendment 48 and the tripartite agreement. I am not sure how this applies to polo ponies. As your Lordships will know, I take a great interest in Latin America and Argentina. Polo ponies are not only from South America and the UK; they have passage rights within the EU. I do not think the tripartite agreement itself applies to polo ponies but I hope that any consideration of this element of the debate could include that important aspect.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, hoped that she was tail-end Charlie, and I apologise for depriving her of the appellation. In introducing this group of amendments, the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, described them as being about the smooth organisation of business post Brexit, while my noble friend Lord Fox described them as the necessary day-to-day plumbing of post-Brexit life. As we have heard, the amendments cover a wide range of issues, including mutual recognition, not least of qualifications, but also seeking a way to have the maximum continued relationship with many EU bodies, expert groups, agencies and so on. In that regard, Amendment 70 is perhaps the most comprehensive. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that it is of mutual benefit to ourselves and the European Union if we can find ways of staying as close as possible to many of those bodies. If we fail to do so, there will be some serious difficulties. I believe we need to take positive steps, as is suggested in Amendment 70, for instance, to achieve that close working relationship. If we do not do that, I believe there will be very significant problems.
To illustrate that very briefly, I will touch on two of the bodies that are referred to in Amendment 70: the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications—BEREC—and the European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services, or ERGA. It is worth remembering that the telecoms industry in this country has revenues of something like £40 billion a year and our broadcasting industry is probably one of the best in the world; both are critical to the UK’s economy and their success depends to a large extent on close co-operation with the EU 27 countries. That is because, in the case of the telecoms industry, for instance, many of the bodies regulated by our own regulator, Ofcom, are members of subsidiaries which operate in many of those other countries—Virgin Media, Vodafone, Three and Telefónica are very good examples. In broadcasting, we have our own domestic channels, but Ofcom also acts as host to something like 500 channels which are not shown in the UK, but are regulated here and shown in other countries. Therefore, it is very important that our regulator continues to work in a way that allows close alignment with the regulations that will apply across Europe. That means having close involvement with those two bodies, BEREC and ERGA.
As such, my questions for the Minister are about how that will be achieved. I suspect he will reject most of the amendments in this group but that he will say it is important to have close relationships, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said. It is worth reflecting that in the other place, the Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries, Margot James, said that Ofcom intended to “seek observer status” within BEREC. As I pointed out on another occasion, that is no longer possible following changes to BEREC’s regulations in December last year. For us to have observer status in BEREC, it would now be necessary for a formal agreement to be made between the UK and the European Union. I am not entirely convinced that that will be easy under the current arrangements without very active steps being taken by the Government.
In Grand Committee last week, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, said he was confident that Ofcom would be able to be part of BEREC. He said that during the transition period,
“the UK will no longer be a member state of the EU but, as is set out in the terms of the withdrawal agreement, common rules will remain in place. That is why we expect Ofcom to continue to participate in BEREC”.—[Official Report, 23/1/19; col. GC 96.]
That is what they are expecting, yet it is in stark contrast to what the withdrawal agreement actually says. In Article 128, it says—I will paraphrase—that with only one caveat, we cannot participate in decision-making or even attend meetings of expert groups or similar entities. The caveat says—again, I paraphrase—that UK representatives or experts may, upon invitation, exceptionally attend meetings or parts of meetings of bodies such as BEREC or ERGA, provided that either the discussion concerns the UK or UK residents or,
“the presence of the United Kingdom is necessary and in the interest of the Union”.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, saw this as a green light, and declared that there was “every reason” the EU would want Ofcom on these bodies because,
“Ofcom is one of the leading telecoms regulators in Europe—if not the leading one. The interchange between Ofcom and other European regulators has been extremely beneficial … There is every reason to think that they would wish to continue that”.—[Official Report, 23/1/19; col. GC 97.]
That is not an interpretation of Article 128 which any rational person can give. It actually says that we can be involved only in a small way, in exceptional circumstances and when it is necessary, so I do not read Article 128 as meaning that we will easily be able to participate in that particular organisation. The same case could be made for all the other organisations which the Government may wish for us to continue to have close relationships with. My question for the Minister is simple: does he agree with my interpretation, or with his noble friend during the debate in Grand Committee? If he agrees with my interpretation of Article 128, are the Government willing to take the positive steps referred to—for example, in Amendment 70—to achieve that close working relationship which is so important?
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I have to say a few words because my noble friend Lord Grantchester, who would have spoken to a couple of amendments which have not been touched on, unfortunately is unable to be with us this evening as he has a family illness which he had to attend to. I am sure your Lordships will want to send best wishes to him.
The two amendments which have not been referred to are Amendments 47 and 49. One is on time-sensitive goods and the worries here concern the arrangements, particularly around the Channel Tunnel, for goods that are required for immediate delivery. The question underlying the amendment, which the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, also put her name to, was whether the Government had any further information about developments, since if the current arrangement is not going to work, other arrangements will need to be brought into place, as time-sensitive goods are what they say on the tin.
