House of Commons
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(5 years, 9 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, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
With permission, I will answer this question together with Question 16.
A total of 7,800 new carriages have been ordered since 2010. More than 3,000 have been delivered, with more than 4,700 due by the end of 2022. Those trains will help to transform the passenger experience, offering greater capacity, more pleasant carriages, air-conditioning, and wi-fi, and they will enable operators to remove old and unpopular rolling stock from service.
Fiona Bruce
Middlewich is a growing town, with jobs being created and a positive future. The people of Middlewich appreciate the Government’s recognition of that, with almost £50 million of funding being provided for a new bypass, but their aspiration does not stop there, and rail connectivity is poor. What support can the Government give on that?
Andrew Jones
My hon. Friend has campaigned continually over many years for the reopening of Middlewich railway station, and I know that she has very strong support within the town for this. I know as well that it is a top priority now that the Middlewich bypass has been delivered. We welcome the work being undertaken by the Cheshire and Warrington local economic partnership, including the proposals to reopen the freight line through Middlewich, in Cheshire, for passenger services and to reopen Middlewich station. Findings are due at the end of this month, and I look forward to hearing the recommendations from that work.
Mr Speaker
I call Tom Tugendhat. Not here—where is the fella? I hope that he is not indisposed, as he is the Chair of a very important Committee of the House. Perhaps he is preoccupied elsewhere; I know not. What I do know is that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) is here. I call Mr David Davis.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that he could replace and upgrade every piece of rolling stock in the country for less than half the price of High Speed 2. Why do we not just cancel this white elephant and give the public something that they want?
Andrew Jones
I say to my right hon. Friend that we are doing both. We are replacing the rolling stock in our country and delivering HS2, which is what we need to deliver more capacity in our rail market.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
If we believed Ministers’ promises back in 2012, passengers on the midland main line would be travelling on new electric trains this year. Instead, they are on old British Rail stock, the toilets empty straight onto the track, and they have to lean out of the window to open the door when the train arrives in the station. That is not great for anyone, and it is certainly not disabled friendly. The Government’s inclusive transport strategy, published last year, does not contain any commitment that all rolling stock on the rail network will meet the accessibility deadline of 1 January 2020—a deadline that this industry has known about for 20 years. The strategy does give that commitment for buses and coaches; why not rail?
Mr Speaker
If the hon. Lady experiences some of what she has described, I can say only that it must be a most undignified experience for the Chair of the Transport Committee of the House of Commons.
Andrew Jones
We are making sure that we are dealing with the disability issue. We want to make sure that the rail network offers smooth, easy journeys for people with disabilities. With regard to the rolling stock coming on to the midland main line, of course, we will deliver it as soon as possible.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I wish to follow the line of argument of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). I do not know whether the Minister has read the very authoritative transport study produced for the previous Government by the British Airways chief, Rod Eddington, which clearly made the case against grand projects and advocated widespread incremental improvement. Would we not be better served if the Government funded not only rolling stock but many other transport improvements by scrapping the ever more expensive, budget-busting HS2?
Andrew Jones
Again, I give the answer that I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis): we are doing both. It is not a question of one or the other. We are delivering HS2, which is required to add capacity into our rail network, and, at the same time, we are also delivering, in control period 6, maintenance and enhancements worth £48 billion across our classic rail network. So we are doing both, not one or the other.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend tell us what progress is being made on replacing the Pacer trains, which the previous Government continually failed to do? When will that train be off the tracks and replaced by new rolling stock?
Andrew Jones
My right hon. Friend has a very distinguished record in bringing new rolling stock forward into our rail network. The Pacers will be gone by the end of this year; they are being replaced by a new fleet of 281 air-conditioned carriages, which is more than double the minimum tender required by the Government. The first of those new trains are already in the UK and going through testing. The remainder of the Northern fleet are being refurbished to as good as new, and the first of them are already in service. That is a very positive piece of news, and I can confirm that the unpopular Pacers will be gone by the end of the year.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
New rolling stock will of course be welcome, but is the Minister aware that there will be no stock rolling at all north of Preston over the busy Easter weekend because Network Rail is closing the line for maintenance? Does he not know that the Lake district is Britain’s biggest visitor destination outside London and that Easter weekend is our busiest time of year? Will he tell Network Rail to change its plans?
Andrew Jones
I am of course aware of the importance of the Lake district to our national tourist economy, and of tourism to the Lake district’s economy. It is not possible to upgrade the lines without closing them on occasions, and the work clearly has to be done to minimise disruption for the travelling public. I will pass the hon. Gentleman’s point through to Network Rail, but these things take a considerable amount of time and it is probably not possible to make changes at the very last minute.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I hope that the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) enjoyed either his breakfast or the rare benefit of a lie-in—I know not which. No doubt we will hear from him in due course.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
As my right hon. Friend will know, the A35 is a local road. As such, it falls to Hampshire County Council as the local highway authority.
Sir Desmond Swayne
It is a strategic route and, at £25 million, this is too much to expect of a county council, isn’t it?
Jesse Norman
I can only admire my right hon. Friend for the extreme brevity of his question. Hampshire County Council did receive an entirely unexpected £11.9 million as a result of the budget settlement of £420 million for local roads, but I take his point. The Government are allocating the council £168 million until 2021, and the council can use that as it sees fit. There is also the possibility for it to apply to other schemes, including the major roads network scheme, which, as my right hon. Friend will know, requires some national transport body agreement. If that is secured, we would be happy to look at the matter later in the year.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
As the House will know, I issued a written statement to Parliament last June that reported very good progress on the actions from the road safety statement. Those actions included £100 million for our safer roads fund to improve 50 of the most dangerous stretches of A roads in England, a refreshed road safety statement and a two-year action plan to address priority groups including young people, rural road users, cyclists and older vulnerable users.
Mr Cunningham
Yesterday, I had the privilege to support my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) in his application to bring in a Bill to limit working hours for bus drivers, in response to the tragic bus crash in my constituency in October 2015. Will the Minister commit to backing that Bill and allocating proper parliamentary time for us to discuss the issue?
Jesse Norman
I absolutely recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point. The incident in his constituency was indeed a tragic one. We look closely at the issue and will continue to do so.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
Jesse Norman
As my hon. Friend will know, the Government are already transforming connectivity through the south-west by creating a continuous dual carriageway along the A30, from the M5 through to Camborne. In due course, we aim to extend this to Penzance. My hon. Friend has been a strong campaigner on this issue and I recognise his concerns, particularly for his constituents in Crowlas.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
My constituent Frances Molloy lost her 19-year-old son Michael in a coach crash caused by a 20-year-old tyre bursting on the coach that he was travelling on. Two other people lost their lives and others suffered life-changing injuries. Will the Minister now commit to allowing my Bill—the Tyres (Buses and Coaches) Bill—to pass through this House, instead of getting his Whip to shout “Object” at every opportunity?
Jesse Norman
I am very glad that the hon. Lady has raised this question because if she has paid close attention, she will know that we issued a written statement only a few days ago setting out a clear pattern of actions ever since Mrs Molloy raised these serious concerns with my predecessors. Those actions include guidance that has reduced the number of infractions to very low levels. We have also commissioned new research, on which my officials have met with and briefed Mrs Molloy and the hon. Lady. There really can be no question but that we have to make policy based on evidence; when that evidence is in, we will make the policy.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
In the area I represent, Dover, Deal and east Kent, illegal lorry parking is a major road safety problem—[Interruption]—unsurprisingly. Does the Minister agree that councils should have more powers to tackle illegal lorry parking so that the police are more able to go and fight serious crime such as county lines drugs gangs?
Jesse Norman
I thank my hon. Friend for his question on an issue that we have met on and discussed on many occasions. He will know that the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency already has powers in Kent, on a trial basis, to take action on this. Those are proving effective, and we continue to look at whether such powers can or should be extended to local authorities.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
In the last debate on road safety, I raised with the Minister the concerns of many horse riders across my constituency, including the very large number of riders who are killed on the roads because of drivers’ poor awareness of how to deal with horse riders. Will he set out what steps he has taken since that debate, perhaps saying that all the changes that I, and many other Members, asked for will be added to the highway code to protect horse riders and horses?
Jesse Norman
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the highway code already mentions horse riders in several of its provisions. At the end of last year, as he will recall, we published a safety review aimed at all vulnerable road users, including horse riders. It included, specifically, work on close passing, on which, as he will be aware, West Midlands police have taken a lead. That review contained 50 actions to be undertaken over a two-year period, and we are still in the middle of that, but I absolutely recognise the concern that he has.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Far too many road traffic collisions are caused by uninsured drivers, and there are far too many uninsured drivers on our roads. What is the Minister doing to tackle this issue?
Jesse Norman
Of course, that is a serious question. As my hon. Friend will be aware, we have very vigorous enforcement action being undertaken not only by the police but by the DVSA and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to try to crack down on this problem.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Minister aware that only seven people were killed in the St Valentine’s Day massacre? Yet in this country, we will shrug our shoulders when 1,700 people die on our roads this year, as they do most years. When is he going to do something about investigating every death on the roads thoroughly, with a good centrally directed and well funded unit, and when is he going to do something about the 1.4 million people a year who are being killed on the roads worldwide?
Jesse Norman
The hon. Gentleman regularly raises this issue, but I have rarely had a Valentine’s Day present as generous as that one. As he will know, contrary to his imputation, we take every road death and injury with great seriousness. As he also knows, since he will have done his homework, this country has the second-best record in the EU for road fatalities, and we stand by that record.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
In his statement last week, the Minister again delayed taking effective action on dangerous old tyres on public service vehicles. I pay tribute to Frances Molloy and Tyred, who have campaigned vigorously on this very important issue. The Government’s record on road safety, I am afraid to say, has been disappointing. So will the Minister now do the right thing and support the private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), which is due back here on 15 March and which would rid our roads of dangerous tyres on buses?
Jesse Norman
I am afraid that my answer to the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) still stands. The fact remains that we will take action, and vigorous action, when we have evidence on this. Actions we have already taken have reduced rates of infraction to very, very low levels, although we take seriously everything that has happened. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise that action taken—[Interruption.] This may be a signal of the behaviour of a future Labour Government, or the previous one, but we act on the basis of evidence—and, if we did not, we would be subject to legal challenge from those who were adversely affected.
Mr Speaker
Order. I must say to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) that only last week I informed an audience, prospectively, of 30 million American radio listeners of his penchant for shouting noisily from a sedentary position most days of the week, so he may have a new fan base in the United States.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
My hon. Friend is a great campaigner on this issue. He will be aware that the Department is spending more than £6.6 billion to improve local roads through local highway authority work, including £420 million most recently, much of which is available to be spent in his constituency.
James Cleverly
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He knows, because I have lobbied him relentlessly, that we are bidding for funding from the second road investment strategy for the A120 in my constituency, but there are other roads in my constituency, including the A131 and a number of local roads. I welcome the announcement of the money. What advice can he give me on how to ensure that I grab some of it for my lovely constituency?
Jesse Norman
I am not sure that “relentless” begins to describe the energy and vigour with which my hon. Friend pursues his campaign. As he recognises, we have already provided £4 million to Essex County Council for the A120. I understand that the council is currently undertaking a series of phased improvements to both the A131 and the A130, to enhance network capacity, but we remain interested in whatever it does on those roads in future.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I am sure the Minister is aware that, because of other pressures, councils are increasingly unable to address priorities that they would have addressed many years ago. The National Audit Office has shown that spending on road safety and traffic management across the country has fallen by 60% since 2010. Will the Minister accept that one of the most important things he can do is argue for increased funding from the Treasury for local authorities in the next spending round?
Jesse Norman
I certainly accept that one of the most valuable things we can do is argue for increased funding for local roads in the next settlement, and as the hon. Gentleman will know, we plan to do so.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
If HS2 is built, the inevitable heavy traffic will add to the damage to our roads in Buckinghamshire, many of which are already congested and suffer from pollution, including popular routes such as the A413. What additional funds will the Minister make available to Buckinghamshire County Council to repair the inevitable extra damage to our rural roads, so that the cost does not fall disproportionately on Buckinghamshire taxpayers?
Jesse Norman
I am not sure I recognise that problem, but my right hon. Friend is welcome to write to me. There is every reason to think that HS2 might in fact relieve some of the traffic, because people will be making journeys that are not merely local.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s comments. Is he basically saying that North Lincolnshire Council has no excuse for the potholes in the pavements and roads around our area?
Jesse Norman
It is hard for me to comment on whether the council has any excuse, since I do not know the circumstances it is under. All I can say is that it has a share in £420 million more than was expected at the end of last year.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
My Department is undertaking a comprehensive and wide-ranging programme of work to ensure that we are prepared for a scenario in which the UK leaves without a deal. We continue to work to ensure that the UK does not leave without a deal.
Gavin Newlands
I am grateful for that answer, which I am not sure even those on the Government Benches will buy. The Secretary of State told the House on Monday that Arklow had confirmed its backing for Seaborne Freight “from the outset”. Yesterday the permanent secretary to the DFT told the Public Accounts Committee that the DFT had awarded Seaborne Freight the contract before Arklow confirmed its backing. Those two statements are entirely contradictory, so who is telling the truth—his permanent secretary or him?
Chris Grayling
It is very simple: the contract was conditional on Seaborne Freight producing a reference from Arklow, which it did.
Angela Crawley
The director general for the Department for Transport said yesterday that it was no longer possible to complete procurement and operation for any large amount of further capacity across the channel by either sea or rail before the end of March. The Secretary of State’s handling of this issue means that there are now no plans in place for an alternative and a 10% shortfall in capacity. How does he plan to resolve this latest disaster?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Lady clearly was not listening on Monday, when I indicated that we had options in contracts to provide additional capacity on longer sea routes to replace any that we might have had on the short sea routes.
John Mc Nally
I can assure the Secretary of State that I was absolutely listening intently on Monday. From that position over there, the Secretary of State said on Monday, in relation to Seaborne Freight, that
“we have not spent any money on this contract.”—[Official Report, 11 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 619.]
We now know that that is not the case and that his Department spent approximately £800,000 on external consultants for Seaborne. Will he now take the opportunity to set the record straight and apologise to taxpayers for what has amounted to a monumental waste of taxpayers’ money?
Chris Grayling
I am afraid that, once again, SNP Members have their facts completely wrong. Interestingly, we have heard complaints from the other side that we did not do enough due diligence. Actually, as with all major Government contracts—Mr Speaker, you will recall that £90 million of contracts are going to Brittany Ferries and DFDS—we contract professional support when we let contracts of that size.
Marion Fellows
The Secretary of State may wish to argue that he got his £800,000-worth since the consultancy did come back with concrete findings, including that Seaborne presented “significant execution risks” and that a “basic blush test” was the most that could be carried out on the company’s financials. Which of those two findings did the Secretary of State find most reassuring when deciding to proceed with the Seaborne ferry contract?
Chris Grayling
The bit I found reassuring is that we let a contract where there was absolutely no upfront commitment from the taxpayer at all, and we paid nothing until the service was delivered.
Carol Monaghan
The Secretary of State said on Monday, “I believe in competition”, so why, after realising back in September that a no-deal Brexit would require increased freight capacity, did he embark on what has been called a
“secretive and flawed procurement process”,
tipping off some companies in private while leaving established companies, such as Eurotunnel, out of the loop altogether?
Chris Grayling
We carried out a proper procurement process in discussion with all the leading ferry operators.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
A major contributor to travel disruption over many years has of course been Govia Thameslink Railway. Its incompetence was recently underlined when a disgruntled constituent wrote to GTR, asking whom he should complain to and whether he should write to Chris Grayling. He received the reply from GTR:
“Chris Grayling no longer works for the company”.
Can the Secretary of State tell us whether a no-deal Brexit will make it easier to withdraw the franchise from GTR at long last and end this nightmare?
Chris Grayling
Happily, I have never worked for GTR. I would say to my hon. Friend that, if there are specific concerns he wants to raise about the franchise, he is very welcome to write to me. However, I am sure he is pleased that, over the last few months, the performance on that network has become significantly better.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I am sure the Secretary of State, like me, will reflect that it is always interesting to hear those who complain about the potential impact of a no deal then complaining about efforts to mitigate it. Will he confirm that he believes, the same as me, that the biggest potential for disruption to travel would be to put an international border across the east and west coast main lines, as the separatists opposite want to do?
Chris Grayling
Absolutely. Of course SNP Members fail to understand that their policies, if you follow European Union laws to the letter, require a hard border between Scotland and England. I have to say that I personally value the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I value our friends in Scotland, of whom we have many on the Government Benches, and I think SNP policies would be deeply damaging to Scotland.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
No matter what the outcome in terms of the delivery of the democratic decision of the British people, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the electrification project between Preston and Manchester, going through the heart of my constituency, will continue to deliver more electric coaches for my constituents?
Chris Grayling
I was very pleased to learn this week that the electric trains have now started running between Blackpool and Manchester through my hon. Friend’s constituency. Of course, it is worth remembering that that single electrification project represents a level of electrification many times greater than the Labour party managed across the entire country in its years in office— 13 years: 10 miles, which is fewer, by far, than that single electrification project alone.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
If I understand this right, the Secretary of State is claiming a triumph for having signed a contract with a company that had no ferries to provide no ferries and, because it cost the taxpayer no money whatsoever, that is okay. Is that where the Secretary of State is? We are still facing the south-east of England being turned into a huge car park if we were to leave with no deal, and what has he done about it? Absolutely nothing.
Chris Grayling
As I set out, we have substantial contracts with two major operators to provide additional capacity, and we have put in place contingency measures in Kent, in case they are needed because of delays caused not in this country but on the French side. When I see what is happening in Calais and the preparations being made, I am increasingly confident that the flow of traffic through the channel ports will continue pretty normally. It is in everybody’s interest on both sides of the channel for that to happen, and it will certainly happen if we leave the European Union with a deal. It is disappointing, however, that the Labour party seems to want to stymie us leaving the EU with a deal.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Secretary of State’s handling of Seaborne Freight, and the way he is answering questions, proves that he lives in a parallel universe. The reality is that, with Eurotunnel taking the Government to court, his actions will cost the taxpayer at least £1.8 million and the costs are rising. Will he confirm how many representations have been made by other providers and whether there are likely to be further court challenges? Will he do the right thing and at least publish the legal evidence that the Government had, so that they can perhaps save some money in the long run?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman is trying hard, but the simple reality is that we approached the market and the market brought forward proposals. We have two substantial contracts to provide additional capacity. We took on a third smaller contract, where there was no upfront exposure to the taxpayer at all. Unfortunately that was not delivered because even though the company had ships lined up and agreements lined up, its principal backer decided not to continue with the contract.
Alan Brown
The Secretary of State did not approach the market—it was all done in secret; that is not approaching the market. He is baffled by the criticism of his handling of this, which is incredible. Let us look at his handling of the mock exercise for lorries in a no-deal scenario, with 89 lorries mimicking 10,000. Under his watch, we have had the east coast main line bail-out, the Northern rail fiasco, the Thameslink fiasco, delays to High Speed 2, issues with drone legislation and contracts awarded to Carillion when it was obviously going bust. What does it take for him to do the right thing and go?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman continues to produce in the House statements that I am afraid are simply inaccurate. The trial in Kent, managed by Kent County Council, worked very smoothly to illustrate the nature of movements in and out of the port of Manston. He keeps talking about Carillion. Carillion had no contracts with HS2. It was part of a consortium that was jointly and severally liable and that work has continued.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Good morning, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to share the day of love with my colleagues under your watchful gaze this morning.
I have met port operators and their representatives on a number of occasions to discuss matters of current concern, including preparations for the UK leaving the EU.
Jessica Morden
Welsh ports, including Newport, have experienced strong growth and investment in recent years, contributing £1.4 billion to the UK economy. In a week in which we have witnessed Government mishandling and the Seaborne Freight fiasco, and just weeks away from the Brexit date, what confidence can we have that Transport Ministers are taking serious steps to avoid jeopardising our Welsh ports?
Ms Ghani
We are in constant communication with port operators, including Associated British Ports, which I believe has invested heavily in the port to prepare for Brexit and all the extra opportunities that will arise. We must not forget that our ports and maritime sector was great before we joined the EU and it will continue to be great after Brexit. Most of our ports are well used to dealing with traffic from both inside and outside the European Union and we will do everything we can to ensure that that continues.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The port of Immingham is open for business and looking to increase that business as a result of Brexit. Can the Minister confirm that she has had discussions with ABP about the further use of Immingham?
Ms Ghani
I can. My hon. Friend is a great champion of the port of Immingham and I know I have an open invitation from him to visit it. I have indeed discussed that port with ABP and it has confirmed that ports across the country are looking forward to the extra business and trade that will come their way post Brexit.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
On 8 January, the Secretary of State told the House that no public money was used in the Seaborne Freight contract, yet the National Audit Office says that £800,000 of taxpayers’ money was spent on consultants. The Prime Minister says that things are hunky-dory, but it has been revealed that the Department bypassed its own procurement rules to award a high-risk contract to Seaborne. Will the Minister acknowledge that the Secretary of State has, however inadvertently, misled the House and has not followed his Department’s procurement processes?
Ms Ghani
That is such a ridiculous statement to make. It is just inaccurate. There are complaints when due diligence is not done and complaints when due diligence is done. When funding is allocated and spent within the Department, due diligence is carried out for a variety of reasons. What is interesting is that the Labour party is against business, against us helping our port sector and against Brexit. It would be interesting to know what it actually stands for.
Andy McDonald
Poor, very poor. The Secretary of State is, presumably, simply never wrong, but what about the timetabling mess on the trains, the east coast bail out, multiple transport and justice contracts to Carillion, the book ban on prisoners, court fees that push the innocent to plead guilty, and the catastrophic privatisation of probation and prisons? His ongoing presence in the Government makes an international laughing stock of us all. Quite simply, the country cannot afford him. So I ask in all sincerity: will he please step down before he does any further damage?
Ms Ghani
I am not quite sure what show we are on, but this is Transport questions and the hon. Gentleman attacking an individual because he has nothing left to say is absolutely embarrassing. We have record investment in our infrastructure. I believe that under the Labour Government infrastructure investment in our country dropped from seventh to 33rd. Labour is not a party for our country. May I just reflect on ports? Our ports are doing a fantastic job trading, they do the majority of trade outside the EU and they will continue to do really good trade post Brexit.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
Work is nearing completion on the delivery of a third track on the West Anglia main line between Tottenham Hale and a new station at Meridian Water, enabling two additional trains per hour. Additional tracking is also being considered as part of proposals for Crossrail 2. I understand that the Greater London Authority has submitted a bid to the housing infrastructure fund for a fourth track from Tottenham Hale to Meridian Water.
Joan Ryan
On Saturday last, some 90 constituents turned up at my community meeting to complain, most loudly, about the cancellations, delays and poor service on the line. Frankly, they deserve better and have done for a very long time. Early delivery of four-tracking by 2026, in advance of Crossrail 2, would provide additional stopping services, up to 3,800 extra seats between Cambridge and Liverpool Street in the morning, faster journeys, improved reliability, accelerated delivery of up to 25,000 homes and 10,000 new job starts along the corridor. Why are the Secretary of State and the Government not getting on board with this proposal more quickly? I urge the Government to support it and to do so now.
Andrew Jones
To suggest that the Government are not investing in our rail network is clearly ridiculous. The Government are investing more than any other Government in British history. On the specifics of the scheme, on the West Anglia main line the right hon. Lady can look forward to seeing new trains and all the benefits that will flow from them. The investment work that has taken place, which I outlined in my earlier answer, is already starting to see benefits for the constituents she serves.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the very important issue of HGV traffic on rural roads, which has all kinds of negative effects, including congestion, air quality and noise. She will be aware that local authorities are best placed to address the issue. They have powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to make traffic regulation orders that prohibit the use of HGVs on any given local road.
Maria Caulfield
I thank the Minister for that answer, but will he look at introducing mandatory commercial sat-navs to all HGVs, so they avoid using rural roads and stick to the A roads they should be on? That would also help with the enforcement of existing restrictions in villages such as Ditchling in my constituency.
Jesse Norman
I understand the problem. Some existing sat-navs are configured specifically for HGVs. Mandating them would be a major step that would undoubtedly have negative as well as positive consequences. This is primarily and mainly a market function, but protections are in place for local authorities to enforce against abuse of roads by HGVs.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
HGV traffic can be dangerous, and the road safety charity Brake says that school crossing patrols are vital, so does the Minister have an estimate of the number of lollipop women and men who have been cut and whether or not that has led to an increase in accidents for children walking to school?
Jesse Norman
The hon. Gentleman is of course absolutely right about the concerns of children walking to school, which was a major theme in our recent work on cycling and walking safety. Part of the work that we are doing over the next two years precisely addresses areas around schools.
Jesse Norman
I do not have the numbers to hand, but the hon. Gentleman is welcome to write to me if he has them and we can discuss them.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
There is an important industrial estate in my constituency called the Leyland, which is served from urban Wellingborough. Unfortunately, the road bridge has been demolished and HGVs are now having to travel on rural roads. I understand that instead of the bridge being replaced, it is going to be left down, and that is causing a great deal of concern. Will the Minister be able to look into the matter and perhaps meet me to discuss it?
Jesse Norman
I am very happy to look into the matter and also for my hon. Friend to write to me. If he does that, we can consider whether to meet.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
The A637 runs through the lovely village of Flockton in my constituency. It is a narrow road and is increasingly used by rat runners and HGVs, despite a prohibition order. There have been many instances of reckless driving and some near misses. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can make life safer for the people who live in Flockton?
Jesse Norman
If it is a purely local road, I am of course happy to look into the matter but it really falls to the local authority. If there is scope for the road to be part of the major roads network, which, as the hon. Lady will know, is precisely designed to relieve some of the pressures on local communities and the strategic road network, we can have that conversation as well.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
The Government continue to work towards a deal and we are confident of securing a relationship with the EU that maintains the current liberalised access we enjoy. Of all goods moved by UK-registered heavy goods vehicles in 2017, 1% were moved internationally. We do not expect that there will be significant impacts on international trade movements, or on the haulage sector overall. If we leave without a deal, there might be some short-term disruption, and we have undertaken extensive contingency plans to mitigate this.
Alex Cunningham
Short-term disruption—that’s a good one.
Haulage companies such as Scott Bros. and Devereux in my Stockton North constituency are extremely anxious about their future when we leave the EU. They are not helped much by the road haulage permits legislation, which in effect highlights the potential damage that Brexit will do to the industry, and certainly does not show a Government standing up for the industry. What is the Secretary of State going to do about it?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman and, indeed, his constituents will welcome the fact that the European Union has been clear that the current arrangements will continue after April and is moving forward with plans to do that. In addition, we have bilateral agreements with other countries that will ensure that international trade continues to flow, and we are of course also continuing members of the common transit convention.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Seafood processing businesses in Banff and Buchan have expressed concerns to me about the possible requirement for European Conference of Ministers of Transport permits in the event that we leave the EU without a deal. Will my right hon. Friend meet me and representatives of the sector to discuss their concerns?
Chris Grayling
I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend, and I meet people from the sector quite regularly. His constituents will be assured—indeed, we have written to all applicants for the permits to indicate this to them—that the European Union’s position is that it intends to continue with the current arrangements. We put through measures to make sure that we had a contingency plan, which was supported across the House, but I do not expect it to be needed because, according to the EU itself, we will carry on with the current arrangements.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
We know that the contract with Seaborne was, in the words of the Secretary of State’s own permanent secretary, a “novel and exceptional” proposition, but she revealed yesterday to the Public Accounts Committee that the only confirmation that the Department had about the arrangements with Arklow were from Seaborne itself. There was no paper document and no contract was signed. The Secretary of State talks about due diligence, but we know it failed on due diligence, and we now know that there was no comfort document for the Department about the contract with Arklow, so will he tell us what due diligence he thinks did take place, because what we have seen shows that it did not?
Chris Grayling
At Christmastime, Arklow confirmed in writing, and we have copies of that—[Hon. Members: “In January.”] At Christmastime, Arklow confirmed in writing that it was backing the proposition. [Interruption.] At Christmastime, Mr Speaker. I hear the sedentary comments but I am absolutely clear: at Christmastime.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Lady does not look satisfied, but I hope that she is nevertheless enjoying her birthday, upon which I congratulate her.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Despite Labour’s warnings throughout the passage of the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill, just 984 licences have been made available following 11,392 applications. Despite the short-term agreement with the EU, if companies cannot move their goods, they will have no choice but to move their businesses, so why is the Secretary of State running down British jobs and British business?
Chris Grayling
What a load of absolute hokum! We are working very carefully, on a bilateral basis, to make sure that there are contingency plans in place, but the European Union—we have to bear in mind that 80% of the trucks that come through our ports delivering goods to the United Kingdom are run by continental hauliers—is being very clear that it wants that to continue, and it will.
Rachael Maskell
It gets worse: crashing out of the EU in just 43 days’ time will mean that we are a third country, like the Ukraine or China—as indeed, would Irish companies who use the UK as a bridge to the continent. Haulage firms would have to fill out a 38-point document for every single consignment—that is not for each lorry, but for each consignment on each lorry—just hours before each transit, causing catastrophic delays. So who now is the enemy of business? It is this Government, who are running down the clock to create real chaos at our borders. It is surely not this Opposition, who are insistent on a permanent customs union.
Chris Grayling
Of course, what the hon. Lady does not understand is that she talks about a permanent customs union, but a permanent customs union requires border checks. The Labour party simply does not understand the arguments that it is making. It is trying to disrupt Brexit. It is trying to put forward policy ideas that do not work. We are working to secure a deal that will work, and we will carry on doing it.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the question of the safety needs of horse riders. They were an important part, alongside other vulnerable road users, of the cycling and walking safety review. We are reviewing the highway code, and our work on that will be done in connection with a whole range of interested stakeholders, including the British Horse Society.
Simon Hoare
The rise of electric vehicles is, of course, environmentally welcome. However, their silence often presents a huge problem for riders, horses and, indeed, other road users as a result of the nervousness that is often caused in horses by these silent vehicles either going past or accelerating from a stop. Will my hon. Friend take this issue up with the car manufacturers to see what can be done to ensure that there is safety and environmentalism on our rural roads?
Jesse Norman
My hon. Friend will recall that I have already discussed the recognition of horse riders within the highway code and the importance that we place on the avoidance of close passing. He will also be aware that electric cars make a noise above a certain speed because of vehicle tyre slap. At low speeds, vehicle type approval regulations will mandate sound generators on new electric and hybrid electric vehicles from July this year.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answer. Horses and HGV lorries do not mix, so what consideration has been given to enhanced regulations with reference to horse safety, particularly to providing adequate guidance and protection for horse riders?
Jesse Norman
I cannot really do more than expand on my previous comment, which is that we are reviewing the highway code in this area and are working closely on issues of close passing. They are discussed in some detail in our recent cycling and walking safety review.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
The airports national policy statement expects post-expansion Heathrow to deliver 14 domestic routes and to work with airlines to protect existing and develop new domestic connections. We expect these routes to be commercially viable with support from Heathrow.
Ruth Cadbury
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but during the airports national policy statement, the Government said that the aviation Green Paper would address the level of public subsidy required to support certain regional connections into Heathrow, but the Green Paper, now published, says that when there is such a requirement for a public services obligation route,
“funding contributions should increasingly be provided locally.”
Will he therefore confirm that many local councils that were hoping to reap economic benefits from additional regional routes may in fact end up having to subsidise loss-making routes?
Chris Grayling
As the House will know, it is often custom and practice to share the cost of a public service obligation with a local authority. It is right and prudent for the Government to seek to share the load when we can.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
Next week, I will hold a public meeting in my constituency on Heathrow expansion. Many of my constituents are concerned that Heathrow is just like Seaborne. It is another case where the Department for Transport has fallen hook, line and sinker for impossible claims made by a company that has very little chance of ever delivering on them—“Not a single extra car going to the airport,” and, “Air pollution not a problem,” even though we know that it is a huge problem in that part of London. It is exactly the same. The difference, though, is that when the Heathrow proposals go utterly pear-shaped, taxpayers will pick up the bill, and this is not just a £14 million project, but an £18 billion project.
Chris Grayling
My right hon. Friend is very committed to her view on this matter, but this House voted by a majority of nearly 300 to pursue this project and give Heathrow the green light. It now has to go through detailed consent processes, but I believe that it is a project that is strategically important to the United Kingdom.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
A new Southern rail link connecting the south and south-west with Heathrow via Feltham was favourably assessed by Network Rail two years ago as having the highest benefit-cost ratio of all the Southern rail options proposed. We are waiting on the edge of our seats for progress towards the next stage. When will the Secretary of State be able to announce funding and proposed plans to take the project to the next stage, so that we can start to move forward?
Chris Grayling
I regard Southern rail access as extremely important. We are now looking in detail at what we believe the specification of the scheme should be. It will clearly require some degree of public support, and that is the next stage, which I expect to pursue in the coming months, albeit relatively soon.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his support for the new Heathrow connection to Cornwall Airport Newquay, which is due to come into place on 1 April. However, with the proposed acquisition of Flybe by Virgin Atlantic, can he reassure the House that Government support for the new route will continue even if the operator changes?
Chris Grayling
Absolutely. My hon. Friend knows my commitment to making sure that we continue those links to Newquay. They are an extremely important part of Cornwall’s economy, and I will be working to ensure that nothing happens to interrupt those services.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
We are running late, but we have got to hear the sound of Shipley.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
Art Garfunkel himself could not have asked for anything better, Mr Speaker. I can only thank my hon. Friend. He will know that we have contributed several hundred thousand pounds to the scheme, and discussions are continuing. Indeed, both sides will be meeting later this month.
Philip Davies
I am extremely grateful to the Government and in particular the Secretary of State for their commitment to the Shipley eastern bypass, which is much needed in my constituency. Can the Minister tell me when the feasibility study, which the Government have kindly paid for, will be finalised and therefore when the next step forward for this project can be taken?
Jesse Norman
I can only congratulate my hon. Friend on his astonishing timing, because the Department will be discussing this matter—both the timetable and the scope of the study—with council officials on 21 February.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Buses remain the most commonly used mode of public transport, with local bus travel accounting for around 59% of all public transport journeys. The number of local bus passenger journeys has been falling since the 1950s. By contrast, the number of people owning their own cars has obviously been increasing.
Helen Goodman
It is now cheaper to fly to Alicante than to take a bus from Barnard Castle to Spennymoor in my constituency. Many of my constituents say that the buses are just far too expensive. Does the Minister not understand that her cuts to the bus grant are the problem?
Ms Ghani
I would not want anybody not to be flying to Alicante, but it is important to note that, when Labour was in control, bus fares went up three times as fast every year than under the Conservative Government. Anybody who wants to be out of pocket should vote in a Labour Government, because they will put up bus fares three times as fast.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is clear that buses are a lifeline for many elderly people, particularly those living in rural areas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) has hinted at. They are also the main means of travel for commuters, yet as we have heard, this vital public service is in crisis. I should correct the Minister: bus passenger numbers have been falling every year since 2014, under her watch. The cross-party Local Government Association now says that half of all bus routes are in danger of closing due to a lack of Government funding. Surely it is now time for the Government to admit that they have made a serious mistake and for them finally to agree to properly fund our bus services.
Ms Ghani
Buses are indeed incredibly important. Not only do they help people to get to work, but they tackle wider issues such as loneliness. The Government provide more than £1 billion for concessionary fares, and a substantial amount of that— including the bus service operating grant—goes directly to local authorities to fund bus journeys.
It concerns me that Labour Members are desperately trying to turn buses into a political football. It is important to note that Wales, where Labour is in charge, has seen a bigger drop in bus miles than anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
Mr Speaker
I remind colleagues that questions should be short and should preferably consist of a single sentence.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
A moment ago, I talked about the importance of the Union—the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—and we also talked about regional air links. I am pleased to announce that I have agreed to extend the current public service obligation on flights from Londonderry to Stansted for a further two years from May. I believe that that will provide a boost for business in Northern Ireland and, rather importantly, allow spectators to attend the 148th open championship at Royal Portrush this summer.
Andrea Jenkyns
The fantastic pupils at Outwood Primary Academy Ledger Lane in my constituency have organised a petition calling for Wakefield Metropolitan District Council to improve road safety and have persuaded 430 parents and teachers to sign it. The signatories want to see a speed indication device, or other speed restrictions, outside the school. What is the Secretary of State doing to improve road safety outside schools?
Chris Grayling
The Government are combining a range of measures including our cycling and walking safety two-year action plan, which addresses that issue specifically. However, I hope that Wakefield Council, which holds the power to install speed indication devices, will look carefully at the petition, and will respond positively to my hon. Friend’s young constituents.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Chris Grayling
We have, of course, supported ferry links farther north, but I think that the additional capacity from east coast ports may, in many circumstances, provide a realistic alternative—indeed, a real alternative—for manufacturers and producers in Scotland.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
I can confirm that the A39 meets the necessary criteria for the scheme. As far as I am aware, it has not yet been approved and prioritised by the sub-national transport body, but we expect that to happen by the middle of the year, and once it has happened, we will be happy to look at it.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Chris Grayling
I do not need to come and have a look, because I travel through Croydon, via the west Croydon route, quite regularly. I know that there is a need for significant improvement in the area of the Windmill Bridge junction. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) has been vociferous in telling me that that needs to happen, and the Department and Network Rail have already started work on what we believe will be an important project for the future.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Chris Grayling
As my hon. Friend will know, the Mayor of Manchester and I recently agreed to work together on the potential expansion of the Metrolink network with the use of tram-train technology. The Government have already funded a tram-train system in Sheffield, which is making a difference there, and I am keen to see how we can extend that to Greater Manchester.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Jesse Norman
Not only do I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but we published a light rail call for evidence only last week, specifically highlighting all the concerns he mentions of air quality, congestion relief and so on.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising the issue. He will be aware that the local authority has the capacity to charge up to £10,000 a day for works overruns. We are working on a new programme called Street Manager to enable local authorities to track these works more effectively.
Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)
Leigh has recently been ranked one of the worst constituencies for social mobility. We are also the fifth largest town in the country without a rail station. Connectivity matters: to connect constituencies and constituents with more opportunities to succeed, will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can help to bring rail connectivity back to the people of Leigh?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The hon. Lady raises the important point that transport is not just about a single journey but is also about social mobility. I am proud that this Department supports our economy and communities and society in a way that enhances mobility. We have invested over £61 billion in transport infrastructure in the five years to 2020-21, and I am more than happy to meet the hon. Lady.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
Officials in my Department monitor the number of short formations on Govia Thameslink Railway services as one of its performance benchmarks. There are a number of actions we can take when performance falls below agreed levels, and I am pleased that we are now seeing the lowest number of short formations on GTR since the start of the franchise. I hope that this positive trajectory continues, and I will continue to monitor it.
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
People in Stockton cannot get a bus back home after an afternoon doctor appointment, while the Tees Valley Mayor has spent £15,000 on Facebook advertising after almost two years but still has not come up with a plan to improve buses. When will my constituents get better bus services?
Ms Ghani
Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council receives almost £89,000 of bus service operators grant to support local bus services, and £75.5 million from the Government’s transforming cities fund has also been secured to improve local connectivity to Tees valley. We have not heard from Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council or the Tees Valley Combined Authority about using the extra powers available to them under the Bus Services Act 2017 to improve services and work more closely with local bus companies. If they were to get in touch, we could also let them know about the world of improvements they could deliver for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
Ms Ghani
I am well aware that my right hon. Friend has been a doughty and particularly inquisitive Member of Parliament on behalf of her constituents on HS2. She knows that there is a set budget to deliver HS2, and we must not forget the benefits it will bring across our country, demolishing the north-south divide and building a fairer country. This is more than a transport project; it is a transformative project linking eight of our 10 cities and investing in the midlands and the north of our country.
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
Does the Minister recognise that while all that she has just said gives some reassurance, these continued rumours about HS2 raise concerns for companies like Bombardier in my constituency, which has a joint bid with Hitachi for the rolling stock? Can she say anything further to reassure such companies?
Ms Ghani
The right hon. Lady makes a valid point. So often, we lament that parliamentarians do not deliver long-term projects and that we do not invest in our country or our skills base, but that is what HS2 is doing. I ask Members to desist from undermining one of the largest European infrastructure projects, which will transform our country, and to think about the extra benefits this will bring to the midlands and the north. We are continuing to work with the HS2 programme. That was in our manifesto and that of the Labour party, and it is important to note that every time the Bill has come to the Floor of the House it has gone through.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
At the last Transport questions, I asked the Minister for help in persuading First Group to lend Hull Trains a new train six months early. Does he agree that the fact that I have not had a direct response is disrespectful and indicates First Group’s dismissive attitude to Hull? Instead, I had to read the response in the Hull Daily Mail. Will he press on First Group the need to meet urgently to secure the continuing success of Hull Trains?
Andrew Jones
Following the last Transport questions, I asked First Group to take the issue forward. I am sorry if it has not actually contacted the hon. Lady, and I will pick this up with it, but I have already taken action as we discussed at the last Transport questions.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
May we have consideration of the Oyster ticketing system being extended south to Crawley stations such as Three Bridges?
Andrew Jones
We have launched a consultation on extending the very popular pay-as-you-go Oyster system to other parts of the south-east, and we are looking at the underlying principles for the rest of the country, too. As the public consultation document sets out, we are considering different options, and I would encourage anyone who believes their local station should be included in a pay-as-you-go zone to respond to the consultation, saying what they want and why. I will make sure that my hon. Friend’s views are part of that consultation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I do not mind taking a few more questions if people will guarantee that it will be a short sentence each.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Heathrow logistics hub process is coming to a conclusion, and there are a number of bids from Northern Ireland, including one from my constituency. Without prejudicing the outcome, will the Minister ensure that he co-operates closely to ensure that there are regional variations to benefit thousands of jobs in Northern Ireland?
Chris Grayling
I have already told Heathrow airport that, while the detail of the decisions is a matter for them, I would certainly want to see a proper spread across all parts of the United Kingdom.
Tom Tugendhat
While we are thinking about unfortunate absences, will you join me, Mr Speaker, in thanking the Tonbridge line’s commuters for highlighting the problem of ghost trains on the Tonbridge to Redhill line? On 30 December, 36 trains were advertised but only 12 ran. Could the Minister possibly do something to ensure that the train operating companies actually run the trains that they advertise?
Andrew Jones
The Department monitors performance on a daily basis, and there is a range of actions that we can take when performance falls below agreed levels. I understand that performance on the Redhill to Tonbridge line has been impacted by various things, including speed restrictions, but I am able to tell my hon. Friend that performance on the line has been much improved since the start of the year, with 90% of services now arriving within five minutes of schedule.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
After awarding the contract to Seaborne Freight, the Secretary of State boasted to the House that he was backing a British start-up. I tabled a written question to his Department asking whether it was his working assumption that any ships operated by Seaborne would operate under the British flag. Why were his Ministers, in the answer I received on 14 January, unable to give a straight yes or no answer?
Chris Grayling
Because these are matters for a commercial company. I think that it is still the right thing for a British Government to do to support British start-up businesses, but these are commercial matters for those businesses.
Several hon. Members rose—
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
You’ll be lucky, Mr Speaker. [Laughter.] And—blatant creeping—happy Valentine’s day.
Anna Soubry
Speakerdate—hashtag! I should like to thank the Minister for her excellent visit to my constituency last week and for the HS2 meeting that she convened. On Sunday, I attended the AGM of the Toton, Chilwell Meadows and Chetwynd neighbourhood forum and saw its bold, realistic and exciting plans for the area, based in part on HS2 coming to Toton sidings. Do she and the Secretary of State agree that it is vital that, when the development body is formed for HS2 at Toton, the neighbourhood forum is fully involved in all its workings?
Ms Ghani
Absolutely. I was delighted to visit Nottingham and to have a meeting with all the east midlands business and council representatives. It is absolutely right to say that HS2 is a local and national project, and community groups such as the one my right hon. Friend has mentioned are indeed involved. I am also delighted to have visited her station.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
As well as announcing funding for the resilience work at Dawlish, will the Government also secure Dawlish-proof trains by moving the HSTs on to the CrossCountry franchise?
Andrew Jones
We are currently working to add more capacity into the CrossCountry franchise, and Network Rail is looking at how to tackle some of the engineering challenges posed by the impact of salt water on trains. That is work in progress.
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
My constituents and I have been campaigning for many years to secure a flyover on the A1 by Wittering. Will the Minister agree to meet me and my constituents with a view to progressing matters?
Jesse Norman
That sounds like a local transport matter, but I am of course happy to meet my hon. Friend and any local councillors whom he may wish to bring.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
On Monday, the Secretary of State justified the non-competitive tendering process for Seaborne Freight by referring to a “change in the assumptions”. Would he care to elaborate on exactly what he meant by that? Does he think that that defence will stand up in court?
Chris Grayling
I recall explaining on Monday precisely what the circumstances were, and I do not want to detain the House any longer by repeating an answer that I gave to the hon. and learned Lady three days ago.
Business of the House
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
The business for next week is as follows:
Monday 18 February—A motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2019, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Public Record, Disclosure of Information and Co-Operation (Financial Services) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Money Market Funds (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Cross-Border Mediation (EU Directive) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, followed by a general debate on serious violence.
Tuesday 19 February—A motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft European Structural and Investment Funds Common Provisions and Common Provision Rules etc. (Amendment) (EU exit) Regulations 2019, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2019, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, followed by a general debate on the NHS 10-year plan.
Wednesday 20 February—A motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Aquatic Animal Health and Alien Species in Aquaculture (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Fertilisers and Ammonium Nitrate Material (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, followed by a general debate on antisemitism in modern society.
Thursday 21 February—A general debate on potential future free trade agreements—Australia, New Zealand and US—and on a comprehensive and progressive agreement for a trans-Pacific partnership.
Friday 22 February—The House will not be sitting.
It has been a great week for British artistic talent, with “The Favourite” taking home seven BAFTA—British Academy of Film and Television Arts—awards, and recognition for the excellent work of the cast and crew who support our thriving British film industry. At the Grammys, Dua Lipa won best new artist and Ella Mai won best R&B song. We congratulate all the nominees and winners, and look forward to more success as awards season continues.
It is Valentine’s day, so I thought a little poem might be order:
Labour is red, the Tories are blue,
Our future is bright,
With a good deal in sight,
For the UK and our friends in the EU.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the Leader of the House for next week’s business, but I am afraid that I do not find any of it very funny—this is really serious.
Last week, I asked for an Opposition day debate, and the Leader of the House did not respond. Can we have an Opposition day debate? The last one was on 13 November, which is as long ago as when we were first promised the meaningful vote.
The Leader of the House read out a list of statutory instruments for debate next week; perhaps she will consider a debate on the Non-Contentious Probate (Fees) Order 2018. There is a possibility that the order may be ultra vires:
“The government can call it a service charge or a graduated fee but asking those who have larger estates to pay more is in effect a tax hike through the back door.”
Those are the words of the vice-president of the Law Society, Simon Davis. [Interruption.] I will, but I am just waiting for some silence. Will the Government say whether they are inappropriately introducing a tax through a statutory instrument? It cannot be a service charge, because it is graduated, depending on the size of the estate. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has raised concerns, so can we have a debate on the Floor of the House to give the measure proper scrutiny?
The Leader of the House has allocated time for a debate on serious violence. My hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) and for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) both welcome the debate, particularly the latter. He passionately asked the Leader of the House for the debate, but unfortunately he will be away in the Falklands, so I hope he gets another opportunity to debate this important issue.
Can we have a debate on due diligence, or perhaps a written statement setting out the tests for awarding contracts? We also need a statement on the definition of taxpayers’ money. The Secretary of State for Transport said that no taxpayers’ money was used in the Seaborne Freight contract, yet the National Audit Office said it was. Can we have clarification?
Every week there is chaos, which is an appalling way to govern a country. Employment and support allowance assessors said Jeff Hayward was fit to work. He then won an appeal—seven months after he died. When that happens, something has to change. I have already raised the matter of delays to appeals. What are the Government going to do to stop these assessments that do not work?
Students are having to pay off their loans at 6.3% interest, while vice-chancellors earn up to half a million pounds. Is the Leader of the House aware of the joint letter from the House of Commons Treasury Committee and the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee calling on the UK Statistics Authority to seek consent from the Chancellor to fix the retail prices index? The lower-rate consumer prices index applies to incomes, but the higher-rate RPI applies to outgoings such as student loans and rail fares. The UK Statistics Authority says that the Treasury will say no to fixing RPI, so it has not asked; and the Treasury says that it has not even been asked. Lord Forsyth called it a “ridiculous merry-go-round.” Can we please have a statement on when this will be fixed?
This week, the Leader of the House told the media—not the House—about when we will have a meaningful vote. There would not be loose talk in a Brussels bar from any civil servant of the stature of the one reported to have made the remarks unless they wanted the information out there, so he was clearly kite-flying. It is upsetting for the House that the Leader of the House has not come here to announce the date of the meaningful vote, instead announcing it on the radio. The vote is clearly not today. We have a vote, but all we get is a meaningless motion. How can the motion be passed? It states that the House notes that the discussions between the UK and the EU on the Northern Ireland backstop are ongoing, but Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council, said yesterday:
“No news is not always good news. EU27 still waiting for concrete, realistic proposals from London on how to break Brexit impasse.”
More than 40 former ambassadors and high commissioners have written to the Prime Minister warning about this national crisis, so who is she actually talking to? When will the Leader of the House announce the timetable for the meaningful vote? She could do it today.
I was going to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner).
Valerie Vaz
My hon. Friend is doing a lot of chuntering, but I want to wish him well. He had an important day earlier this week, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, also hits a milestone today.
We paid tribute to the Clerk of the House of Commons yesterday, but bizarrely he was not in his place. While he is sitting here, I want to say that he will be missed. I hope he read the important tributes to him.
Finally, Eve Griffith-Okai has been in the Speaker’s Office for 33 years, and we wish her a happy retirement.
Mr Speaker
I thank the shadow Leader of the House for what she has just said. Many Members from across the House will know Eve Griffith-Okai. I think I am right in saying that she has served under, with and in support of no fewer than four Speakers; she served Speaker Weatherill, Speaker Boothroyd and Speaker Martin, and she has brilliantly served me. She is much loved across the House and has an outstanding track record of public service, which I am glad to say has not gone unnoticed or unappreciated in the Chamber.
Andrea Leadsom
As Jane Austen said,
“Is not general incivility the very essence of love?”
I shall therefore take the slightly unhumorous remarks of the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) to be the beginning of a real friendship between us. I am grateful to her for asking some important questions. She asks about Opposition days. I hope she will accept that I have been able to find time for some of the important business that she has requested of me in recent weeks. I was pleased that, as she requested, we were able to debate the Securitisation Regulations 2018 yesterday. I hope that she will also welcome my announcement today that we will have a general debate on the NHS 10-year plan next week, which she requested on 31 January. I am seeking to deliver on requests that she is making. She asks about the probate statutory instrument, and I absolutely heard her request. I ask that she also makes it through the usual channels, as is the convention. The Government will of course respond, as we have done in the past, taking her requests very seriously and delivering on almost all of them.
The hon. Lady asks again about the awarding of contracts by the Department for Transport. She will be aware that we have just had DFT oral questions, where this issue was very much dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He also answered an urgent question earlier in the week on the same subject. Just to be clear—all hon. Members who have been involved in any kind of business procurement will understand this—a process is undertaken that seeks to assess who is suitable for a contract. That does have a cost associated with it, but as my right hon. Friend made very clear, no taxpayers’ money was actually awarded to the supplier involved, because it failed to meet the requirements of the contract.
The hon. Lady asks for a statement on a call for changes to use of the consumer prices index and the retail prices index. I will of course take that away and consider what can be done. She asks when we will bring back a meaningful vote. As the Prime Minister explained to this House just this week in a statement lasting two hours and 18 minutes, in which she answered questions from Members from right across the House, she is currently negotiating a revised deal. Members will be aware that there is a debate all day today on this topic.
The Prime Minister has explained that when we achieve the progress we need, we will bring forward another meaningful vote, but if the Government do not secure a majority in this House in favour of a withdrawal agreement and a political declaration, they will make a statement on Tuesday 26 February, and will table an amendable motion relating to the statement. A Minister will move that motion on Wednesday 27 February, thereby enabling the House to vote on it, and on any amendments to it, on that day.
Obviously, I will make a business statement in the usual way next week, setting out the details of the business for the week commencing 25 February. The hon. Member for Walsall South asks, “Where is the negotiation?”. She will appreciate that there is a negotiation; it is on the final element—resolving the issues associated with the backstop—that the Prime Minister, the Attorney General, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union are firmly committed to achieving in order to bring a motion to this House that it can support, thereby giving certainty to businesses, and citizens across this country and the EU.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the falling number of children being vaccinated against preventable illnesses? For whatever reason, there seems to be a loss of confidence among parents in some of these vaccinations. It is certainly a matter that needs addressing.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises a very important point, as he always does. After clean water, vaccination is the most effective public health measure, protecting children and adults against diseases that can cause serious harm. Confidence in the vaccine programme remains high, and parents routinely have their children vaccinated. However, my hon. Friend is right that there has been a small decline, and we are working to address that, as outlined in the NHS long-term plan. There is absolutely no complacency, and we will continue to work to ensure that children get the vaccinations they need.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the very curious business for next week. This is what we have cancelled the mid-term recess for: statutory instruments and general debates. Members will be missing their skiing holidays and time in their villas for that! In the past few weeks, this House has regularly been rising early because there has not been enough to do. It is not as though we do not have any big decisions to make; there are only 43 days until we are supposed to leave the EU, yet there is nothing in this business statement that indicates when we will have the meaningful vote to determine on what basis we will leave—if we leave on a basis at all.
This is getting beyond a joke, and this Government are taking us all for mugs. We know that it is their intention to run down the clock, and to present the binary choice of their appalling deal or no deal at all, and they are doing everything possible to string this House along. We must stop them. Thank goodness we have you, Mr Speaker, in the Chair to ensure that this House will have its say, as it will.
When is a neutral motion not a neutral motion? When the European Research Group tells you that it is not. All we had to do today was have a form of words on which everybody could hang their favourite amendments, and the Government could not even do that. That has infuriated ERG members, and given that they are the de facto leadership of the Tory party, you would not want to do that. Here is a question for my colleagues: at what time today do the Government cravenly cave in to the ERG and amend their motion? We should have a sweepstake. I will have first go: 2.30 pm. That is when I say that the Government will cave in.
Finally, can we have a debate on what happens in Brussels bars? The first rule of Brussels bars is that what happens in Brussels bars stays in Brussels bars—unless you are Olly Robbins. Even with all the Stella Artois, we would not need Hercule Poirot to figure out what was going on. If this House wants to find out what is going on in this chaotic, clueless Brexit, perhaps we should all up sticks and head off to the “Voulez-vous Parlez Avec Moi?” bar in Brussels.
Given that it is Valentine’s Day, I shall say:
Labour is red,
Tories are blue,
The message from Scotland is
We’re staying in the EU.
Andrea Leadsom
I think the hon. Gentleman means the UK, according to the people of Scotland—but that does not rhyme; I grant him that. I am grateful to him for his contribution today; there were no surprises there. I say to him, in the immortal words of Shakespeare, that
“his unkindness may defeat my life, but never taint my love.”
I remain very fond of the hon. Gentleman. I will seek to answer one very important question that I think he asked: why is the motion for today’s debate not a neutral motion? I want to be very clear that today’s motion is amendable. Members will be aware that neutral motions are not usually amendable under the rules of this House, specifically under Standing Order No. 24B. The current exception to that is neutral motions tabled under the terms of section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Such neutral motions are amendable, but under the Order of the House of 4 December. Today’s debate is not a motion under section 13, but a debate that the Government committed to outside the statutory framework of the 2018 Act, and they note that
“discussions between the UK and the EU on the Northern Ireland backstop are ongoing.”
For the motion to be amendable, it needed not to be a neutral motion. I hope that that clarifies the matter for all hon. Members, and I do hope that they will take this in the spirit in which it is intended—as an opportunity to give the Prime Minister, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster more time to negotiate an answer on the backstop, which is what this House requested of us in the last debate.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
Can we have a debate on residential properties managers? Residents in Clyde House in my constituency have had to put up with floods, heating and ventilation systems that do not work, and inaction from A2Dominion, the company that is meant to be getting the repairs done quickly. Can we have a debate so that residents know where they can get redress and, most of all, urgent action?
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend is right to raise an issue about which many Members are concerned—that is, the way in which some tenants and leaseholders are treated badly by housing associations and freeholders. She will be aware that we have introduced legislation to protect tenants from rip-off fees, but there is more to do to ensure the right balance between protecting the interests of those who live in houses and those who own them.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
May I express some disappointment that the Leader of the House has forgone the opportunity to have a debate on the 20th anniversary of the Macpherson report next Thursday in favour of a general debate on free trade agreements? I remind her that we also have heavily subscribed applications for debates on 20 February on the topic of St David’s Day and Welsh affairs, and on 7 March to celebrate International Women’s Day, which is the following day. The deadline for estimates day debates is tomorrow. The estimates were only published earlier this week and debate applications must be with the Clerk of the Backbench Business Committee by early tomorrow afternoon; we would very much welcome that. We will try to find another slot for the 20th anniversary of the Macpherson report, when we are given time by the Government.
Andrea Leadsom
I did try hard to meet the hon. Gentleman’s request, but he will appreciate that there will be a very important general debate on the future trade relationships that the Government have committed to for some time. I share his enthusiasm regarding the need for a debate 20 years after the death of Stephen Lawrence, which is the subject of the Macpherson report, and I will continue to seek Government time for that debate.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
May we have a debate in Government time to establish the roles and rights of Parliament versus the courts in a policy on returning foreign fighters and so-called jihadi brides, the threats that they pose to national security and the economic consequences to the British taxpayer? And while we are at it, now that 10% of the prison population in the United Kingdom is made up of foreign national offenders, will the Government keep the House updated on how the process of returning these offenders to their countries of origin is going?
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend raises a vital issue. I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members will have seen the news today of a jihadi fighter looking to return to the United Kingdom. It is a very serious issue indeed, and it is vital that we continue to do everything possible to keep UK citizens safe. My right hon. Friend will be aware that Home Office questions are on Monday 25 February, and I encourage him to raise the matter directly with Ministers then.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Some of us did not get the chance to say anything about the Clerk of the House yesterday. May I just say that the staff in my constituency were amazed and pleased when he took the trouble to visit my constituency and see how they worked? I thank him for that.
On a different note, I am wearing my Looney Tunes tie today because it seemed very appropriate for the Brexit debate. The whole of our debate in this country seems to be dominated by older people.
Mr Sheerman
Would Hansard record that I said “Ouch”? Is not it time that we had a series of debates about young people, their opportunities, their futures, the loss of youth services and the fact that children are dying unnecessarily in our country? Let us concentrate on youth in this Parliament in the coming year.
Andrea Leadsom
As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. I think he is hearing across the Chamber that there is support for his view that we need a debate on the issues for young people. He will be aware that there are very often opportunities to raise particular issues for young people. He will also be aware that I have the great privilege of chairing a cross-departmental committee on behalf of the Prime Minister looking at how we can provide more support at the very earliest start for all babies and their families. These are very important issues. I would encourage him perhaps to go to the Backbench Business Committee on this, because I am sure that he will get a lot of support from right across the House.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
As we approach the agony of yet another Brexit debate with nothing new to say and nothing new to hear, can I distract the Leader of the House on to something that is really very important—
Mr Walker
I have always thought the hon. Gentleman was a very great and observant man. That thing that is really important is private Members’ Bills continuing to bring this House into disrepute. I know that this concerns the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House, and all Members. Will the Leader of the House meet the Chairman of the Procedure Committee—namely myself—so that we can discuss how we can ensure that Fridays sell this place, not bring it down?
Andrea Leadsom
As Jane Austen said,
“There is nothing I would not do for those who are really my friends”,
so of course I will be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. He raises a very important point. I know that all of us were incredibly disappointed and enraged by the decision of one Member to block a very important private Member’s Bill on female genital mutilation. I am delighted to tell the House that I have tabled a motion to allow the Bill to be debated in a Second Reading Committee in order that it can make progress. But of course I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
New Ferry in my constituency is not the only town in the country that needs regeneration, so can I implore the Leader of the House to allow a debate in Government time about town centres? New Ferry suffered the most devastating explosion and has still not recovered. We need to talk more about towns and how we rebuild them.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that our town centres are vital to the sense of community and to all the issues that we worry about, such as loneliness, isolation, keeping a thriving economy and so on. I would suggest that she might like to seek an Adjournment debate so that she can discuss the particular issues for her town. Britain’s retailers, from high street shops to independent traders, are a crucial part of our economy, supporting over 3 million jobs and contributing over £90 billion to our economy. This Government are determined to continue supporting that.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
In our infancies at our mothers’ knees, we were told that little boys were made of slugs and snails and puppy-dogs’ tails, but the fantasy of the nursery is a world away from the modern reality of puppy smuggling. Earlier this week, many Members met the Dogs Trust, which told us that wicked traders from foreign climes, oblivious to the cruelty that they impose on small dogs brought into this country, are facing woefully inadequate penalties for doing so. So will the Leader of the House bring a Minister here—perhaps our splendid Secretary of State for the Environment—to say what plans the Government have to increase those penalties, perhaps by some punitive fixed penalty notice? This heartless trade in tiny creatures that brings despair, disease and death must be brought to an end.
Andrea Leadsom
I am sure that all hon. and right hon. Members would agree with my right hon. Friend that puppy smuggling is an appalling trade. The UK is rightly proud of our high animal welfare standards. We are, in fact, among the best in the world for the treatment that we show towards animals. He will be aware that we have DEFRA oral questions on Thursday 21 February, when I encourage him to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about his plans to bring forward higher sentencing for cruelty to animals—in the environment Bill, if I recall rightly, but my right hon. Friend will be able to give him further detail on that.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Government funding for free TV licences runs out in 2020. More than 4,000 pensioners could lose out in Barnsley East. Can we have a debate in Government time about how they intend to deliver on their manifesto promise to protect free TV licences for the over-75s?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady is right that many over-75s rely on their free TV licence to keep in touch with what is going on in the world and to seek the comfort that good TV programmes offer. She is right to raise that issue. She will be aware that the Prime Minister has made clear her view that the BBC needs to continue to make those free TV licences available, but I urge the hon. Lady to raise that through a written parliamentary question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
After the tragic fire in Stafford last week in which four children lost their lives, will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the fire and rescue service of Staffordshire, Staffordshire police and West Midlands ambulance service, as well as the local schools, churches and community groups that handled this situation incredibly sensitively and with great regard for the feelings of the family and the community?
Andrea Leadsom
All our hearts go out. My hon. Friend is right to raise the appalling harm done to the family and friends and all those who had to deal with the consequences of this awful house fire in Staffordshire in which four people died. I echo his condolences to the family and his appreciation for all the support and help given to them.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming the first cohort of parliamentarians to begin the Prison Service parliamentary scheme, who are Lord Attlee, the hon. Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), and myself? A number of us visited the college at Newbold Revel last week to see prison officer entry-level training. This important scheme will be an opportunity to gain a full appreciation of life and work in the prisons of England and Wales, and we encourage other parliamentarians to take part in it.
Andrea Leadsom
I congratulate the hon. Lady and her colleagues who are taking part in the trial of this new scheme, which will enhance the information available to the Chamber. She will be aware that we have over 4,300 more prison officers than two years ago and are investing an extra £30 million to improve facilities in prisons with the most pressing problems. I look forward to hearing more about what she learns.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
Can we have a debate on house building companies? Recently, based on inside information on a route going from Taunton down to Ilminster, Persimmon paid £16 million for a speculative development. That has been in conjunction, I suspect, with the local council and a well-known estate agent who was caught price-fixing. We need to ensure that when organisations have privileged information, it is not used for other means. The Secretary of State for Transport is being dragged into this tomorrow. It is not a happy situation. Can we have time to debate it?
Andrea Leadsom
I have chatted to our hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who has been pleased to tell me about some of the excellent infrastructure projects that she has campaigned for in her wonderful constituency, including the upgrade of the Toneway at Creech Castle, the upgrade of the A358, the Staplegrove spine road and the upgrade of Taunton rail station, on which work is beginning now. Our hon. Friend is delighted with the efforts that she and others are making to improve Taunton Deane. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) has given you, Mr Speaker, and my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane prior notice of his intention to raise her constituency in this place.
Mr Speaker
Well, I am not aware that that is so today, though I speak with care. The Leader of the House is quite right to say that if a Member intends to refer to another Member’s constituency, especially if he or she intends to do so in what might be called disobliging terms, it is a courtesy so to notify. The hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) has, on a number of occasions, notified me of his intention to refer to the Taunton Deane constituency, but—I express myself with care—I am not aware that he did so on this occasion, and that should have happened. [Interruption.] He is signalling that he either has written or will write; I think it is the latter—could do better.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
The Government have supported the concept of an international fund for Israel-Palestine to promote the values of co-existence, reconciliation and peace. The evidence is robust that these projects bring together people, build resilience and build constituencies for peace. May we have an early debate on how the Government can make progress on the support they have given to this idea so far?
Andrea Leadsom
The right hon. Lady raises the very valuable work that is being done to try to resolve some of the issues on the ground between Israel and Palestine, and it is absolutely vital that we continue to do all we in the UK can to promote peace and justice in that area. She will be aware that we have Foreign Office questions on Tuesday 26 February, when I would encourage her to discuss it with Ministers.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Given the comments of Sir Terry Morgan, the former chairman of HS2, to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee last month—he said, “Nobody knows” the number, when asked what he thought the final cost of the HS2 project would be—and reports in the media that senior Government sources have said that the
“costs are spiralling so much that we’ve been actively considering other scenarios, including scrapping the entire project”,
may we please have a debate on the value for money of HS2 and on alternative proposals that would deliver more benefits to more people at less cost?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises an issue that is of interest to a number of right hon. and hon. Members right across the country, including you, Mr Speaker, and me. Certainly, if my hon. Friend wants to seek a Backbench debate or a Westminster Hall debate, I am sure many on all sides of the argument would want to take part in it.
Mr Speaker
I cannot speak for the Backbench Business Committee, but I can assure the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) that if he wants a debate on the matter in Westminster Hall, he will get it all right.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Tomorrow, thousands of young people will show their deep concern about the growing climate crisis by taking part in a climate strike. Since, shockingly, there was only one debate on climate change in this place last year, will the Leader of the House urgently find time for us to debate this, the greatest threat we face, so that we can demonstrate to young people that we are listening and that we take their concerns very seriously?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises an incredibly important point. I think the UK can be proud of our contribution to securing the first truly global, legally binding agreement to tackle climate change, which was the Paris agreement. She will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth is fully committed to doing everything possible to tackle the threat of climate change. She may be aware that our climate change record at home speaks for itself. Between 2010 and 2017, we reduced the UK’s domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 23%, and according to PwC, the UK leads the G20 for decarbonising its economy since 2000. There is a lot more to be done, but the UK Government remain committed to doing it.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
A week ago today, my constituent Geoff Whaley—a very brave man—travelled to Switzerland to end his life before the ravages of motor neurone disease made his suffering, and that of his family, unbearable. He wrote to all MPs to impress on us that a change needs to be considered after his fantastically loving and loyal wife was reported to the police, in an anonymous phone call, as a person potentially assisting someone to end their life. She and Geoff had to suffer the added mental anguish of facing a criminal investigation at a time when the family, and most of all Geoff, wanted to prepare his goodbyes and fulfil his last wish in peace. May I ask the Leader of the House if we can have a debate in Government time so that we can re-examine this area of law, particularly in the light of this amazing man’s efforts to give terminally ill people a choice over the way they leave this world, and to afford protection to their loved ones?
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend raises a truly heartbreaking case, and I commend her for doing so. I am sure the thoughts of the whole House are with the family of Geoff Whaley at this very difficult time. I can say to her that it remains the Government’s view that any change to the law in this area is an issue of individual conscience and a matter for Parliament to decide, rather than one for Government policy. Parliament has debated this issue on several occasions, the most recent being a debate in the House of Commons on 11 September 2015, when the Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill had its Second Reading. As things stand, the will of Parliament is that there should be no change to the law, but it is a thought-provoking matter, and I encourage her to raise it directly with Justice Ministers.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
May we have a debate in Government time on how long is an acceptable length of time for a Department to respond to a Member’s inquiry? I wrote to the Minister for Employment 225 days ago on behalf of my constituent, Mr Scott, who received conflicting and incorrect advice from the Department for Work and Pensions. To date, he and I are still in the dark about the Department’s answer.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady will be aware that Departments have guidelines for the length of time they should take to respond to inquiries, and in the case she raises it sounds as if something has gone wrong or a letter has gone astray. I encourage her to write again to the Department, or if she would like to write to me I will take up the matter on her behalf.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Last Friday, four private Member’s Bills were debated and made progress, but unfortunately three of my Bills, including one that would have stopped people voting more than once in a general election, one that would have abolished car parking charges at hospitals, and another that would have placed restrictions on drones at airports and protected aircraft, were objected to by one person sitting in front of me. I think that the Leader of the House referred to that person in her previous remarks, so why are the Government not making time for my Bills, as they are doing for others?
Andrea Leadsom
The Government have an excellent record of supporting private Member’s Bills to get into statute, and since 2010 more than 50 have received Royal Assent. The Government maintain the view that they provide an invaluable opportunity for Members to promote legislation on the causes they support. Changes to the law are possible through private Members’ Bills, but it is an important principle that they should make progress only when Members are able to win sufficient support from across the House. The default position remains, in accordance with the rules of the House, that private Members’ Bills ought to make progress on Fridays. I am sure hon. Members will understand that the Children Act 1989 (Amendment) (Female Genital Mutilation) Bill is an exceptional case, and that they will welcome the Government’s decision to bring it forward.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I know we had a debate on sport fairly recently, but may we have another one very soon to allow me to pay tribute to Newport County, who for the first time in 70 years have reached the fifth round of the FA cup and will play Manchester City this weekend? That has generated huge pride in our city and proved that the magic of the FA cup is alive and well.
Andrea Leadsom
I am glad that the hon. Lady got the chance to mention Newport County’s achievements in the Chamber, and I commend her for doing so. She is right to say that the debate on sport was well subscribed, and I gather that the time limit on speeches went down to three minutes by the end of the debate. It was right that we had the opportunity to speak about some of the amazing sporting achievements across the United Kingdom, and I will certainly bear in mind her request for a further debate.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I, too, pay tribute to Newport County, although I note that when they travelled to Cleethorpes a few weeks ago they suffered a heavy defeat to Grimsby Town. Let us hope they are more successful in the FA cup, and I wish them well.
Like many other villages, Goxhill in my constituency has suffered the closure of its local post office. In many villages, convenience stores have taken over the role of the Post Office, which insists that they provide a full service throughout their opening hours, which can be 15 or 16 hours a day. In actual fact, just four, six or eight hours a day, five days a week, would provide for the needs of customers. May we have a debate on post offices in rural areas, and allow Ministers to explain why they insist on such arrangements?
Andrea Leadsom
I know just how valuable local post offices are, particularly in rural or isolated areas, so I am genuinely sorry to hear about the closure of Goxhill post office. They are a crucial part of our communities and help to improve the lives of all our residents, particularly the elderly. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have invested over £2 billion in the Post Office in recent years, which includes the continuation of subsidy payments to support community post offices. I encourage my hon. Friend to raise his particular case with Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Ministers and to perhaps seek an Adjournment debate so that he can do so.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I am keen to accommodate colleagues, but I want to be moving on by midday because the debate on the European Union is heavily subscribed. What is needed is brevity from all colleagues.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
May I start by thanking the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and you, Mr Speaker, for finding time for a debate on serious violence? It proves that business questions work.
On another matter, may we have an urgent debate on provision for families with children who have disabilities? Conservative-controlled Nottinghamshire County Council has just cut £176,000 of funding that, for example, enables children with disabilities to go to nurseries. This cut will affect 46 families, who on average will each lose £4,300. That cannot be acceptable, and I do not believe it conforms to the Government’s own guidelines. We need an urgent debate to protect those children in Nottinghamshire.
Andrea Leadsom
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who was persistent in requesting a Government debate on serious violence. I am pleased that we have been able to provide that. He raises a very serious issue about the provision of support to families who have children with disabilities. He may be aware that spending on the most vulnerable children has increased by over £1.5 billion since 2010. In the Budget, we announced an extra £410 million for social care, including for children, alongside £84 million over the next five years to keep more children safely at home with their families. He is absolutely right, however, that the decisions taken by local councils must take into account the needs of their local communities. I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can raise this particular point about Nottinghamshire’s children.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. I, for one, am very pleased with its contents. Last year saw a record number of antisemitic allegations, which the chief executive of the Community Security Trust has blamed on antisemitic politics and the deliberate exclusion of Jews from anti-racist norms. May I therefore thank the Leader of the House for granting a debate in Government time, so that we can see what the Government are doing to address the problem of antisemitism and how we can remove this scourge from our party politics?
Andrea Leadsom
I am delighted to have been able to announce a debate on antisemitism for next week. It is incredibly distressing to see cases of antisemitism on the rise in this country, and it must stop. Antisemitism is despicable and it has no place in society. What I can say to my hon. Friend is that the Leader of the Opposition’s own MPs tabled and unanimously passed a motion last week calling on the party leadership to adequately tackle cases of antisemitism, as a failure to do so seriously risks antisemitism in the Labour party appearing normalised and the party seeming to be institutionally antisemitic.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
This week, Bradford starts to celebrate its 10th anniversary as the world’s first UNESCO city of film. In those 10 years, numerous films and TV shows have been shot in Bradford, including: “Victoria”, “The ABC Murders”, “Peaky Blinders”, “Miss You Already”, “The Limehouse Golem” and “God’s Own Country”. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating all those involved in Bradford City of Film? May we have a debate on what the Government are doing to support the creative sector and in particular Bradford’s pioneering film industry?
Andrea Leadsom
That is a fantastic line-up. I certainly join the hon. Lady in congratulating Bradford on its excellent work on some very well known films and programmes. I wish it every success in the future. I know that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is always keen to consider, with Members across the House, what more can be done. I will take that point away and see whether Government time can be found for such a debate.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
May we have a statement on the achievements of the former MP for Harlow and Epping between 1924 and 1945? Far from being a villain, Winston Churchill was not only our greatest Prime Minister but a wonderful social reformer and the man who defeated Nazi tyranny.
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that someone calling Sir Winston Churchill a “villain” is, in effect, denigrating the achievements of a man who led this country to potentially its greatest ever contribution to global peace. It is a great shame that he was described in that way.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I have spoken before about the almost nine-year and counting review of the redundancy modification order, which affects my constituents and many others across the UK. This Government’s dilatory—indeed, atrocious—handling of the review may cost current and former local authority employees thousands of pounds. May we have a debate in Government time to hold this failing Government to account?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises a very specific issue, and she is absolutely right to do so. It is of course important that we do everything we can to ensure fairness in the area of redundancy. I am not familiar with the exact concerns that she has. She may wish to seek an Adjournment debate, or if she wants to write to me more fully, I can take the issue up with the relevant Department on her behalf.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Last week, I held a packed meeting for residents in my constituency to question the police about the spike in aggravated burglaries. No less a newspaper than The Times carried the story yesterday of a tragic case of a young married couple who were killed in a head-on car crash—except that that young married couple, together with another passenger, were fleeing the scene of an aggravated burglary, where they had attempted to break in. Could we have a statement in Government time on what action is being taken to combat aggravated burglaries across this country?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend has raised this issue a number of times in business questions, and he is absolutely right to do so. He will be aware that the Government are taking strong action to try to clamp down on the recent increase in some violent crimes. The Government have published our serious violence strategy and established a serious violence taskforce. In addition, our funding for the police includes an increase for next year of up to £970 million compared with 2018-19. However, my hon. Friend may wish to raise this question directly with Home Office Ministers on Monday 25 February.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. In reiterating my plea for brevity, I gently point out to colleagues that if they now ask long questions, they do so in the full knowledge that they will be stopping other colleagues taking part.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary be there for the debate on serious violence?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady will realise that that is way above my pay grade. I do not determine which Ministers come to the House, but of course the appropriate Minister will be here to answer that debate.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
It is curious that, given how much debate there has been outside this place on the issue of non-disclosure agreements this week—agreements that silence people who have been bullied or even assaulted at work—there has not been an opportunity here for MPs to scrutinise the Government on their response to the court decision on the Philip Green case. Will the Leader of the House ensure that time is given for the Government to set out their plan on how they are going to regulate non-disclosure agreements?
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend raises a very serious issue, and I commend her for all the work she has done in this area. It is very concerning that non-disclosure agreements are clearly being used to hide workplace harassment and to intimidate victims into silence. It is clearly unacceptable. NDAs cannot stop a worker whistleblowing. It is very important that people are aware of that, especially some of the most vulnerable people in our workplaces. I can assure her that we will shortly be consulting on measures to improve the regulation of NDAs.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
On Monday, the Secretary of State for Defence made a number of announcements to the press. They included first, a proposal to have large squadrons of highly skilled killer drones, and secondly—and more oddly—the proposal to convert a number of old car ferries into frontline warships, including, according to The Times, the Empress of Margate. Is it not the case that the Secretary of State should come to the House to make a statement regarding these proposals, and that we should also have a wider debate on them?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have Defence questions on Monday 18 February, which will be a good opportunity for him to ask the Secretary of State directly.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
The Oxfordshire Cotswolds Garden Village will be a major development for West Oxfordshire and particularly for the neighbouring village of Eynsham. Will the Government make a statement on the ways in which local communities can be assured that the necessary infrastructure—schools, hospitals, and Cotswold line and A40 upgrades—can come before and not after developments, and that such developments can bring benefits and not detriment to their local areas?
Andrea Leadsom
All of us want to see proper infrastructure in our constituencies before there is new housing. The Government have committed to ensuring that that is the case. My hon. Friend may wish to take up his specific issues directly with Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, perhaps through an Adjournment debate.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Five wasted years after the launch of the northern powerhouse, Whitehall this week killed off Yorkshire devolution. Is it not now time for plan B, and for the Humber docklands to be given the same priority as the London docklands have been given the last 40 years, for devolution to the Humber area to be real, for the regeneration of the Humber region to be allowed to continue, and for transport devolution?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady is a powerful voice for her constituency and her area, and she is absolutely right to be so. She will be aware that the Government remain fully committed to the northern powerhouse and to the devolution projects that we have implemented in recent years. She will also be aware that we have seen over a quarter of a trillion pounds of infrastructure investments since 2010 and that public investment as a percentage of GDP has been 14% higher on average since 2010 than under Labour. The Government remain fully committed to doing everything we can to improve investment, but I would encourage her to seek answers on her area directly, perhaps through an Adjournment debate.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Cheap synthetic drugs such as Spice and Mamba are increasingly becoming a problem in our towns, especially among the homeless and the vulnerable. With users posing a perceived threat to the public and putting immense stress on our public services, will my right hon. Friend consider granting a debate in Government time to discuss the effects of these destructive substances on our communities and what more can be done to ensure that the dealers and users face the full force of the law?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises a very serious issue. She will be aware that the Government have put in place strong measures to consult on a new legal duty to underpin a public health approach to tackling serious violence, which would of course look at the problem of drug misuse. The Government want to see law enforcement agencies and policy targeting and preventing the drug-related causes of violent crime effectively. I would encourage her to contribute to the debate on serious violence that I have announced for next week.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
We heard this morning in the news that there is a study that suggests that street cannabis may be linked to depression in young people. If the study is correct, it emphasises how important it is that we protect young people from harm, which is why we should legalise and regulate the cannabis supply, in the same way as we do for that much more harmful drug, alcohol. May we have a debate on how we can protect young people by putting in place a proper regulatory regime for cannabis supply and consumption?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman, like my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), is talking about a very considerable problem, which is drug misuse by young people, with the appalling impact that it can have on their mental health, as well as the links to crime that are so often associated with drug misuse. The Government are looking carefully at measures to get young people away from a life of drugs and crime before it even begins. We have announced a new £200 million youth endowment fund over 10 years, which will build the evidence, as well as interventions to stop young people from 10 to 14 getting involved in these sorts of activities.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
Poor mobile phone reception and the lack of 4G coverage has a huge impact on rural communities and is restricting the productivity of rural businesses. May we have a debate on how operators and the Government can work together to end this digital divide?
Andrea Leadsom
As an MP who represents a semi-rural constituency, I am extremely sympathetic to my hon. Friend. As he will know, we have committed more than £1 billion to next-generation digital infrastructure, and we are committed to full-fibre connections for the majority of homes and businesses by 2025, with a nationwide full-fibre network by 2033. There is a huge amount more to be done and I am sure that, if my hon. Friend sought a Westminster Hall debate, many Members would be interested in taking part.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Betty Higgins, the former leader of Nottingham City Council, died this week aged 92. She will be remembered as one of the great Nottinghamians: our publicly owned bus company, our council houses that she built and our schools that she refreshed provide a lasting memory. She was tough but kind, idealistic but pragmatic. She was also my friend and had a profound influence on my career from university to where I am today. May we have a debate in Government time about the impact of our great local government leaders and how to celebrate them?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman has paid a touching tribute to the former leader of his local council. I join him in paying tribute to her for her lifetime of commitment to the area. So many people in public life contribute to their areas but go largely unnoticed and unrewarded. It is right that we pay tribute to them from time to time, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can do just that.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Earlier this week my mere mention of Bolton FM brought delight to some Members. May we have a debate about how the Government can support local radio stations through, for instance, the relocation of masts, so that my constituents—especially those in Hunger Hill and Chew Moor—can benefit from better reception for Bolton FM?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is a keen advocate for his constituency, and I am sure that we would all love access to Bolton FM. He is right to raise the issue of local radio stations, which are often valuable sources of information as well as entertainment for local communities, and I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Tomorrow I will visit the Angel of the North in my constituency as it celebrates its 21st birthday. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Gateshead Council on its vision in commissioning this magnificent work, and may we have a debate in Government time on the importance of culture to local economies?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady has joined a number of Members in calling for a debate to celebrate culture and she is absolutely right to do so. I am delighted to join her in celebrating the 21st birthday of the Angel of the North, which is an iconic sight for those who travel from the south to the north of the United Kingdom.
Scott Mann
Will the Leader of the House congratulate the Polzeath marine conservation group on the installation of two water fountains on two of our most prolific beaches in north Cornwall? Given the increased use of reusable bottles, would it be possible to have a debate about the need for more water fountains around the UK?
Andrea Leadsom
I commend my hon. Friend for raising such an important matter on behalf of his constituents. It is vital to make drinking water more readily available if we are to reduce the use of single-use plastic bottles. The water industry supports the Refill campaign, and Refill points will be installed in every major city and town in England, but Water UK is also exploring options for rural communities, and the Government continue to work closely with it. My hon. Friend might like to seek an Adjournment debate to raise the matter further and allow other Members to contribute.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
More than 50,000 British-born children whose parents are legally in the UK are being denied any help under the Home Office’s pernicious “no recourse to public funds” rules. That is forcing councils to provide what are supposed to be emergency social services at very high cost. When will the Government provide time for a debate on this extension of the hostile environment, the damage that it does to communities such as mine, and the additional costs that councils suffer as a result?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Home Office questions will take place on Monday 25 February. If he has specific concerns about a particular issue, he will be able to raise them directly with Ministers then.
Steve Double
Last week I had the privilege of attending the Plastic Free Cornwall summit, which brought organisations from across Cornwall together to discuss how to rid Cornwall of plastic pollution. Many of them raised the issue of released balloons which end up littering our beaches and polluting our seas. Under current legislation, balloon releases are not classed as littering. That position was last reviewed five years ago. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to make a statement about a further review of whether balloon releases should be classed as littering?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is to be commended for his campaigning against plastics getting into marine areas. He will be aware that the Government have a strong track record on this. For example, we have introduced a world-leading ban on microbeads, taking 13 billion plastic bags out of circulation in the last two years, and consulted on banning the sale and supply of plastic straws and stirrers and plastic-stemmed cotton buds. We have many more plans to reduce the use of plastics and I encourage him to write to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to raise his particular concerns about the release of balloons.
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
On 9 March, robot day will take place at Coventry transport museum as part of British science week. This major science and technology event, which is free to enter, aims to entertain and inspire people of all generations. Given the skills shortage in the STEM field, does the Leader of the House agree that robot day is a creative way to inspire young people to consider a STEM career path, and will she arrange for a debate in Government time on how we can bring STEM careers to life for people of all ages?
Andrea Leadsom
I totally agree that robot day will be a fantastic way to engage with young people and perhaps get them more interested in taking up STEM subjects. I read just yesterday that maths is now one of the most popular A-level subjects to study in this country. A significant rise in the selection of STEM subjects for young people to study is brilliant news for our future as we move into our new modern industrial strategy, seeking the jobs of the future, which will include a lot of the ideas the hon. Lady advocates.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
At lunchtime today the Battersea and Wandsworth trade union group will be calling on Wandsworth Council to end its two-tier pay and conditions system, under which outsourced workers are paid poverty wages and have worse terms and conditions than directly employed staff. So may we have a debate in which we can discuss the meaning of a real living wage for people and the workers of Wandsworth?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises an issue that sounds very concerning; if there is a two-tier system, she is right to raise that in this place. She will be aware that it was this Government who introduced the national living wage and we will be increasing it again in April. That will mean a significant real-terms increase for people on some of the lowest incomes in our country. There is more to do and I encourage her to raise her particular concerns directly with Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Ministers.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Will we be able to have a debate on the cycle to work scheme, to respond to calls to raise the threshold of the scheme in order to benefit more people, particularly those with disabilities and those on low incomes?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady will be aware that we are always keen to do more for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds and young people with disabilities. It is important that we always seek to do everything we can, and if she has some good ideas I encourage her to seek an Adjournment debate so she can share them with Ministers.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Given the concern expressed this week by two leading charities and the anxiety being expressed to me by my constituents in Edinburgh West who are affected by the lack of clarity about the availability of vital medicines such as insulin if Britain leaves the EU, will the Government set aside as a priority some time to discuss and clarify this important issue?
Andrea Leadsom
We are working very closely with pharmaceutical companies to make sure that patients will all continue to receive the medicines they need. This involves asking many of them to ensure a minimum of six weeks’ additional supply of medicine over and above the usual buffer stocks by 29 March. Patients, doctors and community pharmacists should not stockpile medicines—obviously, that then in itself presents a problem—but we are confident that, if everyone does as they are being asked to do, the supply of medicines will be uninterrupted in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
Several hon. Members rose—
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Government responded positively this week to Professor Abdel-Haq’s report on taxi and private hire licensing. Will the Leader of the House look at reintroducing my private Member’s Bill, which would do exactly what the Government want to do but was chopped by one Member of this House?
Andrea Leadsom
I am aware of the hon. Gentleman’s private Member’s Bill, and that was a shame. He will be aware that the Government have launched a consultation this week on robust new rules for licensing authorities, outlining how they should use their powers to protect vulnerable passengers from harm. These rules would ensure that drivers were fit to carry passengers, keeping people safe while preventing those with bad intentions from getting behind the wheel of a taxi or a minicab.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Will the Leader of the House get a grip on the Government Whips Office and put a rocket right up them? They are playing games with an important private Member’s Bill on refugee children. We need a motion for Committee, a money resolution and notification of which Minister will be on the Committee. Being messed about with false promises, inaction and avoided phone calls is not good enough. This has to be sorted today, and I call on Members more widely, the public, celebrities and whoever else is interested in this to get on to the Government Whips Office so that we can get this shifted.
Andrea Leadsom
The Government have an excellent record of supporting private Members’ Bills on to the statute book. I can say to the hon. Gentleman that we support the principle of family unity and that we have helped to reunite 24,700 family members in the past five years. The policy allows a partner and children under the age of 18 to join refugees here if they were part of the family unit before their sponsor fled the country. There are already provisions allowing extended family members to sponsor children where there are serious and compelling circumstances, and the policy caters for extended family members where necessary.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Given that the Department for Work and Pensions is currently contacting older residents in my constituency and asking them to consider having their pensions paid into a bank account, without giving them the option to obtain them at the post office, may we have a statement or a debate on why the DWP is not promoting the post office, which is a vital lifeline to people in isolated communities?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises a specific concern in his constituency, and I am very sympathetic to his problem. I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can discuss this directly with DWP Ministers.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
A total of €160 million in European regional funding is due to be lost to the highlands and islands between 2021 and 2027 due to Brexit. May we have a debate in Government time on that, and on the Government’s failure to bring forward any details of the so-called shared prosperity fund, which was meant to replace that funding?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the next EU multi-annual financial framework has not been settled yet, so it is not possible to say what the UK’s share of that might be in return for the UK’s significant contributions. The UK will not be in the EU, and we are replacing that funding with a shared prosperity fund, which will seek to promote growth and opportunity right across the whole of the United Kingdom.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
There have been no trains through my constituency all this week due to a landslide. This is two years after I tabled questions in the House asking for the infrastructure to be checked following a previous landslide. My constituents put up with constant failures by the rail operator and by Network Rail. May we have a statement on their performance on the Southeastern suburban rail services?
Andrea Leadsom
I am sorry to hear about problems in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and I am very sympathetic to commuters whose journey to work each day is being ruined by problems with the rail network. I do hope that he was present for Transport oral questions earlier and that he raised his question directly with Ministers then, because I think they would have been able to answer it for him.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Endometriosis is a condition that affects one in 10 women, and it is incredibly painful. It involves cells that should be growing inside the womb growing outside it. Please may we have a debate about endometriosis and its surrounding issues?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises an important issue. I also know people who have suffered from endometriosis, and it is a very painful condition, as she rightly says. I think she could raise the issue in the debate on the NHS long-term plan, which we have organised for next week.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Can we have a statement on the UK Government breaking yet another manifesto promise about maintaining pensioner benefits? Will the Leader of the House explain why the UK Government have completely abrogated their responsibility to the over-75s, putting it on to the BBC’s shoulders, by withdrawing their support for free TV licences? The change will potentially leave 9,000 pensioners in my constituency alone much poorer and more socially isolated.
Andrea Leadsom
As I said in response to an earlier question about BBC licences, the Prime Minister made it clear that she expects that these licences continue to be made available. They are vital for older people wanting to get information and to alleviate loneliness, which is so often a problem for people in isolated communities. The hon. Lady is right to raise the matter, but it is for the BBC to ensure that licences continue to be made available.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
As business looks quite light next week, can legislation be brought to the House regarding tougher sentences for causing death by dangerous driving, as promised by this Government in October 2017?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady refers to an important issue that has been raised in the Chamber several times. Dangerous driving causes too many deaths. We had a debate on road safety quite recently, for which I was able to offer Government time, but I will take her request into consideration against all the other competing requests for time in the Chamber.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
An MP hiring an intern is supposed to provide a valuable opportunity, but nearly three months after I made an offer to a London School of Economics undergraduate—paying the living wage, of course—he is still waiting on security clearance and is therefore in complete limbo. Security is important, but can we have a process for expediting security clearance?
