House of Commons

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 27 February 2019

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

1. What recent steps he has taken to promote international trading opportunities for Wales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Nigel Adams)]

I start by congratulating coach Warren Gatland and captain Alun Wyn Jones on their most magnificent victory in Cardiff on Saturday. Speaking as a proud Englishman, it was a joy to watch the game. There is no better way to kick off Wales Week in London, in which we champion and celebrate everything that is great about Wales, including its rugby team.

The Wales Office works closely with the Department for International Trade on promoting Wales’s trading opportunities. From trade missions to his work with trade commissioners and sitting on the Board of Trade, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State works continually to create potential both for Welsh exports and for foreign direct investment projects to come to Wales.

[Mr Jayawardena]

I associate myself with my hon. Friend’s remarks, although I preferred the first half.

Many people will have used the M4 this weekend. Given the M4’s potential for promoting international trade in Wales, and indeed in the rest of the country, will my hon. Friend tell me what progress has been made towards honouring the commitment from the 1960s to build the M31 from Reading down to Gatwick Airport, via the M3?

[Nigel Adams]

I know that my hon. Friend is a great champion for that project, and rightly so. He is right to raise this important issue. The Department for Transport recognises the importance of cross-border connectivity. It has been gathering evidence to inform the second road investment strategy—RIS2—which will govern investment in England’s motorways and major A roads between 2020 and 2025. Economic growth is one of RIS2’s five stated key aims and will play a part in the appraisal of schemes. It will be published in 2019.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

I join the Minister in congratulating the Welsh rugby team on their excellent victory. They are on course for the grand slam this year. The Minister will be aware that REHAU plastics in my constituency, which has traded internationally for more than 40 years, has announced its closure. It will now concentrate its business on the European mainland. Will his Department work with the Welsh Government, myself and local government to try to retain those important trading jobs? They are international jobs, and we need them on Anglesey.

[Nigel Adams]

Absolutely. I have a sneaking feeling that rugby might be a running theme throughout these questions. We recognise the importance of REHAU as an employer in the region and on Anglesey, and we will work closely with the hon. Gentleman and with the company to achieve the best possible outcome, most importantly for the important staff who work there.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

There are many excellent international trading companies in north Wales, but in order to continue to thrive they need access to the most modern digital infrastructure. What discussions is my hon. Friend having with the North Wales Economic Ambition Board to ensure that growth deal funding is targeted towards improving digital connectivity?

[Nigel Adams]

My right hon. Friend is indeed a great champion of north Wales. I recently met that board to discuss its progress in finalising its proposition to utilise the £120 million that we and the Welsh Government each allocated to the deal. Digital infra- structure is currently an underpinning project, but we have set the region a challenge to go even further and to be even more ambitious about what the project can achieve for the region by working closely with a range of partners, including the private sector.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Short questions and short answers, please.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

Jim Callaghan, a Labour Prime Minister, brought thousands of jobs to Ford in south Wales. Why is a Tory Prime Minister taking those jobs away?

[Nigel Adams]

I politely remind the right hon. Lady that we have record employment in Wales. Tough commercial decisions have been made in recent months, particularly by Hitachi. However, I point to the good economic news in Wales, particularly the record job numbers.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

Dydd Gŵyl Dewi hapus for Friday, Mr Speaker. I pay my good wishes to Sam on the sad loss of Paul Flynn. This is the first chance I have had to do that. He was a great man. He actually stood in my constituency in 1974.

In January, Dyson announced the relocation of its HQ to Singapore, Hitachi ended its interest in Wylfa and Airbus said it was prepared to leave Wales in the event of a no-deal Brexit. The Government’s handling of Brexit has been described as a “disgrace” by Airbus’s Tom Enders and a “state of total confusion” by tycoon Sir Martin Sorrell. What message does that send to international investors and traders about trading opportunities in Wales?

[Nigel Adams]

If I might politely say so, the hon. Gentleman is being a little selective with his examples. I would point him to the employment figures. The real figures show that foreign direct investment last year created 3,107 new Welsh jobs, which is a 20% increase. I understand why he might want to paint a gloomy picture. Airbus has made it perfectly clear that it does not want no deal. It wants a deal, and the best thing that he and his party could do is support the deal when it comes before the House.

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

2. What steps he is taking to secure the legislative consent of the National Assembly for Wales for the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)]

This is the first Welsh questions since the sad passing of our friend and colleague, Paul Flynn. He leaves a significant space on the Labour Back Benches.

The Government are engaging extensively with the Welsh Government in preparing the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill. This includes bilateral engagement and meetings of the Joint Ministerial Committees.