Other noble Lords have spoken about medical isotopes. On behalf of my noble friend Lord Grantchester, I wanted to mention the time-sensitivity of these, not only in the general sense but particularly with air travel, which is often used to transport them. We have experience of problems which have occurred, particularly in Northern Ireland, because the route for radioisotopes required in Northern Ireland is through Coventry Airport, and even under existing arrangements, we have had delays which caused problems for patients, including the cancellation of treatments. Again, any comments from the Minister would be helpful.
On Amendment 49, the pet travel scheme has raised interest among those who travel to Europe with pets, particularly dogs and ferrets, which are the two main groups carried. The existing scheme is thought not to be very effective, and there is a chance to revisit it when it collapses after Brexit. Are Ministers aware that the BVA has set out 16 recommendations on changes to pet travel rules after Brexit? Many of these are sensible and needed, and this would be an opportunity to give the Committee an update on where they are on this matter.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, referred to the pet travel scheme. The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, started the debate by talking about transport. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred to arrangements for UK-EU chemicals through REACH in particular. My noble friends Lady McIntosh and Lady Hooper talked about legal services. My noble friend Lord Risby talked about horseracing and the tripartite agreement. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, talked about transport. My noble friend Lord Lansley talked about authorised economic operators. My noble friend Lord Trenchard talked about horseracing and financial services. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, focused very much on financial services. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, talked about telecoms and broadcasting.
That is a flavour of the catch-all that we have here, with 17 amendments. I am looking at the representatives of the usual channels: I am not sure how the grouping of these amendments happened, but they cover a very wide range of agreements. We have heard 12 excellent speakers. They have ranged extensively and generated some 24 questions, to which it falls to me to respond. I am conscious of the time. I will bring my best endeavours to this, but I have the feeling that rather a lengthy letter will be winding its way to noble Lords.
Lord Bates
Yes, of course. I will probably miraculously sit down sometime around 10.39 pm. I think that is the convention. Let me go through as much as I can. I apologise to Members of the Committee and to the reporters of our proceedings for the pace at which I am going.
The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, and my noble friend Lord Lansley referred to the common transit area. As my noble friend hinted, this is an area where we have some good news, because the UK has agreed the common transit convention with the secretariat. Letters were received on 19 December 2018. That is taking shape.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, talked about financial services. The Government are seeking a close future relationship on financial services with the EU that reflects our uniquely integrated markets and respects UK and EU autonomy. The political declaration includes commitments to close and structured co-operation on regulatory and supervisory matters, grounded in the future economic partnership. There will be a certain Groundhog Day feeling to the answers to a lot of these questions, because I will simply say that they are a matter for the future economic relationship, which we hope will be deep and extensive across all these headings. Of course, that is for another piece, or other pieces, of legislation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, spoke to her amendments. On haulage, the Government have been clear that we want to maintain the existing levels of access for UK and EU hauliers. A mutually beneficial road freight agreement with the EU will support the objective of frictionless trade. I very much take the point that the noble Baroness made about us often talking about Dover in the context of roll-on, roll-off, but there is strategic importance, particularly on the island of Ireland, for Holyhead and movements through there. However, we understand that we need the reassurance that we will have in place the arrangements needed to maintain continued access. On that basis, we welcome the contingency proposals being made by the European Commission on the basis that the Government are seeking a very close partnership based on reciprocal and binding agreements that protect the rights of road hauliers to access EU markets and vice versa.
The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, also talked about rail services, which are mentioned in Amendment 40. The Government are carefully considering the potential implications of leaving the EU, including implications for the continuation of cross-border rail. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, also referred to this through the Channel Tunnel and on the island of Ireland. I assure noble Lords that we understand the importance of maintaining the continuity of these important cross-border rail services, and we will continue to negotiate with our European partners to secure the best possible outcome.
In addressing Amendment 43, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, talked about open and fair competition. The Government recognise that commitments to open and fair competition are fundamental to all trading relationships; continuing the control of anti-competitive subsidies and creating a UK-wide subsidy control framework are crucially important. To support the desire for a future relationship, we propose rule alignment on state aid to be enforced by the Competition and Markets Authority, which already has a strong reputation in the UK. We also have strong proposals in other areas, including non-regression provisions for the environment, social issues and employment to ensure that we maintain the highest of standards, as my noble friend Lord Lansley requested.
Turning to Amendment 62, my noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said that it raised important issues for the future relationship with the EU, by providing that the patients should not be disadvantaged. We have given commitments that patients should not be disadvantaged; industry should be able to get its products into the UK market as quickly as possible, and we continue to play a leading role in promoting public health. The Government have already set out their aim to secure participation in the European Medicines Agency. The political declaration sets out the mutual commitment of the UK and the EU to explore working together in future medicines regulation and negotiating the UK’s ongoing co-operation.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Will the Minister clarify what he said about seeking to participate in the European Medicines Agency? The noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, in an earlier grouping, said it was the intention to remove Clause 6 from the Bill, or at least bring forward different language about what that participation means. It is pertinent to the point my noble friend Lord Fox made. If it is the Government’s intention to participate in many of these institutions, what do they envisage that participation mechanism to be? If the Government are seeking to change Clause 6, they have to be clear about how they intend that participation to operate.