Andrea Leadsom
I am sorry to hear that. I have recently recruited people and did not have the same problem. It may be an isolated case, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me, I will take the matter up on his behalf.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
The SNP Scottish Government have imposed nearly £200 million of cuts on the City of Edinburgh Council over the past decade, with another £41 million to come. May we have an urgent debate on how the Scottish Government are quadrupling Tory austerity through savage cuts in my local council area?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there was absolutely no need for further SNP tax rises or cuts, thanks to this Government delivering a further £950 million funding boost in the Budget. The SNP Government have sought to raise taxes and cut services entirely unnecessarily because the UK Government have supported their budgets. We have Scotland questions on Wednesday 20 February, so I encourage the hon. Gentleman to raise his concerns then.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Attacks on shop workers are up, and shoplifting is up. In the unlikely event that I do not get my Westminster Hall debate on retail crime at the fourth attempt, can we have a debate in Government time?
Andrea Leadsom
The right hon. Gentleman should keep pursuing that debate. I am sure that Mr Speaker is listening carefully. He is right that retail crime is a blight on businesses across our high streets, and we need to do everything we can to resolve the matter. He may like to seize the opportunity to contribute his thoughts during the debate on serious violence next week.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
It has been evident for some time that properties located next to whisky maturation sites are being affected by a stubborn black material. That is happening not only in West Dunbartonshire, but across the United Kingdom. In a recent survey conducted by my office, 85% of respondents in Clydebank, Dumbarton and the Vale of Leven highlighted the negative impact of “whisky black”. The issue has an impact on all our communities, so will the Leader of the House make time for all Members to discuss it?
Andrea Leadsom
I was unaware of that issue before the hon. Gentleman raised it, but he is right to do so. He may like to raise the matter with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on Thursday 21 February so that he can look into it on the hon. Gentleman’s behalf.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
This Government must surely seek a new mandate for their proposed massive cuts to low-income pensioner households, given that they were approved seven years, two Governments and two Parliaments ago. Why is the Leader of the House denying this House the opportunity to vote on the Government’s cuts to pension credit?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it was this Government, in 2010, who introduced the triple lock to ensure that pensioners on fixed incomes will always have the reassurance of a secure basic income. He raises a specific issue, and he might like to raise it directly with Ministers in an Adjournment debate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Last month, Pakistan’s supreme court appointed Dr Muhammad Suddle to lead a commission on equal rights for minority religious groups in Pakistan. That will ensure the implementation of a supreme court order requiring the Pakistani Government to establish a national council for minority rights and requiring the police force to protect their places of worship. It is important that this House not only points out human rights violations but praises positive actions to help suffering communities. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming this appointment and urge hon. and right hon. Members to sign early-day motion 2050?
[That this House welcomes the Supreme Court of Pakistan’s decision to appoint a commission chaired by Dr Shoaib Suddle; notes that the intention of the commission is to ensure implementation of the decision PLD 2014 SC 699 of June 2014 to safeguard the rights of religious minorities in Pakistan; affirms its confidence in Dr Suddle as a man of integrity and impartiality and capable of carrying out this critically important task; and assures him of its cooperation and assistance in matters of religious freedom.]
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the need to protect the rights of religious and racial minorities. I join him in welcoming this new move and encourage him to raise this point at Foreign Office questions the week after next.
Points of Order
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on a certain matter. You know how much I respect your running of the Chamber, so I wanted to ask you this question. What recourse does a Member have when a colleague uses business questions to make serious, damaging and unfounded allegations about another Member’s constituency that cause real distress outside this House?
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her characteristic courtesy in giving me advance notice of her intention to raise this matter, which could affect any right hon. or hon. Member here present. She asks very specifically what recourse she, or any Member, has when a colleague makes damaging and unfounded allegations about her constituency. She knows how seriously I take this issue, which we have discussed.
I expect an hon. Member to give notice to the colleague whose constituency he proposes to refer to, to give notice to my office and to ensure that he is properly careful in what he says. Members take responsibility for what they say in the House and for its impact outside this House. The privilege of free speech must be used maturely and with sensitivity. It is no part of a right hon. or hon. Member’s role to be merely abusive or insulting. I hope that an hon. Member causing offence in this way will reflect very carefully on such conduct. This matter, as I said, has been discussed by the hon. Lady and me, and it has been the subject of wider discussion—including, from time to time, with the Leader of the House, who referred very sensitively to it earlier in our proceedings.
Let me just say tactfully, but in terms that are not ambiguous, that I hope that I do not have to return to this issue again. The message should be clear, and the hon. Lady’s concern, which is very real and, I think, widely shared, should be respected. We will leave it there for now, and I hope it will be able to be left there.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister for small businesses, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), claimed in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) during Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy questions on Tuesday that:
“Every piece of no-deal legislation that we have brought through the House has had an impact assessment”. —[Official Report, 12 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 714.]
The truth is that only two of the 20 BEIS statutory instruments that have been in Committee since Christmas have had an impact assessment available for them. The lack of this vital information has been a bone of contention during each Committee; it hinders our ability to scrutinise legislation; and it adds to uncertainty for businesses and consumers, who do not know how a no-deal will impact on them. What advice can you give me to set the record straight?
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me advance notice that she wished to raise this matter. The provision of impact assessments is of course the responsibility of Ministers. There is no statutory or procedural requirement for the Government to provide impact assessments on SIs, but I believe that I am right in saying that Government guidance requires Departments to do so at least in respect of instruments with significant impacts. I appreciate the current pressures on Departments, but it is clearly unsatisfactory if the House is being asked to approve instruments without access to full information about their impact. I know that a number of Select Committees have been pursuing these issues with Ministers. Meanwhile, the shadow Minister has made her concerns on the matter very clear.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I just get some clarification on what you have just said? Did you say that Members ought to give you notice when they wish to raise something about somebody’s else’s constituency? I do not want to comment on the case you have just ruled on, but I think that I heard you say that they should give your Office notice. I would be pleased to have greater clarification on that.
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman is entirely justified in seeking further clarification, and I am happy to provide it. The answer is, yes, I do expect that if the intended reference—I thought that I had conveyed the flavour of this, but if I had not, it was my fault—is pejorative. It is not unknown in the course of debate for a Member to refer to another Member’s constituency, for example, to its level of prosperity or joblessness, to a reduction in joblessness or to start-up businesses there—whatever it may be—but if a Member intends to refer pejoratively or disobligingly to another Member’s constituency, raising serious issues, potentially of order and certainly of House reputation, I think that it is reasonable, and I am so advised, not only for the Member affected to be told in advance, but for the Chair to be notified in advance. I hope, therefore, that the relatively narrow application of what I am talking about is reassuring to the right hon. Gentleman.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your guidance about a trend that seems to be becoming more and more prevalent? When reading newspapers and listening to the reporting in anticipation of the motion that we will be discussing today in the forthcoming debate and all the amendments, I have come across a phrase, which has clearly come from the Government, being used a lot, which is that this motion is “non-binding” on the Government. When I came into this House, it was a point of honour and the unwritten rule that if the Government lost motions and motions were passed through this House, they would then respect those motions. We now suddenly see this distinction being made by Government spokespeople, not always named, who say that some motions are more equal than others. I seek your guidance on the appearance of a distinction that I deplore and that certainly was never present when I first came into the House.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is a noted proceduralist, or at the very least has aspirations to become so, and I think that we should hear from him.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. May I just draw your attention and that of the House to the report produced by the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs on exactly this question—the status of motions of the House of Commons—because I think the House would find it instructive?
Mr Speaker
That is a public information notice from the hon. Gentleman and we are grateful for it—genuinely so—and I thank him for what he said. In response to the hon. Lady, I am conscious of a concern on that front, and it is a concern that has been articulated not least by the Father of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who is able to look at these matters with the benefit of a 48-year—approaching 49—perspective, so he knows how things used to be done. In some respects, they are now done rather differently—I have noted that.
The essential point is this: some votes in this House are simply expressions of opinion, and others, depending on the terms of the motion, are genuinely binding. They can be construed, and would be construed, as orders or instructions and are therefore, in the literal sense of the term, effective. Others are not automatically effective, and they do depend on the way in which the Government choose to view them—I use those words carefully and advisedly. We have the opportunity to debate the hugely important matter of Brexit today and we know that there are plans for subsequent debate, but I can assure the hon. Lady that, if there is an appetite in the House for further debate, that appetite will be met. I can say that without the slightest fear of contradiction by anyone. If the House wants to debate a matter, no amount of circumlocutory activity to seek to avoid it will work—it simply will not happen.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You are ruling on what is binding. This probably has to be resolved, but I do not want to take up too much more time on this matter now, because you gave an indication on it.
Plainly, certain things—legislation—change the law; they are binding. The question comes when a majority of the House, by a motion, expresses an opinion on a subject of policy. I still believe that our constitutional convention in our parliamentary democracy is that the Government are bound to follow and give respect to a declaration of policy that has been declared by the House. It is no good saying that it does not change the law, so it is just a matter of opinion and we will proceed guided by newspapers and pressure groups instead.
Mr Speaker
I entirely understand what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is getting at. I can say only for my own part that I do not want to give a flippant response to the Father of the House. I have never been much preoccupied with the opinions of newspapers. I really do not attach any weight to their views. I am sure that they think their views are important, and if that brings happiness into their lives, good luck to them, but the blatherings of a particular media outlet are a matter of absolutely no interest or concern whatever to me; they are simply not consequential at all.
Decisions that this House makes, resolutions that this House passes and motions that are supported matter and should be respected. Some motions, however, do specifically instruct, and if they instruct, there can be not the slightest doubt or uncertainty at all but that they must be followed, just as if, for example, the House were to pass a motion instructing the Speaker. The Speaker is the servant of the House. If the House passed a motion or an amendment instructing the Speaker, the Speaker would do as instructed; that is the way it is.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like your guidance because the Home Secretary is actively ignoring a written question that I tabled back on 18 October 2018, the best part of four months ago. I have since tabled two named-day questions to chase it up and both have been ignored. The Chair of the Procedure Committee wrote to the Home Secretary over a week ago, and still I have had no response. Is there any further mechanism to stop the Home Secretary ignoring the democratic processes that are in place to hold him to account?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of this point of order. Clearly, it is unsatisfactory that she has not had a ministerial response to her question, though, of course, the content of the response is for Ministers. The Chair of the Procedure Committee has recently written to the Home Secretary. I hope that a response will now swiftly be forthcoming. If it is not and she needs to return to the House to raise this matter, that will be extremely unfortunate, but if she has to raise it again, she will, and if she does, I will respond as appropriate.
I hope more widely that the distinction between opinion and an effective order is clear to, accepted by and commands the assent of, the House.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In substance, just to be clear, you are absolutely right that a motion of this House is an expression of opinion. Ultimately, if this House has an opinion to which it is sufficiently attached and which the Government refuse to adopt, this House can remove the Government, but recently this House expressed confidence in the Government. Unless this House changes its mind on that, the Government should respect what the House says and respond to it respectfully, but they are not bound to implement an instruction that is expressed in the form of an opinion in a motion passed by the House of Commons.
Mr Speaker
Where a motion is declared to be effective and binding, it is effective and binding, or, if it suits the palate of the hon. Gentleman and he prefers the words the other way round, binding and effective.
Mr Speaker
Well, the hon. Gentleman offers his political opinion from a sedentary position and he is perfectly entitled to his political opinion, but I am answering questions about procedural propriety. Although I much value the camaraderie of the hon. Gentleman and his occasionally proffered advice, I do have other sources of advice and I do feel that I can manage with the advice that I am offered. I am quite capable, after nine and a half years, of discharging the obligations of the Chair, which I do, on the basis not of political opinion, but of what is right in parliamentary terms—not what somebody thinks about a political subject, but what is right in parliamentary terms. The Clerk and I regularly discuss these matters, and I will always do what I think is right by the House of Commons whether or not a particular person likes it. I also observe the Standing Orders of the House, which, I am sure, is something with which the hon. Gentleman, most of the time, is familiar.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You described the debate today as hugely important to Parliament and the country, as indeed it is. Would there not be an expectation, under Standing Orders, that, if the motion today is in the name of the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister is here either to open or to close the debate? Would that not be what the House might expect?
Mr Speaker
No. It may well be desired by the hon. Lady, and it is clear that that is what she desires, but it is not to be expected, and there are very large numbers of cases in which it is not so. Perhaps she is trying to establish a new standard, but it is not yet there.
Mr Speaker
I am not sure that the House particularly wants another point of order at this time.
Business of the House (Today)
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
UK’s Withdrawal from the EU
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 306 / Noes: 322 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:15 - The House divided: - Ayes: 93 / Noes: 315 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:29 - The House divided: - Ayes: 258 / Noes: 303 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Speaker
I have provisionally selected the following amendments in the following order: (a) in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn); (i) in the name of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford); and (e) in the name of the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry).
I remind the House that, under the terms of the business motion just agreed to, the debate may continue until 5 pm, at which time the question shall be put on any amendments that may then be moved. To open the debate, I call the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen Barclay)
I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the Prime Minister’s statement of 12 February 2019; reiterates its support for the approach to leaving the EU expressed by this House on 29 January 2019 and notes that discussions between the UK and the EU on the Northern Ireland backstop are ongoing.
On 29 January, a majority of right hon. and hon. Members told this House and our country that they would support a deal, but that this support was conditional. Members were prepared to compromise on issues, but not on the overriding issue of the backstop. The Government’s motion today references and confirms this House’s support for the motion passed on 29 January, as amended by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady). His amendment in effect gave this Government an instruction, which we have taken to our European partners.
This Parliament’s mandate must now be the given the opportunity to achieve its end, and the Prime Minister must be given the chance to ensure that. It is clear that the Government’s priority is to address the indefinite nature of the backstop, which, under article 50, is legally required to be temporary. Today I will address issues raised by a certain number of my hon. and right hon. Friends who are concerned about whether this motion gives credence to the idea that the Government are taking no deal off the table.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
Given the debate and dispute about the meaning of the Government’s motion, will my right hon. Friend be clear with the House that if the European Union does not agree to a deal that is acceptable to this House and the Government, we will still be leaving on 29 March?
Stephen Barclay
I am very happy to give my right hon. Friend and predecessor in this role that assurance. The Cabinet’s position on no deal has been agreed; it was agreed in response to the Cabinet paper that I presented on 18 December. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has repeated her commitment to the timescale on numerous occasions, including again in her statement this week.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Secretary of State has set out why he is observing what the House said on alternative arrangements, so why is he not also observing and acting on what the House has said on the Government ruling out no deal?
Stephen Barclay
The short answer is that the House has said two different things. It passed by a big majority legislation on article 50, which many Members on both sides of the House voted for. It passed by a large margin legislation to say we are leaving the EU on 29 March, and put that date on the face of the withdrawal Bill. The House also voted by a large margin to give the people the decision through the referendum. Frankly, the legislation takes precedence over the motion to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. In essence, this issue was raised earlier in a point of order. I appreciate that he is making this point as an intervention, but it is the same point.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I encourage the Government to keep their nerve during these negotiations. I accept that the vast majority in this place would favour a good deal over no deal, but will the Government confirm for absolute clarity that if we are not able to secure a good deal—probably courtesy of intransigence by the EU—we will not only leave on 29 March, but will leave on no-deal/World Trade Organisation terms?
Stephen Barclay
My hon. Friend, as a former member of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, knows all about holding his nerve. He is correct that Parliament needs to hold its nerve. We need to send a clear signal to those in the European Union with whom we are discussing these issues, who share our desire to have a deal and to deliver on our shared values, and who respect the fact that we are trading partners, and wish to get on with the future economic partnership and work together.
Mr Baron
I think we all agree about the importance of keeping our nerve, and keeping no deal on the table actually makes a good deal more likely, but will the Secretary of State answer my specific question and confirm that if we do not achieve a good deal on 29 March, we will not just leave the EU, but will leave on no-deal terms?
Stephen Barclay
For the avoidance of doubt, I am happy to confirm that, because that is what the legislation says. The only way to avoid no deal—as the Prime Minister has repeatedly said, and as is backed up in legislation—is either to secure a deal on the terms that the Prime Minister has set out, with the mandate that the House gave her in response to the earlier motion, or to revoke article 50. The court case says that the only alternative would be to revoke, and revoking would be unconditional and unequivocal.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
My right hon. Friend was just moving on to an alternative, but it seems to me that he has just given the starkest expression of policy that I have heard the Government give so far on what will happen if the present negotiations fail; these are alarming possibilities. He says that we are bound by the legislation relating to article 50, which indeed we are, but when the House agreed to use article 50, it was on the assumption that a negotiated deal would be arrived at. [Interruption.] Well, of course it was. Indeed, at one point the Prime Minister presented to this House what she said was the ideal deal with which to go on to the full negotiations towards meeting the Government’s declared aim of having a proper, permanent relationship with the EU in due course. The idea of going for the catastrophe of no deal on the arbitrary date of 29 March, simply because the Prime Minister will probably fail to persuade the other member states to put a time limit on a permanent open border in Europe, is ridiculous. The Government could have a policy of coming back here to defer or revoke article 50 to put the situation in some order.
Stephen Barclay
Although I obviously respect the considerable experience of the Father of the House, I frankly do not accept that merely restating the legislative position is presenting issues in a stark way; nor do I accept that the Prime Minister will fail. The Prime Minister is working in the national interest, is seeking to bring our country together, and is seeking a deal for our country. A short extension of article 50 does not take no deal off the table. It simply prolongs that uncertainty; it leaves in place the risk of no deal in a few months’ time.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The Prime Minister met hon. Members in the Boothroyd Room before the first vote, which she lost by 230, and said that if her deal was not accepted, it was either no deal or no Brexit. An amendment could have been moved to revoke article 50 today, but should not the Government be moving towards that point? We should put it to the House: we either have the Brexit that is going to crash the economy, or, with one letter from the Prime Minister to the European Union, we forget this silly game and revoke this nonsense. It could be over in an afternoon. Get on with it.
Stephen Barclay
Given the propensity of the Scottish National party to have referendums and not respect the result, the one thing that we can always be sure of with the SNP is that it will not be over in an afternoon.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
I very much want to see a deal done. It is in the interests of the country, and it is definitely in the interests of industry. The European Union has a wide history of changing its mind and coming through with fresh negotiations, perhaps at the very last minute. Will my right hon. Friend tell me how his talks have been going, and does he think that we should allow the Government to do exactly what they are doing?
Stephen Barclay
As is so often the case, my right hon. Friend reflects a sentiment that one hears expressed in the country at large, which is the desire for a deal. As he says, that desire is shared by many people we have been speaking to in the European Union. They recognise that no deal is in the interest of neither side, and that it is disruptive. Later, I will come to what Chancellor Merkel said about seeking a constructive solution. The political situation in many European countries, and the coalition that is in place, again shows that this is in the interests of both sides.
Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Of course we want to get a deal with the European Union, but is not taking no deal off the table the surest way of ensuring that the other side dig in on their current position? That is just a fact of life. Those who call for no deal to be taken off the table are playing into the hands of the possibility of no deal. Will the Secretary of State update the House on his discussions with his Irish counterparts, given that they play a crucial role? They cannot hide behind Brussels; likewise, Brussels cannot hide behind Dublin on these issues.
Stephen Barclay
The right hon. Gentleman is right on both points. First, it is important that we have no deal on the table. Indeed, the only way to take it off the table is either to have a deal or to revoke Brexit entirely.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Barclay
If I can make some progress, I will come on to the discussions the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, which include the discussion that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had with the Taoiseach last week, and also her visit to Northern Ireland, where there is a shared desire on this, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows. Indeed, in the House yesterday, in his evidence to the Exiting the European Union Committee, the highly respected former Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, talked about the impact of no deal from an Irish perspective, and the common desire to seek agreement.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Barclay
I will make some progress, and then will happily take further interventions. A number of interventions have sought to represent the position of the Prime Minister, so it is worth reminding the House of what the Prime Minister said:
“the Government’s position remains the same: the House voted to trigger article 50; that had a two-year timeline that ends on 29 March; we want to leave with a deal, and that is what we are working for.”—[Official Report, 13 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 881.]
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Barclay
I am going to make a little progress, and then I will happily take further interventions.
This is also an important issue for European leaders’ positions on whether, if the EU were to make changes to the backstop, that would enable a deal to pass. That is why it is important to the negotiations that a clear message be sent from this House. Colleagues should be in no doubt that the EU will be watching our votes tonight carefully for any sign that our resolve is weakening. We shall not give it that excuse not to engage. Indeed, in the discussions we have been having with European leaders, there is recognition, as reflected by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds), of the shared desire to secure a deal, because the impact of no deal is asymmetric within the EU27. Indeed, that is a part of the discussions that member states are having with the European Commission.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Given that the European Union is saying that it will not entertain any legal changes to the withdrawal agreement—I share the Secretary of State’s desire to get a deal and have made it very clear that if it came to it I would consider supporting the Government in a future vote—what I need to know from the Secretary of State is what compromise he is going to give to this House that better reflects the will of this House rather than simply putting a deal back to us that has already been comprehensively rejected.
Stephen Barclay
I am going to come on to that exact issue. The hon. Gentleman cited at the start of his intervention the premise that the European position, as stated, is that there will be no movement. Well, actually, the European Union has also stated that it wants to avoid no deal, which is hugely damaging. The European Union has also stated that it wants to be clear what the will of this House is and what is required in order to secure a deal. It is self-evident that there is a degree of ambiguity between those positions. Indeed—I will come on to this—the discussions we have been having with European leaders are absolutely on that issue. That is why we need some time, in terms of the vote this evening, to continue with those discussions.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Further to the Secretary of State’s answer to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), is he really saying that if the Government have no deal in place by the end of March—if they have run out of time—then they would go ahead with no deal on 29 March even when top police chiefs are saying that it will make the country less safe and NHS leaders are saying that there will be shortages of medicines? Is he 100% committed to no deal on 29 March in those circumstances, or are there any circumstances in which he would extend article 50?
Stephen Barclay
Again, what I set out was that we are 100% committed to the position set out and agreed by the Cabinet. That position was agreed on 18 December. I was drawing the House’s attention to the fact that the motion today does not change that position, and that position is that it is our priority to secure a deal. I have stated at the Dispatch Box previously that the best way to mitigate the risk of no deal is to secure a deal. I will come on to some of the issues in respect of the consequences of no deal. I have been quite clear with some of my colleagues on my own Benches that I do view no deal as disruptive—much more so than some of my hon. and right hon. Friends. Our priority is to secure a deal, but the principal operational focus if not is to prepare for what is the legal position.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
The reality is that the vote against no deal in this House was more convincingly passed, including with cross-party support, than the vote to have the Prime Minister go back and negotiate on alternative arrangements. The Government cannot simply just pick and choose which votes they will support. That is fundamentally wrong and anti-democratic, and it is the totally wrong way to handle such an important issue for this country as Brexit. Does the Secretary of State not see that? Can he not listen to the representatives of communities around this country who are deeply concerned about a no-deal exit and want this House’s will to be respected?
Stephen Barclay
Again, I very much respect the position of my right hon. Friend. I suspect that, on this, we will agree to disagree. I have set out, first, the position as agreed by the Cabinet; secondly, what is the legislative position; and thirdly, what is the interplay in terms of the motion before the House this evening. I absolutely respect her in terms of how she cast her vote in that Division, but the point is that it does not change the stated position of the Government, and that is what I was setting out.
Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
I support the Prime Minister’s deal. I want us to get a deal. But I am looking very closely at this motion, which includes the words:
“support for the approach to leaving the EU expressed by this House on 29 January”.
Two motions were carried that night, both of which I supported. I would like to hear from my right hon. Friend that he gives equal respect to the opinions expressed by the House, for if he fails to do that, it is contemptuous of this House.
Stephen Barclay
First, I absolutely respect votes of this House. Indeed, when we had, for example, the Humble Address on the Attorney General’s legal advice—
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I just appeal to the Secretary of State? He is, in my experience, a most courteous individual, and I understand the natural temptation to look in the direction of the person questioning him, but the House wants to be hearing what he says. Please face the House.
Stephen Barclay
I absolutely accept your direction on that point, Mr Speaker. I was seeking to engage with my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) on the point she is making about respecting the House. Of course we do. That also applied, for example, in votes such as that on the Attorney General’s legal advice, which was disclosed following a Humble Address, notwithstanding the precedent that creates for a future Government.
The point I was merely stating, which I thought was a point of fact, is that the legislative position as it currently stands is as set out following the vote to trigger article 50. That is the position.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Barclay
I have taken quite a few interventions and I will make a bit of progress, not least because I am conscious that many others will wish to speak.
One part of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West was to explore whether technology offered a solution to the backstop. I am grateful to my hon. and right hon. Friends who have engaged with this work. Following the support of the House for the amendment, including that approach, the Prime Minister gave a commitment to engage seriously with the ideas put forward, and I have held a series of detailed meetings doing just that. The political declaration makes it explicit that both the EU and the UK agree to exploring alternative arrangements. I am happy to commit to my hon. and right hon. Friends that the Government will take that forward, including both investing civil service resource in exploring its viability and considering its acceptability to the community as a whole.
The possibility of alternative arrangements, as envisaged by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West, has been reflected in the wording of the political declaration. The document notes that the UK and the EU
“envisage making use of all available facilitative arrangements and technologies”.
It goes further, noting that such technology should
“be considered in developing any alternative arrangements for ensuring the absence of a hard border on the island of Ireland on a permanent footing.”
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that using techniques and technology that already exist at the border in Northern Ireland is a good foundation for the alternative arrangements?
Stephen Barclay
I agree. That is already agreed by the European Union and the United Kingdom in its reflection in the political declaration. I have been discussing that issue with hon. and right hon. Friends in the alternative arrangements working group. I also raised it in my discussions earlier in the week with Monsieur Barnier, as I committed to do. I must be frank with the House that he was sceptical about the timescale, but we are actively discussing it. I simply point out that that is already accepted in the political declaration, and following the working group, we are exploring what can be done in terms of the timescale of that work.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Is it now Government policy to take forward the Malthouse compromise that we have all read about? Will the Secretary of State take a fully worked-up proposal to the European Union as part of the negotiations?
Stephen Barclay
I can confirm that we have taken it forward to the European Union, in that I have raised it with Monsieur Barnier. I will be discussing it again with him. He has raised some initial concerns, but we are making that case and discussing it with him. It is already accepted by the European Union in terms of the political declaration and the workstream that will flow from that.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State just told the House that he has put proposals to Michel Barnier. Can he therefore explain why Donald Tusk said yesterday that the EU27 are
“still waiting for concrete, realistic proposals from London on how to break #Brexit impasse”?
Stephen Barclay
One should always be slightly cautious about what is said on Twitter, and that applies even to someone as esteemed as President Tusk. I was simply updating the House on the discussions I have had with Michel Barnier, my opposite number in the European Commission, to follow up on what this House agreed, which was that we should explore that. We have engaged seriously with colleagues on it and raised it with the European Commission.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The task that the Secretary of State has set out in terms of the alternatives is large, and the window to deliver it is getting smaller. I appreciate that we are not going to extend article 50 for no purpose, but in the interests of pragmatism, if all it requires is another three or four weeks’ work just to dot the i’s and cross the t’s, surely to goodness we are not going to bite off our nose to spite our face.
Stephen Barclay
I respect my hon. Friend’s point, but what I hear from many, particularly in the business community, is that they do not want more uncertainty. They want to see this move forward, and they want to see a deal secured.
In terms of the next steps, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will meet President Juncker next week, and today she is holding conversations with other European leaders. In parallel, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General is pursuing other avenues for a possible legal challenge to the agreement. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made the wider Government position clear to many in the EU, as I have to the leader of the European People’s party, the European Parliament’s Brexit co-ordinator and the EU’s chief negotiator. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and I have met a wide range of key European stakeholders.
While the EU’s public statements have said that there will be no reopening of the withdrawal agreement, it has also said, as I pointed out to the right hon. Member for Belfast North, that it wants to avoid no deal and wants to reach an agreement that will be supported by this House. Members will have seen the comments from leading European figures such as the German Chancellor, who spoke of her desire for a “constructive solution”. The House needs to give the Prime Minister time to explore that.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, although he may not be so grateful for this intervention. Will he confirm that the British Government have absolutely no intention of replacing the backstop, which is essential for maintaining peace on the island of Ireland—a hard-won peace that we value in Northern Ireland?
Stephen Barclay
I looked with interest at the hon. Lady’s reference in the Brexit Select Committee to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and in particular her point about mutual consent and bringing the community with her. That point is particularly well made, and it is at the forefront of the discussions that the Prime Minister is having with the Taoiseach and European leaders in the context of the backstop.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
The amendment that the House passed, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West, clearly stated that the intention was to replace the backstop with alternative arrangements to avoid a hard border. We have had constructive meetings with the Secretary of State. Can he confirm that the Malthouse compromise is stated Government policy, has been put to Monsieur Barnier and now has the full force of the civil service to work it up into legally binding text?
Stephen Barclay
I have already confirmed to the House that this issue has been raised with Michel Barnier. I have given a commitment that it will be raised again in our next exchange. I have given a commitment that civil servants are engaging on this issue. I have also communicated the fact that the initial response from Michel Barnier was to raise concerns about the extent of concessions that would be required, but that is part of the discussion we are having.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Barclay
I have taken a lot of interventions. I am conscious that many other Members wish to speak, including the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), so I will make some progress.
It is clear that a workable compromise with the EU on the backstop can secure a substantial and sustainable majority in this House and give the Prime Minister a clear and irrefutable mandate to get her deal over the line. In supporting the Government’s motion today, this House can do exactly that. Getting to a compromise is a challenge, but it is not an insurmountable one. It requires the EU and the UK to come together and find a solution, and it calls for both sides of the House to continue to work hard to find and grow the common ground, which is in the interests of many watching these proceedings.
As we prepare to exit the European Union, this Government are focused on their most pressing task—to deliver a legally binding change to the backstop—and committed to delivering on that key demand. I am meeting European ambassadors tomorrow to continue making that case, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is speaking today with a series of European leaders. We are also engaging widely across the House, be that with the alternative arrangements working group, yesterday with the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras or in the 30 January meeting between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
We have a clear outcome: a programme of engagement with European leaders and engagement across this House. Tonight Members need to give the Government time to make good on this work and, as a House, to hold our nerve, to deliver a deal that addresses the twin risks of no deal or no Brexit and to respect the biggest vote in our democratic history and deliver what people voted for.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I rise to support amendment (a) in my name and that of the Leader of the Opposition. The Secretary of State ended by saying that we have to “hold our nerve”, but he was all over the place this afternoon on all the important issues.
It is obvious—obvious—what the Prime Minister is up to. She is pretending to make progress while running down the clock: a non-update every other week to buy another two weeks of process, and inching ever closer to the 29 March deadline in 43 days’ time. We should not be fooled. Let us look at the history of recent months and set it against the exchanges today. The Prime Minister pulled the meaningful vote on 10 December, promising to seek further reassurances on the backstop. She feared a significant defeat, and it was obvious that the backstop was the problem way back then, as it had been through the autumn. That was 66 days ago, and there were then 109 days until 29 March.
Keir Starmer
I will in a minute.
And the Prime Minister returned with nothing—warm words in the margins of the EU summit in December, and a letter, coupled with a statement about Northern Ireland, that simply repeated already existing commitments. That is what she came back with. The meaningful vote was then put on 15 January, and it was lost heavily. That evening, the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and promised to explore ideas with the European Union, following cross-party talks on how to proceed. That was 30 days ago, and there were then 75 days until 29 March.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Keir Starmer
I will in just a minute.
Two weeks after that, on 29 January, the Prime Minister voted for the so-called Brady amendment.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Keir Starmer
I will give way in just a minute.
The amendment called for the backstop to be replaced with alternative arrangements. It was extraordinary: a Prime Minister voting to support her own deal only on condition that it is changed—conditional support for her own deal. Nobody prepared the business community for that, and nobody prepared Northern Ireland or EU leaders for that. Anybody who has spoken to businesses, been to Northern Ireland or spoken to political leaders in the EU in recent days knows that, by three-line whipping her own MPs to vote against the deal she negotiated, the Prime Minister has lost a good deal of trust in the process.
James Cleverly
Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman not understand the nonsense of his own argument? He suggests on the one hand that the Prime Minister is trying to run down the clock, and then he lists the various occasions when she has attempted to stop the clock, get a deal and exit the European Union.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that intervention: I think the hon. Gentleman has missed the point. The Prime Minister has spent weeks—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman wants an answer and then interrupts while I am trying to speak. The Prime Minister has spent weeks and weeks trying to negotiate changes to the backstop—it started way before the vote was pulled on 10 December, and it has gone on ever since—and she has got absolutely nowhere.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Keir Starmer
I will just make the next point and then I will give way.
The idea that the vote on 29 January for the Brady amendment gave clarity is for the birds. The Government united around a proposition that they want an alternative to the backstop, but uniting around an alternative that means different things to different people does not get anybody anywhere, and that is the central problem.
Keir Starmer
I will in just one minute.
On Tuesday, in another non-update from the Prime Minister, she said what she wanted on the backstop and listed three things: a time-limited backstop; an ability unilaterally to end the backstop; or alternative arrangements. That is how she put it. The first two of those have been repeatedly ruled out by the EU for months, and there is no sign of any movement. The Secretary of State, from his discussions in Brussels in recent days, knows that very well—there is no room for a move on those two fronts.
Keir Starmer
I will in just a second.
The third option—alternative arrangements—remains undefined, and when the Prime Minister is pressed, either here or in Brussels, about exactly what she means, she does not say. The Malthouse compromise and the answer the Secretary of State gave about it give the game away. If that was a serious proposition and the Government were engaging with it, they would adopt it as policy and put resource into it, but they are not doing so. What signal does that send to Brussels about what the Government really think about the Malthouse compromise?
Mark Pritchard
May I commend the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his courage and bravery in standing up for his own alternative arrangements, which of course include a second referendum? I just wonder how he is getting on with that in his own party. More importantly, does he believe a second referendum would increase or decrease investor and business confidence in the United Kingdom?
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for the concern, and I am getting on fine, thanks very much. I will tell the hon. Gentleman and the House one thing on business certainty. I have been talking to hundreds of businesses across the country. Even in the last 10 days, I have been in Belfast, Cardiff, Birmingham and Dublin talking to businesses. What they are most concerned about is the uncertainty of the situation that we are in now, and all of them would welcome anything that prevents a no-deal Brexit.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Are not all these meetings and activity that my right hon. and learned Friend is outlining, when it comes to these alternative arrangements, really just a repetition of the Brexit unicorns on no hard border that we have heard time and again? The reality is that the Government’s strategy on this is the same as it has always been, which is the desperate hope that Chancellor Merkel will come to the rescue and the European Union will throw Ireland under the bus.
Keir Starmer
I completely agree with that intervention and that observation.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. and learned Friend has been talking to businesses, as I have. Does he agree that the issue of no deal is a matter not simply for 28 March, but for now? Exports can take six weeks and companies need to make decisions now about how they are planning to trade.
Keir Starmer
I do agree with that. One of the things that saddens me most from the discussions I have had in the last two or three weeks—the Secretary of State and others who have had such discussions know exactly what is being said—is that decisions are having to be made because of the fear of no deal. Such decisions are being triggered, but the chilling bit from the discussions I have had is that some of those steps are now irreversible. This is the first time we have come to that point.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Is not the thing this House has to understand that the backstop is there in case the Malthouse compromise turns into the Malthouse fantasy—if all the technologies are technological fantasies —and that Europe cannot give up on the backstop just because of all the wishy-washy promises from the UK Government? The EU has to stick with it, and Conservative Members just do not understand that.
Keir Starmer
The EU has been very clear about the backstop. It is to be observed that there are hon. Members working on the Malthouse compromise, but it is equally to be observed that the Government have not adopted it as their policy position.
Several hon. Members rose—
Keir Starmer
I will just make a bit of progress on this point.
So it goes on, and so it will go on. The simple and painful truth is this: if there had been a viable alternative to the backstop, there would never have been a backstop. The negotiating parties, as everybody knows, searched for months for that elusive alternative. If there had been an alternative, the Prime Minister would never have signed up to the backstop and neither would the EU. They searched and they searched, and they did not find it, and everybody who has observed the negotiations knows that. The chances of a breakthrough now, in 43 days, seem to me to be slim.
Stephen Gethins
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a powerful point, as always, about the ineptitude of this Government. We know that there is not a whole lot of love, even on St Valentine’s Day, for the Government’s deal—we know that—and we know that we are in danger of crashing off the cliff edge, with the damage that that will cause, and he is right to highlight it. Will he back our amendment (i), which very simply asks for an extension of no less than three months to ensure that we can avoid such a no-deal Brexit?
Keir Starmer
I have sympathy with the point that we will need an extension to article 50 sooner or later, whether a deal goes through or not, and that the question is what is the right binding mechanism for doing that. We will support measures proposed by others on that issue in due course, and I will return to that point.
Mr Baron
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is being generous with his time. In contrast to what he just claimed, the Secretary of State’s point was admirably clear. A good deal is preferable to no deal, but if there is no deal we will leave the EU on 29 March on those terms. Labour Members have an unfortunate habit of taking everything that the EU says as gospel, which is clearly not the case, and they ignore the fact that the EU could write the textbook on 11th-hour deals. Have some optimism in the ability to achieve a deal.
Keir Starmer
As for the Prime Minister taking us out of the EU on 29 March this year without a deal—we’ll see about that. I do not think that the majority in this House will countenance that; I think the majority in this House will do everything they can to prevent it. Having worked with the Prime Minister when she was Home Secretary and I was Director of Public Prosecutions, I know that she has a deep sense of duty. Deep down, I do not think that this Prime Minister will take us out of the EU without a deal on 29 March, and that is the basis on which we should be having this discussion.
Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
My right hon. and learned Friend is right in what he says about business and the need for clarity, and it is clear for all to see that the Government will need to apply for an extension to article 50 to avoid no deal, or even if there is a deal. The reason they are not doing so, and the reason why the Brexit Secretary is not saying what he should to give certainty to business, is that the Conservative party will not face down the party within a party that is the European Research Group. Face those people down!
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that intervention, and my right hon. Friend puts his finger on it.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Is my right hon. and learned Friend as astonished as I am that we have a Prime Minister and Government who are willing to take this reckless gamble with the future prosperity of our country, just to keep their rotten party together?
Several hon. Members rose—
Keir Starmer
I will make some progress. I have taken a lot of interventions, and I will take some more in a minute. My simple point, which I stand by, is that both sides have been searching for this alternative for most of the negotiations, and certainly since the phase 1 agreement in December a year ago. People have been searching for an alternative and they have not found it. If they had found it, we would not have a backstop. The likelihood of them finding that alternative in the next few weeks seems to me very slim, and even if they do, the chances of the deal getting through, with everything that has to follow by 29 March, are even slimmer. So many pieces of legislation and statutory instruments still need to be resolved.
That exposes what is really going on—this has come out in comments from across the House—which is a Prime Minister who is running down the clock and hoping to get to March, or even the end of March. The House should remember that the next EU summit is on 21 March, and if we get real changes to the deal, that is when they are likely to be signed off. At that late stage, the plan is essentially to send the same deal back to this House as a binary choice: my deal or no deal. There might be additional words that the Attorney General can say have real significance, but it will essentially be the same deal. That is not holding our nerve; that is playing recklessly, and we must say no.
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is being extraordinarily generous in giving way. No self-respecting businessman or woman would walk into negotiations on a deal and take no deal off the table. The United Kingdom is negotiating the biggest business deal in its history. It therefore makes sense to keep no deal on the table, because we know from the history of the EU that it makes concessions at the last minute. We need to hold our nerve. If we do, then at the wire we will get a good deal in the interests of both the EU and the United Kingdom.
Keir Starmer
I do not know how to let the hon. Gentleman down gently, but let me try this: we are so patently unprepared for no deal that it is not credible. Let me give an example. There are very serious allegations against people in custody across the EU under the European arrest warrant, which goes between our country and the EU27, and vice versa. If we leave without a deal, no arrangements are in place to deal with that. The idea that we will leave in such a way is simply not credible.
I have heard the argument that if we face the truth and say that no deal is not credible, that somehow plays into the EU’s hands. We have heard that for the past two years. I stood here and said that the Government needed to publish a plan of their objectives—remember the days when they said that they could not even do that because it would give the game away and the negotiations would be over? Then they published a plan. I stood here and argued that we needed an impact assessment. What was the response? They said, “If we publish impact assessments, the show will be over. Nobody in a negotiation would do that.” I stood here and said that we needed legal advice, and we got the same argument: “If we do that, the show will be over. We will give into the EU.” Now we have the same thing with a no-deal scenario. It is not credible, and it is not going to work.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman so much for giving way—I was beginning to think I had an invisibility cloak on. Just over a week ago there was a debate on a petition about extending article 50, which was signed by more than 100,000 members of the public. I spoke in that debate, which was sparsely attended, but I did not hear from the shadow Front Bencher that Labour policy is to extend article 50. Indeed, some speakers made it sound as if Labour policy was to have a people’s vote. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm what Labour is arguing for?
Keir Starmer
I am sure the question of policy is important, but I am facing the practical reality. We are 43 days away from 29 March, and no credible alternative is in sight. Either we accept that or we do not. The Prime Minister keeps coming back and giving a non-update: “I’m meeting people”—she does not say she has agreed anything—“can I have another two weeks?” We have been going on like that for weeks, and it must stop.
Several hon. Members rose—
Keir Starmer
I am going to make some progress. Labour’s amendment is intended to put a hard stop to running down the clock. It states that on 27 February the Government must put a deal to the House for its approval, or table an amendable motion so that the House can take control of what happens next. It is essential that we do so. Businesses are saying that they cannot wait any longer. They are putting off investment decisions, and they cannot tolerate the threat of no deal. They are making and implementing contingency plans, some of which are irreversible.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a strong point about the perils of no deal. Does he agree that the Government’s position on no deal is not just criminally reckless, it is also plain stupid? The EU knows as well as we do that a no-deal scenario would hurt us an awful lot more than it would hurt it. Threatening to put a gun to our own head is not a clever negotiating strategy.
Keir Starmer
I agree and I am grateful for that intervention. That is really the point. If it is not credible that we can leave on 29 March without a deal, and it is not, it is actually not a negotiating stance at all. It has never been seen in that way and it does not work. It is just farcical to suggest that we have to keep up the pretence that we are ready because then the EU will back down. It is ridiculous.
Let us put some detail on this. We have heard the warnings from Airbus and Nissan about future jobs and investment in the UK. Yesterday, Ford, another huge UK employer, said that no deal would be
“catastrophic for the UK auto industry and Ford’s manufacturing operations in the country”,
and that it will
“take whatever action is necessary to preserve the competitiveness of our European business.”
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that business wants certainty—he has made big play of that—but it was the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and GE Aviation in my constituency that said, “For goodness’ sake, back the Prime Minister’s deal.” He did not do that. He must understand that in failing to do so he and the Labour party become complicit in a crash-out.
Keir Starmer
Well, I am not going to take that lying down for this reason: on the Government Benches, did they vote for the deal on 29 January? [Interruption.] Hang on, hear me out. The answer to that is no. Anybody who voted for the Brady amendment was saying that it is conditional on change, so do not lecture anybody else about voting for the deal. Even the Prime Minister says, “On reflection, I’m not voting for my deal unless there are changes.” The hon. Gentleman really cannot throw the challenge across the House and say that the Opposition have to support the unchanged deal but the Prime Minister wants it changed.
Some on the Government Benches will casually dismiss the threat of job losses as “Project Fear.” It is not “Project Fear”—it is “Project Reality.” It is the jobs and livelihoods of those we represent that are at stake.
Several hon. Members rose—
Keir Starmer
I am going to make some progress and then I will give way again.
Therefore, we need to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent a no-deal exit. Two weeks ago, this House voted to approve the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman). That was hugely welcome and it is just as binding on the Government as what else was passed that evening—you can’t choose one part and not the other. It showed what the Opposition have always said: there is no majority in this House for a no deal.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
I have listened carefully today. In defence of the Secretary of State, he has made it quite clear that the Government’s policy, if it comes to it and the deal does not pass in the week beginning 25 March, is to leave with no deal. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman clear in his mind what his party’s position will be in the same circumstances?
Keir Starmer
I am. Happily, we discussed that at our party conference and agreed unanimously—something I do not think happened at the hon. Gentleman’s party conference—[Interruption.] He knows very well what it is. It is to vote on the deal; if the deal does not go through, to call for a general election; and if that does not happen, there are two options: a close economic relationship and a public vote. We committed at our party conference to ensure we take whatever steps are necessary to avoid a no-deal exit and we will do so.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Excuse me, I have a bit of a head cold. The amount of white flags being thrown would give anyone a head cold. Can the shadow Brexit Secretary confirm that the Labour party’s position is that there must be legally binding changes to the withdrawal agreement on the backstop? That is the same position as that of DUP Members.
Keir Starmer
The position of the Labour party is that we have concerns about the backstop. [Interruption.] This is a very serious point and I intend to answer it. I have not yet met anybody who does not have concerns about the backstop, both here and in Brussels, but we also recognise that, at this stage, with the article 50 window all but closed, we need a backstop, and it is inevitable that we need a backstop. That is our position.
Lady Hermon
I thank the shadow Brexit Secretary for allowing me to intervene on that very important point. He is very knowledgeable about Northern Ireland and is a great friend to Northern Ireland. He will recognise the importance of the backstop to the people of Northern Ireland and indeed across the United Kingdom. There seems to be some confusion about what the leader of the Labour party says about the backstop and what he, the shadow Brexit Secretary, says. I think the people of Northern Ireland—indeed, this House—are entitled to clarification from the right hon. and learned Gentleman about what exactly the position of the Labour party is on the backstop.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that intervention. As the hon. Lady knows, I worked in Northern Ireland for five years with the Northern Ireland Policing Board. I know how deeply this is felt in Northern Ireland across all communities. I was there for two days last week. I made the point there that, although we have concerns about the backstop, we do accept that there must be a backstop, it is inevitable and that, therefore, notwithstanding those concerns, we support a backstop. That is very important.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way because I actually find that I agree with a great deal of what he is saying. He is saying that leaving with no deal would bring huge consequences for our economy and we should not countenance it. He is also saying that within the withdrawal agreement he sees the need for a backstop. I have listened closely to what he said before: that he also agrees on the elements about needing a transition period and certainty on citizens’ rights. Given that he now appears to agree with everything that is in the withdrawal agreement, why will he not vote for it and what more does he need?
Keir Starmer
I am not sure the hon. Lady carefully read the proposition we were voting for on the meaningful vote. It was the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration taken together. The statute requires them to be taken together, because we cannot read the withdrawal agreement without reference to the political declaration and vice versa. What I have said about the backstop is important and it is important I say it for the whole of the United Kingdom, but particularly for people in Northern Ireland, and I stand by it.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman able to clarify in plain English at what point the Leader of the Opposition will unequivocally back a people’s vote?
Keir Starmer
The policy we have adopted is clear about what the options are. What we are trying to do today is to put a hard stop to the running down of the clock. That will enable options to be considered in due course. I hope that will happen. When they are considered, we will take our position and we will see where the majority is in the House.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
The backstop is taking up a lot of the discussion today because it is incredibly important. May I remind my right hon. and learned Friend that, in the debates leading up to the meaningful vote, concerns about trade were mentioned three times more than the backstop? Can I encourage him to move on now from the backstop and talk about all the other problems that Members across the House have with the deal?
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that intervention. One of the central problems in all this is that the political declaration is 26 pages long, it is vague in the extreme and simply talks about a “spectrum” of outcomes. The main theme of the political declaration is that the extent of any checks at borders will depend on the degree of alignment; therefore, there is a spectrum of outcomes. I think that we all understood that within hours of the referendum. That is why there is all this pressure on the backstop—because the political declaration is so ill-defined.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Following my right hon. and learned Friend’s replies to the hon. Members for Bracknell (Dr Lee) and for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), does he agree that the Government have clearly rejected Labour’s offer of a less damaging Brexit, and that to wait until the end of March to activate our unanimously agreed conference policy in favour of a public vote would be far, far too late?
Keir Starmer
Just as I am about to give the answer I am asked from a sedentary position what the answer is. Perhaps those on the Government Front Bench should just listen. The position is this. As the House knows, we set out the Labour party’s position in a letter to the Prime Minister. We set out in clear terms what a close economic relationship would look like. What was written in that letter has been well received, not only in the United Kingdom, by businesses and trade unions, but by the EU and EU leaders. It is a credible proposition.
Several hon. Members rose—
Keir Starmer
I just want to complete this point, because it is important. The Prime Minister has replied in non-committal terms—one could say that that was inevitable—and we are having discussions, as the Secretary of State says. I am not going to disclose at this stage what those discussions are about because they are, by their nature, confidential. They are ongoing, I think the Secretary of State would want them to be kept confidential—that is the only way in which they can properly be held—and there are plans for further meetings. To go back to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), there must come a point at which the options are clarified, reduced and voted on—I agree with that proposition—and it needs to be done before the end of March.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. and learned Friend is making some important and good points about the Prime Minister’s running down the clock, but he took that round of applause—that standing ovation—at the Labour party conference when he talked about a people’s vote with a remain option, so I have been waiting patiently for the section of his remarks in which he will perhaps dissociate himself from the remarks of the general secretary of Unite, who said yesterday that it would not be in the country’s interests to have remain on the ballot paper in a public vote. We are aware that sections in letters and remarks sometimes have a habit of being redacted by others, perhaps further up the pay chain. Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure us that at the next available opportunity we will be voting in favour of a people’s vote?
Keir Starmer
I do not think I need to associate with or dissociate from anybody on what my views are. I think they are pretty clear. As for the timetable, I have set out the order of events.
Several hon. Members rose—
Keir Starmer
I am going to make some progress and then I will take more interventions. I have taken a lot of interventions and I am conscious that a lot of people want to speak in this debate.
Let me go back to the amendment that was passed in respect of no deal, because it was passed by a majority in this House and is just as important as the other amendment that was passed. Let us make no mistake, though: on its own it is not enough. If Parliament wants to prevent no deal, it has to take further action. We cannot be bystanders; we have to act. The simple truth of it is that we cannot declare that we are against no deal and then do nothing. The Government are failing to act, so we must act. Hence, the next step is to ensure that there is a hard stop to running down the clock.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Keir Starmer
Not at the moment.
The hard stop would ensure that on 27 February the Prime Minister must either put her deal to a vote or allow Parliament to decide what happens next. Let us be clear, though: other steps need to be taken, beyond today’s amendment. They will include the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), which would provide a further safeguard against no deal and allow the House to decide whether the Government should seek an extension of article 50 if no deal has been agreed by 13 March. I hope that anyone who genuinely opposes no deal would see that by that date, 13 March, an extension would be unavoidable.
Gareth Snell
Will my right hon. and learned Friend clarify something for me? I am sympathetic to and almost supportive of the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and her Bill, which was introduced with good sincerity. What is the Labour party Front-Bench position, though? Were we to have an extension that went further than the three months, would my right hon. and learned Friend intend that we would participate in European Union parliamentary elections? Those of us going on the knocker this weekend ought to know.
Keir Starmer
As I have said from this Dispatch Box, so far as the extension is concerned, it obviously depends on the period and the period the EU has indicated might be available is the period till 1 July, because that would avoid involvement in the parliamentary elections. It is not our policy to participate in the parliamentary elections——[Interruption.] For obvious reasons, we will not be—[Interruption.] This is a really serious point. There is this casualness about no deal—that we can somehow, in a macho way, march off the cliff and it will all be fine; it will be so good for the country. The point is that if, by 13 March—just over two weeks before the potential for no deal—there is no deal, we have to take action if we are serious about avoiding the calamity and catastrophe of no deal. I do not mind standing up here and saying that I will take whatever steps are necessary to avoid no deal, because I will never be persuaded—never—that it is a good negotiating tactic or could possibly be good for our country.
The House will then need to debate and vote on credible options to prevent no deal. We have been clear that those options are either the close economic relationship that includes a customs union and close alignment to the single market that we set out in the letter to the Prime Minister, or a public vote on a deal or proposition that can command the support of the House. There are no other credible options remaining, and those options are miles away from the approach that the Government are currently taking. First, though, we need to stop the Government further running down the clock, put in a hard stop and allow this House to take control of the process. That is what today is about and I urge all Members to support our amendment.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
We have moved to yet another of these almost weekly engagements, at which we are told that historic decisions are about to be taken, a meaningful vote is on the verge of emerging and all is going to be clear. Every time we do that, one immediately encounters an appalling shambles—that is the only way to describe the position of the Government and of this Parliament, and I am sure that is the way it is seen by an overwhelming majority of the citizens of this country, regardless of what side of the argument they are on. So far, the debate today is following precisely that pattern.
I have not been lucky enough to have my amendment (c) selected, which is also in the name of, and was tabled at the behest of, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman). An amendment has been selected—the one in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry)—that addresses the same problem, which is that, so far as I can see, in these debates we have not yet identified, and certainly not demonstrated, a clear majority for any particular course. We are not being given many opportunities to do so, and we keep retreating when we get given them. We have to decide—cross-party, obviously, given the divisions—how a majority will be established to pass motions, which in my opinion, under our constitution, will bind a Government, so that we can move policy towards something that resolves this situation satisfactorily.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
I agree with everything that my right hon. and learned Friend has said. Does he agree that a very important discussion that preceded this business—and, indeed, questions and answers during the Secretary of State’s speech—indicated that the only way that what he and I seek to achieve, namely consensus across the House if the Prime Minister’s deal does not succeed, will be implementable is if we legislate for it, and thereby legally bind the Government? The Government have made it perfectly clear—I think the Speaker has ruled in this direction—that they will not be bound by anything short of legislation. That means that we have a rather elaborate process ahead of us as we come to a conclusion over the next few months.
Mr Clarke
I think I agree with that; I cannot give an off-the-cuff response to my right hon. Friend’s detailed procedural point. Eventually, yes, we will have to legislate, first to gain time, and secondly, to get the necessary resolution of these problems in the long-term interests of this country.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend referred to legislation. Of course, he voted for the Third Reading of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which expressly states that the European Communities Act 1972 will be repealed on exit day. Is that not sufficient proof of the need for the kind of legislation to which he referred? We do not need to have all these mysterious differences, because the anchor to the referendum is the repeal of that Act. Does my right hon. and learned Friend not agree? He voted for it.
Mr Clarke
Government and Parliament can at any time produce legislation to reform previous legislation because the circumstances have changed. The idea put forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the Government are now bound by what they passed on article 50 and by the withdrawal Act, and cannot possibly contemplate amending that Act or asking us to vote again on article 50, is, with great respect to him, one of the most preposterous propositions that I have ever heard anybody put before this House. The Government have every possible power in their hands to decide to avoid the calamity of leaving on 29 March with no deal whatever—leaving not with any long-term prospect of pursuing the national interest, but simply because nobody here is able to agree in sufficient numbers on what on earth they want to do. All we are doing is vetoing each other’s propositions on what should go forward.
This all started when the Government’s policy went completely off the rails after they were defeated by a record-breaking majority on an agreement that they had taken two years negotiating in pursuit of what was a clear strategy. It is obvious that we need a preliminary agreement—a withdrawal agreement—on three issues before we leave politically, if we are going to, on 29 March. On leaving, we will spend years negotiating long-term arrangements, not only on trade and investment, but in the many, many areas of activity in which we have based all our arrangements with the outside world on EU membership for almost half a century. It will take a very long time to sort out sensible arrangements.
We all know that the Government’s agreement was rejected. I voted for it; I am in favour of the Government’s withdrawal agreement. Nobody in this House wishes more than I do to see us remain in the united European Union; that would be in this Government’s interests. However, in this House, the majority for leaving is overwhelming. Let us come face to face with reality: there is nothing wrong with the withdrawal agreement; it is perfectly harmless. It gets us into a transition period; then we can negotiate. I will not go on about my views; I have given them before. There is nothing wrong with the Irish backstop at all. To say otherwise is complete invention for the sake of finding things wrong with the deal.
That put us in a dilemma. The agreement was defeated by a variety of people with totally conflicting objectives. The biggest vote against it was from the Labour party, officially. As interventions have shown, it is rather puzzling to say quite what the Labour party had against the withdrawal agreement. I have just heard the Irish backstop accepted by its Front-Bench spokesman—quite rightly; it is necessary, unfortunately. The money has been settled, and nobody is arguing about EU citizens’ rights. Labour voted against the agreement because it was a divided party, and it decided that the only thing on which it could keep itself together was on all voting against the Government. That was all.
Both the big parties are shattered now; there were large rebellions on both sides. The biggest group of people who joined in the defeat were ardent remainers who, unlike me, are firm believers in the people’s vote. They are still facing difficulties, because they do not want us to leave on any terms, so they are going to keep—
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr Clarke
I will give way to my right hon. Friend—my best friend among all these arch-remainers, who are otherwise my political allies in the House, day in, day out, though they all voted against the agreement. They are still threatening to do so, because they do not want to leave. They think there should be a people’s vote.
Then there was a faction of people who were not content to vote for the political agreement, because it will take years to negotiate and is rather general, and who wished to be reassured on the record, before we started negotiations, that we would establish basic and sensible points, such as our staying in a customs union and having some regulatory alignment. If that was established, all the arguments about the Irish border would go completely out of the window, because we would have an open border in Ireland and an open border in England. I would like to see that. I would vote for that—and I have, several times; I voted with the official Opposition once or twice on a customs union—but it is not necessary, because everything is up for grabs after we leave. There will be wide-ranging negotiation. I think the pressure from business interests, economies and people of common sense on both sides of the channel will drive us towards something like that in some years.
Meanwhile—this is where we are now—the Government have pursued one of the factions on the Conservative side of the House. We have a kind of breakaway party within a party—a bit like Momentum, really—with a leader and a chief whip. They are ardent right wingers. The Government have set off in pursuit of these bizarre—as some Government members say—negotiating tactics; some of them, though, seem positively to want to leave with no deal, because any agreement with foreigners from the continent is a threat to our sovereignty.
Mr Clarke
I will not give way any more. I have great respect for my hon. Friend, so I hope that I will not be too disparaging of his views—he and I fundamentally disagree—but lots of people want to speak, and I cannot give way as if I were a Front-Bench spokesman. That is not possible.
That is the wrong group to pursue. The Brady amendment, which I voted against, is meaningless; it rejects the agreement that the Prime Minister has spent two years getting and has commended in warm terms to the House. We can see from interventions that a lot of the people in the European Research Group will reject anything she comes back with, because they want—some of them—to leave with no deal. That is where we and the House must start from, and we have very little time within which to do something.
We must get past these procedural obstacles that the Government keep putting in place about what we can and cannot do, and get some binding policy that the Government have to follow. In the end, some of us—even remainers, divided over referendums—will have to back down once a sensible majority is established, and will have to compromise. That was the aim of the amendment that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland and I tabled. I hope that method will still be considered—a single transferrable vote, a ballot—because we will get nowhere until we have some idea of what can command a majority here.
I think there is a majority in favour of a customs union. I do not know whether there is a majority in favour of a referendum—there might be, I do not know. I am certain that there is an overwhelming majority flatly against allowing us to leave with no deal. My guess is that there are about 20 or 30 Members of this House who actually want to leave with no deal, and they should be rejected; I very much hope that they will be.
We will need more time to do this. I am quite happy to revoke article 50, and then invoke it again, if the House wants, when we have some idea of where we want to go. If we do get through this immediate crisis without a calamity, there will be four or five years of negotiations, on any sensible estimate, on what kind of arrangements we will have. That will be based on the political declaration. We cannot allow this kind of calamitous debate and constant crisis to continue throughout those five years.
Before we even start those negotiations—this is why I would revoke or extend article 50—we need a British consensus, a clear parliamentary majority, a path established that the British Government can go to Brussels with, knowing that it commands a majority. Our partners must see that we can command a majority for it. We must get through these daft days and eventually have a debate that produces a majority for something sensible.
At the moment, I think Brussels has given up on us. It does not think that the British Government even agree with themselves on what they are trying to pursue, and they have no idea what the British Government are asking now. It requires great faith on Brussels’ part to believe that the British Government can get a majority for anything that they will produce in the next two or three weeks, if they get some form of words amending what we have. It is time that this House found some method—I have advocated some approaches that we might take—of taking command of the situation. That would have the support of the vast majority of members of the Government; it would make their position easier. The vast majority of Members, I suspect on both sides of House, are looking for such an eventuality to emerge very soon indeed.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I rise to speak to our amendment (i), standing in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and other right hon. and hon. Members—I am grateful for the support that we have received from the Liberal Democrats today. It is a much shorter and simpler amendment than the one we tabled two weeks ago, because above all else we need to get the House, as I hope the whole House will agree, to halt, at least temporarily, the headlong rush towards the cliff edge of no deal. Indeed, I find the degree of consensus developing between the Secretary of State and the no-deal brigade on his own Back Benches to be extremely alarming. I hope that is not an indication of where the Government’s thinking is leading.
Our amendment asks the Prime Minister to seek an extension of at least three months. That is important, because it takes us past the European Parliament elections, which could otherwise cause a significant difficulty, certainly for the European Union.
Gareth Snell
I want to ask the hon. Gentleman a similar question to the one I put to those on our Front Bench. If the SNP amendment is adopted today, is the intention for the United Kingdom to participate in the European elections at the end of May?
Peter Grant
I think that option has to be open, but it will be very difficult, because the Europeans have already carved up our democratic representation in Europe. I keep an open mind. I want us to continue to be part of the European Parliament and other European institutions. It looks as if, at least in the short term, Scotland will lose that benefit, but I look forward to us getting back in as quickly as possible.
The other amendments that have been selected have a lot of merit to them. I do not think there is anything in them that I would oppose or that is incompatible with our amendment. I would ask the supporters of those amendments to look at our amendment, because extending article 50 has become an urgent prerequisite for anything else. We do not have time to spend tabling motions, having debates or developing substantial legislation, whether on a customs union, a people’s vote or anything else, unless we stop the clock. Contrary to what the Secretary of State said, the Prime Minister has not been trying to stop the clock. She has been trying to let it keep ticking down, while nothing but nothing was happening to prepare us for Brexit.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Speaker has ruled that all these motions are advisory, including the motion rejecting no deal, and that the referendum itself was also advisory? Why are we hurtling over the cliff on an advisory referendum and not accepting the will of this House that it would be calamitous?
Peter Grant
I do not accept the argument that says, “Because the vote was close,” or, “Because the legislation did not say it was binding.” I think we have to accept the results of the referendum in each of the four nations of the United Kingdom. That is why, although I sympathise with where my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) is coming from, I have some difficulty with his amendment, because I do not think we can permanently revoke article 50 unless we have a revised decision in another referendum.
When I say that we have to respect the result of the referendum, we have to respect the results in the four nations. It would be unacceptable for us to permanently revoke article 50 for England and Wales without asking the people of those nations what they thought. It is equally unacceptable and unconstitutional to ignore the express will of the people of Scotland or indeed Northern Ireland. We have the ridiculous situation where Northern Ireland cannot be made to stay in the United Kingdom against the will of its people and cannot be taken out of the United Kingdom against the will of its people, but can be taken out of the European Union against the will of its people. How does that work?
I cannot see any prospect of the Prime Minister’s deal being accepted by Parliament either before or after 29 March. I cannot see any prospect of the European Union agreeing any significant changes in the next month to a deal that it has spent two years with the Government agreeing to, so we are not going to leave with a deal on 29 March. As the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the Father of the House, has said, there are barely 25 people in this place who would countenance leaving with no deal on 29 March, so surely the only credible, tenable and defensible solution is not to leave on 29 March, but to put back the leaving day until we can sort things out and at least engage in some kind of damage limitation.
Peter Grant
I could not give a speech without giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
Stephen Kerr
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is quite right that the vast majority of people in this House want a deal that we can leave the European Union with in an orderly way. On that basis, and given the urgency of the situation, why did the First Minister of Scotland, our country, refuse to turn up for a high-level meeting involving the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Home Secretary and the First Minister of Wales to avoid a no-deal Brexit?
Peter Grant
It really is a bit cheeky to criticise the First Minister of Scotland for missing one meeting when she has been available to meet every day since the Brexit referendum. She and other Ministers of the devolved nations have attended meeting after meeting. They have been invited to express their views and then been told that their views counted for nothing.
Any Prime Minister who was putting the best interests of the people before the narrow, short-term interests of herself and her party would have asked for an extension by now. I want Parliament to say to the Prime Minister, bindingly or non-bindingly, “Ask for an extension.” I also want Parliament to be respected when it said, “Get no deal off the table.”
I do not know whether Members will recognise these words:
“We must reject the ideological templates provided by the socialist left and the libertarian right”.
Those words are from the Conservative party manifesto of 2017. Those were the promises on which every single Conservative Member of Parliament stood and was elected. If no-deal Brexit is not an ideological template provided by the libertarian right, I do not know what is. Those Members have been elected on a promise not to go with the disaster of no deal, so if the Government cannot prevent a no deal, they will have to go, because they will be in flagrant breach of one of the most fundamental promises of the Conservative manifesto.
Stephen Gethins
I thank my hon. Friend for making such a powerful case. Colleagues on the Government Benches have made the point about not wanting a no-deal Brexit. Regardless of what anybody wants—I would like a people’s vote and for us to remain in the EU; others take a different view—all that our amendment does is give us an extension, so that we are not rushing this when time is fast running out. I therefore look forward to welcoming the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) in the Lobby with us later.
Peter Grant
I never give up on the possibility of anybody in this House or elsewhere finally seeing sense and recognising what is best for the people, so I, too, look forward to welcoming the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) in the Lobby later.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
The hon. Gentleman has reminded me of the party manifesto, on which I apparently stood at the last election, and which is binding on me, I have never seen this document. It was produced some time during the campaign, rather obscurely, and I read about it in the newspapers. No copy was ever sent to me and I have never met a constituent who bothered to get a copy or read it. It had one rather startling policy in it, which was abandoned within about a day and played no further role. There is another myth growing: a new constitutional convention that says that anyone who stands for a party and gets elected here is bound by some rubbishy document that somebody unknown in central office, not the Cabinet, has produced and that is meant to bind them for the next Parliament.
Peter Grant
That is certainly an interesting proposal. Let me say that each and every time I have stood for election I have read, and often contributed to, the manifesto on which I have stood, and I will always honour my manifesto commitments to the best of my ability. I would expect my party colleagues in the Scottish Government to honour the manifesto on which they were elected as well.
The backstop is not the problem for me; in fact, I do not think it is really the problem for more than a tiny minority here. The reason I reject the deal—and the reason it is rejected by the Scottish National party and the overwhelming majority of Scotland’s parliamentarians, both here and at Holyrood—is that it is a rotten deal for Scotland, and changing the backstop will not fix that. It will seriously damage our economy, it will place unsustainable strain on the public services that are so dear to our hearts, and it will cause wholly unacceptable pain to tens of thousands of citizens who have chosen to give Scotland the benefit of their talents.
Let me give just one example of what this means to real people. In November last year I had the privilege of visiting Glenrothes’s twin town, Boeblingen in southern Germany. The occasion was the town’s award of its highest civic honour to my good friend John Vaughan—a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) across the border—in recognition of the decades of voluntary service that John and his wife Karen had given, and their contribution to the bonds of friendship between our two towns. I later submitted an early-day motion to mark John’s achievement, and I am grateful to all who signed it.
On Tuesday, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife told the House that Karen Vaughan had been told that she must travel to Edinburgh and ask permission to register as a foreigner in her own country. Karen has lived in the United Kingdom for longer than the vast majority of people whom I can see in the Chamber. She has been here for 74 years. Someone whose contribution to these nations cannot be measured—someone who came here as a babe in arms three quarters of a century ago, after the defeat of Nazism in Europe—is now being told by this Parliament that she must make a round trip of nearly 100 miles to ask permission to be registered as a foreigner in the only land that she has ever known, and probably the only land that she will ever know. What have we become, Mr Speaker? And, much more frighteningly, if this is what we have become before Brexit, where in the name of God will we be heading after it if we have a Government who see that as an acceptable way to treat any human being?
Of course, the Government will do as they always do, and say that it is just an isolated case. Everything about Brexit involves “isolated cases”, such as Jaguar Land Rover, Nissan, Ford and Airbus. But those are not isolated cases. The heavy engineering manufacturing industry is not an isolated industry. There have been warnings for years from every sector of the economy and every area of our public and civic life that Brexit would not work, and every one of them has been ignored for years.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Given the hon. Gentleman’s comments about Jaguar Land Rover, will he join me in welcoming its decision to invest additional funds in the new petrol engine plant in Wolverhampton?
Peter Grant
I welcome any investment, but unfortunately employees in other parts of the Jaguar Land Rover network, and their families, do not have so much to celebrate.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Peter Grant
I really must make progress, because other Members want to speak. [Interruption.] I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stirling for pointing out, from a sedentary position, that all those people have said that they will support the Prime Minister’s deal. In fact, they were all approached by the Prime Minister and told, “It is my deal or no deal: ask your MPs to support my deal.”
I was contacted by a number of businesses in my constituency, and I also went to see a number of businesses and civic organisations that were brought over at the request of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Yes, they all wanted us to avoid no deal, but when they were asked what they really wanted, none of them said, “The Prime Minister’s deal, as I read it in Hansard.” All of them—with one minor exception—said that if they could have what they wanted, we would not be leaving the European Union. If the Government were listening to the concerns of business, we would not be leaving the EU, and if we had to leave the EU, we would not be leaving the customs union and we would not be leaving the single market.
Let me make it clear, incidentally, that the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has explained to me why he has to leave. I accept that, and I take no offence from the fact that he is not able to stay until the end of my speech.
I want to refer briefly to the backstop, but only briefly. The backstop is there because the Government have not yet fulfilled the obligation to which they willingly signed up in December 2017 to come up with a solution to the border question that would honour the Belfast agreement while also meeting their own unilateral red lines. It is no surprise that the Government have not yet come up with that solution, because it does not exist. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), admitted that from the Dispatch Box just over two weeks ago.
What everyone is calling the backstop would be better described, as it was yesterday by the former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, as a safety net. It is there to make sure that whatever else gets dropped in the chaos of Brexit, the Belfast agreement will not, in any circumstances, be allowed to fall and smash on the floor. It is not a backstop; it is a peace process guarantee. I defy anyone to say that they want the peace process guarantee to be time-limited, or to suggest that any party to the peace process would ever want to walk away from it unilaterally.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman has cited the Belfast agreement, and has talked of its falling and smashing on the floor. Will he at least do us the courtesy of reading it? There is no suggestion that, deal or no deal, the institutions contained in that agreement will be broken. There is no suggestion that the ability of Northern Ireland citizens also to have Irish citizenship will be taken away from them. If the hon. Gentleman is going to make claims, he should at least get them right.
Peter Grant
Yes, I have read the Belfast agreement, and with all due respect, if it comes to any arguments about interpretation I would sooner take the interpretation of the former Taoiseach who helped to write it than that of someone who fought tooth and nail for it to be rejected.
I asked Mr Ahern a question that was designed to show the idiocy of some of the suggestions from Conservative Members about how Ireland should be responsible for sorting out Britain’s mess. Many people in Ireland seemed to think I was being serious, which I think is an indication that our friends in Ireland, and even people in the United Kingdom, are so flummoxed by this shambles that they cannot tell the difference between the truth—the reality—and complete parody. It is no wonder, because the reality is that we have had a Brexit Secretary who did not know that lots of boats were going in and out of Dover, a Northern Ireland Secretary who did not know that people in Northern Ireland vote along traditional Unionist/Nationalist lines, a Trade Secretary who cannot name a single country that will give us a better trade deal outside the EU than we have inside it, a Transport Secretary who could not organise a traffic jam, and a Prime Minister who— well, where do we begin? We could begin with “a Prime Minister who ran away from Parliament on 10 December, and then came back and told us that we must hold our nerve.” Mr Speaker, Scotland is holding its nerve.
Peter Grant
I really must wind up my speech.
We are nowhere near ready to leave on 29 March without a deal, and we are nowhere near ready to get a deal before 29 March. The deal that is on offer does not give certainty; it gives another 18 months of fudge and uncertainty, and during that time we shall need to sort out all the hard bits that we have not even started to talk about. The withdrawal agreement was the easy bit; the future relationship is the difficult bit that we must still look forward to.
I welcome the fact that, two years too late, the Prime Minister and her colleagues have started talking to Opposition parties, although the Secretary of State has still not replied to the request that I sent, just after his appointment, to meet me in my capacity as Brexit spokesperson for the third party in the House. He has written to all the members of the Select Committee asking to meet us, but he has not replied to my specific request.
So the Government have started talking to other people, but they must start listening as well. Their disruptive and unworkable red lines must be taken off the table, because they are getting in the way of any kind of workable deal. We need to ask the European Union for more time so that everyone in this Parliament and the devolved Parliaments and Governments, with their collective skills and talents, can get around the table, without preconditions—and that means no preconditions for the Prime Minister either—to work out a solution and get us out of this mess before it is too late.
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
It is, as always, a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant).
I believe that the Prime Minister and the Government deserve the time and the space in which to meet the assurances that they gave the House on 29 January to deliver a legally binding change to the backstop, and to press the Malthouse compromise as an alternative in Brussels. I want the Prime Minister to be able to deliver Brexit, and I want the Government to be able to deliver and make a success of Brexit. I also want it to be crystal clear that the only way we will leave on WTO terms is by the choice of the EU through the intransigence of its approach.
I turn first to today’s amendments. It is telling that all of them are process amendments. None of them stipulates a specific alternative strategic objective of their supporters; none say anything at all about the substance, notwithstanding their criticism of the Government. As a result none offers a credible alternative to the path set out by the Prime Minister, which of course is both written in UK law and reflects international law under the Lisbon treaty, namely that we will leave the EU on 29 March either with a deal, as is being negotiated and as I believe is still possible, or on WTO terms.
We need to make sure we leave the EU on 29 March. We need it for the certainty and clarity businesses require, and we need it for the finality that the public want: an end to the tortuous haggle with Brussels, an end to the distraction and the displacement of all the other activity in this place and in government at large that has inevitably followed Brexit. It seems to me that extending article 50 cannot make any of the problems or challenges that we face easier; it can only make them worse. It is also clear that the EU will not agree unless there is a clear alternative model on the table that is reasonably deliverable within a finite period of time. Of course, some of the objections that have been made—it requires legislation, or it requires the Norway model, or some other whizzy idea that is no doubt being conjured up by thoughtful minds on the Opposition side of the House, and indeed on mine—would require time both to legislate and negotiate. We do not have that time, and the EU would not accept it.
Alan Brown
The right hon. Gentleman says that a deal can still be negotiated. Given that one of the reasons for the backstop is the admission that at the moment there is no off-the-shelf technological solution that can provide a working mechanism to have no border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, how is a solution going to be found over the next 40-odd days that would allow the backstop to be removed? It is impossible, is it not?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman raises a perfectly respectable point, but the head of HMRC has said there would not need to be any extra infrastructure at the border under any circumstances, and on the hon. Gentleman’s point about time, while I do not accept his point about the absence of technological solutions, we will have the implementation period to work closely with our partners in Dublin and the EU to make sure they can be put in place.
Of all the question-begging amendments, the one in the name of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) is the most devoid of credibility for three reasons. On the one hand the leader of the Labour party wants to be a member of a customs union—the customs union—but at the same time he boasts of his plans to nationalise half the country, which would immediately and directly conflict with those rules. On the one hand he personally is widely regarded, although he does not say so explicitly, as being a proponent of Brexit—he wants to leave the EU, along with many on his side and on his Benches, and of course it is a requirement of the 2017 Labour manifesto—but on the other hand he is willing to trade free movement to allow open access to our borders in order to get a deal, again despite the pledges to exit the single market made in the Labour party manifesto. Finally, while he pledged in his 2017 election manifesto to leave the EU and the single market, he is flirting with a second referendum, yet without any indication of what the question might be or indeed which side he would be on. His Members in this House, the members and supporters in the various Labour party associations and indeed the public at large are entitled to question that and come to the conclusion that it is nothing but a fraud or a con; it is not a serious position.
That was affirmed by the shadow Brexit Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer): he talked of the hundreds of businesses he has met that have raised uncertainty as the No. 1 issue. I can imagine that as we have all heard businesses talk about uncertainty, and the public want some finality too, but that is why, if he and his party were genuinely serious, they would rule out extending article 50 and holding a second referendum. But the shadow Brexit Secretary did neither; he said he was sympathetic to the extension of article 50. So he and the Labour party are fuelling precisely the uncertainty they then criticise. I am afraid it is the usual forked-tongue, flip-flopping nonsense from the Labour party, impossible to square with the clear promises it made in its manifesto.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Dominic Raab
No, as I have undertaken to proceed swiftly to the end so that other Members can speak.
I will support the Government on all this evening’s amendments, but I have some concerns about the motion because it adopts as Government policy the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) and passed on 29 January, which risks implying that we cannot leave on WTO terms on 29 March. That would be the wrong message as a matter of policy to send to the EU at this crunch moment in the talks, not least given some of the unfortunate remarks reported by ITV by the leader of the civil service delegation in Brussels. It also begs the question of how that marries with the position under UK law, which is our default position: that we would leave on 29 March, which I had understood was specifically Government policy. I listened very carefully to the Secretary of State’s assurances, but they in turn seem to conflict with the motion itself, which I am afraid is the problem we still need some clarity on.
The Government motion also makes no mention of the so-called Malthouse compromise proposal, and we have heard nothing about whether it has been formally tabled with our EU friends and partners. I understand that it has been raised and discussed with Michel Barnier, but has a written version of it actually been shared? We are seven weeks on from 29 January. This was the basis on which the Brady amendment was adopted, and it is a legitimate question to ask.
On that basis I will vote against the amendments, but I am, at the moment at least, struggling with the idea of voting for the principal motion. However, I will listen very carefully to the further assurances Ministers will give in winding up, because I would rather be in the position of supporting the Government, as I think the Government need the time and space to go in to bat in Brussels and to deliver the best deal for this country. We have a reasonable, modest set of demands to get a deal over the line and we want the Government to go in with the strongest hand possible.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
My fear is that we are just drifting—that we are stuck in limbo on something that is going to have consequences for our country for generations. We know not what the alternative arrangements are going to be, and we know not when the Government are going to bring anything back and what it will be, and there are only six weeks to go. Businesses have no idea what to do about their April orders, because they do not know what the terms of trade will be. It is not just that they do not know whether there will be a deal or no deal; they do not even know, if there is no deal, what the basic arrangements are going to be. The British Chambers of Commerce has put questions to the Government and still not had any answers about what tariffs would apply and in which circumstances, and when rules of origin checks need to be done. The police do not know whether European arrest warrants that they have out at the moment on wanted criminals are going to just be ripped up overnight. The NHS does not know what its supplies of medicines are going to be in just six weeks’ time.
A local manufacturing business that exports about 80% of its products contacted me today saying that European suppliers are refusing to agree terms for continued supply; they are now establishing alternative suppliers. That is happening already, because there are only six weeks to go. The business says:
“We are rapidly becoming the laughing stock of the world.”
The Secretary of State, faced with what is effectively this growing chaos, responded today by hardening his position, I thought, in response to the question from the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). I assume that that was an arranged response as a result of the threats from the European Research Group again today. The position used to be that the Government were embracing the prospect of no deal if the Prime Minister’s deal is not passed. I have heard people, including in this House, advocate no deal, and I would just say that they are not the people who are going to be overstretched if the prices of their food go up because of WTO tariffs and shortages at the border. They are not the people who will be hit if manufacturing jobs are lost, as so many manufacturers across the country have warned. But all of us will be affected if our border security is undermined because the Border Force cannot do basic criminal records checks on people coming into this country to see whether they are wanted criminals, having lost overnight the basic information from databases that they rely on.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
The right hon. Lady might recall that in November, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee warned that Brexit could actually cause a huge amount of cheap food imports to flood into the UK. Which particular scare story does she side with: the one that says there will be cheap food imports or the one that says that we are going to run out of fruit and veg?
Yvette Cooper
We should take very seriously the warnings about a reduction of up to 80% in the volume of goods passing through the border and the preparations that Border Force is making for that, as well as the warnings from major supermarkets including Lidl, Asda and Tesco about the potential restrictions on the food that they will be able to get into the shops and the warnings from the Environment Secretary—a strong leave campaigner himself—about tariffs on beef and lamb.
Yvette Cooper
That is really troubling, and it is now happening right across industry and across every sector. We heard this week from manufacturers in the car industry that they are putting tens of millions of pounds into preparations for no deal. It shows the scale of their concern about no deal that they are actually hoping that that money is going to be wasted. They hope that it will not be needed, but they are having to put that money in in the first place.
Some people have said that having no deal on the table is really important as part of a negotiating ploy, but that is just nonsense. The fact that no deal would hit us more than it would hit the other 27 means that this is not like negotiating a business deal, as one hon. Member has suggested. I am afraid that this is much more like negotiating a divorce. You do not just walk out and say goodbye to the home and all the assets without any clue of where you going to sleep that night, while at the same time thinking that this is going to persuade your ex to give you half their pension. It just does not work like that, yet we are taking all these risks.
I would like to believe that the Prime Minister is heading for a workable deal and that she can build a consensus. I have called many times for cross-party consensus and for a cross-party commission to oversee negotiations. I have called many times for a customs union to support Yorkshire manufacturing, for a security backstop—not just for Northern Ireland—and for clarity about the future arrangements. My biggest concern is that we are facing a blindfold Brexit with no idea of what kind of arrangements we face. I would like to see indicative votes on the kinds of approach that hon. Members have suggested.
Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the Prime Minister’s red lines, including not meeting our proposals on the customs union, that are holding us back and keeping us in this position?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with my hon. Friend that the Prime Minister has to change her red lines, particularly around the customs union but in other areas as well, because they are preventing any change and any proper debate on the way forward. Instead, she appears to be trying to create a sense of crisis and chaos in the final two weeks, during which Parliament and the EU will be locked in a game of chicken in which we will be forced to choose between the huge damage of no deal and a deal that has already been strongly rejected by this Parliament. That is not a responsible way to make decisions. It is not a responsible way for any Parliament to operate, and it is certainly not a responsible way for this Government to operate. They have a responsibility to keep us safe, to make sure that the sick can get their medicines and to make sure that the poorest people in this country can afford the price of food. The Government have a responsibility to do things in an effective way, not to create chaos because they cannot get a bad deal through.
We have put forward a revised Bill. Under the proposals, if we get to the middle of March and we still have no deal in place, the Prime Minister will have to choose whether she wants the default to be no deal or an extension of article 50 to give her more time to sort this out. That would have to be put to Parliament, giving Parliament the opportunity to avert no deal on 29 March and the chance to say that the Government’s approach is just not working. It will not have worked if we reach that date without a deal in place. The problem is that if we do not do something sensible like this, we will be living in a fantasy world in which people talk about alternative arrangements and say that everything will be fine and someone will come along and sort it all out, even though none of that will happen.
Yvette Cooper
I will not; I need to conclude my remarks.
It is as though we are all just standing around admiring the finery of the emperor’s new clothes when actually the emperor is running around stark naked, and everyone is laughing at us—or at least they would be if it were not so sad. So I really hope that the Government will show some responsibility and that they will end up supporting this Bill. Frankly, I hope that they will sort this out before we get to that point–before it is too late.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. An eight minute limit on each Back-Bench speech now applies.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I rise to support the amendment in my name and those of many hon. and right hon. Members from all parties across the House. In simple terms, it calls for the publishing of papers that I know have been placed before the Cabinet, that the Cabinet has looked at and debated, and that in stark terms identify the very real dangers to our economy, to trade and to business of a no-deal Brexit.
I had the great honour to serve in Cabinet and to attend Cabinet. You may call me old-fashioned, Mr Speaker, but I am firmly of the view that there are times when the advice given to Ministers by their officials should remain confidential and should not be shared beyond the confines of that particular discussion. There are very good reasons for that, in my view. As a Minister, I made decisions not to share things. I take the firm view that advice given by, for example, the Attorney General to the Government should be subject to legal privilege. In those circumstances, it must be right that civil servants should be able to give advice without any fear that it might be made public. They should have no fear about giving such advice robustly and honestly.
The difference in this instance is that these papers that the Cabinet has debated contain important information that I believe my constituents and those of all other Members should have. It is also the view of a number of Cabinet members that those papers should be published. The fact—which nobody has denied—that members of the Cabinet take the view that those papers should be made public is the reason that I have tabled my amendment today and seek to persuade hon. and right hon. Members to support it.
These are not papers in the normal sense; they are papers of national importance. I am told that they make it very clear what the effects of a no-deal Brexit would be. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has said that a no-deal Brexit would be “ruinous”, and he has no doubt come to that conclusion not only because he speaks to business, as he undoubtedly does, but because he has had sight of those papers and formed that sound opinion based on their contents.
Anna Soubry
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. I hope that she will take me at my word. Although the things I say in this place are often not agreed with, I do not make things up. I have asked both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy about the papers, and it has never been denied that they exist, that they have been debated in Cabinet or that some Cabinet members believe that they should be published.
I gently suggest to my hon. Friend that the papers might assist her. I believe that she asked a question of a Minister about the need for us to get on with Brexit—I do not demur from her point on that—and get on with the trade deals so that businesses in her constituency can get on and trade with other countries. Perhaps if she saw the papers, she might know that businesses the length and breadth of our country already trade across the world. Businesses do not need a trade deal to do business and to trade. A deal enables us to do that business and that trade all the better. Perhaps it really is a very good idea that this place sees these papers, so that those hon. Members who are actually saying, as members of the Conservative party—the party of business—that it would be the right and responsible thing for this country to leave the European Union without a deal might be better informed as to the consequences.
Mark Pritchard
My right hon. Friend is being generous with her time. I do not agree with her, although I do respect her opinion, but does she accept that she may be asking for another precedent to be set? She sat in Cabinet and will know that documents can be sensitive, official, secret or top secret. Might this amendment not open the Pandora’s box for every Cabinet paper marked from sensitive to top secret to be leaked or let out?
Anna Soubry
I would not disagree with my hon. Friend at all. I have indeed seen those very same papers myself. When I was a Health Minister, I saw the risk assessment documents that took the firm view that it would not be in the public interest at all for some documents to be disclosed, for the very reasons that I have outlined. These papers are different, however, because members of the Cabinet who have seen them have unsuccessfully made arguments in Cabinet that they should be made public. That is the profound distinction in this case.
It really would be to the eternal shame of the Conservative party if it were to continue to support a no-deal Brexit. As ever, I make my views with perhaps too much robustness and sometimes with some passion, but I am one of the founding members of the people’s vote movement—I am very proud of that—and I believe that the only way through this impasse and mess is for this matter to go back to the country. However, I have now taken the view that the bigger national interest—I say this without any fear—is that I am no longer prepared not to vote in the interests of my country and my constituents and in accordance with my conscience. I am now of the view that ensuring that we do not crash out without a deal is my absolute priority and that is why I tabled amendment (e). I make that clear to my right hon. and very dear learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). We disagree on the people’s vote, but on this we are absolutely—probably as ever—as one.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Anna Soubry
I will not, just because I am running out of time and I want to make several important points.
The Conservative party is the party of business. This party is the party of competence when it comes to the economy—[Interruption.] Oh yes, and history shows that a Conservative Government always leave office with the economy in a better state than when they inherited it, because we always have to clear up the mess made by a Labour Government. That is the simple fact and reality of history. However, will this great party be so reckless and go against all that we value in our principles by actually suggesting that we should leave without a deal in the face of overwhelming evidence? How many more car manufacturers—Ford, Toyota, Nissan—have to make it clear that if we leave without a deal, that will seriously impact the way that they do business? In the real world, that means our constituents will risk losing their jobs. Over 800,000 people work in just the automotive sector, never mind all the other millions who work in our manufacturing sector. Everybody with a scintilla of knowledge of the real world and of business and trade knows that the worst thing that could happen to our country is to leave without a deal. That is the view of the majority of Members of this place.
I gently say to the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, who is a thoroughly good and decent man, that his speech chilled me to the bone. He is a Conservative, yet he stood at that Dispatch Box ignoring the amendment that was passed that was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman)—a former chairman of the Conservative Party—and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) for which 318 Members voted. The other amendment that was passed, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), was passed with 317 votes in favour. It is therefore shameful that the Secretary of State spent almost the entirety of his speech addressing the latter, not the former, even though the former had won cross-party support and the support of more hon. Members.
However, my party is in hock to the party within the party: the ERG. As others have said, it is funded by the taxpayer and others, with its own leader and its own Whip. The Secretary of State stood up and tossed out red meat to keep the ERG on board, instead of doing what each and every one of us must do, which is to do what is right for our country. The right thing for our country is to be as one in rejecting no deal and standing by, as this party once did, the people of this country, their jobs, their futures and the prosperity of business and trade.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
What a mess. What a complete and utter mess our country is in. There are just 43 days to go before we leave the European Union and, as we currently do not have an agreement, we are staring down the barrel of leaving with no agreement at all. I urge the House to lift up its eyes from the Order Paper, the amendments, the whispered conversations, the scurrying of the Whips, and the scripted exchanges that we saw earlier, which I have to say reminded me at times of a badly written play in which some of the actors did not seem to know their lines, and actually look around at what we can see. We know that companies that export to Europe and companies that provide services to Europe are in a state of despair. Some of them are spending millions of pounds on preparing for the worst, including moving their operations across the channel. Official figures from the Netherlands Foreign Investment Agency showed this week that 42 companies relocated to the Netherlands last year citing Brexit as the reason.
Other firms have no idea what to prepare for. Last week, I was on a train and the man opposite me leaned over and said, “Can I ask you a question?” I said, “Of course.” He runs a small firm that makes products, and he sends his fitters out across Europe to fit them for their suppliers. He told me that his largest customer had rung him up and said, “Can you promise me that if there is a no-deal Brexit, you will be able to continue to fulfil my orders?” He looked at me and said, “What am I meant to say to him, because I don’t know the answer?” I had to look at him and say, “Well, I don’t know the answer either.” I wonder whether the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), will be able to tell him what the answer is, because that man’s fear—we heard this from my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)—is that his big customers will say, “We’re not taking the risk anymore. We’re taking our business somewhere else.”
Look at the companies that manufacture in Britain. We have heard about Airbus, Nissan, Jaguar Land Rover and, most recently, Ford. Look at those that export from Britain. We have spent much of this week debating the fact that the trade deals we were promised would be rolled over by now are not all going to be rolled over. The truth is that we are not ready and we are not prepared. Most Members know that no deal cannot possibly be allowed to happen, yet it remains—we heard it again from the Dispatch Box today—the official policy of Her Majesty’s Government that they will allow it to happen.
I was genuinely puzzled when the Secretary of State said that he respects the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) two weeks ago, and which was passed, but that his hands are tied by legislation. Well, I have a message for him: untie your hands and change that legislation.
It is no wonder that the rest of the world looks at this country with utter astonishment and amazement at what we are doing to our economy, our country and our future, and it should not need to be said in this House that our economy, the investment that goes into it and the jobs we hope our children will get depend entirely on the decisions that thousands of businesses make about their future. What are we offering them? The Prime Minister said this week, “Hold your nerve.” I am entitled to ask, hold our nerve for what?
It is now more than two weeks since the Brady amendment was passed, more than two weeks since the Malthouse compromise was seized upon like a thirsty man grabs at a drink in the desert, yet I fear it is a mirage. We all know that the search for alternative arrangements to keep an open border in Northern Ireland did not start two weeks ago; it has been going on for about two years. The best minds, the best negotiators and the best brains have searched, but they have not found. Those arrangements do not currently exist, a point made forcefully by the former Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, in his evidence to the Exiting the European Union Committee yesterday, and it is why Donald Tusk said yesterday that he is still waiting for proposals from the Government.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Further to the point my right hon. Friend is making, last year there was all this discussion of the so-called “max fac” option and the European Union rejected that option, which was based on technology that is now being put forward again.
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend is, of course, entirely right. Nothing I heard from the Prime Minister on Tuesday and nothing I heard from the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box today persuades me, or anyone else, that those alternative arrangements will miraculously appear in the 43 days that remain.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Just a slight nuance on the earlier debate. The European Union is not so rude as to say that it has rejected this, but it is saying, “If your fantasies don’t come through, let us have the security policy of a backstop. We don’t say your fantasies are wrong, but we are taking our insurance policy just in case.”
Hilary Benn
The backstop is, indeed, an insurance policy, and we cannot put a time limit on it, because it would not be an insurance policy if it is not there when it is needed. We cannot allow one side to withdraw unilaterally. The tragedy that the backstop illustrates is that we are spending all this time on something that is necessary because the Prime Minister created the problem in the first place when she casually announced that we are leaving the single market and the customs union, probably not thinking through the consequences that have brought her to this point.
We have these debates every two weeks, but we are spending barely any time focusing on the real problem. As the Father of the House pointed out in his wonderfully eloquent speech, we have no idea what Brexit actually, finally, means, because the Government have refused to make the choices that confront them and have failed genuinely to reach out across the House.
Nothing illustrates that more clearly than the example of a customs union. In her heart, the Prime Minister knows that, if we want to keep an open border in Northern Ireland and if we want to keep friction-free trade, we will have to remain in a customs union with the European Union, yet she cannot bring herself to confirm that fact, not because it would be economically damaging—it would be quite the opposite—but because it would be politically damaging to the party she leads.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I suspect the Prime Minister knows that the advice from the Law Officers is that to create a hard border, which follows axiomatically from the policy wanted by my colleagues in the ERG, would be a breach of our international legal obligations under the Good Friday agreement. As we are a rule of law state, we do not do that sort of thing, which is why it is a complete fantasy to try to pursue it.
Hilary Benn
I can only bow in admiration to the clarity with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes that point.
We know that is where we will have to end up, and humouring those who refuse to recognise it is where we will end up, while the national interest is being threatened, is not what I regard as the leadership that we have a right to expect from any Government in this country.
If the Prime Minister were genuinely to reach out, even at this late stage, I would welcome it, but we are careering towards a cliff. She is at the wheel and the Cabinet are sitting on the back seat. At some point, they will have to decide to lean over and take the steering wheel off her. If that does not happen, a no-deal Brexit might come to pass.
We know that today is not the day when we will take that decision, but in two weeks’ time we will. Two weeks’ time will be decision day on whether Parliament is going to take for itself the means to prevent a no-deal exit from the European Union, so long as the Government continue to stand at the Dispatch Box and refuse to give the House the assurance it is entitled to receive, especially given the amendment passed two weeks ago.
I am one of the proud sponsors of the Bill, in its new and improved form, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and I will enthusiastically support it in the Division Lobby if the amendment is chosen. Whatever our different views about where we should go afterwards, I hope the one thing that will unite the House is that almost everyone—not everyone, but almost everyone—agrees that we cannot leave with no deal.
In most of my previous speeches I talked about where I would like to go, but the fundamental problem is that we have not debated what we want Brexit to look like. Future generations will look in puzzlement at the way in which the negotiations have been structured. One day I will see the Prime Minister stand at the Dispatch Box and say, “I am applying for an extension to article 50,” and at that moment the stranglehold of 29 March will be broken, the Members who have been humoured will discover that they were led a merry dance in their belief that we would, in fact, leave with no deal on 29 March and the question will then be asked: what do we use the extension for? At that moment, we will no longer be able to hide from the choices that need to be made, and I, for one, look forward to that happening.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
It is traditional in this House to say it is a pleasure to follow the previous speaker; it really is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), with whose speech I thoroughly agree. I did not think that today’s event, unlike the one two weeks from now, would be of any real interest. I was wrong, but in a very bad way.
There was a fascinating, and rather horrifying, series of exchanges before this debate began and during its opening, and those exchanges have driven me, finally, to the conclusion that I admit I have gradually been forming over the last few weeks and months.
First, when the chips are down, this Government—my Government—and this Prime Minister, for whom I, unlike many colleagues, voted when she came for re-election, would prefer to do what some of my esteemed colleagues would prefer to do: head for the exit door without a deal. The Secretary of State informed us that that is the policy of Her Majesty’s Government if the Prime Minister’s deal does not succeed. That is a terrifying fact.
Secondly, I fear I have been driven to the final conclusion that it is only by legislation that we will resolve this problem, because it is only by legislation that the Government will feel compelled to act. They do not accept any motion in this House as binding on them—but they do accept orders that order you, Mr Speaker, to take certain actions, or that order the House to follow certain procedures, the Standing Orders having been changed, as happened successfully in the past weeks and months. When it comes to governmental action, it is abundantly clear that only legislation will compel.
The third conclusion I am driven to is that the Bill that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and I, and others, have put forward, which is a successor Bill to the previous Bill, is a necessary instrument. It commands the Prime Minister to take a series of actions that will enable her to find out what delay the House commands and what delay the EU is willing to accept, and then to follow that course if she has not achieved a deal by 13 March. Beyond that, I am driven to the conclusion—this came out in the brief conversation I had with the Father of the House—that we will then have to do what the Opposition shadow Secretary of State and many other hon. Members have suggested: find a consensus across this House for a positive alternative, also, alas, by legislation.
This is a remarkable condition for Parliament, the Government and this country to find themselves in. The structure of our affairs, almost throughout our history, since this House first established its rights over and against the Crown, has been that the Government—Her Majesty’s Ministers—put forward policy and carry it out, subject only to the ability to maintain the confidence of the House, and to legislate in it. To my knowledge, it has never previously been the practice for this House to have to take control and direct Government policy by legislation. That is an astonishing turn of events.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
Would the right hon. Gentleman like to reiterate that in a fortnight’s time, it really will be high noon, and there will be no further opportunity to intervene to ensure that Parliament takes control of the process?
Sir Oliver Letwin
The right hon. Gentleman, who was a colleague of mine in the coalition Government, and to whom I pay tribute for his part in taking forward this Bill and other measures in which we are jointly engaged, is absolutely right about that. On 27 February, there is no place to hide. On that date, this House will make a decision that will lead either to this country leaving the EU without a deal, or to delaying the UK’s exit, thereby giving us a chance, if many other things follow, to find an alternative deal that can be agreed by this House, that can be legislated through, that can be mandated for the Government, and that can give this country a secure and prosperous future outside the EU. It is on 27 February that we will have to make that decision.
My final point is that in these circumstances, being an ordinary Member of Parliament, as opposed to a member of the Cabinet—many of us have been in previous Cabinets—is no longer the kind of task that many of us have always assumed it would be. Mostly, our country has operated on the principle that its great work is done by Governments, and that we in this House have the extraordinary privilege of observing, informing, scrutinising and checking, but do not have to take the ultimate responsibility for those crucial decisions that those of us who have served in Cabinets and in National Security Councils have, from time to time, had to take about what this country does. On 27 and 28 February, if we come to debate that Bill, and in succeeding weeks and months, as we have to legislate for the policy of this country in relation to the EU, all of us in this House will suddenly have to take the awesome responsibility of playing our part in trying to find a way through that enables our fellow citizens to have a secure and prosperous future.
Anna Soubry
As ever, my right hon. Friend is giving a passionate and brilliant speech and statement of the situation we are in. I wonder whether he could help us in one respect: does he believe that the papers I mentioned in my amendment (e) should be published? Would that assist?
Sir Oliver Letwin
I most fervently believe that they should be published; much more information on the no-deal exit should be available. I would vote for my right hon. Friend’s amendment, were it not for the infelicity of the fact that it would knock out the Government’s motion, which I am committed to voting for, having consistently maintained the position in this House that I will always back the Government in their endeavour to get their deal through until that is no longer possible. Perhaps I am a romantic, but I have always thought that my task was to try to assist a Conservative Government in coming to a solution. Although many of my hon. Friends do not find themselves able to do that, I will continue to do it. It is only for that reason that I shall not back her amendment; I shall abstain on the matter.
My right hon. Friend is of course right in substance: those papers should be out, because when this House comes to legislate, as I hope it will and fear it must, it will be, so to speak, a Cabinet. We will be making real-life decisions about what happens to our fellow countrymen—not just legislating in the hope that many years later, subject to further jots and tittles, the law, as administered by the system of justice, will work better. We will be making a decision about the future of this country. How can we possibly make those decisions unless we are properly informed? The process of which we are now at the start will require the fundamental realignment of the relationship between the civil service, Government and Parliament. There is no way we can continue to act as though we were merely a body to which the Government were accountable; for a period, for this purpose, we will have to take on the government of our country.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
I applaud the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) for seeking leadership and decisiveness at this moment. It makes me ask: who should be held responsible for the groundhog day moment we find ourselves in? It is no secret that I regard Brexit as an unmitigated disaster, particularly for the most vulnerable and least well-off of my constituents, whose jobs and livelihoods are threatened. I also hold the Prime Minister responsible for the conduct of the negotiations, accepting as she did this ridiculous arrangement whereby the divorce arrangements are separated from the future relationship. That should never have been allowed to happen. She then negotiated a deal that nobody really wanted, but which she is absolutely determined to prosecute at almost any cost. We are now in this ridiculous situation of the Prime Minister saying, “Back me or we all hold hands and jump off the cliff together.”
Brexit is not just a disaster; it is also a tragedy because of the economic consequences. We have been talking about the trade deals that we were promised would all be ready one second after midnight on 29 March. We discovered this week that only four or five of the 40 free trade agreements will be ready.
Mr Leslie
We do have the Faroe Islands, but the deals with Turkey, Japan, South Korea and Canada will not be ready. As well as the breach with our largest trading partner, the European Union, we must add a breach and fracture in our trade arrangements with all those other countries.
Brexit is not just an economic tragedy, because there are other tragedies. My heart breaks when I think about the history of our country leading up to this moment: working in alliances with our European allies; those citizens’ rights that have accrued; and the ability not just of generations of people to come, work, live and study here, but of our children to do the same reciprocally.
We talk about the backstop as though that nomenclature somehow describes what we are talking about. Let us be plain about what we are hearing. Some hon. Members do not want a time limit to the backstop. Essentially, they are arguing for a time limit on open borders between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland—a time limit on the Good Friday agreement. When we put it in those terms, it is preposterous that we should be in this situation at all.
I hold the Government responsible for getting us into this run-the-clock-down strategy, but we should be completely honest about why we are in this situation. I wanted action today. Earlier this week, I said that we needed to snap out of this delusion now, because I worry about the time that we have in which to legislate on these things. I will have to cling to the hope of 27 February, but why are we waiting until then? It is because, in order to get the votes for a majority, we have to work cross-party. The truth is that an increasing number of Labour Members—even some on the Front Bench—are abstaining on votes, so we have to wait for Members on the payroll, Government Ministers, to do the brave thing and resign to counteract the loss of numbers on the Labour Benches. We should have a solid Labour move against this outrageous situation. The idea that the Labour party is not together in arguing against this tragedy—this disaster—is, for me, entirely heartbreaking.
In the amendment tabled by the Labour Front-Bench team, I no longer see the words, “option of a public vote”, which were in the Labour Front-Bench amendment of 29 January. I ask myself why are we regressing when it comes to our party’s policy, as passed at the September conference. Other Members have tabled amendments; I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and other hon. Members, who have tried to put this matter of Labour party policy on the Order Paper today.
We have this new euphemism of “options on the table.” How long is this table, and when will we ever get to those options? It is absolutely not acceptable. On this particular issue, we are being played for fools by the leadership of the Labour party. By now, we should have reached the stage of a public vote on the option of remaining in the European Union. Nobody can explain to me seriously, without being lawyered, why we are not at that stage right now.
The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) was correct when he talked about the underlying reasons for this mess. Why are we at this groundhog day right now? The truth is that our party political system is shattered. It is broken, and it is letting this country down at a crucial time. This is the moment when we need leadership, but tragically, party political calculations and advantage are being put ahead of the national interest.
Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
I have been sounding the alarm for the car industry for some time. Of course, its challenges are not just about Brexit, but Brexit has made things worse. Many of my constituents have lost their jobs. The claimant count has shot up on my council estate, and, given the lag in statistics, I fear that things will only get worse. Unemployment is now at 7.4% compared with the national average of 2.3%.
As 29 March approaches, it is paramount that we leave the EU with a deal—I have voted for the Prime Minister’s deal. Leaving without a deal would be catastrophic. This is not project fear; this is reality. These are real people’s lives that I am talking about. On Tuesday evening, I co-chaired a meeting with my friend the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) of a wide range of organisations: Jaguar Land Rover, Ford, Airbus, Siemens, the CBI, the EEF, the NFU, the British Ceramic Confederation, the Association of British Insurers and so on. The damage of continued uncertainty and the lingering prospect of no deal was made perfectly clear. A total of 80% of CBI members have stopped investing in their businesses. The political uncertainty has damaged the UK’s credibility as a safe place for investment. One of the large US investors now describes the UK as the “problem child” of Europe. Against that backdrop, companies of all sizes are finding it increasingly difficult to justify doing business here.
When I was growing up, this country was often described as the “sick man of Europe”, and I really do not want us to become that again. Manufacturers are now spending tens of millions on no-deal preparations, as we heard earlier. It is extraordinary to think that they hope that that money will be wasted.
The manufacturing industry is not in decline. It accounts for 10% of the UK’s economic output. The UK is the ninth biggest manufacturer in the world, and manufacturing is not an industry that this country can afford to lose; it employs thousands of people and it pays well. However, for this success to continue, companies need to be certain that the UK is a reliable place to invest in and commit to. Unfortunately, as indicated by Ford’s recent announcements, this is now in doubt.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) have done quite a remarkable job in getting all the various organisations together. Like her, I am concerned because, as she knows, Jaguar Land Rover and a number of other companies are based in Coventry, and the local CBI has contacted me voicing concerns about the direction we are heading in with these negotiations. I hope that the right hon. Lady agrees with me.
Dame Caroline Spelman
West midlands MPs from across the political divide have sounded the alarm together for the jobs that are being put at risk.
Let me turn to a fresh example of what is at stake. We often speak about the economic cost, but there is a huge human cost. As Second Church Estates Commissioner, I was approached by the Bishop of Europe—yes, the Church of England has a diocese of Europe—on this subject. There are approximately 1 million European citizens living in the UK, many of whom are pensioners, and 250,000 are estimated to be receiving ongoing healthcare treatment. In addition, there are 50 million visitors from the UK annually to the continent, and they are covered by the European health insurance card. Indeed, 27 million UK citizens are registered as having one—maybe some of us do—but that provision is at stake in a no-deal Brexit. Permanent employees and residents are covered by an S1 certificate, which enables healthcare treatments to be reimbursed in the European economic area and Switzerland, but that too is at stake under a no-deal Brexit.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right that this uncertainty is causing huge problems for the British community and businesses. I voted against the Government’s deal, but does the right hon. Lady agree that many businesses actually welcome the withdrawal agreement and say that it is indecision, rather than Brexit per se, that is stalling them now, and that we need to agree a deal without further delay?
Dame Caroline Spelman
I could not agree more. We need to heed businesses that say that the deal may not be perfect, but it is good enough. It is the jobs that are at stake as the uncertainty continues. But we are straying into economics again, and I want to return to the human cases.
Consider the 91-year-old man in an Italian nursing home. His son, who lives here, has just had a letter from the Italian authorities to say that they will no longer pay for his father’s care from 30 March if there is no deal. Imagine the younger man, worried sick that he cannot afford those nursing home fees and that moving his father could be fatal.
Then consider the young man living and working in France who has HIV. He has just received a letter to say that he will have to pay for his own antiretroviral treatment on 30 March. And listen to the voices of two pensioners living in Spain, who said:
“I will have to return to Britain as without the healthcare paid for, I can’t afford to live here. I wasn’t allowed to vote in the referendum. If we don’t get that healthcare lots of us will have to come home”.
The Government tell them that they are negotiating reciprocal rights. London and Madrid have already signed a deal ensuring voting rights and working rights for respective migrants, but healthcare is not part of this agreement. I wrote to the Health Secretary last week and have not yet had a reply. I stopped him in the Lobby to ask about this issue and he pointed out that the reciprocal healthcare Bill is being debated in the Lords, but will it have passed both Houses by 30 March?
Dame Caroline Spelman
I will not give way again.
More importantly, will other countries hosting UK citizens have legislated in their Parliaments to protect them? These are real people and real lives. Sick and vulnerable people have become caught up in the Brexit turmoil, and they need answers.
Until I heard the interpretation of the Prime Minister’s motion today, I was going to welcome it, because it supported the amendments that were passed by a majority in this House. I am not entirely happy with the apparent demotion of my own amendment. I have consistently supported the Prime Minister’s deal and I will continue to support her to get a deal agreed in this House. Businesses need to know what position they will be in after 29 March.
Our country had barely recovered from the 2008 financial crisis. Politicians in this place did not have a choice of avoiding that global slump. We are on the brink of a similar shock to our economy in the form of no deal, but this time it is in our power to avoid doing such damage. We must leave the EU to honour the result of the referendum, but we must ensure that we do it in a way that will not decimate the livelihoods of thousands across the nation.
I will be voting for the Prime Minister’s motion tonight. I implore colleagues to get behind the deal and secure the jobs and livelihoods that are so precious to those we represent.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Prime Minister’s own personal approach to Brexit has created what 40 former ambassadors have today rightly called a “national crisis” that she is presiding over. In their serious and important speeches, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), my right hon. Friends the Members for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), and the right hon. Members for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) have risen to the occasion of the crisis that is now facing us. I only wish that the Secretary of State could have risen to it as well.
The fact is that the Prime Minister, from the beginning, has chosen to put the interests of keeping the Conservative party together over the national interest. She chose, because she had decided to kow-tow to the Brextremists in her own party, a hard Brexit to get through her own party conference, without even discussing it with her own Cabinet. She set the hard red lines—out of the single market; out of the customs union—that created the problems with the Irish backstop. From the beginning, she made no attempt to forge a consensus across party lines or, indeed, across the country to define what Brexit would be so that it could be delivered in a consensual way rather than a way that has exacerbated disunity and further divided this nation. She has decided that she has to deliver Brexit with Conservative and DUP votes, and nothing else, to keep her party together and avoid a split.
This has pushed her to a harder and more damaging conclusion than she might have reached if she had reached out, and it will do our country more damage. By her choices, the Prime Minister has further divided the country. She has not sought unity, and we are all paying the price. Unity does not consist merely of being forced to agree with her dubious, partisan choices and her definition of what Brexit should be, which are reckless in the extreme.
Anna Soubry
Does the hon. Lady also take the view that given the result of the general election, which resulted in a hung Parliament and the Conservative party actually losing its majority, there is no argument that there is any mandate for a hard Brexit, and in fact, if there is any mandate, it is against a hard Brexit and against no deal?
Ms Eagle
Not to my surprise, I find myself agreeing with the observations of the right hon. Lady. The only national poll that the Prime Minister talks about these days is the referendum. Somehow she never refers to the 2017 election in which her party lost its mandate for a hard Brexit.
The Prime Minister’s response to the result of that vote in 2017 and the loss of her majority surely ought to have been to go for a softer, more consensual Brexit that would have kept us in the customs union and avoided all these problems. But instead we have a Prime Minister who characterises disagreement with her own particular partisan choices on Brexit as if it is a betrayal of democracy. She has used those words, and that has further exacerbated the anger that we have in this country. In my view, it is actually beginning to bring democracy itself into disrepute. She flirts with authoritarianism and division, and invites the betrayal narratives that increase anger even more, so she is being reckless with our political stability.
The Prime Minister has ignored Parliament in the way in which she has gone about delivering Brexit. She allowed her attack dogs to attack judges who pointed out that in fact Parliament needed to have a say about the triggering of article 50 in the first place. Indeed, the Prime Minister has allowed her Government to be found in contempt of Parliament. Today’s motion only exists because she was defeated in an attempt to shut down Parliament’s say in Brexit, and yet the Government are fulfilling the terms of that vote by holding this debate according to the letter, not the spirit, of the defeat they suffered. They routinely ignore votes in Parliament. Opposition days have simply disappeared, and they do not deign to vote in Divisions that the Opposition secure anyway, much less take any notice of the result. We are seeing the phrase “non-binding on the Government” increasingly applied, which is why I made the point of order before the debate.
This development would have been unthinkable when I came into the House. The unwritten rules about our constitution are beginning to be ignored. Political gravity, which was always thought to be something that everybody respected, is being ignored. It is the letter, not the spirit, of our constitution and our law that is now apparently more important. We will rue the day we went down this dangerous path.
All agreements are intra-Conservative ones. The Chequers agreement was with the Cabinet, and that did not last the weekend. The ludicrously named Malthouse compromise has already been ruled out by the EU. The alternative arrangements working group, funded by civil service support, is all about trying to get the rabble of the ERG to agree with the rest of the Conservative party, so that the Prime Minister can move forward. It is all to kick the can down the road and let her stay in office another week.
The Prime Minister is deeply reckless, and she has made a deeply reckless decision to play a hugely damaging game of brinkmanship with her own party by threatening the entire country with no deal. We have heard in the powerful speeches so far the real damage that that is doing to our country, trashing our international reputation abroad and doing irreparable damage to our standing in the world.
Going to the brink in pursuit of this tactic is reckless with our economic prosperity and reckless with our political stability. Jobs are being lost now. Investment opportunities are being lost now. Growth is being sacrificed now. The Prime Minister has allowed the Tory Eurosceptic virus to infect the entire body politic. We are all ill with it; we are being weakened with it. Her and her party will never be forgiven for the damage that she is causing.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this important EU withdrawal debate, particularly after so many impassioned speeches from those on the Front and Back Benches.
Almost exactly three years ago, it was confirmed that the EU membership referendum would take place in June 2016, and it is now more than two and a half years since the referendum took place. In my constituency, the vote to leave the European Union was 58%, and across the country it was 52%. Since then, as the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said, there has been a general election in 2017, when 589 now elected Members of this House stood on a manifesto commitment to deliver the result of the referendum.
The message I get is as follows. Just the other day, I was walking down Tilgate shopping parade in my constituency, and as is typically the case, someone came up to me and wanted to know about the current Brexit debate in Parliament. They said, “Why aren’t we getting on with the decision we made two and a half years ago?” That is a compelling argument.
We have heard this afternoon calls for a so-called people’s vote. I would argue that we had a people’s vote in 2016. We have also heard calls for an extension of article 50, to delay our departure from the European Union. We have heard from those Members concern about the uncertainty of Brexit. The one thing that will maintain uncertainty is questioning the democratic decision that was taken by holding a second referendum. That would certainly do a lot to damage our democracy and prolong uncertainty, as would a delay to article 50, and that is before we even get into the issues of whether the remaining 27 members of the EU would allow article 50 to be extended and, if article 50 were to be extended beyond July, of EU elections.
Mention has been made of how we should be taking no deal off the table. I have never known a negotiation where one party goes in and says that they are not willing to walk away from that negotiation. [Interruption.] I hear some jeering from Opposition Members, many of whom are sponsored by trade unions. I cannot imagine a trade union going into a negotiation with an employer and saying in those negotiations that it would not be willing to strike.
Mr McFadden
The problem with this “walk away” analogy is that in any other negotiation when someone walks away, the status quo applies. That is not the case here: when we walk away from this, a whole new and terribly damaging set of new things comes into force. That is why this analogy with a business deal is so fatuous, ridiculous and wrong.
Henry Smith
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for mentioning the status quo, because I do not think the status quo of remaining inside the European Union is good for this country. The European Union is increasingly a protectionist bloc. The European Union is not outward and global in its approach. This country, with its unique global links, can use them to have a much more positive future, instead of locking itself into the ever closer union that is producing a democratic deficit at the heart of the EU, not to mention things such as a European army.
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
My hon. Friend very clearly makes the point that we did not vote for the status quo. It is quite clear: 17.4 million people voted to leave. Does he agree with me that the inevitable outcome, if we do not have a deal, is no deal? That is not the status quo.
Henry Smith
I think people in this country have rejected the status quo, and I see Brexit as an opportunity for wider constitutional reform in relation to devolving power, fundamentally changing the way the other place works fundamentally and many other aspects. People wanted change. Actually, I think throughout Europe—throughout many EU member states—there is a real desire for change. If we do not respect the democratic decision, then some of the civil unrest we have seen on the streets of Paris, Lyon and Marseille, some of the economic contraction we see in Germany and the crisis in countries such as Italy will be visited on this country.
Charlie Elphicke
My hon. Friend is making a typically powerful speech. Can he think of anything more craven than for Members of this House to vote one day to trigger article 50 and then to say two years later, “Oh, we didn’t mean to do that. We need to carry on”? Is that not just craven and, frankly, pathetic?
Henry Smith
We have seen significant majorities both in favour of leaving the European Union, in that about 80% of Members of Parliament elected at the last general election said they would follow through on it—
Anna Soubry
Can my hon. Friend remind us of the promises made by the leave campaign, which he supported? It repeatedly said that we would not leave the European Union until a trade deal securing our future trading relationship with the EU had been secured. Does he remember such broken promises?
Henry Smith
I never made that promise when I supported leaving the European Union. I believe that a deal is the best way forward, but let us not forget that the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members voted in favour of the legislation to leave the European Union on 29 March, and if no deal is the result, that is the default position.
Vicky Ford
I thank my hon. Friend for reminding us of what was said in the past. The Conservative party manifesto that I stood on in 2017 stated clearly that we would seek a deep and special partnership with the EU, including a new free trade agreement and a customs agreement. Does my hon. Friend still stand by that promise?
Henry Smith
Yes, we absolutely should be seeking and honouring a deep and close relationship with our neighbours and allies in Europe, but the trouble with a customs union, which Labour Members advocate, is that it would prevent us from doing the global free trade deals that, in a world that is getting smaller, are key to our prosperity. The key to this country’s future prosperity is our unique global links, and being a conduit for that thanks to our proximity to Europe. We must be robust in the ongoing negotiations, and I support the Prime Minister in continuing them. I have never known an EU negotiation that did not go down to the last moment, and I therefore remain optimistic about our future. For goodness’ sake, we should be more optimistic as a House and country, because our best years are ahead.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
In just 43 days we are set to crash out with no deal, yet the Prime Minister and those on the Government Front Bench insist on running down the clock and presenting the completely false choice of no deal versus the Prime Minister’s bad deal. The motion under discussion today is non-binding, so why are we here to discuss the chaos that the Government have got us into? We are just days from the biggest disaster that we as a country have faced in a generation. Both before and after the votes two weeks ago, the House knew that the EU was not prepared to move on amending the withdrawal agreement, yet the Prime Minister still insists on going back to Brussels to ask again and again. She is running down the clock.
This House has been consistently clear that the majority of Members do not want the Prime Minister’s deal, and neither do they want a no-deal scenario. Why are those the options? Why are we facing no deal, just 43 days before we are set to crash out of the European Union? Why are we being blackmailed by the Prime Minister into voting for her deal to avoid a no-deal scenario? The Prime Minister is pursuing her policy of brinkmanship and trying to scare MPs into voting for her deal. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, that will not work. We will not be blackmailed. This issue should not be about the Tory party—not then, not now, and not ever. The referendum was called by the then Prime Minister to prevent a split in his party and settle things once and for all. Well that went well, didn’t it?
This country is now an embarrassment. The Prime Minister is a laughing stock. All over the world we are being watched, and I am afraid that what people see is chaos. They see a weak Prime Minister who is unable to control her party, and a Government who are about to commit an act of such self-harm that it will take years, if not generations, for us to recover economically and socially in our communities and businesses. Far from being an outward-looking, confident and strong country, by leaving the European Union we are pursuing a policy of isolationism.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
On that point, have we not, as a member of the European Union, been at the forefront of combating climate change through the UN process? Leaving the EU will set us back. Should we not be looking at a Marshall plan for the environment across Europe, not just looking at the issue by ourselves?
Anna McMorrin
I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent point. The Government, in tearing apart all the brilliant policies we have in partnership with the European Union, are tearing apart the fabric of this country bit by bit.
Dismissing the rights of people who have lived here for years and years is damaging our businesses, damaging our communities and damaging our public services. I was not elected to this place to make my constituents poorer or less safe. That is what we are set to do by voting for the Prime Minister’s deal, any deal, or, even worse, crashing out with no deal. We are lacking the leadership, courage and commitment needed from our political leaders to demonstrate that they are putting the people of this country first, standing up for what is right and not risking security and peace in Northern Ireland. The backstop is essential to ensure peace in that part of the world. There is no such thing as “alternative arrangements”. We all know that, and our EU friends are absolutely right to stay firm on that. Only an irresponsible Government would seek changes and run down the clock.
It is our communities, our constituencies and our constituents who will suffer. It is their jobs and their livelihoods that will suffer—hard-working families, small and large businesses. Many of those I speak to in Cardiff North are so worried about their future. I was in a deli in my constituency just last week that is run by Italians. They have been there for years. They are very worried not only about trade but about their own futures. A florist around the corner from my office is worried about her future and her family’s future. Why are we doing this to the people of this country?
The Secretary of State tells us to “hold our nerve”. For what? This is a sham of a negotiation. We are in this situation because of this Government. My constituents do not want this. Jobs are under threat. Ford and Airbus are threatening to leave, and small businesses are worried about their future. My constituents are worried about their future and the future for their children. What is more, they are deeply, deeply saddened by the state of this country. They are saddened by the future that the Government are giving their children: a fantasy future based on nothing but lies and deception from the leave campaign.
I am saddened too, but more than that I am deeply, deeply worried. I am worried that the Prime Minister is playing recklessly with this country’s future. We must take action urgently to reject and prevent no deal. We must immediately extend article 50 and put the deal, whatever deal it is, back to the people for a final say. That is the only proper, democratic solution. If the Prime Minister is so sure of her deal, then that is what she will do: put it back to the people for a final say.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The two previous motions, one in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) and the other in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), are both incorporated in the Government motion.
With respect to the first motion, there has been no realistic suggestion for a credible replacement to the backstop since the motion was passed and the EU is still saying it will not renegotiate. There is no withdrawal agreement simply because it has not been signed. In that context, the Brady motion was meaningless. Furthermore, as I said to the Prime Minister on Tuesday, article 4 of the current draft withdrawal agreement undermines control over our own laws. That will create uncompetitive havoc for businesses, and for trade unionists and for workers, as the laws are passed by the other 27 member states, as they go through the Council of Ministers, and we will not even be there. The measure also contradicts the repeal of section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, were we to make the mistake of saying that we rule out leaving without signing the withdrawal agreement, we would take away the Government’s main bargaining card for getting improvements to the agreement?
Sir William Cash
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.
On the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden, in reply to my question on Tuesday, which the Prime Minister agreed with, the Prime Minister said that Members from across the House voted to trigger article 50, which had a two-year timeline, ending on 29 March, and that every Conservative Member had voted for the withdrawal Act. She was right. However, the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden passed only because it was supported by Members from all parties who had already voted for the withdrawal Act, the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 and the European Union Referendum Act 2015, and were in effect, on the Prime Minister’s own analysis, undermining their previous votes. Furthermore, we were whipped against the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden.
There was no consultation prior to the tabling of the Government motion now before the House. In any case, the Government’s position that a so-called no deal remains on the table is clear, as the Secretary of State confirmed. The motion makes no sense, so why are we faced with it today? We are told that it is to keep traction with the EU, which has been, as I said to the Prime Minister on Tuesday, both undemocratic and totally intransigent. As I have said, the withdrawal agreement itself is inconsistent with the European Communities Act 1972. It is therefore also inconsistent with the referendum itself and our manifesto. The 2018 Act includes the repudiation in UK law of all EU laws and treaties, and article 4 of the withdrawal agreement is completely inconsistent with that. A vast number of voters see through this charade—they see through the smoke and mirrors—and in particular so too does the Conservative party membership—a recent “ConservativeHome” poll showed that 70% of them are against the withdrawal agreement.
The real problem goes back to what I said at the time of the first vote on the withdrawal agreement and my observations about the failure of public trust in respect of the Chequers deal and this withdrawal agreement. Those words stand as much today as they did when I spoke on 15 January. Today’s motion further undermines public trust. We are now truly entering the world of George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth. In his book “1984” Orwell wrote:
“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”
This double motion is doublethink in action, and I cannot possibly vote for it.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
The Prime Minister asks us to hold our nerve and give her time. One has to ask: more time for what? The answer is unclear, other than the obvious one, which is that it is to run down the clock towards early March. Despite the furious denials, that seems increasingly clear, as we have heard this afternoon. It seems that the Prime Minister cannot move an inch without enraging one faction or other of her own party. Brexit is problematic, but currently the problem is not the Irish, it is certainly not the Scots, or, for that matter, the supine Welsh Government, and it is not the backstop; the problem is clearly in the Conservative party. It is unsupportable that we are being led to this disaster for that very reason.
We are encouraged to keep our nerve while the wrangling proceeds and while the obfuscation for party advantage proceeds—to keep our nerve to keep our seats, while outside the bubble people are losing their jobs. We keep our nerve, they lose their jobs. Let me give a practical example. A small castings company in my constituency is an exporting company with products of the very highest quality. It is committed to the community in which it was established and which it serves, and from which it gets its workforce. Last time I talked to it, it said it was now looking at establishing a distribution centre in the Netherlands because it cannot face the confusion that now oppresses it. Only four jobs are affected, but for that community and that company, four jobs is a huge loss. Four jobs repeated endlessly across all the countries of these islands is a huge, huge burden that we could avoid.
After many years of representing Caernarfon, then the Arfon constituency, I have come to recognise the signs of a Government in desperate straits. We now have some more signs to add to the list—major Government defeats, crucial votes delayed without reason and a recess cancelled for no more than a few statutory instruments and general debates. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) said yesterday, this is a broken Britain, with its democracy stumbling, its economy unbalanced towards the south-east of England and inequality continuously amplified.
From the outside, the bickering and jostling for position seems to be entirely unreasonable and irrelevant to people’s everyday lives. It ignores a basic point that drives me and my party: any form of Brexit would leave Wales and the whole of the rest of the UK worse off economically. I concede that most well-to-do people who occupy the Benches in Parliament will probably be fine under Brexit, but my constituents—working people, factory workers, students, retired people, families and children—will not.
I want to confirm that my party will vote for the amendments and against the Government’s motion. Forgive me for finishing on a familiar note by repeating what my party has said over and again as Brexit day looms, but the reasonable solution for the Prime Minister is to reject no deal emphatically and then to put a vote on her deal, in whatever form that is, to the people to have a final say.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams). While I agree with Wales in voting to leave the EU, I am afraid that I found little in his speech—though he put it powerfully and coherently—that I could agree with. I certainly cannot agree with a second referendum, or indeed, to taking no deal off the table.
I have always found that it is a good idea in the House to vote on what the motion says and not necessarily on what Ministers or other Members say in the House, so I thought I had better have a look at what it says today. It is very clear, actually:
“That this House…reiterates its support for the approach to leaving the EU expressed by this House on 29 January 2019”—
so I thought I had better look and see what the House had agreed to, and within the motion that it agreed to were the words
“rejects the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement”.
In other words, the motion that we are voting on tonight takes no deal off the table. It does not matter what Ministers have said. It is what the motion says, so I would expect all Opposition Members who do not seem to want a no-deal option to support the Government’s motion tonight, which is exactly the reason I will not be supporting it. It is a badly worded motion—well, no, it is not a badly worded motion; it is deliberately worded that way. I think the Government thought that they could slide it through and that it would not matter. I know that, if I supported this tonight, the Whips would point out to me, “You have supported taking no deal off the table.” That is not what I can do.
I want to go back to when I was a co-founder of the Grassroots Out movement. I travelled the length and breadth of the United Kingdom during the referendum campaign discussing with people what they wanted if they were going to vote to leave. It came down, I think, to a few things. They wanted to end the free movement of people, to stop giving billions and billions of pounds each and every year to the EU and for us to make our own laws in our own country, judged by our own judges. I fear that the current withdrawal agreement proposed by the Government fails on all those tests. Maybe that is one of the reasons why it suffered the biggest defeat in Commons history. Anybody who had suffered the biggest defeat in Commons history might want to go away and think very carefully about what they put to the House, and not tinker around for a couple of weeks before coming back with more or less the same motion, because the same thing will happen. It will get rejected by this House.
Let us look at the tests. Does the withdrawal agreement end the free movement of people? It does not, because there is no future deal worked out, just some sort of political wish list—a political declaration—so it fails on that score. Does the agreement stop billions and billions of pounds being given to the EU each and every year? We know that £39 billion is going to be given whatever happens under the withdrawal agreement, and if the transition period is extended, even more money will be given. Clearly, our courts will not be able to be the final arbiters, because the European Court of Justice has a significant say over our future.
John Redwood
Will my hon. Friend confirm that, because the agreement is not about the future partnership, it sentences this House and the whole nation to 21 to 45 more months of the rows, disagreements, uncertainties and problems that we have presided over for the last two years and seven months?
Mr Bone
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s intervention. I will deal with that issue in a minute, but I want to finish the point that clearly the withdrawal agreement does not let us make our own laws in our own country, because we would still be tied to the European Union.
The one thing that people say—I hear it from leading remainers—is that they want certainty, but the one thing that the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration in particular give us is uncertainty, with months and months of squabbling and not delivering what the British people voted for in June 2016.
Ian Paisley
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be most useful before the conclusion of tonight’s debate if we heard from the Government Front Bench whether the textual, legal changes that are binding have been drafted and whether they have been put to Europe?
Mr Bone
I am very grateful for that intervention from the very sound colleagues on the DUP Benches. Of course, it would help enormously to hear that.
Everyone talks about no-deal cliff edge and disaster, or says that people did not vote to make themselves poorer, but that is complete and utter nonsense.
Mr Bone
No, it is not rubbish, it is nonsense. But the hon. Lady can use the word “rubbish” as well—whichever one she likes: rubbish or nonsense. [Interruption.] Oh, she is saying that I am talking nonsense? I listened to hon. Lady, who made a powerful remain speech that was absolute—let us use one of those words—nonsense. The truth of the matter is that the British people had the Cameron-Osborne “Project Fear” thrown at them. They were told that it would be the end of the world if they voted leave. They would be poorer, house prices would go up or down, interest rates would go through the roof and there would be mass unemployment—even bubonic plague—and they still voted for it, so I am afraid that people in this remain Parliament are ignoring the wishes of the British people. With the exception of very few Members, none of the Members who has spoken mentioned the British people. They all mentioned themselves and what they wanted—[Interruption.] Sorry, did the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) say, “Shut up”? If the hon. Lady suggests that, I am going to shut up very shortly, and I am sure we will hear from her, but I will say this—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Let me say in the most affectionate possible terms to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who is an extremely cerebral Member of the House, that at this moment he is behaving like an incorrigible delinquent. I urge him to desist from this disorderly behaviour. He is fundamentally a very good man—some would even say a great man—but something has seized him today, and he is behaving in a mildly eccentric manner.
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman says that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) is “very irritating”. Well, this is a subjective matter. Some people might find the hon. Gentleman irritating, or even find the Chair irritating—but who cares?
Mr Bone
I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that I am not a snowflake, so I will not take offence from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman).
The truth is that a no-deal Brexit—which is, of course, a deal that means leaving on the basis of WTO rules—is the answer. It gives clarity to business, and it delivers what the British people voted for in June 2016.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Poverty drove my parents to emigrate from rural Ireland to this country. This country gave them everything. I never thought when I was a snotty kid in Kilburn that I would ever end up as a Member of Parliament. I am proud of our country—it is truly Great Britain—and it grieves me to see it facing the biggest crisis since 1945 as a consequence of a self-inflicted wound as we drift towards an abyss. If we plunge into that abyss without a deal to protect the British national interest, our country will be the poorer for a generation to come.
On 29 January, the House spoke. The truly honourable right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), whom I praise in the warmest possible terms for her outstanding integrity, and I tabled an amendment that said “No to no deal”. The House spoke, and that led to the commencement of constructive all-party negotiations. Today we heard not one word from the Secretary of State about progress in those negotiations as he pandered unashamedly to the European Research Group, whose members are oblivious to the consequences of their actions.
When it was put to the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) that there would be difficulties for the automotive industry—including the Jaguar plant in my constituency—in relation to frictionless trade in particular, he said, “Frictionless trade? Fake news.” So he knows more about how to make cars than those who make cars. Conservative Members pretend that they know more about how to build ships and planes than those who build ships and planes, and that they somehow know more than the head of counter-terrorism, who warned of potentially serious consequences for the safety and security of our citizens if we crash out with no deal.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he remember the words of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson)? He said, “Eff business”. Is that not the attitude that seems to be pervading this place when it comes to what will happen on the other side of Brexit? It is almost a “don’t care” attitude, but it will seriously damage our communities.
Jack Dromey
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Jaguar Land Rover—the Jaguar plant in my constituency and the Land Rover plant in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Meriden—has transformed the lives of tens of thousands of workers locally, and the riposte from the ERG is “Eff business.” It is absolutely disgraceful.
We are determined to press on regardless with positive talks, with a view to trying to reach agreement. Why? Not least because of what we were told on Tuesday night at a meeting that we organised here with representatives of the five biggest manufacturing companies, and others with interests in food, finance and farming. All spoke with one voice: “We cannot crash out without a deal, and we want a good deal to protect the British national interest.” We were told that
“the effects of No Deal are happening now”,
and that American investors in manufacturing companies now see us as the “problem child of Europe”.
An investment that would have created 1,000 jobs in Northern Ireland has been shelved, and 80% of CBI members have stopped investing while the uncertainty continues. Inward investment in the automotive sector has halved. Automotive companies are planning shutdowns after 29 March. Businesses are being told by their contractors to build up three months’-worth of stock after that date, which is costing them a small fortune and using up valuable storage space. As the National Farmers Union has said, 90% of animal vaccines are imported, and in a no-deal scenario it cannot guarantee that necessary vaccines will be readily available.
Ian Paisley
The hon. Gentleman reads out those statistics about the problems, but the fact is that we have the lowest unemployment on record in the history of the state of Northern Ireland, and the highest numbers in Northern Ireland’s history for inward and direct investment. The joint total of our export sales to the rest of the United Kingdom and the rest of the world is more than 73% of everything we produce; the fact is that that is where we make our money.
Jack Dromey
Come to Erdington, where we still have one in 10 out of work, with unemployment rising. When we turned around the Jaguar plant from closure in 2010, it doubled in size from 1,400 workers to 3,300, but it has lost 1,000 jobs in the last 12 months, and growing uncertainty is seeing more and more job losses. These are good, secure, well-paid jobs, now being put at risk by Brexit. It is nothing short of extraordinary that there continue to be too many Members in this House who are just oblivious to the consequences of their actions.
The week commencing 25 March will be crunch time for the Government, our country and businesses up and down the country. Notwithstanding some of the things said by Conservative Members, that “no to no deal” amendment that won on 29 January, on which parties from across this House united, stands; it is morally binding. It would be utterly contemptuous of the Government if they were to give two fingers to that clearly expressed wish of the House of Commons.
The extraordinary contributions we have heard today tell us that a safeguard is necessary at the next stages. We will engage positively, both formally and informally, with the negotiations under way, with a view to reaching agreement, because we believe we have a duty to put the British national interest first, but what we have heard today reinforces our view that we have to support that Cooper-Letwin amendment. It is an utterly essential measure that the right hon. Member for Meriden and I have signed and strongly support. It underpins things; it is a safeguard that prevents us from falling off a cliff on 29 March without a deal.
We have a sacred duty in this House to put the national interest first. When I get out of bed every morning, what drives me forward is those I represent, and the lives transformed because of successful companies, and I grieve at the thought of what is unfolding. We must come together across this House in the best interests and traditions of Britain to agree a deal that will protect it at the next stages. It would be utterly outrageous if we were to betray the trust of the British people, and we for one just will not do it.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey); I agreed entirely with the sentiments that he expressed about the depth of this crisis.
We still need to reflect a little to understand how we got here. After the referendum, I spent at least the first 12 months trying to persuade myself that there was some silver lining to the cloud, and that some of the arguments about us eventually finding a better destiny outside the EU, without so much interference, so much anger, and so much debate about our participation, might somehow prove right. Whereas a small minority in this House are absolutely fixated, and are persuaded that we can part company with our nearest neighbours entirely, the truth, not always uttered in this Chamber, but certainly spoken in the Tea Room, is that an overwhelming majority of Members of Parliament believe that Brexit, whatever form it takes, will be damaging to this country. Norway, the palliative that Norway plus may be seen as representing, a Canada-style agreement, or indeed the agreement negotiated in good faith by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—all are inferior to participation.
The result is that we are tying ourselves up in knots, and that is why we are paralysed. We end up with people like my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) trying to have their cake and eat it; or—I say this gently—with those on the Labour Front Bench buying a plastic cake and pretending it is edible, rather than coming to the correct conclusion that we will have to go back to the public with the options and, pointing out the limitations of what happened in 2016, ask them whether some of the options can, in fact, be delivered—otherwise, we should not be doing it. That is where we will have to end up, but meanwhile, the crisis deepens.
We are in the extraordinary position of being told that we have to continue negotiating and threatening to leave, when frankly, threatening to leave is the behaviour of a three-year-old who says that they are going to hold their breath if they do not get the toy that they want. That is where we are, and we will have to do something about it ourselves if we are to get ourselves out of this mess. I agree so much with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) that we cannot allow this to happen. That is why I have signed the Bill that he has presented, will work with him to get it through Parliament, and believe it is the only way out of the current crisis.
I will sit down in a moment, Mr Speaker, because I want to conclude quickly, but I will just say this. What troubles me is that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench should be doing this themselves, in their own motion. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister talks about her sacred duty over Brexit. I do not think Brexit is a sacred duty at all; I think it is a pretty profane matter, and if it is going to plunge us into a national crisis, we have a sacred duty to prevent it. I am really alarmed that she does not appear to understand that. I have to say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that if that is the policy with which they will persist, we will obviously try to change it by implementing the necessary legislation, but that calls into question whether the Government—whom I do my best to support, despite the problems—are in fact acting in the national interest at all. I simply say to them that if they continue to behave in this absolutely crazy fashion, there will come a time when my ability to support this Government will run out completely. The national interest calls on us to face up to our responsibilities; that is what we have to do.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. After the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), the time limit will have to be reduced with immediate effect to four minutes, because I want to get in as many colleagues as possible.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
It is truly an honour to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). I was in Belfast and Bangor last week, where I met many people who felt that they had been forgotten by this House—not by their own Members of Parliament, but by the House at large. I want to say to them that they have not been, and will not be, forgotten. Members of the Irish community in Liverpool said similar things to me over the weekend, and I say to them that we will not forget the Good Friday agreement. We will do everything to protect it. That said, I agreed, perhaps surprisingly, with the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) when he said that he was against the deal because it offered absolutely no certainty for the future, and would simply continue this charade for years to come. He was absolutely correct.
I want to make some brief comments about the politics and the economics of the situation that we are facing. First, the politics. The behaviour of the European Research Group in the past 24 hours has been an absolute disgrace. It is interested only in its own power; it does not want a deal of any kind. It wants to lead the Government and our country on a dance, and until we all realise that, we will be kept going round and round this roundabout. The dealmakers in this House are over here on the Opposition Benches. It is unsurprising that people from the Labour movement know how to negotiate and do a deal. The Government should always have looked to us, but we have been ignored. We are simply pawns in a game in which the players are fighting not for our country but over the soul of the Tory party.
I have some sympathy with Labour Members who do want to find a deal, but that takes us back to the problem that was pointed out by the hon. Member for Wellingborough. Anything in the political declaration about the future framework is, frankly, pie in the sky, because it answers no questions. What is more, it is difficult to take the Prime Minister at her word, as she has demonstrated. It is incredibly difficult to trust the Tories.
That said, on the economics, the problems are even more profound. Economists talk about sunk costs—things that we spend money on that seem like a good idea but turn out to be a bad idea. In that sense, Brexit is now a sunk cost. We have been spending money hand over fist on no-deal preparations that we hope to never need. However, in economic terms, no deal is already happening. Disinvestment is already happening. Currency shifts are already costing us in terms of inflation, and growth is losing pace.
Things are worse than that, however. Some people will rightly tell me, “Well, the overall growth figure doesn’t really matter, because my constituents are poor enough already,” but the fact is that people in areas in the north of England that voted for Brexit will be hit worst by it. North-south inequalities will not be helped by Brexit; they will simply be made worse. That is why Brexit is a sunk cost. Sticking with a plan simply because we have already spent money on it is irrational. That is why we must ask ourselves the hardest of questions. Should we really keep going along with Brexit just because we said we would—despite the costs and whatever happens—because we have spent money on it, even if it turns out to be a really bad idea?
Matt Western
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. We are now in “Project Reality”, not “Project Fear”. As she says, we are beginning to see some of the indicators of what is happening in our economy. Consumer confidence is at its lowest since 2012, and business confidence is also low, with four consecutive quarters of disinvestment. That is what is really eating away at the economy, and we should be tackling it.
Alison McGovern
I simply listen to the words of the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). I find it hard to listen to them talk about the unemployment rates in their constituencies and to think that Brexit has anything to offer them. It will be a hindrance, not a help.
Some people who voted for Brexit who are not from the poorest parts of the country will say that, to be honest, they are not bothered about the cost. They want all the other things that people talk about, such as this notion of sovereignty, even though we have shared sovereignty as a nation for many years. They will say, “It doesn’t matter what it costs; I just want it.” Brexit is worth it to them. That is fine for those people. It is fine for someone to take an irrational decision for themselves. If that is what they really want, fine. However, the question for us is whether it is okay to take an irrational decision on the behalf of other people. Do not we owe our country something a bit better than that?
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Over the past three years, those of us who voted for Brexit have been treated with scorn and contempt. We have been derided as a bunch of uneducated, bigoted tabloid readers living outside the M25. In an attempt to try to get us to change our minds, Members on both sides of the House—in and out—various banks and businesses and all sorts of remain-supporting groups have adopted a sort of “Project Fear” on steroids. We seem to get a more ludicrous scare story each week. We get told that there will be mass unemployment as a result of Brexit, but the next minute we are told that there will be a huge shortage of workers to fill all the jobs available.
We are told one minute that we will run out of food, and the next we are told that farmers will be ruined by all the cheap food imports. I was on the radio a few weeks ago with an academic, who said that 12,000 people will die due to a lack of fresh fruit and veg. Needless to say he is from London, because I could have shown him a few orchards in Monmouth where we grow plenty of fruit and vegetables.
These stories just get more and more silly. Last June the papers were saying that one of Britain’s top private general practitioners had reported a huge increase in adultery and venereal disease due to Brexit. There was a headline in the paper the following month saying that we would have super-gonorrhoea raging out of control due to Brexit. It almost came as a relief in September when another newspaper, it might even have been The Daily Telegraph, reported that there will be a shortage of Viagra as a result of Brexit. In the space of just three or four months, Britain had been turned from Sodom and Gomorrah into Eden before the fall as a result of Brexit. Those stories are frankly ludicrous, and they are not fooling anyone. They certainly do not fool me.
Two weeks ago, I went with members of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs.to talk to some real experts at the port of Holyhead, one of the major crossing points to the Republic of Ireland.
Peter Grant
I assure the hon. Gentleman from direct personal knowledge that the story I told earlier, of Karen Vaughan being ordered to apply for permission to become a foreigner in her own country, is 100% true. Does he accept it is true, and does he think it is an acceptable consequence of his Brexit?
David T. C. Davies
I do not know the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, but my wife is an EU national, although she would not call herself one. She is Hungarian, and no doubt she will have to apply, as will everyone else. That is perfectly fair, and it will all be done on a straightforward application. It will not cost any money. Why is it so unreasonable for the Government to want to make a few checks on those who have chosen to come and live in this country and take back control of our immigration process? I fully support the Government in doing that, and I believe they have gone about it in a perfectly reasonable fashion.
The real experts at the port of Holyhead told us very clearly that they are perfectly well prepared for a no-deal Brexit. They made it clear that it would cause some inconvenience and a bit of extra work, but they know what paperwork is required. They told our cross-party delegation that they want a message to go back to Members of Parliament to dampen down the fears of Armageddon, which simply is not going to happen. The real experts are prepared.
The 17.4 million people who voted for Brexit in the original and genuine people’s vote did so because they know that this economy is the fifth biggest in the world and that Great Britain can stand on its own two feet, with or without a deal. I will vote for a deal, with its imperfections, because I believe in compromise. I can accept a bit of a compromise, which is why I back the Prime Minister. It is for Opposition Members, and some Conservative Members, also to accept that we all have to compromise if we want to sort this out. If they truly believed their own scare stories, they would be queuing up to back the Prime Minister’s deal.
We should leave at the end of March. We can leave with a deal, but we should not be the least bit afraid to leave without a deal. The 17.4 million people who are confident and optimistic about this country’s future expect Members of Parliament, their political leaders, to show that same optimism and confidence.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The theme of my remarks is that we need to build consensus, although I must confess that the speech of the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) has not made that any easier.
Delay and uncertainty are now really damaging our economy. This is not simply a question of politicians holding their nerve while a macho arm-wrestling game is played either in Parliament or with Brussels, because this is having a real effect on the real economy, on our reputation and on the jobs of real people.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend may have seen that today’s Evening Standard is reporting that Westfield’s £1.4 billion investment in Croydon is going to be reviewed, in part due to Brexit and the structural changes on the high street. This is happening right now. The people of Croydon need Westfield, so we need to rule out no deal.
Helen Goodman
My hon. Friend has given yet another example. During February, the Financial Times has had headlines that read “Nissan reverses investment pledge”, “Trade deal with Japan won’t be completed”, “No deal will lead to two more years of austerity”, “The economy shrank in December”, and “Businesses are moving to Holland and Ireland”. In my constituency, as in hers, this is playing out badly: sheep farmers are terrified of a 45% tariff on exports; the pharmaceutical industry is spending millions on stockpiling medicines; and brick makers are worrying about unfair competition from China. I talked to a foreign-owned manufacturer about the prospect of no deal and was told, “No, it won’t be catastrophic for our business, but we will have to sack several hundred of your constituents.” Well, that will be a catastrophe for those people who lose their jobs, which is why I will be supporting amendments (a) and (e), and, if it is necessary, the Bill from my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin).
We also need to look beyond the short term and what we are going to do to prevent our crashing out, and on to how we come to a decision on where we go next. We need to acknowledge that not everyone is going to get their first choice; there will have to be compromise in this House, and we need institutional arrangements to facilitate this. Amendment (c), tabled by the Father of the House, is designed to do this. It has not been selected today, but I hope hon. Members will look at it seriously and consider whether we might need to come back to something like it in a fortnight’s time.
Thomas Cromwell invented the current Divisions system in 1529 in order to expose and intimidate those opposed to the King’s will. Binary choices are all right for some things, but the minute we have a complex problem with multiple options they do not serve well for good decision making. It has been and continues to be easy to make coalitions against propositions, but extremely difficult to build coalitions for anything. We saw that in respect not only of Brexit, but the House of Lords, where we all wanted reform but we could not get it, because in 2003 every option was voted down and in 2007 four options were voted through but no clear steer was given. House of Lords reform is not the biggest and most important issue in the world, but Brexit is really important. We cannot make the same mistake again. We must use a different approach, and we have suggested using one that we use for choosing our Select Committee Chairs.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
The hon. Lady is arguing articulately for the scheme she put forward and persuaded me to join her in recommending. Does she agree that one thing causing the chaos today is that the remain element in this House are not all pursuing the same end, because they all have their own preferred route, and the leave people in the House, on both sides, are divided in the same way? The system she has put together and is commending in this speech would bring them to coalesce on the most popular route, and it is highly likely that the remain side and the leave side would each come together, and would demonstrate that the remain side is in the majority.
Helen Goodman
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely correct, because a lot of gamesmanship is going on at the moment in this House. As he says, these games are being played by Members on all sides, with everybody hoping to be the last man standing. That tactic would not be possible if we had paper ballots where every option was put simultaneously and we found out what the shared view and consensus was. We are not proposing anything in secret and we are not suggesting a hiding place for Members of Parliament; we are suggesting full transparency. Nor are we doing anything to undermine the Whips, because full transparency means they could whip this exactly as they do with deferred Divisions, which we use every week, with our pink sheets.
We want to urge hon. Members to look beyond this to where we want to be in a month’s time. If we really want the country to be less divided we need to show the way. Parliamentarians are constantly urging on their fellow citizens the need to be flexible and to embrace change. Well, perhaps, for once, we should lead by example.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman). While listening to this debate, it struck me that it is Valentine’s Day today—you would not know it the way that this place carries on, with everyone going at each other hammer and tongs. Perhaps we should go back a little bit and remember why we are in this situation. We are in this situation because people voted to leave the European Union. I backed remain, but I had a strong mandate from my constituency: two thirds said that they wanted to leave. I regard it as my job to make sure that we execute those instructions and leave the European Union.
It is important to remember why people voted in the way that they did: they believed in building a land of opportunity; they believed in building an independent sovereign nation; and they believed in taking back control of our borders, our trade policy, our money and our prospects across the world. Many Members of this House reject that view to this day, but that is what people wanted to do, and they are not wrong to have wanted that. They are not wrong because, in recent decades, Europe has been in relative decline. A few decades ago, it had a third of global GDP; today it has just 15%. Some 90% of future world growth is coming from outside, not inside, the European Union.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
I just want to pull up the hon. Gentleman on that point. He said that Europe was in relative decline and produced a statistic. Europe is not in decline. It is just that other places in the world are coming up, which is great to see. It is great to see that other people outside Europe are becoming richer, but Europe is not in decline.
Charlie Elphicke
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. The fact is that Europe is becoming relatively less important in the world and the rest of the world is becoming relatively more important. Is our national destiny best served by more involvement in Europe or more involvement in the world and more globalisation? [Interruption.] I shall not take any lectures from a Member of Parliament who represents a party that wants to tear Scotland away from its biggest market. That is just crass, irresponsible and, frankly, reckless.
We need to bear it in mind that people want the kind of future that they can build, and we need to make that happen. The people whom I represent in Dover and Deal say to me, “What is going on? Why don’t you just get on with it? Why are you still talking about it? Why is Parliament not just getting on with it?” Those are the right questions. We need to get on with it, end the uncertainty, leave the European Union and make the best of it.
Peter Grant
Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what his constituents think we should be getting on with? As things stand, we have no idea what our relationship with Europe will be like in two years’ time. What exactly is it that people are telling him to get on with?
Charlie Elphicke
They are telling me very clearly that we should leave the European Union. Personally, I think that the Government should fully embrace the Malthouse compromise, which offers us a positive way forward, to make sure that we can have open and seamless trade without being stuck within the European orbit as a form of satellite state. That is why I take issue with Labour Members. They say that they are in favour of leaving Europe, but they want to remain in the customs union, and they want to continue to have freedom of movement. Then they say, “Well, it’s all terribly complicated. Perhaps we should extend article 50 as a bridge.” Anyone looking at extending article 50 as a bridge for three or nine months knows that that is a bridge to nowhere, but the Labour party does not want to build a bridge to nowhere; it wants to build a bridge back into the European Union. It is a bridge to remain. That is the wrong thing to do. We should all come together to make sure that we leave the European Union successfully by reworking the backstop, and by taking the strong and clear position to the European Union that we are prepared to leave, deal or no deal.
Everyone in this House knows that European Union business is really done at 5 minutes to midnight. That being the case, we should press the point strongly and have the courage to see through the demands, hopes and aspirations of our constituents to make sure that we successfully leave the European Union, move on, end these debates and chart our future onwards. We should be spending more time talking about the kind of Brexit Britain we can build after we leave Europe, rather than banging on endlessly with debates in which people are constantly trying to countermand the instructions of the British people because they really want to remain.
Mr Speaker
Interventions are of course part and parcel of debate, but I simply say for the purposes of advice to the House that, given the constraints on time, interventions now should be undertaken in the knowledge that Members are preventing others from speaking.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It has now been 67 days since the Prime Minister delayed the meaningful vote in December—67 utterly wasted days for our country. As the clock ticks down to 11pm on 29 March, the Prime Minister continues the pretence that she is seeking concessions from the EU, but she knows that she is not going to get them. We all know her reckless game: keep that clock ticking down and keep bullying MPs into backing her deal or get no deal. But we all know that this is a false choice, as our country is simply not prepared for a no-deal scenario.
The Government’s failure to reach out and build cross-party consensus has left us in deadlock, so how do we unlock this logjam? Well, the answer has been hiding in plain sight and it is called common market 2.0. Common market 2.0 would mean joining Norway outside of the EU but inside the European Free Trade Association and the EEA; establishing a form of customs union with the EU; and maintaining a close economic relationship with the EU, but leaving the more political aspects of European integration. Common market 2.0 would involve leaving the withdrawal agreement precisely as it is while radically recasting the political declaration on the future relationship—something that the EU has repeatedly said it is open to doing. The Leader of the Opposition’s letter to the Prime Minister on 7 February was certainly a step in the right direction, but it is vital that we put more flesh on the bones by making an explicit commitment to joining the EEA via the EFTA pillar.
The Prime Minister’s political declaration is a bridge to nowhere. Common market 2.0 would transform the political declaration into a bridge to a clear, stable and exciting future for our country. It would mean safe- guarding jobs; guaranteeing workers’ rights; providing new controls over freedom of movement; allowing more money for public services, as our contributions to the budget would be significantly lower; taking the UK out of the common fisheries policy, the common agricultural policy and the jurisdiction of the ECJ; and eliminating the need for the Irish backstop. That last point is crucial given that it is dominating the debate, so let me explain why our proposals would remove the need ever to activate the backstop.
The fact is that a customs union alone will not solve the Irish border question because only 20% of the issues surrounding the border are customs issues. The remaining 80% are single market regulatory alignment issues. That is why we need both full participation in the single market and a strong customs union arrangement in place, at least until alternative arrangements can be agreed. But, as Brexiteers understandably ask, why would a form of comprehensive customs union be so infinitely preferable to the backstop? They say that it would not solve the problems around sovereignty and conducting trade deals. Well, here is what they are missing: article 127 of the EEA agreement means that we can leave the EEA unilaterally with a one-year notice period. Given that 80% of the Irish border issues are single market issues, common market 2.0 would completely change the dynamics of our relationship with the EU and give us far more leverage in the negotiations.
We desperately need a Brexit that begins to reunite our deeply divided country. Common market 2.0 is a strong compromise, and I believe that Parliament is ready to support this sensible, pragmatic, bridge-building approach. Brexit is a monster that is eating our politics, and it is time for us all to rediscover the lost art of compromise. It is time for common market 2.0.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
One thing that has struck me during this debate is the almost complete absence of taking into consideration how we got here today. In Dudley and Sandwell, part of which I represent, people voted in very, very large numbers for us to leave the European Union. It is incumbent on us, whatever the situation we now find ourselves in, to find a way through to delivering on Brexit for the British people, and doing it in a way that delivers on their aspirations.
There are two things that will not help in our endeavour to deliver on Brexit for the British people. The first is to countenance a second referendum. A second referendum would be highly divisive. It would not resolve the issues that we currently face; it may in fact make the situation a lot, lot worse. The second thing that would not help in delivering for the British people and for the people I represent is any idea that we are going to extend or revoke article 50. That just kicks things further along the road. It does not, in any way, get to the point of resolving the issues we face today.
I recognise some of the words, although they are often expressed in very strong language, about some of the threats of no deal. I have spoken to Jaguar Land Rover in the west midlands. But the reality is that the way to avoid no deal is for us to establish a deal with the European Union. I supported the deal because I thought it was the most practical way for us to get to exit day with an arrangement that would deliver on the aspirations of the British people as well as finding continuity for business, but I recognised that there were issues with the backstop. I believed that we should give the Prime Minister the room to respond to the vote that was held in this House two weeks ago and get changes to the backstop so that we could get a deal that everybody in this House can support and thereby get to 29 March in a condition where we can move forward.
You may think, Mr Speaker, that I am a very reasonable and calm individual, but in my previous life as a businessman I have been involved in some very robust business negotiations. I would appeal to the European Union, and to some Members of this House, to reduce the temperature of the rhetoric that is being used about these negotiations, and to leave robust exchanges in the negotiating room. When I was negotiating in business, we had a lot of passionate debate, and there were often strong disagreements with the people I was negotiating with, but we never went out of the room to brief the press and put things on Twitter and Facebook to undermine the other side, because it is in the interests of both parties to get a deal.
I would urge us to get back to the discipline of negotiating a resolution to this issue so that we do not face in this country something that I fear, which is a major democratic crisis because we have been proven unable to deliver a good negotiated exit deal and unable to deliver on the aspirations of the British people that were clearly articulated in the referendum. We must redouble our efforts to do that.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Well, 43 days to go and here we are—still pretty clueless in the House of Commons. When people ask what is going to happen, nobody really knows. I did hope to bring this to an end with my amendment (d). I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), and my hon. Friends the Members for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) and for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) for supporting it. I think it is going to gain some currency over time. In the end, we are going to come down between taking the crazy Brexit route wanted only by the militant tendency of the Tory party or else revoking article 50.
Brexit is bad. Even Brexiteers do not want Brexit on 29 March. There are no Brexiteers: it is only the utterly deluded who want Brexit on 29 March. The International Trade Secretary says that it is damaging to the economy. We have heard other Brexiteers describe Brexit on 29 March as “a catastrophe” and as “a disaster”—not something they wrote on the side of a bus when they were going round calling for Brexit. They were making all sorts of promises about Brexit. If people were convinced to vote for Christmas every week, or free chocolate on Thursdays, or slices of cheese from the moon on Fridays, we would have to tell them, “This is as undeliverable as the ERG militant tendency Tory Brexit.” It is impossible without damaging the economy, and those on the Government Front Bench should be straight about that. That is what is about to happen.
The Netherlands is preparing for damage to its small businesses, and Ireland is giving its small businesses advice about Brexit, but that is not happening in the UK. What are the Government doing to bridge the gap for small businesses in the UK when the damage of Brexit comes? If any Conservatives can sit there comfortably—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) wants to intervene and tell us that no businesses will go to the wall because of Brexit on 29 March, I will give him the floor. Does he want to take that opportunity?
Stephen Kerr
The hon. Gentleman is making a valid point—he is giving strong reasons why we should have a deal. The way we get a deal is by supporting the Prime Minister’s deal, which creates an orderly Brexit.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman should know that we have a deal at the moment with the European Union. It is a good deal, and any other deals we have with the European Union that involve us leaving the customs union and the single market will damage the economy. He should be straight about that. I notice that he will not give small businesses a guarantee—no Conservatives will, but none of them will go to the wall because of their political adventures. They should be aware, and the rest of the country should be aware, of what they are doing.
The chemical industry is very worried about exactly what regulation it will have. It describes itself as the “industry of industries”, underpinning pharmaceuticals and automotive in the UK, and aerospace. If it is outside the REACH regulation and cannot license chemicals, some chemicals might not be available in the United Kingdom.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Angus Brendan MacNeil
I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman. Can he guarantee that all chemicals will be available after Brexit?
Bill Grant
I am concerned at the view that businesses in Scotland will go to the wall. Having spoken to businesses in Scotland, I know that they want to work within a deal. Can the hon. Gentleman explain why he will not support a deal for his businesses?
Angus Brendan MacNeil
They have been working within a deal, which is why I want us to revoke article 50. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to say that.
I want to say a word or two about the trade continuity agreements. This nails a big lie of Brexit—that we can trade on WTO terms. The reason we want to roll over trade agreements instead of trading on WTO terms is that trading on WTO terms is an expensive way of conducting businesses. It involves tariffs, taxes and—[Interruption.] I hear laughter on the Government Benches. Clearly Tories do not know that that is the case. Other Governments will get in the way and tax business transactions. That is why we want to roll over these trade agreements. Without them, we will trade on WTO terms, which is an expensive way to conduct commerce, and businesses will go to the wall.
The Tories march blithely on, happy to rip up agreements and deals with our biggest customer—the 27-member trade bloc of the European Union. When I spoke recently to Alan Wolff, deputy director general of the WTO, he described the area between trading on WTO terms and within trade deals as the “Brexit gap”. There is an inevitable loss for the United Kingdom from following this crazy way.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the Faroe Islands, I am delighted to see that Poul Michelsen was down last week to sign their deal, which ensures a big slice of trade for them. But these trade deals with the Faroes, Chile and everywhere else are merely standing on the shoulders of what the European Union has already achieved—the European Union that Brexiteers decry so much, but whose trade deals they want to follow.
The Government find themselves in a very funny place indeed. They wanted at one stage to resist having any meaningful votes in Parliament, but they have ended up having so many that they have rendered them all meaningless. A number of people in business have told me that there is a danger in extending article 50 because it extends uncertainty and further postpones investment. It does, however, allow them to move assets more readily to the United Kingdom when nothing seems to be appearing down the line.
The UK is heading for an existential choice: it is either going to revoke article 50 or head for a no-deal catastrophe. We have to get our heads around that fairly quickly, because those will be the choices. The Brexit promises have been reduced by the Prime Minister to jam tomorrow—in fact, it is not even jam tomorrow; it is jam tomorrow if you scrape the mould off the top. It is a shame that that was not on the side of a bus.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
Let me concentrate, in the minutes I have, on some of the essential points. When I regretfully voted against the withdrawal agreement and political declaration in January, it was primarily because of the Northern Ireland backstop, which was the reason for many of my colleagues as well. When we voted in favour of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) two weeks ago and the House specifically argued that we should replace the backstop, we demonstrated that if the Prime Minister can secure movement on the backstop, she can get her withdrawal agreement and political declaration through the House. I want the Prime Minister to have the opportunity to do that.
However, we have to face some facts. In negotiations, the other side often does not move until the end point. I listened carefully to what the shadow Brexit Secretary said. I think he chose 13 March as his line in the sand, but if there is going to be any movement on a deal, it will have to be signed off by the European leaders at a Council. There are only two opportunities in the diary: there is an informal summit of the EU and the Arab League at the end of February in Sharm el-Sheikh; and then there is the European Council on 21 and 22 March. I am afraid it is my judgment, particularly now that we have another set of debates in this House on 26 and 27 February—
Mr Harper
I am not going to give way to my right hon. Friend because I think you are very keen, Mr Speaker, to get everybody in, or some more people in, before the wind-ups.
We are going to have to go to the European Council on 21 and 22 March. Because we have the debate on 27 February, I do not see any prospect of the EU now moving before that Council meeting. I know that is uncomfortable and difficult, but that is how negotiations work. We may wish that they worked differently, but that is how they work. Our job as Members of Parliament is to get the best possible agreement that we can get—not for ourselves, but for our constituents—so that we can leave the European Union in an orderly way. That is my preference, so I think we are going to have to give the Prime Minister a chance to do it. If we in this House choose to frustrate that, she is not going to come back with a meaningful change to that deal and we are not going to get it through this House. Then we are going to have to face a choice—a choice I do not want to face—between leaving without an agreement and not leaving at all. I think we should be honest about all this stuff about delay. Many people who back delay really mean not leaving ever, and some other people think we can avoid the choice. I do not think we can but I would prefer to have an agreement.
It is also worth saying in the debate about deal or no deal that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet’s withdrawal agreement and political declaration is not really a deal in the normal sense of the word. All it does is give us a couple of years during which, admittedly, things stay the same. That might be welcome for business, but it gives business no certainty at all about what comes afterwards. What is to be recommended in the Malthouse compromise is that, if we can replace the backstop with a free trade agreement—a backstop that would be acceptable, even if it were a permanent solution—that would give business certainty from this spring about a baseline. They would know that in future, whatever happened, they would have a free trade agreement. I think that that would give business certainty to invest, create jobs and be successful in our country. That is what I urge the Prime Minister to do, and I urge my colleagues to give her the opportunity to do so and to reject all the amendments on the Order Paper today.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
May I welcome the assurances that the Secretary of State gave in a very clear way from the Dispatch Box at the beginning of this debate? The first is that the Government will stick to the 29 March date for leaving the EU. It is important to do that from the point of view of giving the Prime Minister the leverage that she needs in the negotiations. I know many Members have pooh-poohed this today, but many ordinary people outside wonder what kind of idiots we are here in this House if we think that it is wise to send someone in to negotiate and, at the same time, say to them, “And by the way, you’re not allowed to walk away from those negotiations”. Ordinary people on the street understand the importance of that, and to give the Prime Minister the best chance, we have to stick to that particular date. That also removes the element of uncertainty. If we leave this open-ended, businesses will not get the certainty they require because they do not know what the future will be. Indeed, the shadow spokesman, when he talked about extending article 50, spoke about going to the beginning of July. That is another date. We either decide we have a date, or we do not.
I was also pleased that the Secretary of State said that the Government are seeking an alternative, especially an alternative to the backstop. I know that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said that the backstop is of no consequence, but it is of great consequence. As the EU confirmed this week, the backstop would lead to Northern Ireland having to be regulatory aligned with the rest of the EU and part of the customs union. It has spelt out the consequences of that. It would mean systematic checks on trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain at ports and airports. For me, that rips up the Union, it hurts the Northern Ireland economy and it is certainly of consequence.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
That could all be solved if the whole UK stayed in the customs union and had the same regulatory alignment. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that?
Sammy Wilson
The whole point is that Northern Ireland would be treated separately from the rest of the United Kingdom. That damages the Union.
The withdrawal agreement limits our ability to have a future trade arrangement that suits us because, as the EU has made clear, that agreement will become the basis of the future trade arrangement and that includes keeping us within a customs union and the single market. I do not believe that that is good for the United Kingdom.
People ask, “What is the alternative?” and they say that the EU will not move because there is no alternative. First, saying that the other side are not going to move so we have to give in to them, is the wrong way to approach negotiations. Secondly, there are alternatives; there are alternatives in place. We collect taxes every day across the Irish border. Michel Barnier has promised us and the Irish Government that, in the event of no deal, he has alternatives. He has a study group working on it. He will have paperless checks and decentralised monitoring of trade—the very thing we have said is possible. Also, on the political declaration, the EU has said that there are particular alternatives along the Irish border that will be included in those discussions. My answer to the EU is that, if you have something in place at present, if there is something you will put in place in the event of no deal, and if there is something you have promised to discuss in future, put it in the deal now and then we can move on.
There is an alternative—a good alternative that will benefit everyone. It is the Malthouse compromise: a future trade arrangement that is tariff and quota free, which will suit business; a protocol that will guarantee there are no checks on the Irish border, which will suit the Irish Government; and trade facilitation measures, which are already in place and which the EU has already said it will consider and put in place. Regulatory equivalents for meat products and so on are already in current trade agreements and there are guarantees for citizens who are living in this country from the EU. All those good things should be included.
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The clock is ticking down, both in this debate and towards 29 March, and it is imperative for the House to focus on delivering a successful Brexit, which is successful for jobs, trade and the economy. Despite what we might hear from the other side of the House, I believe that we must deliver a successful Brexit for Scotland. Despite all that we may hear, many organisations in Scotland support the Prime Minister’s deal, including the Federation of Small Businesses, the Scotch Whisky Association, the National Farmers Union, Scotland, and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, and that is because they, like business, want certainty.
I supported the meaningful vote and the Prime Minister’s deal. In my speech, I made it clear that I had reservations, particularly about the backstop; I would like an end date. In any business negotiation, if there is no end date on a suspensive condition, it is never dealt with: you always put that to one side and then deal with the things that are more important. I feel that an end date to the backstop is important, but as a Unionist and someone who does not want a second referendum, I could support the Prime Minister’s deal. I add further that in business negotiations, one does not take things off the table. For that reason, although I do not want no deal, I equally understand that we must not weaken our hand.
In the spirit of being equal, I say to the purists in our party that the referendum result was close. It was 52% to 48%. There is a mood in this House which is against no deal and I implore them to proceed with caution. As has been said before, in trying to win the match seven-nil, they may well lose it four-three. As a nation, we need the debate to move on. No longer should it be about “Should we stay or should we go?” It is now about “How do we embrace the opportunities that freedom from the EU will give us?”
I say to all sides of the leave-remain argument that, for the good of the economy, which is the driver for all we hold dear in terms of public services, please let us move forward. The Prime Minister said that we must hold our nerve. I say to my fellow leavers: if they definitely want to leave on 29 March, they have to not only hold their nerve, but hold their nose and vote for her deal.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I came into the Chamber earlier today during business questions and the hon. Member for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher) was referring to robot day. I thought that was a reference to the Prime Minister and her Ministers on the subject of Brexit repeating the same mantra again and again. In fact, it is an event in Coventry on 9 March, which I of course welcome.
There are two things we need to do today. One is to rule out no deal. Many Members have given a large number of examples of why we should rule out no deal. I will add just one example. All of us, I suspect, have an EHIC card—the European health insurance card. People need to be aware that, if we crash out of the European Union on 29 March, the UK has to negotiate 27 bilateral agreements with each and every single EU country to ensure that our European healthcare continues. Members will probably not be surprised to know that the UK has so far not managed to negotiate a single one of those bilateral deals. If you have booked your holiday in the European Union after 29 March and we are in a no-deal scenario, you need to think very carefully about taking out travel insurance. The bad news is that, when we contacted seven of the largest travel insurance companies, only two were able to guarantee that their policies were valid in a no-deal scenario.
That is just one example of why we should not be pursuing no deal, but there are many, many others. Many Government Ministers have described, in the most colourful means possible, the impact of no deal, reinforcing the point. If any other evidence is needed, yesterday I met the CEO of one of the largest UK construction companies, who said that it has lifts and specialist cladding coming into the UK but that it has absolutely no idea what will happen to the tariff that applies to those goods at the point they get to the UK.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Tom Brake
I will not give way.
The second thing we need to do today is come out very strongly in favour of a people’s vote. I am going to throw down the gauntlet to all parties and individual MPs to finally demonstrate their courage and commitment to a people’s vote, and back the amendment we will table on 27 February so we can finally press this matter to a vote. I am very pleased that today, although our amendment was not selected, we secured support from both the SNP and Plaid. I welcome that but, if we are going to be doing this again on 27 February, I hope there will be a much, much greater level of support.
I am very pleased that the Leader of the Opposition arrived in his place in time for me to make that point, because on 27 February the overwhelming majority of his party members, the overwhelming majority of young people, the overwhelming majority of his supporters and I will want him to support that amendment, too. I very much look forward to that.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
It is a privilege to follow on from such excellent contributions; among the finest speeches were those from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), my hon. Friends the Members for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) and for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), and my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) and for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman).
I encourage every Member present to heed the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey. She warned of the degradation of our national political debate. When loose talk of treachery and betrayal leads directly to threats against Members of this House, we must do better, and today I think we have. We do, though, need to be honest with ourselves: we are no closer to breaking an impasse that simply must be broken. We are about to vote on a Government motion that is divorced from reality and oblivious to the gravity of the situation that we find ourselves in.
There are just 43 days to go until 29 March, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said, British exporters and importers do not know what tariffs and regulatory checks they will face in just 44 days’ time. Those living on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic have no idea whether that border will be maintained in 44 days’ time without the symbol of division that is physical infrastructure. Businesses, local authorities and vital public services do not know whether, in 44 days’ time, the disruption at ports will be so severe that it will become difficult for them to access the goods that we all rely on. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the shadow Secretary of State, said, it is already affecting business behaviour and investment—sometimes irreversibly.
Some say that if no deal came to pass, it would create a state of national emergency, and that is true enough, but the reality is that there is already so much uncertainty, creating so much anxiety, that we are close to national crisis now. It is a crisis of the Tory party’s making. How is Parliament asked to respond to this crisis? We are asked to note
“that discussions between the UK and the EU on the Northern Ireland backstop are ongoing.”
It might also be worth noting that those discussions have so far consisted of the EU stating that it is not prepared to reopen the backstop—a backstop that the Prime Minister had already agreed to, and which she told the House was an inevitable part of any withdrawal agreement. She told us that before she voted against it on 29 January to placate the extremists on her Back Benches.
That brings me to the next absurdity in the motion. We are asked to reiterate our support for the Brady amendment. Well, we on the Opposition Benches will never support a strategy that so clearly puts short-term Tory party unity over and above the national interest. The Secretary of State was once again unable to tell us what “alternative arrangements” the Government are actually seeking, and we understand that no legal proposals for alternative arrangements have even been put to the EU, so let us be clear what the Prime Minister’s real strategy is: she is running down the clock, playing for time and drifting towards no deal. She is hoping, in the face of all the evidence, that the passage of time and a few more reassurances will be enough to overturn a defeat of 230. That would be an irresponsible strategy even if it had any chance of working, relying as it does on creating a national crisis to strong-arm MPs, but what makes it worse is that it plainly will not work.
The extremists in the Prime Minister’s party want the backstop replaced—that, indeed, is what the Brady amendment calls for—or at the very least gutted of any force and effect through a short time limit or an easily used unilateral exit mechanism. The Prime Minister knows full well that neither of those things are going to happen. I will make a prediction: the extremists on the Government Back Benches will go against whatever she brings back. They will not be scared of no deal. They always have been and always will be prepared to plunge this country into chaos. We have a Prime Minister who prizes Conservative party unity above all else. She is putting party before country. Because she does not have a strategy that can work, this House will have to step in and prevent no deal.
Two weeks ago, the House approved a motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington and the right hon. Member for Meriden, and that was welcome. It showed that there is no majority in this House for no deal, but that is not enough on its own. If the House wants to prevent no deal, it has to take further action. The next step is to ensure that there is a hard stop to the Government’s “run down the clock and hope” approach, and to say that on 27 February, we must be able to debate further options to prevent no deal.
Other steps beyond today’s amendment will be needed. Those will include supporting the Bill tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford. [Interruption.] Anyone who genuinely opposes no deal can see that if no deal is in place, an extension by mid-March is in order. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Quite a lot of noisy men are wittering away to each other and are not listening to the hon. Lady, who is replying to the debate. Be quiet; remember your manners.
Jenny Chapman
Mr Speaker, I am grateful. An extension might buy more time, but ultimately this House needs to be able to debate and vote on the credible options to prevent no deal. We are clear what those options are: either a close economic relationship that includes a customs union and close alignment to the single market—this option was set out in the letter written by the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister and welcomed by European leaders as a serious and credible way out of the impasse—or, if the Prime Minister digs her heels in and continues to pursue a failing and undeliverable strategy, a public vote.
I will finish with a reference to the right hon. Member for West Dorset. He said that if the Prime Minister and Government continued to fail to lead, this House would step in, fill the void and lead in their place.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Chris Heaton-Harris)
I thank the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman), for her comments about people’s speeches. She mainly chose people on her own side, but there were some excellent contributions from Government Members as well. A notable one was from the Father of the House, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who pointed out the logic of the position of so many of the Labour Members who spoke. Based on the shadow Brexit Secretary’s argument today, they should all be supporting the Prime Minister’s deal. If the Father of the House will forgive me, I am very glad that his amendment was not selected, because it was one of the most lengthy amendments I have ever seen on an Order Paper, and it would have taken some doing to get through it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) correctly pointed out that those who asked for an extension of article 50 are just reinforcing uncertainty for businesses and people alike. I both understand and respect the position of my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman). She knows, and pointed out, that the best way to stop our country leaving the European Union without a deal is to do as she has always done, and work with and support the deal that the Prime Minister is trying to achieve for this country.
I was not quite sure about the story from my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) about a shortage of Viagra in a no-deal scenario. I am not sure that stands up at all. [Laughter.] We have had this debate a number of times; you have to try to liven it up. Hard Brexit, soft Brexit—who knows?
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) said when talking about her amendment, there is a long-standing convention of not publishing advice given by civil servants, quite properly and candidly, to members of the Cabinet. The Government, through the Chancellor the Duchy of Lancaster, are very happy to meet her to identify the information that she wants published, and then to commit to publishing that information. In the light of that offer, I kindly ask her to consider not pressing her amendment.
Anna Soubry
I am grateful for the Minister’s comments, and congratulate him on what I think is his first speech at the Dispatch Box. In any event, this seems like a very sensible resolution, because if those papers, which I believe must be published, as others do, are not forthcoming, I reserve the right to move an amendment on 27 February, or into the 28th, and I will do that unless we get those papers. However, I am confident that we will identify them in that meeting, that they will be published, and that people will then realise what a danger no deal is.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank my right hon. Friend for that clarification.
This afternoon continued the tradition of robust discussion on this subject, with a degree of deliberation that is only appropriate for an issue of such national significance. As you would expect, Mr Speaker, the Government are following the direction delivered by the House on 29 January to return to the European Union to seek legally binding changes to the backstop. This House has instructed the Government on how to proceed, and we are delivering on that instruction. As the Prime Minister set out on Tuesday, there are three ways in which that could be achieved. First, the backstop could be replaced with alternative arrangements to avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. Secondly, the backstop could have a legally binding time limit. Thirdly, there could be a unilateral exit clause.
Ian Paisley
Will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm that the Government have started to draft textual, legally binding changes to the withdrawal agreement on that point?
Chris Heaton-Harris
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, we have three options to deliver on the will of this House. Initial discussions with the European Union covered all these proposals. At this stage, there is not a specific legal text on the table. Notwithstanding that, we are firm that any change must be legally binding, but as has been said, it would not be prudent to start providing a running commentary on the detail. I hope that clarifies slightly for my hon. Friend where we are going.
On no deal, as the Minister with responsibility for co-ordinating our contingency planning, I see the day-to-day work that Whitehall is doing to prepare us for that scenario and I remain confident that we are en route to being ready for that eventuality.
Chris Heaton-Harris
Sorry, I am afraid I do not have time.
However, this Government do not want to have to utilise that work.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I am afraid I am not going to give way.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has consistently made clear, the only way to avoid no deal is to support a deal, and unless this House votes for a deal, the legal default in both UK and EU law is that we leave without a deal.
Let me assure the House that our programme of wider readiness is moving forward in a way that means that there is no need to extend article 50; there is absolutely no desire to do so, either. Four-hundred and thirty EU exit statutory instruments have been laid before the House to date, which is over 60% of the SIs that we anticipate will be required by exit day. Over 210 have been made, and five pieces of primary legislation have already been passed in preparation for our exit from the European Union.
We have spent a long time discussing the backstop, and this House’s concerns about it have been made clear, but it is important to note that there are wider benefits offered by the withdrawal agreement. It provides citizens with the certainty they need about their rights going forward. It signals the end of sending vast payments to the European Union, meaning more money for our NHS and other key priorities at home, while honouring the obligations we signed up to while in the EU, and it delivers the time-limited implementation period that is so vital for business.
Today is not the end of the process, but a way point directing us to the finishing line. It is a mark in the road towards the end destination—one that this country overwhelmingly voted to see. As I am sure Members understand, now is not the time to add any new conditions or create any unnecessary processes. Now is the time to allow our Prime Minister to finish the job that she is so diligently doing, and get this deal over the line. I ask all Members to support the Government in that tonight.
Mr Speaker
I understood from the exchange the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) had with the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), that she was not minded, on this occasion, to move her amendment (e). Is my understanding correct?
Anna Soubry
It is, Mr Speaker, on this occasion; I am sure we can sort it all out.
Main Question put.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Tonight’s vote shows that there is no majority for the Prime Minister’s course of action in dealing with Brexit. Yet again, her Government have been defeated. The Government cannot keep on ignoring Parliament or ploughing on towards 29 March without a coherent plan. She cannot keep on just running down the clock and hoping that something will turn up that will save the day and save her face.
It is surprising that the Prime Minister is not even here to hear the result of this vote. I was going to ask her to come to the Dispatch Box now to admit that her strategy has failed and bring forward to the House a coherent plan that can deal with the stresses and anxieties that so many people all over this country are feeling, so that we can make some progress together, bring people together and prevent the catastrophe of a no-deal exit on 29 March. It is surprising that the Prime Minister is not here. Is there some way by which you could encourage her to return to the Dispatch Box and tell us what her plan is?
Mr Speaker
It is not obligatory for the Prime Minister to be present on this occasion. Other representatives of the Treasury Bench are here, and if the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union wants to take to the Dispatch Box, it is open to him to do so, but he is not obliged to do so.
Mr Speaker
Or if the Government Chief Whip, who is chuntering from a sedentary position for no obvious benefit or purpose, wants to beetle along to the Box, he is welcome to do so, but he has declined to do so. [Interruption.] No, it is not incumbent upon them. They have been invited, but they are not obliged to do so. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has made his own point in his own way with force and alacrity, and it is on the record for others to study.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a significant defeat for the Government. This is a bourach, and at the end of the day, the Prime Minister should be here to accept her responsibilities on the back of this Government defeat. Where is she? Given the significance of this defeat, what powers are open to us to force the Government to bring forward their meaningful vote to next week? People in the United Kingdom want certainty. Finally, I thank those Members—Members of all parties—who had the courage to vote with us tonight to extend article 50, but where was the Front Bench of the Labour party on extending article 50?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. In responding to him, I am seeking to be helpful to people interested in our proceedings who are not Members of the House, and therefore I will, as I hope he would expect, treat of the factual inquiry that the leader of the Scottish National party in this House put to me—what can be done to bring forward or expedite the meaningful vote? The short answer is that it is not within the gift of the Chair to do so, and it is not for Members of this House who are not part of the Executive branch to do so. The meaningful vote is brought about as a result of and in accordance with statute, and the statute decrees that it be done by a Minister. It will happen when a Minister is ready to bring forward that vote. However, the right hon. Gentleman knows that there are at various times other opportunities for debates and votes, and he is not an innocent in these matters. He is well versed in parliamentary procedure, and he will know the opportunities open to him, and other Members in other parts of the House will similarly be so conscious.
Tom Brake
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I suspect that if the Secretary of State, in opening the debate, had said that he was going to honour what Parliament voted for on 29 January—ruling out no deal—the Government may well have won the vote this evening, but he did not. In what way can we, as Members of Parliament who have already voted to rule out no deal, ensure that the Government listen to that and respond appropriately? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
A Member from Ealing who will be well known to colleagues—the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound)—has just chuntered in the background that that is beyond even the Speaker’s power. Well, it is certainly beyond the Speaker’s power.
What the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) has raised is an extremely important matter, but it is a matter of politics. The politics will play out—I use that term in a non-pejorative and neutral sense—in the days and weeks ahead, and we shall have to see where we get to. I think the right hon. Gentleman was mainly concerned, if I understand him correctly, to put his point on the record. I do not think there was really a question mark there, but if there was, I am not able to provide a definitive answer now. However, we will return to these matters ere long.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. What we do know tonight is that there is a majority in this House for replacing the backstop with alternative arrangements and that that majority rests on what is known as the Malthouse compromise. Is there any way to put on the record that the Government should adopt that compromise and enjoy a majority for it?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is a county colleague of mine, but that is a truly monstrous abuse of the point of order procedure, as the puckish grin on the face of the hon. Gentleman demonstrates he is perfectly well aware. He has made his own point and he has found his own salvation. The point was also made by colleagues of like mind to him in the course of the debate, but he has now given it a prominence with which I rather suspect he is satisfied. We will leave it there for now.