Lord Bates
My noble friend Lady Fairhead made very clear our hesitation in the other place when this amendment was proposed, but it is now in the Bill. We see the commitment to all necessary steps in relation to the European Medicines Agency. We have been very clear that we do not wish to see that extended to other agencies, but it is there in the Bill at present.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
Just so that we know what might be coming on Report, is it the Government’s intention to bring forward amendments, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, said, to remove this?
Lord Bates
Our position is simply that we are committed to as close a relationship as possible with the European Medicines Agency. We see its value, we are committed to it, and it is in the Bill. We have made our positions clear on that, in terms of how we would view it if similar amendments were proposed for other agencies.
Amendment 39, on mutual recognition of professional qualifications, was spoken to by my noble friends Lady Hooper and Lady McIntosh and by the noble Lords, Lord McNicol and Lord Fox. The Government have clearly set out their objectives for mutual recognition of professional qualifications in the future relationship with the EU. We recognise the importance of mutual recognition for many sectors of our economy and the public sector. It offers all individuals working in regulated professions a means of having their qualifications recognised so that they can continue to provide valuable services. However, Her Majesty’s Government must be in a position to negotiate the best possible outcome. I note the risk that this amendment could undermine that objective and compel Her Majesty’s Government to reject highly beneficial agreements on mutual recognition simply because an agreement delivered its possible outcome in a way that differed from the detailed requirement set out in this amendment.
Lord Bates
I reassure my noble friend the Chief Whip that I have no problem in keeping it going for as long as he indicates is necessary—such has been the quality of the debate.
I have had a note passed to me which might be important. On Amendment 39, on mutual recognition of professional qualifications, I may have said “Ireland” but I meant to say “Iceland”. I thank the officials for being so attentive.
Lord Fox
The Ireland/Iceland point is actually very important. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, made a point earlier about cross-border activity—of midwives who live in the north of Ireland and practise in the Republic, for example—which is now in jeopardy. I am less excited about Iceland, with all due respect, given that the island of Ireland’s economy is driven on the ability to have the mutual recognition of all these skills. I enjoin the Government to work quickly on that one.
Lord Bates
The Government are very happy to give that undertaking.
On legal services, raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Hooper, the outcome of the negotiations of course lies ahead of us, but I assure noble Lords that the Government will push very much for a strong relationship in this area. As EU and EFTA lawyers will be subject to domestic rules in the UK, UK lawyers in the EU and EFTA will be subject to the national rules and regulations of individual EU and EFTA member states, if the UK leaves the EU without a deal. This will vary between member states and within member states, where there will be multiple regulators.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked specifically about close participation in the European Medicines Agency. I think I have already dealt with that one and I do not want to tempt further interventions at this point. However, I am pleased that the Government have been clear that we want to remain part of the EMA, which will include remaining part of the falsified medicines directive.
Let me turn to horses—galloping into the final straight with Amendment 48. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, who spoke particularly about polo, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Risby, who talked about his connections with Newmarket, and the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, who asked about this as well. Amendment 48 dealt with the tripartite agreement on the movement of horses. As part of our ongoing preparations for EU exit, the Government aim to ensure that the movement of horses will continue with minimal delay and bureaucracy, while safeguarding biosecurity and animal welfare. Let me reassure noble Lords that we are already working closely with the equine industry to retain the benefits of the tripartite agreement after the UK leaves the EU. The Government actively support a long-term industry-led proposal to allow horses of high health status from third countries to travel to the EU under the TPA arrangements.
I had a note on the pet travel service. As part of the ongoing preparations for EU exit, the Government aim to ensure that the movement of pets will continue with minimal inconvenience to pet owners while safeguarding the UK’s biosecurity and the welfare of travelling animals. We are already working closely with stakeholders in the veterinary and pet travel industries to ensure that the benefits of the EU pet travel scheme are retained after the UK leaves the EU. The Government will submit their application for listed status within the EU pet travel scheme imminently. The UK is seeking technical discussions with the European Commission on its application. Should the UK become a part 1 listed country, there would be little change to current pet travel arrangements. Only minor changes to documentation would be needed.
I hope that noble Lords will feel that in the time available I have dealt with as many issues as possible, and that the noble Lord will therefore consider withdrawing his amendment at this stage.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride
I have a good 20-minute speech here—no, I am joking. I thank the Minister for his response and all noble Lords and Baronesses for their input to this rather large group of amendments. As I said in my introduction, there is widespread support not just across the House but outside, from organisations, businesses, trade unions and relevant bodies. My takeaway from nearly all the contributions is the mutual benefit that organisations and businesses inside the UK would get from the adoption and inclusion of the amendments. The other word which came from the Government Bench was that their adoption would lead to continuity—a word that has been used many times in the previous two days. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.