I hope there are no further points of order because there is an Arsenal match on television very soon—[Interruption.] But the Chair will always attend to his duties. Hon. Members need be in no doubt on that score.
Business without Debate
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
In the interests of the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), who has secured the Adjournment debate–I am playing for time here—[Interruption.] Yes, the Arsenal game starts in three minutes’ time. I appeal to colleagues who are leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, so that the Adjournment debate can be properly conducted.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I also place on the record my thanks to you for selecting this debate, which I am pleased to have secured for one simple reason: to give the Government a chance to do right by retired miners and their families in my constituency and coalfield communities across the country.
I understand the significance of the mineworkers’ pension scheme to other hon. Members here today, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), who has brought so many of those involved together; my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), who led the recent Westminster Hall debate; hon. Members who are themselves former miners; and the many other coalfield MPs who join me here today.
This debate specifically seeks to address the injustices of the surplus sharing arrangement agreed in the mineworkers’ pension scheme back in 1994, but I want to start by explaining just why it matters so much to people in areas such as Barnsley. Our community is one built on the coal industry. It once helped sustain some 30,000 jobs in the area, many of which were directly involved in mining itself, where the work was tough, difficult and dangerous. Aside from the economy that depended on it, the industry also fostered an identity and a sense of community spirit that lives on to this day.
In the same way that mining powered our community, our community powered a nation, so I firmly believe that those who did so deserve nothing less than a fair arrangement that properly looks after them in later life. Unfortunately, the current scheme, agreed with the Government on the privatisation of British Coal in 1994, no longer does so. Back then, the Government offered to act as a guarantor to the scheme, ensuring that the pensions hard earned by miners would not decrease in value.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. She is doing a great job here this evening. Does she agree that we are not disputing the importance of the Government guarantee? It is giving retired miners like my uncles peace of mind that their pensions are secure, and that is really important. The question is whether the Government still need to take a 50% share, more than £3 billion over 25 years, out of the scheme, when they have not made any—any—direct payment into it. Finding the best way of giving former colliers and their families a fairer share of the pension is what has earned our focus tonight, and that is what she is leading on.
Stephanie Peacock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I want to make it clear at this stage that my complaint is not with the deal at large. There are some concerns over the details of the bonus element of the pension, whereby disappointing investment returns could see bonuses lost over time and members’ pensions worse off by around 30% in real terms—I intend to press the Minister on that issue later—but like the trustees I acknowledge that elements of the deal are beneficial.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I compliment my hon. Friend on securing this really important debate. Just to echo her comments, the nation owes a debt of honour to the miners and mining communities for providing the fuel that powered a nation. Many miners died prematurely, including my own father in his 50s and my grandfather in his early 50s. What will happen to the surplus when the last of the miners and their beneficiaries have passed away? Where will that surplus go, and is that driving the Government’s actions?
Stephanie Peacock
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. I am sure the Minister has heard it and will respond in due course.
The guarantee has provided a safeguard that has allowed the trustees to follow higher-risk, and subsequently higher-value, investments that have proved lucrative.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her fine speech. Picking up on a point from the previous intervention, the very reason there has to be action soon is that if there is not, the miners themselves will not get benefit from it while they are alive.
Stephanie Peacock
My hon. Friend is right, and I will come on to speak about that in a moment.
The guarantee is not without its merits, but what the debate seeks to address is the specific surplus sharing arrangement, which, as hon. Members have said, has seen the Government profit so disproportionately at the expense of miners.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Many people in Doncaster share the same concerns as those in her constituency in Barnsley. Does she agree that when the scheme was first set up the balance of risk was different? What we know now, all these years further on from 1994, requires at the very least a revision to look at the balance of risk being fairer in the future.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank my right hon. Friend for her comments. She is absolutely right, and I will come on to talk about that in a moment. She talks about when the agreement was set up. The Minister admitted to me, in response to a written question asking what actuarial advice was taken, that
“no such advice was obtained”.
Can we consider that for a moment, Madam Deputy Speaker? This arrangement was put in place with no expert advice. It is little wonder that the initial prediction proved woefully inaccurate and the surplus has been substantially more than anticipated—and it shows.
The sheer amount of money that has been taken out by the Government since 1994 without returning a single penny is staggering. The Treasury has pocketed £4.4 billion since 1994.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I am sure many ex-miners in Coventry—we used to have two collieries—will be very grateful to her for securing this debate and for trying put some wrongs right. I am sure they will appreciate that very much, because a lot of them suffer from silicosis and other diseases. She is doing a great service to the miners.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right that a lot of former miners are taking a great interest in this debate, not least because the Government have taken £617 million this year alone, on top of £102 million over the past two years. As if that was not already enough, they plan to take another £427 million over the next three years.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a really powerful speech. Does she agree that pensioner miners in areas such as mine in Durham should be getting an enhanced set of benefits from the scheme, rather than the Government creaming off this money? It is an absolute outrage.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. I know that her constituency hosts the Durham miners’ gala, which celebrates the coalfield communities. She is absolutely right about the money that the Government have taken out. I repeat that they have not contributed a single penny from their own funds. These are huge sums of money.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. The miners have had to fight every inch of the way, including for pneumoconiosis compensation and everything else. In my constituency in the Cynon Valley there is real anger and a feeling that the miners have been cheated by the refusal to share out this surplus money in a fair and proper way.
Stephanie Peacock
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The sums of money involved are huge, but for the individuals and families affected, it is striking how small the numbers are.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her speech. She is championing miners right across the UK, including in my seat in Ogmore. Does she agree that we are running out of time? Lots of widows now receive the miners’ pension, based on a reduction. Unless the Government take action now, we will be in a position where the money will simply be taken up by the Treasury. That cannot be right for the thousands of miners left and their families.
Stephanie Peacock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The average pension is just £84 a week, but it is a lot less for widows in receipt of a pension. Some are forced to get by on much less. For instance, I have read of one who receives as little as £59 a week, after spending the best part of three decades down the pit.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Of course, the north Staffordshire coalfields were some of the most prosperous and efficient coalfields in the country. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the money that the Government are taking into the Treasury was spent directly on pensioners, the economic impact on their local communities, which have been starved of funds, would be immense, and in some cases transformative?
Stephanie Peacock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is just totally unfair. How can £59 for a retired miner and £4.4 billion for the Government possibly be justified? How is that fair? These are people who toiled for years in dangerous, gruelling conditions to help to keep the lights on and our country running.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. So many people are present to register their support for what she is saying, and I am here to do the same. I have seen the surplus sharing arrangement referred to as a
“legalised but grossly immoral raid on the funds.”—[Official Report, 10 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 171WH.]
Is it not now time for this Government to right a wrong?
Stephanie Peacock
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that is the purpose of this debate. It is time that action was taken. We should consider what a difference it would make to pensioners’ lives if we diverted more money into their pockets, rather than into the Government’s coffers.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is speaking compellingly, despite the many interruptions. She certainly speaks to the sense of injustice around this issue in my constituency. Has she had any discussions with the trustees of the mineworkers’ pension scheme to find out their views on what a fair way forward would be?
Stephanie Peacock
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I know he has championed this issue over many years. I have indeed spoken to the trustees, and they are in agreement that we need to look at this again.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I would simply like to say, first, that I hope the hon. Lady gets a review out of this debate, at the very least; and secondly, that I have always supported the mineworkers, since the closing of the pits by Michael Heseltine. It was a long time ago, but the bottom line is that the miners deserve to be looked after properly.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. I am pleased that we have cross-party support today. It is very welcome.
The risk undertaken by the Government in guaranteeing the pensions no longer justifies the price paid by the miners for that assurance. The membership of the scheme alone has decreased substantially over the decades since the deal was struck. In 2006, there were 280,000 members; now, there are 160,000. The Government’s financial risk in their role as guarantor of the pensions is in permanent decline, yet in essence they are still charging miners the same price that they charged 25 years ago.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is completely right and is making a really powerful case on behalf of mineworkers all over the country. Does she agree that we need to know whether the Government are seeing the mineworkers’ pension as a source of income generation? If they are, that would be utterly morally wrong, given the contribution that the mineworkers have made to our economy over so many years.
Stephanie Peacock
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure that the Minister has heard her question and will address it in good time.
Never mind whether this is fair. From a financial perspective, the scheme fundamentally does not provide value for money for its members. I implore the Minister not to respond with platitudes about the benefits of the Government’s guarantee for the scheme. We know that it has been beneficial, and as many a former miner from Barnsley will tell us, they know there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)
I speak as a serving miner at one time, who had two broken legs. I wonder about this sometimes when I see in the newspapers about this Sir Philip Green and how he stole all the pensions, yet here we are, sitting here and the Government are stealing pensions. They should have their knighthoods taken off them as well.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank my hon. Friend. As a former miner, he speaks with passion and has done over many decades, and he is absolutely right. It is blatantly unfair that those who have spent a life working literally at the coalface will be left to struggle in retirement, when the Government can instead help the near 160,000 former miners still affected. This is their money, and I appeal now to the Minister to do right by them.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend, and as the grandson of a coal miner, I know that the speech she is making is so important for the communities that we represent. When the Prime Minister took over, she stood on the steps of Downing Street and said that there are “burning injustices” affecting our nation. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is one of those burning injustices? If the promises that the Prime Minister made are to mean anything at all, this wrong must be righted immediately.
Stephanie Peacock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is totally unfair. That is why I ask the Minister to dispel the concerns that I briefly touched on earlier and protect the bonus element of the members’ pensions, which will prevent real-terms losses to pension value in times of poor investment return. Most importantly, is she prepared to amend the surplus sharing scheme and meet the coalfield MPs, the scheme trustees, members and the National Union of Mineworkers to discuss a revision, including consideration of the recent NUM-commissioned report that suggested a 90:10 split in favour of the miners?
Miners and their families in this country had their way of life ripped apart. They were branded “the enemy within”. Men were imprisoned because they were fighting for their jobs. Women ran soup kitchens because they were fighting for their community. Spirits were bruised but never broken. Tragically, too often our miners were let down. The unfairness of the scheme must not—cannot—be allowed to stand as the final chapter in that dismal history. Retired miners have waited long enough for the only thing they ever wanted: their fair share.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) for securing the debate, for her excellent speech and for the opportunity to speak very briefly on an issue that I am extremely passionate about. Many of us are now familiar with the shocking headline figures behind the mineworkers’ pension scheme story. The Government have received nearly £4.5 billion from the MPS since 1994. They have never had to pay a penny into the scheme in their role as guarantor and they are still pocketing in the region of £142 million a year. Those figures do not even include any moneys that they have received from the other coal pension scheme—the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, from which they have also made billions of pounds.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that what is absolutely fundamental is that at the time of privatisation, any surplus was envisaged as a safety net, not a cash cow for the Government?
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Just to confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) said, I served on the Labour side on the Bill that privatised the coal industry in 1994, and those guarantees were given at that stage.
Gloria De Piero
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point. What the headline figures that I have quoted do not tell us are the personal stories of hardship that our ex-miners and their widows are facing. The average weekly pension is not much more than £80 a week. It is hardly a sum that someone could live a luxury lifestyle on. MPS pensioners rightly feel aggrieved at seeing the profits from their pension investments being used to boost the Treasury’s coffers. An MPS pensioner from my constituency called into my office recently to show me his recent pension statement. He had received the news that, thanks to a 3.4% increase to his guaranteed pension and a 4.2% bonus, his pension was going up to the grand total of £74.71.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend remind the Government that we are talking about deferred income earnt by miners, not a gift that we are blessing them with? It is the miners’ money, not anyone else’s.
Gloria De Piero
That is why it is clear that the 50:50 surplus sharing arrangement put in place when the Government became guarantor needs to be renegotiated.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Ashfield and for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) for making such powerful speeches. Does my hon. Friend agree that, at a time when we have had 40,000 excess deaths, many of them old people—the highest level for 40 years in this country—and when we see pensioners’ income under attack from higher inflation and risks to their benefits, such as free TV licences, this is a wrong that must be righted by the Minister? These communities were devastated when their pits closed. These people lost income during their lifetime and are now being denied it in retirement.
Gloria De Piero
Absolutely, and the Government have made far more money than was ever forecast.
Sir Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Ashfield and for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) for raising this matter. The calculation made in the privatisation in 1993-94 was done on the basis that a lot of coal mines were still open at that time. Clearly that is not the case now. This is a milk cow for Government. I do not know how many years the Government are going to keep looking at this to try to get some sense for it, but what is happening is wholly wrong. People can quote the increases in miners’ pensions, but often a lot has been lost because these people are on means-tested benefits to start with. We should recognise that.
Gloria De Piero
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point from a wealth of experience of campaigning on this issue.
I, Labour colleagues from other coalfield constituencies, the National Union of Mineworkers, other campaigners and, crucially, the trustees of the mineworkers’ pension scheme—the Minister shook her head when my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East raised that point, but I and other colleagues have met them and they have told me to my face, “This is not right”—know that this is unfair and that the schemes need to be renegotiated. Approaches have been made to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, but no meaningful efforts to engage have been made by the Government. That has to change and quickly, because the number of MPS pensioners is decreasing every year. Action needs to be taken now, so I ask the Minister to commit to giving ex-miners a fairer share of their pension fund surpluses now.
The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)
May I sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) on securing this debate and on a superb, passionate speech? It was brilliant to hear.
I need to declare a strong interest in this matter. There is a reason why I take my stewardship of the scheme incredibly seriously, and that is that my mother-in-law is a beneficiary. She is a widow and her husband, Bill O’Neill, who was a leading light in the coke workers union, died very young as a result of his many years of service underground. Indeed, my husband turned down a job in the Keresley pit at the age of 16, but got into trouble at university for helping to organise the blockade of ports on the east coast to stop the imports of Polish coal, so I will not take any lessons from anybody in this Chamber about the impact of the scheme or the feelings that have been raised over the years, which were so powerfully expressed by the hon. Lady. I completely share her view that one thing that we always need to focus on is the sheer blood, sweat, tears and toil that went into building our industrial revolution. One of the marvellous things about my current portfolio is the opportunity perhaps to repurpose some of that work, through things such as geothermal energy projects, to basically create energy for the next generation, based on the effort that went in.
I want to pick up some of the hon. Lady’s points about how the scheme is working and touch on some of the issues around cash flow. It is a little unfair of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) to say that there has been no engagement. There has been a lot of engagement on this process. I continue to be interested in what the trustees are bringing forward; indeed, I was discussing this with the Chancellor only today.
Nick Smith
I understand that the mineworkers’ pension scheme trustees tried to meet the Department before Christmas to talk about the guarantee but have still not heard from the Department about a meeting. Will the Minister pledge this evening to meet the mineworkers’ pension scheme trustees within the next fortnight?
Claire Perry
I will, but I met the trustees last year. I think that they have done an exceptionally good job, and I shall say more about that later. We have discussed their proposals with them, and I am shocked to hear that they were told that a meeting was not available to them. A meeting will be available whenever they want it.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Was a review process written into the 50:50 split when the decision was made? If it was not, would not agreeing to a review now be the honourable thing for the Government to do, not least because the decision was made more than 20 years ago?
Claire Perry
This is a factual point with which I intend to deal shortly. The split has already been reviewed. It was last reviewed in 2002 by a Labour Energy Minister, who said:
“the trustees have been advised that the Government does not feel it would be right to adjust the current 50/50 surplus sharing arrangements.”
He also pointed out that markets could go up or down. In fact, in 2002, the scheme was in deficit, as it was again in 2008 and 2009. The then Labour Government decided that, given the future unpredictability of the scheme, it would not be correct to review the pension surpluses. So it is not correct to say that the decision has not been reviewed. Indeed, a Labour Government made the decision not to change the surplus sharing arrangements.
Stephanie Peacock
The Minister will acknowledge that that review took place quite a few years ago, when the scheme was in a very different state. Given that there are now more than 150,000 fewer former miners and their widows, the risk for the Government is substantially less than it was then.
Claire Perry
The hon. Lady has made a valid point but, as she has also said, if the scheme had been reviewed at that point, many more thousands of people would have received a higher pension. The decision not to conduct a review was made partly because of the volatility that is inherent in a scheme for which the Government act as guarantor, and partly because, notwithstanding the idea that this is cash that sits in the Government’s coffers, the Government have no money of their own. In many instances, the money that has come into the scheme has been spent directly in the coalfield communities. We have spent more than £1 billion —[Interruption.] Hang on. We have spent more than £1 billion of Government money in the coalfield communities over the last 20 years, and we have committed an additional £70 million since 2010. The point is that, if money comes to the Government, it is part of the Government’s general receipts and can then be recycled. That money has contributed to the benefits that many other pensioners have received.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Some important questions have been asked, and I am sure that Members want to hear the answers from the Minister.
Claire Perry
I am afraid that there is a fundamental fallacy in some of the arguments that have been advanced. I suspect that the Labour Government made the decision not to review the surplus sharing for the same reason, which is that the money that comes to the Government is then being spent to support pensioners in many ways, providing them with, for instance, free prescriptions and bus passes. It is not correct to say that the money is just sitting there.
Claire Perry
No, I will not give way. Some important questions have been answered. I think that I was generous in allowing two speeches to be made before my response.
As the hon. Member for Barnsley East rightly said, the scheme continues to function and the numbers are falling. The only scheme that resembles this one is the one that was set up for rail workers. Again, the Government are the guarantor, which means that any liabilities incurred by the scheme will come back to them. For that reason, the trustees, who include ex-miners, have done an amazing investment job. Because of that guarantee—it is basically a Government-backed scheme—the returns are at least a third higher than they would otherwise have been, so it has generated a lot of value.
Claire Perry
Does the hon. Gentleman want answers, or does he want to keep asking questions? Because I love the hon. Gentleman, I will take a question from him.
Nick Smith
I have listened to what the Minister has said. We argue that the Government have received at least £3.5 billion in surplus in recent years. The Minister says that they have spent £1 billion in coalfield communities in the last 20 years. Labour Members feel that our communities have been short-changed by £2 billion. Given that the last review took place nearly 20 years ago, why will the Minister not do the right thing now and agree to another review?
Claire Perry
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be the first to acknowledge—the point has already been made—that, sadly, one of the results has been that many people who are in receipt of this pension scheme, including the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell), who was in his place, no longer live in those coalfield communities, but they have benefited as pensioners from many of the other pension benefits that that income has gone towards providing.
I met, and was incredibly impressed with the trustees. Relative to other schemes, the results they have provided and the compassion and generosity with which they administer the scheme are second to none, and we should pay tribute to them for that. I point out again that the returns from the Government underwriting of the scheme are about a third higher in real terms than they would have been.
I want to turn to something that has been suggested by the trustees. When I met them—and perhaps the hon. Member for Barnsley East and I should meet them together to have the same conversation; I will be happy to do that—they indicated to me that they understood that changing the surplus sharing arrangements, as was considered by the last Labour Government and rejected, was not the biggest priority. The biggest priority was protecting the accrued bonuses and making sure that the scheme could proceed on that basis. They have come forward with some excellent proposals and I commend them for that. I had a brief discussion this evening with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor about my interest and the Treasury’s interest in properly reviewing those proposals and taking them forward. I am very happy to have those conversations face to face, as I have committed to do.
I genuinely admire the hon. Lady’s speech. It is brilliant to see her and so many colleagues standing up for a group of people who many may argue gave more to the system than they received from it. As a family member, I am proud to acknowledge that and to stand up as the steward of the scheme and pledge to her that I will do my best to ensure that it continues to deliver.
I do want to say that the trustees’ proposals are excellent, albeit we need to look at the cash flow implications. We will continue to explore options and I am very happy to do that on a cross-party basis with all Members who would be interested in doing so.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Data Protection, Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendments Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries (Margot James)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Data Protection, Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendments Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. Much of our current data protection framework derives from EU measures—namely the General Data Protection Regulation and the law enforcement directive—over which our Information Commissioner’s Office and UK civil servants have had considerable influence.
When the UK leaves the EU, the GDPR will no longer have direct effect on our law. It will however be retained in domestic law through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. A number of deficiencies will arise in this as a result of our leaving the Union. The purpose of the draft instrument is to ensure that UK data protection law continues to be operable after exit, and that the protections for data subjects and the obligations on data controllers and processors remain in place after we have left the European Union.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Does the Minister envisage the Government and, indeed, Parliament taking the opportunity to deal with some of the ludicrous interpretations of GDPR legislation, which lead to massive amounts of bureaucracy in both the public and private sectors?
Margot James
The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I do not think that it pertains to this particular statutory instrument, but I am sure that if he requested a debate on those important matters, he would find a ready audience of hon. Members to participate in it.
Many of the changes made to the GDPR by the draft regulations are minor or technical, and replace European Union-related terminology with UK equivalents. In my remarks, I will cover a number of more complex issues relating to international transfers of personal data, extraterritorial application of the UK GDPR, regulatory co-operation, and our approach to what is known as “applied GDPR”.
On international transfers, the GDPR and part 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018 restrict the transfer of personal data to third countries, unless certain safeguards are met. One of those safeguards is a third country, or a sector within the country, being deemed “adequate” by the European Commission. If deemed “adequate”, data can flow freely to that country or sector. In the absence of an adequacy decision, data can still be transferred, but the onus is on controllers to make sure that alternative safeguards are in place to provide sufficient levels of protection.
The Commission will not be able to make adequacy decisions on behalf of the UK post exit. The regulations transfer that function and the function of preparing model contractual clauses to the Secretary of State. To minimise any disruption to established data flows from the UK to the EU post exit, the regulations add a number of transitional provisions to the 2018 Act. That includes a provision to continue to treat EU member states, other European economic area countries and Gibraltar as adequate in relation to processing under the UK GDPR.
Similar provision is made for personal data transferred to third countries for law enforcement purposes under part 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018. That permits transfers to third countries where the European Commission has found a country, territory or sector adequate under article 36 of the law enforcement directive. For law enforcement processing covered by part 3 of the 2018 Act, EU member states and Gibraltar will be treated as adequate to preserve the flow of critical law enforcement data to those places.
The provisions included in the regulations will allow UK businesses to continue to transfer data to their partners in the EU without any interruption. We propose to adopt a similar approach for countries that had been deemed adequate by the EU Commission by the time the draft regulations were laid before Parliament. That includes the EU’s decision on companies participating in the Privacy Shield scheme in the United States. Further regulations will shortly be introduced to clarify that personal data can be transferred only to those US companies that have updated their Privacy Shield commitment to include the UK.
The draft regulations do not refer specifically to the EU’s adequacy decision in relation to Japan, which was made after they were laid before Parliament, but we will work with the Japanese Government to consider what, if anything, is required in our domestic law to reflect that development. Where UK organisations rely on standard contractual clauses approved by the EU Commission as an adequate safeguard for transfers to other third countries, further transitional provisions will mean that they can continue to rely on those contracts.
Let me outline the draft regulations’ approach to the extraterritorial provisions in the GDPR. The GDPR applies not only to data controllers based in the EEA, but to data controllers based outside the EEA processing EEA data for the purpose of providing goods and services or monitoring individuals’ behaviour. Where a data controller outside the EEA is systematically processing data of EEA residents, it is required to appoint a representative in the EEA to act as a contact point for EEA supervisory authorities. To ensure that there will be no dilution in data protection standards when the UK leaves the EU, the draft regulations preserve the GDPR’s extraterritorial approach. In practice, that means that the UK GDPR will apply to certain data controllers based outside the UK that are processing data or monitoring the behaviour of data subjects in the UK. We have preserved article 27, which requires data controllers and processors based abroad who are systematically processing the data of people in the UK to appoint a representative in the UK.
Let me turn to regulatory co-operation. Articles 60 to 76 of the GDPR focus on how supervisory authorities in the EEA will work together to investigate data breaches that might affect people in more than one country. They also make provision about the supervisory authorities sharing guidance and best practice through the European Data Protection Board. If the UK leaves the EU without a deal, there will be no automatic right for the Information Commissioner to sit on the EDPB or participate in the GDPR’s one-stop-shop mechanism, so those provisions have been omitted from the UK GDPR. Even with a deal, the automatic right for the Information Commissioner’s Office to sit on the EDPB is not yet assured.
The draft political declaration makes it clear that the EU and the UK should continue to collaborate on data after we leave the EU. The draft regulations will retain article 50 of the GDPR in our law, ensuring that EU and UK data protection authorities will have a common basis for developing international co-operation mechanisms.
I will now outline what our exit from the EU might mean for “applied GDPR”, as provided for by the Data Protection Act. The Act creates a separate regime that provides for standards broadly equivalent to the GDPR to apply to processing activities that are outside the scope of EU law and not covered by parts 3 or 4 of the Act. As a matter of domestic law, the GDPR will not apply directly to any general processing activities when we leave the EU, so we can simplify matters by recreating a single regime for all general processing activities, including those that were previously covered by the applied GDPR. Provisions in the Data Protection Act that created or referred to the applied GDPR have therefore been removed from all relevant legislation. The draft regulations make it clear that the new single regime covers matters outside the scope of EU competence prior to the UK’s departure from the EU. The existing exemptions relating to national security and defence in the applied GDPR will be retained in the merged regime to ensure that the intelligence community can continue to carry out its vital work.
As I have set out, our approach is an appropriate way of addressing the deficiencies in data protection law resulting from the UK leaving the EU. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. The draft regulations are a wise precaution, although it is slightly ironic that Her Majesty’s Government are presenting us with what is basically a foundation stone for the permanent customs union and free trade agreement on data that we have been advocating for the United Kingdom in the round. I look forward to Government Members, including the hon. Member for Wycombe, presenting a united front this morning on laying this important foundation stone for a critical part of our customs union with our nearest neighbour.
The draft regulations are a wise precaution because 43% of tech companies in Europe are based in our country and three quarters of our cross-border data flows are with our European neighbours. In introducing them, the Minister is dramatically constraining this country’s ability to strike free and unfettered trade agreements with other countries around the world, because on the critical issue of data, she is locking us into the European Union’s provisions. The Opposition fully support that approach, but we have five important questions for her to answer. The draft regulations are just one piece of the jigsaw, so it is difficult for us to sign them off without having due regard for the full picture of regulation required.
Regulation 8 will write into UK law a derogation from GDPR rules on age. As the Minister knows, the GDPR gives countries latitude to lower from 16 to 13 the age at which consent is deemed to have been given; she is now writing the 13 limit into UK law. During the passage of the Data Protection Act, the Opposition were not particularly comfortable with that approach, which she is asking the Committee to sign off before presenting her much anticipated White Paper on internet harm. Since she is asking us to sign off a derogation that will lower the age of consent to 13 before we know what legal provisions will safeguard our children against bad social media firms, perhaps she could say a little more about whether Her Majesty’s Government agree with the duty of care architecture that we proposed before Christmas.
Furthermore, the draft regulations will be meaningless unless the Information Commissioner has the resources to enforce them. The Minister managed to get through her speech without saying anything about the additional resources that the commissioner will enjoy in order to enforce such a critical part of our regulatory architecture. Nor did she say anything about whether the draft regulations will increase our chances of getting an adequacy agreement with the EU, about whether they will accelerate the timetable for getting such an agreement, or about her Department’s contingency plans in case there is no adequacy agreement.
The Opposition broadly support the draft regulations; indeed, we think that a permanent customs union for data should be replicated across the piece for UK trade with the European Union. However, the Minister has important questions to answer before we can give the draft regulations our consent.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. Obviously, we are rushing through hundreds of statutory instruments because of the threat of no deal and of exiting the EU in a rush in just over 40 days. Data flow is absolutely critical, not just for tech companies, but for how the public sector—or indeed, everything—functions. Getting it right is therefore critical.
I recognise that this has to be done, although it is disappointing that it is being done in a rush, because the public’s concern is about the flow of their personal data and whether it is maintained in a private fashion and protected. An issue that has been raised with me by EU citizens who have looked at applying for settled status is that in the small print at the end, it says that their data may be shared with public or private organisations in the UK or outside. It does not state who on this planet their data cannot be shared with—that might actually be a shorter list. That raises real concern because it is important data to do with their identity, background and HMRC records. It is important that people’s data is protected.
I recognise that the SI corrects paragraphs 76 and 201 of schedule 19 to the Data Protection Act 2018, but the key, as the Minister highlighted, is international transfer. The European Commission has carried out adequacy assessments on third countries, maintained ongoing monitoring and issued standard contractual clauses where protections are not sufficient. It has also monitored and supported that process on an ongoing basis. The Minister’s reference to Japan’s agreement, which was made after this draft instrument was laid, raises one of the key questions going forward: how will this be kept up to date as things change with the EU? We are talking about a massive recreation and duplication of that effort. Huge multinational companies transfer our data elsewhere in the world, and binding corporate rules and whether that data remains protected is another issue that concerns people.
All that will be put on the shoulders of the Secretary of State and the Information Commissioner. I echo the shadow Minister in querying the cost of this and how that cost will be covered, whether from businesses or from taxpayers. The explanatory memorandum mentions that the Government are looking to maintain data flows from the UK to the EU, but nothing in the draft instrument can compel data flows from the EU to the UK. Data flows are a two-way transfer. The loss of the commissioner’s position on the EDPB is significant.
Whether statutory instruments deal with drugs, blood products or medical devices, the sharing of information in both directions has been for the benefit of all our constituents. How will the new regime work going forward? How it will be funded? How will we ensure that we do not end up with gaps in data that expose us to dangers in the future?
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
It is an absolute joy to sit on the Committee, as I was the Minister on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill Committee. I congratulate the Minister and officials on the excellent explanatory memorandum, particularly part 2, which sets out the appropriateness statement and so on, in compliance with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It is therefore a real joy to have the opportunity to serve on the Committee and I am grateful to be able to make a few remarks.
I was slightly amused by the Opposition spokesman’s remarks about a “data customs union”. I will not rise to that one, as much as he may wish me to—what an amusing hour we could spend. The principle of continuity is crucial and has underpinned all our work. Clearly, it is right that the country should be ready to leave the European Union with or without a deal. I should say “in the unwanted circumstances of leaving without a deal”; Conservative MPs of all persuasions are overwhelmingly united in wishing to leave the European Union with a deal, but it is quite right that we should be ready for all circumstances, which is what the draft instrument before the Committee addresses. I just heard somebody say, “made a change”. I can only think of one Member of Parliament who positively does not want a deal. We would all prefer to leave with an agreement.
It is in our mutual interests that data exchange continues after our exit. It would be absurd were it not to from the current point of alignment. Today is not the day for churlish criticism of the bureaucracy of how the GDPR works; it is a day to welcome the Government’s preparation for leaving, with or without a deal, and to say well done to a Minister who I suspect would have preferred not to leave the European Union. I pay tribute to her and to all Ministers right across Government, who, with great talent and determination, have risen to the challenges of preparing this country for our exit, whether they supported the referendum result or not. I say a huge “thank you” to the Government. It is a great privilege to serve on the Committee.
Margot James
I thank hon. Members for their questions and comments. I will do my best to respond to them. I agree with the shadow Minister that the draft regulations are a wise precaution. He rightly mentioned that three quarters of our country’s international data flows are with other European Union member states. That is of course even more than the average for exports of other things, notably manufactured goods, which are almost 50% of our global trade.
I do not know whether the shadow Minister is concerned that, by locking into the GDPR, we will jeopardise our ability to strike trade deals with other countries. In previous debates, I have assured him that it is the Government’s intention that we continue to enjoy the benefits of the privacy and data rights that the GDPR has given British nationals, and we would not want to see those rights compromised by any trade deal in the future. The GDPR is becoming a gold standard for privacy and data rights globally—it is causing rising envy, certainly in the US.
The shadow Minister mentioned the age of consent, which is set at 13 in the Data Protection Act. That relates to the rights of young people to open accounts online. We have not reduced that age; we have set it. We set it within the band that the GDPR permits member states to set it. We were not alone in choosing 13; at least five other member states also set the age of digital consent at 13. He raised concerns, which I share, about some of the risks to young people online. We intend to address those through the White Paper we will publish shortly. I thank him and his team for the suggestions they have made to us over the past six months about what that White Paper should contain.
The shadow Minister asked about adequacy. He knows that we cannot guarantee adequacy, because it is in the EU’s gift rather than ours, but we have made it clear to the EU that we are ready to commence adequacy discussions just as soon as it is ready. We have had an indication from the Commission that, as long as we leave with a deal, it will be ready to start those discussions immediately. Given that we will be fully compliant at the moment of departure, it is highly likely that we will be able to conclude those discussions at the shorter end of the spectrum of times that adequacy discussions with third countries have taken in the past.
The shadow Minister asked about the contingencies we are making in the event of no deal. The ICO and officials in my Department have been working closely together, and the ICO has published approaches for both the public sector and industry in terms of the reach of the standard contractual clauses that will form a legal basis for transferring data in the event that we do not have an adequacy decision. Of course, if we left without a deal, we would not have an adequacy decision.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire asked whether EU citizens in her constituency and elsewhere in Scotland will continue to enjoy the same data rights and privacy. I can assure her that they will. They will have those rights as long as we leave with a deal. EU citizens’ rights are enshrined in the deal, and they will enjoy exactly the same provisions as citizens of this country, assuming we get that deal and implement these regulations. The regulations will preserve the GDPR’s extraterritorial approach in UK law.
Dr Whitford
Will the Minister therefore clarify—I understand that she might not be able to do so at this moment—why there is no reference to GDPR protection in the small print of the settled status scheme, other than a bald statement that people’s data can be shared pretty much with anybody?
Margot James
I will write to the hon. Lady with any clarification I can provide to give her the comfort she seeks. I do not have that precise information to hand, and I was not aware of the issue, but of course I will write to her.
Both the hon. Lady and the shadow Minister raised the issue of resources. We took a statutory instrument through last year that provided the ICO with a substantial increase in its budget and its ability to hire people, including experts. The ICO has added considerably to its staff over the past 12 months, and we will ensure that it continues to have the resources it needs to provide the invaluable service that it has a remit to provide. I assure all hon. Members of that important fact.
I note the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe. I remain hopeful, as he says he does, that we will get a deal that continues to protect the data rights of people in this country and a great deal more besides. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Environment and Wildlife (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Environment and Wildlife (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin.
The draft regulations are an affirmative statutory instrument on the environment, for consideration in respect of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union in accordance with the result of the 2016 referendum and subsequent agreement by Parliament. Their purpose, under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, is to provide for public authorities in the United Kingdom to exercise a series of limited legislative functions that under EU legislation are currently conferred on the European Commission.
In each case, the legislative function was conferred on the Commission so that it could sort out the technical details of a specific EU regime and adapt to changes without the frequent need to refer back to the European Council and Parliament. The powers are vital to the functioning and development of the legislation, but they are strictly limited to specific technical and administrative matters. The functions are not the kind for which, in the domestic context, we would generally require primary legislation; rather, they are suitable to be dealt with by secondary legislation, or administratively.
Examples of the functions include specifying what forms are to be used; amending technical annexes to reflect advances in scientific and technical knowledge; and updating annexes to reflect changing requirements under international agreements. A good example would be a change under the multilateral convention on international trade in endangered species, known as CITES. In 2016, at the last conference of the parties, which I had the joy of attending, we adopted a decision to change the listing status of more than 500 species of wild animals and plants. The Commission subsequently amended the basic EU CITES regulation by a 2017 regulation. After we leave the EU, the UK authorities need to be able to continue updating such technical details for domestic purposes, to ensure that the legislation keeps pace with change, including technological developments and our international commitments, without the need for primary legislation every time that a change in such matters is required.
This coming May I hope to attend the CITES conference of the parties. It is highly likely to make further technical changes to the convention, and we will need to reflect those in our national legislation within the 90 days allowed under the convention. As I have suggested, it would be difficult, if not nigh impossible, to comply through primary legislation.
Until now, Parliaments and Assemblies in the United Kingdom have had little input into how such powers are exercised. With two minor exceptions, the draft regulations provide that the legislative functions coming to the UK will be exercised through secondary legislation, which is subject to scrutiny by our Parliaments. The exercise of the functions in specified cases also requires consultation with interested parties and expert bodies—for example, regulation 9 on industrial emissions or regulation 12 on CITES.
In other cases, the principles of good public administration and the Government’s own 2018 consultation principles will ensure that relevant expert advice is sought where appropriate, and that those affected by any policy developments are properly consulted. The regimes will otherwise continue to function similarly to how they do now.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I am glad that the Minister mentioned the need for expert advice. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, however, is incredibly stretched at the moment, so what assurances will she give on sufficient expert scientific or technical input before statutory instruments are brought before the House? It is one thing to say that Parliament gets to scrutinise, but we are not experts, and experts need to be involved.
Dr Coffey
To use the example of CITES, such bodies will often input into consideration of changes to species to be protected in future. At the moment, Parliament gets no say on that whatever; it just gets done through international agreement, with the EU just changing it so it is there. There is an element of the different sorts of science experts that we have in the United Kingdom, but we will not necessarily need to limit ourselves to the United Kingdom alone in consideration of scientific expertise in the future. A key differential is that now Parliament will have a say on bringing such things into UK law. That is a step change from what we have today.
The draft statutory instrument makes a number of adjustments, but I assure the Committee that there is no change of policy, and there will be no impact on businesses or the public. Regulation 2 confers functions under the EU regulation on persistent organic pollutants, often known as POPs. That includes, for example, a power to amend POPs waste concentration limits, for the purpose of adapting to scientific and technical progress; and to ban, restrict or modify the use of POPs in accordance with international agreements.
Regulations 3 and 6 confer functions under the EU regulations on illegal timber and timber products. The functions include a power to recognise licensing schemes in partner countries to form the basis of licensing, and to amend the list of timber products to which the licensing scheme applies.
Regulation 4 confers functions under the EU regulation establishing a European pollutant release and transfer register. The functions include a power to take measures to initiate reporting on releases of relevant pollutants from diffuse sources where no data exist, and to adopt guidelines for the monitoring and reporting of emissions.
Regulation 5 confers functions under the EU regulation on trans-frontier shipments of waste. The functions include a power to establish and amend technical and organisational requirements for the practical implementation of electronic data interchange for the submission of documents and information.
Regulation 7 confers functions under the EU regulation on the Nagoya protocol on access to genetic resources, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits. The functions include a power to establish and amend procedures for monitoring user compliance and for recognising best practice.
Regulation 8 confers functions under the EU regulation on mercury. The functions include a power to specify the forms to be used for export and import restrictions, and to set out technical requirements for the environmentally sound interim storage of mercury, mercury compounds and mixtures of mercury.
Regulation 9 confers one legislative function contained in an EU directive. That directive relates to industrial emissions, and the power relates to determining best available techniques for preventing or minimising emissions from activities covered by the directive.
Regulations 10 and 11 confer functions under the EU regulations governing the use of leghold traps and the import of pelts and goods. The functions include a power to grant derogations from the ban on the import of pelts and other products, and to determine the appropriate forms for certification of imported goods incorporating pelts of listed species.
Regulation 12 confers functions under the EU regulation implementing CITES. The functions include a power to establish restrictions on the introduction into the UK of listed species, and to provide for derogations from certain provisions.
Dr Coffey
Might I suggest that the hon. Lady makes a contribution to the debate so that I will be able to answer her questions fully?
I have explained that we will exercise those powers by laying statutory instruments before Parliament, which is not what happens today, as I have pointed out. For the sake of completeness, I draw the Committee’s attention to the two minor cases in which administrative procedures will be used, rather than secondary legislation. They relate to aspects of the POPs and leghold traps regimes. In the first case, the administrative function being conferred concerns the determination of the format for the provision of information by the competent authority; in the second case, it concerns the publication of model forms for use by importers. To be clear, the draft regulations concern administrative elements, rather than a change in policy.
In addition to the above measures, the draft regulations amend the retained direct EU legislation where that is necessary to make it function properly after exit. An example of such an amendment is changing references from “Community legislation” to “retained EU law”.
All the legislative functions covered by the draft regulations fall within the environment and wildlife policy areas of DEFRA. We have decided to deal with them in a single instrument that is subject to the affirmative procedure. The draft regulations allow the nine so-called “home” instruments, which would otherwise separately confer each legislative function, to be subject to the negative procedure. In each case, the conferral of legislative functions was the only element in the “home” SI that required the affirmative procedure. The structure of the regulations will allow the exercise of legislative functions by UK bodies in those areas of the environment to be considered together.
The draft regulations extend and apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. They deal with both reserved and devolved matters. In the case of reserved matters, the legislative function will be conferred on the Secretary of State to exercise on behalf of the whole UK. We have consulted extensively with the devolved Administrations about legislative functions that relate to devolved matters and, where appropriate, they have consented to our proceeding by means of the regulations. Where matters are devolved, functions are conferred on the Secretary of State and Ministers for the devolved Administrations. The default position is that each Administration will exercise a function separately. Where devolved Administrations consent on a case-by-case basis, however, the Secretary of State will be able to exercise functions on their behalf.
I point out that we are making technical amendments, in effect to allow us to continue to undertake our international obligations on such matters in a way that would not be possible if we did not have the powers. I hope that I have explained to the Committee how the European Commission does that now.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin. Once again, we are discussing a statutory instrument that tries to make provision for a workable regulatory framework after Brexit in the event of our crashing out without a deal. Each time, Labour Members have spelled out our objections to the Government’s approach to secondary legislation, but I make no apology for doing so again because the volume of EU exit secondary legislation undermines accountability and proper scrutiny.
The Government claim that no policy decisions are being taken, but establishing a regulatory framework necessarily involves matters of judgment and raises questions about resourcing and capacity. The potential cumulative impact of all this secondary legislation will be immense, especially in some sectors. Because of the limited accountability that it allows, secondary legislation ought to be used only for technical, non-partisan, uncontroversial changes. Instead, the Government continue to push through contentious legislation without the opportunity for proper in-depth scrutiny. In that light, the Opposition put on record our deep concern that the processes regarding the draft regulations are not as accessible and transparent as they should be.
The draft regulations need to be seen in the context of the withdrawal agreement and the draft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill. The draft Bill is not capable of maintaining current EU protections because it does not create an effective body that can make judgments binding on public bodies or Departments, or impose meaningful sanctions. The public can have no confidence in the Government’s proposed environmental watchdog if it is appointed by and reports to DEFRA. In any case, there will be an environmental governance gap from leaving the EU until the date when the proposed watchdog starts to function, even if the proposed Bill is not delayed.
It is essential not to allow Brexit to be used as an excuse to reduce or weaken our environmental protections. If we are to keep in step with any environmental improvements, the Government must ensure that the UK commits to non-regression on environmental standards with the EU, and they must give that commitment legal clout in the environment Bill.
The explanatory memorandum to the draft regulations states:
“This instrument does not make changes to substantive policy content.”
It will, however, allow UK authorities, particularly the Secretary of State, to make changes that could have a significant environmental impact. The powers of the EU Commission under the persistent organic pollutants regulation will be transferred to the Secretary of State, who will be empowered to amend the draft regulations by statutory instrument subject to the negative procedure. There is nothing in the draft regulations to prevent the present Secretary of State or any subsequent incumbent from watering down the regulation of POPs. If they did so, the negative procedure would give Parliament precious little control over their decision.
The aim of the European Parliament in passing the POPs regulation was to phase out their use as soon as possible or restrict their production and use, minimise POP releases and establish provisions regarding POP waste. The Commission currently has the power to amend POP waste concentration limits and ban or restrict their use in accordance with international agreements, but where is the provision in this SI to ensure that the Secretary of State will only tighten the regulation, or that he will do so in step with other countries? The devolved nations will have their own arrangements, which may afford more democratic control, but in England, Parliament is not taking back control of the regulation; it is passing it to the Secretary of State.
The European pollutant release and transfer register is a publicly accessible electronic database that implements a protocol of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe to facilitate public participation in environmental decision making, as well as contributing to the prevention and reduction of environmental pollution. But where is the breadth and depth of expertise available throughout Europe—let alone the resources—to inform a British version of the register? How can we possibly do anything other than take our cue from Europe on these matters, without any longer having the power to influence them? Surely the same is true of the Nagoya protocol. The Commission has the power and duty to establish and monitor the use of a register of genetic resources collections. Transferring them to the Secretary of State will take away the valuable shared knowledge and practice that we currently enjoy.
Again, with the shipment of waste regulation, the Commission has the power to establish the technical and organisational requirements for the practical implementation of electronic data interchange; to establish procedures governing the export of wastes; to maintain a correlation table to support enforcement; and to amend to reflect international agreements and changes in other EU legislation. Those functions are to be transferred to the Secretary of State, but what possible sense does it make to replicate all that activity at a national level? How much additional cost will be involved? How will the UK keep in step with any changes in EU legislation? If we do not, how will we be able to maintain our shipments of waste to EU countries for treatment? It is all very well for the Secretary of State to talk about developing our own recycling facilities, but we cannot do that for all our waste by December 2020, let alone by 29 March.
In the regulations regarding wildlife and trade, the powers to amend, for example, to add a country to the list of approved countries from which we will be allowed to import animal pelts, will transfer to the Secretary of State. However, whether he or any subsequent Secretary of State decides to stiffen or relax such regulations will be a matter for further regulation and not easily challengeable by this Parliament or anyone else.
Kerry McCarthy
That was going to be my question to the Minister. There is keen public interest in ensuring that we do not promote the fur trade in any way, shape or form. It is one thing to say that discussion at the European level does not have direct democratic oversight, but it is a big discussion, involving lots of countries and with a big political debate around it; if we are talking about a Committee such as this one, or perhaps the Secretary of State or an official exercising functions in an office somewhere in Whitehall, I worry that the policy agenda will move on without our realising that something we would not have accepted is happening.
Sandy Martin
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. We would much prefer provision in every single regulation to make it clear that the Secretary of State cannot relax or move backwards on any current EU regulations under a statutory instrument subject to the negative procedure. That is the major flaw of a large number of such instruments. With most of the transferred powers, the functions can be exercised by the Secretary of State without a requirement to obtain expert or technical input or the need for consultation with those likely to be affected. That is a recurring theme.
Despite the reassurances of the Secretary of State— I mean, of the Minister—sorry, an instant promotion there.
Sandy Martin
Despite the reassurances of the Minister, the draft regulations do not contain a requirement for future changes to be agreed with the devolved Administrations. It is hard to see how the regulations will operate effectively.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Austin. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he prefers any strengthening or reduction of environmental matters to be done remotely from the UK in the corridors of Brussels by a Commission of people whose names he does not even know and over whom we have little influence? The UK has almost no decision-making powers. To have them domestically, open and transparent to all, is surely a way forwards in strengthening or changing legislation in accordance with what the UK wants, rather than the rather remote practice now. I find it surprising that he denigrates domestic Ministers but seems to praise greatly those he does not even know the names of. Is that a correct summary?
Sandy Martin
The hon. Gentleman’s intervention goes to the very heart of whether it is sensible for this country to be a member of the European Union. I could answer him in the course of a two-hour speech, but I will limit myself to the basic point that most of the provisions in the draft regulations, if not all, cover things that can only be done effectively if all countries agree to do them together. That is the whole point of the European Union: it is a way to ensure that all European countries agree to do things together. What will most likely happen is that we will continue to have to follow the same sorts of regulations that the European Union follows; the only difference will be that we have no say over what they are.
Despite all that, however, the amendments proposed in the draft statutory instrument do not alter the operation of existing EU regulations, so we do not intend to oppose them.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
I will keep my comments very brief. Given that no real policy change is being proposed, we will not be opposing the draft regulations. However, I echo some of the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Ipswich. A lot of promises have been made by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister about the maintenance of environmental standards, but they are just verbal guarantees. We need to see them enacted in law as, given the last couple of months, I am sure no one could blame us for being hesitant to take the Government at their word.
If any policy alterations are to be made in the future, all the relevant powers and authorities must respect the devolved settlement. I put that on the record so that the Government can heed our concerns.
As there is no actual policy change, and some work has been conducted with devolved officials, we do not oppose the regulations.
Dr Coffey
It is a pleasure to respond to the points raised. I saw the hon. Member for Ipswich last Friday in his constituency, when we had the great joy to be together for the opening of the Ipswich flood barrier, which was a great occasion. The hon. Gentleman said that the draft regulations need to be seen in connection with the draft Bill, but the whole point is that this is about the EU (Withdrawal) Act. I can only bring forward regulations that are connected to the operability of regulations in the UK in the future once we have left the European Union. This is not a change of policy, nor is it about raising concerns about putting non-regression clauses into the regulation. That would be a policy change—it would be something else to do—and the draft regulations are simply about operability.
The hon. Gentleman refers to the POPs regulation being passed by the European Parliament. He will know that it was also passed by the European Council, so we have been involved in several of the regulations, and I believe we have the competence to continue to do that. The key point, which my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet made, is that at the moment this Parliament has no say, and the European Parliament has no say, and the Council has no say, on the regulatory changes that the European Commission undertakes in order to keep pace with the changes required by international agreements or other scientific changes. That power is rightly being brought back here, to the Secretary of State, or to devolved Ministers where the matter has been devolved. We have pointed out very clearly that we will bring those powers forward through statutory instruments, apart from in the case of two issues that are about what the form looks like. I do not think it would be a good use of parliamentary time to have regulations on how a new form is composed. We are considering those simple, straightforward issues today.
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point about countries agreeing to do things together, and he will be aware that most of the points that we are discussing are in international agreements, such as aspects of the Nagoya protocol. Once the United Kingdom is no longer part of the European Union, we will attend those discussions in our own right and will then need to find ways to bring changes into our legislation.
I respect the devolved Administrations, which is why we talked extensively with them about how to take the legislation forward. Although I am sure that we want to have a common framework, and the four nations are working together on that, and we will have international obligations, there may be times when the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government or the Northern Ireland Administration may want to do things in a slightly different way to achieve the same outcomes. That is what devolution is all about.
I am pleased by the comments made by hon. Members recognising that this is simply a straightforward, technical, operability change. I look forward to future debates, such as when we come back from CITES in May 2019, when I hope we will have protected even more species around the world and we will be bringing forward a statutory instrument to discuss those changes, if that is necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Work and Pensions
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justin Tomlinson
This Government are not only delivering record employment in all regions of the UK—it is accepted that work is the best route out of poverty—but targeting support at the most vulnerable in society, with increases in the national living wage, which will see the fastest pay rise in the last 20 years, changes to the income tax threshold and a doubling of free childcare.
[Official Report, 11 February 2019, Vol. 654, c. 606.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Justin Tomlinson):
An error has been identified in my response.
The correct response should have been:
Justin Tomlinson
This Government have not only delivered record employment in all regions of the UK since 2010—it is accepted that work is the best route out of poverty—but are targeting support at the most vulnerable in society, with increases in the national living wage, which will see the fastest pay rise in the last 20 years, changes to the income tax threshold and a doubling of free childcare.
Women and Equalities
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anne Milton
I have spoken about the targeted support available, and whenever I meet apprentices I ask them about their wages and how they travel to work. We are very aware of some of the problems faced by those young people, and as I have said, the railcard for 16 and 17-year-olds is available, and colleges have discretionary bursaries to support them.
[Official Report, 7 February 2019, Vol. 654, c. 402-03.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills:
An error has been identified in my response.
The correct response should have been:
Anne Milton
I have spoken about the targeted support available, and whenever I meet apprentices I ask them about their wages and how they travel to work. We are very aware of some of the problems faced by those young people, and as I have said, the railcard for 16 and 17-year-olds will be available in September, and colleges have discretionary bursaries to support them.
Work and Pensions
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
We know from a series of academic and stakeholder reports that the rise in food insecurity can, at least in part, be put down not just to the implementation but to the value of social security benefits. The Secretary of State has acknowledged that, I think for the first time, this afternoon. We also know from Library figures that higher than expected inflation means that the benefits freeze will save an extra £1.2 billion in the coming year. Does the Secretary of State agree that those low-income families who are being driven into food poverty deserve a break and that the benefits freeze should stop this year?
Amber Rudd
May I just point out to the hon. Gentleman that, by 2020, payments made under universal credit are expected to reach £62 billion, compared with £60 billion under the previous system? [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the amounts, and I am merely pointing out to him that, with the changes in place, the amounts are larger under universal credit than they would have been under the previous system.
[Official Report, 11 February 2019, Vol. 654, c. 595.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions:
Errors have been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray).
The correct response should have been:
Amber Rudd
May I just point out to the hon. Gentleman that, by 2023-24, payments made under universal credit are expected to reach £64 billion, compared with £62 billion under the previous system? [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the amounts, and I am merely pointing out to him that, with the changes in place, the amounts are larger under universal credit than they would have been under the previous system.
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hunt
My right hon. Friend of course speaks with great wisdom on this because he was responsible for a lot of the training of overseas armies that makes precisely that strategy possible. We have now trained 70,000 Iraqi forces as a result of the programme that I think he may even have set up when he was Secretary of State for Defence.
[Official Report, 11 February 2019, Vol. 654, c. 655.]
Mr Hunt
First, in terms of the courage of people who have been fighting in Syria, there is one group that we have not mentioned so far, and that is the White Helmets, who did an extraordinary job in Syria—not so much in the particular conflict against Daesh, but we can be proud that this country has resettled 29 families of White Helmets and was instrumental in getting about 400 White Helmets out of Syria towards the end of last year.
[Official Report, 11 February 2019, Vol. 654, c. 657.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs:
An error has identified in the response I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon).
The correct wording should have been:
Mr Hunt
My right hon. Friend of course speaks with great wisdom on this because he was responsible for a lot of the training of overseas armies that makes precisely that strategy possible. We have now trained nearly 90,000 Iraqi forces as a result of the programme that I think he may even have set up when he was Secretary of State for Defence.
An error has identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes).
The correct wording should have been:
Mr Hunt
In this country, we can be proud of the fact that we have put £352.5 million into humanitarian and stabilisation support for Iraq, which has had a huge humanitarian impact.
An error has identified in the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt).
The correct wording should have been:
Mr Hunt
First, in terms of the courage of people who have been working in Syria, there is one group that we have not mentioned so far, and that is the White Helmets, who are doing an extraordinary job in Syria—not so much in the particular conflict against Daesh, but we can be proud that this country has resettled 29 families of White Helmets and was instrumental in getting about 400 White Helmets out of Syria towards the end of last year.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Third sitting)
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
We will now resume our public evidence gathering on the Bill. We have representatives present from Detention Action, the Children’s Society, the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, Deloitte and Amnesty International.
I do not know whether any of our witnesses have appeared before parliamentarians previously, but the idea is that this should not be intimidating. It is simply a procedure whereby parliamentarians gather evidence so that when we move on to line-by-line scrutiny later in Committee, we are better informed.
Will everyone introduce themselves, starting with Ms Sankey?
Bella Sankey: My name is Bella Sankey. I am director of an organisation called Detention Action. We support individuals who are detained in our immigration detention system at the Harmondsworth, Colnbrook and Moreton Hall centres.
Ilona Pinter: My name is Ilona Pinter. I am policy and research manager at the Children’s Society. We work with children and young people facing multiple disadvantage across the country, including British nationals, European economic area nationals and non-EEA nationals.
Steve Valdez-Symonds: I am Steve Valdez-Symonds. I am the refugee and migrant rights programme director at Amnesty International UK.
Adrian Berry: I am Adrian Berry. I am a barrister and the chair of the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association. We represent barristers, solicitors and other immigration advisers.
Jurga McCluskey: I am Jurga McCluskey. I am a partner and head of immigration at Deloitte, representing a number of businesses in the immigration sphere.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Q
Bella Sankey: As you say, clause 1 is incredibly significant, repealing free movement and bringing those resident here under regulation, within the scope of our immigration laws as they stand. Our major concern is the potential impact on the immigration detention population. We think that the Bill has far-reaching potential to make many more people liable to immigration detention. There is a real risk that we will see a similar situation develop to that of the Windrush scandal, with people who have the right to be here detained indefinitely for long periods. Even if a tiny fraction of people with the right to claim residency here under the settled status scheme did not do so, tens of thousands of individuals could be detained. We do not think that that system is currently fit for purpose, and we think that there needs to be a statutory time limit on detention, to guard against that risk.
Ilona Pinter: I echo Bella’s concerns. Obviously, the Children’s Society is particularly concerned about children and young people and their families. According to Migration Observatory figures, there are 900,000 children in non-Irish EU families in the UK. That is a significant proportion of the population, and more have come since then. More than half those children were born here, and some may be British citizens, although there are some discrepancies between those who have actually registered their citizenship and those who will need settled status.
We emphasise to the Committee that although some children will be able to get settled status through the EU settlement scheme, citizenship would be in the best interests of many of them. It will be important to consider that throughout the Bill.
We also have concerns about those who will not be able to regularise their status after Britain leaves the EU, and those who arrive after that. We work with many children, young people and families across the country who are currently subject to migration controls. Our experience of that is that children face significant difficulties in making sure that their welfare, safety and long-term outcomes are protected. We fear that a greater number of children will be subjected to that process.
There is an opportunity here to put right some of the challenges in the current immigration system. We urge Committee members to look at some of those opportunities.
Steve Valdez-Symonds: The short answer to the first part of your question, so far as Amnesty International is concerned, is: no, the system is not, as you put it, robust or fit for what is about to happen. There are, in broad terms, two major impacts.
There are the large number of people who will suddenly become subject to the fullness of this system. There are also, of course, a large number of other people who are already subject to it. The dysfunction of the system can only be expected to get worse for those people, given that it will be dealing with a much larger body of people—people already living here, and the European nationals who make future applications that the system will have to deal with.
If anyone had doubts about how unfit the system is, they should surely look back to what was revealed last year by the Windrush scandal. In response to that, Amnesty emphasised throughout that it was not a short-term scandal. It was not something that had happened for merely a few months or even a few years. Those issues have been going on for many years.
The system has been robbed of the safeguards that people need, and it has been made extremely complex. I am afraid that, as was made explicit in the quite clear evidence that Professor Bernard Ryan gave to the Committee on Tuesday morning, all we have in the Bill is the switching off of rights for a large number of people without any indication of how their futures will be protected.
The other thing I should like to flag from Professor Ryan’s evidence in response to your questions is that he very properly highlighted the implications not only for people already settled and living in this country but for the future of their descendants. That is a major problem, not least because not only has nothing been done to protect the future status of those who will need to apply for settled status under the new system, but nothing has been done—in some ways more importantly, for those children—to confirm what the status of their parents has been over the last several years. Many of the children we are talking about will have been born in this country, possibly as British citizens, but nobody knows, and in the future no one will be able to prove it.
Otherwise, with entitlements to British citizenship, I am sad to say that this Government have continued the policies of the previous Government by putting hurdles in the way of citizenship rights with fees that are, in our view, far in excess of what is appropriate for people to claim their statutory rights under our British nationality law.
Those matters, and many more, have not been addressed either in preparation for the Bill or on its face. The Bill contains wide powers to make enormous changes to our laws, but no indications or safeguards have been presented as to how that will happen.
Adrian Berry: The question was about clause 1, not about the Henry VIII powers in clause 4. There is a complete change from free movement to the immigration rules. We are changing from a permissive system where people can circulate in and out to a one-directional system where migrants come and are on routes to settlement.
What is really changing is the economic migration rules for EU citizens, who in essence will have to satisfy the tier 2 general work permit regime. At the moment, the Home Office deals with 20,000-plus work permits a year. EU migration for economic purposes will be greater by several orders of magnitude. If the question is whether the system for economic migration is robust enough, the answer is no, because the capacity is not there to deal with it.
The White Paper adopts the Migration Advisory Committee’s recommendations, which gives you some idea of where the Home Office wants to go but does not tell you anything about how it is going to work in practice. You are talking about a multiple factor of four, five or six in terms of the number of work permits that may have to be issued, and there is simply no real understanding of that.
Nor is there any understanding of how people will come and go to provide services on a short-term basis. The permitted paid engagement route and the business visitor rules are simply inadequate to replace the free movement of services. For example, under the permitted paid engagement route, you can only come for a month and take a fee from a UK-based client. There seems to be no thinking about that. It is certainly not on the face of the Bill, and it is not in the White Paper, so we are very short on detail.
Clause 1 is of course necessary for replacing free movement with a domestic system of immigration control, and schedule 1 reflects that commitment, but it does not tell you where the direction is. When you combine that with clause 4, which gives the Secretary of State wide powers to make regulations in the absence of Parliament, essentially usurping the function of Parliament—and of you, if you are not on the payroll—to make legislation, that creates a very dangerous situation.
Jurga McCluskey: EU inflows accounted for close to 49% of total non-British inflows to the UK in 2016. I realise these are old numbers, but they are the most recent ones I could get hold of. In the first quarter of 2017, approximately 2.4 million EU-born people were employed in the UK. Stuart McDonald asked in a previous sitting how many Europeans are working here in the UK. I do not think we can say how many are working, but I can honestly say I do not know of a company here that does not employ European workers.
Statistically, around 69% of EU nationals who come here do so to work, very closely followed by other requirements, such as study and so on. For me, and I think for business, it is really important that we facilitate the replacement of freedom of movement with a sophisticated system that is simple and flexible enough to allow us to accommodate that influx of people—adding to the overall management of the population in terms of immigration—but that also allows flexibility. Immigration rules and immigration laws need to be flexible, because we are adapting to a very fast-changing environment.
The Chair
A quarter of our time has already gone, but I wanted to give our witnesses the opportunity to respond to the overall question about how they feel about the Bill. A number of colleagues wish to ask questions. It is not necessary for everyone to give a view on every question. I hope that is understood.
Afzal Khan
Q
Adrian Berry: In my view, it is a grab on the functions of parliamentarians generally. You need to make a case for the use of Henry VIII powers—the idea that Ministers can make statutory instruments that amend primary legislation—under our constitutional order. There has to be some pressing need. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 already domesticates EU law and makes it our law. The question is: what is the case for not using primary legislation when you are considering the fundamental rights of migrants, who are, of course, unfranchised?
What drops out of the picture is your role as Members of Parliament to scrutinise parliamentary legislation in Committees such as this. It is true that you have the affirmative resolution procedure, but it is clearly a poor substitute for primary legislation and the scrutiny you get in Select Committees. The law is already domesticated under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. The Home Office memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee simply says, “We need this power because we have things to do.” That is not good enough. This is not needed urgently. You should not make yourselves redundant. You should retain your function at the level of making primary legislation in this area.
That particularly applies to social security, which is of course about not means-tested social assistance but the contribution-based benefits that people have paid into through their national insurance contributions in this country and other countries. It is a system that even non-EU countries, such as Morocco and Turkey, adhere to in the non-EU legal order.
The Chair
My colleague has just one more question, and then I am going to Maria Caulfield.
Afzal Khan
Q
Adrian Berry: Yes, they could. The power in clause 4 is broad enough for a Secretary of State to make legislation—in fact, by using the negative resolution procedure in certain circumstances—that has an effect on third-country nationals. That is, of course, an additional concern.
Afzal Khan
Q
Steve Valdez-Symonds: No. It is explicit in clause 4(4) that it can be used for precisely the people you are referring to.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
Q
Bella Sankey: Thank you very much for the question. A limit of 28 days has been put forward as a principled, practical cumulative backstop for immigration detention. It reflects what the Home Office says its policy on detaining people is. Home Office guidance is clear that detention should happen only as a last resort, when there is the prospect of removal within a reasonable time, and when the prospect of removal is imminent. Imminence is defined as three to four weeks, so we are proposing a time limit that would reflect what the Government say their policy is on detention.
Through our casework, we see that that is not how detention is currently used. Detention Action has clients who have been detained for months or years—coming up to two years in some cases. Those are not unusual cases. Under our present system, the longest period that someone has been detained for is four and a half years. That makes the case for why a time limit is crucial.
We are proposing a 28-day backstop that would be accompanied by early judicial oversight of decisions to detain. That would mean that, after a period of days, the Home Office would need to go before a judge and the immigration tribunal. The tribunal would be able to decide whether to grant bail by looking at whether the decision to detain was really necessary and whether removal is genuinely imminent. That important safeguard should accompany any time limit to safeguard against the risk that, if 28 days is introduced as a statutory backstop, that becomes the norm. We would not want to see that.
Maria Caulfield
Q
Bella Sankey: The proposal is for a universal time limit that would apply to all. We think it is an important matter of principle that no one should be detained under immigration powers unless their removal is genuinely imminent. Again, that is nothing more than a reflection of current Home Office policy and guidance. We do not see any need to detain any group for longer than that.
People with previous convictions have served criminal sentences if they received a custodial sentence for their conviction. There is no need for a further detention—an additional punishment—for that group. It is also worth mentioning that many of the trafficking survivors and victims of modern-day slavery who we see in the immigration detention estate have convictions because they have been coerced into criminality. We think it is a false distinction to make between people with convictions and those without, because it really does not speak to the wider circumstances. In many cases, it is people with convictions who are actually the most vulnerable—people who have experienced torture and extreme forms of trauma.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Q
Bella Sankey: I am afraid that I cannot speak to Harriet Harman’s amendment, because I believe that it has not been published. I can speak to the safeguards in our amendment, if that would assist.
Gavin Newlands
Q
Bella Sankey: I understand that it has been suggested that a detention time limit amendment could exclude people with convictions. I have explained many of the reasons why, in our view, that is not a sensible thing to do. There is an additional point that is highly relevant. An amendment that sought to exclude people who have served custodial sentences of a certain length—for example, at least 12 months—would be contrary to EU law, and so it would likely be found unlawful. I do not think that is a recommended course of action. As I have just indicated, there are severe drawbacks to excluding a category of people who often have the most acute vulnerabilities, including asylum seekers who have convictions for document offences, people who have convictions because of extreme destitution and so on.
As I referenced earlier, people who have received criminal convictions and custodial sentences serve time in prison. The explicit objective is to provide deterrence, punishment and rehabilitation. As you will know, our criminal justice system has been designed and equipped so that if people who have committed serious offences are released from prison, they are subject to a regime of licence, probation and initial management in the community in order to ensure public safety.
With our current system, people with convictions are often immediately sent straight to immigration detention after their custodial sentence finishes. They might spend their entire period of licence in detention, only to be released back into the community. It is important for the Committee to acknowledge that over half of people who are detained are ultimately released back into the community, which means that some people who have committed more serious offences are not given the proper support, supervision and monitoring that might be necessary to ensure public safety.
Immigration detention currently creates a kind of parallel system that essentially removes people from the criminal justice system and its safeguards.
Gavin Newlands
Does the rest of panel agree with the 28-day detention limit?
Ilona Pinter: We obviously work with children, who are generally not detained. For young people who are turning 18, we agree with that limit. I want to echo what Bella has said. It is a real concern, particularly for victims of modern slavery. The modern slavery review panel is currently looking at those issues, particularly the use of a statutory defence and non-prosecution principles. We continue to see lots of young people who end up in immigration detention, so we would very much support that.
Steve Valdez-Symonds: Amnesty strongly supports the introduction of a time limit. If anything, in our opinion, 28 days is a very long period of time. It is certainly a period of time that should be applied to all people facing removal from this country, whatever their past. We ought to remember that many of the people we are talking about, in respect of deportation following criminal offences, are people who have grown up in this country and, indeed, in some instances, were born in this country—people with rights to British citizenship that have been long overlooked and who should certainly not be facing deportation in the first place.
Adrian Berry: Briefly, it is a rule of law issue. Twenty-eight days should be the outside limit. There should be automatic bail hearings and judicial oversight. Both the Bar Council, representing barristers, and the Law Society treat this as a rule of law issue, and they support that amendment.
Jurga McCluskey: It sounds very sensible to me, so yes.
Bella Sankey: Can I add one more thing? I do not think I answered your question about parliamentary support. It is my understanding that there is widespread support among your colleagues for a universal time limit on immigration detention. Some of you may have seen a story in The Times newspaper today—11 Conservatives wrote to the Home Secretary on Tuesday to say that they support a time limit for all. It is also my understanding and my reading of the manifestos of the Opposition Front Benches that a time limit for all is supported. It is our understanding and our view that there is actually a great deal of consensus in Parliament for this.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Q
Ilona Pinter: We are not so concerned about that. What we are concerned about is that those children, young people and families who are here are able to have access to the services and support that they need. One of the biggest issues that we deal with through our services is supporting families who have no recourse to public funds. That includes EEA-national families, because of the kinds of restrictions around those who are exercising treaty rights, but primarily families from non-EEA backgrounds. Often, those are families with a single parent—single mothers, primarily—of young children facing a lot of difficulties. The no recourse to public funds restrictions on their access to benefits pose great challenges to families being able to work—
Jack Brereton
With respect, I do not think you are answering my question. Does anyone else have a view on the question that I asked?
Jurga McCluskey: It is an important and interesting question. What the system is trying to do, I think, is to apply the same rules irrespective of where you come from following the implementation of the new system. For me, the most important thing is that we are looking at this as a flexible, all-encompassing simple system, which means bringing two groups together and governing them as one.
Jack Brereton
Q
Jurga McCluskey: Correct. Yes, I do.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Q
Ilona Pinter: As I mentioned before, and as Steve mentioned, we are concerned about the significant fees, not just in relation to citizenship registration but more broadly. However, as the Bill is focused on EEA nationals, there is an opportunity here to tackle citizenship registration fees, which are more than £1,000 per child. That makes it prohibitive for many families to be able to acquire those rights, which may be in the child’s best interests. The EU settlement scheme will apply to many children, but it may not be in the child’s best interests to have EU settled status because citizenship provides for greater protection.
We really welcome the Government waiving the fees for the EU settlement scheme. That will help a lot of families for sure, particularly given the levels of poverty among EEA nationals and families, but the risk is that the costs will then be shifted on to other areas. I think there is a real concern in the sector about what happens come April, when the fees normally go up. That is one of the issues that is highlighted with the fees—that there is very little scrutiny and oversight around fee regulation, which is one of our concerns going forward with this kind of approach. For instance, there was no children’s rights impact assessment on fees, including for looked-after children, which you asked about.
There is not currently a waiver for citizenship fees, so local authorities are having to pick up the bill. Interestingly, the issue of the EU settlement scheme came up at the Home Affairs Committee hearing on Tuesday. One of the things that was flagged up in that session and in the beta testing review report is that, for the local authorities involved in that second phase of testing, quite a lot of them—although the numbers are not given, and we would urge the Committee to ask questions about that—said that in many cases, children did not have their original passports, which would be the first stumbling block for the EU settlement scheme. Of course, local authorities are going to have to think about not only settling children’s status but settling their citizenship, because as corporate parents, they have to act in the best interests of the child, as any other parent would. That will often mean for that child to apply for citizenship rather than for the EU settlement scheme.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)
Q
Steve Valdez-Symonds: It is wrong, firstly, to think of the case being determined within 28 days. I think you have got to think about the whole of the time in which you are talking about an applicant. It is also quite dangerous to think of applicants, too. People who are taken into detention include people who have been through a process and have been applicants and may still be applicants; they also include people who did not even know they had an issue with the immigration services. Think back to the Windrush scandal. People were picked up who were perfectly entitled to be here and had not had any thought that over the last several decades they had had any problem with the immigration system, and they found themselves in detention. There is a whole range of issues to consider in terms of what is going on here.
From our point of view, the straightforward point is that detention is supposed to be for two specific purposes only. The most important one is to effect a lawful removal. At the moment, we have large-scale routine use of a very extreme power. Going back to the first question, we have a system that clearly is not—if you want to use the word—robust enough to exercise the power fairly and sensibly, let alone humanely, for the thousands of people it is imposed on. If we had a system that was properly directed towards using such powers appropriately at the time that it was appropriate to use them, perhaps we would have a robust system. Perhaps many fewer people would end up being detained. Perhaps the smaller number of people who were detained would be those whom the system was lawfully seeking to remove and had some real potential of removing within what should be a very short period of time.
Mrs Badenoch
Q
Steve Valdez-Symonds: I think the aspects go far and wide. You have made the immigration rules so incredibly complex over the last many years; immigration appeals for so many people have been taken away; legal aid is not available to so many people, even to understand what their situation is, including, as it happens, people who are entitled to British citizenship but cannot get legal aid to establish their citizenship rights. All of those things make for a very complex system, which, unfortunately, even the Home Office frequently does not understand. The courts have not only found that this system is so byzantine but have had to rule in cases where the Home Office has not been able to present a consistent understanding of the rules it is trying to operate.
Mrs Badenoch
Q
Steve Valdez-Symonds: There is a lot of passion, yes.
Mrs Badenoch
Q
Steve Valdez-Symonds: I am sorry to have given that impression. I certainly did not mean to do that. I apologise to the Committee more generally. All I would say is that the system, over a very long period of time—this is not just a matter of this Administration; it is years and decades—has become very complex and safeguards have been taken away from people. If you want to understand how people end up in detention in the situations that I have been concerned about, there are myriad reasons why this system does not work, long before detention even happens.
Bella Sankey: Could I just add to that question? You asked why the system is not robust enough. The main reason for that at the moment is that there is not a proper independent check on it. In other areas where we allow the state to deprive people of liberty, we always ensure that there is an independent check on the decision to do so. Take the criminal justice system, for example. A suspect cannot be held for longer than 96 hours and not without being charged. Within that 96-hour period, a magistrate’s approval is required for incremental extensions to somebody’s detention. At the moment, in our immigration system there is nothing comparable to that. There are bail hearings that have recently been introduced at the four-month stage, but four months is already an extraordinarily long time, particularly for vulnerable people.
To give a quick, illustrative example, earlier this week, the Minister’s Department conceded that it had been unlawfully detaining an incredibly vulnerable Chinese victim of trafficking for six months. This woman was picked up at a brothel after a tip-off from a member of the public that there was a woman there who seemed like she did not want to be there. When she was found, there were all the indicators you might expect for a trafficking victim. She had no passport, she was worried about being in debt to other people, and she had no friends or family in the UK. But instead of being treated as a victim of potential modern-day slavery and trafficking, she was taken to a detention centre and held for six months. She exhibited signs of extreme distress. She had psychotic episodes. She was walking around in her underwear and screaming, and talking about being burned by a man with hot water.
Despite all of the internal safeguards that are apparently in place, that woman was not released for six months. The Home Office has now conceded unlawful detention. These sorts of cases are happening all the time. I can assure the Committee that there will be people in detention right now in that same situation. That will continue unless there is a statutory end date that will force the Home Office to comply with its own policy and guidance.
The Chair
Colleagues, we only have 20 minutes left of this session. I have five more colleagues wishing to ask questions and I wanted to give the Minister time to ask something at the end, so we really have to speed this up.
Paul Blomfield
Q
Adrian Berry: The Bill was designed to bring an end to EU-derived rights that have been domesticated into UK law under the EU (Withdrawal) Act. That is what clause 1 does, and that is fine as far as it goes. It dovetails with the draft withdrawal agreement, which would extend the period of the full EU acquis applying until the end of December 2020, so there is time to consider and design properly, to think, at the top level of primary legislation, what a new immigration system should look like, to allow civil society to feed into that and to allow all of you to bring your expertise to bear on that. This Bill tries to foreshorten all of that, press it all together and say that Ministers decide and that your role is restricted.
What the Bill needs is for clause 4 to be either radically redrawn or omitted in so far as it creates Henry VIII powers, because even on a unilateral commitment about implementing the provisions of the withdrawal agreement in the event of no deal—the Home Office and the Department for Exiting the European Union have published a paper setting out how the transition period will apply on a unilateral basis—you have the time to do that. You do not need to use this Bill to try to create ministerial powers to create a future immigration system. You have the year to December 2020 to do that.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Q
Jurga McCluskey: This goes back to what you were saying, Adrian, and links into the point you were making. I realise that time is important, but I see it from a slightly different point of view. Representing the business community, for me it is really important that we have time to allow businesses to understand what the new system will look like. Looking at the White Paper in particular, I think that is precisely what it is trying to do; it is trying to allow us time, first, to put flesh on the bones of this White Paper, and secondly, to allow businesses to have that glide path in understanding what the system will look like and to put the right administrative processes in place to facilitate that system and thereafter to use it. For me, that is a really important point.
I am not necessarily sure whether prioritising or somehow easing the Europeans and treating them slightly more preferentially is really the point. For me, if we are trying to simplify the system, the worst thing we could end up with is two different systems or a two-tier system, one for Europeans and one for all the other nationals. In a way, we would be discriminating and creating administrative burdens for businesses, and that would not be welcome. If we have to create, adapt and change because of the circumstances we find ourselves in, one simple system that is the same for everybody will be the preferential way forward.
Expanding a little further on your point about the new system, what is really welcome to the business community, looking at the White Paper alone, is all the simplifications it is trying to achieve. We are seeing a removal of the immigration cap, which is welcome; we are seeing a removal of the tier 2 panel process, which is also welcome, and we are seeing flexibility in the visitor system, which allows visitors to switch into different categories, which again is really welcome. We are also seeing removal of the resident labour market test, about which the business community has been saying for many years, “It’s not fit for purpose, please remove it,” because all it does is add administrative cost in terms of time and recruitment to a process that otherwise would be much quicker and simpler.
It is also good to see in the White Paper the commitment to modernising the sponsorship system, which at the moment really needs a substantial amount of work. What we have is no longer fit for purpose. It may have been in 2008, but now, in the era of digitisation, we have to see a little bit of a more modern way of dealing with sponsorship. That is committed to in the White Paper, which is great.
Another thing that came up many times before in these hearings is the £30,000 salary threshold. This is a really important point. Everybody is focused on the number, which I understand is important and relevant to many businesses; it is a large amount for many. However, what is also good is that, as I understand it, the White Paper actually says very loudly—perhaps I am wrong here—that the number the Government chose is a starting point, and that they want to go out and consult business on it.
David Duguid
Q
Adrian Berry: The political declaration envisages separate mobility provisions embraced in a new treaty covering the future relationship between the UK and the EU after Brexit. It specifically scopes out the idea that there will be an enhanced mobility regime in any event, so you will not get only one set of immigration rules. Just like now, if you are an EU citizen, you do not have an EU right of residence; you acquire leave to enter or remain, like any third-country national.
The political declaration specifically envisages the new relationship as having separate regional arrangements, because of the intensity of journeys and circulation in the region, not because of discrimination on the grounds of nationality. The Government’s aspiration, and that of the Commission, is that there will be an enhanced regime in the region, if the political declaration finds expression in a future relationship treaty. That is what we will have in any event.
To say that there will be a universal floor is a good thing, but there may be other treaty arrangements with other regions, just as Australia and New Zealand have a free movement system between them—
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Q
Jurga McCluskey: I see your point. I completely accept everything that has been said before, in terms of the 5,000 changes in the last 10 years.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Jurga McCluskey: Absolutely; there is no denying that. However, at the same time, what is the alternative? Freedom of movement would have facilitated all the points you raise—
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Adrian Berry: At the moment, in the absence of a mobility component of a future relationship treaty between the UK and the EU, the immigration rules will apply if you want to bring a spouse who is an EU citizen. However, be careful what you wish for, because that is the inbound system. On the export system, Brits going to the EU27—where economic migration is not harmonised—will face 27 different Acts of reciprocity to however strong we are on inbound migration. There will be no intra-EU migration for British citizens. How Brits will be impaired going the other way is completely missing from the White Paper or any Government document.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Ilona Pinter: There are obviously concerns about families being separated by income thresholds. The Children’s Society works within the UK, and our concerns are about those who are already here, as well as about families in the future. As I said, I think access to benefits and vital services is absolutely essential for families and particularly for children who currently miss out on vital things like free school meals and the pupil premium—things that are aimed at families on a low income and in material deprivation to help them to overcome and to have the best life chances in the future.
I want to add one more thing about the White Paper. It would be really beneficial to have proper public consultation on the White Paper; we have an opportunity to really look at this in detail. A lot of the focus in the White Paper is on the economic aspects, which are obviously very important, but a lot of cultural and social integration issues need to be thought through properly, as does, I would argue, how these complicated rules and systems are going to impact on children’s rights. The Children’s Minister committed in November to doing a children’s rights impact assessment on all new policy and legislation coming in. This is a great opportunity to do that. We have 12 months: we would really welcome the opportunity to work with Government and look at this in the round to make sure that proper account is taken of the wide-scale impact that it will have.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
My question has been asked, Sir David.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Q
Bella Sankey: There are lots of other things—checks and provision—that I think are needed to improve the system and make it fit for purpose. A statutory time limit is absolutely essential. I think everyone who works on immigration detention, whether they are caseworkers, researchers, non-governmental organisations, academics or the lawyers involved, would agree that a statutory time limit is the absolute priority and actually is long overdue.
In addition, we need to restore legal aid, so that people’s substantive immigration cases can be properly considered and we are not at risk of continuing to deport people unlawfully, as it has now been accepted we did with the Windrush generation. That is still going on every single day.
There are a whole host of ways in which our immigration rules more generally could be improved to better safeguard people’s human rights to ensure that families are not unnecessarily separated and that people are not re-traumatised by a system that is often so disbelieving, even when there are such clear signs of, for example, persecution and torture.
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
Q
Ilona Pinter: We did. Thank you for the question. I think that there has been recognition of the challenge in regularising or settling the status of so many EU nationals. I think the Home Office has done a huge amount to try to make this as simple as possible. I mentioned the fees; getting rid of the fees is really welcome. Of course, the working with voluntary organisations in the testing as well as going forward to address the needs of vulnerable groups is really important and welcome.
We are currently also working with the Government on looking at children-specific communication—communication aimed at children and young people and their parents and about making sure that as many families and children as possible are able to settle their status. In addition to the 900,000 children I mentioned, the Migration Observatory has also highlighted that 1.2 million EU nationals are adults who are parents. They will have to think about their children’s status or citizenship rights. That is really important.
There are things that we believe need to be done to provide safeguards—for instance, a right of appeal in the EU settlement scheme. That was within the statement of intent for the withdrawal agreement Bill, but I know that the Committee has discussed whether this Bill might be the right avenue for it. Equally, legal aid is a key issue. We welcome the fact that the Government have agreed to provide legal aid for separated children, and we understand that that will extend to EU settlement, but children within families will remain unable to access legal aid.
There are a range of complex situations where advisers at the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner level 1—the level that enables people to support those applying for settled status—will be unable to deal with the complexities that some families will have, because of myriad reasons to do with documentation, trafficking histories, domestic violence and a range of other issues, particularly in families where there is a Zambrano carer. Some issues remain outstanding.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Jurga McCluskey: I think I already made this point: it is very important that the system addresses both categories of people in the same way. The changes that have been made are very welcome, particularly the resident labour market test, and so on. I have mentioned those points before.
What I would really like to see, in addition to what you have already done in the White Paper, is going one step further and, in particular, removing the cooling-off period. It still seems to be manifesting itself in the White Paper. I realise what the reason behind the net migration target is—sustainable levels of migration, and so on—but it would be great to see you going one step further and demonstrating that it will be about the brightest and the best in the future, and attracting people who will truly benefit the economy. Cooling off is not serving that purpose; it is making people leave just as they have made an impact.
Caroline Nokes
Thank you. Can we turn to Mr Berry? We have three minutes.
Adrian Berry: Very briefly, write it in plain English and avoid the endless repetition that appears in the immigration rules. Get rid of overly prescriptive rules of evidence, and allow forms of evidence that allow people to show that they substantively satisfy the categories for which they are applying. In terms of the content of the immigration rules, make family reunion rules such that they promote family reunion rather than hinder it.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Adrian Berry: I was not objecting to clause 1 of the Bill, which switches off free movement. I was saying that you do not need clause 4 and the Henry VIII powers; you can let your colleagues in this room, and in Parliament generally, do their job and make primary legislation in the usual way.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Adrian Berry: You have not used the immigration rules to amend primary legislation, and they are statements of Executive policy, not legislation.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Steve Valdez-Symonds: I agree with all the points that Mr Berry has just made. The one thing that I would add is that those rules have become highly volatile. It is easy to forget that the lack of simplicity for people is not just a one-off experience; people experience those rules through long periods of their lives in the UK, when they come to have to renew their visas or when there are changes that affect their continuing compliance with those rules. I am afraid the rules change many times a year, sometimes with very little notice and with dramatic impacts upon the lives that people have invested in with their families in this country. Something needs to be done to address the certainty that people need to be able to carry on with their lives.
The Chair
Order. It is such a shame—all our witnesses have so much to share with the Committee, so for those who feel that they did not have ample opportunity, you can still write to the Committee. Thank you very much indeed for your time today.
Examination of Witnesses
Hilary Brown and Martin Hoare gave evidence.
The Chair
Welcome to our next set of witnesses. I think you have got a feel for the way in which we proceed. Your session is just half an hour, but, because there are two of you, it might not be so pressurised. Will you introduce yourselves?
Hilary Brown: My name is Hilary Brown. I am the chief executive officer of Virgo Consultancy Services, a law firm with offices in south Wales and south London.
Martin Hoare: I am Martin Hoare, a solicitor advocate in private practice representing immigrants.
Afzal Khan
Q
Martin Hoare: The difficulty of making rules that have such a massive impact on the lives of the people they affect without any scrutiny has meant that people’s rights have not been respected. Furthermore, those making the rules have not had the benefit of input from concerned parties and from Parliament itself.
Hilary Brown: The complexity of individuals’ lives has not been taken into consideration, especially around issues such as vulnerability where people have been trafficked into the United Kingdom, where they are in circumstances and a situation that is out of the norm. Rules need to be made with all of those situations taken into consideration.
Afzal Khan
Q
Martin Hoare: The 12-month visa was in place in the form of the so-called sectors-based scheme. That was introduced in May 2003 by a House of Commons paper with no parliamentary discussion. It allowed people in less skilled fields to live in the United Kingdom for 12 months. It was abandoned following an investigation by Parliament. According to the Hansard report in 2008, quite significant malfunction and abuse was detected.
The tribunal responsible for immigration also found that there was a considerable amount of hostility towards the rule itself, manifested by those implementing the rule at the visa point. That rule was scrapped altogether by 2008. Tony McNulty, the then Minister of State, observed when scrapping it that the slack, as it were, could be taken up by immigration from what were then the EU accession states. The rule then was not effective. The significant difference between now and then is that there will be no pool of EU workers to take up the slack. What I have just referred to is in parliamentary documentation. It is not my opinion.
Hilary Brown: I have nothing to add to that—we have exactly the same frustrations.
Afzal Khan
Q
Hilary Brown: I do not think the difficulties faced by the people caught up in the Windrush scandal have been fully addressed. Many people still have not come forward, who have not been identified and who are living under the radar. I do not think it will be a situation where we can avoid a repeat of such a scandal if we are not in a position to fully map out where the deficiencies in the immigration rules lie.
Martin Hoare: The significant enduring problem is that people are required to establish a right that they say they have. They are required to establish that at short notice, perhaps when they are simply accessing a health service to which they are entitled. The Government have not shifted the onus of proof on those people, so the problem continues.
Furthermore, because of the expanding of immigration control to those who are not qualified to exercise it, such as healthcare professionals and the police, people are not able to determine whether the documents that people present are adequate. There are many examples of that: people holding indefinite leave to remain stamps in an expired passport encounter the difficulty that the passport has expired, therefore the perception is that the Home Office stamp in it has expired, notwithstanding that it explicitly states that it is settled.
People who came into the United Kingdom on other schemes, such as so-called east African Asians who came without passports because they had no citizenship, find it very difficult to establish an entitlement in the UK. They particularly encounter that difficulty when they access something else; they are on the receiving end of Government action when they are not expecting it, and they do not have legal aid. Those are continuing problems that permeate many cities in the United Kingdom and have not been addressed.
Afzal Khan
Q
Martin Hoare: Yes, they could if they chose to do so. There are so many examples of problems that arise from their not having done so.
Jack Brereton
Q
Martin Hoare: I do not profess any expertise on European law, but no doubt European Governments will look at how we treat citizens of European countries and will wonder whether they should treat our own citizens in the same way. I think there will be many vulnerable British people living in European countries who do not quite understand that yet.
Kate Green
Q
Martin Hoare: I think the Home Office will find it very difficult. It finds it very difficult to make quick and consistent decisions at the moment. Unless the Government propose a significant increase in resources to the Home Office, I think it will find it very difficult to cope with additional case work and a whole set of new rules.
Kate Green
What impact do you think that will have on labour mobility?
Martin Hoare: It will severely restrict labour mobility. It will make it very difficult for employers to know whom they can employ. That will not get easier.
Hilary Brown: Already, it is a very difficult situation. We see that employers are very confused and frightened about whom they should and should not employ. When people who have current leave to remain are about to make an application to extend it, we often see employers bringing their employment to an end, until such time as they have received confirmation that they are able to continue to employ those individuals.
Kate Green
Q
Hilary Brown: It is very difficult for employers, because regardless of the guidance they are given, they do not have the skills, knowledge or experience of anxiously scrutinising that guidance. A document may be acceptable, but because they do not have an understanding of the fact that it is an acceptable document, employers often revert back to, “Unless you have a passport with a visa, with a stamp in it that says you are able to work, I am not prepared to run the risk of having a fine, and so I will bring your employment to an end.”
Kate Green
Q
Hilary Brown: Absolutely.
David Duguid
Q
Martin Hoare: I personally think that all people should receive overall fair treatment. I think that currently the family members of EU citizens have an easier set of requirements to satisfy objectively. I find that the Home Office enforces that in the most severe and restrictive way possible. I can see no grounds of fairness to suggest that everybody should go down to the lower level of protection that applies under the purely English rules.
David Duguid
Q
Martin Hoare: Yes, I would. From time to time, those advocating support for the English rules and litigating on behalf of the British Government suggest that the English rules are somehow compatible with European principles.
David Duguid
Q
Martin Hoare: Yes, the UK rules—sorry. I just did not want to include your nation with such rules, that is all. It was out of courtesy to your nation that I was making that distinction. Presently, people who are advocating for the British Government contend that the rules are compatible with the European provisions. They are clearly not, and the proposal is to reduce the rights of everybody.
Hilary Brown: It would be difficult for the UK to justify why they felt it was appropriate to run a two-tier system. It needs to be simplified, to be one system and to be equally applicable to everybody.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Hilary Brown: No, it does not, but that does not mean to say that we should not make some progress towards attempting to simplify it so that it does apply equally to all.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Hilary Brown: Yes, trade relationships may be a reason to justify some kind of other consideration, but they should not be a back-door route into the United Kingdom, for people who can hide behind trade,
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Hilary Brown: Whatever rules are implemented, they should be fair. As I say, there could be other trade agreements, but they should be open to anxious scrutiny and I do not think they should be seen and used as a back-door route into the United Kingdom for people who can afford that.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Hilary Brown: At this time none of the immigration rules is simple. The tier 2 system can be a route into the United Kingdom, again, for people who are able to afford it and those with large reserves of money. I think the system itself needs to be completely overhauled. There needs to be a situation where the UK can look at innovation and other trades and routes. For instance, on the shortage occupation list, there are multimillion pound industries in the United Kingdom that would not be identified unless there was some innovation around whether they should be included in various tier 2 legislation.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Martin Hoare: First, with the tier 2 system, the process for employers of obtaining a sponsor licence is difficult. It does not receive intense scrutiny by the Home Office. There is no right of challenge to the Home Office decision, and therefore many employers who wish to run a tier 2 scheme to sponsor migrants, although they are bona fide employers, get cases refused and are not able to challenge. The starting point of the scheme is unworkable. The insistence on pedantic documentary requirements, which many employers cannot understand, leads to a lot of cases being refused, so the system is not workable at present.
With regard to your second point, yes, I think there should be simply a declaratory system for EU settled status. If the British Government wish to require EU citizens to justify and document every day of their existence in the United Kingdom when at the time they did not know they would have to do it, it will lead to a load of perverse and unfair outcomes.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Hilary Brown: I would certainly suggest not making it so onerous as to documents.
Afzal Khan
Q
Hilary Brown: Aside from the cost of the appeal to the tribunal, which is over £100, the cost of appealing is not a cost that can just be measured in the cost of the application to the tribunal. There is often the cost of getting representation and having to obtain evidence to go before the various tribunals. There is the cost of certifying and obtaining documents. The withdrawal of legal aid often means that for people to be able to get before a tribunal with a robust bundle of evidence giving some sort of chance of demonstrating that the appeal should be granted in the appellant’s favour, they must be able to find something in the region of £1,000 or £2,000—maybe £3,000. That is just to get together a bundle of evidence to go before a tribunal with a remote chance of succeeding. All too often people just cannot afford that. The fact that we have to put bundles together in a way that proves the documents and evidence they rely on will stand up to independent and anxious scrutiny, and the denial of legal aid, prevents people from getting access to justice.
Afzal Khan
Q
Hilary Brown: There are high numbers of people who are quickly detained when they are initially detected by various means—people who have trafficking offences and who have been randomly stopped by police and immigration authorities. In the first instance, they are taken to police stations and not given access to appropriately qualified immigration advisers. They are denied access to any type of legal advice in a police station. Often, and unnecessarily, that sees individuals referred on to immigration removal centres, which clogs up immigration removal centres unnecessarily. They then have to make bail applications to the various immigration tribunals. Often people are then released on bail, only having identified for the first time that they have some kind of irregular immigration status.
Detention is used far too often—and for over-extended periods of time— unnecessarily. If a similar type of system was offered to immigration detainees as to people who face criminal offences in police stations, such as a duty solicitor scheme or a duty representative scheme for immigration issues, I certainly think there would be far fewer immigration detentions.
Martin Hoare: On fees, to make an application to stay in the United Kingdom for 30 months, one has to pay £1,033 at the moment. That may apply to people who have been working in the United Kingdom. If somebody had their leave to remain cancelled with no right of appeal, their option would be to make a new application. To do that, they would have to pay £1,033. If they did not have £1,033, they would face removal from the United Kingdom.
Another aspect of the fee system is that an applicant has to find, for a period of two and a half years, £1,000 to pay towards the NHS. When that was introduced, the rationale was that people who are living here illegally should not use the NHS. The scheme would apply to someone who had been here lawfully for seven and a half years paying tax and national insurance. If they want their last two and a half years in the United Kingdom, they have to pay another £1,000 for it. Over a period of 10 years, someone living in the United Kingdom perfectly lawfully and paying tax and national insurance has to find another £10,000 to fund the NHS.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Martin Hoare: If employers understand that there is a digital check system, it would be a step forward. The people answering the checks are not infallible. The system is very complicated. If the wrong advice is given, there is no way for an employer to check that.
Another aspect I have come across in advising employers is that they cannot determine whether documents are genuine. A digitalised check does not address that properly. Employers find that, notwithstanding having conducted checks, they have unwittingly employed somebody with a document that looks fine when it is checked digitally but that is not fine. The employer then faces criminal sanctions as a result. That is happening to people.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Martin Hoare: I think it is an improvement on nothing, but it is not perfect.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Martin Hoare: No, I said “if” it did.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Martin Hoare: The results you refer to indicate that people who have applied have been granted either settled status or less than settled status.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Martin Hoare: Pre, which is less than. It is the same thing. That may be because people cannot document the earliest time in the United Kingdom, because notwithstanding their subjective compliance with employment rules, there are cases where tax and national insurance have not been credited by employers. It is not scaremongering—that is the factual reality for many people.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Martin Hoare: I accept that entirely, but that is not the point. The point is that it will extend to all employment in the United Kingdom.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Martin Hoare: And in the scheme that has existed so far, there have been cases where people have paid tax and national insurance to their employer but it has not been credited. That has been a problem. Secondly, the results that have come back to the Home Office on tax and national insurance records are different from the results that people have obtained by their own freedom of information inquiries with the Revenue.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Martin Hoare: I am aware of it, but pre-settled status indicates that there is likely to be a component of those people who would be entitled to settled status, but because of deficiencies not of their own making with regard to the recording of their presence and economic activity, are given pre-settled status, which is lower.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Martin Hoare: The form says that there is a charge. At the end of the form, one is told that the charge that one has just paid will not be levied, but that still means that some people get less than they are entitled to. They have been here for more than five years, but the record-keeping system is not adequate so they are not given that to which they are entitled.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Martin Hoare: The Home Office should have a degree of flexibility with regard to the assessment of evidence and should exercise more discretion where cases clearly are substantially satisfied.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Martin Hoare: Yes, of course I am conscious of that, but unless the existing parameters of decision making in the Home Office change, one will see further evidence of injustice arising from that process.
The Chair
I thank our two witnesses for the time you have spent with us. We are grateful.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Fourth sitting)
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Welcome, Mr Porter. I do not know if you have appeared before a Committee before, but please enjoy the session as the Committee members gather evidence. You will get questions from non-Scottish Members as well. Will you introduce yourself formally for the record?
James Porter: Ahoy, Mr Chairman, yonder! I am James Porter. I farm on the east coast of Angus—a mixed farm of beef cows, potatoes and cereals. We also have 100 acres of soft fruit, which in the main season employs about 300 seasonal workers. We have quite a large permanent staff to back that up. I am also chair of the horticulture committee of the National Farmers Union of Scotland and vice-chair of Ringlink Scotland.
The Chair
It sounds as though you are the right witness for this session, with that expertise. This session lasts until 2.30 pm.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Q
James Porter: Yes, we do indeed. In fact, we have already seen shortages over the last two years of about 10% to 15%. We are seriously concerned about the situation currently. We have, as I said, 300 seasonal workers lined up to come over, and many of them return year on year—about 70% are returnees. As many of them have said, any kind of restriction that is put in place will encourage them to go elsewhere. There are lots of jobs available in Germany, Holland and elsewhere in western Europe.
Afzal Khan
Q
James Porter: No. That is generally recognised. In fact, the Migration Advisory Committee report recognises that that labour force is not there. To take Angus, where I am, as an example, there are only 1,400 long-term employed in the county. Angus Soft Fruits, which is the marketing group that I market through, employs about 4,000 people in Angus across 20 growers, so the workforce is not really there. That has been recognised for quite a long time, generally.
Afzal Khan
Q
James Porter: Regarding the 12-month visa and so on, I think you are talking about things that are in the Bill. I have more immediate concerns, and I can tell you what they are and then come back to that, if you will allow me.
The first thing is the seasonal agricultural workers scheme allowing for 2,500 workers this year. NFU Scotland has long argued that that is not nearly enough, and that it needs to be at least 10,000. We are very concerned that that should happen immediately, because we know we are going to be short. About three or four weeks ago, I spoke to Pro-Force, which is one of the accredited labour providers, about how things are going. It is employing people to pick daffodils in Cornwall, and it has already filled the 1,250 places—it gets given half of them—and is struggling to find EU workers to come in and do that. Added to that is the uncertainty about where we are currently with leaving the EU. We really feel that the number of places ought to be put up to 10,000 immediately as a contingency.
Secondly, if we leave the EU without a deal, there is currently in place—I think I have got this right—a three-month rule, so workers can come over for three months without any application, after which they will have to apply for an extension that will let them stay for up to three years. Three months does not bear any relation to what is actually happening on the ground. Most of our workers come over in the early spring—it is probably earlier in England; I am not quite sure when they kick off—and go through the whole season, and then go home for the winter. We feel that the three-month rule will be very obstructive. I have been told that if the slightest impediment is put in the way of the guys and ladies who are coming over to pick fruit for us, they will decide to go elsewhere. We feel that the three-month rule should be extended to 12 months, and then whatever comes after that. We are in a very precarious position. Everything I am hearing on the ground is telling me that if the slightest hindrance is put in their way, they will go elsewhere. I will let someone else speak for a bit.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Q
James Porter: There are two or three problems. This is seasonal work, and most people in the UK are looking for full-time work, not seasonal work. The nature of the job really requires you to be on the farm at that point. We have very early starts in the morning, so it does not marry in naturally. The other thing is that it is quite a physical job. No one is pretending it is an easy job; it is quite hard work, and I do not think it is necessarily for everyone.
David Duguid
Q
James Porter: It is already happening. There is a risk that it will get worse, which is not good.
David Duguid
Q
James Porter: If you were to say tomorrow that you would increase that number to 10,000 places, we would not have any trouble filling that from outside the EU. That is not an issue.
David Duguid
Q
James Porter: All the fruit and veg farms that supply supermarkets are Sedex registered and audited by the Sedex members ethical trade audit, SMETA. That is a pretty rigorous audit that looks at wages, accommodation, conditions and so on, and it is recognised globally. The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority also monitors very closely what is going on. You are allowed to employ directly from the EU as a producer, but if you use an agency, it has to be an accredited agency. If you are discovered not to be using an accredited agency or not to be complying with the requirements of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board, you will be de-listed from supermarkets immediately and subject to the full force of the law.
We have quite a good track record from the last few years of not exploiting our workers. It is generally the case across the industry that most growers have a lot of returnees, and I think that is a sign that the relationship is symbiotic. I am very comfortable with where we are on that. I am happy to look at other ways of improving that oversight if that is what is needed to satisfy people.
I feel I ought to answer the earlier question about the 12-month rule, because I have not answered it. I am afraid it does not make any sense to me. I cannot think of any employment situation where you would employ someone for 12 months, train them up, show them the ropes and then they have to go away for 12 months.
On the £30,000 limit, I do not think the average wage in Scotland is £30,000, so I do not think that is a realistic number. We employ a lot of Romanian and Polish-speaking people. Generally, we have always promoted through the ranks, because otherwise there is a language barrier and because they have the experience of working on a job. Whether it is pruning blueberries, trimming strawberries or whatever, they know that job inside out. If you try to bring in someone from outside who has had no experience of that job, it does not really work. Our middle management level would come under that £30,000 limit, so it does not stack up. In fact, I think abattoir vets do not even earn £30,000, and I think an extremely high percentage—it might be 80%—are from—
David Duguid
I had heard that it was even higher than that; I think it is 90%.
James Porter: I know it is very high. This affects not just soft fruit and veg, but other areas of agriculture.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Q
James Porter: I do not like “low skilled” as a term. I told the MAC in Edinburgh a couple of years ago that I did not like it. I understand what they are trying to get at, but although you do not need an academic degree to do a lot of these jobs, they require quite a high level of skill and experience to learn. I prefer the term “manually skilled”. That might be a better one.
If you look across agriculture in general, I do not know the exact numbers, but there are a lot of people working in agriculture from the EU right now who would be earning less than £30,000. It is not just my industry. Perhaps you are not all from rural constituencies, so you are not aware of where agriculture is or the details on soft fruit and veg. Is it worth giving you a little bit of background on it?
The Chair
Yes, I think that would be very useful.
James Porter: If you take soft fruit, wages in soft fruit have gone up from £3.60 in 1999 to £8.21 currently, and they are due to go up again in April to around £8.51, I think. Our top 10% to 15% of pickers will earn £10 to £12 an hour. They will get holiday pay and they will get overtime after 48 hours—of time and a half, not time and a quarter—because we have the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board. They pay national insurance. They pay tax. To me, they are a big asset to the country as a whole. We struggle a little bit with this idea that they are not contributing. They are contributing, although they might well be below the £30,000 limit.
Wages have gone up significantly in the last 15 to 20 years. If I look back to that initial period, wages were 22% of turnover, but they are currently 48%. The reason for that is that we are not getting paid a penny more for a punnet of strawberries than we were 25 years ago. It was £2 a punnet when I came home from university in 1993, and it is still £2 a punnet, so we are caught between a rock and a hard place. I really do not begrudge these people—it is about 50:50 men and women—their coin, because they have earned it; I used to pick strawberries and it is hard work. But it is very hard for us to keep innovating and developing our industry and increasing our yields. We cannot go on like that forever. It is very difficult.
We spend a lot of money on innovation. We are not shy of spending money on polytunnels. Most of our crops are now on tabletops, which is a significant capital investment. We are now starting to put in gutters, which will recycle and reuse water. We have spent a lot of money on trying to reduce pesticides. We use a lot of natural predators and natural biopesticides. We are doing a lot of things to improve, invest and innovate. Yields have gone up from 10 tonnes a hectare on average to around 22 tonnes a hectare now. It is difficult. I do not think it is fair to call us low productivity or low investment, or to say that we are just sitting on our hands and not bothering to try to improve the situation or make things more efficient. We really are.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Q
James Porter: That is certainly not clear in my head at the moment. My current understanding is that if a deal is reached, nothing changes until 2021. Is that right? If there is a deal, nothing changes, as far as I am aware. If there is not a deal, my understanding is that currently there will be a three-month rule and then people will have to apply to stay.
Kate Green
Q
James Porter: Yes.
Kate Green
Q
James Porter: They will not.
Kate Green
Q
James Porter: If I had crop to pick and someone came, unless I was compelled to make background checks, I do not see why it should be up to me to try to find out whether they were in their first three months of employment.
Kate Green
Q
James Porter: We do not need to. We do need to check that they are from the EU, so we check ID cards and where they have come from.
Kate Green
Q
James Porter: No.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Q
James Porter: Yes.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
James Porter: The MAC report—it is not just me saying this—recognises that there is no negative effect on wages from free movement. It is pretty much neutral; people coming in are not forcing down wages. The MAC also recognises that there is a shortage of labour in agriculture particularly, and it suggests that there should be a seasonal workers scheme to make up for that. The MAC recognises that we need labour coming in from abroad, but it still thinks it should be difficult for us to employ that labour. Yes, I could not agree more. The NFU position is clear: we believe there should be ongoing free movement of labour.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
James Porter: No. I certainly do not, and I do not know any who do. There might well be some, but I am not aware of them.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
James Porter: That sounds quite sensible. We had the SAW scheme previously, and we worked with it until it was ended when the EU accession countries came in. The agencies are quite closely on top of communicating with the people they place on farms, but I can understand that if someone was compelled to stay on one farm, it might be quite difficult for them to speak out if they did not have alternatives. I am sure there may be ways of trying to make that simpler. Perhaps if they received a visa to work in agriculture and were not compelled to stay in one place, that would give them a bit more freedom if they were not happy where they were.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Q
James Porter: One thousand pounds per seasonal worker?
Nic Dakin
That is the cost for tier 2 at the moment.
James Porter: We are working to a pretty tight budget, so I would not be over-keen to pay that. It does not make sense to me. I can understand if there were rational reasons for putting in restrictions to labour, such as a ready and willing labour pool in the UK that was able to do those jobs, but that simply is not there. I do not understand the rationale for adding costs on an industry where things are already tight. There is no doubt about that.
Nic Dakin
Q
James Porter: I think I have quite clearly illustrated how much more we have paid over the last 20 years—it has gone up significantly in the last five. It is all very well saying you have to pay more. We are paying more but we are not getting paid any more for what we produce, and we have no prospect of being paid more. The alternative is to say, “We will just export that production and we will pay someone £2 a day in Morocco or somewhere to grow it.” I do not think that is productive.
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
Q
James Porter: It could be a little like nuclear fusion—it might always be five years off, because it is so complicated. One of those robots takes about 10 seconds to pick one strawberry. They are really not quick. There are research and projects ongoing, but certainly, for the near to medium term I do not see it. You have to remember that you might get a strawberry picking machine, but you then have to develop a blueberry one, a raspberry one and a blackberry one. It is not in the near future.
Caroline Nokes
Q
We heard from the MAC on Tuesday that it felt that a distinction could be made for agriculture as opposed to other sectors. Do you want to expand, in the three minutes allowed, on why agriculture is special and why we should take steps to make sure it stays that way?
James Porter: I will just finish quickly the point about technology. It is ongoing and I am sure we will find ways to reduce the number of people we need quite quickly, with robots taking trays away or doing things like that. A lot of other important development is going on to analyse crops and look at crop predictions. But I put that to one side. Agriculture is different because, unlike any other industry, it is 100% reliant on EU labour or seasonal workers from abroad. It is the seasonal nature of that work that makes us particularly like that. Other industries are heavily reliant on that, but none as much as agriculture, particularly soft fruit and veg.
The Chair
If there are no other questions, I thank our witness very much for the time you have spent with us. If you leave and suddenly think of something else you wish you had got off your chest, we will be pleased to hear from you in writing.
James Porter: Thank you for taking the time to hear what we have to say.
Examination of Witness
Professor Steven Peers gave evidence.
The Chair
Welcome. This session can last until 3 o’clock. Will you formally introduce yourself for the record before the questioning begins?
Professor Peers: Thank you for inviting me. I am Professor Steve Peers of the University of Essex. I am also involved with the UK in a Changing Europe project, looking in particular at immigration aspects of Brexit.
Afzal Khan
Q
Professor Peers: One distinction is that, as I understand it, according to the Government’s policy paper, there would not be a right of appeal in a no-deal scenario, whereas under the withdrawal agreement there would be. Another discrepancy relates to how long and how extensive family reunion rights would be under the withdrawal agreement compared with a no-deal scenario; they would be truncated in a no-deal scenario.
There is a more recent Government policy paper about what will happen to people who come in during the period after Brexit day in the event of no deal. Obviously, in that case, there would not be a fully-fledged transition period. The Government’s plan is to have a short-term permit and for people then to be rolled over into the general immigration system if they want to renew it. That is obviously quite different from the position people would be in if the withdrawal agreement were ratified, in which case the transition period free movement rights would continue for them as acquired rights. Also, under the withdrawal agreement, the transition period can be extended by one or two years, whereas, as far as we know, the Government are not, at least at the moment, planning for their own unilateral transition period to be extended.
Afzal Khan
Q
“any provision made by or under primary legislation passed before, or in the same Session as, this Act”
and “retained direct EU legislation”. Could the Government use that power to roll back their commitment to EU citizens?
Professor Peers: As I understand it, yes, as the Bill stands, because schedule 1 removes a whole series of existing provisions that would otherwise be retained EU law of various types. If you give the Government that sort of power to amend quite generally—more generally than under the withdrawal Act—legislation relating to the acquired rights of EU citizens, what is the limit on what they can do? It would be useful for Parliament to consider whether there ought to be statutory protection of at least some core rights acquired by EU citizens and others, such as family members and Turkish, Swiss and Norwegian citizens, in the period of EU membership so that appendix EU to the immigration rules cannot simply be done away with or robbed of key protections by statutory instrument in a very simplified way.
Afzal Khan
Q
Professor Peers: As I understand the Bill, it is focused on ending the free movement of EU citizens and issues related to it. The EU-Swiss agreement is also mentioned in schedule 1. There is not much in the Bill that addresses the White Paper issues about future immigration policy. I assume the Government will want either to introduce another Bill or to use the immigration rules to develop that future policy to deal with issues such as the cap—£30,000, or whatever it might be—for workers and non-EU citizens. As far as I know—I do not know whether the Government have been clear about this—that is an issue for the future. The Bill does not deal with that as such.
Afzal Khan
Q
Professor Peers: Yes, of course, because then it would take a further Act of Parliament to amend it, assuming there was no other Henry VIII power lying around that could be used to repeal it. Assuming that does not happen, you need an Act of Parliament to change an Act of Parliament, so you would have to go through that process. The Government might, of course, have a majority in the Commons and the Lords to proceed with that, but certainly it is a longer process involving more public discussion. Bills get more scrutiny than statutory instruments and are usually more open to public debate than the statutory instruments process is. It is not an absolute guarantee, but it is a relative guarantee if you put something in primary legislation compared with secondary legislation.
Afzal Khan
Q
Professor Peers: Again, it might be more useful to have some kind of statutory protection, at least of basic things such as acquired rights to social security as of Brexit day; obviously, British pensioners or would-be pensioners in the EU would be interested in that, as well as EU citizens who live or have lived here and might return to their original home on retirement. That would be useful as well.
Of course, this is more complicated, because a separate Act has recently passed Parliament that sets out separate powers to negotiate on social security. In this case, with social security, the Commission has proposed EU legislation—I think at the urging of member states—to keep acquired rights in relation to social security on the EU side. Depending on the details of how that gets negotiated, obviously very quickly, on the EU side, that might be something it would be useful to match.
Even if we do not have a ring-fenced agreement on all these issues, which would be ideal, would it not be helpful for everyone concerned to at least match the arrangements on social security and acquired rights? Perhaps that could be a statutory commitment and the Minister could come along and adopt a statutory instrument to match whatever the EU legislation is at the end of the day, which will not be too long from now, I think. That would be a good way to look at it going forward.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Q
Professor Peers: Yes. There are a number of concerns. First, it would have been better either to have a ring-fenced agreement covering people on both sides and cutting out that part of the withdrawal agreement, which is not particularly controversial, or to have EU legislation similar to the social security proposal that has already been tabled, which unilaterally and uniformly protects UK citizens’ rights across the whole European Union. For whatever reason, the Commission did not go ahead with that, but it would have been far better to have done that.
What we have instead is different countries doing different things. Some aspects of UK citizens’ rights in the EU27 are governed by EU law on non-EU citizens, and long-term residence is an example of that, but there are parallel national laws on long-term residence too. I do not know the details of the Austrian law offhand, but the EU law on long-term residence has case law saying that you should not impose disproportionate fees, so someone might want to challenge the €210 as a disproportionate fee. However, if that is a national law on long-term residence, you do not have an EU law argument about it, so there will be a lot of non-uniform degrees of protection of UK citizens.
It would be better to have standard rules, because a lot of those citizens would be looking at national long-term residence; EU long-term residence is not necessarily used that much. Some of them will face the difficulties of paying high fees. There may of course be other difficulties in applying. There may be earnings thresholds, or other criteria to be met in relation to health insurance or being employed and so on, to get long-term resident status under national law. Those could be difficult to meet.
There might be issues to do with family reunion. Certainly if the family member has not been registered yet, or if they come after Brexit day, different rules might apply to them. It might be quite challenging to bring families in, or have them to stay. If there is a separation or divorce that could raise issues, and people would be in a more difficult position than they would under EU legislation.
Anyone who does not yet have the right to long-term residence could be in an even more difficult position, depending on how restrictive national law is in relation to how they qualify for the right to stay. Would they be given something like pre-settled status, which we will have in the UK, on the basis that they are on their way to getting long-term resident status, or, instead, a short-term permit? It might be that that could not be renewed, or could not be renewed on the same basis, or would not let the person change jobs, or would not let a student look for work—all things that people would have as an acquired right if the withdrawal agreement is passed.
People who are not registered under the national system for registering foreign citizens will have difficulty in any event. They might have difficulties for that reason alone with qualifying under a national system of getting residence permits. If they do not get a residence permit at some point, their life will be more difficult in terms of travel, access to benefits or whatever it might be.
Those points are a broad indication. They will be different in each country and the details will differ, but they give a broad idea of the sorts of problems UK citizens might face.
Kate Green
Q
“This clause allows the Government (and/or, where appropriate, a devolved authority) to make regulations to implement any new policies regarding co-ordination of social security.”
Do you think that might be too broad a power for the Government to have?
Professor Peers: It does seem like an awfully broad power, yes. It would be useful, I think, for Parliament to insist on some sort of statutory limits or guidelines in primary legislation as to how the Government might use their power. One of them could be a requirement, or a push, at least, towards mirroring whatever the EU ends up with, since we know the plan is to have EU legislation on this issue, and it does seem likely to go through, as member states wanted it. That would be one way forward.
I do not know whether there are other issues as well, that Parliament might want to constrain the Government on, somewhat; but it seems like a reasonable argument, that the Government should not have unlimited powers and some constraints should be set by primary legislation.
Kate Green
Q
Professor Peers: I imagine that you might end up with different social security treaties being negotiated with different countries. There are not always arrangements with other countries to uprate pensions, for instance, whereas with the EU, at least until now, it has been the case. I suppose some treaties would cover that and some would not. It makes a big difference over time to pensioners who are not getting their British pensions uprated. Again, that might be something you want to address in the legislation, to specifically require pensions to be uprated, for instance.
Kate Green
Q
Professor Peers: Yes.
Kate Green
Finally, what do you think will be the impact on labour market mobility of the possibility of different social security co-ordination arrangements in the future?
Professor Peers: People are always going to ask themselves, “What are my pension issues if I move to another country?”—or, of course, if they move to a different job in the same country. Moving from a better pension to not such a great pension might counteract any pay increase someone might get, for instance. People have to think about that. Perhaps people in their 20s do not do that so much, but as we get on we start to think more about these things.
Kate Green
Q
Professor Peers: Of course that is a possibility, although I am sure that people on every pay level are concerned about pensions. It is bound to factor into people’s considerations, although it is hard to quantify. I am sure that someone has studied it in detail, but I have not. However, it will undoubtedly be a factor, and it is one reason why the first regulation the EU ever adopted, in 1958, was on social security co-ordination. That was precisely the reason why they did it—plus, it was a treaty that was ready to be copied into regulation. There has been so much case law on it over the years because of the importance of social security co-ordination to labour mobility.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Professor Peers: First of all, I agree that it is useful to have the clause there. I think there was a general assumption in some quarters that we did not need to say anything on Irish citizens, because they were covered, although my colleague in Leicester, Bernard Ryan, questioned that over the years. It is now there in the legislation, and it is useful to have.
However, having looked at that recently, I think the question of family reunion might arise. Are Irish citizens covered by the general appendix EU rules on family reunion as the Government intend to implement them in event of no deal, where there would be a shorter period in which the EU rules on family reunion apply? Does their being covered by those rules depend on whether they apply for settled status? There might be an answer to that that I have missed, but that question certainly arose for me.
That is not just about people who have non-EU citizens as family members, about people who have EU citizens as family members. After a no-deal Brexit, EU citizens would be coming here on a limited basis, according to the Government’s plans on limited three-year permits. Someone might be in a better position if they are here as a family member, so it would be useful to know whether such people would end up being covered as family members. Perhaps that will be clearer when we get further changes to the immigration rules to implement the no-deal plans. I have checked this afternoon, but I have not seen that implemented yet. It would be useful to see it.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Professor Peers: In an ideal world, yes. However, given that it is the Government’s intention to end free movement, the difficulty will be how to distinguish between EU citizens who are here on a free movement basis before Brexit day—or the end of whatever further period we might have—and those who come after that period and who do not have ongoing free movement rights. How do you distinguish between them if there is not at least some system of registration?
By way of a compromise, it might be useful to make it clearer that settled status is a registration system, rather than an application system, because I think that a lot of people were unsettled by its being described as an application system. I know that the withdrawal agreement says that. It also says that people will have to be given settled status if they meet the criteria, so there is not really any discretion for the Government. Given that, why not simply describe it as a registration system? Otherwise, a lot of people will be concerned about what they see as an implied threat. If we are going to go ahead with it, which seems quite likely, a useful way forward would be to reconceive it.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Professor Peers: There is a case for having either a longer deadline or no deadline at all, or having some kind of fairly general excuse clause that gives the Home Office a lot of obligations—not necessarily discretion—to accept late applications for quite an open-ended series of reasons. Obviously, there will be people who do not know about it or understand it. I am in contact with people who know the system well and are campaigning about it and so on, but I realise that that is a bubble. There are a lot of EU citizens outside it who will not understand it very well or follow the details, or who will shake their heads and ignore it in the way you might ignore something like an ominous-looking bill. It would be much better to be as flexible as possible about subsequent future registration and various methods of forgiveness and excuses that people might need to invoke.
Eleanor Smith (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
Q
Professor Peers: It is quite hard to say. This is an app and an electronic process, but that is still a lot of people to go through the electronic process. I do not know about the technological feasibility of it. The difficulty will be with the people who do not get settled status, the people who do not apply and the people who get pre-settled status and argue that they should have had settled status. There will be those categories of people, and there will be some overlap with people who come in either during the transition period, if we have a withdrawal agreement, or during the unilateral, more truncated transition period if we have a no-deal scenario.
In that case, especially if there is no deal, I can imagine employers or landlords being confused about the situation: are these people necessarily entitled to be here or not? There will be people who could have had settled status but do not have it yet because they have not replied or they are waiting for a reply, as well as people who have a more limited leave to stay and more limited rights. Ultimately, there could be some confusion about telling those two groups apart, and we want to avoid a scenario where employers, landlords and banks start to become nervous about renting to or hiring people who are entitled to be here, especially because for a while we will have a category of people who are entitled to be here but do not have the documentation.
That is the background against which we could end up with a Windrush scenario, because at some point there would be greater demands for documentation and some of those people will not have got it or will not then be able to get it. If they have been self-employed, for instance, they may not have the records of all the work they did on an odd-job basis that would easily satisfy the system that they are entitled to be here.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Professor Peers: It was, obviously, the Government’s choice to interpret the referendum results as an end to free movement. There were other options, such as signing up to the same sort of relationship as Norway or Switzerland have with the European Union, or trying to negotiate another variation on that—although I do not know how willing the European Union would have been to negotiate a variation other than the Norwegian version of free movement minus a little bit. Given that free movement was so frequently mentioned during the referendum, the Government felt that was politically necessary.
It is inevitable that we will get into legal complications once we end free movement, because we have a big category of people who have been here on one basis and we are saying that they will all have to transfer to another basis. We are talking about 3 million people, and equivalent significant numbers of UK citizens in the EU. That is bound to be an issue.
The Chair
If there are no other questions, I thank you very much indeed for the time you have spent with us. If you should remember something that you wish you had raised, please write to us. Thank you.
Examination of Witness
Professor Stijn Smismans gave evidence.
The Chair
Welcome to the Committee. Would you please kindly introduce yourself for the record?
Professor Smismans: I am Stijn Smismans, professor of European law at Cardiff University, and I am speaking on behalf of the3million, which represents European citizens already resident in the UK.
Afzal Khan
Q
Professor Smismans: I entirely agree. The objective of the Bill is to remove free movement and substantially to regulate future immigration. However, as collateral damage, the 3 million EU citizens who are in this country will be affected. The Bill does not provide any guarantees for them, which is quite remarkable. It provides protections for Irish citizens, which for reasons of history one can understand. However, at the same time, Irish citizens have lived in this country over recent decades with the same status as EU citizens, so it is strange that the Bill protects only that category and does not provide any protections for the EU citizens already here.
What the Bill does is actually quite radical. These EU citizens have been living here for decades completely legally, and legitimately expecting that their status is solid. One day, the Government said that they were going to remove all those people’s rights—their complete status. The Government say they will replace it with something new, although the definition of that is not yet entirely clear. There is still room for manoeuvre on which rights they will get, and particularly on the definition of the status, which can be partially set out in secondary legislation.
Moreover, the Government are not going to grant that status; EU citizens will have to apply for it and must comply with the criteria. If, by a certain deadline, they do not have those documents, they can be immediately deported, because they will be here illegally. That is quite radical for people who have been living here for, potentially, decades.
To put yourself in their place, imagine that you, as British citizens, have in the same way legitimately expected that you have the right to stay here, and one day the Government say that they will abolish the status that you have and replace it with something new. They assure you that it will be more or less the same, but they will set it out in secondary legislation. You must then apply for it, and if you do not get it, you can then be deported. You may say that British citizens are British citizens, not EU citizens, but over recent decades EU citizens have been living here with nearly exactly the same rights as British citizens, except the right to vote in national elections. They have had substantially the same rights, and they have never had to provide any other proof of their identity. They are now going from that status, which is protected not only in primary legislation but supranationally, to one that is not even set out in primary legislation, because the Bill does not provide that protection. It removes those people’s rights and gives a very broad delegation to secondary legislation, leaving much to be set out there.
the3million proposes that the Bill should set out several criteria. To start with, the process of registration should be set out in primary legislation, with criteria that give clarity on the exact status those people will have. We also propose that the procedure should be declaratory, compared with the current constitutive one. Obviously, that also implies that there have to be limits on the Henry VIII powers that are given in this Bill.
Afzal Khan
Q
Professor Smismans: The most logical way of proceeding would be to wait until we know whether there is a withdrawal agreement, because that withdrawal agreement provides protection for EU citizens and the UK would have to implement it with an implementation Bill. At the moment we do not know whether there will ever be a withdrawal agreement. If there is one, we do not know exactly what the implementation Bill will do. In the case of no deal, this Bill is the only place where you can provide guarantees in primary legislation.
Even if there is a withdrawal agreement in the end, if it were to be adopted in a couple of weeks, we would have a month to discuss the implementation Bill. That Bill will probably be limited in how much detail it would provide on the rights of EU citizens already here. There are some aspects that the withdrawal agreement does not set out in detail, such as the registration procedure. In any case, that would have to come in primary legislation set out here, and not just in the implementation of the withdrawal agreement. If it is not set out now, there is a very big chance that if there is no deal, there will be no guarantees in primary legislation, and even if there is a withdrawal agreement, the implementation Bill does not do that properly, because there has not been enough time to discuss it.
Afzal Khan
Q
Professor Smismans: The provisions given here for secondary legislation are very broad. The process for applying for status is not in primary legislation, so that is a starting problem. The rights we currently have can broadly be revised by the powers given in this Bill, so the status that we once had can be undermined gradually over time. That is why we propose that if a delegation remains in the Bill, there should be a sunset clause on it, so it is only for tweaking technical issues in current rules. In particular, there should be a clause that stipulates that these provisions should not at any time undermine the existing rights of the people already here.
We understand that one wants to regulate free movement for the future, abolish it and create new rules, and we understand that that might require Henry VIII powers. That is a choice. But it is a very different thing to remove the existing rights of people who have been here for decades. That should be set out in primary legislation, and it should not be possible to play with that in secondary legislation.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
Q
Professor Smismans: No, our proposal is that there should be a registration system. If there is no registration system, these people will not be able to distinguish themselves from future immigrants, so there has to be some registration.
Maria Caulfield
Q
Professor Smismans: Yes, that is the process that is set out in secondary legislation, not in primary legislation. If the criteria for that are changed over time, we have no protection against that.
Maria Caulfield
Q
Professor Smismans: That is the case now.
Maria Caulfield
Q
Professor Smismans: This is the process for settled status that is in place now. It has problems and is surely not perfect. We know from the numbers—if the numbers are confirmed as they are now—that there is a considerable group of people who will be at risk at the end of that process, and who will not have registered, particularly the vulnerable. There is a big risk that a percentage of people will get the reply that, “You don’t get settled status. You get pre-settled status.” Quite a few people who have been living here for more than five years but have failed to prove it get pre-settled status. At some point in the future, those people will have to prove again that they have the five years. If they cannot manage to do that now, it is unlikely that they will be able to do it in the future. That will be pushed by the deadline. You have a category of people who are strongly at risk of becoming illegal if they do not have the document by that time.
Maria Caulfield
Q
Professor Smismans: No, this is new because it has been put in place in the context of Brexit. It is not a process one had before. Before, one had the process of permanent residence applications, which hardly anyone applied for, because they did not feel the need for it. That process of permanent residence was exactly a declaratory process. If you had the document, it was convenient for you to show that you had that status. If you did not have the document, that was not a problem. It is a declaratory status.
What we will get is completely the opposite, which is why we say we need a declaratory process, so that the sole fact of not having the document does not mean that you do not have the rights. It just means that, at that stage, you cannot prove it because you do not have the document, but you should still be able to apply to get the document even after the deadline. That is the difference between the declaratory and constitutive systems.
Maria Caulfield
Q
Professor Smismans: For ID cards, no. That is a national issue. There are a lot of EU countries that have registration systems on arrival. The UK could have done that decades ago—could always have done that. The fact that it has never done that actually creates a lot of problems now.
Maria Caulfield
Q
Professor Smismans: That depends on the country.
Maria Caulfield
Could you give me an example?
Professor Smismans: In some countries, it will create problems in getting access to public services if people are not registered. Under EU law, they could be there for three months without registration. Some countries say that after those three months, you have to register. If you have not done that, and you want access to welfare benefits, they would say, “Well, you haven’t registered.”
It has always been the case that countries could do that. The UK could have done that, but has not done that. Having people who are not registered now creates a difficult problem for the future, because non-registration will have the immediate effect that you become illegal. Even in the EU, it is not, “If you haven’t got registration, you aren’t legal.” You might not have access to certain services, but you are not illegal and you are not deported on that ground.
Kate Green
Q
Professor Smismans: They are very wide. These are the essential rights of people who have built up pension rights, sometimes in several countries. EU rules allow that rights built up in several places can be aggregated. We do not know what will happen with that. If there is a withdrawal agreement, it will be guaranteed. If there is no withdrawal agreement, we do not know. The promise so far, which is not yet set out in a legal text, is that rights built up until now will still be recognised, but rights built up after Brexit will not be recognised. That is obviously a problem. You are saying, “Okay, you have built up these rights until now; be happy with that,” but that means that people cannot move any more. If I have built up pension rights here, having been told, “We will recognise them and we will recognise the pension rights you have built up in Belgium, France and Italy,” but from now on I am told, “We will recognise only what you do in the UK”, that means that I cannot move back to Belgium if I want to or if I have to go and take care of my mother. I cannot do that, because my pension rights will have been building up until this moment in time.
That is why there should be limitations on how these rights can be affected and undermined by secondary legislation. Ideally, this is set out in the withdrawal agreement; it should be guaranteed in primary legislation. The withdrawal agreement is important for this issue, because it includes elements of co-ordination between countries. You can never resolve it unilaterally, because there are always aspects of co-ordination of information. You have to know what has been done on the other sides. And actually there are already proposals for statutory instruments that say, “If we don’t get the information from the other country, we are not obliged to take these rights into account.” There are already statutory instruments—proposals for that—that are undermining our rights.
There is a tendency in the first proposal for statutory regulation to forget about the 3 million already here. It is all set out: “We are going to change the rules on free movement for the future.” It is a kind of generic approach: forget about the 3 million who have built their lives on these rights. So there are no guarantees there. These guarantees have to be set out in primary legislation.
Kate Green
Q
Professor Smismans: Yes.
Kate Green
Q
Professor Smismans: Yes, exactly.
Kate Green
Q
Professor Smismans: This goes on the same line as what the withdrawal Act allows them to do. It is not particularly worse than the powers given there, but it is not giving any guarantees.
Kate Green
Q
Professor Smismans: Yes, it makes things worse, in that the Bill obviously removes the free movement rights in their entirety. On social security, it does not remove them as such, but it gives the power to do that under secondary legislation. So in a way that is less radical than the first aspect of the Bill, but in practice it may well come to the same thing.
Kate Green
Q
Professor Smismans: Yes, the Bill explicitly says that. The positive interpretation might be, “Well, actually, we needed that to say we have to distinguish between future immigration and those people who are already here.” The practice of the first instruments that are adopted is that actually they do not make that distinction, so it can be used in many different ways. That is why our proposal is that if there is such delegation, at least there has to be a protection for people who are already here saying that their rights cannot be removed by secondary legislation.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)
Q
Professor Smismans: There has been engagement with stakeholders on the practical implementation, for sure, which has been useful. I think it has been more difficult to have any influence or feedback when civil society has said, “Well, actually, our rights have to be guaranteed; it’s not just an issue of practical implementation.” That has been far more problematic. There has been an involvement, but given the state of the legislation and the rules, clearly civil society has not been as effective as it hoped.
Mrs Badenoch
Q
Professor Smismans: The main flaw of the design is its basic principle: it is a constitutive system. Whatever criteria you put in or however you organise it, the practical consequences can be dire under a constitutive system.
Another key aspect that is highly problematic is that the scheme will, in the end, give you an electronic code, not a physical document. That is highly problematic in practice. People need a physical document. For other immigration statuses, people get physical documents. If people do not have that physical document, private actors will ignore them. Again, the vulnerable will struggle if they only have a code. A private landlord might not make the effort to make use of that code, or might not know how.
There are also huge IT risks. Every IT specialist we have spoken to says it is an incredible risk. Data might get lost. That happens. The data system might be hacked, which will mean that the status of these people will be gone, and they will have to reapply. If that happens, they will not have any document and will be immediately illegal, with all the consequences of the hostile environment hitting them immediately. They need a physical document. That is a key ask, because those with all other immigration statuses get a physical document. Why do these 3 million people not? It is very important.
Mrs Badenoch
Q
Professor Smismans: I will not express myself on the future immigration system. That is not my task. the3million defends the rights of the EU citizens already here. Whatever system is designed for the future is a political choice that we do not have to make, so we do not make any statements on that.
In the same way, we say that ending freedom of movement for the future is a legitimate choice, and that is fine. We can talk about the interpretation of the referendum, as the Minister did before, which I heard from the back, but we usually leave the interpretation of the referendum up to you. However, let me remind you that, before and after the referendum, all parties said that the rights of EU citizens already in the country would be protected, and that everybody who was already here would be able to remain here with the status they already had.
The Bill wipes out those people’s rights completely and leaves it to secondary legislation to sort them out, and also makes them register with an uncertain outcome. That is not the promise that was made by any political party during or after the referendum.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Q
Professor Smismans: Yes, we have said repeatedly how important a physical document is and that we want one.
Paul Blomfield
Q
Professor Smismans: We have heard arguments that this is the future and that the electronic system will work. Unfortunately, I think that there are inherent risks in the future, and people should be prepared for that.
Paul Blomfield
Q
Professor Smismans: There are two issues. On the one hand, if there is a withdrawal agreement, it will require a right of appeal—at least, I hope that if there is a withdrawal agreement implementation Bill, that will be one of the things explicit in it. We do not know whether there will be a withdrawal agreement, and from what I hear there is no clear promise that we would get a right of appeal without one. I am an EU lawyer, not an immigration lawyer, so I am relying mainly on what I have heard from my colleagues in immigration, but we know that there have been considerable problems with how administrative review has worked in the past. It means the Home Office having to judge itself. That might be fine as a first access point or a first way to resolve things, if it works, but it is not enough; we need judicial review and the right of appeal on top.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Q
Professor Smismans: No, they definitely have not. That is why it is so important that we get the withdrawal agreement or, if there is no withdrawal agreement, that we get a separate citizens’ rights agreement. What we have been asking for is that the citizens’ rights part of the withdrawal agreement be ring-fenced and adopted. The withdrawal agreement was agreed between the EU Commission and the UK Government; it did not pass in Parliament, but citizens’ rights were not the debated issue. If the withdrawal agreement fails, it will be because of the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland and the wider issue of where the future relationship is going, not because of citizens’ rights.
The best way to safeguard our rights is through the withdrawal agreement or, in the event of the failure of the withdrawal agreement, to have a separate citizens’ rights agreement under article 50. That would mean that British citizens in the European Union were protected at a supranational level; they would not depend on 27 national rules, in the same way that we do not depend just on the UK. It is a kind of balancing act, in the way that there has been a reciprocal solution between the rights of EU citizens here and British citizens in the EU. That would remain in place for that category of people on both sides. That is the best guarantee.
In any case, issues such as social security co-ordination will require international treaties. You can resolve some issues unilaterally or set out some guarantees in primary legislation, but for the issue of British citizens in the EU, doing that would depend on all the countries at a national level. As we have seen recently, there is not much willingness among European Union member states to let the European Union do that. If there is no agreement, it will mainly be up to national solutions in each country. On social security, you would then have to negotiate agreements between the UK and the 27 countries separately. Surely that would not provide the protection that the withdrawal agreement or a separate citizens’ rights agreement could provide.
Jack Brereton
Q
Professor Smismans: The withdrawal agreement provides a solution. There is quite broad agreement on both sides, and within EU member states in general, about the solution for EU citizens. The problem is that it is linked to the fate of other dimensions of Brexit, and by linking that, once the rest falls apart, this guarantee falls apart unless you use article 50 to still adopt that.
That has to be done quickly, because once the UK is out of the European Union it cannot use article 50. That means that for all the rights set out in that agreement, if they have not been adopted under article 50, you have to go to the different legal basis of the new treaties, which does not give you the same powers. The complete set of rights protected there could never be protected in another way than through article 50, so once the UK is out, if these citizens’ rights have not been guaranteed, it will be too late to provide the same level of protection that we have now. At best, it will come up with a sub-optimal solution that will then have to be ratified in all the member states, so it will also take much more time, which means extra insecurity in the meantime.
Afzal Khan
Q
Professor Smismans: Exactly. With the settled status scheme, even if there is a 95% success rate at the end, 5% of 3 million is a lot of people. Given the current consequences, that means being hit by the hostile environment—that you are illegal whatever you do. If you are in work, that will be illegal. You lose all access to services and you can be deported at whatever moment in time. Even if it is 5% of 3 million, that is a huge number, and it will be at least 5%, because people will not register, will be rejected, or people will be in the quite unstable position of pre-settled status. After five years, they might try again, and are likely to fail again. It is likely to be hundreds of thousands.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Professor Smismans: That is what I said, and ideally that would have been the case. The problem is that first, we do not know whether it is going to happen, and secondly, if it is going to happen, the time will be so short that we will not know what is in there.
Caroline Nokes
But ideally, that would be the place.
Professor Smismans: Yes. Ideally we would have discussed the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, and then we would discuss a Bill that removes all that except for this category. If we say, “We will remove everything, and then maybe we will see what comes after the rest”, that is more problematic.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Professor Smismans: Definitely, and it is ready to do so. Nobody gets an advantage from people not being documented, given that there will be two categories of people.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Professor Smismans: No.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Professor Smismans: I have no experience with that system, so I cannot compare it.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Professor Smismans: They can get lost, but we would hope that they are backed up on the electronic system, so a person has two ways of being secured.
Caroline Nokes
Although if we had an electronic system, that also might be backed up.
Professor Smismans: Yes, yet IT specialists say there is a big risk there.
The Chair
Thank you very much indeed for your time. We are very grateful for the evidence you have given the Committee.
Examination of Witness
Joe Owen gave evidence.
The Chair
Welcome. Would you like to introduce yourself to the Committee, just for the record?
Joe Owen: I am Joe Owen, associate director at the Institute for Government.
Afzal Khan
Q
Joe Owen: The Bill is a framework Bill that gives the Government broad powers with which to move forward. In some respects, particularly when we look at some of the criticisms we have already heard about this being a kind of blank cheque for Government, that is not uncommon on immigration. The basis of the legislation—the 1971 Act—means that the Government have pretty broad powers to start making changes in the immigration system. This is not necessarily a massive deviation from that.
Looking at this, there is an important question about whether the basis of immigration rules, with which this clearly shows a problem, is the right way to do immigration rules. It is certainly the case that between 2010 and 2013, for example, there were some pretty big changes in the immigration system, not least reducing non-EU migration, over which we had control—for want of a better phrase—by about 40%. That was all done without primary legislation, just through immigration rules.
There was also the introduction of the minimum threshold for family reunification, which meant that around 40% of British citizens, I think, would not be able to bring over spouses from the rest of the world under those rules. Whether or not you agree with the policy, there is a question about whether it is right that that can be done through immigration rules and negative procedure. The broad question with the Bill is the continuation of broad powers to make changes in the immigration system. There is a valid question at this point about whether that is the right way to progress with immigration legislation.
Afzal Khan
Q
Joe Owen: There is obviously value in having immigration rules that can be quick and responsive and make changes where there is recognised abuse in the system, or equally to loosen things up if there is a squeeze in the labour market. There is clearly value in having reactive immigration rules, but there is a question about the level of scrutiny more broadly. There is one quite interesting question about what happens before it gets to Parliament.
In the benefits system, there is the interesting example of the Social Security Advisory Committee, which brings together experts from an operational perspective, who are used to implementing the rules on a day-to-day basis, from a legal perspective and from business, non-governmental organisations and so on, to try to work out how those rules would be implemented in practice. That is quite an interesting model that there is less of when it comes to immigration rules; there is less up-front kicking the tyres.
When it comes to parliamentary scrutiny, that is done through the negative procedure as the baseline. I have already touched on some of the big changes that it was possible to make through the negative procedure. This change prompts a discussion about whether that is the right way for changes to be made in the immigration system and whether there needs to be another look at the balance of power between the Executive and what can be done through primary legislation. As I said at the beginning, that is not to say that everything should be done under primary legislation, because there are strong arguments for being able to be reactive, but I think there are certain cases where there is insufficient scrutiny of immigration rules.
Afzal Khan
Q
Joe Owen: That is a good question. That came through primary legislation with the 2014 Act, so there was an opportunity to discuss it. There was never really a White Paper. If you want a White Paper that sets out the hostile environment, you need to go back to Labour. I think it was in 2007 when they called it the “difficult environment”, or the “uncomfortable environment”, which put out a lot of the ideas that became the basis for the 2014 Act. Obviously, things changed, and it was not exactly that blueprint, but not much of a blueprint was laid out.
There is a question about what happened to some of the challenges that were picked up during that process. We know from the Government’s own impact assessments that they recognised that the right-to-rent measures, for example, would affect people of an older generation who had their rights guaranteed under primary legislation, whose documents might have been destroyed. It basically described the Windrush issue in a policy equality statement in, I think, 2015.
There is a question about the extent to which that was scrutinised, and what happened to that information afterwards. However, in terms of the level of scrutiny of the hostile environment, there was a piece of primary legislation, but there is an argument that there was not as much information White Paper-wise as you might normally expect.
Afzal Khan
Q
Joe Owen: Yes. This is a big opportunity to change the way the immigration system works, but clearly there is a trade-off between time and the level of ambition for what you can change. As it stands, the system would need to be up and running in less than two years. Clearly, time is a big constraint. That is one of the reasons why a lot of what sits at the core of the policy in the White Paper is the points-based system that existed before 2010. There were then a series of add-ons, such as the cap, which this removes, and stuff around the resident labour market test. Those things that were bolted are being stripped back.
The fact that there is so little time means that the level of ambition has to be curtailed in terms of what you can do. You would expect that changes will be needed over the longer term; we will not be done and dusted in December 2020. Such things as the promised review of the sponsorship system for employees might have to be done in the longer term. One of the things that we are looking at is whether there needs to be a bigger review of how the immigration system works, and the structures and processes in the Home Office. That was one of the things announced by the Home Secretary in response to the DNA testing issue.
One of the areas that is not touched on, and which will likely need a review—this has definitely been a theme in the evidence of all your previous panellists—is how enforcement works. You have heard from all the panellists since I have been here about the question of settled status, and what happens to the people who do not have settled status at the end. It is almost certain that quite large numbers of people will not.
It would be heroic if the Government managed to get to 95%. I think the dreamers scheme in the US, which was kind of similar in terms of the application process and who was eligible, got about 43% of people who were eligible. I think we did something in the UK around family leave to remain in the early to mid-2000s where we got about 20% coverage. Even if we were to stretch to 95%, which would be a really good job by the Home Office, you are talking potentially about nearly 200,000 people who do not have documentation. How does the enforcement system adapt to take into account the fact that that is just a reality we will be dealing with?
The Home Office will need to deal with the fact that there will be people for whom it does not have paperwork, and who technically may have no legal right to stay, if they did not apply within the time period. I think most people in the UK would recognise some kind of moral entitlement to stay if someone has lived here for 20-odd years. How the enforcement system adapts to that will be an important challenge.
Kate Green
Q
Joe Owen: I have to admit that I am by no means an expert on social security, but this is part of a broader Brexit phenomenon. The level of uncertainty of what sits ahead, and the need to pass legislation, means that the Government have to take broad powers in certain areas to cover all aspects of a no-deal scenario. Whether there is the necessary scrutiny of that, and the necessary security as to the powers being used properly, is a different question, but it would in some cases be quite difficult to get away from taking broad powers on Brexit-related issues, unless the Government were to be quite forward-looking about what they planned to do.
In short, it is kind of unavoidable that there are some quite broad powers in the Bill, but there is a serious question about whether there is the right level of scrutiny, and what more Select Committees, for example, could do to make sure the powers are used properly.
Kate Green
Q
Joe Owen: Most people would recognise a difference between those two. There is a question as to how to manage that in legislation. I am not entirely sure how one could go about that at this point.
Kate Green
Q
Joe Owen: Yes, that is certainly an option.
Jack Brereton
You have mentioned the constraints of time, which, obviously, are potentially quite challenging. If we were to leave with a no-deal scenario on 29 March, and the Bill was in place by then, how do you think implementation on the ground would go? Would there be challenges to get things running in that timeframe?
Joe Owen: There are two things when it comes to no deal; there is the settlement scheme for EU citizens who are here before 29 March, and then there is the temporary leave to remain scheme for those who arrive afterwards. The first system is up and running and being trialled. While rights change in certain areas as a result of there being no deal, the process in the system is the same—so, credit to the Home Office for having a new technology system up and running and being trialled within two years. Most people, looking at Government IT projects, would say that was pretty impressive. Obviously it still has a long way to go before it can be said to be complete.
Jack Brereton
Q
Joe Owen: The second part of your question—the bigger challenge to do with time—is about what happens to EU citizens who arrive after 29 March, on a temporary leave to remain. It is as true on this as it is for huge areas of the Government’s no-deal preparations: there is very little visibility, as to preparedness, in comparison with what would be expected for most major Government projects. In reports from the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, for example, there is little information about where Government preparedness is, on a host of no-deal issues. On the policy aspect, you get the sense that the temporary leave to remain is a bit of a Whitehall workaround, given the political incentive to end free movement if we leave without a deal on 29 March, but there are the practical problems of not being able to do much about that until you have registered as many as possible of the EU citizens who were here before 29 March and got a new system up and running. Neither of those things will be true for 30 March, so we have a registration scheme that will exist that will not really be enforced by landlords, businesses and employers in the same way as other parts of the migration system would be.
There is a big question about how that registration scheme will work in practice and what problem it is trying to solve besides saying, “We have ended free movement.” As with settled status, when we switch to a future migration regime, what happens at the back end to all those people who did not apply, for good or bad reasons—they may not have known that they needed to—and are not registered, or who do not then qualify for the future migration system? If that is a big number, will one of the first things that the UK Government do, after their new immigration system is put in place, be to close down bank accounts or start to deport loads of European citizens who came in that period? That would be a bold move.
That links back to how enforcement will work, particularly with the no-deal scenario. I appreciate that that has not necessarily answered your question about the powers in the Bill and the link to that, but it is an important question about how the no-deal scenario would work.
Paul Blomfield
Q
Joe Owen: Obviously, the Bill is accompanied by the White Paper. In comparison with a lot of the Brexit White Papers for the big Brexit Bills that are coming through, it is probably the meatiest in terms of setting out what life after Brexit will look like in the policy area. In comparison with things such as trade or customs, where there is a huge uncertainty—
Paul Blomfield
Critical issues such as the tier 2 salary cap have deliberately gone out to consultation, however, because there is no agreement within the Cabinet about what that should look like.
Joe Owen: There are bits that are still up for grabs, but in comparison with a lot of other areas, we have a clearer vision of the detail of the policy for after Brexit. There is an interesting question, between the Bill and the White Paper, about the vision and strategy—what is immigration for, after Brexit? That question is still missing and has been missing for quite a long time. The last immigration White Paper was in 2006, I think, and there has never really been a discussion about the aims and objectives of the immigration system.
In the most recent White Paper, there are conversations about salary thresholds and regulated qualifications framework levels, and quite detailed policy questions. At the front, in terms of aims and objectives, there are two pages that talk about being fair and balanced and working for the whole UK, but with no real idea of what that means and what the system is supposed to achieve. There is that gap. In terms of whether the Bill is quiet on the big issue, I think the White Paper is there.
There is a question about what the Bill should say about citizens’ rights, if anything. It is fair that, given what is in the withdrawal agreement as it stands, and the fact that it is a key part of the negotiation, it makes sense that that sits in the withdrawal agreement Bill, not least because there are some things in there about the precedent of EU law and so on, which is all best dealt with in a single case. If there is no contention—I have not heard much in the UK Parliament, I have heard nothing in the EU and I have heard nothing between the UK and the EU about disagreement with the citizens’ rights part of the withdrawal agreement—why has the withdrawal agreement Bill not been published in draft, or at least the areas that cover citizens’ rights? That would be a way of setting out in more detail what is likely to come down the track, for those who are uncertain about what is missing in this Bill, even if it is in draft and only covers certain sections of the withdrawal agreement.
Eleanor Smith
Q
Joe Owen: It is very unrealistic that there will be 100%, although I may come to regret saying that. Considering that we do not entirely know how many EU citizens are in the UK and exactly where they are, trying to target them is a huge challenge. You have already heard from a number of people about the can’ts, the don’ts and the won’ts. There will be some who cannot get status, even if they want to, because they do not have the right information, they cannot access the internet or for other valid reasons. There will be the don’ts—children or elderly people, for example—who do not know that they need to apply. Then there are the won’ts, who are the people who say, “I completely disagree with this as a policy; I think it is ridiculous and I am not going to do it as a matter of principle.”
Those people will exist. The first two categories are likely to be filled with more vulnerable people, as previous people giving evidence have attested. There needs to be a recognition that designing for 100% is the wrong way to go. The right way to go is to make sure that there are sufficient safeguards and clarity in the system about what happens to people who do not have settled status at the end of the two years, possibly for very good reasons, and what will happen to those who we think do not have good reasons as to why they do not have settled status. Having clarity about what will happen to those people—they will inevitably exist—at the back end of the two years is really important.
Nic Dakin
Q
Joe Owen: As I have previously said, it seems like a workaround to a problem. There is a political imperative to do something to end free movement, but practically it is really difficult, because EU citizens need to be given time to apply; you need the White Paper and the new system needs to be up and running. Until there are those two things, it is almost impossible to meaningfully end free movement. We therefore have a system where, for citizens coming into the UK, it will be exactly as it is now; and then after three months, if they want to stay longer, they can apply for temporary registration, which will be largely a security check. There is nothing to enforce whether people have that or not. If I go to my employer at the end of 2020 with a European passport, they do not know if I am someone who has lived here for 30 years and has not claimed settled status yet, or if I turned up a year ago and I have not bothered to do the registration scheme. There is a real difficulty about how this will practically be enforced.
As I said, another issue is what happens at the back end, when the new system comes into place and people who are here—who have either registered or have not registered—apply for the new system. If they are unsuccessful, what happens to them and what is the treatment of them? What kicks in around that, again knowing that large groups of people are likely to be in that situation? People will be expecting that to be dealt with in a way that carries public confidence.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Joe Owen: There are some questions around built-in safeguards in the immigration enforcement and caseworking system within the Home Office. There have already been quite positive steps, with a team of senior caseworkers being established in response to Windrush last year. They are there to provide a bit more discretion—a second pair of eyes—on some of the difficult cases. How do we build that into the system to ensure that there is a safeguard for people who have characteristics that make you think that the person has been caught up without the right paperwork, but would have been covered under the withdrawal agreement? Addressing some of the structural and process questions—assuming that the policy around the hostile environment or compliant environment of enforcement through public services, landlords and employers continues—would seem to be one way. There is also more that can be done with people who end up being the arm of immigration enforcement, such as landlords and employers, through education and outreach. Those are some of the more processy things, rather than questions of policy.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Joe Owen: Those are certainly options, if you want to change the timeline. In terms of changing the timeline, if you give EU citizens more time in which to apply, to some extent that is likely to kick on the point at which you can bring in any new immigration scheme, because you need to find a way to differentiate between people when they apply for jobs.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Joe Owen: Precisely. This is about how you build safeguards into the system, so that the first time something flags up, you do not necessarily get a very strongly worded letter about having to leave the country, but perhaps a reminder that you need to be applying for settled status. There should be different grades of how the Home Office interacts with people whom it thinks are caught up as a result of not having the information. A time limit is one option and a declaratory system is another option. In the past, when there have been big groups of people who do not have status, you could just do a total amnesty and say, “Fine, we are just going to do a declaratory scheme and issue people with the necessary documentation.” All those things are options. Assuming that those big policy choices do not get taken, just in terms of the structures and processes, it is important that there are these necessary safeguards built in as a kind of bare minimum.
The Chair
Thank you very much for your time this afternoon, Mr Owen. The Committee is very grateful for the evidence you have provided us with. Our two final witnesses have been sitting patiently throughout the whole of our proceedings, so I think they will be familiar with what will happen.
Examination of Witnesses
Jeremy Morgan and Kalba Meadows gave evidence.
The Chair
This session finishes at 4.30 pm. Will you both kindly introduce yourself for the record?
Jeremy Morgan: I am Jeremy Morgan. I am the vice-chair of British in Europe, which is a coalition of groups across Europe. I am a committee member of British in Italy.
Kalba Meadows: I am Kalba Meadows. I am a committee member of British in Europe. I also co-ordinate the largest member group of British in Europe, which is a citizens’ rights group based in France.
Afzal Khan
Q
Jeremy Morgan: Can I ask you if we could cheat? We are the only representatives of British citizens in Europe, and we have heard various questions asked of other people who are not British citizens in Europe—questions that we know the answers to. Could we ever so briefly start by answering those questions, or would that be completely contrary to everything this Committee does?
The Chair
Yes, as long as you do not take too long, because colleagues will have lots of questions.
Jeremy Morgan: It is not going to be a speech, but Professor Peers touched on the different rules that apply across the EU27 countries. There are some overarching EU rules that will apply even when we are no longer EU citizens, particularly one that covers people who have been resident for five years, and that is across the board. If you are resident for less than five years, you are subject effectively to national immigration rules, with one or two EU glosses. In Italy, I think there are 25 different statuses that one can apply for at less than five years; in Germany, I think it is 180. So, it is an enormously complex mish-mash, which you have to try to fit yourself into, and certainly there will be people who do not.
If I may, I will just give you one example of how the five-year system for long-term residents—for what they call third country nationals—works. The rule enables countries to ask for a minimum income and health insurance. In Spain, the minimum income that a pensioner has to produce is a little over €25,000 a year. The UK state pension translated into euros at the moment is worth a little over €9,000, so people who are living in Spain—some of them can probably manage, with difficulty, on the state pension in Spain—are just never going to meet that minimum. That is a massive theoretical problem; Kalba will tell you a little bit more about the practical problems.
Kalba Meadows: Yes, there are very great practical problems, because of the question of registration across the different EU27 countries, as was mentioned by a witness earlier. There are very different schemes in practice for British citizens living in the EU. Some countries—like my country, France—do not apply any kind of registration system at all for British citizens or EU citizens from another country who are living there. So we have between 150,000 and 200,000 British citizens living in France, only around 16% of whom have any form of registration at the moment. Other countries have a system of registering your residence, but nothing else; other countries have greater systems, where you register your residence and apply for a relevant card. As you can see, there is already a huge difference between how people are treated across the countries.
Come 29 March, if there is no deal, all of us will share one thing: overnight we will become third-country nationals. Now, without any form of legislation in our host countries, we would become illegal—literally within a minute. All of our current rights would fall away. We are totally reliant on our host countries putting into place legislation that would stop that happening. So far, legislation has been very slow to arrive. My country, France, was the first to bring out legislation; I hope to say a little more about that later. But the issue is that we are going to have 26—I am excluding Ireland here, for obvious reasons—different pieces of legislation, operating in very different ways in very different countries. So there are going to be very big differences between people, according to where they live.
Using my country as an example, we have a number of different cards for people who have been in residence for less than five years. Everybody who has been in residence in any EU country for less than five years has to fit into national immigration law. Long-term residence status, which is mixed competence between EU and national law, does not come into effect until the five- year point.
As you can see, there is a big gap there. Everybody is going to be taking a different route to get there, and it is entirely possible that there will be large numbers of people who simply do not meet the conditions. What of them?
Afzal Khan
Q
“Power to modify retained direct EU legislation relating to social security coordination”.
What concerns do you have about these powers?
Jeremy Morgan: They are very open ended, and to my mind they are unnecessary, certainly at this stage. You have to recall that we set out the legislative framework in our paper. At present, the EU’s social security co-ordination rules apply in this country, because we are still in the EU. The 2018 withdrawal Act preserves them as retained legislation after 30 March, if that is the date on which Brexit happens and there is no withdrawal agreement. However, in exercising a regulation-making power under that Act, the Department for Work and Pensions has already put forward a slightly amended version of the EU regulation, to take account of the fact that, basically, there will no longer be communication between the various countries.
There is no need for any rushed legislation on this. The existing law, which we are told it is the intention of the Government to preserve, is in place. The amended statutory instrument is in place. The new regulations are simply there to make further changes, as yet unspecified. No policy reasons for that are put forward in any of the supporting documentation. It is unnecessary, very broad and very worrying.
Afzal Khan
Q
Jeremy Morgan: You have to bear in mind that British citizens in Europe are somewhat less affected by UK law, for obvious reasons, than the EU citizens living here. Probably the most important aspects for UK citizens in the EU are healthcare, which in the EU is an aspect of social security, the aggregation of pension contributions and exporting pensions.
I, as a UK pensioner living in Italy, am entitled to receive my pension, but I am also entitled, under EU law, to an annual increase. There is a great concern that that might not continue—the Government have not committed to continue uprating our pensions beyond April 2020. That is a huge worry, because although inflation is quite low, the British pension is the lowest in the OECD countries and has already been devalued by 20% because of the fall in sterling. Not to increase that is adding insult to injury to people who left this country on the basis that they would always get their uprating.
Afzal Khan
Q
Kalba Meadows: We share the uncertainty with them. Right now, we share even more uncertainty, and I will tell you why. As the rights of EU citizens have not been enshrined in primary legislation, national Governments across the EU27 are reticent in coming forward with their own legislation, because they are concerned that the rights of their nationals living in the UK will not be equally protected.
In France, the legislation we now have—it came out last week—includes a clause that clearly states that, although it protects the rights of British citizens in a no-deal Brexit to some degree, everything in that can be withdrawn by decree if the French Government consider at any point that the British Government are not treating French citizens in the UK fairly and equally. Although, on the one hand, you might say that we have less uncertainty, because that is in place, on the other hand, it is not certainty, because it can be withdrawn by decree at any moment.
We are seeing across the EU27 that Governments are reluctant to come forward with legislation because the UK has not enshrined EU citizens’ rights in primary legislation. We hear that in our conversations with member states, and we are very aware that Governments are holding back on coming forward with their protections for us. You can imagine that that creates the most incredible uncertainty for people, because this is actually about people.
Jeremy Morgan: To underline that, we are not talking about hearsay here. As an organisation we have been involved in negotiations with our national Governments and with the EU Commission and MEPs. We have had fairly high-level involvement and we do know what they are thinking and saying.
Afzal Khan
Q
Kalba Meadows: I come back to the uncertainty. On clause 5 on social security co-ordination, 80% of the British living in Europe are of working age or below. That is an awful lot of people potentially affected by social security aggregation, and add to that the pension issues that Jeremy has already outlined. We are talking more than 1 million people who are affected by social security aggregation—the aggregation of the contributions they make to their retirement pension. That is a fundamental right that we all moved across the Channel with.
I would also add that British citizens moving abroad are mobile. It is not so much that a British citizen moves from the UK to one country. We are mobile citizens, and many people have worked in three or four different countries. That is a complicated aggregation scenario. It is entirely possible, due to the rules in individual countries about minimum contribution periods—in Italy, you have to contribute for 20 years before you can receive a pension; in the UK, as you know, it is 10; in France, it is 10; and so on—that without co-ordination, people could work an entire working life and not receive any state pension.
Jack Brereton
Q
Jeremy Morgan: Yes. In so far as we are talking about Britain versus 27 or 26 different countries, clearly the British Government’s aim has been to get the withdrawal agreement through—to get Brexit—and almost anything that has to be done in order to achieve that, they will do. Obviously, there are difficulties at the moment. The other countries are more concerned with specific national issues. I do not think you can generalise.
Kalba Meadows: I do not think you can. I agree with what Jeremy says.
Jeremy Morgan: The French are terribly concerned, for example, that people who are not French citizens should not be involved in public administration. In Italy, they are much more concerned about families. That is the Italians and the French for you.
Jack Brereton
Q
Jeremy Morgan: It is very hard to say.
Kalba Meadows: I do not think it is so much a trade-off as the fact that in each country you are coming from an entirely different culture, and the starting point is different. The one thing they have in common is a desire to protect their citizens in the UK. That is a shared point of view.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Kalba Meadows: Yes.
Stuart C. McDonald
So that is a plan of action.
Jeremy Morgan: In connection with ring-fencing, we must not forget that the UK has signed no-deal deals with Switzerland and EEA countries. It is extraordinary that they should not be able to do the same thing with the EU.
Stuart C. McDonald
What happens in different scenarios if UK nationals currently in Europe want to come back to the UK with family members? How might whether we are in a deal or a no-deal situation affect that?
Kalba Meadows: Thank you for asking that, because it is a very important aspect that is causing a lot of concern. You are talking about Surinder Singh rights: the right of, let us say, a British citizen who has exercised freedom of movement by living elsewhere in the EU to come back to the UK with their non-British family member. That right will disappear after Brexit whether or not there is a deal. Let us say that we are talking about somebody who is married to a Dutch citizen. Anybody wanting or needing to come back to the UK after Brexit would have to comply with UK immigration laws in order to come back. Surinder Singh rights will disappear after Brexit, whether or not there is a deal.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Kalba Meadows: Absolutely. That leads to a situation where people may be forced to make a choice between their family in their host country and their family in the UK. Very often we are talking about people who need to come back to the UK to look after elderly parents.
I can give you a specific example very quickly. Let us call her Nicky. She lives in the Netherlands, where she looks after her husband who has multiple sclerosis. In the UK she has parents in their 80s getting older who will need care, and she is an only child. What does she do? She cannot come back to the UK, because there is no way, as a carer, she would earn the amount required in order to bring her husband. She cannot bring two very elderly parents to the Netherlands, because they do not speak Dutch. She is stuck. She has to make an impossible choice.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Jeremy Morgan: You put the withdrawal agreement into primary legislation. That takes you an awful long way down the road. We are not entirely happy with the withdrawal agreement, but it is the best thing out there at the moment.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Jeremy Morgan: It is more on the rights that we have in the EU. We have lost our freedom of movement rights, so the people who Kalba mentioned, who have moved to Europe—not necessarily to the Netherlands or to Luxembourg—have lost their right to move around. Many of them move there precisely because it is a very mobile market. People with IT skills, for example, work a two-year contract in one country and go to another. There are so many British people who have taken advantage of that, made lives for themselves, and ended up, in the course of that, picking up a family from one of the countries they have stayed in.
It has become a very complex system. Taking that right away from them is very serious indeed. The British do not have it in their gift, although at an early stage in the negotiations, I think in September 2017, the British offered to give EU citizens in the UK indefinite right to return. At present, you are allowed to be away for five years with your settled status, and then you lose it. The offer was to make that a lifetime right to return in exchange for freedom of movement for UK citizens in the EU. That was not accepted by the EU at the time, and has not been pushed as hard as it should have been since, because it is a terribly sensible arrangement.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Kalba Meadows: There is a timing issue, in that the UK may leave the EU in six weeks with no deal. That does not leave very long to legalise the rights of British citizens living abroad. If we know that the EU27 states are looking for legal guarantees for their own citizens living here, we do not have very long to do it. They will be looking for those in order to put into place their own legislation. I would have concerns about leaving it too long.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Jeremy Morgan: It would make it an awful lot easier for them because they could say there is at least a law. The problem then, of course, is that the law can be changed, but it still would look an awful lot better. They know who Henry VIII was as well and they have seen the discussion. EU officials and politicians are pretty tuned in to what goes on in this country. They have seen the discussion and it worries them.
Kalba Meadows: May I add briefly that when I had this conversation with senior politicians and officials in France, they were not at all impressed? They did not accept that what is currently in place to cover settled status in the case of no deal was in fact offering sufficient guarantee.
The Minister for Employment (Alok Sharma)
Q
Jeremy Morgan: It would be devastating.
Kalba Meadows: You took the words out of my mouth.
Alok Sharma
Q
Kalba Meadows: It would be devastating in that the UK pension, as Jeremy has said, is already very low, and it has been devalued by the depreciation in sterling. Many people are in the position of what you would call only just managing.
Alok Sharma
Q
Kalba Meadows: It is not even as simple as that. For many people, moving back to the UK is barely an option. Most people do not have links in the UK. They do not have housing in the UK. They have housing where they are. Their lives are where they are.
Alok Sharma
Q
Kalba Meadows: It may well change behaviour in that people would have no choice. But it is a very difficult thing to even contemplate.
Kate Green
Q
Kalba Meadows: To move back to the UK.
The Chair
Colleagues, if there are no further questions, I thank our two witnesses for the evidence that they gave the Committee. We have now reached the end of our oral evidence sessions. The Committee will next meet on Tuesday 26 February, not next week, under the chairmanship of Mr Graham Stringer at 9.25 am to begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. I remind Members that the deadline for amendments to be considered for that sitting will be the rise of the House next Thursday on the 21st, so any amendments must be tabled by then.
Westminster Hall
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Backbench Business
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Santander Closures and Local Communities
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effect of Santander branch closures on local communities.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Davies. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for providing time for the debate and express my sincere gratitude to the hon. Members for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon), for Angus (Kirstene Hair) and for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who all joined me as co-sponsors of the application. Like many other hon. Members, they face the closure of Santander branches in their constituencies. It is a testament to the widespread anger in the House that we have come together on a cross-party basis to campaign against those closures.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech, and I am delighted that he has secured the debate. He mentioned the anger, and I want to emphasise that the anger in my constituency has been exponentially increased. When Santander closed its Linlithgow branch last year, it encouraged customers to move to Bathgate—the very branch it is closing this year. That is farcical, and a true betrayal of elderly pensioners, who are less likely to use online banking.
David Linden
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Many of us share the concern that the present round of closures may not be the last, and he makes the point eloquently.
I acknowledge the fact that senior Santander staff have joined us in the Public Gallery today, and I hope they will take to heart the serious concerns we express on our constituents’ behalf. I should also declare an interest because not only is the Parkhead branch in my constituency earmarked for closure, but I am a Santander customer and it is my local branch.
I am sure there will be some interventions, and I shall be happy to accommodate them to allow colleagues to put their concerns on record. My speech covers four main areas. First, I am concerned for the almost 1,300 Santander staff whose branches are due to be closed, and who face a deeply uncertain future. Secondly, I shall consider the local impact the proposals will have in the east end of Glasgow, where the branch at Parkhead Forge is due to close. Thirdly, I shall address some of the issues about reliance on the post office network. Fourthly, I shall focus on access to cash. Finally, I shall seek support from the Minister in making direct representations to the bank.
As I mentioned, when the closures were announced, my immediate concern was for the almost 1,300 Santander staff in the 140 branches in these islands. I know from speaking to staff at the branch at Parkhead Forge that the announcement on 23 January came as something of a bolt from the blue. When I met Santander executives the following week, I was disappointed to learn that although about a third of the staff may be redeployed, a deeply uncertain future remains for the other two thirds. Given that there are almost 6,000 fewer bank branches and building societies in the UK compared with 2010, those staff cannot exactly just move their skills to another local bank. That is obviously a key problem. Other banks have abandoned high streets and shopping centres, closing thousands of branches and abandoning the customers who stood by them during the financial crash. Abandonment is exactly what Santander proposes in the east end of Glasgow.
Unashamedly, as a constituency MP, I want to use some of my time today to make the case for keeping the Parkhead Forge branch open. I cannot fathom why it was selected for closure, given the widely known demographic issues in the east end of Glasgow. When I met Santander senior staff, I made the point that the Parkhead branch, situated in the busy Forge shopping centre, appears to have a heavy footfall, with customers like me often having to queue before seeing a teller. Frustratingly, I have still not received the transaction and footfall data I asked for from the bank, which makes me question whether Santander has looked at it at all. Surely if the branch were not being used enough, Santander would be content to demonstrate that by releasing the data.
In its initial impact assessment, and somewhat to my surprise, Santander suggests that east end customers should go to their next nearest branch, Rutherglen, which is not actually in Glasgow. The journey could perhaps be done by train. Of course, if Santander had bothered to do more than a mere desktop exercise, it would have realised that Parkhead does not have a train station and that the journey would take well over an hour and mean travelling through Partick, in Glasgow’s west end, which is simply ludicrous.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the insensitivity of the one-size-fits-all letter that everyone was sent. We are losing two branches in my seat—not only in Acton High Street, which recently lost NatWest and HSBC, but in west Ealing, where we have lost Halifax and Lloyds. Our streets are being turned into ghost towns. The recommendation in Acton was to go to the post office. That has closed too. Where are people meant to go?
David Linden
Absolutely. The hon. Lady makes a powerful point. I intend to come on to the recommendation that people go to the post office, because the argument is weak and does not stand up to scrutiny. She is right to point out the mass exodus of banks from high streets. Banks are a major part of the local economy, and it does not do them any good if they abandon the high street.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
The closure of the branch in Helensburgh in my constituency means that the nearest Santander branch will be 25 miles away in the west end of Glasgow. I have serious concerns about the so-called impact assessment, which has been carried out only after the announcement. Does my hon. Friend share my fear that it will be little more than an exercise in justifying a decision that has already been made?
David Linden
Absolutely. My hon. Friend does a power of work in his capacity as chair of the all-party group on rural poverty. He speaks powerfully about the impact the closure will have in his rural constituency. In my constituency, customers are not quite being asked to go 25 miles, but the point is well made, and I hope the Minister has taken it on board.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
As I outlined in my Adjournment debate on this very subject last week, the impact on rural Lanark will be devastating for the local economy and the high street. Does my hon. Friend agree that banks should do more to consider the economic impact?
David Linden
Absolutely. That is one reason why I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) here for the debate. His private Member’s Bill looks specifically at the impact of such closures, particularly on rural communities. My hon. Friend’s point is well made.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is being extraordinarily generous in taking interventions. Does he agree that if local impact assessments are done, they are ignored, and not just by Santander? Banks want to force people into online banking, and the real threat of that is that they will move towards allowing algorithms, not human beings, to take decisions. It is not just the high street that goes, but the personal interaction and the ability to appeal to a human being if things go wrong.
David Linden
Absolutely. That fits nicely with the next point I want to make, which is about impact assessments. The bank concedes that only half of the customers who use the Parkhead branch use online, mobile or telephone banking services. The data concerning digital exclusion in the east end is widely available, so it beggars belief that Santander has overlooked it and still plans to pull down the shutters on a branch that serves some of the most vulnerable and isolated people in the country.
I want to turn now to the issue of reliance on the post office network to deliver banking services. Having asked the Minister about it during Treasury questions a couple of weeks ago, I can almost anticipate his response: that Santander customers can just do their banking at the post office. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) felt frustration about that during her Adjournment debate last week.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I have a background in the Post Office. All we see is closure after closure, and now that WHSmith—the worst retailer on the high street—is taking the contract, it could also close post offices. The excuse given by the banks—that if they close down, people can use the post office—needs to be looked at seriously.
David Linden
Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, hits the nail on the head. There are flaws in the argument that the post office network can just replace local banking services.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making a great speech. The branch on Renfrew High Street in my constituency is also earmarked for closure, and Santander suggested that customers use the post office network or the branch in Paisley. However, as many people will know, given the representations we have made, the fees the banking industry and Post Office Ltd pay postmasters to carry out this function are ridiculously low and unsustainable. The contracts are currently being renegotiated with the banks. Does my hon. Friend agree that the banks need to step up to the mark and pay post offices fairly for carrying out their banking functions?
David Linden
That is an excellent point, and one I intend to come on to later. My hon. Friend has been a doughty campaigner on this issue, not only in terms of post offices, but in fighting a good campaign against the Royal Bank of Scotland closures in Renfrew, and we should pay tribute to that.
Brendan O'Hara
My hon. Friend is being incredibly generous in giving way. Before we move on from the role of the Post Office, I would like to share some information I received this morning. In a letter to me on 24 January, Santander assured me that it was working closely with post offices near closing branches to keep them informed and supported. This morning, the Post Office wrote to me saying that, due to commercial sensitivities, Santander does not share customer numbers with it, and therefore that it
“is exceptionally difficult to model the impact…on any given branch without having information on numbers and amount of cash withdrawals”.
Does my hon. Friend share my concerns about the veracity of an impact assessment that encourages customers to use the Post Office’s services, when Santander does not even share basic information with it?
David Linden
Herein lies the issue that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to raise today. The Government’s line so far has been, “Oh, well, it’s fine—we’ll just shunt this issue on to the Post Office.” I am grateful that a number of hon. Members are homing in on the question of the Post Office, because that is the key weakness in Santander’s argument. First, there is a capacity issue because, given the rate at which banks are closing, we are expecting post offices to adapt to a significantly higher number of counter transactions within the same constraints as previously.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman yet again. I completely understand why the focus of this debate is on Santander, but from the point of view of the Government’s response, is Santander not taking the hit for a whole range of other brands that have been gradually leaving the high street over the past few years? Santander is almost the last man standing, so it is getting more adverse attention than it perhaps deserves. The blame the hon. Gentleman rightly attributes should be spread across all major banking brands and not just attached to this one.
David Linden
The hon. Gentleman is right that other banks have been complicit in abandoning our local communities. I do not know whether he is due to lose a branch in his constituency, but the vast majority of hon. Members here are. As constituency MPs we have the right to come here to challenge not only the UK Government but Santander, which is planning to abandon our communities. I think we are spot on to be tackling Santander.
Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so generous in giving way. On the point he made about abandoning communities, there are two former bank branches currently lying empty in my constituency, and there is about to be a third. Does he not think that banks leaving high streets owe it to their customers to invest in the community again in some form, whether by helping to get a new tenant into the closed branches or by providing some other investment in return for the loyalty they have been shown?
David Linden
I am grateful to another constituency neighbour for making a powerful point. It is great that the hon. Gentleman is here, because, with the planned closure of the Santander branch in my constituency, people have been moved to the one in his. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) made was that, even if certain branches—such as the one in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency—have been saved this time, that does not mean they will not be at risk in future, so I am glad he is here to make his point.
Angela Crawley
My hon. Friend has been an absolute champion for his constituency in this campaign. Does he agree that post offices simply cannot provide the same level of service as a bank branch, and that it is insufficient for the Government to use post offices as some sort of response? If it is not Santander, it is every other bank abandoning the high street, and post offices simply cannot provide the same service.
David Linden
That is spot on, because there is a question of sustainability for postmasters. We know that a huge number of previous Crown post offices have been transitioned to franchise partners, and we are seeing evidence that those partners may no longer find the offering attractive. Interestingly, Martin Kearsley, the banking director of Post Office Ltd, gave evidence to the Treasury Committee. When questioned on whether the Post Office makes a profit by offering basic banking services on behalf of providers, he answered:
“It does not currently. We are in discussions with the banks to change that position…What we do is charge the banks for the provision of the network and the transactions their customers do with us. We then share that model with our postmasters.”
We know that profitability is an issue for postmasters, but it is not the only one. When questioned about the fairness of postmasters having to offer banking services, Mr Kearsley said:
“we have seen a huge increase in the amount of cash coming into our branches. That is challenging, we recognise that and we are working hard to address it. That means postmasters spend a lot of time counting cash. We have provided new equipment to try to help. We have modernised and streamlined the processes, so that that can be done more effectively and rapidly, but we recognise that that is a challenge for them right now and we continue to innovate to fix those problems.”
The question is how on earth we can reasonably expect the post office network to pick up the slack from banks that have abandoned their customers, when the current model is demonstrably not sustainable.
That leads on to the question of the level of service provided. Although many everyday banking transactions can be completed at post offices, there are restrictions on what can and cannot be done. There are limits on deposits and withdrawals, for example. Currently, only 5% of consumers withdraw cash, and 2% deposit cash, primarily at a post office, and there is anecdotal evidence from Citizens Advice to suggest that level of service may be a major factor in that.
The lack of regulation is also concerning. While banks are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, the Post Office is not. Banking customers are not necessarily Post Office customers, so the same duty of care simply does not exist. Let us face it: franchise holders are in this to make a living, and banking is not profitable for them. When staffing and training costs are factored in, banking can be loss-making for post offices. All things considered, while I am sure that some postmasters will go above and beyond, they are certainly not compelled or incentivised to do so.
When all is considered, it is little surprise, then, that post offices suddenly close. There are 35 fewer permanent post offices in Scotland today than there were in 2011. On top of that, communities continue to be plagued by temporary closures. In my own constituency, Tollcross post office closed in December 2017. Although the Post Office calls it a temporary closure, in reality it has still not found someone willing to take the service on, 14 months later. That is just one community suddenly left without service.
In the neighbouring constituency of Rutherglen and Hamilton West, I gather that the post office in Rutherglen closed suddenly without explanation last June, leaving thousands of people without service in what is a highly populated area with a busy high street. In the Glasgow North West constituency, the Dumbarton Road post office closed suddenly in November last year, with local residents left in the lurch ever since. When these offices shut, there is no replacement service. The Post Office does not offer a mobile service in the interim. There is no universal service obligation in place to ensure that an alternative service is offered on a temporary basis while the problem is fixed. In reality, communities are simply left without.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. He makes the good point that when branches close, there are often no alternative sources for people to access cash and banking services. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) fully supports the hon. Gentleman’s endeavours, but unfortunately he is engaged in the debate in the main Chamber. My hon. Friend has seen, just as I have in Ceredigion, that when branches close, the post office network is often simply not there, and communities are left in the lurch.
David Linden
I know the hon. Gentleman has had experience of banks fleeing his constituency, where the local economy was already quite fragile, so he is right to put that on record. It is great to hear that input from him and from his colleague the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), because Wales is also seeing this happen.
While banks will point to the post office as a convenient replacement when they bail on communities, post offices certainly cannot be relied on to bail out the banks. I understand that banks need to look at economic viability when deciding whether to keep branches open, but they cannot fully replace a critical service with something that does not provide the same level of service and that cannot guarantee that it will even be able to keep its own doors open.
Brendan O'Hara
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case, and he is right to point out the lazy assumption that the post office will always be there to pick up the slack. I know for a fact that that is not true: in my constituency, in the village of Tighnabruaich, the post office ran out of money, and pensioners could not pick up their pensions last month. The postmistress did everything she possibly could to mitigate the circumstances, but while they were unusual, they were not unique, and they will be repeated time and again if we allow banks to assume that post offices will be there at all times to pick up the slack.
David Linden
Absolutely. Such is my friendship with my hon. Friend that we share a psychic bond. He probably knows that I will come on to speak about access to cash.
The Access to Cash Review’s interim report from a couple of months ago makes quite stark reading. Despite more and more services becoming cashless, approximately 8 million people—around 17% of the UK population—say that cash is an economic necessity for them. However, that 17% is not evenly spread. Scotland is much more open to economic damage from the transition to a cashless society than other parts of the UK. The statistics show that cash use in London declined by around 8.5% in the 2017-18 financial year, compared with only 3.3% in Scotland. Scotland is still much more reliant on cash, and it is therefore vital that we are not pushed to become cashless at the same pace as other parts of the UK. Quite frankly, that cannot and should not be forced on people, particularly some of our older, disabled or more vulnerable people.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
As a London MP, I would like to see the figures broken down by ward. I am sure we would find that everyone uses a card in central London, for example, whereas many people in my constituency still rely on cash.
David Linden
That is a powerful point. I suspect that if we broke those figures down, we would see a different situation in Kensington and Chelsea from that in Hornsey and Wood Green. That point was well made.
Research published this week by the consumer champion Which? found that 339 Scottish bank branches have closed their doors since 2015. However, we need to remember that this is not only about branches closing. When banks leave, they all too often take cash machines with them, and at this stage I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen), who I know has done a lot of work on the situation around ATMs.
The rate of loss of cash machines across the UK should alarm us all, with LINK reporting that the UK lost more than 2,500 free-to-use cash machines last year. Financial exclusion is soaring and is fuelled by the transition from cash, hitting certain sections of society harder than others. For example, I regularly make home visits to constituents with physical disabilities, who tell me they rely on taxis for their freedom. I do not know what it is like elsewhere in the UK, but few taxi companies in Glasgow accept card payments. I also still encounter many constituents who have had a struggle even to open a bank account in the first place, so we really cannot assume that everyone has a debit card. Some of these people will quite simply lose quite a big element of their freedom if they lose easy access to their cash. Others might even be driven to high-interest credit cards or pre-pay debit cards that charge people a fee simply for accessing their own money.
Mental health is also all too often overlooked. The Money and Mental Health Policy Institute report “Seeing through the fog” contains startling testimonies from people with mental health problems. One says:
“I find doing things face to face much easier and better for me. I hate doing things over the phone and can get quite anxious when doing so…I don’t trust online banking and will avoid this for as long as I can.”
Another says:
“I can’t handle the internet, I need human contact.”
Another respondent says:
“I need to see a person. I can’t cope with all this online banking stuff.”
It is little wonder that the institute’s evidence to the ongoing Treasury Committee inquiry into access to financial services concluded:
“Bank branch closures may particularly disadvantage people with mental health problems who struggle with remote methods of communication and rely on face-to-face support from firms to manage their finances.”
We cannot ignore people like this as society moves away from cash, and we certainly cannot treat them as collateral damage in the march of progress.
We have heard time and again that the UK is sleepwalking into becoming a cashless society, but that is no longer the case, because the evidence is there. We are here to discuss the issue today, and Ministers should listen and react, because we cannot afford to sleepwalk.
Simon Hart
The closure in my community of one high street bank, and the removal of its cash machine, had a profound effect on the profitability of other businesses within just a couple of hundred metres, which rely on cash circulating. They noticed within a day the negative impact of that development.
David Linden
The hon. Gentleman is spot on and really hits the nail on the head. That point was made to me by the Federation of Small Businesses. The reality is that someone going out to buy a couple of rolls and a newspaper will probably not want to tap their debit card to pay; they will want to use cash. If millions of people are left behind in the move away from cash, I am afraid that the blame will lie squarely at the feet of the Government.
That brings me to my final point, which is a direct appeal to the Minister. I do not think that the Government and Ministers can sit back and say that this is a commercial decision for the bank. Put simply, allowing banks to bail on our communities has a detrimental impact on the economy, which should concern the Government. When the Minister gets to his feet later, I want him to address some of the fundamental concerns I have raised, and which others will doubtless also raise, about how these planned closures will have such a detrimental impact on our economy.
Dr Huq
The hon. Gentleman talks about internet transactions and shrivelling high streets. Does he agree that another solution for the Government is to look at business rate reform? The transitional phasing system means that places like Stockport subsidise the City. Businesses tell me that re-evaluations should be more frequent than every five years. In fact, a consortium of 40 retailers, including WHSmith, which has been mentioned, and River Island, whose head office is in Hanger Lane in my seat, is campaigning for that reform. Does he agree that it would be a good idea for the Minister to meet those 40 retailers?
David Linden
Absolutely. As a Scottish National party politician, I am more than happy to talk about business rates, given that my party has lifted 100,000 small businesses in Scotland out of paying them. If the hon. Lady wants a debate on that, I am happy to talk about it.
Finally, my parting message goes to Santander itself. If it proceeds with these closures, Santander customers like myself will be forced to consider abandoning it. The message from all of us in this Chamber, I am sure, is crystal clear: save our Santander.
Several hon. Members rose—
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
Order. I will call the Front-Bench spokespeople no later than 4 o’clock. I will not put a time limit on speeches at this stage, but to give Members a guide, it looks as if they will have roughly 10 minutes each.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) on securing this important debate; we can see from the number of Members present the powerful cross-party consensus on the impact of bank branch closures on our local communities.
The most recent closures in my constituency and across the UK continue a worrying trend of declining public services. In Angus, 2015 saw the closure of the Royal Bank of Scotland in Brechin, 2016 saw the Edzell Bank of Scotland branch close and in 2017 it was TSB in Kirriemuir. In 2018, RBS in Montrose and the Bank of Scotland in Kirriemuir closed, and it has now been announced that there will be two further Santander closures by the end of the year.
From 2015 to 2019, my local authority saw a total of 12 bank branches close. Looking at the wider picture, from 2010 to 2018 the country as a whole saw a 35% decline in bank branches, but Scotland was above that national average, at 38%. Angus now has one Santander branch in the constituency catering for a population of 100,000 people, although obviously not all of them are its customers.
I was disappointed, as the local Member, to hear about the closures in my constituency through a local news outlet, as opposed to from the Santander public affairs team; I believe Members of the Scottish Parliament heard through that route. I got a letter through a few days afterwards. I have not been given the opportunity to meet Santander until a few weeks from now. I am very disappointed by the way in which it has treated this serious issue.
The closures have an important impact on communities across the UK, with rural communities affected slightly differently. Both customers and staff find themselves in incredibly difficult situations, as the hon. Member for Glasgow East pointed out. Of course, the solution to all this is digitisation, but that does not help everyone. I was quite surprised when I went to bank a cheque in my local branch the other day and was told that I did not need to do that in the branch because it can be done via phone. Even at 29, I was surprised by the level of technology that some banks have pushed forward. However, those options are not available to all.
People in rural communities increasingly feel that they are being penalised because of where they choose to stay, whether by bank closures or through other services being taken away from them. These bank branches are in the heart of communities and they cannot simply be replaced by the cited alternatives.
Let us look at the digitisation offering. In an area such as Angus, there is not fantastic mobile coverage or broadband across the whole constituency. In fact, my constituency was ranked 612 out of the 650 constituencies in the UK—one of the worst—for the roll-out of superfast broadband. People simply do not have access to it, so although yes, more people are using the internet for their personal needs—the figure went up from 63% to 83% between 2007 and 2016—that provision is not available to all. As much as banks are keen to highlight the digital offering, they have to recognise that that cannot be used by everyone. We also have problems with mobile coverage. I know that it can be suggested that people phone the bank on a landline to raise their issues, but between 2012 and 2017 landline minutes declined by about 50% because people are using their mobiles. But in Angus, we still have many notspots, where people simply cannot get through.
The other alternative that hon. Members have mentioned is the use of post offices. As much as I welcome Santander’s provision to help the more vulnerable to understand how they can access post office services, Santander will not be able to do that with them every day. There are post offices in the towns where my closures are, in Brechin and Forfar, and I have been assured that they will be able to deal with all Santander customers wanting to deposit and withdraw cash, to pay in cheques and to check bank balances, but what if they need to print a statement or transfer money to another person’s account? What if they have questions about their mortgage? Those are all issues that people need to deal with day to day. Santander needs to look into those specific issues and how it would expect people without connectivity and without a post office nearby to be able to carry out those tasks.
Ged Killen
The hon. Lady makes a powerful point about the things that people need to do in a bank branch. I recently met Bank of Scotland representatives in my constituency and they spoke at great length about how wonderful the banking protocol was and how they had used it to stop transactions by vulnerable customers who had been sent along there by rogue salesmen or whoever to lift money out of the bank. They were able to spot that because they knew the customers; they had a relationship with them. Shortly thereafter, the Bank of Scotland announced that it was closing a branch nearby. How can the provisions of the banking protocol possibly be being met if everything is done online?
Kirstene Hair
The hon. Gentleman makes a vital point. Many people want face-to-face interaction. For some people, the person they speak to when they go to the bank might be the only person they speak to all day, so it helps with combating loneliness, which we all know is so important. The hon. Gentleman makes the very valuable point that these staff get to know people; they create a relationship with their customers and look out for them on a personal basis.
As for the Post Office offering, one in three rural post offices closed between 2000 and 2009, and that decline has continued. We have to understand that post offices cannot always and will not always be able to accommodate all those who want to use them. It just seems to me that this is such a short-term approach, because if we have no post offices, if we have poor broadband and if we do not have mobile coverage, the digitisation method and post offices do not support all customers but support only a proportion of them. It is really important that Santander tries to explain to customers who do not have those points of access how it will still be a banking provider that those customers would want to deal with.
Protecting our high streets is also incredibly important. My high streets across Angus and in constituencies across the country are struggling very much. Post offices and banks are central to our high streets. They ensure that we have continued footfall day after day. When these sites are lost, the potential for these areas is hampered. Let us take the town of Kirriemuir in my constituency as an example. Kirriemuir was nominated in the Great British High Street Awards 2018; in my eyes, it was robbed, because it did not win. The area has a fantastic variety of high-quality local businesses that support numerous initiatives, for local residents and benefit the community. I am thinking of the efforts of the Kirriemuir and Local Business Association and Kirrie Connections. That is a high street shop, but in fact it is a dementia hub, which I visited only last week. People go there to spend time with those who are going through similar experiences to them.
I had the pleasure of being there when the judges were in Kirriemuir and looking round the town, which has so much pride in its offering. But now, it has lost its last bank. It will lose its ATMs. Businesses are forced to react because, as hon. Members have said, where will customers get their cash? Will investors be put off from coming to the town? Where will local businesses deposit their takings? When I was going round as part of small business Saturday, businesses raised with me time and again the fact that there are more card transactions because less cash is available and the fee on those card transactions is absolutely hammering them at a time when things are very difficult on our high streets. In addition, what of those constituents who want to use only cash? I understand that elderly people do not want a bank card or credit card; they want to pay only with cash. Why should we suggest that they should not be able to do so, if a bank and ATM are removed?
At a time when we should be doing everything for our high streets, we should be encouraging more footfall and not increasing the pressures, difficulties and uncertainty. One suggestion has been put forward time and again by my constituents: why cannot banks operate out of one building? Why can we not have a banking hub whereby all banks are located in one building? That means we keep a set of premises going, we keep choice for constituents and they do not have to travel as far as they might have to if a bank closed down.
Ben Lake
The hon. Lady makes a very important point about banking hubs. Mine is just a point of information. It is ironic that some co-located branches used to exist in my constituency in the 1970s; two or three different banks would share the same location. Perhaps it could be a case of back to the future.
Kirstene Hair
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which shows that banking hubs would work. They would work in many communities. They would keep that vital place on the high street. They would keep choice and keep accessibility. Those who cannot log on online or do not want to could of course come and have a face-to-face discussion with someone in the bank. That is a really important point that we should be putting across, and I would be keen to know what my hon. Friend the Minister thinks of that proposal.
My final point is about transport, which I know other hon. Members have already discussed. Those who do not want to or cannot use phones or computers to do their banking will of course need to travel to the nearest bank branch, but customers who were using the Brechin branch will now have to travel 15 miles—it is a 30-mile round trip—to Arbroath, and those in Forfar will have to make a similar journey to get to Dundee. What about those with mobility issues? What about the elderly? What about those who do not have their own car? What about those who rely heavily on public transport links, which are also in decline? Those people have to rely more heavily on family and friends. Indeed, vulnerable groups perhaps have no choice but not getting to the bank.
It is really important that we look into all the aspects that affect our constituents. An elderly lady who came into my constituency office the other day remarked that the whole situation was crazy. I agree with her: it is far from desirable. Although I have been in this place for just over 18 months, I have always felt that the most powerful debates here are those in which we have cross-party consensus. I look forward to the Minister’s reaction on the impact that these closures will have on our high streets, on post office support—because we also see post offices in decline—and on the idea of banking hubs. We all need to work together to ensure that we soften the blow of bank closures for each and every one of our communities.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank the Backbench Business Committee and the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for securing this important and very relevant debate.
In my constituency of Heywood and Middleton, we have sadly been through all this before. The Heywood branch of Santander was closed in 2017 in a similar exercise to the one that we are seeing now, although at that time customers of the Heywood branch at least had the option of using the Middleton branch, and they were told that during the consultation. Now, it seems that that option is also about to go, leaving my constituency with no Santander branches whatever.
I look at Heywood town centre now and I can see how bank branch closures contribute to the decline of our town centres. In Heywood, NatWest closed its doors in 2015, Santander in 2017 and Lloyds Bank just recently, in January this year. The town centre is in decline, with many shops and small businesses closing. I am not laying the blame for that solely at the doors of Santander—obviously there are many other contributory factors—but I do think that the big banks need to acknowledge their community responsibilities. When they close a branch, they cut footfall, reduce access for elderly and disabled customers, and cause problems for small businesses in the area. Each branch closure chips away at our once thriving town centres.
In my constituency, the Rochdale Development Agency is currently making plans for Heywood town centre, deciding whether it should be residential, retail, or a mix, and it is in the council’s capital programme for the next financial year. It is vital that we regenerate our town centre and I hope that we can achieve this. I do not want the same thing to happen in Middleton, but the closure in July this year of the Middleton branch of Santander has been announced.
The announcement was accompanied by helpful advice on nearby branches, all of them more than a three-mile bus ride away, plus the information that banking could be done at Middleton post office. The powers that be at Santander seem oblivious to the fact that Middleton post office, in its turn, is being franchised into WHSmith in the town, with an expected reduction in service, as well as problems with accessibility for elderly and disabled customers. One of my constituents, Karen Dicken, tells me that once the post office has moved, she will no longer have access to post office services, as she cannot get her mobility scooter into WHSmith. Yet Santander appears to think that offering banking services via a Crown post office that is soon to be relocated is adequate. Clearly there are failings here on the Government side, as highlighted by their refusal to perform an equality impact assessment on the franchising of the Crown post office, but I find it staggering that Santander is so blithely unaware of what else is going on in Middleton town centre that it honestly thinks that offering post office banking services in the town is a viable proposition.
Santander UK is a member of the British Bankers’ Association and is a signatory to the access to banking protocol, which was introduced in May 2015. The protocol states that it is
“an industry-wide initiative, which aims to ensure that where banks close branches they do so responsibly and with consideration of the impact on customers and local communities.”
Santander says,
“we do not take the decision to close any branch lightly”,
yet it seems to me that this decision has been taken lightly, judging by the lack of attention to local issues, such as the impending closure and relocation of the Crown post office in my constituency.
I urge Santander to think again. I also urge my constituents to respond to the consultation. When the Heywood branch closure was announced, only six letters were submitted from constituents, with one more letter submitted from me. However, I have had a complaint from a constituent, who said that she has responded to the consultation and has simply been sent a repeat of what was already stated in the initial letter. She thinks it is a fait accompli. She says that she will move her account to a bank that does have a branch in the town.
Notwithstanding that, I urge all my Middleton constituents who want their town centre to continue to thrive to get their comments in now. I have also launched a petition to save Middleton’s Crown post office from back-door privatisation, which has attracted over 1,000 signatures, and I will present it to Parliament in due course. I do not want to be here in another two years’ time talking about the decline in Middleton town centre, and I urge Santander to fulfil its responsibilities under the access to banking protocol.
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I add my thanks to the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) and congratulate him on securing this debate. I am delighted to support him. As my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) said, bank branch closures affect the constituents of hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is important that we stick together to represent people and stand up for the most vulnerable in our society.
In 2016, not long after I was elected, I was faced with a couple of bank closures in my constituency, in Cheam. The high street there thrives on independent shops. First, Lloyds Bank came to the end of its lease. I would give the constituent of the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) the same counsel that I gave my constituents who were upset about losing Lloyds Bank: vote with their feet and go to HSBC up the road. Unfortunately, just a few months later, HSBC decided to close, too. Constituents can be pulled from pillar to post, continually having to move, to chase the exodus from the high streets. Banks do not want to be the last bank on the high street, because all the focus would be on them when they eventually respond to a changing market.
I retain a good relationship with my local Santander branch in Sutton, which looks after customers of the two that are now closing. I remember a tweet that I sent to a constituent on 19 May 2016, in which I said that I had had a chat to Santander, which was closing quite a small branch in North Cheam, but was committed to its main Cheam branch. Fast-forward only three years: that branch is now closing. The last bank in Cheam will have gone.
When Lloyds Bank and HSBC were closing, residents set up petitions, but petitions only have so much value. Yes, they can show the weight of opinion and ask the banks to please be considerate, but when a banking chain has made a corporate decision, a petition will generate heat but not a lot of light, so we need to look at other ways to respond. Can we encourage customers to move elsewhere? Can we work on the post office network, despite the restrictions on that, which we heard about from other hon. Members? Are we putting an unfair burden on the post office network and the Government in relation to decisions made by corporate organisations?
In the case of the Santander closure in Cheam, three local councillors, Elliot Colburn, Holly Ramsey and Eric Allen, have taken a different tack. Metro Bank is looking at expanding its network in other areas, so they have made a direct approach to Metro Bank, saying, “Here’s a space. There are no banks. It is an area where there are a lot of independent shops. Metro Bank takes a different tack in its approach to attracting customers—it is a bit of a disruptor bank—so why don’t you come in and consider Cheam as an option?”
What more can we do? We have talked about the pressure being put on to post offices. In Sutton, it looks as though our Crown post office will be moved to WHSmith, which will cause angst and concern to a number of people there. On the other hand, not far away in Belmont, a village to the south of my constituency, a post office has just been opened at the back of a pet shop, and it is one of the best-used post offices. It won an award from the network as one of the best new post offices in London, coming second only to one on Oxford Street. That is pretty impressive. If it is put in an imaginative place, it will be used.
What more can we do? Should we look at the banking hubs and a return to the ’70s, or some form of technology to move banks from making corporate decisions to making marketing decisions, which can go a totally different way? If the bank takes a marketing decision to look at innovation, its corporate social responsibility will move the decision away from just being a box-ticking exercise for its shareholder report to being something that can actually add value to the high street and tackle the issues such as loneliness mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Angus. By making the high street a hub and a community centre and bringing in other businesses to work with the bank, the bank can become the centre of the high street, which has to be good for that bank.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about hubs, as have other hon. Members. What role does he think the Government should play in that? We have heard about the closure of Crown post offices, which the Government own, but surely hubs could be there, because they are well located and owned by us. We are the taxpayers and our constituents need those services.
Paul Scully
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. We have talked about how moving Crown post offices into WHSmith branches across the country will limit their structure, because they have some big buildings at the moment. The massive floor space of the one in Sutton is well used, so I am not sure how it will cope if it is restricted at the back of somewhere. It might be a regressive move. There is a limit to how much the Government can direct the Post Office and banks, but they must have a significant influence. They should treat the issue holistically as they look at the future of the high street in general.
We have talked about the access to banking standard. At least Santander now has to go through the process of mitigating the results and looking at who the most vulnerable people are—I hope it would want to do that anyway. The people using bank branches these days tend to be older people, who do not necessarily have access to technology or are not as good at using technology as others, and retailers, especially the independent retailers that I was talking about that are still cash-heavy and need to bank their cash.
For the two branches that are closing in my constituency, the alternatives to Cheam are 1.3 miles and 3.3 miles away, and the alternatives to Worcester Park are 1.8 miles and 3 miles away. For a small business that wants to pay cash in at the end of the day, if there is no post office near enough, that is some distance to go with what might be quite a lot of cash, which is not very secure.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I support the hon. Gentleman’s point about the distance for small businesses. We have that issue in my constituency with the post office closure, which relates to the bank closures. There is a village a mile away from Reading town centre, a separate entity, where three banks and a post office have closed. That is a considerable amount of travelling time for a small business trying to bank cash. We have lost other banks in locations near Reading University and we have lost further facilities in other areas too.
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the need to look holistically at the whole parade of shops, the needs of vulnerable local people, particularly the elderly, and the needs of local small businesses. I urge him to raise with his hon. Friends in Government the possibility of an area-based approach, whereby those different needs are taken into account as part of banking or post office regulation.
Paul Scully
In Reading, as in Sutton, the difference in mileage is relatively small, but congestion and extra traffic mean that it represents significant travel time. We cannot compete with the 15 miles that people have to travel in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Angus.
I will make a final point and then let other hon. Members speak. When banks decide to close, we have to make sure that there is still access to a cashpoint network, so people who rely on cash—although that is dying down a bit—have access to it. When I was a local councillor in the neighbouring constituency of Carshalton, I spoke to a baker who had been badly affected when Barclays and its cashpoint closed there. That village relied on its independent shops, but after the cashpoint closed, people tended to turn left, towards the larger supermarkets, rather than right, where the smaller independent shops are. Previously, people had walked past the independent shops to get their cash and would spend money in the bakers and the other smaller shops on their way to do their main shop. Branch closures have a detrimental effect and we need to look at the issue holistically to make sure that we have a thriving, albeit changing, high street.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
This is an important issue for me. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for securing the debate and thereby giving us a chance to contribute. Let me also put on the record my congratulations to Scottish National party Members for continually raising issues about bank closures. Every time they have brought such debates to Westminster Hall or the main Chamber, it has come from their constituents. I thank them for highlighting bank closures, because, in doing so, they illustrate how important the banks are, including in my constituency.
I have a real issue with banks closing branches and leaving the most vulnerable in our society without access to their cash and savings. It is all well and good to say that the number of transactions carried out at Santander branches fell by 23% over the past three years, while transactions online and on mobile phones soared by 99%, but that does not say that staff members have been pushing to get that figure up, as I am sure they have.
In the last few months, the Santander branch in Newtownards, which is the major town in my constituency, moved less than 100 yards from Conway Square in the centre of town to the High Street. It has a considerable customer base and very good connections and contacts with the commercial sector. At a Santander event at the branch before Christmas, I met a young lady who was there alongside Santander to state how well it had helped her to start her business from home. That is an example of how things can be done. I put that on the record, because Santander in Newtownards is obviously in touch with its customer base. It is not one of the three branches closing in Northern Ireland.
On bank closures, the fact that a large amount of people use internet banking tells a story, but does it say that they will cease to use their local branch? I do not believe it does. They will still use the branch for all the necessary things, but now they will have to go for miles to find new branches.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen), who has left, unfortunately, tabled early day motion 2057 on access to cash. I was more than happy to sign that early day motion, as I always am on important issues. As I have said in other debates here and in the main Chamber, I understand how important it is to have access to cash. I am one of those old-fashioned guys who likes to pay their bills by cash—perhaps that is the economy in Northern Ireland.
David Linden
The hon. Gentleman is doing himself down. It is not just an old person thing—not that he is old. Perhaps I should not be saying this from a security point of view, but for about 10 years, since I have been married, I have operated on a jam-jar basis where I take my money out at the beginning of the month and then I have my shopping budget and my fuel budget. I wanted to put that quaint point on the record.
Jim Shannon
I do not feel old, but perhaps I am of a different generation. As always, I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me that such things start young, as it did with my mum and dad as well. As an Ulster Scot, as I have said in the Chamber before, and perhaps in the main Chamber, “Every pound’s a prisoner.” Well, it is to me, and it probably is to the hon. Gentleman as well.
I thank the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West for tabling the early day motion on access to cash, because it is important to have it recorded. There are 23 signatures to it so far, which indicates the deep interest in the issue.
I remember when First Trust, a local bank, hired a special adviser to get people out the front of the bank au fait with online banking—the hon. Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) referred to the online banking issue. Within six months, the news was out that the branch was closing due to an uptake in specialist online banking. Hon. Members can draw their own conclusions about how and why that happened. That was the third bank to close in the main town of Newtownards and the sixth to close in my constituency of Strangford; I have had a lot of bank closures. That is why every time SNP Members have raised issues with bank closures, I have wanted to make sure that I was in there fighting for my constituency as well. As I say, over time we have had a number of banks close.
I am really quite intrigued by what the Library briefing information that we have received says, statistically and factually. Page 3 of the briefing says:
“The only region or country of the UK in which the number of bank and building society branches increased between 2010 and 2018 was Northern Ireland”.
There must have been a lot of other constituencies getting lots of banks, because I was losing them all while they were getting them all. I am not quite sure if the statistics are correct—no, I am sure they are. I am not saying they are not true; I would not say that for one second. The briefing continues on page 3:
“Northern Ireland has 405 branches, 21.6 per 100,000 residents—the highest rate of any region or country in the UK.”
That prompts the question of what is happening in my constituency in Newtownards? Why have seven bank branches closed over the past number of years, including Danske Bank, Bank of Ireland, First Trust, and Ulster Bank?
According to Which?, the consumer group, nearly two thirds of the UK’s bank branch network has been lost over the past 30 years. The number of bank and building society branches stood at 20,583 in 1988, according to our own parliamentary records, but an up-to-date analysis by Which? of current account providers suggests that that figure has dwindled to 7,586.
I understand, again from the Library information, that three Santander branches will close in Northern Ireland: in Antrim, in Ballymoney, and on Newtownards Road in Belfast. Those branches are not in my constituency, but this year Santander is due to close 140 branches in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the reason given is that there has been a marked decrease in the number of transactions. I must say that I do all my banking in the bank or on the phone, and by physical means—using banknotes—on most occasions. That is not simply to keep business in our local branches, although that plays a part. It is also because—honestly—I do not fully trust online banking security. The hon. Member for Glasgow East referred to this issue at the very beginning of the debate and I agree with him, and some of my constituents do not trust it either.
Brendan O'Hara
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and no one can doubt how hard he fights for his Strangford constituents. To justify the closure of its branch in Helensburgh, Santander’s review said that 59% of its customers have used online banking, mobile banking or telephone banking, which means, by its own calculation, 41% of its customers have not. My constituents are predominantly elderly and they are being completely left in the lurch by this branch closure in our town. That is why on Saturday I will be outside the Santander branch in Helensburgh collecting names on a parliamentary petition asking Santander to reverse this deeply harmful decision.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I commend him for his industry and for the fact that he will be there on Saturday. He will have no bother getting the signatures for that petition; I have no doubt about that whatsoever. However, I hope that Santander is listening to what he says, because that situation clearly illustrates to me that his bank needs to be there and the customers want it to be there, and we are all here for the same purpose. That is the critical issue for me and for others who are here in Westminster Hall today.
I often think that if the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority can allow my staff members’ names and addresses to be released by accident, or whatever way it happened, what chance does our money have of withstanding banking attacks? That did happen—it was an oversight, it was a mistake, but it still happened. Honestly, that is why I just have this wee doubt about online banking and other things.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for giving way; I usually get his constituency the wrong way round. After some of the scandals that we have had with TSB and others locking their customers out of their online banking, is it not the case that for all this digital innovation we are nowhere close to it being reliable?
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. In my first year and a half here in Parliament, there were a number of banking breakdowns—one would say—within the Ulster Bank. It happened not once, but twice, and perhaps even three times. Honestly, customers could not access their accounts by any means and it was absolutely ridiculous.
I am coming to an end, Mr Davies; I am very conscious of the time. Santander will retain a network of 614 UK branches, with its customers also having the option to bank using more than 11,000 post office sites across the UK. It is very important to have the post office. I have to say that the post offices in my constituency have been geared up to fill some of the gaps—in Ballynahinch, Killyleagh, Portaferry, Kircubbin and in Newtownards town—where there are post offices. Credit unions have also filled some of the gaps; it has been incredibly important to have the credit unions, as well.
I still have a real fear that this consolidation of banks to cities further isolates rural communities and adds to people’s sense of being alone, with no one to talk to and no one to help, and I believe that we are further isolating an older generation, which cannot be acceptable. That is the critical fact for me. I look to the Minister, as I always do, for a comprehensive response to the issues that we are all bringing collectively to his attention today.
I conclude by saying that I believe we must put in place a minimum expectation of service provision for customers, and if we do not ask the financial institutions to step up and step in, the service provision will continue to dwindle, jobs will be lost and the only winners will be the shareholders and those who get the dividends. I believe that reform must take place and that banks must fulfil obligations to people, and not simply to profit margins.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for securing the debate.
I want to speak first about Santander in particular and then I will have a general go at the banks, because I will feel much better when I have done that. Being a farmer, I have always had very mixed views about banks, one way or the other. They can offer someone an umbrella when the sun is shining, but they are very good at taking it away when it starts to rain.
On Santander in particular, I have had a letter from the Axminster branch—in fact, it is interesting, because I have not actually had it from the Axminster branch but from the “Head of Branch Interactions”, which is one of my points. The letter says that the Axminster branch will close on 2 May, which is a great shame for the staff, a great shame for people in Axminster and a great shame for the businesses there; naturally, Axminster is famous for its carpets, but there are also Axminster Tools and Machinery, and many other businesses. There are also lots of surrounding farms and businesses in lots of villages, with lots of people coming in to Axminster. There is no sort of local manager in Axminster; there is no local anything, is there, anymore? That is partly the trouble.
What I have been sent about the reasons why Santander is shutting the branch is quite interesting. First of all, the letter says that
“89% of customers transacting at Axminster branch already use a variety of ways to complete their banking”.
That is an interesting way to run a business, is it not? Santander is actually saying to people, “Well, because you haven’t done all your business with us, we’re going to close the branch down.” I mean, I do not think that supermarkets or anybody else would go in for that line of business.
The letter also says that
“38% of Axminster branch customers also use an additional Santander branch.”
I might occasionally visit Sainsbury’s, I might occasionally visit Tesco—I occasionally visit a number of supermarkets, in a number of towns and in a number of places, but I would not necessarily expect to hear, “Well, because you’re a loyal customer to Sainsbury’s all over the country, I’m going to shut that branch down, because you’ve used another one.” Again, the logic is somewhat odd.
Then the letter goes on to say that
“54% of customers have transacted using our Online, Mobile or Telephone Banking services”.
That is great, but of course what banks have done—have they not?—is to make it more difficult for customers to get cheque books, or anything physical from them, and therefore they drive more and more people online. When people have gone online, they say, “Well, that’s great. You’ve all gone online now, so we’ll close the branch.” This is happening everywhere and although I am having a particular go at Santander today, it is a general malaise in the banking system.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
The reasons that Santander gave the hon. Gentleman for the closure of its branch in Axminster are the same reasons it has given for the closure of branches in the market towns of Otley and Yeadon in my constituency. I would like Santander, and the other banks and building societies, to look at the Yorkshire Building Society model, whereby it has co-located with estate agents. Branches can co-locate with other businesses if there is not sufficient footfall. Before banks start closing branches, they need to look at all the options and not just close branches.
Neil Parish
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman, because I just do not think that enough thought is being given to this process. Naturally, it says in this letter I received from Santander that its customers in Axminster are able to go to the post office for cash, to put in cheques and to make withdrawals. Again, however, it is not like having a banking service. That is the other reason that I wanted to speak in this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) made the point that we should not just highlight Santander. If I go back to the issues in Axminster, we have had branch closures there for Barclays and NatWest, and the one we have left is Lloyds. Let us hope that Lloyds stays in the town and indeed I hope that all the Santander customers pile along to Lloyds. As Members well know—putting my farming hat back on—it is not always easy to change banks. I used to have a very large overdraft with NatWest, and they did not always want me to transfer it. When a person has a business, they want some personal attention; they want to be able to see somebody; and they want to get some sort of decision on not only their everyday banking, but their business building or their business. That is just not there anymore.
I wonder, as the banks contract, whether there is one bank out there—they all advertise that they are going to listen to us more and have more local services, but they all close them—that will listen to this debate and think, “Perhaps we can work in the other direction. We will offer some sort of personal attention and look after people and businesses, and actually be there. We might open on a Saturday morning after 12.30.” Most of us work, but the banks close their branches at 12.30. Some of my Axminster constituents can go to Honiton, which is quite difficult to get to but is not that far away, but that branch will be closed at 12.30. What is the point? If a bank is going to provide a service, why does it not open and provide it?
Hugh Gaffney
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point, because we did have a network: it was called the Crown post offices. They are closing them down. If the banks want to shut down, give us work in the post offices. Let us stop the closure of Crown post offices, get them reopened, and give the Communication Workers Union the work.
Neil Parish
The hon. Gentleman is attempting to entice me down a route that I do not quite want to go down, but I agree with him in many respects. Post offices provide a great service, and if we are to lose them as well, that is a real problem. However, at this moment in time I am in full flow about the banks, so I ask the hon. Gentleman not to put me off that particular subject.
Dr Whitford
I want to pick up on the comment that the hon. Gentleman made about people going to another town. If someone goes to another town on a Saturday morning to get their money, that is where they are going to shop. That is exactly the impact that bank closures have on our small towns and independent shop owners.
Neil Parish
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. There no longer seems to be any strategy among individual banks that would allow them to work out that closures affect not only their business, but many others. The more branches they close down, the more they will lose business, and other people will also lose business.
I am privileged to have quite an elderly population in my constituency, and that population is getting older all the time. Many country towns and rural towns in Devon are in the same interesting position, because people are getting older, and older people do not necessarily trust online banking. They like to be able to bank physically: going back to my previous comment, they like to see a person occasionally, not a machine. I am making light of these issues, but they are not really light, because so many of the older generation think that they can never see anybody or get an answer, and that everything is put in their way to stop them getting anything. We are working hard to get broadband and internet connection in rural areas—in particular, in the Blackdown hills in my area, around Axminster—but it is quite difficult. We will get there, but it is taking time.
I would like to see a strategy, not only from Santander but from all of the banks. Can we have a hub? Can we have something that actually works? Can we have a facility to which people can go? Banks might be prepared to let post offices do a certain number of transactions, but they do not like other banks doing them, yet they close their branches down. If they want to keep their competitiveness and—for want of a better way of putting it—their intellectual property rights, they should not close their branches and make it more difficult for the population to transact with them.
As I have said, I support this afternoon’s debate. It is quite difficult for the Minister, because he cannot say to banks, “You must put a branch there and keep it there.” However, what we must do as a Government, and what I ask the Minister to do, is ask the banks generally, “Do you have a policy that means that you look after people, get people into your branches, and create a business model that works and encourages people to bank at Santander, or any other bank that happens to be in a town?” I do not see anything at the moment that is proactive: everything is rather negative, and that is a great shame. It is our older population, in particular, that will suffer.
Businesses also suffer. I probably had too good a relationship with my local bank manager, because he probably lent me too much money, but a person should be able to actually see somebody and get a decision. If someone goes to a bank now, they will not see a manager: the decision will be passed up the line, and they may or may not get an answer. All of this is holding business back, not driving it forward. This is not just about customers, although it is very much about elderly customers: it is about business, and keeping the economy thriving. Those bank closures, and generally making it difficult to get answers about borrowing and other things that keep the economy stimulated, are real problems.
After that, Mr Davies, I feel much better. Thank you very much.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) on securing this debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. The hon. Gentleman was right that the motion should be about not just bank closures but their effect on local communities. It has been interesting to listen to the contributions that Members have made, because bank closures rip the heart out of our communities.
I have been here long enough to see a trend develop over many years. Like the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), I received a letter from Santander saying that it is going to close down a branch, and that letter could have been cut and pasted from any other bank letter over the years. The bank says it is a very difficult decision, but, frankly, it is a corporate strategy now; it is a policy. It is part of their toolkit to say, “It is a difficult decision,” but they go ahead and do it anyway.
The letter that I got is, as the hon. Member for Glasgow East said, a desktop exercise. Mr Davies, as an expert on unitary authorities in Wales, you will know that I represent a constituency that is coterminous with the county of Ynys Môn, the isle of Anglesey. However, the address given for Llangefni, the main market town, says it is in the county of Gwynedd, so there is an error there to begin with. Santander has not done due diligence in its exercise to close down these branches; it has done a central allocation of closures right across the country, and the brunt of that is felt by rural and periphery areas. This has an impact on the whole of my constituency.
Closures, as I have said, are done by stealth. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, is quite right: first, the hours are altered so that they do not suit customers, and then, when those customers go in, they are encouraged to bank online. I have experienced that myself: whenever there is a temporary assistant in my local branch of Lloyds bank, they say to me, “Mr Owen, would you like to move to online banking?” and I say, “No, thank you.” Then they are told who I am, and they discreetly go to the back and say, “Oops, I’ve made a mistake.” I have been arguing for frontline services for many years, because people need that interaction. They need the privacy of speaking to somebody they know when dealing with sensitive financial issues.
Santander has shot itself in the foot with this exercise, and it is going to get no credit here for the way it has gone about it, but it is not alone. We do not have accurate figures about bank closures—there has not been a central source of data about them since 2014, and maybe the Minister can help me—but we all know they are real and they are in our communities. There should be a central source of data, because we should have facts and figures about financial exclusion. Which? is very good at helping us out and has said that there has been a decline of around 35% in banking since 2014. I did some research in my own periphery constituency, and more than 46% of banks have closed in the area—nearly half in two and a half years. That is the trend.
I am not a luddite. I can download an app and use an Apple phone, but like many of my constituents I choose not to. Broadband is not as great in my area as it is in central cities, for example, so it is difficult to use alternative banking methods. I do not want to make a bank transaction and then go offline and become stuck, or to do one draft and then another. It is a serious problem. I think the hon. Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) mentioned that the broadband distribution in her area is not suitable. There needs to be some joined-up thinking here.
The Government have played a role in the trend I mentioned. Colleagues have rightly mentioned the shrinkage of the post office network over many years. Yet the standard letters that Santander and other banks have issued say, “Go to your nearest post office,” without the banks’ having researched whether there is a threat of closure to the Crown or sub-post office in that area. That illustrates the lack of joined-up thinking.
The central negative element is the reduction of our town centres, with footfall seriously affected. I have seen it in the towns in my constituency. Llangefni is a market town. Farmers used to go there, although, unlike the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, not to pump up their overdrafts. They used the banks regularly, as well as the shops, cafés and pubs.
Footfall is also being reduced in Amlwch, a town at the northern tip of my constituency that now has no bank at all. It has a sub-post office in a retail shop that is not as effective—no disrespect to the staff—as the post office that was closed. There is also a lack of cash machines. A lack of access to such machines has already been mentioned. I was given a letter by a very able councillor who pointed out that ATMs are often broken, and the ones that work make a charge. The surcharge is 95p on a transaction. The reason given for that is that banks now give less money to the LINK fund for ATM operators. Not only are banks closing branches, but they are cutting the money they put towards running ATMs. I am sure I am not the only one experiencing that.
Jim Shannon
I should have mentioned in my earlier contribution that ATMs in Northern Ireland have been targeted by criminals and thieves. We have the largest number of ATM break-ins and thefts across the whole of Northern Ireland, and the Police Service of Northern Ireland has set up a taskforce to take that on. It is happening with regularity. The people who run the ATMs then say to themselves, “Why should we bother putting an ATM there at all if it’s going to be broken or stolen from?”
Albert Owen
That is a very strong point, but I think the banks themselves are ripping people off if they are not giving money. Cashzone machines are charging 95p per transaction. Often they are in poorer communities. The Which? research I referred to earlier highlights that almost two thirds of bank closures have been in the poorest areas of our country—those with an average household income of less than £26,000—so the closures affect our poorer constituents.
We need to look for solutions. We have heard a few ideas about financial hubs, for example. I seriously put to the Government the proposition of using Crown post offices, because we need to look for solutions. They are closing down these buildings, which they often own and which often lie empty for some time, as in Holyhead in my constituency. Such buildings could be used as financial hubs.
I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) will be very happy that I agree with our Labour party policy to re-establish a Post Office bank—a people’s bank—and to have regional banks so that regional business can benefit. We need to go beyond just blaming the banks; we need to have a proper Government policy and framework.
Dr Whitford
We used to have the Girobank, and people’s “giro”, as their unemployment benefit or pension was called, used to be paid through it. The Government’s policy is that people receiving social security need to have a bank account. They then get sent back to the post office. Is that not Kafkaesque?
Albert Owen
I absolutely agree. The role of the Post Office is important, and the Government are the owner. We are the shareholders, and we need to look at this in the long term. Banks, whether Santander or any of the other major banks, think in the short term; they look at their shareholders and at cutting costs. If we had a people’s bank—a Post Office structure and network across the country that had the same rates—it would be fair and even for all our constituents across the country. They would have better access, and we could invest as a country in the infrastructure and the broadband. In the digital age, it could be as modern as any other bank.
That is the way we need to move. I am pleased that the Opposition Front Bench will agree with me, but I want the Minister, who is very diligent, and who looks for solutions—I am trying to help him in doing so—to stop closing the Crown post offices that we own. He should use them as major financial hubs across the United Kingdom, so that when banks are closed, we do not get bog-standard letters telling us to go to a nearby post office that is also closing down. We need a people’s bank. I say to my constituents who use Santander in Llangefni: “Don’t travel 15 or 20 miles to your nearest post office. Change banks. If Santander won’t stand up for you, stand up for yourself.”
I pay tribute to the staff who work in banks across the country. They are the face of the banks. During the banking crisis, they took a lot of flak. It was nothing to do with them. They are diligent workers, but I am afraid that, when it comes to these large banks, these staff are just pawns in the game. They will lose their jobs, and people will lose their financial services. I want the Government and all of us to work together to stop that.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) on securing a really important debate, as has been shown by today’s speeches. He opened it with a fantastic, detailed explanation of why it is so important to talk about how our communities will be affected by what is happening. The Backbench Business Committee must also be thanked for allowing the debate.
Last month, like everyone else, I was disappointed to receive a letter from Santander telling me that it had taken the difficult decision to close its branch in North Shields town centre on 9 May and that it was writing to all branch customers to let them know of the closure. Santander was keen to point out that it had reviewed the usage of the bank, quoting figures on the various other types of banking facilities of which customers who use the branch avail themselves. Sadly, it was clear from the letter that, without any prior customer consultation, Santander had decided that the North Shields branch did not fit in with its future plans for small digital branches or with the focus on larger community branches.
The letter went on to explain that, in accordance with the access to banking standard, the branch team, whose jobs we must remember are now under threat, will be advising branch customers about their options and, in particular, helping vulnerable customers to find alternative ways to bank locally. I am not sure that customers will be happy to learn that they have to change their banking habits. Many people do not trust online banking, as has been said, or telephone banking, because they do not see it as secure. Moreover, I do not think many people want to join the already long queues in our town centre post office, which is in the Co-op, to do their banking business over the counter. The case has already been made about the sensitivity of banking business.
The message in the letter is far from what is conveyed in Santander’s statement of vision and strategic priorities for 2016 to 2018, which remains on Santander’s website. Perhaps the bank changed that two-year vision at midnight on new year’s eve, but the statement, which I recommend that colleagues look at, is still there in black and white. It states:
“Our purpose is to help people and businesses prosper. Our aim is to be the best retail and commercial bank, earning the lasting loyalty of our people, customers, shareholders and communities. The Santander Way is how we do things in a Simple, Personal and Fair way.”
Importantly, its list of laudable strategic priorities includes communities. The bank states:
“We provide support to communities around the UK because we believe it helps us to build a successful business. By being deeply engaged in the communities where our branches, banking centres and offices are located, we can better understand and serve our customers.”
The customers of the 140 branches earmarked for closure may take that with a pinch of salt. Given that the Government supported the access to banking standard, will the Minister comment on whether the bank has shown that it is merely a tick-box exercise that is of little help to the people who are about to lose personal access to their bank?
[Andrew Rosindell in the Chair]
I accept that fewer people use banks and that many people trust them to operate their accounts online, which has affected banks’ decisions to close branches in recent years. However, Office for National Statistics figures cited by the Library reveal that my area in the north-east has the lowest number of bank and building society branches in the UK and the second-lowest number of branches per 100,000 residents. That is of great concern to me, as I hope it is to the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), in his role as Minister for the northern powerhouse.
When I consulted the very proactive North Shields chamber of trade and commerce about the branch closure, it made the important point that the town has a fairly high percentage both of customers who do not use the internet and of elderly people. Those are not necessarily the same community, but in both cases they rely on being able to go into the branch to conduct their banking business. The closure will result in significant difficulties for them, especially if they want to continue using counter services at Santander. They will have to travel either three miles up the coast to Whitley Bay or eight miles west to Newcastle city centre—and that is as the crow flies. Access to transport may be another problem in terms of their ability to bank locally.
The chamber also points out that the many local businesses that have to deposit cash regularly will now have to move bank or travel to another branch. When Santander leaves North Shields, we will be left with only two banks in the town centre. The chamber, which represents a number of businesses in the town, makes the solid point that closing a branch of a national bank has a disproportionately adverse effect on town centres. Sadly, a small shop whose owner has no other resources may have no choice but to close, but banks are bigger. They should avoid sending the message that they have lost interest in a community and that they prefer to support other places.
Bank closures are affecting our already suffering high streets and town centres, which should be helped to remain the hub of our communities, as every speech in this debate has pointed out. We must stress to the Government the need for their support. My plea to Santander is to work to its own values in relation to the proposed closures of the branch in North Shields and the other 139 branches. I hope the Minister will do all he can to urge the bank to reconsider its decision. If Santander truly wants to be
“the best bank in the UK”,
as it says it does, it should deliver on its own “Simple, Personal and Fair” culture and keep those branches open.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Rosindell. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for securing and organising this debate, which I was happy to support.
To strike a note that may be slightly discordant with the speeches of other hon. Members, I must say that I really value online banking. It has been transformative for me personally in terms of ease of access to finance, and we should not forget how many people’s lives it makes easier. I am cautious about unduly amplifying people’s fears about the security of transactions. Yes, there is clearly a big problem with online fraud—I myself was recently a victim to the tune of several thousand pounds—but it is a very small percentage of the overall number of transactions, and the risk lies squarely with the banks themselves. A genuine and proportionate look at the risks associated with online banking suggests that they are often outweighed by the level of convenience that it can bring if we increase people’s online access and computer literacy and ensure that they have a proper understanding.
It is ultimately futile, although it may be gratifying, to rail against individual banks every time they pull out of a high street. I am deeply disappointed that Santander is pulling out of Ulverston, especially given the track record of other banking institutions that have said they foresee only one set of closures, but then, a couple of years down the track or even sooner, close other branches as well. I am waiting for the figures that Santander said it would try to get for me about the busyness of the Barrow-in-Furness branch that customers will be transferred to.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is making a good case. Given the nature of his constituency, which in some ways is very similar to mine, does he agree that the branch network is particularly important to rural areas? In places such as St Andrews and Ulverston, having that rural network goes beyond the personal banking that people can do online; it connects small businesses.
John Woodcock
It absolutely does, and let me say a little more about that point before I go in what may be an unexpected direction and ask whether beating up the banks will really work. The banks on our high streets in communities such as the hon. Gentleman’s and mine are so important for individual customers and businesses. Businesses need access to cash. At the meeting we had last week on the closure in Ulverston, I resolved to help the local business improvement district to survey its businesses about their priorities and needs.
Businesses report a loss of footfall every time a high street branch goes; the evidence is anecdotal at the moment, but we want to put more data behind it. There is also a community aspect. Every bank has a cohort of relatively vulnerable people who rely on it, not only for financial transactions but because it gets them out of the house and, basically, enables banking staff to check that they are okay. As those things are eroded, our communities themselves will bear the brunt.
We will not get anywhere if we do not properly acknowledge the drivers of change within our communities, where people increasingly go online. We have to see what genuine levers we have to change things. That does not mean coming into the House of Commons and shouting at institutions; none the less, we do have levers if we are prepared to come together to demand that the Government use them. For private sector institutions, of course we can do our best to promote the business value of a high street presence. I said last week and I say it strongly again, let us be loyal to the banks that choose to be loyal to our areas.
At the meeting I mentioned, I was impressed to hear from individuals such as the mayor of Ulverston, Dave Webster, who says he has tracked his finances over the years as more and more banks have closed, and will do so again as a Santander customer moving to a branch of a bank that is prepared to have its roots in the town centre. It is good to have the Cumberland Building Society there, which prides itself on keeping footfall in the area. Let us vote with our feet and for institutions that are prepared to root themselves in our areas.
Ultimately, it will be down to the Government to respond. Some Members have rightly mentioned the Post Office. We were pleased and proud to be able to save Ulverston post office from the threat of closure. My goodness, how much more important it will be now as Santander becomes the latest branch to pull out of Ulverston. We require a loss-leading investment in communities and I suggest the Government should ultimately be the guarantor of financial services in an area through an expanded post office network.
I very much add my voice to those speaking out against further branch closures, but I want to add two more elements. First, we have the Post Office card account. I realise that primary responsibility for that lies with the Department for Work and Pensions, but I remember my time in the Department, where I was an adviser to the Secretary of State between 2005 and 2007. Back then, the civil servants, whom we generally worked with very effectively, made the tactics of “Yes, Minister” look timid as they tried to bounce through a policy that radically reduced reliance on Post Office card accounts. Frankly, in the first drafts that we saw, they were not being straight with Post Office card account customers and what their options were. The Minister might like to correct me, but I understand that that process has resumed.
It is outrageous if Post Office card account customers are not clearly told in their advice from the Government and the Post Office that they can maintain a Post Office card account. What was put to us back then and I understand may be being put to the Minister now is advice to customers on how to change from a Post Office card account to a bank account, without telling them explicitly that they have the ability to stay.
Secondly, if the policy is be loss-leading, we cannot just rely on the good will of private banking institutions. Let us put in place an ongoing levy for high street banks to make sure that an institution is rooted in communities, guaranteed by that, and let us strongly consider that institution being the Post Office.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate my fellow Instagram lover, the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), on securing this debate. We have more in common that just posting fun pictures.
Banks are a really important part of our communities. When they close they leave a hole not only in our high street, but in our community as well. The reasons for that have been stated to a considerable extend in this debate already. I am deeply concerned about Santander’s decision to close branches at the scale proposed. In the area that I represent, it intends to close the New George Street branch on 5 December this year, which is quite some Christmas present for local customers, and it is not good for the staff who will lose their jobs just before the festive season.
In Plymouth we like to think that we have a special connection with Santander because we are one of only two places in the country where you can actually get a ferry to Santander, so to see the closure of branches in Plymouth is deeply worrying, and what that means has not been lost on the good folk of Plymouth.
Who do we need to aim this debate at? The remarks made by Members of all parties have been focused on the banks, but I want to focus on the Government, because the banks have had a good kicking already and certainly my fellow Devon MP, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), did a very good job of explaining why banks deserve a good kicking at times. However, we need to be cautious about what can be done to reverse the decline in branches on our high streets.
We need to make sure that people can access the services they need and that the personal touch is there, but I believe that there is something missing from this debate so far: consideration of the social purpose of banking. Banking has a financial purpose: it enables us to trade, to borrow, to invest, to save, but the social purpose is also important. It is about pooling risk, coming together, having access and being able to speak to someone to get advice on borrowing, investment and saving, and making sure we get the best financial products, but all that diminishes hugely when branches close.
I am a big fan of online banking and challenger banks. I really like my hot coral Monzo card. I like the way that I can access financial services online and in many cases get a better and faster service than I can get elsewhere—but I am not the same as everyone. We need a market within our financial services that recognises that online banking and quick dynamic services in the modern age need to sit alongside traditional high street banking that is fit for purpose. There is no better example of that than on Mutley Plain in Plymouth. I use Mutley Plain as an example because I know that the Minister was a Conservative candidate in Plymouth before he found his current seat, so he will know Mutley Plain well. When he was a candidate, Mutley Plain was full of banks. It now has hardly any banks. We have seen HSBC, Halifax, Lloyds, Barclays and NatWest all leave Mutley Plain, effectively leaving the entire community without banking services.
Not only has the community been left without the ability to access a cash machine or to get advice, but people have been left without the ability to go in and speak to someone. That is why we need to look at the importance of local banks and local services. The banks need to rediscover their social purpose. It is not sufficient to have social purpose in PR and marketing if it does not extend from the communications department through to the boardroom and the branches themselves.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a poignant and strong speech. I could not agree with him more about spending corporate social responsibility funds to support the communities and customers that the banks are meant to serve. Does he agree with me that they should spend less money on fancy advertising and sports sponsorship and more money on keeping branches open in rural and deprived urban areas?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for that intervention. We should ask the Minister to look at that suggestion. The Government have the power of regulation in legislation, but they also have strong soft power in terms of encouraging the banks to do the right thing. We need to recognise that customers—each of us as a customer of a bank and the people we represent—also have soft power in relation to where we choose to bank and who we choose to bank with.
When we talk about what options are available to us, it is important to recognise that the post office is an option only when we have a post office. Equally, internet banking is only an option when someone has access to the internet. There is sometimes an assumption in this place that everyone has access to the internet. That is not true. In places such as Plymouth, where we have high levels of poverty and deprivation, not everyone has access to the internet. Not everyone has a mobile phone with data allowance that allows them to access data. With the closure of libraries in recent years, free access provision through library services is also not always available. If the Post Office network and the library network is to be a genuine and meaningful alternative, we need to make sure that they can be accessed. We must not fall into the middle-class trap of thinking that everyone has the same as the people who largely populate the House of Commons. That is certainly not true in Plymouth and it is a point that we need to address.
I asked people on my Facebook page a few days ago about their experiences of banks closing. The most powerful testimonies come from people with disabilities, for whom the ability to access a local banking service is not just about the service they should have as a normal human being, but is about the additional support that they need and deserve to access those services, which cannot be provided by someone at the end of the phone or a few clicks away on the internet. They need a real human being to interact with. That was the case for so many people who spoke to me and gave me their stories and views about what we need to do. I turn back to the Minister. Where do we go from here?
There is a real risk that whole communities will lose access to banking services, because banks are closing progressively. Today’s debate is about the decisions of Santander. A few months ago, it might have been about other banks, and in a few months’ time, it will probably be about other financial service providers. What is the safety net? What is the minimum guarantee that the Government believe that we should have?
The idea about banking hubs is a good one. In Plymouth, we are doing something similar in bringing together health and wellbeing services. City centre hubs will bring together all the aspects of the public estate that need a front door in the city centre, and I hope the Department of Health and Social Care will fund that. The principle applies to financial services, just as it does to dentistry, GP services, sexual health and mental health provision, and we should look at that.
One element of hub services is about using empty buildings. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) talked about empty buildings. In many cases, the buildings left vacant by banks still have an ongoing lease—they are still paying for the lease of the buildings. There should be questions about the social purpose of an empty building, and about how we as parliamentarians can put pressure on, as we have done on empty homes, to rediscover the social purpose of empty buildings with an ongoing lease.
The post office network has been mentioned, which reminded me of a visit I made to the Efford Road post office in Compton ward in my constituency, just before Christmas. I spoke to Michael Zheng, the postmaster of that small but well-loved post office. He described how since the banks have closed locally, he has taken on the financial transactions for local shops and has huge amounts of cash deposited with him, but the contract for local post offices for processing cash transactions has changed recently, which means that in many cases it is not viable for him as an employer to pay someone to spend the time processing the cash in and out and providing banking services for local businesses; the agreement between his local business and the Post Office no longer makes that worthwhile. That needs to be looked at.
The health of our high street depends not only on shops where people want to spend their money, banks where they can access their money, borrow and save, a culture where people can enjoy shops, and restaurants where they can eat and drink. We need to look at how we repurpose the high street in those terms, but there are also regulatory protections that deserve consideration. We are not in a normal time for Conservative party thinking in respect of allowing the free market to do its thing on high streets, where financial services can come and go as they please. We are now seeing the forced financial exclusion of people in our communities because banks are exiting our high streets. That demands a different approach, which we need to identify before we get to the point where we have lost banks entirely from our high streets.
There are alternatives and there are models of investment in our high streets. I mention in particular South West Mutual, a co-operative that has formed in the four counties of the far south-west to provide high-street banking services on a mutual model. As the big multinational banking giants are exiting our high streets, in many cases, it is the small mutuals—the people with social purpose—that are coming to replace them. I commend the work that South West Mutual is doing. I love it when it says:
“We believe that bank managers who know their communities well make the best lending decisions, and we are committed to providing branch facilities so that you can choose how you want to bank.”
That is precisely the type of ethos we need to see lived and breathed by those big financial giants, not just the mutuals. If we keep seeing TV adverts from big banks telling us just how much they care about us and our communities at the same time as they close our banks, more people will take their custom away from those banks, and rightly so. We deserve better, they deserve better, and our high streets and our communities deserve better than the high PR spend trying to tell us something different from the lived experience of far too many people in our communities.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who always speaks with so much authority on matters not just in his own constituency, but across the piece.
The Santander branch in Crouch End in my constituency is one of the 140 scheduled to close. One hundred and forty is quite a large number and I am pleased to see how well attended the debate has been. I have heard from elderly constituents who are devastated by the news that the Santander branch is going to close. One constituent who got in touch is 88 years old. He is uncomfortable using computers and prefers to do his banking in the branch rather than online. He said that it is always busy when he goes there, but now he will be forced to get on the bus and travel all the way up to Muswell Hill. His friend changed her bank to Santander because her local bank branch had closed, and now Santander is doing the same. She is elderly and disabled and feels betrayed and let down.
I met with Santander bosses this week to express my opposition to the plans. At the meeting, I asked about the impact on staff. I was told that the branch has 10.8 full-time equivalent staff, and while they hope to redeploy some, there are no guarantees. In the meantime, the bank has put new staff on to short-term contracts, so that when those contracts finish, other staff can be put into those roles. That leads to lack of security in the workforce, something that many of us have campaigned very hard to counter.
The Communication Workers Union is working hard to defend its members nationwide. It says that the reductions to the Santander UK branch network place 1,270 workers at risk of redundancy and the bank expects to be able to redeploy only around a third of those affected, so hundreds of qualified hard-working employees will be out of work. Elderly and disabled customers will have to travel further to access vital services. Crouch End will also lose its ATM, so thousands of shoppers, workers and local residents will be inconvenienced.
Bank branches are disappearing at an alarming rate—a whopping 40% have closed since the Conservative Government came in in 2010. That is symptomatic of a wider problem in the banking sector, and is a quiet scandal that has seen many people lose their local services.
All too often, big banks have put their own profits above the needs of their customers. Think back to the origins of banking, with good banks, originally run by Quakers such as the Barclays; then look at the recent stories of Barclays, where the chief executive was forced to pay fines to the Financial Conduct Authority due to bad behaviour. Look at the banks flogging dodgy mortgages, a major cause of the crisis in 2008. Look at the LIBOR scandal or the exorbitant fees. We used to have bank robbers; now the banks rob us. We had foreign exchange manipulation. We had overdraft charges, ripping off customers. We had the payment protection insurance mis-selling scandal, which has been going on since 2005 and which I believe is at £40 billion so far—the shadow Minister may correct me. Furthermore, there are charges on withdrawing cash from ATMs, and operators fail to repair ATMs in a timely manner. Just how low can the banking sector get?
What can the Government do? Well, they could do much more. They are being a bit too laissez-faire, considering that closures of bank branches are landing blow after blow on the high street. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think there have been three reviews of the high street since 2010. Rather than launch just another review, why not play a key co-ordinating role between banks and stop the closures of Crown post offices, or at least support credit unions? I believe that another credit union has gone out of business this year because it was slightly overleveraged, and because so many people cannot afford to pay back very small loans. A number of small loans have led to certain credit unions not being able to survive. What are the Government doing proactively to support credit unions in areas where we know they can do so much good?
I would like to see a much more proactive approach. My colleagues mentioned the Labour approach to regional banks, which is a very good idea. I had a good look through the Minister’s written parliamentary responses to Members’ questions on bank closures and I have to confess that I found them mealy-mouthed—“Well, it’s the commercial decision of banks. We haven’t got anything to do with it.” Is that not the attitude that has got us into so much hot water since 2008? Have we learned nothing about the attitude of banks? Do they care about their customers? No, otherwise Santander would not be closing 140 branches. It might be acceptable to close a few, or to close the same number at a slower pace, but there will be 140 bank branch closures. Despite being in a different party, I completely agree with the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on the dreadful treatment of customers, the fact that there is no personal approach to banking anymore and the fact that so many customers are being let down. I very much look forward to hearing some really innovative, far-reaching and radical suggestions from the Minister.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I pay tribute to my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), for securing this debate. He spoke very powerfully about the impact that these bank closures will have on the city of Glasgow and further afield.
As I listened to my constituency neighbour’s comments, I reflected on the picture in Glasgow. By my calculation, there are five Santander branches in the city of Glasgow, yet the two that have been earmarked for closure are in Springburn in my constituency and in Parkhead in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. They just happen to be the two worst areas of Glasgow for social multiple deprivation, which leads to me to look at the wider programme of branch closures. In the last four years there have been four branch closures in my constituency, including two run by the Royal Bank of Scotland—one in Dennistoun and the other in Possilpark, directly opposite my constituency office—and the Clydesdale Bank in Springburn, just around the corner from the Santander branch that is earmarked for closure. The only branches left will be the TSB in Dennistoun and in Springburn. We are down to some of the last banks in the poorest communities in Scotland, which is a great tragedy. What does it say when we extrapolating that observation across the country?
Of the five branches in Glasgow, the ones in Shawlands, Byres Road, Argyle Street and Sauchiehall Street are staying open. They are in quite prosperous parts of Glasgow, and I think they are staying open simply because the current accounts held at those branches are much more valuable to the bank. It is profit-seeking behaviour, and there is no legislative imperative for the bank to correct it. The bank will therefore seek to maximise profit at the expense of its customers.
David Linden
There was a point that I omitted from my speech due to time constraints. One of the things that I learned from speaking to the staff was that we had a mortgage adviser in Parkhead. Given that they were not doing a roaring trade, apparently they were taken out six months before the decision to announce the plans for closure. That absolutely backs up the hon. Gentleman’s point: these decisions are made entirely on the basis of profit rather than on serving the people who live in those communities.
Mr Sweeney
I accept that observation. To be fair, my interaction with a physical branch is limited, because I have adopted new technology—I suppose it is because I am a millennial. I use the banking app for TSB, despite some recent difficulties with the transfer from Lloyds TSB using the banking technology. The only time I visited a branch for any substantial business was when I took out a mortgage in Dennistoun about three years ago. The hon. Gentleman makes the point that if we are going to cut the cloth, we will create almost a self-fulfilling prophecy by stripping out key banking services such as mortgage provision, which is a great problem.
Luke Graham
The hon. Gentleman is making a very solid point about deprivation. Some of his branches, and my branch in Alloa, are in some of the most deprived parts of our country, yet they are having services taken away. When Santander and other banks consider branch closures, they look at levels of deprivation in a constituency and they have an index. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the index should be made public and that we should put the access to banking standards on a statutory footing, so that these closures can be subject to real consultations and be far more transparent?
Mr Sweeney
A rare collegial moment for the Chamber, perhaps. I agree entirely, and I was just about to come on to that issue.
When I met with Santander management last week to discuss the closure of the Springburn branch, I made the observation, “I recognise exactly why you’re doing this.” They did not deny it. I also said, “Yes, there needs to be total visibility about the economic impact and the disparity in terms of the demographics of where these bank closures are happening, because there is no visibility of that pattern.” This was recognised long ago: in the 1970s in America, there was a practice called red-lining, which involved American banks deliberately blacklisting poorer communities and withdrawing banking services.
In 1977, the Carter Administration passed the Community Reinvestment Act. As a result, commercial banks in America are obliged to redistribute their profits into sponsoring co-operative banking services and mutuals, and to promote credit unions. There is therefore a much more diverse range of banking services as a result of direct Government intervention to redistribute those services, which dates back to the 1970s. As a result of the Community Reinvestment Act, Santander will invest £11 billion in sponsoring co-operative banking, mutuals and other sustainable banking activity. That is a hefty redistribution and is in stark contrast with what happens in the United Kingdom, where there is no legislative imperative for banks to do it. We need to address that yawning chasm in legislation.
I made the point to the Santander management that the root cause of a lot of these problems is the increasing monopolisation of the banking sector in the UK. We have five major clearing banks, which hold 85% of all current accounts. By comparison, in Germany there are 400 local Sparkassen banks and over 1,000 co-operative banks. Clearly the picture there is very different, because there is legislation in place to redistribute the holding of capital in the banking system, so it is done more sustainably and is more responsive to local communities and to sectors of industry. As a result, Germany has a much healthier and more balanced economy.
I also made the point that Santander’s origins lie in the Abbey National, which was demutualised in 1989, the year I was born. We have seen a pattern of demutualisation across the banking sector, which has been negative for the UK economy. I would seek legislation to reverse the demutualisation of the British banking system.
Catherine West
Is it not particularly galling that a bank that used to be a building society with a sense of social conscience is inflicting this huge series of bank closures on our local communities?
Mr Sweeney
Absolutely. It is a stark example of the exploitation that we see on multiple fronts. We see it not only in universal credit, jobcentre closures and post office closures, but in things such as fixed-odds betting terminals and bookmakers being concentrated in poorer communities and high streets. We also see a stark contrast in microcosm in Springburn shopping centre. Right next door to the Santander branch is a branch of BrightHouse, which is a rapacious lender exploiting the poorest communities in our country. In my opinion, its practices should be illegal. It is just as bad as the payday loan lenders. That is a good example in microcosm in Springburn of what is wrong with the British economic system, writ large. We need to address that.
I hope the Minister will reflect on the reality. He is welcome to come and visit my constituency and see what it looks like on the ground. If we do not fix it, we will entrench economic division, alienation and the sort of social tensions that exist in our country, and which might have erupted as the reason why so many people voted to leave the European Union. A source of their frustration was an economic system that does not serve their interests. This is all connected; there is a complex interdependency. We need to address the wider tensions in society. This is yet another example of what is wrong with the state withdrawing from regulation and permitting neo-liberal practices to prevail. It is a major concern and needs to be addressed.
In the case of Springburn, the bank justified its closure programme by saying that there was a 25% reduction in footfall. I accept that the industry is subject to disruption due to changes in technology, as the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) said. However, the curve is way ahead of where people are at on the ground. The Government should be involved in closing down that gap, so that it reflects the real transitions that people make, particularly elderly people and disabled people.
It was claimed that 91% of people use a variety of other ways to engage with the bank in Springburn, but that includes phoning up the local branch to make an enquiry and using an ATM. Those are not mutually exclusive activities, so that is a questionable statistic. A minority of users—only 46%—use another Santander branch. The nearest branch is in Glasgow city centre, which is an expensive bus ride away for many people, particularly given that the community has a very low car ownership rate. A minority of customers—only 49%—use online or telephone banking services.
The Springburn branch is proposed to close in June this year, yet Santander’s lease will not expire until December, so for six months it will be a blight on the community with boarded up frontage. I want the bank to address that, as a minimum. If it is going to close the branch, it should ensure there is a transition. I appeal to it to realise its social responsibilities.
Ironically, at 2 pm today the Springburn Regeneration Forum kicked off across the way from the Santander branch in the Springburn shopping centre that is proposed to close. It is a community-led approach to bring together the council and other stakeholders to plan the regeneration of Springburn. What a blow that on the same day that that is happening the bank across the way in the Springburn shopping centre has announced that it is pulling out of the community. That is a sad illustration of our commercial banks’ lack of social conscience. That should be addressed. If the banks do not do so voluntarily, it should be done through legislation.
In a nutshell, that is what I think is wrong with the UK banking system and what the Minister should reflect on. I am sure our Front Bench team will do so, too. I am a Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament. We are committed to a massive restructuring of the UK banking system in favour of co-operative banking, mutuals and a more equitable form of financing our economy. That is what we are supporting.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), for securing this debate.
In my constituency of Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, we have seen the loss of local branches in recent years. Recently, Stepps, Tannochside and Bellshill have all seen their local Royal Bank of Scotland close down, despite the fact that the Government own the majority stake in RBS and could have kept some of those branches open and protected those jobs. We have also seen the collapse of Scotland’s oldest savings bank, the Airdrie Savings Bank, which led to the loss of branches in Coatbridge and Bellshill.
The loss of those branches in my constituency are just a snapshot of what I have heard today and what is happening throughout the whole country. I repeat that the rot started with the Crown post office closures. Now Santander says, “Let’s turn to the Post Office. It can help us.” Too little, too late.
Mr Sweeney
My hon. Friend is making a very important point about the post offices. One of the justification for the Santander closures was, “Don’t worry. The bank service can transition over to the post office.” The Springburn post office has been put up for franchising and will be in the back of a grocery store somewhere. That is hardly a place that someone is going to go to take out a mortgage, is it?
Hugh Gaffney
That is exactly what is happening up and down the country. I have seen many fighting for people’s jobs in Crown post offices, which have good terms and conditions that are not matched by WHSmith.
I asked the Chancellor in a written question whether the Treasury had made any assessment of the impact of Santander’s decision to close branches on consumers’ access to money. I received a reply from a Minister, who stated that the Treasury had made no assessment, and that it was a commercial decision for Santander. How often have we heard that? I would like the Chancellor and his Treasury Ministers to tell the affected communities that the Government have made no efforts to determine the impact of the proposed branch closures on their ability to access their money. That is their written answer: no effort, no access. That is shameful, but it is an all-too-common attitude for this Government.
The impact of the branch closures has been worsened by the loss of cashpoints. Figures released this week by Which? show that 280 cashpoints were lost across Scotland in 2018, 203 of which were free to use. Despite the growth of online and telephone banking, 73% of the public continue to use cash frequently to pay for goods and services. My children still use cash; the elderly still use cash. This is not a cashless community yet. The branch closures and the loss of cashpoints only make it harder for people to access their money. The branches and cashpoints are being lost in the poorest and most vulnerable communities in the UK, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) pointed out, and as many others up and down the country know.
Which? has asked the Government to appoint a new regulator with sole responsibility for cash infrastructure. I think that is a much-needed step forward to ensure that consumers and businesses can continue to access cash. I urge the Government to take action by creating a regulator, so we can begin to reverse some of the devastating effects that our communities have experienced because of the branch closures and the loss of cashpoints. If they are not listening today, when will they start listening?
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) and the other Members who supported his bid for this debate. It is great to see this Chamber so busy, as it often is not. That shows the strength of feeling and how much the closures will affect our communities.
The letter that I received was sent to me as a customer. That was the first that I heard that our Santander branch in Troon was closing. I was previously a customer of RBS, and, like some other hon. Members, I moved my custom to Santander. I am not really sure where I am heading next. That is one of 140 closures—one fifth of the Santander network—15 of which are in Scotland. Some 1,300 jobs are now under threat, and only one third are likely to be redeployed. In the meeting, we were told that a third of those staff are looking to retire, get a package and get out. Have those discussions taken place, or is that a presumption?
Catherine West
Does the hon. Lady agree that it is inappropriate for an organisation to put staff on to less secure contracts in the knowledge that it will make 1,200 staff redundant, and might need those jobs later? It is not just a slap in the face to customers but to the staff who work hard in those branches.
Dr Whitford
I absolutely agree. I pay tribute to the staff in my branch, who were very helpful when we opened our account and are always cheerful. They are not about to retire. They are young working people who are not looking to take a package, but will need a job. They are being made unemployed, and they are deeply shocked by that.
There have been 3,000 branch closures since 2015, 230 of which are in Scotland. Two thirds of branches have been cut since the end of the ’80s. By the end of this year, we will have fallen from 21,000 to less than 7,500 across the UK. That is an incredible change. I totally accept that banking is changing, but, like many others, I use mixed banking. I will use an ATM, go into my branch and do online banking, but it is important that I have that choice. We are talking about choice being taken away.
This change is 20 years too early; we are not yet cashless or online. My mum, who is 84, and most people over 70 are not happy to do banking or any sensitive financial transactions online. My mum has her iPad and can do emails. It is not stupidity. She simply does not trust it. In making this change, we are leaving two decades’ worth of older citizens feeling uncomfortable and like they have had things taken away from them.
When banks move out, they do not leave their ATMs behind, which means that there is less access to cash in community after community, and the ATMs that remain are running out. Troon has already lost three banks. This is our fourth. I went through all this with RBS, which tried to use a unique customer identifier. It told me that only 97 customers a week went into the branch. I found that really strange, because every time I went in, I was in a queue. It only counted people who only went into that branch and went into the branch every single week. As was said, no other business would count custom in that fashion. When I finally got the correct figures out of RBS, that number was 10 times as high. Yet the bank would not reconsider its decision.
Although my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East has highlighted the issue of vulnerable people who have poor internet access, in Troon, a place to which many people retire, the issue is the elderly. In the impact assessment, it says that 58% of people have, on at least one occasion, used online, mobile or telephone banking, meaning that 42% have never used those methods. There is no quantification, so we do not know—as the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) said—whether someone simply phoned the branch to ask what its opening hours are or when they could go in to get a statement. The idea that that means someone is suddenly ready to manage all their finances by phone or online is just a fairy tale.
The problem we have is that our elderly population is suddenly being told, as I was assured, that the closest branches are within a 10-mile radius—it is seven miles in one direction and 11 miles in the other—and for most of the elderly who live in Troon, however, that means taking two buses and more than an hour’s journey on a bus that is not frequent, so a visit to the branch could mean a three-hour round-trip. As was highlighted earlier in the debate, that also takes footfall out of Troon’s town centre, because if someone takes the trouble to go to Ayr, the chances are that they will shop in Ayr. They will not come back, go in to the middle of Troon, shop, and then get a bus home. That is gradually killing our high streets.
The access to banking standard and the need for an impact assessment were mentioned. We have all been sent little infographic-laden impact assessments, but it strikes me that they are largely about the impact on the bank. They are not really about the impact on customers, staff or our high street. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) mentioned the idea of having a hub. The obvious way to do that would be to bring back Crown post offices, but why do we expect post offices to co-locate with other businesses, but not banks to co-locate with each other or with post offices? It is absolutely vital that communities have some form of safe and secure access to financial services and advice.
Post offices are proposed as the answer to everything, but we cannot use them to open new accounts, carry out bank transfers or, if trying to manage our money, get full bank statements—only a balance. We certainly cannot arrange loans. Many of us used to go into a bank to speak to our bank manager, who was very strict about the income that we needed to obtain a mortgage. Part of what led to the 2008 crash was random decisions to lend people three, four, five, six or seven times their income so that they could get a mortgage, instead of giving them the chance to sit down and talk with someone who could see their financial performance. That applies to business customers who, at the early stages of development, need really personal input from someone who manages their service.
Quite apart from being the answer to all those problems, post offices are struggling financially. Previously, postmasters would get a fee, but funding for that is being cut from £210 million to just £70 million. As this is the fourth bank to close in Troon, all of that work is going to the post office. It has the same number of counters that it has always had, and it had a two-year gap of struggling to find a new postmaster when our previous one was ill and found it frankly all too stressful. In the Which? survey, 42% of those not happy about the move to the post office were concerned about queues. If the post office has the same number of counters but is suddenly doing the work of four banks, queues are inevitable.
Our closest town, Prestwick, has also lost three banks. When I met our postmaster after the most recent closure, he was initially quite positive, because he saw it as a business opportunity. I met him recently, however, and the bank transactions actually take money out of his business. Cash deposits are time consuming and he has had to take on an extra part-time member of staff. He does over 500 extra banking transactions a month and takes in £1 million a month. While Santander charges £7 per £1,000 deposited, the postmaster is paid 37p per £1,000 deposited. The Government subsidy for the 3,000 community post offices that are protected as the last shops in the village will end in 2021. We will literally have dead and empty communities with no access to anything and nothing to maintain footfall in a town centre.
We need to reward and support the post office. Santander is one of the biggest users of post office services, because it makes its business customers deposit cash in the post office. The fee paid to post offices for those transactions is currently being renegotiated. It is critical that that fee be fair, because otherwise we will see the last remaining Crown post offices not redeveloped as banking hubs, but shut down. Frankly, post offices wedged in corners of shops are not always accessible, are often cluttered and do not offer privacy to carry out financial decisions and management.
Albert Owen
Is there not an additional risk of going in with one retailer—WHSmith, for example—because many high streets brands are closing down, meaning the whole service could go?
Dr Whitford
That is the problem. We almost have that tumbling effect—the work is just passed to someone else, who cannot maintain it, and it is passed on again. It is important that there is a different way of looking at the issue. I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow North East: it is down the Government to look at innovative approaches across the world, see how such banks are expected to behave in other countries, and, perhaps, to learn from America—not in all things, but in the idea of having regulation to ensure support for financial facilities in all our communities, and not just the leafy streets of middle-class suburban areas.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) and the Backbench Business Committee for enabling us to have this debate on a topic that is clearly vital to many communities.
We have heard some very good speeches today from the hon. Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair), my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), my hon. Friends the Members for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon), the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) and for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney), the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) and my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney). That is quite a coalition, by any measure of parliamentary activity. Each of those speakers articulated very well the impact of bank branch closures—not just by Santander, but more widely—on their communities. Each speech raised several issues of public policy that I certainly agree need to be addressed.
The debate has shown that the challenge to maintain a banking sector that works for everyone at a time of rapid technological change is not being met and that the balance between digitisation and traditional banking models is not being got right. I want to say a few words to concur with the sentiment in the room today, but also a little about some possible solutions to these problems.
In advance of the debate, Santander provided some statistics on how people use its services and how that has changed. It said it has experienced a decline of about a quarter in branch transactions over the past three years, including for branch ATMs. It went on to say that that trend is expected to continue, with a projected 37% decline in branch visits across the industry in five years’ time. That is an empirical case for branch closures. We understand that—it is based on numbers and projected future demand. Those numbers alone, however, do not tell us the real story of how people depend on some of those services.
Today we are here specifically to debate the impact on local communities, and to do that, I want to share with colleagues and with industry, which will listen to the debate, the experience of my constituents and what bank branch closures have meant for them. Thankfully, the Santander branch in Hyde is not earmarked for closure in this round, but in recent years my constituency has lost branches of RBS, Lloyds, HSBC and Yorkshire Bank. Yesterday, on my Facebook page, I asked my constituents to share with me some of their direct stories of what that has meant for them. The first comment was:
“Losing the Lloyds in Stalybridge has been a blow. Yes there is one in Ashton”—
the town next door—
“and there is online banking. But there is no substitute for making an appointment you can walk to, talking to an actual human being.”
Another constituent, from Droylsden, which is just outside my constituency, said:
“Here…we now don’t have a single bank! We’ve gone from having Lloyds, NatWest, Royal Bank of Scotland and Halifax to having none!!! Our infrastructure dwindles by the day.”
The problem is even more acute for colleagues in more rural constituencies.
For businesses as well as individuals branch closures have posed particular challenges. One business owner—an existing Santander customer—said:
“You can do banking at the Post Office but, in order to pay things in, you have to get in touch with your bank first and get paying in slips sent out. Santander would only send me 5 and I have run out now. It means that I can’t accept cheques for my business easily, and I don’t have time to keep ringing up for more paying in slips.”
Someone else said:
“It’s a killer for small businesses, who have to close their shops to go and stand in a queue for a lengthy period of time just to get change.”
Catherine West
Given the history over the past decade of how small businesses have been let down by the big banks, does my hon. Friend agree that this is yet another slap in the face for small business?
Jonathan Reynolds
I agree with my hon. Friend. She is right to highlight—she did so in her speech—the many difficult issues with conduct in the UK banking industry, and specifically the abuses of lending to small businesses, which we have had many debates about in this Chamber and the main Chamber. Such abuses are particularly difficult to hear about—people have suffered some real abuses—and compounding them makes things especially difficult.
I have heard some particularly moving stories from those who care for others, who have borne the brunt of some closures. This comment choked me up:
“My mum with Alzheimer’s relied on her Lloyds branch in Droylsden before it was shut. The staff knew her well and helped her. They knew her condition and if she was in a bad way they would phone me and give her a cup of tea while they waited for me to arrive. The staff said there were lots of other people like my mum. The closure really affected her.”
Such stories show that we are talking about real people and the impact on their lives. Those are real experiences. The data do not always reveal that. The banks, of course, have the right to present that data to us, but our job is to tell the human side of the story.
We cannot hold back the tide of technological change—like some of my colleagues, I am not a luddite, and I love technology—but we can stop to think about how to make it work for us, not the other way around. Without protection the move to online as a default option will risk leaving the most vulnerable and marginalised in our society without services that work for them.
As we have seen in the debate around ATMs—which were raised several times in this debate—the risk is that we will sleepwalk into a society without access to cash at all, with the industry realising that we need those safety nets only when it is too late. Access to cash is becoming an increasing challenge for people, following bank closures and the decline in our high streets. The chair of the Payment Systems Regulator, Charles Randell, was right to ask in a Treasury Committee evidence session earlier this week whether access to ATMs should be seen as a universal service. I am sympathetic to that.
No one wants to prevent innovation. Indeed, some technological advances, such as remote video appointments or audible speaking ATMs, could for the first time help to include people who have historically had trouble interacting with traditional banking. Our objective, however, must be to use technology to benefit all customers, rather than creating a pared-down, automated banking sector that leaves people without the support they need.
The bank branch network has been shrinking at an accelerating rate. In December 2016, Which? reported that more than 1,000 branches of major banks had closed between January 2015 and January 2017. Banks stopped publishing data on closures in 2015, and there is now no central source for it, so the exact number of closures becomes more and more difficult to find out. Since those figures were published, however, we have seen multiple further closure announcements from banks, including Yorkshire Bank, RBS, Lloyds and now Santander.
The scale of the closures seems disproportionate and does not necessarily match how people want to use their bank branches. Also—this has come out in the debate—some of the modelling around the closures does not reflect the fact that branches are all closing at the same time. That was particularly the case in Scotland with RBS. Research conducted by the Social Market Foundation in 2016 found that strong consumer appetite remains for a physical presence. Nearly two thirds of consumers would prefer to talk to someone face to face when making a big financial decision.
A report by Move Your Money, published in July 2016, made the damning assessment that, far from responding to market pressures, the major UK banks are simply closing branches in poorer areas and opening or retaining them in more affluent ones. That is simply not acceptable. The same report mapped bank branch closures against the postcode lending data from the British Bankers Association, which is now UK Finance, to show that bank branch closures dampen SME lending growth significantly in the postcodes affected. The figure grows even higher for postcodes that lose the last bank in town. At a time when we all want to stimulate more lending to SMEs and to encourage growth, a sustained programme of bank branch closures risks taking us in precisely the wrong direction.
Labour’s answer to that is a proposal to change the law regulating banks so that no closure can take place without a real local consultation or the Financial Conduct Authority approving the tranche of closures. A future Labour Government would obligate banks to undertake a real consultation with all customers of the branch proposed for closure, including local democratic representatives on the relevant local council. The bank would be mandated to publish details of the reasons for closure, including the financial calculations showing the revenues and costs of the relevant branch. The share of central costs such as accounting systems, IT, cyber-security and personnel would have to be identified separately, because many of those costs are relatively fixed and not proportionate to the number of branches. The FCA’s approval would be needed for any bank branch closure. We think that is the right balance. It accepts that, as technology changes, there might be some closures, but it would ensure that customers are not forgotten about or taken for granted.
That is our policy on closures, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn said, we wish to go further. The Post Office is often referred to as the solution to bank branch closures, through its relationship with the Bank of Ireland. That is better than nothing—something like £14 billion in deposits is held in accounts linked to the Post Office—but there are clearly shortfalls. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire highlighted some of those in her speech.
The potential exists, however, to build on that model and to create a genuine Post Office bank, which would ensure universal access to banking services for every part of the UK. It would be a standalone institution; it would pay the post office network for use of those branches, and it would therefore replace the network subsidy payment. It would offer a future for the Post Office, as well as for financial services in every part of the country. It would be held in a public trust model, with 100% of the shares held in trust for the public benefit, ensuring that no future Government could seek to privatise it. I plan to develop those plans and to present them in more detail in the near future, alongside our plans for the future of the public stake in RBS and other measures designed to increase plurality in the banking sector, including the return of new post offices to the UK.
Albert Owen
Is not one of the problems—perhaps a future Labour Government could address this—that so many different Departments are involved? We have heard about the Department for Work and Pensions and about the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, with its responsibility for the Post Office, and the Treasury Minister is responding to the debate. Would my hon. Friend include in his plans a responsible Minister so that there is accountability to Parliament?
Jonathan Reynolds
That is an interesting submission. Ultimately, if we wish to see the kind of developments that my hon. Friend and I would like to see, we have to have the Treasury behind them, in whatever way Whitehall responds to that. Clearly, there are lots of different aspects; some are about the legislative environment, some about the regulatory environment and some about the spending decisions that need to be made if we are serious about ensuring universal access to financial services.
In every debate such as this, we all recognise that the financial crisis has had a severe and long-lasting impact on communities in Britain. That fallout has damaged the banking sector in the public’s eyes—we cannot get away from that—but banks must not compound that damage with an overly aggressive and sustained programme of closures, which risks being another step in leaving the high street as an empty shell. Regulators, banks and policy makers need to work together to build a viable banking infrastructure that works for all customers and all communities in a way that will ultimately restore trust and confidence in the UK banking sector.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell? I commend the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for securing this debate and the 28 colleagues across the House who have made speeches or interventions in what has been a thorough examination of this important issue. As well as a Minister I am a constituency MP, and I recognise the pressure on us when our constituents are not happy with decisions.
Since taking up the position of Economic Secretary last January, I have become well acquainted with branch closures. They can be very difficult for the communities affected and, as we have seen this afternoon, they arouse strong passions across the House. I have taken time to speak with affected customers and businesses, including on my visit to Scotland last August, in order to really understand the concerns. I frequently raise this topic in my regular meetings with banks and the Financial Conduct Authority.
I will seek to address the points made by the hon. Member for Glasgow East and others across the Chamber. He referenced his community in Parkhead and the issues of staff, the impact assessment, the limitations of the relationship with the post office network that many Members have mentioned, and access to cash, which falls under the Treasury’s remit, although the Exchequer Secretary is responsible for that.
Closing a branch is never an easy decision, but it is one that banks take based on their assessment of current and future branch usage and customer behaviour. It is an assessment that they, as commercial businesses, are better placed to make than Government. That is why the Government do not intervene in individual branch closure decisions. However, the Government should not abdicate responsibility for some of the issues that arise.
Catherine West
In his reply to a written question by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), the Minister said:
“the Treasury does not collect data relating to bank branch closures or related job losses.”
Does he believe that is an adequate Government response to 1,200 job losses and the closure of 40% of bank branches? Does the Minister believe that the Treasury should collect that kind of data?
John Glen
As I was going to respond to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who also raised that point about bank branch closure figures, the FCA, which is the regulator responsible for regulating banks, did some analysis of branch closures as part of its “Strategic Review of Retail Banking Business Models” published in December last year. The full research can be found in an annex to the review. The analysis looks at the number and pattern of closures, how they affect urban and rural areas, the age of the customer, the level of deprivation and income levels. It is a thorough analysis across multiple banks and it very much informs Government policy.
Neil Parish
How much do the Government ask the banks to co-operate with one another, so that there is some sort of service from whichever bank denomination it might be? At the moment, they are just closing and there does not seem to be any pattern to help our constituents who want to receive financial services.
John Glen
My hon. Friend’s intervention picks up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) and others about hubs. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) raised it to, and I think in his maiden speech he talked about the need to bring banks together. There is no regulatory bar to that and it might be a model that banks will wish to reflect on. As has been pointed out, representatives from Santander are in earshot—that may be a model they wish to take forward.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am very grateful. The idea of banks collaborating and having hubs that would be the joint front end of their back-office functions comes up time and again, but it has not happened. There is no work being done to deliver that. Surely, there are issues to do with competition law, regulatory compliance and liability for mis-selling that simply make it quite unlikely. That is why a serious alternative is required.
John Glen
I respect the concern that the hon. Gentleman has raised and I will respond to it.
Before I get into the detail into what I am trying to do as the Minister with responsibility in this area, I want to reflect on some of the facts of changing banking practices. More of us choose to bank online or on an app, but the point made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) about a mixed appetite for banking services is important, as is the intergenerational point. Between 2011 and 2016, branch usage declined by 42% whereas mobile banking usage increased 354% between 2012 and 2017. Cash was used in 61% of payments in 2007, but it is projected that by 2027—in just eight years—it will go down to 16%. There is a significant and rapid change.
Dr Whitford
I must highlight that 2027 is eight years away. We are talking about elderly people now.
John Glen
I was laying out the statistics to show the rapidity of the direction of change. On the point made by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), we must look at alternative provision. I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) about South West Mutual. I will meet Tony Greenham, the executive director of South West Mutual, on 26 February, to discuss regional mutual banking in the era of expansion of alternatives. I will attend the Annual Conference of the Association of British Credit Unions Limited on Saturday 9 March, to look at how to expand the role of credit unions. When I visited Glasgow I met the 1st Class Credit Union and saw its appetite to develop new delivery models. I recognise it is an area we must invest in.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport made the point about learning from overseas; I recognise that is important, too. That is why the Chancellor’s Budget of 29 October included pilots for interest-free loans. We looked at the way credit unions function so they can be given more freedom to develop an alternative presence and range of services. At a micro level, that will sometimes be a relevant alternative to provide for communities in difficulties.
Luke Pollard
It is really good news that the Minister will meet South West Mutual. It is important that credit unions and new regional co-operative banks are seen not just as a nice periphery exercise in corporate social responsibility, but as a genuine mainstream alternative to financial services, and they need to be structured as such in Government policy.
David Linden
I am grateful that the Minister is talking about credit unions. The only major job I have done other than being a politician was to work in a credit union. On Monday I have a meeting with a local credit union that is pretty much on the brink of bankruptcy. Part of that is because of a lack of succession planning in the credit union movement and a culture issue about governance. If the Minister is so keen on working with credit unions, what practical support will the UK Government provide, specifically for governance and succession planning issues that challenge them? It will not be just that credit union in my constituency.
John Glen
I am anxious not to make my response completely about credit unions, but the 146 credit unions that exist have a whole range of governance models and levels of confidence about the future. I do not think it is my role to dictate how they change, but I am trying to find a model—there are many in Northern Ireland, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will know—that can be used as a viable alternative.
I want to move on and make a little progress if I may. I said I would respond to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock).
John Glen
I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I want to focus on the thoughtful point made by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness. He referred to his time as an adviser in the Department for Work and Pensions, and to joined-up Government and the Post Office card. It is true that universal credit will have to be paid into bank accounts, but basic bank accounts, which do not involve any fees, are available. Those a viable and accessible alternative. I am happy to take up any further points he wants to make about that, and to learn from his experience in government.
John Woodcock
It would be useful to understand why universal credit is not being made available for payment into Post Office card accounts, but I wanted to intervene on another issue relating to the Post Office. The Minister said the Treasury has a policy on access to cash. One of the big issues with Santander going from Ulverston and, I imagine, other areas is that the cash machine will go as well. We have a post office without a cash machine. That will really damage Ulverston, which is a fabulous market town. On festival days, there are huge queues at the existing cash machine. Can the Government direct the Post Office to increase its cash machines in such areas?
John Glen
I am very happy to look into that. On access to cash machines, as I mentioned in the Adjournment debate last Thursday, we set up the payment systems regulator, which is responsible for overseeing payment systems. The regulator is closely monitoring the situation with LINK and the commitments it has made to maintain the spread of ATMs across the UK. I recognise that the pressure on that network is growing. However, I need to reflect on the relationship with the Post Office rather than trying to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question now.
I am going to make some progress, because I need to leave time for the hon. Member for Glasgow East to respond. Given unparalleled consumer change, the banks have adapted to keep competitive, including by taking some of the decisions we have discussed. That has meant investing unprecedented amounts in digital development, financial capability and tailored support for vulnerable consumers so banking is more personalised, on-demand and flexible, which many people expect in the modern world.
Let me address the impact on the franchising of Crown post offices, which a number of Members raised. Prior to finalising its plans for franchising, the Post Office runs local consultations to engage the local community and help shape its plans. That is in line with its code of practice and has been agreed with Citizens Advice. Indeed, Citizens Advice reported that the Post Office’s consultation process is increasingly effective, with improvements agreed in most cases, demonstrating its willingness to listen to the community.
The Government acknowledge that the post office plays an important part in the lives of customers, and accessibility of post office services is a key Government priority. That is why we have set specific access criteria, requiring 99% of the UK population to be within 3 miles of their nearest post office. Despite the point made by the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) that legislation does not impose a specific requirement for Post Office Ltd to undertake an equality impact assessment, the Post Office considers the impact of proposed changes to the network on its customers, and the Post Office and all its franchise partners, including WHSmith, are subject to all relevant accessibility legislation.
Liz McInnes
I just want to raise the issue of disabled access, which would be covered by an impact assessment.
John Glen
I will take that matter away and respond to the hon. Lady by letter.
The Government recognise that there are people who are struggling to adapt to new ways of banking or just prefer to carry out their banking in a more traditional way, over the counter. Members made powerful representations on behalf of constituents who find the closure of their local branch an inconvenience at best and a severe obstacle to their daily business at worst, so I want to take the time to reassure them that there is support available to minimise the impact and disruption of those changes.
I recognise the points made by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) and others about the access to banking standard, which I mentioned in a previous debate. The access to banking standard is an important tool for ensuring that customers feel informed and supported when a branch closes, and all major high street banks are subject to it. It is my view that Santander adhered to the letter and the spirit of the standard when providing support to customers. I cannot account for every individual branch, but I am sure Members will be able to take that up with Santander, who were here to hear their representations.
I recognise that it is important that the standard is adhered to in both letter and spirit, and that support is given, but the Post Office’s commercial agreement with 28 high street banks and building societies enables 99% of personal banking customers and 95% of small business banking customers to carry out their everyday banking at one of the Post Office’s 11,500 branches, which provide an excellent alternative to a bank branch. Everyday essential banking services, such as cash withdrawals and deposits, cheque deposits and balance checking, are all available in every Post Office branch, including those located in retail facilities. Since 2010, the Government have invested close to £2 billion in the Post Office, and we have provided an additional £370 million from April last year until March 2021 to ensure the network can continue to modernise and maintain suitable coverage across the UK. That has meant post office numbers have been at their most stable in decades.
This issue is not just about individual customers; it is about businesses, too. Santander has long had an arrangement with the Post Office for its business customers, who currently cannot deposit cash at a Santander branch and must use the post office instead. Indeed, a third of SMEs visit post offices every week, highlighting the Post Office’s value for business banking. The Government believe that too few customers know about those excellent services, so, at my predecessor’s request, UK Finance and the Post Office worked together to launch an action plan to raise awareness of Post Office banking services. I encourage every Member to support their local post office and make their constituents aware of those banking services.
I also hear Members’ concern about the depletion of the high street. That is why, in the last Budget, the Government introduced a £675 million future high streets fund—not another review but a fund—that seeks to make high streets and town centres fit for the future. Alongside that, we are helping smaller retailers by cutting their business rates by a third for two years from April 2019.
I am conscious of the time, so I thank all Members for taking the time to speak in the debate on behalf of their constituents and local communities. I fully respect the fact that bank branch closures are a symptom of wider changes in our economy. It is important that, in response to those changes, we strike the right balance between promoting a dynamic and competitive financial services sector and ensuring that customers are treated fairly. I take my responsibility for supporting the development of alternatives to banks across the United Kingdom very seriously.
David Linden
Thank you very much for calling me, Mr Rosindell. You have taken over in the Chair since I opened the debate. It is a pleasure to see you in your place; thank you for chairing the remaining proceedings.
Westminster Hall debates on a Thursday afternoon tend not to be the best attended, so the fact that no fewer than 29 Members took part in this debate highlights the seriousness of this issue. I was reflecting that when the votes are called in a little over half an hour, we will return to the main Chamber and go our separate ways into different Division Lobbies. The fact that we have come here on a completely cross-party basis and spoken with one voice is incredibly powerful. The House is at its best when we come together and speak with one voice, and I am pretty certain that today we have spoken with one voice. I know that Santander are in the Gallery. I hope not only that have they been listening but that they will act and save our Santander.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the effect of Santander branch closures on local communities.
Written Statements
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Leaving the EU: Nuclear Energy Policy
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
The Government continue to make progress in putting in place all the necessary measures to ensure that the UK can operate as an independent and responsible nuclear state upon the UK’s withdrawal from Euratom and the European Union.
The UK has now concluded all replacement international agreements required to ensure continuity for civil nuclear trade following exit day. These include new nuclear co-operation agreements (NCAs) with Australia, Canada and the US, and voluntary offer agreement and additional protocol safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). All of these have passed in Parliament on 19 December.
In addition to the new bilateral NCAs described above, the UK has an existing bilateral NCA with Japan which has been in place since 1998. This agreement will remain in force following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. The UK and Japan are holding formal negotiations to put in place arrangements to reflect the UK’s future safeguards arrangements, with both sides confident that appropriate arrangements will be in place for March 2019 if required.
Significant progress has been made in the setting up of a domestic nuclear safeguards regime. Government’s new domestic safeguards regulations are now on track to commence on exit day, having been debated and passed by both Houses of Parliament as of 22 January 2019.
In addition, the state system of accounting for and control of nuclear material (SSAC) has commenced parallel running alongside Euratom, processing and checking reports received from industry through the safeguards information management and reporting system (SIMRS) IT system and producing the decorations required to enable the UK to meet its international obligations. This will provide the opportunity to identify and make any necessary adjustments before 29 March 2019.
Working closely with industry, Government have been putting in place measures to address the issues that may affect the civil nuclear sector in any exit scenario. This includes laying all the necessary statutory instruments (SIs) required for any exit scenario, to minimise civil nuclear business disruption and ensure health and safety standards remain robust. The SIs will also ensure that no inoperabilities are retained in domestic law following the UK’s departure from the Euratom treaty.
Today I will be depositing a report in the Libraries of both Houses that sets out further details on the overall progress on the Government’s implementation of their Euratom exit strategy, including EU negotiations, domestic operational readiness, legislation and international agreements. The report covers the three-month reporting period from 26 September to 26 December and is the second statutory report under section 3(4) of the Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018. The next report on Euratom exit progress is due to be deposited after the start of May 2019.
[HCWS1333]
General Affairs Council, February 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
Lord Callanan, Minister of State for Exiting the European Union, has made the following statement:
I will attend the General Affairs Council in Brussels on 19 February 2019 to represent the UK. Until we leave the European Union, we remain committed to fulfilling our rights and obligations as a full member.
The provisional agenda includes:
Multiannual financial framework 2021-27
Ministers and the Commission will discuss progress on the multiannual financial framework (MFF) negotiations with the presidency.
Preparation of the European Council 21-22 March 2019: Annotated draft agenda
The Council will discuss the draft agenda for the March European Council. It is expected to include: jobs, growth and competitiveness; climate change; and external relations.
Towards a sustainable Europe 2030
In January 2019 the Commission released a reflection paper as part of its 2019 work programme titled “Towards a sustainable Europe by 2030, on the follow-up to the UN sustainable development goals, including on the Paris agreement on climate change”. Ministers will discuss this paper ahead of the Sibiu summit in May, where issues relating to Europe’s future will be discussed.
Values of the Union—Hungary / article 7(1) TEU reasoned proposal
Ministers will discuss the article 7(1) procedure in relation to Hungary.
Rule of law in Poland / article 7(1) TEU reasoned proposal
The Commission will provide Ministers with an update on the rule of law in Poland.
[HCWS1330]
Foreign Affairs Council, February 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) on 18 February. It will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union (EU) for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HRVP), Federica Mogherini and will take place in Brussels.
Ukraine
Ministers will discuss the EU’s response to the Russian attack on Ukrainian vessels in the Black sea and look ahead to what is likely to be a challenging election year for Ukraine. Ministers will take stock of Ukraine’s reform efforts and consider how the EU can provide socioeconomic support to the sea of Azov region. The UK will welcome the EU’s readiness to provide economic and humanitarian support to those regions most affected by the ongoing conflict. It will also reiterate the need for a collective and high-profile response to Russia’s malign influence in Ukraine.
Syria
This discussion will focus on preparations for the upcoming Brussels III conference, ”Supporting the future of Syria and the region”, taking place on 13 and 14 March. The conference will aim to improve humanitarian access and the protection of civilians in Syria, as well as mobilise humanitarian assistance, including for refugee-hosting countries.
Horn of Africa
Ministers will discuss the political and security situation in the horn of Africa, including changing regional dynamics following reconciliation between Ethiopia and Eritrea. The UK supports the EU proposal to review future engagement. The Council will also discuss mutual concerns about the Sudanese Government’s use of violent tactics in response to protests, and the need for wider reforms; as well as the political situation in Somalia, where the EU is urging the Somali Government to translate their commitment to progress into tangible results.
Council conclusions
The Council is expected to adopt conclusions on Yemen, EU human rights guidelines on non-discrimination in external action, EU priorities in UN human rights forums in 2019, climate change diplomacy, and in response to the recent European Court of Auditors report on the implementation of the Facility for Refugees in Turkey (FRiT).
[HCWS1332]
Building Safety
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
Since the discovery that a glass-reinforced plastic (GRP) composite fire door from Grenfell Tower marketed as meeting a 30-minute standard failed a test after approximately 15 minutes, the Government have led a programme of work to investigate fire door performance across the market in the interest of public safety and reassurance. Today I am updating the House on actions taken.
Following consultation with representatives from the Metropolitan Police, the Government’s chief scientific advisors and the National Fire Chiefs’ Council, the Government’s independent expert panel advised that, while the overall risk to public safety was low, further investigations should be undertaken into other GRP composite fire door manufacturers.
During testing, a sample of GRP composite fire doors from nine manufacturers failed to meet the required fire performance standard. The sample of fire doors failed for a range of reasons including but not restricted to performance at the glazing unit, letter box and the door frame. There was some evidence of over reliance on written assessments being used in lieu of primary tests for significant changes in hardware and ironmongery, and for the reverse side of the door. These findings clearly indicated broader failings within the industry. The Government therefore took further urgent action.
My Department wrote to all building control bodies highlighting the need to check that existing building regulations guidance on new GRP composite fire door installations is followed. The guidance sets out the tests which should be performed— including testing on both sides of the door—to meet building regulation requirements.
My Department also notified Trading Standards of the test results and local Trading Standards are working with the individual companies concerned.
On 28 July I instructed major GRP composite fire door manufacturers to meet urgently to agree actions to tackle the failings which have been identified. As a result, the following actions have been taken:
In August 2018, the three companies providing GRP composite fire door blanks in the UK agreed to stop production and sale of any door blanks with immediate effect. This stopped any new GRP composite fire doors from entering the market.
In August the Association of Composite Door Manufactures (ACDM) further agreed that all GRP composite fire doors sold from their members would be removed from the market until they could demonstrate meeting the required standard. This stopped any fire doors from ACDM members already in production leaving factories.
In August the ACDM established a collaborative testing programme to facilitate manufacturers bringing quality product meeting the required standard back to market. The ACDM provided assurance that all products brought back to market will have the required furnace test report for both sides of the door before being sold.
The ACDM also agreed that all members of the ACDM will be required to sign up to a third-party accreditation scheme carrying out additional checks on their fire doors to drive up quality across the market.
All GRP composite manufacturers with a failed test are consulting their customers to establish an effective new building safety risk assessment. At least one manufacturer has gone beyond this providing a dedicated telephone helpline for their customers and offering meetings to help customers understand the situation.
The ACDM is working on an industry-led plan for repair and replacement of affected doors. The ACDM is working closely with my Department on its plan to ensure it can be published by industry as soon as possible.
As well as work to encourage industry action, my Department has liaised closely with social housing building owners to ensure that they have been kept up to date with the fire doors investigation. To facilitate this, it has established a mechanism for local authorities and housing associations confidentially to share test results from fire door testing to inform building risk assessments and support our investigation.
Manse Masterdor, the manufacturers of the door from Grenfell Tower, went into administration in November 2014 and is therefore not part of the wider industry action outlined above. My Department has been working closely with local authorities and housing associations with Manse Masterdor GRP composite fire doors in their buildings regarding replacement of these doors.
In parallel, the expert panel has issued guidance for building owners looking to fit or replace fire doors, which can be found on the building safety programme website. The summary results of the GRP composite tests to inform building risk assessment are also now available on the building safety programme website.
I can confirm that the expert panel advice remains unchanged and the risk to public safety remains low as even when not meeting full resistance standards fire doors will provide some protection from the spread of fire and are part of a layered fire protection systems within buildings.
The National Fire Chiefs Council continue to advise that, in the event of a fire, people should follow existing fire procedures for the building. Residents should also test their smoke alarms regularly to ensure they work and ensure that their flat front door is fitted with a working self-closing device. All doors provide some essential protection in a fire if they are properly closed.
I want to reassure hon. Members that my Department is doing all it can as quickly as possible to properly investigate these issues and to make sure that where needed appropriate action will be taken.
On the advice of the expert panel, investigations are ongoing into the timber fire door industry. Public safety is paramount and I will continue to keep the House updated.
[HCWS1334]
Ebola Response
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Development (Penny Mordaunt)
Six months on from its formal declaration, the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) remains challenging to contain. I am updating the House on how the UK Government are continuing to support the response in DRC, and preparedness in neighbouring countries.
Since my hon. Friend the Minister for Africa’s statement on 20 November, Official Report, column 737, elections have taken place in the DRC and a new President inaugurated. Disruption over the election period hindered response activities; as a result, there has been an increase in the number of new Ebola cases reported this year.
As of 12 February, there were 823 confirmed and probable cases. Of these, 517 people have died and 280 recovered. The response, ably led by the DRC authorities with international support directed by the World Health Organisation, has continued to expand and adapt. Approximately 7,000 contacts are currently under surveillance. The experimental vaccine, developed with UK aid following the 2014 west Africa outbreak, has been administered to over 78,000 people in DRC, including 21,000 health and frontline workers and 16,000 children. Let me pay tribute to all the DRC health workers and international experts who are dealing with this outbreak in very challenging circumstances.
Geographical shifts in the outbreak are testing the capacity of the response. As more health zones are affected and cases move further south, there is an increased likelihood of an outbreak in Goma, the provincial capital on the border with Rwanda. Preparedness work has been under way in Goma, including setting up case surveillance, an Ebola treatment centre and a laboratory.
The DRC Government have just released their third strategic response plan, which sets out plans for the next six months. It is quite possible that it will take longer for this outbreak to be fully contained. The UK is supporting the response through both funding and expertise. At the request of the DRC Government I am not announcing specific funding figures, to avoid putting first-line responders at further risk of attack. But let me restate that it is in our national interest to find ways of building resilience to such deadly diseases, preventing their international spread and saving lives. The UK has supported the response since the very start and will continue to do so for as long as it takes to curb the outbreak.
The critical challenge now is to break the chain of transmission in DRC. That means redoubling contact tracing; training and supporting health workers in infection prevention control; continuing the vaccination effort; and working with local communities so they can spot symptoms, report them and seek treatment. WHO is doing a good job in difficult circumstances to lead the international response. It has over 500 people deployed to DRC and is working closely with other parts of the UN system and with international NGOs including MSF, ALIMA and Oxfam to help the people of DRC tackle this deadly disease. Key areas we would like to see strengthened in the international response include leadership, co-ordination and analysis.
This will require sustained support. To date, the UK is one of the largest bilateral donors to the Ebola response in DRC and for regional preparedness efforts in Uganda, Rwanda and South Sudan. Others must now step up and I will be urging our international partners to do so.
In addition to funding, the UK has supported preparations for clinical trials of new therapeutic drugs which have started in Beni. The UK public health rapid support team has played a major part in making this work possible. Technical experts have been deployed to eastern DRC, including two senior epidemiologists, a data scientist and a clinical trials specialist.
UK aid has provided WHO with six armoured vehicles to facilitate response work in such insecure operating environments. We are also backing efforts to understand and address the social and cultural dimensions of the outbreak, which in turn supports key interventions such as ensuring that burials in affected areas are conducted in a safe and dignified way.
There remains a significant risk of transmission to neighbouring countries and measures are be taken to prepare. For example, in Uganda, closest to the current outbreak, the Government have already vaccinated over 3,500 health workers in high priority districts. Community sensitisation is also taking place.
In Rwanda, the UK is backing the Government’s preparedness plans, including the training of health care workers, vaccination planning and the screening of more than 24 million people at Rwanda’s borders.
In South Sudan, UK support has led to the installation of an Ebola screening facility at Juba international airport. So far, over 1 million people at land and air borders have been screened. We are also helping to procure ambulances and sanitation equipment for isolation facilities.
The risk of Ebola to the UK population remains very low. Public Health England continues to monitor the situation daily and review the risk assessment on a two-weekly basis.
The UK is fully committed to containing this outbreak and to our longer-term efforts to combat deadly diseases in sub-Saharan Africa.
[HCWS1331]
Contingencies Fund Advance
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
The Ministry of Justice requires an advance to discharge its commitments which are set out in its supplementary estimate 2018-19, laid before Parliament on 11 February 2019.
The Ministry of Justice has sought a repayable cash advance from the Contingencies Fund of £840,000,000. Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £840,000,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Ministry of Justice. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £840,000,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
The advance will be repaid upon Royal Assent of the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill.
[HCWS1336]
Justice and Home Affairs Post-Council Statement
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
The first meeting of EU Interior and Justice Ministers during the Romanian presidency of the Council of the EU took place on 7 and 8 February 2019 in Bucharest. The Immigration Minister represented the UK on Interior day. I represented the UK on Justice day.
Interior day focused on counter-terrorism, policing co-operation, the Schengen area, and migration and asylum.
Interior day began with a discussion on the European Parliament’s report on the EU’s approach to counter-terrorism. The Immigration Minister welcomed the European Parliament’s report in general, and emphasised areas—such as counter-radicalisation, tackling terrorist content online, addressing issues relating to returning foreign terrorist fighters, and aviation security—where the UK considers that continued European co-operation is vital in the fight against terrorism. The Immigration Minister also welcomed the committee’s call for close co-operation with the UK after Brexit. A number of member states agreed, urging immediate Commission and member state action to prepare contingency plans in case of no deal, including a mechanism of continued information exchange. Some member states also noted that member states retained competence for national security, and noted concern about expanding the competence of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) at this time.
The policing discussion focused on mechanisms to share experience and expertise on gathering and analysing digital data. The Immigration Minister intervened to support proposals to explore developing means of identifying and sharing best practice on the recovery and analysis of digital information, during the course of the prevention and investigation of criminal activity. Most member states also supported this work, and were keen for Europol to have a central role.
Over lunch and in the afternoon session, Ministers discussed the functioning of the Schengen border free zone, in the context of some member states retaining internal borders, and wider migration and asylum issues. As the UK does not participate in the border free zone, the Immigration Minister did not intervene on the Schengen border discussion. There was discussion about the necessity of Schengen internal border controls. Ministers also discussed but did not agree on the possibility of a temporary redistribution mechanism pending reform of the Dublin asylum system.
Justice day began with a discussion on the future of civil judicial co-operation in the EU. The debate marked the twentieth anniversary of the Amsterdam treaty and of the adoption of the Tampere programme. Ministers reaffirmed the need to focus on the proper implementation of existing legislation before considering new measures. I emphasised the importance of a future relationship with the EU in this area.
There then followed a lunchtime discussion on gathering electronic evidence in criminal matters. Ministers discussed the mandates for negotiations to establish an agreement on access to electronic evidence (e-evidence) with the US, and with contracting parties to the Budapest convention. I updated Ministers on progress towards an UK-US agreement under the US CLOUD Act.
Justice day ended with a discussion on the future of judicial co-operation in criminal matters in the EU. Ministers again emphasised the importance of proper implementation of legislation, and ensuring the current acquis works effectively.
[HCWS1337]
Intelligence Oversight
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
On 22 November 2018, the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament published two reports: its 2017-18 annual report; and its report into the terror attacks in 2017, titled “The 2017 Attacks: What needs to change?”. Our thoughts remain with the victims and all those affected by the 2017 attacks in Westminster, Manchester, London Bridge, Finsbury Park and Parsons Green.
Today, the Government are publishing their response to each of these reports. I am separately providing to the ISC a closed response to the redacted recommendations in the 2017 attacks report. I remain grateful to the Intelligence and Security Committee for its continued independent oversight and scrutiny.
Copies of the Government responses have been laid before both Houses.
[HCWS1335]
House of Lords
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
EU Settlement Scheme
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in implementing the EU Settlement Scheme.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the EU settlement scheme opened on a trial basis at the end of August and a second pilot phase ended on 21 December. In the light of positive progress, we commenced the wider public testing of the scheme on 21 January. The EU settlement scheme will be fully open by 30 March.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, we recently had a letter dated 11 February from Caroline Nokes, the Minister for Immigration, telling us that everything was wonderful and that it was all going okay. This is just not true. The Home Office seems to be living in a bubble of its own making. When will it start listening to many of the 3.6 million EU citizens in this country struggling to make sense of a technical and bureaucratic shambles that is not fit for purpose? The internet is awash with frustration, anger, fear and distress in relation to the obstacles in accessing the system, ridiculous demands for evidence, obviously wrong decisions—decisions made by machines—and no proper means of appeal. Is it not time to scrap the scheme and start afresh with a simple system based on a simple acceptance of the rights of people already living here?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the whole construction of the scheme was designed to be as simple and unbureaucratic as possible. To date we have had 100,000 applications in total. As regards the plethora of evidence that people need to supply, in fact they need to supply only three pieces of evidence: first, their identity, secondly their residency and thirdly the absence of criminal convictions.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the scrapping of the fee was very welcome news when it was announced by the Prime Minister. A number of the 100,000 people who have so far applied will have paid a fee. Can the Minister tell the House how many of them have so far been reimbursed, as the Prime Minister promised?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is absolutely right to point out that nobody has to pay a fee any longer. However, while the system for returning the fee is in train, people are continuing to pay the fee and will have it reimbursed—although that does not seem to have deterred people from applying for the settlement scheme.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend not remember that as early as July 2016 your Lordships’ House advised that it would be a good idea to take the moral high ground and give a guarantee to the 3 million-plus EU citizens living in this country? Even arch-Brexiteers such as my noble friend Lord Forsyth spoke up in favour of that approach. Does she not regret that the Government neglected to take your Lordships’ advice?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the Prime Minister has always been clear that the 3.6 million EU citizens will be welcome here, and, whether it is a deal or no-deal situation, they will be able to establish their status here through the EU settlement scheme.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, how valid was the pilot scheme launched by the Government, given that they chose a very easy sample?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I do not know whether the sample was easy. It was taken from the north-west of England, which I was very pleased about, and involved staff and students at 15 institutions. Of those who applied, 65% received settled status and 35% pre-settled status.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, in the pilot scheme 30% were granted only pre-settled status, which lasts for just five years. One problem seems to be that the automatic checks by HMRC and the DWP are not validating a lot of people who have been here for longer than five years, particularly the self-employed. The danger is that people will find giving supplementary evidence such a hassle that they will settle for just pre-settled status—but that is very dangerous. Can the Minister look into whether the Home Office can send them reminders—as HMRC does with tax returns—that they have to convert that into full settled status?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Baroness for that question. She is right that someone with pre-settled status might forget to apply for full settled status. Of course, they have five years in which to do so—but I will certainly take back her constructive point and respond to her in due course.
Lord Lexden (Con)
How are the Government getting on in safeguarding the position of our fellow country men and women living in other European Union countries?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My noble friend is right to point that out. The UK has given that comfort to any EU citizen and I hope that, through the negotiations, our citizens living in the EU will have similar comfort.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has been supportive of this approach and I applaud her for that. However, are the Government not being a tad complacent when they go on about the fact that 100,000 people have already applied? That is about 2% of those eligible to stay. Bearing in mind that the Government keep saying that D-day is 30 March, is there not a long way to go yet, and should we not step up the campaigns?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord hits on a point which I myself have raised—that we need to step up some of the public information campaigns to give EU citizens who want to apply for settled status the knowledge of how and where to apply. So he is correct on that point. However, on whether we are being complacent, the answer is no. The beta-testing phases have worked very well and I fully expect that, when the system is up and running properly on 30 March, it will continue to run well.
Baroness Bull (CB)
Can the Minister say a little more about the rights of British citizens who find themselves settled in the EU on 30 March? Will they enjoy onward movement that will allow them to continue to earn a living—if that is indeed the way in which they earn their living?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I certainly hope that that will be the case, and it will be at the forefront of the Prime Minister’s mind when she is negotiating with our colleagues in the EU.
Multi-Academy Trusts: Salaries
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Storey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of salary levels in multi-academy trusts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, multi-academy trusts achieving value for money is at the forefront of my priorities. It is essential that we challenge trusts paying high individual salaries or with high leadership team costs. We have been doing this for more than a year, we have recently re-emphasised its importance, and we will continue to do so throughout 2019. High salaries and leadership costs need to be justified, with evidence of robust processes for setting salaries and reductions where appropriate.
Lord Storey (LD)
I am grateful for the Minister’s reply. I know that he is concerned about this matter. I was interested to read an advert by the Floreat free school for a PA to the chief executive and for finance officers. These important posts are all to be volunteers; clearly, the school does not have money in its budget to pay for them. At the same time, the chief executive of one of our multi-academy trusts is on a salary of £440,000—nearly three times the salary of our Prime Minister. At a time when schools are having to make cuts and struggling with their budgets, does the Minister not agree that this issue needs to be properly addressed?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, I will deal first with the second part of the noble Lord’s question. The trust to which he refers is the Harris trust. Frankly, it is delivering the most extraordinary outcomes for children. If you take the cost of the chief executive’s salary and divide it by the number of pupils, it offers some of the best value for money that government could ever achieve.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
Noble Lords would not be saying that if they had a child who had just received an Oxbridge offer and had been there on free school meals. On the broader question of funding in the system, we announced last year an additional £1.3 billion. We have announced plans to reform the national funding formula so that disparities across the system are gradually ironed out. We are doing a great deal to support schools in becoming more efficient, which I can perhaps deal with in responding to later questions.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, given the concern on the Liberal Benches about salary levels and value for money, and given the fantastic success of the Harris academics—I have visited four of the schools—might my noble friend the Minister consider commissioning an inquiry to demonstrate that value for money? Perhaps he might ask Mr Nick Clegg to lead it.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
The question answers itself. I would not want Nick Clegg anywhere near government now that—
Lord Agnew of Oulton
He is helping himself to a salary of some $7 million per year to promote an extraordinary organisation, which is generating mental health issues among many of our young people—and I will deal with that when answering the next Question.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
Now that the advertising is over, I make the point that in primary as well as secondary academies, head teachers earn on average more than their counterparts in the maintained sector while paying their teaching staff less than teachers’ counterparts in that sector. This is the sort of avarice that results when schools are allowed to abandon national pay scales. The Minister talked about writing to academy trusts and he did so—to those where senior staff earn more than the Prime Minister. But they can ignore him, because he has absolutely no power to compel them to moderate senior pay. It is not just salaries that are out of control in academies. The academy trusts themselves are out of the control of government Ministers; that should not be the case. Will the Government introduce measures to ensure that academy trusts are held fully accountable for the public resources they spend? The next Labour Government will certainly do so.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord understands the degree of scrutiny to which academy trusts are subjected. It is a far higher level of scrutiny than local authority schools receive. They have to submit audited accounts every year; a comparable school in the local authority sector is audited only every three or four years on average, and that information is not published or easily available. So I disagree fundamentally with the noble Lord’s point. Regarding comparable salaries in the two sectors, a head teacher of a secondary academy is on an average of about £92,000 per year compared with £88,000 for a maintained secondary head, but the heads of academy schools have more responsibilities. The noble Lord says that we do not have any leverage but, according to the results of a recent survey, the Kreston report, in the highest of six bands—schools with 5,000 to 10,000 pupils—salaries have fallen from £140,000 to £114,000.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord has just referred to the £140,000 salary, which the Minister described as reasonable. In the world of finance that he comes from, that might be a reasonable salary. In the world of education, which I come from, it is nothing short of obscene. At a time when teachers are experiencing real pay cuts and often having to subsidise teaching materials because there is nothing in the school budget to pay for them, how on earth can the Government justify this unacceptable face of education?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, the justification is very simple: you take the number of pupils in that trust, divide the senior management team costs by that number and look at the extraordinary results being achieved. These schools were failing; they had been abandoned by local authorities for decades. These children are now getting extraordinary life chances.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I first declare that I have no connection with the Harris academies. What assessment have the Government made of the correlation between academy trusts and their senior management and the number of instances of fraud or serious misconduct in the presentation of statistics?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, as I said in my earlier answer to the noble Lord opposite, academy trusts are subject to a great deal of scrutiny and we continue to review this. For example, from April of this year, any academy trust requiring a related-party transaction in excess of £20,000 needs prior approval from the ESFA, the agency which manages them, and all have to be disclosed. Those are not requirements for local authority schools.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, there is a crucial difference between local authority schools and academies, I would have thought, to anyone who believes in democracy. Ultimately, if parents or residents in an area do not like the performance of the schools in their local authority, they have the capacity to remove leaders in an election. Accountability via a local election is the best form of accountability. Is that not the fundamental difference between local authority schools and academies? Once the leadership of the latter is set up, there is very little anyone can do about removing it.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, if that system worked, we would not have had hundreds, if not thousands, of failing local authority schools, which perpetuated themselves for decades.
Education, Health and Care Plans
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Addington
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the cost to (1) parents, and (2) local authorities, of appealing education, health and care plan decisions.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and draw the House’s attention to my declared interests in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, costs for parents and local authorities will vary, depending on the circumstances of individual cases. Local authorities and families can access free advice and information about SEN tribunal hearings. The vast majority of cases for education, health and care needs assessments are concluded without the need to resort to tribunal hearings.
Lord Addington
I thank the Minister for that reply. The British Dyslexia Association has provided me with figures which show that local authorities are having to fork out nearly £10,000 for each of these appeals and that parents are having to fork out over £6,000. “Tiger parents” are winning nine out of 10 of these appeals. Would the Minister care to speculate on the situation of somebody who is on the minimum wage, who cannot afford to spend £6,000 and who does not know how to deal with local bureaucracy, perhaps through having the same educational problems as their child? How well will they cope with this system?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, the tribunal process is designed to be as accessible as possible. Parents should be able to appeal and present their case without the need for expensive legal representation; local authorities should also not need to engage lawyers. Free advice and support regarding appealing is available from the tribunal and SEND Information, Advice and Support Services, which exist in every local area. To put this in perspective, only 1.5% of cases are appealed through tribunals, so the percentage is not as serious as is often said. However, we accept that this is an issue, and we are looking at how we can improve it.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, there is a danger of us asking similar questions on this issue and goading the Minister into getting his fists up. I propose that he might talk to his Secretary of State about what is clearly a growing problem. While resource is fundamental to it, so is the process adopted by local authorities. Would he suggest to his Secretary of State that all English upper-tier local authorities might be drawn together for a meeting, so that they can examine best practice and ensure that, in the end, the money goes to the pupils, not the lawyers?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
To reassure the noble Lord, I would never take my fists to him under any circumstances. He raises a very important point, because a number of local authorities have literally zero appeals and others have a much higher proportion. It is important that we get them to talk to each other. There are a couple of other points to make. First, under the old regime that ended in 2014, the number of appeals was rising every year, so this is not a new trend. Also, under the new scheme we have two extra areas of potential appeal because we have a much wider age group—we now take them up to the age of 25, instead of just 16. We are also piloting in some areas the ability to appeal on the health and social care element. The main point the noble Lord makes about better collaboration between local authorities is well taken.
Lord Geddes (Con)
My Lords, could my noble friend advise the House whether the costs are always reimbursed if appeals are successful?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, I do not have that information to hand but I will write to my noble friend to deal with it specifically.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, autism is the special educational need that most often features in SEND appeals. Many of the cases are the result of local authorities having refused an education, health and care plan needs assessment, yet the majority of such appeals are won by parents. I very much take on board the point made by my noble friend Lord Blunkett about bringing local authorities together. But does the Minister accept that where a child has an autism diagnosis that fits in with the SEND code of practice, it should not be permissible for a local authority to deny that child’s family a needs assessment?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
The noble Lord is right that autism accounts for the highest proportion of all claims at about 43% of appeals. We are very much focusing on this as an area of concern. In December last year we announced a number of measures to help deal with this, including joining up the healthcare and education services to address autistic children’s needs holistically, developing diagnostics services to diagnose autism earlier, improving the transition between children and adult services so that no young people miss out, and improving the understanding of autism and all its profiles, including recently identified forms such as pathological demand avoidance.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, I declare a personal interest as I have a grandson who is on the spectrum; also, a lot of people who have mental disabilities are joining the Motability scheme through PIP. I completely support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington: according to the Ministry of Justice, the figure is 89% and the cost was £34 million last year. We are fortunate to have a Minister who is hugely interested in trying to enhance the position of such people, but the real point I want to make is that this goes beyond money. The anguish of the parents and the upset is the key factor. Are there ways to expedite all the measures that we would like to see taken?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I absolutely take my noble friend’s point. As all parents know, a parent can never be happier than their least happy child. There are huge emotional issues involved in this. That is why we are continually reviewing the policies, as we did in December last year, as I mentioned in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Watson. We are also increasing the capital funding available to special schools where they have severe difficulties relating to autism.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, it is very easy to forget when talking about tribunals and costs to local authorities and to government that we are talking about children and young people who have special needs—in many cases severe special needs. The Minister will remember that when we established education, health and care plans in the Children and Families Bill, everybody celebrated. Now that celebration has turned into a nightmare as parent after parent does not get the package they need. The fact we now have parents going to the High Court demanding a judicial review is surely an indictment of where we are at.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, as I mentioned in response to an earlier question, the percentage of appeals is 1.5%. Broadly, that is not much higher than under the old regime, which changed in 2014. This is a new way of dealing with children with needs and we need to remember that; we are still on a learning curve. We have made significant investment in this since it was rolled out—£391 million in total—dealing with a whole range of things such as the parent carer forums, where a key part of these reforms is putting parents at the centre of the process. But I accept that any level of appeal is causing distress and we are working to reduce it.
Assisted Suicide
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Blackstone
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of Geoffrey Whaley’s case, what assessment they have made of the Crown Prosecution Service’s Policy for Prosecutors in respect of Cases of Encouraging or Assisting Suicide.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, CPS policy on assisted suicide provides guidance to prosecutors on assessing the evidential and public interest stages in reaching decisions in cases of encouraging or assisting suicide. The policy sets out the public interest factors that must be applied in reaching decisions in these cases and balances the various important factors that need to be considered. There are no plans to reassess the CPS policy in relation to such cases.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
I thank the Minister for his reply, but does he really think that it is a good use of police time to interview, under caution, the wife of a dying man who wishes to choose how he dies? In the light of the Whaley story and loving families being treated like criminals, does the Minister think that the law on assisted dying is working well?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, it is for the CPS to apply the law, not to make the law. Every case has to turn on its own facts and circumstances. Where matters are drawn to the attention of the police relating to an assisted suicide or potential assisted suicide, they will investigate. They are bound to investigate what is potentially criminal conduct in terms of Section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961. I therefore see no reason why they should pause those investigations, given the current state of the law.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Does the Minister recall that the CPS policy was adopted after the decision of the Appellate Committee of this House in 2009 in the Debbie Purdy case—I declare an interest as her counsel. The Appellate Committee required a policy because of the uncertainty of the law. Does the Minister accept that there continues to be considerable uncertainty in this area, as indicated by the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, which is causing enormous distress to those at the end of their lives and their families?
Lord Keen of Elie
The noble Lord is quite right that a consultation was prompted by a decision of the courts in England and Wales. That led to a consultation exercise that commenced in September 2009, to which there were more than 5,000 responses, and resulted in the publication of the CPS policy document in 2010. I consider that that policy is working well at the present time.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
My Lords, does my noble and learned friend understand—I am sure he does—that, for people with a terminal illness who have no hope of recovery and are suffering great distress, the current law, which prevents them being able to end their own lives in dignity, is condemning them to great and unnecessary suffering?
Lord Keen of Elie
We are of course conscious of the difficulties and challenges facing people in the situation that the noble Lord has outlined, but I emphasise again that it is for the CPS to apply the law, not to make the law. In doing so, it follows a policy that addresses not only an evidential test but a public interest test with regard to such cases. The consequence is that, of the 140-odd cases referred in the last nine years to the CPS, there were prosecutions in respect of Section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 in only four of them, resulting in one acquittal and three convictions.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord has implied, the police are only enforcing the law, so it is really the law that is the problem rather than the police. When will the Government bring in a new law to free the police from having to treat loving families like criminals?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, it is not a case of having to treat loving families like criminals. It is a matter of having to look at the facts and circumstances of every case, in situations where the victim may be extremely vulnerable. As the Government have said before, it is therefore a matter for Parliament because it is a matter of conscience. It is not a matter for government to bring forward such legislation. The noble Lord will be aware that such legislation was proposed in 2015 and did not succeed.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, given the statistics which the noble and learned Lord has just quoted, does he not consider that that in itself is an indication that the law is not working properly?
Lord Keen of Elie
No, I do not. As I say, only in a small minority of cases has there been a successful prosecution. I should also add, however, that there have been a number of instances in which the case taken forward involved prosecution for homicide, not assisted suicide.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, indeed Geoff Whaley did die a dignified death in Switzerland last Thursday, but most people cannot afford to take their family to Switzerland for such a death, or they cannot get the medical report from their doctor to enable them to have such a death. Does the Minister agree that, in a civilised society, someone in Geoff Whaley’s position should be able to avoid months of being unable to swallow, eat, drink, speak or move—totally, therefore, cut off from communication? Will the Minister discuss with his colleagues what can be done to change the law?
Lord Keen of Elie
It is not the intention of the Government to seek to change the law in this area. I emphasise that every case has to be considered according to its own particular facts and circumstances. I readily acknowledge that many of these cases are extremely tragic.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, whatever the conflicting views—and there are many—on public and prosecutorial policy in this area, I hope we can all agree that the current situation presents loved ones of people with motor neurone disease and similar conditions at the end of their lives with an emotional, ethical and legal minefield. Is the Minister confident that these people, at a very difficult time, are getting the advice and support they need to navigate that?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am not in a position to say where such people seek advice on these matters, but such advice is available, and the policy of the CPS with regard to this matter is publicly available.
European Union Committee
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the Earl of Lindsay be appointed a member of the Select Committee in place of Lord Risby, resigned.
Northern Ireland: Devolution
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to an Urgent Question in the other place. The Statement is as follows:
“As the House is aware, the Government remain steadfastly committed to the Belfast agreement and its successors. I am continuing to work tirelessly towards my absolute priority of restoring fully functioning devolved government in Northern Ireland. This is a very sensitive matter that requires careful handling.
I last updated the House at my department’s Oral Questions on 30 January. I have no further update at this stage, but as soon as I have anything to add, I will of course come to the House at the earliest opportunity. I hope that will be soon”.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, the failure to restore the political institutions in Northern Ireland is a catastrophe. It is catastrophic for the people of Northern Ireland, British-Irish relations, the Good Friday agreement and Brexit. Had the Assembly and the Executive been restored, between them they could have dealt with the backstop issue. I ask the Minister, and hope he answers positively: is there a plan to deal with the restoration of those institutions in the coming months—a plan that would involve the Irish Government, of course, through the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference; a plan that might well ask for an independent chair for the talks, such as George Mitchell; and a plan that also involves all the political parties coming together round the table in Stormont to try to resolve these issues? If we drift any longer, we will jeopardise both the peace and the political processes in Northern Ireland.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Lord makes valid points, as would be expected from someone of his experience. He is correct to use the word “catastrophe” in his description of the situation in Northern Ireland. The voices of that Province have been silenced during this important time, not least in the Brexit process but elsewhere as well. He asked the important question of whether there is a plan. Yes, there is. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been working to bring together all parties, representing all parts of the community. As we have said in the past, we have not taken off the table any suggestion of an independent chair to facilitate what I hope will be ongoing discussions. During that period which we have opened up to deliver a functioning Executive—which, noble Lords will recall, closes on 23 March—we hope to make progress.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, the absence of the Assembly in Northern Ireland has disastrously aggravated the polarisation of politics in the Province, as Assembly Members have simply retreated to their own communities and disengaged from the political process. Does the Minister recognise that there is now a requirement on the UK Government to take a positive initiative to try to bring people back into the political process—for example, by reconvening the scrutiny committees and by appointing an independent mediator who can bring the parties together to find a solution—and in the process perhaps releasing the Government from their captivity by one minority party in Northern Ireland?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I assure the noble Lord that we are not held captive by any party in Northern Ireland.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I say that because we cannot be; this is too important. We are now at a critical stage of making sure that we are able to bring the parties back together. As I said in answer to the previous question, I do not doubt that we have missed the valuable voices from that area. It is important that we use the time which we have now before 23 March to demonstrate that we have through our work delivered an outcome which is bringing the parties back together. Whether we are able to achieve a fully restored Assembly before that point remains to be seen, but your Lordships will recall that there is a second five-month window if we have made sufficient progress in the first five months. Bringing back sustainable government to Northern Ireland remains the steadfast policy of this Government.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, no Assembly or Executive has been in place for more than two years, but there is a real desire in both communities to restore them so that vital services such as housing, health, education and policing can be effectively delivered. Does the Secretary of State have any new initiatives to bring both or all the parties together so that we can have this restoration, or are we travelling fast down a road to the appointment of direct-rule Ministers?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
We are not travelling fast down a road toward direct rule, but it remains one of the options if we are unable to deliver what we believe is the most important outcome: a sustainable Executive. Good governance is clearly the most important aspect of this whole function. On whether my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has initiatives, she has been actively and tirelessly engaged in discussions to try to bring about the early stages of these talks. It has not been easy, but I hope that we will have some progress within the period—I want to correct myself from earlier: it is 26 March and not 23 March. Forgive me.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, yesterday in the other place the Secretary of State said that on 26 March the context changes. One respect it changes is the possibility of calling an election. The Secretary of State has talked quite a lot recently about a border poll and has successfully annoyed the DUP on that point. However, rather oddly, since the Brady amendment was passed, the DUP and the Government are in the same place as to the way forward in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister accept that one of the prizes if we move in any way successfully on the Brady amendment is that it opens the way for calling an Assembly election in a different context, in which there will clearly not be a hard Brexit? At this point, with the prospect of that, it is too risky, but does he accept that, after 26 March, if things go well in another sphere, serious consideration should be given to the calling of an Assembly election?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I thank the noble Lord for his thoughtful contributions. There is a lot on in that week of 26 March and I am fully aware of how important it will be that we make progress before 22 March on the key aspect of delivering a functioning Executive. He is of course correct that after that point, if we have made progress and are moving through the Brexit process, the world will look quite different, and that is something that I hope will be to the positive endeavour of all the parties in Northern Ireland. He will be aware that the local government elections in May will represent the first test of public opinion, outside of polling, and may give some indication of exactly what we can expect in Northern Ireland.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister accept that what I am about to say is not a criticism of him? I think we all agree, across the House, that he does an outstanding job. However, I have recently had discussions with leading members of the DUP and the Ulster Unionist Party, who told me in terms that the Secretary of State does not put creative ideas on the table for solving the impasse; that it is, in a sense, a dialogue of the deaf. I report to the House only what I have been told sincerely and out of frustration by those leading figures. Is there not a case—I say this with sympathy, having done the job—for the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to be more proactive in cracking this problem? There is always a solution to impasses such as this through negotiations, as we showed over the years. There should be a very high-level summit and people should not be allowed to leave that summit until they have agreed a way forward.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Lord brings valuable experience to the discussion: I have welcomed many contributions from him in the past. I assure him that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been active. One of the challenges will often be that the activity is not seen: sometimes, like a swan on a lake, it is the feet under the water that are doing the flapping, rather than the bit above. That is probably not the best analogy I could have come up with—I am sorry about that. The point remains, none the less, that she is remarkably active in this area and we do have an opportunity up until 26 March. We must not lose that opportunity: she will be judged, as I will be judged, if we fail to deliver.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said about my noble friend’s contribution. For two years now, he and his admirable predecessor have come to that Dispatch Box and said, “We do not rule anything out”, and “We are making progress”, but will he give me answers to two questions? First, many of us, including the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, have suggested that the Assembly could be called without having an Executive. Secondly, many people have said that it would be a good idea to have an independent adjudicator, and every time my noble friend has said, “We do not rule those things out”. Is it now time to rule them in?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My noble friend is asking questions that are getting much more specific, which I welcome. On his first point, regarding the Assembly, we are now seeking to pull all aspects of the community together through bilateral dialogue, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that the Assembly is an entity that we will need to use in the future. On the question of a facilitator or an adjudicator, he is quite right that I have said many times that nothing is off the table. I do not want to repeat myself, because I will become tedious, but we believe that this aspect has a part to play. It may not be a part at the outset, but we do see that this needs to be part of our ongoing consideration.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, in the past we found that when we dealt with the big political questions it was very difficult to get anywhere, but if we got down to some practical issues it was often possible to get engagement. I suggest that the Minister puts it to the Secretary of State that addressing agriculture and the agri-food business on a cross-border basis, and energy requirements, particularly electricity, are practical issues that do not frighten the horses and might provide a way forward for Her Majesty’s Government in engaging with the Irish Government, but with the backing of the parties in Northern Ireland, rather than with a completely non-functioning polity in the Province.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Lord is correct: it is very hard to climb a mountain in one step, we need to begin in the foothills. He brings up the issues of agriculture, food and electricity and I assure him that these are areas where we have had significant discussions, not least because they are directly affected by the outcome of the Brexit process—a needful, correct situation needs to be there after Brexit on these areas. We continue to look at this as being like doing a jigsaw by tackling the edges first before putting the pieces into the middle. That is what we are trying to do. I do not think that we can solve the big picture in one step, but we need to make sure that the right people are in the room to deliver the outcome that I know we all wish to see.
Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Buscombe
That the draft Order laid before the House on 16 January be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Buscombe) (Con)
My Lords, in moving this order, I will speak also to the Automatic Enrolment (Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band) Order 2019. In my view, the provisions in both these orders are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
I shall be brief. The Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2019 deals with an entirely technical matter that we attend to each year. This order provides for defined benefit occupational pension schemes which were contracted out to increase by 2.4% members’ guaranteed minimum pension that accrued between 1988 and 1997, in line with the increase in the consumer prices index the previous September.
The Automatic Enrolment (Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band) Order 2019 reflects the conclusions of this year’s annual review of the automatic enrolment earnings thresholds required by the Pensions Act 2008. In conducting the review, the Secretary of State has considered both the automatic enrolment earnings trigger, which determines the point when someone becomes eligible to be automatically enrolled into a qualifying workplace pension, and the qualifying earnings band, which determines those earnings of which the enrolled employee and their employer have to pay a proportion into a workplace pension.
Automatic enrolment has been hugely successful in achieving its aim of getting millions of people saving into their pensions. Last year was a significant one for the policy, with a number of key milestones being reached. In February, the last group of smallest employers took on their duty to automatically enrol all staff, meaning that all established employers and new businesses are now subject to automatic enrolment. This was shortly followed by the first phased increase in minimum contributions from 3% to 5% in April 2018. We now have 1.4 million employers who have complied with their automatic enrolment duties, and have just reached the commendable milestone of 10 million people successfully enrolled into a workplace pension. It is also extremely encouraging that, despite the significant changes last year, rates of stopping saving—for example, through opt-outs and cessations—have remained consistently low since the increase. This year will bring another key milestone for the policy. In April, the second planned increase in minimum contribution levels, to 8%, will occur, with contributions rising to 3% and 5% of band earnings for employers and employees respectively.
This order sets a new lower and upper limit for the qualifying earnings band and will be effective from 6 April 2019. The earnings trigger is not changed within this order and remains at the level set in the automatic enrolment threshold review order for 2014-15, so no further provision is required. As signalled by the Minister for Pensions and Financial Inclusion in his Written Statement on 4 December 2018, this order will, as previously, align the lower and upper limits of the qualifying earnings band with the national insurance lower and upper earnings limits for the 2019-20 tax year of £6,136 and £50,000 respectively. This will ensure continued stability during the next phased increase in minimum contributions this April, providing consistency for payroll systems and helping employers manage costs.
The order does not change the earnings trigger, which remains at £10,000—striking a balance between bringing in those most likely to benefit from pension saving and affordability for employers. Those earning below the £10,000 earning trigger who feel they can afford to save still have the option of opting in and benefiting from employee contributions if they earn above the lower earnings limit.
Automatic enrolment has enabled many people who previously would not have been saving towards their retirement to contribute towards a pension. We are seeing increasing numbers of young workers, with over 70% of 22 to 29 year-olds enrolled in a workplace pension, and pension participation rates for women in the private sector are now comparable to those for men. It is estimated that by 2019-20, an extra £17.7 billion a year will go into workplace pensions as a result of automatic enrolment. Due to anticipated wage growth and with maintenance of the existing trigger, the effect is a real-term lowering of the trigger. We expect that an additional 40,000 individuals will now meet the earnings criteria and be brought into the automatic enrolment population, the majority of whom will be women.
It is important to be clear that the proposal outlined in the 2017 review of automatic enrolment to remove the lower earnings limit is setting the direction for the future of the policy and is not reflected in a current-day change. The Government stand by the proposals in that report and continue to work towards our ambition of automatic enrolment reforms in the mid-2020s. Our ambitions for automatic enrolment will be delivered in a way and at a pace that maintains the stakeholder consensus, while finding ways to help individuals, employers and the Exchequer manage the higher costs associated with the proposed changes. We will in due course consult formally on the best approach to implementation, including when and how to introduce any new legislation.
The Government are also aware of concerns that have been raised by Members of your Lordships’ House and in the wider public around the differences in administering pension tax relief and its impact, particularly on low-income earners. I take this opportunity to assure noble Lords that the Minister for Pensions and Financial Inclusion is actively engaging with his counterparts in the Treasury to explore this issue.
I will conclude on this point. The proposed package of changes in these orders provide crucial stability and simplicity for employers during the second phased increase of minimum contributions, while continuing to increase overall pension savings nationally by £5.5 billion in 2019-20. I therefore commend the order to the House and I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome these orders for the reasons that my noble friend has given. However, I am concerned that a couple of categories are being left behind.
By definition, those on zero-hours contracts cannot benefit from schemes such as this, or from bonuses, paid holidays, sick leave, overtime and other such perks of work. In my last five years as an MP, for the first time I had a job centre in my constituency, whereas for the previous 13 years I did not, and so had to go outside my constituency for information on job vacancies and the number of unemployed. My experience was that there are specific categories, including women returning to work. I was delighted to hear my noble friend say how many younger new employees will benefit from this order. However, many women who have had children and wish to return to the workplace, or young people at the start of their career—I fell into this category when I first went into the workplace—are struggling to work and often have two, if not three, paid jobs. They could be working in a shop as a cleaner for part of the time and working in a bar the rest of the time, and obviously students will fall into that category as well.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I will take the opportunity of the GMP increase order to raise the recent High Court decision in the Lloyds Banking Group case, which now requires trustees to amend their pension schemes to equalise GMP benefits. The inequalities arose because between April 1978 and April 1997 an employer could contract its company scheme out of the second-tier state pension if it provided a guaranteed minimum pension—the GMP component of a member’s company pension. A calculation of the GMP accrual is set in legislation and results in inequalities because GMPs are payable from the age of 65 for men and 60 for women, so they accrue at different rates, with female benefits accruing more quickly.
That is further complicated by different schemes’ normal pension payment ages, which create a result that is sometimes more favourable to men and sometimes more favourable to women. Following the 1990 European court decision, occupational pension schemes “equalised” their retirement ages for men and women, often to 65, but the GMP component continued to apply at 60 for women and 65 for men. Following consultation in 2016, the DWP proposed a GMP equalisation method but did not commit to it being a safe harbour for achieving equalisation.
The High Court decision in the Lloyds Bank case required schemes to implement GMP equalisation from 1990, and identified approaches to achieving it. That decision still left uncertainties—for example, over how previous transfers out and buyouts should be addressed and the position of survivors’ benefits in payment. In March 2017, the DWP advised that it would consider its position in the light of any legal decisions resulting from the Lloyds Bank case. Will the Government press ahead with their planned changes to GMP conversion? Will they make variations to their proposed methods more generally? Are they considering any legislation on GMP equalisation?
The Explanatory Memorandum advises that the Secretary of State’s decision on the values of the qualifying earnings band and trigger for auto-enrolment for the tax year 2019-20 is based on established policy principles: namely, the right people being brought into pensions saving; the appropriate minimum level of saving for people automatically enrolled; and the costs and benefits to individuals and employers being appropriately balanced. I can understand why the Government would hold to the current interpretation of those principles for the 2019-20 tax year. A priority is the phasing to the 8% contribution rate from April 2019 with negligible impact on the opt-out rate. However, we know that the Government want to change the future interpretation of those principles as, following their auto-enrolment review, they announced reforms to lower the age limit for auto-enrolment from 22 to 18, and to remove the lower earnings limit of the qualifying earnings band and calculate the 8% contribution from the first pound earned.
There is no confirmed date for the implementation of these reforms, other than a loose reference to the mid-2020s. The Government could announce a forward date, which would allow time for consultation and legislative change, and give employers good notice. The reforms could bring an extra £3.8 billion into pension saving annually, increasing the pot of the lowest earners by about 80% and the median earner by 40%. When will the Government name the implementation date for these reforms and when do they anticipate bringing forward legislation to give the Secretary of State the necessary powers to implement them?
Finally, the earnings trigger—earning £10,000 or more in one job—is a factor in determining which workers get automatically enrolled into a workplace pension. Some 37% of the eligible population for auto-enrolment is female and 63% male—a glaring example of the lifetime caring penalty that women pay. Predominantly because of caring, millions of working women—some 45%—are in part-time jobs and earning less, which excludes many from auto-enrolment. Although the £10,000 earning trigger is frozen, decreasing in real terms against assumed wage growth, that 37% still rises only to 38%. Yes, once in the eligible population women are saving at the same rate as men—one would expect that; women are not stupid—and they still gain from having their inertia mobilised into savings. It is not getting into the eligible population that excludes many women from the benefits of saving.
The Government’s argument for not lowering that £10,000 is that,
“the predominant impact will be upon people for whom it could make little economic sense”,
to save. Such a sweeping assumption sustains a gender stereotype that is not fair on the women impacted, for several reasons. Many women will be in households with income that would support them as the right people to be brought into pension saving. Some women earn more than £10,000 but will not qualify because they do not earn £10,000 in any one job. Many women work part-time during periods of caring, outside of which they work full-time. For them, the assumption that it would not make economic sense to save is wrong and simply undermines their persistency of saving.
Fully 100% of pension contributions are deducted from employed earnings when calculating entitlement to universal credit and tax credits—an incentive to save for low-income earners. Excluding them from auto-enrolment undermines that incentive. Under pension freedoms people do not need to secure an income stream in retirement, so the concept of replacement rates is more tenuous. Older women on low incomes have lower financial resilience—lack of financial resilience has been reported on copiously in the last year or two—so supporting women during their working life to build up a pot of savings, accessible from age 55, will increase their resilience and mitigate their exposure to debt.
The Government consider that opting in to pensions is the most appropriate option for these people. Their published review of the earnings trigger refers to Institute for Fiscal Studies research showing that the impact of auto-enrolment has also increased pension membership among those earning below £10,000. However, I read that research, and the institute’s researchers observed that “it might be unlikely” that employees ineligible for auto-enrolment asking to opt in to workplace pension “is the major driver” of this increase. They referred to other influences more likely to account for the increase, such as some employers choosing to contractually enrol their workers who earn below £10,000—either from,
“a paternalistic desire to provide”,
low earners with some saving,
“or to reduce the … burden of monitoring whether staff”,
with variable earnings,
“do or do not earn over”,
the earnings trigger during a relevant pay period. So the research quoted does not support the assumption that low-paid women being able to opt in to pensions is translating into them saving more.
I ask the Minister what measures the Government intend to take to address the problem that, even with the changes in this order, still only 37% of the auto-enrolment population is female.
Baroness Janke (LD)
I thank the Minister for her introduction of the orders and I am privileged to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, who is such an expert on this matter. I too will raise a few points about how inclusive the scheme is. It has been a success; we all recognise that. It has been a very good example of cross-party working on a crucial issue.
On inclusivity, the latest figures from the department show that 37% of women workers, 33% of workers with a disability and 28% of black and minority-ethnic workers are not eligible for master trust saving through auto-enrolment. Auto-enrolment does not cover the self-employed or workers in the gig economy. Both the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Drake, mentioned the cumulative earnings of people who work part-time and in more than one job. What plans do the Government have to further extend the scheme to include those groups? How can it be made more accessible to enable those who need it most to benefit from it?
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the purpose of the orders. On the face of it, the GMP issue is straightforward. As we heard, GMPs are designed to provide a minimum weekly pension broadly equivalent to the amount of additional state provision accrued if not contracted out. Has any assessment been undertaken of the value for money of the GMP system? My noble friend Lady Drake raised an important issue around the Lloyds judgment and the decision to equalise pension benefits. I believe she wanted to know what would happen to the guidance and how soon it could be forthcoming. Is it a question not of the GMPs themselves generally having to be made more equal but, rather, of other components of the package?
On auto-enrolment, there was a brief but good debate in the Chamber—the contributors being women—the main thrust of which, not unreasonably, was the role of women. We praise auto-enrolment but all too often overlook the fact that it still has a job to do. I could recite the roll of honour of those who made auto-enrolment happen, but you know who you are.
Specifically, the legislation requires that the Government do two things: renew and, if necessary, amend the upper and lower thresholds of the qualifying earnings bands; and review the level of the earnings trigger, adjusting for roundings where appropriate. As the Minister explained, the order proposes to freeze the latter at £10,000 but align the former with the lower and upper earnings limits for national insurance purposes. This widens the earnings band by some £3,500.
The supporting analysis for this included a DWP review document of December 2018, which sets out the three principles adopted for the review. Subject to challenge from my noble friend Lady Drake, those principles are: will the right people be brought into pension saving; what is the appropriate minimum level of saving for people who are automatically enrolled; and are costs and benefits to individuals and employers appropriately balanced?
As for raising the qualifying earnings band to the UEL, this increases total pension savings by £179 million, employer contributions by £68 million and employee contributions by £85 million. Retaining £10,000 as the earnings trigger represents a real-terms decrease, which brings an additional 40,000 individuals within the target population. According to the DWP analysis, of that 40,000 some 75% of the additional savers are estimated to be women.
How have the Government made the judgment that costs and benefits to individuals and employers are appropriately balanced? What are the tests? The above apart, what specific additional factors have influenced the proposal before us today? Subject as always to the Minister’s reply, we have no difficulty in supporting the proposals in the order.
I was pleased to hear what the Minister said on tax relief and trying to address the thorny issues of relief at source and net pay arrangements. These issues have been long outstanding, certainly over more than one Government.
I am conscious that we are addressing these issues in the wake of the 2017 review, which involves a wider focus on auto-enrolment. It is also at a point where most of the transitional introductory phases have been accomplished. March 2018 saw staging completed for small and micro employers, while minimum contribution levels rose to 5% in April last year and are heading for 8% this April. Can the Minister say something about re-enrolment and opt-out levels?
As that review identified, despite its success, individuals are still not saving enough. An estimated 12 million are undersaving for their retirement and some 5.7 million are mild undersavers. The broader review, Maintaining the Momentum, charts a path for the future that will help to address some of the shortfall. Its recommendations include: reducing the lower age limit from 22 to 18; calculating pension contributions from the first pound earned; removing the lower earnings limit; and working to increase saving among the self-employed. These may be matters for another day but, like my noble friend, I do not see why they have to wait until the mid-2020s. Is the Minister satisfied with this framework?
Nevertheless, we continue to be enthusiasts for auto-enrolment in one of the most important public policy initiatives of recent times, bred of a consensus.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, this has been an important and helpful debate and I will do my best to respond to as many questions as possible. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of automatic enrolment. It was a cross-party initiative. It seems only five minutes ago—but it was a year—that the noble Lord and I were debating this subject in very similar terms. There is support for auto-enrolment, which is a success story, but we are never complacent. There is always more to do to improve the system.
I shall start with questions on the guaranteed minimum pension. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for giving me early notice of her question about the recent Lloyds Bank case. That case endorsed the Department for Work and Pensions’ long-held position that schemes must equalise for the effect of inequalities caused by guaranteed minimum pensions. The principle of equal pensions was established by the European Court of Justice in 1990. The requirement on schemes to equalise is not a new cost; they have been aware of it and should have been planning for it for many years. My department has put forward a method that schemes can use to equalise pensions which, because of its “once and done” nature, should limit costs resulting from additional administration requirements. The department will provide guidance in the near future for schemes wishing to use the method upon which the department consulted in November 2016. The Department for Work and Pensions intends to make further changes to the guaranteed minimum pension conversion legislation to facilitate the methodology on which we consulted. We are looking to make those changes as soon as a suitable opportunity presents itself. The representative beneficiaries in the Lloyds case sought leave to appeal on two points of the judge’s decision concerning the methodology favoured by them and the requirement to provide back-payments. Leave to appeal was refused, as I am sure the noble Baroness knows.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, asked about the assessment of the guaranteed minimum pension system. I am unable to answer a couple of those questions and will write to him. Guaranteed minimum pensions were abolished in 1997, but those which accrued before that time must be honoured by schemes which had contracted out while GMPs were accruing.
On auto-enrolment uprating, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, asked why the Government do not tackle the inequality in the tax system which means that individuals automatically enrolled into a pension scheme use net payment arrangements or are losing out on tax relief. My noble friend Lady Altmann is not in her place but I know she is particularly concerned about this. The Government recognise the different impacts of the two systems of paying pension tax relief on pension contributions for workers earning below the personal allowance. The Government will look at the current differences and explore how to make the most of any new opportunities to balance simplicity, fairness and practicality. The Department for Work and Pensions has worked and is working with the Pensions Regulator to issue guidance to highlight to employers the differences between the NPA and RAS schemes and the potential disadvantage for low earners who are not eligible for tax relief if their employers opt out of NPA schemes.
The noble Lord also asked how many individuals have opted out. A total of 9% did so during the implementation of auto-enrolment. The 2018 evaluation report showed initial evidence of opt-out rates having fallen since the programme was fully implemented. Of course, the department will continue to monitor re-enrolment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. My specific question on that point was about the obligation to re-enrol people after a period.
Baroness Buscombe
I thank the noble Lord. Unless it is somewhere among my notes, I do not appear to have the answer to that. If between now and the closing of my speech I cannot find it, I will write to him. I trust that he will bear with me on that.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and the noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Drake, asked a number of questions about auto-enrolment, with particular reference to women, people who are not in jobs, zero-hour contracts, the gig economy and so on. I want to respond to those questions and to the question of the state pension age, particularly in relation to women born in the 1950s.
I turn, first, to multiple jobholders and the earnings trigger. The proposal to remove the lower earnings limit and removing entitled worker status in legislation will ensure that multiple jobholders who are eligible for automatic enrolment or who choose to opt in will qualify for employer contributions in all jobs and will be able to pay their own contributions from the first pound of earnings. This will give multiple jobholders the opportunity to build the same retirement savings as individuals who have only one job. It is the Government’s ambition to make these changes in the mid-2020s in the light of learning from the phased contribution increases and following full consultation with stakeholders in order to develop a consensus and find ways to make this affordable. I remember touching on this matter last year, and I again stress that we need to progress at a measured pace. As I said in my opening speech, we have to think about the cost to both the Exchequer and employers in supporting the scheme, but we will obviously continue to engage on this matter with stakeholders.
With regard to the gig economy in particular, in December 2018 the Government published a report entitled Enabling Retirement Savings for the Self-Employed: Pensions and Long-Term Savings Trials. This sets out our intention to test a number of approaches and interventions through trials with industry partners. It also invites organisations from a range of sectors, including invoicing software providers and accounting organisations, to work with the Department for Work and Pensions in co-designing and testing interventions.
On those working in the gig economy, the department will consider with BEIS and the Pensions Regulator the implications of recent rulings in this area. The Government’s December 2018 Good Work Plan set out the vision for the future of the labour market and ambitious plans to implement the recommendations arising from the Taylor review of modern working practices. The Government commit to legislate to improve the clarity of the employment status tests, reflecting the reality of modern working relationships. We will ensure that any changes are also considered in relation to auto-enrolment so that there is coherence and clarity for individuals and businesses on who is eligible for automatic enrolment.
I recall that my noble friend Lady McIntosh referenced people working in different situations and those returning to work. There is continuing progress in that regard. She also mentioned her nearest jobcentre. We are constantly improving the training of our work coaches to provide assistance in signposting support and helping those who want to go back into work or wish to build their confidence in order to do so. I think my noble friend will find that terrific progress is being made in that regard.
Only yesterday, the Secretary of State for International Development announced a new initiative to support particularly women and carers in returning to work. The Secretary of State for my department, the right honourable Amber Rudd MP, when Home Secretary, launched a similar project last year to help women and carers return to work. In fact, those two cross-government initiatives represent some £2 million. We are constantly working cross-government on this issue. Given the issues of multiple jobs, and the gig and zero-hours contracts economy, it is important that we keep a flexible eye on the changing world of work, as well as working across government with BEIS.
On zero-hours contracts, individuals can still opt in, but the removal of the lower earnings limit in the 2020s will help to address the issues for this group.
We stand by our mid-2020s timescale. As our AE review confirmed, automatic enrolment should continue to be available to all eligible workers, regardless of who their employer is. Making saving the norm for young people, by lowering the age for automatic enrolment so that an extra 900,000 people can benefit from a workplace pension, is certainly a goal. We want to support all those automatically enrolled—particularly those with low earnings in multiple jobs—to save more for retirement by removing the lower earnings limit, so that their contributions are calculated from the first pound of earnings. Also, we recognise the diversity of the 4.8 million classified as self-employed, for whom a single saving intervention might not be effective. We will work to implement our manifesto commitment by testing targeted interventions aimed at the self-employed—as set out in the review report—to identify the most effective options to increase pension saving among self-employed people.
Automatic enrolment has always been implemented methodically, backed up by comprehensive analysis to help us understand its affordability for employers and individuals. We will work to maintain the consensus that has underpinned automatic enrolment’s success, including by giving employers and savers time to plan. In that way, we can help avoid any risk of deterring individuals from continuing to save—so keeping the number of those opting out to a minimum—or any risk of undermining employer engagement with reforms. The latter point is hugely important: we have to keep employers on board.
I want to make further reference to women. Automatic enrolment was designed specifically to help groups such as women and low earners, who have historically been less likely to save. The decision to maintain the trigger for 2019-20 is estimated to bring an additional 40,000 individuals into workplace pension saving, as the noble Lord opposite has referenced; of these, three-quarters are expected to be women. In 2012, 60% of eligible women in the private sector did not have a workplace pension. As of 2017, this had fallen to 20%, and I trust the figure continues to fall.
The earnings trigger determines who is eligible to be automatically enrolled. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I repeat myself. We believe that maintaining the figure at £10,000 continues to strike a balance so that those who can most afford to save are automatically enrolled in the workplace pension. Lowering the trigger could result in diverting income away from the day-to-day needs of the lowest earners, risking and impacting significantly on their living standards. For those low earners in a position to contribute, the option remains to opt in. If they earn above a lower earnings limit, they will also receive employer contributions.
I would like to make particular reference to carers, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, whom I recall referring to this a year ago. The 2017 automatic enrolment review concluded that there should be no change to the way carers are currently treated through automatic enrolment. Those who provide informal care are not subject to automatic enrolment as they have no employer to enrol them. However, bringing in individuals not subject to a contract of employment would be a fundamental change to the framework of automatic enrolment, which works through an employer-employee relationship. Carers in receipt of carer’s allowance are automatically credited with a class 1 national insurance credit, which helps to protect their future entitlement to a state pension. Individuals who provide informal care for 20 hours per week are eligible to apply for carer’s credit, which also helps to protect future entitlement to a state pension.
Of course, there is an issue with regard to women born in the 1950s—I include myself in that coterie. People are living longer and are healthier for longer. We welcome this, but it is right that arrangements for the state pension system reflect changes in average life expectancy. As we continue to build a country that works for everyone, we need an affordable and fair state pension-age arrangement for current and future generations of pensioners. The average woman reaching state pension age last year will get a higher state pension income over her lifetime than an average woman reaching state pension age at any point before. Women retiring today can still expect to receive the state pension for 23.5 years on average; that is almost three years longer than men, even after equalising women’s state pension age with men’s. Women will spend on average around two years more in receipt of their state pension, because of their longer life expectancy.
Transitional arrangements are in place. We committed £1.1 billion to lessen the impact of the 2011 changes for the most affected. This means that no one will see their state pension age change by more than 18 months, compared to the 1995 Act timetable. We have had to make tough choices, but we have calculated all of this with care. It is about maintaining a sustainable pensions system. We strongly believe that, with the new state pension, the change in life expectancy and the increase in the number of women working for longer and so on, we have struck the right balance on this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, referenced black and minority ethnic individuals and asked what the impact of freezing the trigger is. I can tell the noble Baroness that the analysis underpinning the automatic enrolment earnings thresholds review suggests that freezing the trigger has had no adverse effect on the proportion of black and minority ethnic individuals in the group eligible for automatic enrolment.
I shall answer a question asked by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, about increasing the contribution rate as part of the 2017 review, with reference to the 8% and automatic enrolment. Millions of people are now saving, or saving more, as a result of automatic enrolment. As the noble Lord will be aware, the first planned increase in contribution rates took place on 6 April last year, with the second increase, to 8%, coming this April. It is certainly encouraging that since the increase to 5% in April 2018 there has been no increase in rates of stopping saving. However, as the review of automatic enrolment in 2017 revealed, there is no consensus about future contribution rates, and whether, when and to what level they might increase. As such, it is important that we understand the effects the second planned increase will have and carry out further work on the adequacy of retirement incomes. We will then take this forward to look again at the right overall level of saving and the balance between prompted and voluntary savings in due course. I shall allow my noble friend to ask a further question while I search for another answer on communications.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
I congratulate my noble friend on her generous and comprehensive response. I was delighted to hear her response to a question about opt-outs being down. However, I am slightly concerned that paragraph 12 says there has not been an impact assessment, but the Government have identified an estimated £79 million more in employer pension contributions. Do the Government share my concern that that might encourage more people to opt out? Also, I know that the burden on small businesses of the cost of administering the state enrolment scheme has been an issue. Is that something the Government are hearing less about, or does it continue to be a concern expressed to her department?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, the Secretary of State has considered the impact of the various options for each of the thresholds. A full analysis of volumes and costs was published on 18 December 2017. A separate impact assessment has not been prepared for this instrument. I hope that provides some assurance.
On the burden on business, particularly small businesses, we cannot have it every which way. We are trying to develop the whole process and opportunities for auto-enrolment in a very measured way, because it is hugely important that we do not put too much burden on SMEs, given the support of most of them for the national living wage and so on. We have to be careful that we do not increase rates without taking into account anything needed to help those in small businesses to cope with supporting their staff through automatic enrolment.
I will say something about communication, which was particularly referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke. I absolutely understand where she is coming from. The reality is that we have got much better at communicating. We have advertising campaigns and a brilliant team at the Department for Work and Pensions focused very much on communications for every aspect of the work we do, including support for automatic enrolment, all the opportunities for support for women and so on.
The advertising campaign is not just done in the old-fashioned way; there is a lot of use of smartphones to make it really accessible. But we are not complacent: we continue to work on communications so that people understand what they can do and who they can go to for support and advice through signposting and a whole raft of communications to inform and encourage. We also work closely with outside organisations as our stakeholders in pensions. I hope that the single financial guidance Act, which is well-known to your Lordships’ House from its passage last year, will only make future support for people better by helping them understanding how they can work with their pensions. I look to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, thinking of the pensions dashboard. That is something else we are developing our thinking on. There is a consultation out, so we are very excited about that.
I hope I have managed to answer most noble Lords’ questions. I will write to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and share that letter with all noble Lords and place it in the Library. On that basis, I commend the order.
Automatic Enrolment (Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band) Order 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Buscombe
That the draft Order laid before the House on 16 January be approved.
Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Buscombe
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 January be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Buscombe) (Con)
My Lords, I will speak also to the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2019. I am required to confirm to noble Lords that these provisions are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and I am happy so to do.
These statutory instruments will increase the value of lump-sum awards payable under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 and the diffuse mesothelioma scheme, which was set up by the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008. These two schemes stand apart from the main social security benefits uprating procedure. However, through these statutory instruments we will increase the amounts payable by the September 2018 consumer prices index rate of 2.4%. This is the same rate that is being applied to industrial injuries disablement benefit and certain other disability benefits, and under the main social security uprating provisions. These new amounts will be paid to those who satisfy all the conditions of entitlement, for the first time, on or after 1 April 2019.
Turning to the purpose of the lump-sum schemes, the Government recognise the great suffering of individuals and their families as a result of exposure to asbestos or certain other forms of dust. They may be unable to bring a successful claim for civil damages, due mainly to the long latency period of their condition, but can still claim compensation through these schemes. Although improved health and safety procedures have restricted the use of asbestos and provided a safer environment for its handling, the legacy of its common use is still with us. That is why we are ensuring that financial compensation from these schemes is available to those affected.
I will briefly summarise the specific purpose of the two compensation schemes. The Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979—which for simplicity I shall refer to as the 1979 Act scheme—provides a lump-sum compensation payment to individuals who have one of five dust-related respiratory diseases covered by the scheme, and who are unable to claim damages from employers which have gone out of business and have not brought any action against another party for damages. The five diseases covered by the 1979 Act scheme are: diffuse mesothelioma, bilateral diffuse pleural thickening, pneumoconiosis, byssinosis, and primary carcinoma of the lung, if accompanied by asbestosis or bilateral diffuse pleural thickening. The 2008 mesothelioma lump-sum payments scheme, which I will refer to as the 2008 scheme, was introduced to provide compensation to people who contracted diffuse mesothelioma but were unable to claim compensation under the 1979 Act because, for example, they were self-employed or their exposure to asbestos was not due to their work. But the 2008 scheme, as many noble Lords know, allows payments to be made quickly to people with diffuse mesothelioma at their time of greatest need. Under both schemes, a claim can be made by a dependant if the person with the disease has died before being able to make a claim.
Payments under the 1979 Act scheme are based on the age of the person with the disease and their level of disablement at the time they are diagnosed. The highest amounts are paid to those diagnosed at an early age and with the highest level of disablement. All payments for diffuse mesothelioma under the 1979 Act scheme are automatically made at the 100% disablement rate, the highest rate of payment, reflecting the seriousness of the disease. Similarly, all payments under the 2008 scheme are made at the 100% disablement rate and based on age, with the highest payments going to the youngest people with the disease. In the last full year, April 2017 to March 2018, 3,680 people received payments under both schemes, totalling just under £50 million.
I know that in previous debates on increasing the value of these lump sums, noble Lords have raised the subject of equalising the payments made to dependants who claim after the death of someone who had the disease with those made to people who have the disease and claim in their lifetime. However, I must tell noble Lords that we do not intend to equalise payments. The Government’s view remains that it is most important that the available funding is given to the people with the condition who would most benefit from it. Of course, I fully understand that whole families can be devastated by this disease, but there is still the recognition that they are able to get compensation, even if it is not at the same level. When we have to make such decisions about how we use our limited resources—the taxpayers’ money that is available—we believe it is only right that we target that money by giving it to the people to whom it can make the most difference.
I am aware that the incidence of diffuse mesothelioma is a particular concern of noble Lords. The number of deaths in Great Britain remains at a historically high level. Diffuse mesothelioma has a strong association with exposure to asbestos, and current evidence suggests that around 85% of all mesotheliomas diagnosed in men are attributable to asbestos exposures that occurred through work. Those diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma usually have a short life expectancy, with many people dying within 12 months of diagnosis. The number of cases currently occurring reflects the long latency period of the disease, which means that 30 years or more can pass from the time of exposure to the disease becoming apparent. The latest available information suggests that there will continue to be around 2,500 diffuse mesothelioma deaths per year before the number of cases begins to fall during the next decade, reflecting a reduction in asbestos exposure after 1980.
I turn to wider improvements in lung health. Although we expect the number of people diagnosed with mesothelioma to begin to fall in the coming years, the Government are well aware that many people will still develop this and other respiratory diseases in the coming years. That is why we are committed to working with our agencies and arm’s-length bodies to improve the lives of people with respiratory diseases.
In the recently published NHS Long Term Plan, the Government have identified respiratory diseases as a clinical priority. The long-term plan sets out how the NHS will take action in a number of areas, including expanding programmes that support earlier diagnosis of respiratory diseases, such as pioneering lung health checks, trialled in the north-west of England; and increasing access to proven treatments such as pulmonary rehabilitation. Furthermore, an NHS England respiratory oversight group has been created, which includes membership from the British Lung Foundation. Additionally, the NHS has been working closely with the Taskforce for Lung Health, which recently published its own lung health five-year plan.
Specifically on mesothelioma, the Government have committed to driving research activity forward. The National Institute for Health Research has led work which resulted in the funding of five studies, the first of which was completed last year. The Department of Health and Social Care is also a key stakeholder in the British Lung Foundation’s mesothelioma research network, which aims to improve outcomes for people affected by mesothelioma. Funding continues to be available from a variety of sources, including the National Institute for Health Research, the Medical Research Council and medical research charities.
Returning to these important regulations, I am sure we would all agree that while no amount of money can ever compensate individuals and families for the suffering and loss caused by diffuse mesothelioma and the other dust-related diseases covered by the 1979 Act scheme, those who have them deserve the monetary compensation that these schemes can offer. I commend the increase of the payment scales for these schemes and respectfully ask noble Lords’ approval to implement them.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining these two important orders. I think this is her first time speaking on these matters. I do not know whether it is the first time on the Floor of Chamber but it may be, because these orders are usually taken in Grand Committee—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Jones, was keen that they should be debated here. I am sure the whole House welcomes the uprating that she announced, but has the time not come for this to be automatic rather than at the discretion of the Government, as there is no way the schemes will be wound up in the next few years?
My first time speaking on the mesothelioma order was 11 years ago, when I learned about its long latency period and the fact that some of the people affected, such as family members, did not work directly in industrial processes using asbestos. Subsequently, I knew a man who was diagnosed when he was over 80, his condition probably a result of national service in the Navy.
This was to lead me to ask the Minister about much-needed and hitherto neglected research, but she has spoken about that and I am glad that we have learned a lot more about it. I think a lung health summit was held last year with the British Lung Foundation, the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, the NHS and MPs. I am also glad the NHS long-term plan recognises the objective of improving outcomes for people with respiratory diseases.
We do not want to add to the number of people diagnosed with this disease, so perhaps the Minister will also tell us what work is going on to make sure that any asbestos in schools and hospitals is rigorously monitored, if it cannot be removed. I expect that this is where the Health and Safety Executive comes into its own, a body which has often been unfairly vilified for just doing its job. I know that it has had to cope with cuts to its budget, but I hope that it is able to be on top of this issue.
Finally, on the pneumoconiosis order, how does the payment tie in with universal credit, as that was something that I was not sure about?
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I had the privilege of chairing the mesothelioma oversight committee of the last-resort scheme. I thank the Minister for both her presentation and the welcome change in dealing with research, which a lot of us were concerned about for a couple of years when it did not appear to be linked. We are pleased that the DWP is now working closely with other departments. Can the Minister indicate exactly how much was spent on a cross-departmental basis on research in the last 12 months to give us an idea of the scale of that improvement?
I want also to thank the staff in Minister’s arm’s-length branch who give my committee enormous support in dealing with stories of unimaginable pain and tragedy. Although one has to try to get some distance, it is important we all place on record that this is not some dry statutory instrument; it is about people’s lives and deaths. My own sister-in-law died of this disease some years ago. We still do not know whether it was as a result of pushing a trolley through the basement of the Scunthorpe hospital where she worked or of washing her husband’s overalls from the steelworks where he worked. Also, a good friend of mine died less than a year ago. I had known him for 40 years; he worked in local government. You would think, “Where on earth would he catch it in local government?” He was a student before he started his local government career, working for Cape Asbestos for 12 months.
I think it has been mentioned already that it is not always the traditional industries. There are jewellery repair workers; there are stable lads; there are all sorts of areas that people do not expect. It is important when we come across similar issues to try to pre-empt them and not allow this to happen again.
Finally—the Minister has pre-empted this issue and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, will raise it, but I am going to be his John the Baptist and hope that I do not share the same fate—the forum for the victims and the victim support group have been trying for nine years now to get some equality between in-life payments and dependency payments. I know that the Minister has indicated that the Government have thought about this and decided that they should not do anything about it at this stage, but it is time to seek equalisation between the sums paid to asbestos victims who claim while alive and those paid to dependants, usually widows, which are much lower for pneumoconiosis. This disparity affects women in particular and has stagnated for quite a long time. Failing any change of heart, will the Minister agree to meet some of us to discuss any possibility for more flexibility in considering those requests for equalisation?
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, if the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, does not mind, I would rather change the metaphor and say that I am very pleased to be part of the infantry; she is a very good general in this case. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, made her case admirably, too. I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which she introduced the orders.
I return to an issue that I have raised often in your Lordships House: the harrowing and lethal effects of mesothelioma, something which unites all of us in all parts of the House. Many of us in the Chamber today have been involved in the fight against mesothelioma for many years and I am pleased to see this important issue again being debated in your Lordships’ House.
I wholeheartedly support the uprating of the lump sum payments in line with inflation. It is a matter of compassion, of justice—I will return to that issue—and of equalisation. In that last respect, I was disappointed by one thing that the Minister said, although I rather anticipated that she would say it—I shall return to that matter, too.
As the Minister told us, mesothelioma is an invasive type of cancer caused by prior exposure to asbestos. It grows in the pleural membrane, which lines the outside of the lung and the inside of the chest. Less commonly, it can also affect a similar lining around the abdomen or heart. There is currently no cure and mesothelioma patients often have a short life expectancy and experience complex, debilitating symptoms. I vividly remember when I was a Member of House of Commons, representing an inner-city area of Liverpool, constituents coming to see me once there had been a diagnosis and then meeting the widow only weeks later, their loved one having died.
The UK has the highest rate of the disease in the world. Mortality rates have more than quadrupled over the past 30 years. It is estimated that around 2,400 people die of the disease every year and that, over the next 30 years, around 60,000 people will die of mesothelioma in the United Kingdom unless new treatments are found.
When these regulations were discussed in the other place, a number of Members of the House of Commons asked whether future increases could be made automatic rather than be made at the discretion of Parliament. The Minister there agreed to consider this. It is important that the Government carefully consider the argument. Has any consideration been given since the Commons stages about making the payments automatic? It is vital that we continue to support people and their families affected by these awful diseases.
Back in 2014 I tabled an amendment to the Mesothelioma Bill, and in 2015 I introduced a Private Member’s Bill which would have set up a small levy on participating insurance firms to help secure long-term funding for research into mesothelioma, an issue on which the noble Lords, Lord Wills and Lord Giddens, played an important part. At the time, it was estimated that 150 insurance firms were active in the employers’ liability insurance market, and this had the potential to raise around £1.5 million a year for research. This represented a very small amount of money to each of the insurance companies, but would have resulted in a great number of research opportunities. It would also have given great hope to people living with mesothelioma and to their families. Unfortunately, the amendment and the Bill were defeated.
Since then, the Government have allocated £5 million for a National Centre for Mesothelioma Research at Imperial College, and I thank Ministers who put in considerable effort to secure that and to look at voluntary funding from the insurance industry. I am very pleased that the British Lung Foundation, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, was also able to secure match funding for this £5 million from a philanthropist who has seen the devastation wreaked by this disease. Unfortunately, although several individual insurance companies, including Aviva, Zurich, RSA and Allianz, had also, to their credit, previously contributed towards research into mesothelioma, negotiations for a broader, long-term funding commitment from the insurance industry came to a standstill. More recently, there have been some impressive results in mesothelioma research, which demonstrates why it is important for us to find more funding. Through the match funding, the BLF set up the Mesothelioma Research Network to bring researchers together to share ideas and support each other’s research. Our understanding of the genetics of mesothelioma has increased at the same time as a breakthrough in harnessing the immune system against cancer, and a clinical trial, the first of its type, has just opened in Leicester.
Another BLF-funded project is currently looking at ways to treat mesothelioma with immunotherapy. The creation of the MesobanK project now allows researchers across the world to access tissue and blood samples and other clinical data. The first MesobanK-British Lung Foundation fellowship is helping to develop gold nanotubes as potential new mesothelioma therapies. The British Lung Foundation continues to raise awareness of occupational lung disease, most recently through the creation of the Taskforce for Lung Health. The task force is a coalition of 30 organisations from across the lung health sector, including royal colleges, patients and the Health and Safety Executive, who came together to develop a five-year national plan to improve lung health in England. It makes recommendations to improve awareness of and compliance with the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 and to embed understanding of occupational lung disease in healthcare professional training.
Because this field is so underfunded, every pound of investment is likely to be worth while and to attract further funding. I pay particular tribute to Penny Woods and the British Lung Foundation, which continues its work to secure that funding for vital mesothelioma research. It has recently been able to leverage further research through the success of previous projects, helping to secure a £10 million grant from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. While I fully support compensation for the victims of these diseases, it is surely in everyone’s interest—the victims, the Government and insurers—to invest in finding a cure. This would, in the long term, remove the need for lump sum payments or any insurance industry levies. Investment in research is crucial.
On the subject of lump sum payments, as the noble Baroness told us, two statutory schemes make payments to mesothelioma sufferers, both of which make payments according to the age of the sufferer and their level of disablement. Both make payments either to mesothelioma sufferers who claim a payment in life—so-called in-life claims—or to their dependants where a claim is made after death. These are so-called dependency claims. However, there is significant inequality between dependency and in-life payments. From April 2019, the maximum in-life payment for a sufferer aged 77 is £14,334 and for a sufferer aged 37 is £92,259. From the same date, the maximum dependency payment for a sufferer aged 77 is £7,949 and £48,013 for a sufferer aged 37. Dependency payments are 45% less for a sufferer aged 77 and 48% less for a sufferer aged 37.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and will take advantage of the opportunity to pay tribute to him for the immense work on this matter that he has undertaken in recent years. I too welcome the uprating. On the points raised by the noble Lord, I agree entirely that research should be undertaken. But we should also look at all possible ways to eliminate the causes of asbestos-related diseases.
We are aware of the incidence of asbestos in schools: three-quarters of schools in the United Kingdom have asbestos in them and, every year, some teachers die as a result of asbestos-related diseases. I wonder how many perhaps unidentified children have been affected by this. I do not know how much research has been done on this, but clearly anything that can be done to avoid the disease is better than a cure.
None the less, I welcome the fact that some £130 million has been paid since 2014 in compensation to about 1,000 sufferers—about £40 million of this has come from the insurance industry. But I take very much to heart the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that research is vital in these areas. The other sphere that could do with more research is MoD buildings. A number of them have been affected by asbestos, and families of servicemen have been hit by the disease.
I move on to the pneumoconiosis order, which I also welcome very much. The circumstances in which we are discussing this are so similar to those in 1979, when the original Act went through. I suspect that I am one of the few people in the Chamber who was involved at that time. There was a striking similarity—a Government without a majority striking a deal with a small party to get this through—and I was so pleased to be in the right place at the right time to help with it. The 40th anniversary reminds us of the tremendous contributions that have been made by this Act—not only to the slate-quarrying community, whose lobbying brought about the Act, but to a number of other workers in industries such as cotton and in kiln-related work, who were also able to get compensation.
The Act arose because, while coal miners had in general been helped by the 1975 tripartite agreement between the NCB, the NUM and the Government, that agreement did not cover other workers suffering from industrial lung diseases. The 1979 Act has paid out millions of pounds by now, and is still being called upon by a whole range of industries. Therefore, it is appropriate that it should be uprated in this way.
There are still some misgivings about other health conditions undoubtedly stimulated by working in such dusty environments. Conditions such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis are not accepted as lung diseases—although they are in all probability generated in many circumstances by that exposure to dust.
There are a couple of points I will put to the Minister; if she cannot answer them now, I would be grateful if she could write to me. First, what is the position of quarrymen who may have worked for periods of time in overseas quarries—such as in the United States or Spain—with regard to entitlement to compensation? The second relates to those who may have worked in the United Kingdom but who may be living in another EU country. How will the changes of Brexit impact on their entitlement to receive such compensation? That said, I support these regulations.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am always glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who had knowledge of the original Act. I congratulate my noble friend on introducing this instrument.
This has been a very poignant debate, and there is very little I can add to the contributions of those who have spoken with such knowledge. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, I have a close family friend who succumbed to the disease. I was surprised that someone who had worked from a very young age for the Merchant Navy had this disease; where I grew up, he would not have been alone in doing so, because in those days the Merchant Navy offered huge opportunities for learning a trade—as did the Royal Navy. I know that it is not my noble friend’s direct responsibility, but could she reassure us today that the engine rooms of ships in the Merchant Navy do not now pose any danger from asbestos? I would like that reassurance going forward.
I was very disheartened when my noble friend very honestly told us that we can still expect a number of cases each year. The question I will ask her is simple—what is the length of time between the making of the claim and receipt of a payment? This also touches a little on the debate earlier. How would someone such as our family friend know that they are eligible for this compensation if they have not been contacted by their employer? Is there a mechanism in place for this? With those two questions, I would like to give these regulations a fair wind.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s helpful comments and the opportunity to debate these regulations. Over the last 10 years, we have seen strides forward in the fight against mesothelioma. Thanks to a great deal of political support and work by colleagues in this House—I pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Alton, Lord Giddens and Lord Wills—and by Mike Kane, Tracey Crouch and the late Paul Goggins in the other place, much has been done to raise awareness of the disease and to improve life for people affected by it.
Because of the long period between exposure to asbestos and the appearance of symptoms, it can be extremely difficult for people with mesothelioma to trace a liable former employer or insurance company. In recognition of this, the Mesothelioma Act 2014 was passed to ensure that victims of mesothelioma who were unable to trace a liable insurer could claim compensation from a scheme funded by a levy on insurers. I thank colleagues who supported the Act and who have helped keep mesothelioma on the agenda. Since the launch of the scheme, £130 million has been paid in compensation to around 1,000 people. Like other noble Lords, I declare an interest: my late sister Annabel contracted mesothelioma in her early 50s—she had two young children at the time—and was a grateful recipient of compensation from an earlier version of this scheme that the Minister highlighted in her comments.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a full debate, and many contributors to it have had at least indirect experience of this wretched condition. I will comment on a few contributions before going on to my script.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, referred to the historically long-latency circumstances and the need to make sure people understand that occupational lung disease is not a thing of the past—I agree with that. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked how people get information about what is available. The short answer is through campaign groups, trade unions, and people like the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who has been involved in this for a long time; they are a good and reliable source of information about what is going on, as is, I am sure, the HSE. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, talked about quarrymen; this has cropped up in the past from time to time, but as yet there has been no resolution. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, whose knowledge of where we are on this and the history of it is second to none; I know some of it but have nothing like the wealth of experience that he brings. My noble friend Lady Donaghy asked about cross-departmental spend, and reminded us that we are dealing with heart-breaking circumstances. This is perhaps not the usual sort of debate we have.
We thank the Minister for introducing these two regulations, which we are discussing together. Obviously we will be supporting each of them. One is specifically concerned with mesothelioma and the 2008 regulations, and the other with the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979, which encompass other dust-related diseases.
As we have heard, they each make provision for lump sum compensation to people suffering from these diseases or for compensation for their dependants. I am not sure whether many noble Lords are aware of some very recent publicity about a situation local to me. Vauxhall Motors in Dunstable was prosecuted successfully for the death of a spouse; her husband worked at the plant, and because she hugged him when he came home at night, that—the nexus—was enough to give her mesothelioma. It is a tragic situation, but one of many. I am sure that Vauxhall will be properly dealt with.
Another point arises from that. It has sometimes been suggested that knowledge of mesothelioma is relatively modern—it is not. Some of the press reports on this refer to the fact that it goes back to the 1960s, if not earlier. Frankly, we were faced with circumstances where employers, and certainly those involved in liability insurance, did not do what they should have done with regard to their responsibilities.
In the case of the workers’ compensation Act 1979, the provisions apply to one of a range of diseases we have heard about which have been caused through accident or exposure in employment. These must have generated a claim to IIBD and not have given rise to a civil action against a former employer. The diseases in question are pneumoconiosis, byssinosis, diffuse mesothelioma, bilateral diffuse pleural thickening and primary carcinoma of the lung when accompanied by asbestosis. I understand that it may still be possible to get compensation for an asbestos-related disease under the 2008 scheme even if it is ineligible under the 1979 scheme. The later scheme does not require a work nexus: the oft-cited example of a family member washing clothes is now made much more poignant by the press reports to which I just referred.
The 2008 payments scheme is for no-fault compensation and includes coverage of the self-employed. Although monetary compensation is no substitute for a life, it can help with practical issues, especially if available speedily. We should note at this point that the diseases covered very much reflect our industrial past and a careless approach to matters of health and safety. Unfortunately, we have not heard from my noble friend Lord Jones, who normally contributes powerfully to these debates, but we have heard from others.
I note with approval the point made by the Minister in the other place in praise of the Health and Safety Executive—in stark contrast to the prior contribution of David Cameron on such matters, who determined that Britain’s health and safety culture would be killed off for good by the Government. It is a pity that, notwithstanding the Minister’s intervention, the HSE has seen dramatic budget cuts.
Mesothelioma is a type of cancer that covers the lining of the body’s organs. It is invariably caused by exposure to asbestos and results in death. It is a long-latency condition, as we have identified, and can emerge 40 to 50 years after contact with asbestos. To be fair, in introducing the regulations, the Minister let us know how many individuals have died and the forward projections.
As was debated in the other place, asbestos is still present in many structures, particularly in our schools—not to mention in this building. The Government used to have in place robust communications about the dangers of asbestos and messages about how it should be treated. What is the current position?
The level of compensation payable has been increased by 2.4% in accordance with the September 2018 consumer prices index. Can the Minister confirm that indexing of the 1979 and 2008 Acts compensation amounts has been routinely carried out, notwithstanding that there is no statutory obligation to do so? Several noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, at this end, pressed the Government on why the uprating had not been made statutory—on reflection, that is an entirely reasonable point.
A key difference between the two sets of regulations is that the mesothelioma regulations have a schedule only for sufferers and dependants. The pneumoconiosis schedule is for both, and also reflects the degree of disablement. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, introduced some very important data about the differential between those two scales. In the case of mesothelioma, the compensation schedules reflect the fact that it has been treated as invariably fatal.
I have some questions for the Minister, the first of which she has already answered. When the 2008 scheme was devised, it was determined that levels of payments would be funded from recoveries from civil action until such amounts matched levels of payment under the 1979 Act. What are the current levels of recovery? What drives the quantum of lump sum payments under the 1979 Act?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Yes, I should speak up. What are the current levels of recovery under the 1979 Act? Also, what drives the quantum of lump sum payments under that Act, which created the schedule in the first place? We know what the uprating is about.
The annual question posed is about bringing payments for dependants up to the level payable to sufferers. I join those who say it is time that we should do this. Debate in the other place on the regulations was in part conflated with arrangements in the 2012 Act, which I think was introduced only in 2019. Historically, as we know, there were concerns about low levels of compensation made available for these long-latency diseases. Focus for a long while was on the traceability of employer liability policies and, although progress was made, it was considered that in too many cases employers and their insurers were avoiding liability. I understand that this led to the diffuse mesothelioma payment scheme, introduced in 2014 and led by the noble Lord, Lord Freud, who deserves credit for his difficult negotiation with the insurance sector.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have contributed to this really important debate. I go straight to the first point raised: why do we not uprate automatically every year or put this on the statute book? I absolutely understand where that question is coming from. It was asked by several noble Lords, most notably the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. I think it is important to have a debate such as this to remind not only noble Lords but those many people beyond who may not appreciate that this is not something that will end in the short term. Noble Lords have so passionately highlighted the perverse ease with which people can contract these deadly diseases. We still have to be incredibly careful and cautious about the future for those people.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, mentioned new products such as carbon nanotubes, which I confess I know little about. The issue of threats from these new products should be raised through opportunities to help awareness, such as this really good debate. In that way, points can be made and we can raise both awareness and ongoing concerns.
I want to be very clear that, during last week’s debate in the other place, there were calls to put the uprating of the lump sum schemes on a statutory footing with a legal requirement to uprate annually in line with inflation, and my honourable friend the Minister for Disabled People, Sarah Newton MP, agreed to consider the proposal and work with her officials to explore the options. I want to set the record straight because, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, I think I am right in saying that, although he said that my honourable friend said that she would make this change, she in fact just agreed to consider it.
I will do my absolute best to respond to the number of questions asked by noble Lords as fully as I can. Several references were made to the Health and Safety Executive, with which we have a brilliant working relationship and whose work is instrumental in looking at threats from new products. The question was asked what we and the Health and Safety Executive are doing to raise awareness of asbestos. The HSE health priority plans set out three strategic priorities for our work on occupational health going forward, the core focus of which concerns work-related stress, musculoskeletal disorders and occupational lung disease—including the risks associated with asbestos. Delivery of the OLD strategy includes holding a,
“National Summit to raise the profile of occupational lung disease”,
and,
“establishing and facilitating a new Healthy Lung Partnership … to provide direction and coordinate stakeholder activity on occupational lung disease”.
Following the asbestos awareness campaign between October 2014 and March 2015, the Health and Safety Executive continues to make a wide range of information freely available through its website. Further specific awareness-raising activities may be considered in future, and helping at-risk workers to recognise that asbestos is relevant to them and their work, encouraging them to seek reliable information about how they can protect themselves, and encouraging and enabling safer work with asbestos through behavioural change is always at the front of our mind.
Like other noble Lords, I pay tribute to the brilliant ongoing work of the British Lung Foundation in research, clinical trials, supporting research into lung health and recognising some of the difficult cases raised today.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, asked specifically what the Government are doing to remove remaining asbestos in schools, which I believe noble Lords will have thought about on a personal level. The Department for Education takes this issue seriously and is committed to supporting schools, local authorities and academy trusts in fulfilling their duty to manage asbestos safely. It is the Government’s aim to remove all asbestos from schools as more school buildings are replaced and refurbished over time. We have taken significant steps in recent years to strengthen schools’ approaches to managing asbestos, including publishing refreshed guidance for schools in 2017 and launching an assurance process earlier this year to understand the issue better. Expert advice, again from the Health and Safety Executive, is clear that as long as asbestos-containing materials are undamaged and not in locations where they are vulnerable to damage, they should be managed in situ.
However, we are clear that asbestos cannot be managed effectively in situ. It should be removed; we have provided significant funding for that purpose. Indeed, the department has invested £5.6 billion in maintaining and improving the schools estate since 2015, enabling local authorities, academy trusts and voluntary-aided schools to maintain their school buildings. This is all part of the Priority School Building Programme, with its additional investment of £4.4 billion. Asbestos is being removed or encapsulated where appropriate as part of these investment programmes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about universal credit. Broadly, the same rules will apply to universal credit as under current working-age income-related benefits. For someone with a disease who receives a lump-sum payment under either of these schemes and also receives an income-related benefit, the payment is treated as capital, not income, and is disregarded for a 52-week period. After that time, if the money has been placed in a trust fund, the capital will be disregarded, as will any income from the fund. If the payment is made to a working-age dependant, the normal capital rules apply, meaning that if the dependant’s total capital is more than £6,000, their income-related benefit may be reduced. If they have capital of £16,000 or more, their benefit entitlement will end.
A question was also asked about why dependants who claim payments under either of these lump-sum schemes are paid less than if the person with the disease had made a claim in life. As I said in my opening speech, the main intention of these schemes is to provide financial support for people living with certain diseases and help them to deal with the issues that illness brings. As around 90% of payments made under both schemes are paid to people with a disease covered by them, we believe that resources are rightly targeted. For example, in 2017-18, 3,420 payments were made to people with those diseases and 260 to dependants.
The calculations for dependants are complex and depend on a number of factors, such as the age of the person with the disease, the length of time between diagnosis and death and whether the person died from the disease or from some other cause. In 2017-18, across both schemes, 3,420 awards were made to people with a disease, averaging £13,783 each. For the dependants, as I said, 260 awards were made, but they averaged £8,462. However, this comparison is broad and does not really reflect the complexity involved in these calculations.
Noble Lords asked why the Government do not equalise dependant payments with those made to people with a disease. We estimate that the additional cost of equalisation would be in excess £3 million per year. We must prioritise resources where they are needed most: with people living with a disease. Equalising awards between people with a disease and their dependants would require legislative changes. That would be a complex task, as awards to dependants under the 1979 Act include payments made in two parts: first, a payment for the effects of the illness before death, based on the assessed level of disability and the length of time the person had the illness; and, secondly, a payment made in cases where the death was actually caused by the relevant disease. Taking forward such changes is not a current legislative priority, but we will continue to keep this issue under review.
The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, suggested meeting to discuss the issue of equalisation. I do not want to commit my honourable friend in the other place, the Minister for Disabled People, but she is renowned for welcoming meetings. I shall suggest to her that this meeting could take place because it is very important for noble Lords to have the opportunity to share things with her—she takes these matters incredibly seriously—and discuss this point further. I heard with care and I want to share with my honourable friend in another place the details of the different suggestions that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has made today of schemes that could support such a move. I suspect my honourable friend is already aware of them; she is always so on top of her brief. However, I think it would be helpful if I share with her the entire debate that has taken place today to see what could be done. I will be in touch with all noble Lords on that proposal for a meeting, and all will be welcome.
Lord Wigley
I was referring to those under the pneumoconiosis compensation scheme, whereby dust has accumulated, perhaps in a quarryman working in Wales for a number of years then working abroad, and the disability only becomes apparent after he has worked abroad.
Baroness Buscombe
Yes. As I said, it has to be demonstrated that the disease was as a result of working in the United Kingdom. If somebody worked for a number of years in the UK and then continued that occupation abroad, I assume that it would be for those who assess an individual’s case to make a reasonable assessment in the circumstances.
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, spoke about the MoD scheme. With a son in the Fleet Air Arm, I have a personal interest in this. It is an extremely good question. Are we being careful to ensure that we are doing all we can to protect our Armed Forces—particularly those in the Navy, on ships? I would welcome a reply from the Ministry of Defence, so I say here and now that I will ask that question with all speed and reply to all noble Lords and place a copy in the Library.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh also asked how long it takes to deal with claims under the 1979 Act scheme and the 2008 Act scheme. Claims lodged under both schemes are dealt with as quickly as possible. For the 1979 Act scheme, which includes diseases other than diffuse mesothelioma, it can take a number of weeks as investigations may be required into the existence of a relevant employer against which civil action may be taken. However, that is still very quick in comparison with civil litigation cases, which of course can take years. Under the 2008 scheme, where there is no need to ascertain the existence of a relevant employer to sue, cases are dealt with very quickly. Dependant claims under both schemes can take longer, as the department may have to await the death certificate or other official confirmation that establishes the cause of death. We are not aware of any general delays or issues with processing claims.
A number of noble Lords touched on what we do to promote awareness of the schemes. The Department for Work and Pensions highlights the availability of the 1979 Act scheme to industrial injuries disablement benefit claimants in official letters. A leaflet is included with the award notice for any of the five diseases covered by the lump-sum scheme, encouraging people to make a claim. All government schemes are publicised on GOV.UK. The department also maintains regular telephone contact with a range of asbestos support groups, and meets their representatives face to face at the annual asbestos forum to discuss the lump-sum schemes.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about the amounts recovered each year by the Compensation Recovery Unit of the Department for Work and Pensions. It recovers around £27 million per year from civil compensation awards. If a mesothelioma claimant subsequently recovers compensation in civil proceedings, the process for clawback of any lump-sum payments is as follows. Once a claim is settled or determined against a compensator, a certificate is requested from the Compensation Recovery Unit that details an amount equivalent to the value of benefits paid in respect of the condition for which the claimant has successfully pursued civil action. The compensator makes a payment of the value of the certificate to the CRU.
The 2008 Act scheme was set up on the basis that it would be funded by compensation recoveries from civil claims. The 1979 Act scheme is funded partly by civil compensation recoveries and partly by the department. It is a long-standing principle that people should not be compensated twice and, in most cases, where social security benefits are paid, they are recovered from compensation where people have been successful in a subsequent civil claim for damages. The net cost to the department of making payments under both schemes in the last financial year, 2017-18, was £22.2 million. Payments totalled £49.2 million and £27 million was recovered.
The noble Lord also asked how many people had benefited from the diffuse mesothelioma payment scheme, how much had been paid out and what was the average award. In the fourth year of operation, 2017-18, the scheme paid out £36 million in compensation to 200 successful claimants, with the average mean award being around £145,000—up from £141,000 the previous year. Since the scheme was launched in April 2014, it has helped just under 1,000 sufferers from mesothelioma, with £133.8 million awarded in compensation.
The noble Lord referred to tax credits and universal credit. Payments made under both schemes are paid by a lump sum and regarded as compensation. Therefore, they are not included as income for the purpose of income tax or tax credits. However, interest arising from the lump sum is subject to income tax and included in the income calculation for tax credits. For universal credit, payments are treated as personal injury compensation and, as I said, disregarded for one year. If they are then placed in a trust, they are disregarded indefinitely.
I hope that I have managed to answer noble Lords’ questions to the best of my ability. I thank all noble Lords for their many and helpful contributions to this debate. The Government recognise that the two schemes form a hugely important part of the support available to people with mesothelioma and certain other dust-related diseases. The regulations will ensure that the value of that support is maintained. I thank all noble Lords who have been supportive of the uprating of the payment scales for these schemes and ask approval to implement it.
Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Buscombe
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 January be approved.
Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2018
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Order laid before the House on 3 December 2018 be approved.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the order was laid before Parliament in December and is required to enable nationals of Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the United States of America who are aged 12 or above and seek to enter the United Kingdom as a visitor under the Immigration Rules to be granted such leave by passing through an automated gate, without having to be interviewed by an immigration officer. The change is needed to give effect to the announcements made by both the Chancellor and the Home Secretary that these additional nationalities should be permitted to use our e-passport gates. Noble Lords’ agreement to the order will ensure that the change can be implemented in time for the summer.
The UK already leads the world in the use of e-passport gates for passenger clearance. We have more e-passport gates than any other country and we allow more nationalities to use them. We intend to continue to build on their use as they provide a safe and secure means of processing low-risk passengers, allowing our highly trained Border Force officers to focus their efforts on those who seek to abuse or exploit the system and wider border threats.
The change will have a transformational impact on the border experience for the additional nationalities, providing them with significantly faster entry to the UK. It should also have a knock-on benefit for the clearance of non-EEA passengers arriving at ports with e-passport gates, by removing an expected 6.5 million passengers from the staffed non-EEA queue.
Expanding e-passport gate eligibility to these additional low-risk nationalities will also help us to meet the challenge of growing passenger numbers, ensuring that arriving passengers are dealt with both swiftly and securely. In 2017, there were 137 million arrivals at the UK border, an increase of 5.4% on 2016. Within those figures the percentage increase in non-EEA passenger arrivals was even more noticeable, up more than 17% on the previous year. Passenger numbers are projected to continue to increase, with the Department for Transport predicting year-on-year growth on aviation routes alone of 2.8% to 2020. That is of course good news for the UK, demonstrating that we continue to be a destination of choice.
Keeping the UK’s border secure remains our top priority, and I assure noble Lords that this decision has been taken only after careful consideration and in consultation with security partners across government. Nationals from Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the United States have been identified as suitable for using the gates based on a number of factors, including levels of co-operation with the UK on border matters.
Part of our long-term vision has always been to make better use of digital technology and greater automation to improve the passenger experience while maintaining security at the border. As noble Lords will be aware, we recently published a White Paper setting out detailed plans for the UK’s future skills-based immigration system, which includes measures to strengthen border security and improve journey crossings for legitimate passengers. The expansion of the use of e-gates needs to be seen in the context of that longer-term programme of work, where we intend to use the UK’s exit from the EU as an opportunity to develop a new global border and immigration system that makes better use of data, biometrics, analytics and automation to improve both security and fluidity across the UK border.
I also reassure the House that this is not a cost-cutting measure—far from it. The Government are increasing Border Force officer numbers, and their powers and responsibilities will remain unchanged. We are committed to ensuring that Border Force has the resources and the workforce needed to keep the border safe.
This new order will allow nationals of Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the United States to be granted leave to enter as visitors for up to six months when they pass through an e-gate at a UK port, including our juxtaposed controls for Eurostar services. Nationals of these countries coming to the UK for other purposes, such as work or study, will also be able to enter using our e-gates but no change to the law is needed for them as they will already hold the necessary leave in the form of a visa or residence permit. We estimate that up to 6.5 million passengers from these countries will benefit from the change. This expansion in eligibility is therefore a clear signal to the rest of the world that the UK is open for business and will allow us to control our borders in the UK’s best interests. Once approved, we expect the change to be fully implemented in time for the summer. I commend the order to the House.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the draft order. I ask your Lordships to bear with some cynicism on my part.
The obvious questions are: why this order and why now? The Minister said that it is required. It is not, on the face of it, Brexit related—we have enough Brexit-related secondary legislation to fill the Order Paper—yet the Government have said that EU citizens must not be allowed in future to jump the queue at the border. You take your choice as to whether that is a political observation or because of the chaos that would be caused if they had to be checked in by Border Force in addition to those who are now. A different way of looking at the order is that we have to let some non-EU citizens in by equivalent arrangements because we cannot let EU citizens uniquely use the e-gates.
We have heard about the cohort who will be affected. I have got nothing against EU nationals or any of these nationals, quite the contrary, but they will be allowed to enter without any form of visa—unless, as the Minister said, they are coming for work purposes and so on—and without an explanation as to the duration of the stay, though it should be six months, the purpose of the stay or the means by which they will support themselves. The assumption is that all will be seeking to enter temporarily.
This leads to my first question: what if they want to stay longer? Presumably if they know that before they arrive they will have applied in their own country, but what if they take the decision during the six-month period? Will they have to leave the UK and apply out of country, which is what many people in difficult immigration situations have to do at present?
UK visitors to the United States need an electronic visa waiver before they depart. They are questioned at the border, can still be refused entry and have their fingerprints and photographs taken. The Department of Homeland Security assumes that all visitors are seeking to enter to remain permanently—in other words, illegally—until the visitor proves otherwise. So the rhetorical question is: border control?
Will there be further instances of UK citizens acting on behalf of the state as a result of this new arrangement—employers, landlords and banks checking on the status of an extra group of people who are living here? We are often told that the largest number of people in the UK without leave to be here are over-stayers, and we know how much more difficult it is to find and remove them than to not give them leave in the first place. I wonder whether this is a false economy.
The Explanatory Note tells us that there will be no significant impact on the private, voluntary or public sectors and that therefore there is no impact assessment. Should we really accept that without questioning?
I am all for efficiency and the use of reliable technology, but by identifying these nationalities as lower risk, by implication others are higher risk. I simply observe—there is no accusation in it; I say it to myself as well as to others—that we must be careful not to appear to be prejudiced in any way.
It is not news to any noble Lord that my instincts are to want the UK to be as open and welcoming to visitors as possible. I do not subscribe to the rallying cry of “take back control”—none of my noble friends do—but one must ask whether this order is taking back control of our borders.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the Minister’s introduction.
In relation to the noble Baroness’s questions, what will happen between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland when these checks have to take place in both directions and there is, apparently, to be a no-check border? How will that be done?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the purpose of the order in respect of the e-passport gates and the additional countries selected to benefit from the new arrangements. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has raised a number of important points, to which I am sure the Minister will respond.
I have not been to the United States of America for three or four years but I am conscious that when you arrive at the border you have your photograph and fingerprints taken. You have to fill out a form in the UK and you can be refused at that point; and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, you can be refused at the border. Will these arrangements be reciprocal? Will the current arrangements apply to British citizens when they arrive in the United States? US citizens seem able to get into our country fairly easily.
Can the Minister explain why these countries were selected? She said that they are low-risk countries. Is there a list of low-risk, medium-risk and high-risk countries? Are there plans to extend this scheme to further countries? What will other countries have to do to qualify to use the e-gates and what criteria will the department use in selecting them? More generally, apart from the US, will these arrangements be reciprocal with other countries? I want to live in a free and open country but, equally, when I am abroad I want to benefit from as much freedom of travel as possible. It would be useful if the Minister could answer that point. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, also made the point that we should not be seen as prejudiced in the countries selected.
With those comments, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I wish to ask two questions. First, on the six months, what record is there that it is a six-month stay that is allowed? Secondly, do the gates require adaptation for the nationals of the different countries coming in? If, for example, another country is added later, will it be possible to adapt the gates to enable that?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank noble Lords for the points they have raised.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked why we are doing this. Sometimes with SIs a suspicion is built into noble Lords’ minds. We are doing it because UK airports have asked us to and to make it easier for passengers. Noble Lords and Members of the Commons have been asking for the expansion of e-gates to make it easier for visitors—I stress “visitors”—to use them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay asked about six months. It is the usual time allowed for visitors, so that is why six months is in play.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked about Ireland. The situation for Ireland is no different from what it was before this SI was laid. It is all about expanding e-gate facilities to countries other than the UK, so the arrangements for Ireland remain unchanged under the SI.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about people who want to stay longer. They would have to do so under the terms of their reasons for wishing to stay longer, such as to work or as a visitor. They would have to make those arrangements. Generally, those arrangements are made ahead of travel across the border.
Baroness Hamwee
People’s plans change, so my question was about whether they would have to leave the UK to make the application or whether it could be made in this country without their having to leave.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I think the answer is not necessarily. Individuals entering the UK via the e-passport gates will be granted six months’ visitor leave. This is the standard leave granted to visitors. They will be required to leave the UK at the end of the six-month duration of their visitor leave. If they want to extend their stay, they cannot. They must return home and reapply. I was not sure about that, so I thank my officials for that answer.
The noble Baroness talked about going from the UK to the US being different. Yes, it is an entirely different experience when going to the US. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about reciprocity and other noble Lords asked whether we will expect other countries, such as the US, to do the same as we have done. Obviously, we operate the UK border in our way and in the best interests of the UK. We would expect other countries to follow suit in due course. I guess that is a partial answer on reciprocity, but I would like the eventual outcome of this to be that other countries do the same.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Is the Minister saying that we tried to get the United States to make an e-gate change, that we did not bother or that we do not intend to do so? It would be nice to know. The United States is a great country, and I have been there many times, but it is not the easiest place to arrive in and you do not get the friendliest welcome there. It would be nice to think that, as we have been so accommodating here, that could be reciprocated.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Indeed. As I said, going into the US is an entirely different experience from going to Manchester Airport. I imagine that conversations have gone on but, rather than guessing the answer, I will ask whether we have information on this.
The noble Baroness said that if these countries are lower-risk, by inference others are not. It is not a question of either/or, but we have specifically looked at countries that are low-risk in all sorts of areas, some of which I clearly cannot discuss publicly. She also asked about the impact assessment. We have said that there is no impact, but there might even be a positive impact if people’s travel through the e-gates is easier. Passengers will still go through the same procedures, but they will be able to use the e-gates.
Trade Agreements
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Baroness Fairhead) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given to an Urgent Question in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Trade. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, as a member of the EU, the UK currently participates in around 40 free trade agreements with more than 70 countries. In 2018, the trade agreements in force constituted about 11% of our trade. These cover a wide variety of relationships, including: free trade agreements; economic partnership agreements with developing nations; association agreements that cover broader economic and political co-operation; and mutual recognition agreements.
The Government’s programme for providing continuity and stability for businesses, consumers and investors in our international agreements is of the utmost importance. We are committed to ensuring that those benefits are maintained, providing for a smooth transition as we leave the EU, but the best way to provide that continuity and stability is to ensure that we have a deal with the European Union so that the UK can remain covered by all those agreements during the implementation period.
We have already signed a number of agreements, including with Switzerland—the largest in terms of our trade flows, representing more than 20% of the value of all our rollover agreements. We have also signed agreements with Chile and the Faroe Islands and an economic partnership agreement with eastern and southern Africa—ESA. The text of these agreements, the Explanatory Memorandums and the parliamentary reports for them have already been laid in the Libraries of both Houses.
As we leave the EU, we have no intention of making our developing country partners worse off, as the Opposition would have us do, and it is important for the prosperity of their people that we maintain our trading relationships so that they have the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty. We have recently reached agreements with Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and we intend to sign those agreements shortly. We have also signed mutual recognition agreements with Australia and New Zealand and will be closing two with the United States soon. A number of negotiations are at an advanced stage. All international negotiations—indeed, any negotiations—tend to go down to the wire, and I would expect nothing less from these agreements. That is the way that countries do business.
To put the economic value of the agreements in perspective, the countries covered by 20 of the smallest agreements account for just 0.8% of the UK’s total trade. For those countries where we may not be able to get a full agreement signed by exit day, it is responsible to ensure that we have contingencies in place should we end up in a no-deal scenario. That is exactly what my department, alongside the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development, is doing. We will shortly be updating businesses and the House about progress on these agreements and will continue to inform the House as soon as further agreements are signed”.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating as a Statement the Answer to the UQ in the other place yesterday. The mystery which this Statement is supposed to address is why there is such secrecy about progress on the rollover of existing EU FTAs. It was always going to be much harder than was ever promised; it was always going to take time, and it has; and, as the Minister said, it was always going to be up to the last minute, so we should not be surprised by anything that has been leaked to the papers. Having said that, it is good to see the leaked report because it gives some clarity to what is otherwise a rather obscure situation.
If the Minister will forgive the comment, the Statement still has Micawberish undertones. It has been clear for many months that, at best, only a very small number of agreements will be in force if we leave without a deal on 29 March. It is also becoming clearer that the focus on these 40 EU FTAs with 70 or so countries is a bit of a distraction. Even counting the Japan agreement that recently came into force, although it takes a number of years to have its full effect, we are talking about 16% of our overall gross imports and about the same—16.5%—of our gross exports, so it is a small proportion of our overall trade.
If you go a bit further into these EU FTAs, over 80% of their value is provided by some six of them. Obviously, they are important but they are not that important, particularly when you go further into what they comprise. The much-vaunted Swiss agreement accounts for a very large proportion of the six that provide 80% of the value but it is in a very restricted sector—pearls, precious metals and jewellery. Therefore, we have to understand a much wider issue. The majority of the EU FTA agreements and the ones that account for 80% of their value deal with precious metals, pearls, jewellery and mineral fuels. They do not supply food or medicines—the sorts of things that will be in short supply if we crash out on 29 March.
To focus a little more on the wider context, can the Minister now confirm clearly to the House that, if there is a withdrawal agreement, after 29 March 2019 the UK will be a third country, no longer participating as an EU member, and that it will have to rely on the EU’s promise to notify its current partners that the UK is to be treated as a member state? But of course that will be entirely up to the countries concerned and, as things stand, a very small number of the agreements with those countries will be in place on 29 March.
If there is no deal and we leave on WTO terms, the crucial question that is missing from this whole discussion is: what tariffs will be applied when we leave? Can the Minister confirm when we will get some information about the tariff rates that will be applied? We gathered from the exchanges yesterday in another place that the much-touted story over the weekend that the Government would go for zero tariffs has no credibility. The Minister in the other place said that that would not be the case. Can the Minister also confirm that the Government will announce the tariffs very shortly? If so, when will that be?
Baroness Fairhead
I thank the noble Lord. I think I heard two questions there. First, he asked whether it is true that if, as is the Government’s priority, we leave with a deal—that is, with a withdrawal agreement and an implementation period—the EU has to propose that the UK is treated as a partner for the purposes of these trade agreements. That is correct. I do not believe that that is a secret. My understanding is that the countries with which we have been having these discussions are happy about that and are supporting continuity on that basis. That has been the basis on which we have been proceeding.
Secondly, the noble Lord asked what tariffs would be in place in the case of no deal. Again, I stress that a lot of the focus is on getting a deal, although there is a risk of no deal. We have already started to provide information on GOV.UK and have provided technical notices to businesses with some elements of specificity and suggestions about what they can do. If it looks as though there will be no deal, clearly the Government will come forward with a day-one tariffs paper. As I imagine the noble Lord would expect, I cannot confirm the date of that but I can confirm that it will happen.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, in thanking the Minister for bringing this Question to the Floor. As the Statement makes clear, these deals account for around 11%—or 16% if you include Japan—of our total trade. That figure pales into insignificance when compared with the 48% of trade that we have with the European Union; nevertheless, it is important, and it is important to the companies that trade on that basis. It is important too because it is something of an act of faith. The Secretary of State was very clear that these deals would be easy and that they would be in place on the stroke of midnight, or one second after midnight. He was unequivocal and confident.
In Committee on the Trade Bill, my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed pressed the Government time and again to come forward with details of the progress on these deals. However, the Government did not give any and it is very regrettable that we are having this discussion due to a leak. The details having leaked, it seems that the Secretary of State’s bulletproof confidence is slipping.
In answer yesterday to the Member for Eddisbury in the other place, the Secretary of State said:
“The Government are assessing where we are with each of the agreements. Where we believe that it will not be possible fully to replicate, we will set out a technical notice in the coming days”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/2/19; col. 895.]
Additionally, in answer to my right honourable friend Tom Brake, he said that he would now keep Parliament updated on progress “in the coming days”. Can the Minister tell us on which day this update will be forthcoming?
Baroness Fairhead
My Lords, I can only repeat the Statement from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Trade. The update will be given shortly—as he said, in the coming week.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to have the opportunity to raise what was debated in the other place yesterday. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about tariffs. What will the mechanism be for setting the tariffs? Will a statutory instrument be brought before both Houses to set them?
On a different matter, I am personally very enthusiastic about the Faroes and would like to put down a marker about that. I am probably one of the few people to have visited the Faroe Islands. I am slightly concerned that the Faroes account for 0% of our trade when we have £60 million of exports and £229 million of imports.
Baroness Fairhead
My Lords, in terms of tariff-setting, there are the powers under the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill. With regard to the Faroe Islands, I think that the figure of 0% has been rounded. We are talking about the total amount of trade to the UK but I agree with my noble friend that the trade agreement with the Faroe Islands, as well as many other smaller trade agreements, is vital.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, I too am very excited about the prospects of doubling or tripling our trade with the Faroe Islands. Can the Minister confirm that the facile optimism of the Secretary of State must surely now melt as he sees the reduction in our negotiating power when we are on our own compared with having the weight of the EU behind us, particularly in relation to the big hitters. Each of them—Japan, the US and India—will demand concessions, some of which might be painful for us; for example, it is clear that India will demand concessions on visas. That will be unpalatable to many Brexiteers.
Baroness Fairhead
I can only say to the noble Lord that we will remain the fifth-largest trading nation in the world. Third countries are very keen to work with us and to have access to our products, and they are very keen to make sure that they can export their goods to us. There is also the argument that in dealing with one country we will be able to focus on areas of particular interest to this country. I highlight in particular the service industry, which makes up 80% of our GDP.
Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
That the draft Order laid before the House on 12 December 2018 be approved.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, in moving this order I shall also speak to the draft Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2019.
The order and regulations make changes to the rules governing the conduct of elections of combined authority mayors and local mayors in England. The instruments also make important changes to the electoral framework in relation to candidates standing at these polls. They remove the existing requirement that each candidate’s home address must be published during the election process and be included on the ballot paper at elections of combined authority mayors and local mayors. These changes are designed to enhance the security of candidates standing at these polls and of their families, and to deliver commitments made by the Government in response to recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
I should explain that these are two of four instruments that we have brought forward on this issue. In December 2018, we made two statutory instruments that implement the recommendation made by the CSPL in relation to candidates at local government and parish council elections. Electoral law provides that these statutory instruments are made under the negative resolution procedure, and they are therefore not required to be debated in Parliament before being made. This reflects the requirement that the rules for local government and parish council elections are to follow those for UK parliamentary elections. These orders are laid under the affirmative procedure.
Since 2010, candidates at UK parliamentary elections have been able to choose for their home address not to be made public at these polls. The changes we are making in the four instruments that relate to local and parish council elections and to combined authority and local mayoral elections will bring the procedure at these polls into line with that at UK parliamentary elections.
By way of background, in December 2017, the CSPL published its report, Intimidation in Public Life: A Review by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. It made a package of recommendations on ways to enhance the security of those wanting to take part in public life and to reduce the risk of intimidation. This included the recommendation that:
“The Government should bring forward legislation to remove the requirement for candidates standing as local councillors to have their home addresses published on the ballot paper”.
In responding to the CSPL report, the Government accepted this recommendation in relation to local councillors. Indeed, they went further in their response and stated that the practice of removing the requirement for home addresses to be published on the ballot paper should be applied equally to all those standing for election to public office, and should apply to those standing at any level of local authority elections, including for mayoral positions. We are therefore going beyond the CSPL’s report in taking action on this important issue.
As I indicated, in December last year, we made two statutory instruments that implement the recommendation made by the CSPL in relation to candidates at local government and parish council elections. The two instruments we are considering today will apply the changes to the elections of combined authority mayors and local mayors.
The CSPL heard from a number of individuals that the requirement for candidates standing for election as local councillors to publish their home address on the ballot paper has been a significant factor in enabling intimidatory behaviour, and would put people off standing as a council candidate due to that risk of intimidation. A number of former local election candidates stated that the disclosure of their home address enabled intimidatory behaviour to escalate when they subsequently stood as a parliamentary candidate. These personal accounts reinforce the need to take action to address this issue.
I turn briefly to the detail of the proposed changes. Currently, candidates standing at combined authority and local mayoral elections are required to give their home address, which will appear on certain election documents and the ballot paper. The only exception to these existing requirements is for persons standing at combined authority mayoral elections where the mayor will have police and crime commissioner functions. These candidates may already require that their home address is not made public. Under the proposed changes, candidates at any combined authority mayoral election and at all local mayoral elections will not be required to provide their home address on the nomination form or consent to nomination form. In future, candidates at these polls will be required to complete a home address form and to include their home address on it. Candidates will be able to choose that their home address is not made public and so not included on the ballot paper or other electoral documents.
We recognise that we need to strike a balance between transparency of the electoral process and the safety of candidates running for public office. We think it is important for electors to know whether a candidate lives locally and whether they have a link to the area in which they are standing for election. For this reason, under the proposed changes, if a candidate chooses not to make their home address public, they must state the name of the local authority area within which they live; this will appear on the ballot paper, the statement of persons nominated and the notice of poll for the election, instead of the candidate’s home address. Again, we are mindful of the need to ensure that there is openness in the electoral process. We are therefore providing that the home address forms will be available for inspection by certain authorised people, including other candidates standing at the poll.
We have consulted on the two mayoral instruments with the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives. We have also kept the Parliamentary Parties Panel—which is made up of representatives of the main political parties—informed of the position of the two instruments. There is broad support among stakeholders for the proposed changes.
On a final point, I highlight that it is important that the instruments are in place as soon as possible so that they can apply at the local government elections in England on 2 May. These instruments will therefore come into force on the day after they are made. The instruments presented before the House today make sensible and fair changes to the electoral framework. I commend them to the House.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these orders. I am supportive of them. They bring the regulations into line with the election of police and crime commissioners and of Members of Parliament. They also respond to the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. It will of course be a voluntary matter and, where an individual candidate makes a decision not to show their home address on the ballot paper, it is right that the local authority area they live in is shown on the ballot paper to assist voters.
It is a finely balanced issue but a decision to allow candidates for the mayoral election not to publish their home address seems justified by the evidence, as long as a candidate whose home address is not shown has their local authority area published on the ballot paper, the statement of persons nominated and the notice of poll. I emphasise to the Minister that my comments relate to mayoral elections, which cover large geographical areas. We will need to look more closely at the precise regulations for local councillors, who have a much more local focus, but that is for another occasion.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, it is unfortunate that we are having to move progressively to electoral arrangements in the United Kingdom where candidates’ more personal details, such as their address, are not made available publicly. It seems that we are pursuing the need for security at a cost to transparency, and that has wider implications in all sorts of other areas.
I want to flag up two associated issues. I am surprised that the Liberal Democrats did not come in on one of them: the supplementary vote, which I will now move on to. Why can we not extend the supplementary vote to parish councils? It has been successfully deployed in mayoral elections; any analysis of results under the supplementary vote over recent years shows how successful it has been. Perhaps Ministers might still consider it for the future.
Then there is the question of candidate declarations. We are removing the need for candidates to indicate where they live—albeit not altogether, in that they may publish the area where they live rather than their individual address—but there is an argument for financial declarations by candidates prior to election. It has always struck me that there is far more opportunity for abuse in local government than in Parliament. We often hear of cases at a local level where people have sailed close to the line but within the rules. It may be that pre-election financial declarations are a way of dealing with this problem. I have flagged it up before and got nowhere, but I shall no doubt persist well into the future.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am very happy to support the instruments we are discussing today. It is right to bring all these matters into line. The security of candidates is an important consideration, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. It is right to do this but, equally, it is regrettable that we have to balance the safety and security of candidates against the issues of openness and transparency. That is a terrible shame, but we live in times when candidates can be abused and treated improperly, so we need to give them the option of not publishing their address on the ballot paper. However, it is regrettable in many ways.
I fully support the instruments in front of us today. Of course, there is one other group of people to consider. The order says that, if you want, your address can be removed from the ballot paper. But when people get elected to the council, they often find that their name, address and telephone number get stuck on the council website. In present times, I am not convinced that we should do that. If people want to get hold of their local councillor, they should contact them at the town hall. Sometimes councils make decisions that people do not like, and making people’s personal details available may mean that we are exposing them to risks in a way we should not. Obviously that is not for today; it is a discussion for another time, but I think we should look at that as well. I am very happy to support the instruments before us.
Lord Young of Cookham
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate and for their support for the Motions we are bringing forward.
As I said, the background is a recommendation from the Committee on Standards in Public Life. We have already extended this facility to a large number of people who are standing for election, and the relatively modest Motions before us simply extend that facility on a voluntary basis to those standing for combined authority and local mayoral elections. As a number of noble Lords said, we do not want people to be discouraged from putting themselves forward for public office due to fear of intimidation; there has been some evidence of publicly elected people being subjected to intimidation. That is why we are doing it. However, I understand the point made in this debate that it is a matter of regret that we need to do so.
On the specific questions, as far as I am aware, we have no plans to revisit the voting procedures at local or parish council elections. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, suggested that before you stand for public office there should be some pre-election financial declaration. The Committee on Standards in Public Life might look at that in the first instance; it seems to fall within its remit, rather than being something for the Government to initiate.
On the final point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, it is for individual local authorities to decide what information they put on their websites about individual councillors. I hope that they would consult local councillors before putting their home address and telephone number on a website, and that they would not do that automatically. However, I imagine this is a matter best decided by local authorities, and I am sure they will have taken on board the point the noble Lord made. With those brief points, I commend these instruments to the House.
Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 12 December 2018 be approved.
Representation of the People (Election Expenses Exclusion) (Amendment) Order 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
That the draft Order laid before the House on 17 December 2018 be approved.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the election expenses exclusion order brought forward today aims to make significant improvements to the electoral framework. The order proposes that expenses that are reasonably attributable to a candidate’s disability, and which are reasonably incurred, are excluded from a candidate’s electoral spending limits.
Examples of such expenses include, but are not limited to, British Sign Language interpretation for hearing-impaired candidates, the transcription of campaign material into Braille for visually impaired candidates and specialist equipment. This order will also exclude expenses funded from grants provided through the Government’s interim EnAble Fund for Elected Office from electoral spending limits. This £250,000 interim fund will support disabled candidates and help cover disability-related expenses that people might face when seeking elected office, such as those I have listed.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the diversity of the United Kingdom is sufficiently represented in public office. Around one in five of the UK population has a disability, but disabled people remain insufficiently represented in our Parliaments, Assemblies and councils. The proposed changes will help to create a level playing field between candidates with disabilities and candidates without disabilities, enhancing equality of opportunity.
Alongside the proposals put forward today, I will remind the House of the other work being taken on to increase the number of disabled people in public office. This includes the review by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond into opening public appointments to disabled people. We welcome his report’s recommendations, which suggest improvements across each of the key points of the appointment process, from the data the Government hold to attracting applicants, the application process and interviews and assessments. We are confident that the recommendations will enable the Government to understand better the issue, improve the disability data we hold for public appointees and pinpoint effective approaches to increasing the proportion of disabled public appointees. We are currently assessing how these recommendations might be implemented.
The order brought before the House today has a wide remit of application. It will apply UK-wide to all UK parliamentary elections, including by-elections. In England, the order will also apply to local government elections, Mayor of London elections, London Assembly elections, mayoral elections and combined authority mayoral elections. In Northern Ireland, it will apply to Northern Ireland Assembly elections. I can tell noble Lords that the Government plan to lay a second statutory instrument this year to widen the application of this provision to police and crime commissioner elections across England and Wales.
I will turn briefly to the detail of the proposed changes. The election expenses exclusion order excludes expenses that are reasonably attributable to a candidate’s disability and which are reasonably incurred, by substituting a new paragraph 7(a) in Part 2 of Schedule 4A to the Representation of the People Act 1983. Part 2 of Schedule 4A to that Act sets out a list of matters that are “excluded” from being “election expenses” and therefore are not taken into account when calculating a candidate’s electoral spending limits. This ensures parity with electoral spending limits for non-party campaigners. Schedule 8A to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 excludes reasonable expenses incurred that are reasonably attributable to an individual’s disability from electoral spending limits of non-party campaigners.
I would like to allay concerns about whether the change will require candidates to disclose any disability. It will not. There will be no legal obligation for candidates to report their disability-related expenses. Candidates can declare these expenses if they wish so to do. I would also like to allay concerns that this exclusion could be misused by individuals who want to manipulate their electoral spending limits. The provisions are clear: this exclusion can be used only for expenses that are reasonably incurred and reasonably attributable to a candidate’s disability. Any breach of the spending rules for candidates can be referred to the police and prosecutors for investigation. The order will not give candidates with a disability an advantage. Its purpose is to create a level playing field in respect of electoral spending limits, so that candidates with a disability are not disadvantaged by that disability in standing for election.
We have consulted on the elections expenses exclusion order with the Electoral Commission, the Welsh Government, the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Office. There has been cross-government collaboration between the Cabinet Office and the Government Equalities Office. All the consulted stakeholders have been supportive of the proposals. We have also kept the Parliamentary Parties Panel informed of the position with the order.
On a final point, I would like to highlight that it is important that the order is in place as soon as possible so that it can apply at the local government elections in England on 2 May. This order will therefore come into force on the day after the day on which it is made. I commend this order to the House.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I thank the Minister for explaining this order and I want to record that I agree with it. It is entirely appropriate that any disability-related expenses in elections should be exempt from spending limits, on principle. That is because it helps disabled candidates to stand for election on equal terms with others. I noted the Minister’s comments about some objections that may have been raised on some of the details—but none is more important than the overall principle of equality of opportunity.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am very happy to give the order my full support. I was glad that the noble Lord mentioned the political parties panel, because I was going to ask him about it. There is no mention of political parties at all in the consultation referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum. I know that the noble Lord mentioned it in his contribution, because I was going to ask him about it. The bodies listed in the Explanatory Memorandum do not pay election expenses and do not fill out election returns. I am glad that he covered that point. It is important that we keep the political parties informed on all these matters. They can often inform the Government’s thinking in a positive and helpful way. Since the noble Lord answered my question, that is fine. I am very happy to support the order.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, I have had a remarkably easy time—oh, I am sorry.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
I will be very brief, so do not worry. Paragraph 14.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to the EnAble Fund for Elected Office having,
“robust checks and balances in place to ensure that grants are allocated to eligible applicants”.
It then sets out the process to ensure that happens, because, obviously, public money is being expended. However, in the case we are discussing here, I will quote paragraph 14.1:
“There are no plans to monitor or review the statutory instrument … monitoring or reviewing of the statutory instrument is difficult to implement and unnecessary”.
The Minister referred in his contribution to “reasonably incurred” and “reasonably attributable”. Whenever I see “reasonably” I always think of the courts. What happens if there is a challenge on the basis that an expense has not been “reasonably incurred” or “reasonably attributable” and therefore should have been declared as part of the base limit? What happens in the event that that is breached?
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, I obviously spoke too soon when I said I had had a reasonably easy ride. I am grateful to noble Lords for their broad support for the measure. On the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, as I said, we are extending an exemption that already applies to non-party campaigners to those standing for public office. I am not aware that the existing exemption for non-party campaigners has given rise to the difficulties he presents, but he asked about the precautions we are taking to make sure that this is not abused. The EnAble Fund for Elected Office has robust checks and balances in place. There is an initial triage process—a meeting with the applicant, in person where possible. During these checks, applicants will be asked to confirm that they have a disability that necessitates reasonable adjustments to enable them to stand for election. In addition, applicants intending to stand for election will undergo a verification process to ensure that their intention to stand is genuine.
A risk confronts anybody who stands for elected office and misuses the expenses regime, as we discussed yesterday: they stand to be disqualified if they have not incurred expenditure reasonably. Those definitions, as I think I said, are already on the statute book in relation to non-party campaigners. I do not think that there has been any difficulty.
Immigration Procedures
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to improve immigration procedures in the United Kingdom.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, I first declare my interest as president of Liberal Democrats for Seekers of Sanctuary. I quote from one not of my own party, David Lammy, who, in a speech last week in the House of Commons, stated:
“Your Department’s treatment of the Windrush generation has been nothing less than a national scandal. In November, we learned that at least 164 Windrush citizens were wrongly removed, detained or stopped at the border by our own Government. Eleven of those who were wrongly deported have died. You have announced three more today. Every single one of those cases is a shocking indictment of your Government’s pandering to far right racism, sham immigration targets and the dog whistle of the right-wing press”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/2/18; cols. 170-71.]
In addition, I received a letter earlier this week from one who said:
“I am a Portuguese citizen from Lisbon, came here in 1993 on a full scholarship paid for by the Royal Academy of Music to study, when I was just 19 years old. I stayed and have been working as a performer and teacher ever since.
I came here legally, settled with no issues and have had a national insurance number since 1993. I have paid tax since 1997 … When I applied for settled status I wasn’t given a reason for being refused”.
Nor was she asked to provide evidence. She continues:
“It made me both frightened and angry. I’ve been here continuously for nearly 26 years and couldn’t think of any reason why I wouldn’t be immediately put through … I was promised and reassured by this government that the ridiculous process of having to apply for a status I already have (!) was simple, easy and that bar criminal conviction everyone would get through straight away.
I was lied to.
The app doesn’t work for the self-employed.
The app doesn’t come with a helpline number or email to write to, it also doesn’t tell you that if you’re self-employed you’re not likely to get through.
It doesn’t offer help in any way.
What I want to know is why on earth the Home Office cannot just look at my 25 continuous years of NI and understand it is me!
I have lost sleep, been hugely stressed over this, and none of this is of my choice and making.
17.5% of all EU citizens here are self-employed and they are all having the same issue. Half a million people! To me this is a human rights issue, we’re being lied to, the app system is immature, bugged and biased against the self-employed … Every time an EU citizen gets rejected and is asked to submit evidence of their lives here, it creates a huge amount of confusion and stress.
It seems that this whole sorry process is unethical, biased, and unlawful. The government is scrambling to put together anything that may be seen to make sense but has no actual substance.
People’s lives matter, and they are playing with our future!
I worked very hard all my life, this government is happy to take my money and work but won’t give me a voice or a choice in my future”.
She concludes:
“I have a British husband and two small children”.
This instance and many others clearly show that the whole situation is not fit for purpose. Nothing proves that better than the results of appeals against Home Office immigration decisions and how those appeals have increased in number over the years. In 2005, 17% of appeals were approved by the tribunal or the higher court. In 2009 that was up to 29%; in 2014, it was 28%; in 2015, 35%; and in 2016, 40%. We are assured that the Government are attempting to improve the situation, but nothing changes.
This results in a destruction of confidence in the whole system. When people cannot trust government decisions, we are in grave danger. When people feel, as David Lammy asserted, that one section of the community is discriminated against, that danger is even more threatening. I do not lay the blame on the officers or decision-makers; they try to fulfil this part of their Home Office responsibility. But there must be great stress in the job they are undertaking. I can immediately suggest two changes. First, every interview should be audio recorded so that there is no uncertainty over responses or the ability of those interviewed to understand a language foreign to them. Secondly, I suggest we should have not one decision-maker in every interview, but two.
I refer to a film directed by Professor Sue Clayton of Goldsmiths university. The main character of her film is ZS—let us call him that. He is a vulnerable Afghan boy with bullet wounds from the Taliban and a record of repeated suicide attempts in France. The Home Office refused to accept him and the other 36 children in the film, who, Sue suggests, were eligible under the Dubs amendment. Sue says that,
“we became increasingly concerned that the procedures they had in place for assessing our kids and others were flawed and profoundly inadequate; that the criteria for acceptance were being constantly changed; and these changes not relayed to the applicants, so that many were not able to apply, or their applications discounted. It was also clear that the Home Office were not meeting the Dubs quota of 480 lone children from Europe. In February 2018, the Home Office were sued in the High Court on behalf of our client ZS and the others, for their failure to lawfully implement the Dubs Amendment”.
The result was, Professor Clayton continued, first, that the Home Office was judged not to have provided,
“the Calais children with written decisions or any reason for their refusal. This meant they were unable to appeal (and cases such as this are generally won on appeal)”.
Secondly, she says, the result was:
“That the Home Office acted unlawfully by failing in its ‘duty of candour’ by not making its policy and procedures available to those who needed to know”.
She says that her film shows that the Home Office,
“changed its policy no less than 8 times in 18 months, so that the young people, their lawyers, carers and even the French government were all unaware of the procedures for applying to Dubs. Latterly it’s only through the French government that kids in France can apply”.
Professor Sue Clayton also says:
“So we did succeed in getting condemnation for the unlawful practices of the Home Office—one small further step on the way to dismantling the Hostile Environment”—
what a terrible word “hostile” is. She ends:
“Shockingly, after nearly 3 years, only … half of the 480 Dubs places have been filled, even though the Amendment stressed the agreed number shall be brought ‘as soon as possible’. So, the fight goes on”.
It could well be that immigration matters should no longer be a Home Office responsibility but in a department of their own. There are so many other changes that we want. We want no indefinite detention, the right to work much sooner than after the present 12 months and far better legal advice and protection for young refugees when they reach 18 years of age. I have a Bill that I hope will reach the statute book this year. All these measures would give hope and huge self-respect to those who have had the most devastating experiences. I do not want to be part of a society that dehumanises people. We should not treat them as citizens of nowhere; I prefer Socrates’ claim:
“I’m not a citizen of Athens or a citizen of Greece, but a citizen of the world”.
The last private rescue ship, the “Aquarius”, was forced to halt its operations in December. More than 29,000 people are estimated to have been rescued by the ship, which was not allowed to dock in Italy last June. But how can we criticise such moves when we ourselves have a questionable record on immigration? We can be a country that restores and builds, or we can be otherwise. In the 17th century, the Dutch of Amsterdam welcomed immigrants and said:
“We are seekers after truth and are richer in having you among us”.
Are we also not richer because of others who have contributed and are contributing to our lives? Remember: we were all immigrants once.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, on calling this debate. What a pleasure it is to follow his eloquent words. I will focus more, if I may, on the business aspects of immigration.
As Brexit draws ever closer, few topics can be as important as the future immigration procedures for our country. The United Kingdom benefits greatly from strong immigrant participation in our workforce. The latest headline figures that I have, from 2017, illustrate this. Nationally, the figures for country of birth among the UK workforce stood at 82.2% UK-born, with 7.5% from the EEA and 10.2% from the rest of the world. But the importance of international labour is much more significant if we look at London, where 59.5% were UK-born, 14.1% from the EEA and 26.3% from the rest of the world. I have worked for 46 years in the City of London, mainly in international shipping but latterly including 11 years elected to the City of London Corporation. If we strip out the figures for the City, they are not dissimilar to those for London, although around 1.5% more were from the EEA and around 1.5% less from the rest of the world.
These are striking figures and illustrate the very important part played by overseas labour in our economy, particularly in London. I am sure that other noble Lords will speak about the importance of foreign labour in specific areas and industries across the country but I want to concentrate on its crucial contribution in London, not least the City. I will focus on the highly skilled individuals who are critical to our future success. We know that concern around freedom of labour movement was a key issue in the referendum but I am talking about highly skilled labour, which we need and should welcome.
A report issued by the City of London Corporation in December 2018 found that the financial and professional services sector contributed over £72 billion in taxes last year. To give a sense of scale, that corresponds to half the NHS budget and about 11% of total UK government revenue. Professional services are international and that international dimension is London’s strongest suit; for example, across measures of competitiveness in global trade and investment and financial services capability, London ranks top when compared with other cities. Between 2013 and 2017, London received the highest volume of financial services foreign direct investment projects globally.
The contribution of the City is not always fully remarked on. I for one have been greatly concerned to see how little the City and the associated sector’s interests appear to have been weighed in the balance during the withdrawal negotiations. This is a sector where the UK is number one in the world. It becomes doubly important that the future visa regime should match the needs of the City and other related sectors. Please do not let us throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is crucial for the future success of our economy and nation—for the City, for British business, for international businesses and to attract more of them, for our creative industries, for SMEs, for academia, for students, for the UK—to have a regime in place where we attract and are open to the best in the world.
On a cautionary note, I would point to a risk. If we fail to put in place a system where the brightest and best can get visas and work here, the risk is that our own British brightest and best will depart. The young feel much more citizens of the world. They want to work with the best from around the world and where they feel best rewarded, which is likely to be where their international peers are working. It is vital that changes are made so that the UK’s future immigration process is both ambitious and dynamic—ready to change for the benefit of the country and those whom we wish to attract. We must improve the current process to one which is helpful, efficient and predictable, and ensures that we are the country of choice for applicants and employers—a country that operates the immigration system to which other countries aspire.
How are we to set about this? The City of London Corporation and the international consultants EY have just published a very helpful report, Streamlining Success: Building a World-class Visa Process for the UK. The report sets out practical steps to improve the visa process, allowing firms to recruit international talent, and recommends ways to streamline the user experience for people going through the process. The feedback received from employers by the City of London Corporation is that the current system is, “stressful, inefficient and precarious”. The perception is that the Home Office can ask for additional information or documentation at any time, make subjective and retroactive decisions that are difficult or impossible to challenge, and take an indeterminate length of time to make decisions. The research indicated that the practical impacts of the current system include: reputational impact for the UK and a loss of candidates to other employers or destinations; uncertainty and delays; and extra costs associated with internal management processes.
The report made a number of recommendations for a future system including, first, to reduce the administrative burden and uncertainty associated with visa applications. In response to the City’s research, employers agreed that checks are important. However, currently a UK visa application is typically made up of many different processes, requirements and touch points, with overlapping, interdependent and uncertain timeframes. Streamlining these steps will decrease stress for applicants, increase certainty for employers and save time and costs for government; for example, trusted sponsors should be empowered to certify a candidate’s English language skills, and there should be a more transparent approach, allowing candidates to view the progress of their immigration application online, which would mirror the Irish system.
Secondly, the report recommends relying on an entirely digital immigration status so that applicants no longer need to surrender their passport or update physical status documents. To surrender a passport is particularly unattractive for professional services contractors and artists who move between countries from job to job. A digital immigration status could also be a secure log of the individual’s current and past immigration status, tied to their passport number and biometric information.
Thirdly, to avoid duplicate processes, the use of existing data can be very helpful. Fourthly, the report recommends technology and guidance to provide tailored support for employers and sponsors of different sizes and in different sectors, to encourage investment and growth in the UK. For example, it is recognised that SME employers find the administrative and HR management obligations very onerous. The proposal is that, building on the positive work of the outreach programme on the EU settlement scheme, the Government should offer an enhanced level of support for SMEs looking to apply for a sponsor licence for the first time.
In conclusion, businesses must be able to respond rapidly to changing needs, their clients’ demands and new opportunities. To do this, they need a visa system that enables them to fill a new role or bring in an expert from an overseas branch in weeks rather than months. This is needed if the UK is to have a clear competitive advantage in the future.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, there is very little trust in our immigration system. On the one hand, the Home Office is a byword for inefficiency, maladministration and heartlessness, with its “go home” vans, the Windrush scandal and the hostile environment; on the other hand, many people mistrust immigration because they are not sure that people are here legally. Since the Border Force was slashed under the Conservatives, that distrust of good management has some validity.
The migration and asylum system is not fit for purpose and needs to work a great deal better than it currently does to increase efficiency, quality, value for money and trust, making Britain welcoming and customer-friendly for those we want to stay, and better at stopping and removing those we do not. This needs radical reform and better deployment of resources to convince the public that migration is well managed, and to convince migrants that the UK is not out to cause them misery.
The Home Office sets itself up to fail with the net migration target that the Prime Minister is so wedded to. It is arbitrary, unachievable and damaging; and when not reached, inevitably, just fosters suspicion. I am afraid that the sight of the Home Secretary flying back from his holiday over Christmas and declaring a major incident over a few hundred migrants in the Channel—it needed to be dealt with competently, but it was not a major incident—did not increase trust. It undermined trust in the migration system. Fear of EU free movers could have been turned into a win-win if the Government had been more nimble on the local impact, channelling local resources so that communities could see that they attracted more doctors, teaching assistants and so on, to help everybody.
Far from offering improvements, the new immigration Bill will suck all EU citizens into the bureaucratic system that they have so far escaped, instead of the simplicity of EU free movement—and of course Britons will lose that opportunity for free movement as well, because it is a two-way street. EU citizens and their employers will be subject to the full weight of the Home Office red tape. The NHS will be paying hundreds of millions of pounds in visa fees to the Home Office—talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul. The proposed £30,000 salary threshold could leave up to 100,000 jobs in social care and nursing unfilled, and imperil the ability of businesses to expand or survive.
For those already here, or who come in the transition period, if we get to it, many of us—including the Liberal Democrats—wanted a simple declaratory system. Instead, the Government have insisted on making them jump through the hoops of an application for settled status, and if they fail, risk falling into the hostile environment. As my noble friend Lord Roberts of Llandudno mentioned, this is not only causing administrative hassle for people but it affronts their dignity that, in some cases after decades of being here, they have to reapply—or apply for the first time—to stay in their own homes.
I understand that the cost is about £500 million to £600 million—can the Minister confirm that? Can she also say what the cost would be, or would have been, of a simple declaratory scheme, with a light-touch evidential requirement? It is a vast bureaucratic undertaking of 3.5 million or 3.7 million people. The stakes are very high. Even if 5% are rejected, that is 175,000 people, and that will not improve either the Home Office’s reputation or social integration. To get through everyone, the Home Office will have to process about 4,500 applications a day, whereas I think in the pilot phase the maximum was about 360 a day. Will 1,500 case workers be enough to cope with those who have difficulties?
The Home Office has to get this right. The operational failure of the settled status scheme will further damage confidence and Britain’s reputation—and possibly get us into problems under the legal provisions of the withdrawal agreement—and would harm our reputation with key partners in Europe. There are many problems with the settled status system: it is not available on iPhone; people, I understand, are holding Android Tupperware parties, which must raise the possibility of data protection issues, if they are helping each other with all the data. There are problems where the official records do not match. People may be wrongly being classed as having pre-settled status because the system is wrong and has wrong information. They are faced with having to trawl through years of evidence, and then the Home Office has the problem of looking through it all. We need to look at whether the burden of evidence is too high.
Lastly, I raise the fear of what happens to vulnerable applicants. Are the outreach and communications sufficient, and is information available in all EEA languages? Can the Minister clarify what exactly happens in a no-deal scenario? Do the EEA regulations remain in force, even if the immigration Bill is passed? Will that part of it be suspended so as not to abolish the regulations? Finally, could the Home Office reconsider that people are not going to get any piece of paper as evidence of their settled status? They have to rely on a digital code and therefore on the efficiency of the Home Office’s digital systems.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord for securing this debate, and need to declare my own interest, as laid out in the register, as a trustee of Reset.
Given the velocity with which the incredibly narrow immigration Bill will likely be sped through this House, any and all opportunities for Parliament to provide scrutiny of immigration is to be welcomed. Without more scrutiny we seem to risk squandering the potential for a reset moment in the way that the UK thinks, debates and legislates about migration.
What could have been the moment when the Government led a discussion about the deeper purpose of our migration system has become instead one that underlines the persistent and escalating centralisation of policy by successive inhabitants of 2 Marsham Street. This trend has also resulted in the Immigration Rules becoming infamous in their complexity, as the Law Commission has recently highlighted.
Improving immigration procedures means making them simpler and more open to parliamentary scrutiny. Only then can we hope to secure a future system animated by a shared sense of purpose and focused on human dignity.
This is not to say that the reflections on purpose are entirely absent from the current discussion. The White Paper is not without its problems, but it sets out some of what the Home Office thinks migration is for. In particular, it is to be welcomed that the rhetoric is beginning to move beyond arbitrary targets.
However, given that the focus of this debate is on opportunities for improvement, I want to focus on the ways in which crude policy levers continue to be confused for a deeper purpose and risk jeopardising other policy objectives. For example, we see this in the proposed short-term worker visa proposed in the immigration White Paper. A 12-month “cool down” period would create a churn of workers, hurting businesses and integration. The National Conversation on Immigration found that while people were often sceptical about immigration, they would much prefer newcomers to settle in a community and integrate, and not constantly churn. At the moment, our procedures prioritise making immigration undesirable to certain groups over and above making immigration desirable to local communities. There is a conflation of “control” with “making life difficult for those considering migrating”. We need an immigration policy led by the needs of communities and the personhood of migrants.
At the heart of current policy-making is confusion over what we mean by “contribution”. The current system operates on a reductive logic that equates contribution with “how much you are paid”. The White Paper’s proposed £30,000 threshold is a strange measure of what it means to be skilled. I worry about parts of the country whose economies rely on immigrants but where jobs paying £30,000 are rare. This proposal will result in communities such as many of those in my own diocese of Durham and regions such as Cornwall, Cumbria and Lincolnshire experiencing immigration almost exclusively in the churn of short-term worker visas. What will this do to how different parts of the UK think and feel about migration? The contribution of immigrants must be better defined and widely experienced. A crude financial measure simply will not work.
Today is Valentine’s Day—I think I am the first person to mention that. I also want to note the ongoing harm caused by the minimum income requirement. We hear that this is about ensuring that migrants contribute, passing over the burden that many separated families are subjected to and the well-known benefits, economic and otherwise, of a united family. This policy punishes British citizens for falling in love and deprives thousands of British children of one of their parents. How can we ensure that love, meaning and those things that make life worth living are given their rightful place in future policy-making?
Finally, on the question of meaning, I want briefly to raise the lack of faith literacy displayed in both asylum and visa application procedures. All too often, asylum claims on the grounds of religion are turned down because someone is told that they are not able to display a detailed knowledge of the scriptures. You do not need a Bishop to tell you that millions of people live lives transformed by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ without being able to name the three gifts that the Magi presented to Jesus. It is their faith that matters, not their ability to answer simplistic questions. This speaks to a deeper issue around improving faith literacy in the Home Office and possibly across the Civil Service as a whole. I understand that some work on this is ongoing between the Home Office and APPG for International Freedom of Religion or Belief, but that it has seen limited progress during the past few months. Please can I ask the Minister for an update on this work?
I hope that faith literacy training across the Home Office might also alleviate some of the difficulties faced by many bishops from across the Anglican Communion as they try to navigate the application process for short-term visas, particularly as we approach the Lambeth Conference in 2020. Here, too, a better understanding is needed of what it means when a bishop and a diocese guarantee that they will care and support the visitor throughout their stay, rather than simply looking at the low income of the visitor in their home nation. We should be trusted on our promises.
I still believe that the White Paper consultation and future legislation can provide the space for a truly national conversation on the purpose of immigration and the gift that migrants can be. We still have the opportunity for a reset moment, if only we would seize it.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, may I invite your Lordships’ co-operation in keeping an eye on the clock? The time limit allocated to Back-Benchers is six minutes. When the clock shows six, time is up, I am afraid.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for giving us this opportunity to debate an important issue while there is still time to smooth some of the rough edges of the Government’s policy on immigration procedures, as outlined in last December’s White Paper. It is worth saying that flaws in the system have existed for some time and are not caused exclusively by Brexit, although they are exacerbated by it.
I want to concentrate on the creative industries sector, which contributes more than £90 billion a year to the British economy and is growing twice as fast as the rest of the economy. It is highly international and dependent on overseas employees. I therefore very much support many of the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans.
It so happens that last week a meeting of the British Council All-Party Parliamentary Group brought together representatives of the arts—ballet, music and writing—the fashion and design industry, museums, architects and the regions, particularly the devolved regions, to discuss the gaps and risks for the arts and creative industries post Brexit. Time and again, the issues of visas and freedom of movement were raised. It seems to me that a special category of highly skilled workers needs to be considered for the sector. I recognise that the Government state in the White Paper that there will not be a cap on the number of skilled workers and I hope that is good news for the creative industries. It may also be that the new regulations on leave to enter and remain, introduced by my noble friend Lady Williams earlier today, will be helpful, but there is a need for more discretion and flexibility.
There needs to be a fast-track procedure for a situation when, for example, an opera singer loses his or her voice or a leading ballerina strains a muscle and a replacement has to be flown in at short notice. Obviously, in the past there was little or no problem if the replacement was an EU citizen, but it has always been difficult when a third country is involved. I therefore ask the Minister whether any consideration has been given to creating a special exemption for highly skilled performers to cover these exceptional cases. After all, there is clearly very little likelihood that these exceptional people will either wish or be able to remain permanently in the United Kingdom, which seems to be the dominating thought behind our immigration procedures. Might the concept of an individual immigration status as a basis of control be tailored in some way to meet such special needs?
On a final and more general point, having read the report, I support the Migration Advisory Committee’s recommendation that the Government should consult users of the visa system more systematically to ensure that it works as smoothly as possible.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I want to talk about settled status and follow on from the discussion we had at Question Time this afternoon. In doing so, I pay tribute to the campaign and information groups that have brought to light serious problems with the system that is being set up, notably the3million, the Twitter-based group In Limbo, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and its latest report, and many other individuals, academics and journalists who are raising this. A scandal is developing, and it needs to be nipped in the bud early if it is not to result in what Yvette Cooper called, “Windrush on steroids. We are at an early stage; we can do it now and we need to do it.
I have lots of questions to ask the Government and I have not possibly got time to ask them all, so those that I do not get to I will put down as Written Questions. The Minister may be batting on a sticky wicket with some of them, but she will no doubt write if she cannot answer.
As the existing rights of EU citizens living here are being abolished, which is what is happening, they were promised that these would be replaced with a new system—the Government are calling it settled status—which would simply require them to say who they are, show that they are an EU citizen, and show that they are resident in the UK and have not been guilty of a serious criminal offence. It was promised that it would be simple, easy to navigate, and in the interests of the applicant and of the Home Office, which simply cannot cope with a complex new bureaucracy. Instead, we are being offered something that is complex, difficult to navigate and not coping: settled status looks like a new slippery slope.
What is settled status? What is pre-settled status? So far, it has been a talus of broken promises. What is the system for applying? It has been a tale of betrayal. Does it work? No. The Government seem to be telling us that it is okay because, of the people who have been successful so far, 100% have been successful. That seems to be their argument. They ignore the facts. They say there have been no refusals so far. That is because the default they are giving the people they refuse is pre-settled status, whatever that may mean. It is an even more slippery slope.
My first question concerns the3million. Last July, the3million sent the Home Office 168 questions. I have looked at these questions; they are all pretty obvious and straightforward. The organisation claims that, so far, only 19% have been adequately answered. Why is this? Is it because the Home Office does not know the answers, because it is trying to keep everything secret or because it is a bit shambolic?
My second question is: what exactly does pre-settled status mean? They say that if you have not been here for five years, you get pre-settled status—a silly term—but can then move on to settled status. Actually, people who have been here for 10, 20 or 30 years are being given pre-settled status, because the machines the Home Office uses to deal with the applications say that there is some minor irregularity. In any case, why do you have to have been here for five years before you are thought to be settled? You are either settled or not—it is not a matter of five years.
My third question relates to the fact that there is huge doubt that the Home Office can cope with the burden it is giving itself. My noble friend Lady Ludford has already said that a declaratory report would surely be best, with a presumption of granting settled status on the simple information provided by people—actually believing people and not saying, “There seems to be a gap of six months in your employment record 10 years ago”. That kind of thing is happening time and again. It is all done by machine-checking. There is no common sense; there seem to be no people involved.
My fourth question is on appeals. Surely a right to appeal refusals or the allocation of wrong status must be clearly and urgently set out in law. It is not being proposed at the moment. The right reverend Prelate suggested that the immigration Bill might be galloped through this House—I do not think it will be, unless they want us to sit overnight and at weekends. There is no way the Government can do it, but we will see. Further to that, surely legal aid should be available for those appealing.
My final point, because my time is running out, is on the timetable. There seems to be a mismatch between the start of the full settled status scheme on 30 March—whether we have a deal or crash out—and the timetable for getting the legislation that governs it through the House. As far as I can see, settled status does not exist in English law at the moment. To operate a settled status scheme on a proper statutory basis, I assume that the Government will have to get it into English law. Can we have some explanation of the process to enact the legislation and what they think the possible timetable is for this? If they do it in the immigration Bill, given how it is doing in the Commons, it will not come to us until the end of March at the very earliest.
There is one final thing, if I can pinch another 20 seconds. What nonsense is it that the Prime Minister announced that the £65 fee for settled status was abolished but people on the pilot scheme are still being charged? The Home Office is requiring details of people’s bank accounts so that it can repay the fee when it comes through. This is utter nonsense, and only the Home Office could have dreamed up that kind of scheme. I look forward to the Minister’s replies, and to her replies to the many Written Questions I will put down after this debate.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for securing this debate and for generously framing it in a way that allows the concerns of many sectors to be raised. Addressing the noble Lord’s question squarely is a bit of a challenge, as it would require general agreement on what exactly is wrong at the moment—this we do not have. The Prime Minister continues to assert that taking back control of our borders is the will of the people, while polls show that public concerns about immigration are the lowest they have been for 16 years.
Be that as it may, we now have a White Paper, which confirms, as anticipated, that the current dual-entry system—
Lord Lilley (Con)
Surely the reason concern is lower than before is that people believe that we have taken back control and that henceforth we will have proper controls on immigration. That is the only explanation.
Baroness Bull
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I would not presume to understand the general mindset of the British public without having asked them. I will move on, because time is limited.
The White Paper confirms that a single route for all countries will be the case in the future. This may appear to be more equitable, in that it creates a level playing field, but in fact it is far from even. It gives access to only the skilled and the highly skilled, assessed via a salary threshold. The stated intention is to welcome only the brightest and best, but this fails to address two important issues: first, that the brightest and best are not always those earning the highest salaries; and, secondly, that the UK economy is dependent on at least 1.5 million low and medium-skilled workers who come to the UK via the free movement afforded by EU membership.
A vast number of business sectors have come to rely on this supply stream, not least for vital but lower-paid roles in teaching, health and social care. Our requirements for this type of worker are only going to rise. In social care alone, it is estimated that we will need an extra 650,000 workers by 2035 to care for our ageing population—that will be us.
With virtual full employment in the UK, where exactly will these essential workers come from? The White Paper proposes a time-limited transitional measure that will see employers rely on a rotating pool of low-paid workers who come in on 12-month visas. These workers will be responsible for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. The risks of this—loss of know-how, discontinuity of service, constant recruitment and retraining, and dips in standards—were eloquently outlined by my noble friend Lady Masham of Ilton in this Chamber on 8 January. Might the Minister comment on what I see as a disconnect between the White Paper’s preference for high skills and the economy’s requirement for low and medium skills?
I turn to the specific concerns of the creative and cultural sector, following on from the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. Foremost among these is the proposed salary threshold of £30,000. In this sector, high-level skills are not commensurate with high levels of pay. As just one example, an assistant film commissioner—a grand title—earns £23,000. If this proposed threshold were agreed, employers would either be forced to do without the talent they require or would have to pay rates that were out of line with industry levels. We cannot look to the domestic workforce to fill these gaps; there are currently 22 creative industries roles on the shortage occupation list.
This domestic skills gap is driven by three things: inadequate provision in schools, an underdeveloped education system for technical skills, and a lack of awareness about careers within the sector. Opening the doors to only established talent, as the White Paper proposes, will not help. A thriving domestic sector depends on talent pipelines that are built from the ground up and on welcoming potential, wherever it comes from, so that we can nurture the stars of the future. These are people for whom a salary of £30,000 is the stuff of dreams.
Finally, I will touch on the question of freelance workers. Freelancers make up 15% of the overall workforce in the UK and 35% of the creative sector. They provide skills that are required on an occasional basis, and often at short notice. They offer vital flexibility, particularly for small businesses, and help to upskill domestic workers. The current non-EU immigration system offers few opportunities for international freelancers who want to work here on a long-term basis. The exceptional talent visa scheme is on too small a scale, and it does not allow access to workers who are skilled but not exceptional. Short-term visas do not help either; they are costly, slow and restrict the number of jobs a freelancer can undertake—which rather undermines the concept of being a freelancer. The Creative Industries Federation has proposed a freelance visa that would provide a new route and which would work across all sectors, not just the creative sector. Will the Minister consider meeting with sector representatives so that she can explore this proposal?
As the noble Baroness pointed out, any changes to the immigration system that deny one of the UK’s most successful sectors access to the talent it needs to thrive would have serious consequences for our economy, jobs and innovation, and would risk the world-leading position we have established in arts, culture and creativity. This seems more important now than ever. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response, and hope she will give us comfort that this will not be the case.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, this debate is of great interest to me, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for bringing it to the House. I had the privilege to serve as the Minister for Immigration and Race Relations in the mid-1990s—I point out to the right reverend Prelate that at the time I was an inhabitant of Queen Anne’s Gate, not No. 2 Marsham Street. Subsequently, I was the Conservative spokesman on this subject for much of my 17 years in the European Parliament.
Your Lordships will note that I mention race relations in the same breath as immigration. That is because, until 1997, these roles were held by the same Minister in the same department, and in my view always ought to be. In order to maintain good race and community relations, you need to have an immigration policy that is shown to be firm but also fair and compassionate. That is how I exercised my powers and how I believe they should always be exercised.
Migration is a very complex matter, but it should not always be lumped together in one term, as appears to have been the case recently. I want to examine quickly the components, which should be looked at in separate ways.
First, there is immigration proper, which requires clear rules and procedures that must be followed by applicants and by the authorities. Over the years, we have of course altered our rules on many occasions—I note the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, to the alteration of rules. We have done so sometimes to facilitate an increase in numbers or categories that we might welcome here, sometimes based on skills or professions that we need to work here, sometimes linked to anticipated salaries—although that is the least satisfactory caveat, and one that is being looked at at the moment—and sometimes linked to historic connections such as the old Empire or the Commonwealth, or to obligations which we needed to fulfil. That is and always has been a competence directly under our control and in our hands in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, referred to errors and mishandling by the authorities. Although I appreciate that time has passed since, my experience always was that officers and officials working in the department and in the area of immigration carried out their duties with great devotion and sensitivity. I must say that, often when things went wrong, it was the fault of Ministers. Ministers should always take responsibility and not try to pass it on to officials.
I want to talk about asylum for a moment, because the grant of refugee status is something on which we have a good record in this country. We have granted refuge to many in need over many years and it is a precious gift at our disposal, but in my view it requires applicants to meet the criteria of the 1951 United Nations Convention on Refugees, which I think is as applicable today as it was when it was created after the Second World War. Those who do not meet the criteria—currently, I believe, about 70% of applicants—must not be permitted to acquire the status of those who do. In some marginal cases, of course, it is proper that we go further and offer leave to remain in the UK, but we must maintain the recognition of such applications only when the UN criteria are met. Otherwise, there is gross unfairness on those who meet those criteria and are given that status.
Thirdly, there is the issue of freedom of movement, which is accorded through agreements, including the current EU single market and potentially through future trade and economic alignments. We must also take into account the movements of young people who come to study here under various schemes including, currently, the EU Erasmus+ scheme. Many people seem to be confused about this aspect of migration. As noble Lords know, it is mutually beneficial to have that entry into the United Kingdom and economically positive for us to enter into such arrangements. Since our EU referendum, the net increase in EU citizens in the UK has dropped considerably and is currently falling fast, while the number of non-EU immigration applications has continued to grow. Assuming that we proceed to lose the current arrangements with the EU, that trend will accelerate. It will provide new challenges to good race relations and perhaps not satisfy some of those who appear to have been misled or have the wrong approach to the issue of immigration and international relations.
I mention one further element of any sensible and practical immigration policy. I know that this is controversial, but where our immigration rules are abused or illegality is found, including with people trafficking, in which we have seen growth recently, we must in the interests of fairness to those who comply react by refusing in many cases to grant the right to remain here and, in appropriate cases, return the persons concerned to the places from which they came. In asylum cases, the same applies, and we must return the failed applicants either to their source country or at least to the first safe country they were in after leaving their country. If we do not act in this way, we are diminishing the importance and value that must be placed on the legal and genuine cases of those who entrust us with their future. The Government’s removal policy is often the least implemented because it is controversial, sensitive and often expensive, and the loss of the Dublin agreements between EU countries as to safe country returns will make things more difficult for us.
Finally, it is important to emphasise that, despite statements to the contrary, UK immigration policy has always been ultimately under the control of the UK. We have never, under any agreement that I know of, fully ceded power to anyone else. Nor have successive Governments lost their rights in this field. In or out of Europe, that must continue to be the case.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for allowing me to speak in the gap, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for securing this timely debate on how the Government are to implement measures in taking full control of a future new, skills-based immigration system, which, importantly, will apply to all nationalities the same.
In leaving the EU, the UK will be required to transform, upgrade and improve its immigration procedures. Continuity and certainty are important in building the confidence of our businesses to create a skilled workers route for all nationalities, with a single system that welcomes qualification, diligence and entrepreneurial skills—not one based on which country workers come from. Businesses need certainty to make decisions quickly.
It is also important to note how the document deals with incorporating the lowering of the skills threshold on the skills route to include medium-skilled workers, who are to be recognised, with no cap on numbers through the skilled workers route. Again, this is about what businesses demand and need to support their requirements. Businesses and public services will be able to employ any suitably qualified migrant with the skills they need, however benefits them—and the UK—the most and minimises the time needed to process those workers’ visas.
In all areas of the country, businesses will welcome the incorporation of a transitional measure for a new time-limited route for temporary short-term workers of all skills levels, including seasonal low-skilled workers—particularly in agriculture, horticulture or any seasonal work: a single system that welcomes talent, hard work and the skills that businesses across the country need, recognises the benefits of immigration and, it is important to stress, gives the UK full control over its immigration procedures. We must not forget to highlight that in working with businesses, we must continue to invest in and improve the productivity and skills of the UK workforce.
At this time of uncertainty as we leave the EU, I am pleased to see more EU students and international students wanting to come to the UK to study. That is set to continue, with no limit on the number of international students encouraging more graduates to stay and work here. I note that university applications have gone up for the first time in three years, together with the rise in applications from overseas, seeing a record number of students from outside the EU applying to UK institutions. That represents an increase of 9% on last year as overseas students continue to recognise our world-leading universities, which perform so well in the global league tables.
On the skills agenda, under the new skilled immigration system, all skilled workers—whose skills we need—who want to work here can do so. They matter to our economy; they support and help to drive our businesses, maximising the benefits of immigration for every city, town and rural area in a post-Brexit world—one that the public trust, importantly. A strong immigration system for the future that is quicker and easier to use will complement our UK workforce.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Roberts for this short debate. I also thank my noble friends Lady Ludford and Lord Greaves for their devastating critique of the current Home Office policies and operational procedures that cause stress and confusion for thousands of people. We have heard about the importance of immigration to our economy, growth and public services, the bureaucracy and narrowness of the immigration White Paper and the problems in achieving settled status for EU citizens living in the UK. I hope that the Minister finds this debate helpful in informing Home Office thinking.
I raise two specific but very important issues. The first relates to refugees from persecution, and concerns the time taken to consider genuine applications for political asylum from those fleeing persecution and waiting in a third country for permission to come to the UK as their preferred destination under the UN refugee agency scheme. I recently referred to the Home Office a specific case concerning asylum seekers from Iran, because it seems to take a very long time for such cases to reach a conclusion. A few days ago the noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised a similar issue in relation to Iranians trying to cross the English Channel. The Minister who replied, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, agreed to investigate whether the Home Office draws a clear distinction between those genuinely seeking refuge from persecution and economic migrants. This distinction matters, and I hope the Minister might agree to look at the procedures followed and assess how applications from those genuinely fleeing persecution might be speeded up.
The second issue relates to what happens to refugees in the UK granted leave to stay. The problem is that refugees do not have prior notice of when a decision will be made on their asylum application, and they get only 28 days to leave their accommodation. But 28 days is not long enough to guarantee the arrangement of alternative accommodation, not least because it can take several days within the 28-day period for a letter granting the right to stay to be received. It would be sensible to bring Home Office policy in line with the Homelessness Reduction Act, which extends the period that people can be deemed threatened with homelessness from 28 to 56 days. Under Homelessness Reduction Act regulations, some public bodies in England are required to refer people at risk of homelessness to local housing authorities—yet asylum accommodation providers are not included, on the understanding that contractual obligations are sufficient. Yet if these obligations and the duty to refer are working towards the same goals, it would make sense for them to be added to the list to ensure uniformity and promote joint working. I regard the extension from 28 days to 56 to be extremely important. If the Minister would be willing to meet with me to talk about it further, I would be very happy to do so.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has piloted the appointment of 35 local authority asylum support liaison officers in 19 areas of England. Their remit includes supporting refugees into housing—a most welcome step. But I wonder if the Minister could advise whether there will be a cross-departmental evaluation of the pilot involving the Home Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which is responsible for the pilot. Understandably, newly recognised refugees without savings struggle to pay deposits on private tenancies. The Government’s integration loans scheme is one way to overcome such a hurdle, but I wonder whether the Minister might be willing to look at ways in which this could be made a more viable option for those unable to access social housing.
Finally, I raise other issues relating to universal credit. Refugees who have to apply for advance payments are left worse off in the months that follow. Furthermore, advance payments may not prevent homelessness. Many hostels only take people with a full universal credit claim, and proof of income can also be a problem for people trying to get private tenancies—landlords want to see details of a full claim rather than just an advance payment. In light of these issues, I wonder if the Minister would look at whether a longer-term solution would be for Home Office policy to match the timeframe for universal credit. Extending the move-on period to at least 56 days would also allow more time to arrange national insurance numbers and biometric permits and, crucially, more time for people to open bank accounts.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, as others have done, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, on securing this Question for Short Debate and enabling us to debate these important issues. In his introductory remarks, he set out examples of cases in which people have not been treated properly. It is not good enough, and the Government should be ashamed of the stress that they are causing in many regards.
As the Brexit shambles rumbles on, every day we get shocking new revelations that set out what a complete mess everything is and how the Government have not got a grip of the situation. The immigration process is one of those areas that we must get right immediately. We need not only a just and fair system, but one that aids our economic growth and prosperity. That will be difficult. Whatever side of the argument you are on, leave or remain—I am very firmly on the remain side—we will face challenging times if we leave the European Union on 29 March this year.
I want an immigration system that delivers for the UK. I was delighted when the Prime Minister announced that the fee had been scrapped for those EU citizens applying for settled status, but shocked to learn today at Question Time from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, that we are still charging people who are applying for settled status and have clearly refunded nobody yet. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to that. That is one of those shocking Brexit revelations that you cannot quite believe when you hear it—Brexit: the gift that just keeps on giving.
I am pleased that the common travel area and the rights of Irish nationals to live and work in the UK will be unchanged. The right of visitors from the EU to enter the UK visa free is to be respected, which is good news. We want to support our tourism industry and it will be important to make business travel as easy as possible for our friends and partners in the European Union.
Can the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, say something about workers when she responds? The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, made an important case about the work of people in teaching, nursing and social care. They might not earn large sums, but they do vital jobs for us all. This cannot be just about money. I also agree with her about the creative sector and the need for talent pipelines. The arts and creative industries face significant challenges as a consequence of Brexit. That vital sector of the UK economy needs proper support.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, set out the importance of overseas labour working in London. He is absolutely right to draw our attention to the fact that the interests and requirements of the City have had little attention from the Government. I have observed only an unrealistic, ill thought-out approach—in some cases, there has been no thought at all—with a series of claims and counterclaims that just damage business, and an unwillingness by the Government to respond to business’s reasonable requests. I also recall that Boris Johnson used the word “business” with a four-letter swear word in front of it; I will not use that word in the Chamber. It is disgraceful from a man who was at a senior level in the Government.
We will have a single route for skilled workers coming from anywhere in the world. I see the logic in that but we have not got the framing right. Unfortunately, part of the Brexit fallout has been that we are not seen to be as welcoming as we should be and have been. That risks people looking elsewhere for work and not considering the UK as their number one option, which is regrettable. Also, there is the issue of seasonal workers. We have arrived at the proposal for working here for 12 months, and then you have to go away and come back in another 12. I do not see how that will work. Although I am a Londoner, I lived in the east Midlands for many years. Agriculture is really important there, and to Lincolnshire in particular. Workers come there to pick fruit and vegetables year on year. Under this proposal, they will come for one year but cannot come again. It will not work. We need to look at such things carefully.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham pointed out the complexity of the Immigration Rules and the crude policy levers of these proposals. As was said, things like the financial caps cannot be left as they are; it is not realistic. I mention again seasonal workers picking crops in Lincolnshire, because they are vital. If there is a labour shortage there, it will have a disastrous effect on the local economy and in many other parts of our country; the wider UK economy will be affected. If you cannot get your perishables picked and off to the shops, markets and other companies, it is a disaster. It will ruin you and put you out of business.
We have also got the system wrong in relation to students. Despite the Government saying that there is no cap on the number of students who can come to the UK, that is not the impression the world has. We have lost that argument completely. We are told that many students come in—they do—but we have lost out to the United States of America, Canada and elsewhere.
The policy has a detrimental effect in all kinds of areas, including soft power. If people do not come here in the future and realise what a great country it is, we will lose out there as well. How will the Government deal with the important issue of dependants who have arrived here and work as well?
I fully endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, about civil servants. In all my dealings with civil servants I have always found them courteous, knowledgeable officials who try to deliver the complex policies of Governments. All Governments of all complexions make mistakes and get things wrong, but that is the responsibility of the Ministers who decide these policies, not the civil servants. I fully endorse the noble Lord’s comments on that matter, as I do his comments about asylum policy and immigration policy in general.
It would help the House if the Minister explained how the Government intend to deal with vulnerable people—an issue on which we appear to have taken a harsh route in recent years. This has damaged our reputation and international standing.
I will bring my remarks to a close as my time is up. I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for enabling this debate.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate, with others, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, on securing this debate and welcome his contribution. As we have heard, he is a keen and passionate advocate for a fair and effective immigration system. As my mother was a refugee in this country, I was brought up to appreciate fully the importance of the issues that many noble Lords have raised today.
People from all over the world come to the UK and help to make this country what it is today. We all welcome their contribution and the fact that Britain is one of the best countries in the world to come to, study, work and live in. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and others have said, that is exactly why we need a fair immigration system that treats people with decency and respect and is trusted by all. That is why this Government have apologised—and I apologise again today—for the failure of successive Governments to deal with the issues faced by the Windrush generation. We are taking action to make procedures more effective and will continue to do so.
Noble Lords have raised a number of important issues, which I will aim to address. Although I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, about the breadth of the debate—it may be an opportunity for speakers—I fear I may be writing to many noble Lords about their valid questions.
I remind the House of the scale of the immigration system to give some perspective. Thousands of decisions are made every single day, the overwhelming majority of which are completed within published service standards and enable people to visit the UK, to study and work here or, importantly, to rebuild their lives here. I thank my noble friend Lord Kirkhope and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for acknowledging the hard work of civil servants. Clearly, I cannot comment on the role of Ministers.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, was critical of the Government in relation to our work with refugees, particularly child refugees, and I feel I need to set the balance straight. Our resettlement schemes offer a safe and legal route to the UK for the most vulnerable refugees.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, mentioned the speed of decision-making and better communication, and he was right to do so. Ironically, I understand that our processes might be faster than other countries’, which creates another level of anxiety. In the year ending September 2018, almost 6,000 people were provided with protection and support, meaning that we have now completed more than two-thirds of our commitment to resettle 20,000 refugees from Syria by 2020 through the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, and we are confident that we will deliver the full commitment. As of September 2018, 1,075 people have been resettled through the vulnerable children’s resettlement scheme, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said, we have more to do in that area, and we are determined to do so.
A number of noble Lords asked about the quality of decision-making in the asylum system. It will not surprise noble Lords to know that we believe it is a work in progress. I shall share with noble Lords some of the work that is going on and the reasons for cases being overturned on appeal. In some cases, new information becomes available. In an effort to resolve some of the older cases, which are, by their very nature, complex, we are prioritising them and introducing a new system in which we will have the option of withdrawing cases at the 20-week point to review them to avoid going to appeal. Finally, we have created a new facility for legal representatives to submit new evidence to have decisions reconsidered ahead of an appeal hearing, so we are making progress.
With regard to detention, as noble Lords know, we invited Stephen Shaw to conduct a follow-up review in 2017 to assess the implementation of his earlier recommendations. This Government are committed to using detention sparingly and only when it is necessary to remove those with no right to remain in the UK. I remind noble Lords that 95% of people with no leave to remain in the UK are managed within the community rather than being detained. In the year ending September 2018, 91% of those detained left detention within four months and 66% in fewer than 29 days. Crucially, we have changed the law to stop children being routinely detained in the immigration system. Noble Lords will remember that in 2009 more than 1,100 children entered detention; last year, 44 were held for a very brief period.
I am keen to take some time to respond to the comments about the proposed future immigration system; I shall briefly set out our vision for how it will work. We aim to maximise the benefits of the UK leaving the EU and create a joined-up, coherent border, immigration and citizenship system. As the Government set out in the White Paper published on 19 December, the future immigration system will work in the best interests of the UK. In line with the Migration Advisory Committee’s recommendation, we will focus on the high skills that the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, and others mentioned and prioritise those migrants who bring most benefit to the UK, maximising the benefits of immigration.
Importantly, we are launching a year-long engagement process to make sure that businesses and all key stakeholders can help shape the final details of policy and processes. A number of noble Lords raised concerns about how this will work in practice, including the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Greaves, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and my noble friend Lord Kirkhope. I stress that this is, in the words of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, the start of a conversation about how the new system will work, not the end.
As noble Lords noted, the Government are making significant changes across a number of areas. Despite the doubts expressed by several of your Lordships, I hope that I will demonstrate our commitment to creating a more agile, transparent and user-friendly system—described by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, as ambitious and dynamic—for the full range of people who will use it. The EU settlement scheme is indicative of the improvements that the Home Office is making. After we leave the European Union, it will secure the status of our friends and neighbours who have come to the UK.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked about the numbers. So far, 100,000 applications have been received under the scheme, including 8,000 on the first day. I think she mentioned that we need to cope with 3,500 a day. So far, 79% of applications have been processed with no additional information required. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, described very clearly the three criteria, as we understand them, for admission to the scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked about additional support for vulnerable applicants. That support is certainly available, and there is a range of ways in which one can access the scheme. The noble Baroness also asked about the costs. We estimate that the scheme will cost between £400 million and £500 million. I will have to write to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on a number of his questions, including on what will happen if there is no deal. However, the key message from the Home Office is that we are looking to grant status; we are not looking for reasons to refuse.
I turn to the questions from a number of noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. There was a lot of focus on the £30,000 salary threshold. That really is part of the conversation. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said, salary is one factor—it was a recommendation from the Migration Advisory Committee—but it is not the only one, and that applies also to lower-skilled workers and those on short-term contracts. The right reverend Prelate raised concerns about certain parts of the country where wages might be lower. My right honourable friend the Immigration Minister held a series of round tables in preparation for the White Paper. I know that she went to Cornwall but I am not sure about Durham.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and my noble friend Lady Hooper talked about the creative industries. The immigration White Paper sets out the Government’s intention to attract the best creative and cultural talent from around the world. The UK’s existing rules permit artists, entertainers and musicians to perform at events and to take part in auditions and competitions for up to six months. They can receive payment for appearances at certain festivals for up to a month or for a specific engagement without the need for formal sponsorship or a work visa. In preparation for this debate, I discovered that classical ballet dancers are on the shortage occupation list. You learn something new every day in your Lordships’ House.
I am running out of time, so I will write to noble Lords about their concerns—my noble friend Lady Redfern and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, raised concerns about students. The right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Kirkhope talked about simplification of the Immigration Rules. They will be aware that we have asked the Law Commission to look at that, and we will consider its findings carefully.
In conclusion, the Government remain committed to improving the border, immigration and citizenship system. We absolutely recognise that there is more to do and that is why we are listening to and engaging with Members across both Houses, with those using the system and with stakeholders, and we are taking independent advice as we seek to build a new immigration system for the future that meets our economic, humanitarian and security needs as a country. Noble Lords have raised important issues in many areas, particularly in relation to the asylum system and the challenges that we face as we leave the EU. I will endeavour to raise these points with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary when I meet him next week. I will write to all noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, suggested further meetings, and I am delighted to accept.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
Can the Minister confirm that she will write to me on my question about bishops visiting this country?