[Angela Crawley]

The National Assembly for Wales backed the Plaid Cymru motion calling for work to begin immediately on preparing for a public vote. A recent poll by YouGov also found that more Welsh voters back a people’s vote than do not. If the Secretary of State is truly Wales’s voice in Westminster, as he so boldly claims, will he outline the preparations he has pressed the Prime Minister for to facilitate a people’s vote?

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question, but I would politely point out to her that Wales voted to leave the European Union in even stronger numbers than the rest of the UK. We have an obligation to act on the instruction that comes from that referendum, but in doing so we will continue to work closely with the Welsh Government to ensure and secure a smooth and orderly exit.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)]

I first met Paul Flynn in 1980. He was absolutely inspirational to me then and he continued to be a source of inspiration throughout the many years I had the privilege to know him.

Will the Secretary of State guarantee that the Welsh Government will be fully represented in any negotiations with the EU that impact on devolved competence and policy?

[Alun Cairns]

The UK Government have been open and transparent in their dealings with the Welsh Government on representation and engagement. In fact, the Welsh Government sit on the EU Exit and Trade (Preparedness) Sub-Committee, which shows and demonstrates our positive engagement. I am only disappointed that the same privilege and opportunity has not been extended to the UK Government to sit on the Welsh Government’s similar committee.

[Christina Rees]

I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, but does he understand that if the UK Government negotiate free trade agreements, for example with the USA, which force hormone-injected beef and chlorinated chicken on the people of Wales without the legislative consent of the elected Welsh Government, that will trigger a major constitutional crisis? Is he prepared to risk that?

[Alun Cairns]

First, I do not accept the basis of the question, but the hon. Lady raises an important point. We will, of course, continue our warm, constructive and positive engagement with all the devolved Administrations. Our work with the Welsh Government on leaving the European Union has proved fruitful so far. We have laid 120 statutory instruments on behalf of the Welsh Government and at their request. In terms of future trade agreements, we will continue to work with them constructively in the interests of the whole of the UK. Clearly, my interests and their interests will be to defend the Welsh interest. I plan to continue to work with them on that positive basis.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

3. What recent discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on sector-specific plans to support the Welsh economy in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal.

[Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)]

8. What recent discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on sector-specific plans to support the Welsh economy in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)]

I meet my counterparts in the Welsh Government on a regular basis, including Baroness Eluned Morgan on Monday, to discuss a range of policy areas. A responsible Government prepare for every eventuality, including no deal, and we continue to work together on operational readiness through the Joint Ministerial Committees.

[Gavin Newlands]

That is all very well, but the Government’s no-deal assessment made it clear that the impact of a no-deal Brexit on the UK’s food and drink sector would be most damaging in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, where the sector comprises over 5% of those economies compared with just 1.38% in England. How can the Government claim, therefore, that this is a partnership of equal nations when they stand ready to ruin the economies of three, purely in the interests of Tory party unity?

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Gentleman is quite selective with the data that he points to. He has highlighted one scenario, but if he is happy to take that message so clearly from the sector that he has highlighted, that same sector encouraged him to support the Prime Minister’s deal with the European Union. When that meaningful vote returns to Parliament, I hope that he will heed that message then.

[Douglas Chapman]

Will the Secretary of State recognise that 92% of Welsh lamb goes for EU export? Welsh hill farmers have said that if a no-deal Brexit goes ahead, their industry will be decimated and wiped out—a view confirmed in his economic evidence that was published last night. If that is his analysis, will the Secretary of State for Wales act responsibly and make sure that Welsh lamb is protected?

[Alun Cairns]

I would say similarly to the hon. Gentleman that absolutely, we recognise the importance of Welsh agriculture, as we do all the important employment and economic sectors in Wales. The National Farmers Union and NFU Cymru were strong supporters of the deal with the European Union, so if he is happy to repeat their message today, I hope that he is happy to act on their message when it comes to voting on the meaningful vote in this House.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that agriculture is a very important industry not only for Britain but for Wales—particularly, as has already been outlined, Welsh lamb? What measures could be taken in the event of a no-deal Brexit? Clearly the deal would be the first option, but if there was a no-deal Brexit, how would those difficulties be overcome?

[Alun Cairns]

My right hon. and learned Friend raises an important point. Agriculture is an extremely important part of the Welsh economy and is disproportionately important there compared with the rest of the UK. We would, of course, act in a way that would protect the interests of that economy to ensure that those jobs are there for the long-term future, in spite of any short-term challenge.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

Regardless of whether we have a no-deal Brexit, is my right hon. Friend aware—I am sure he probably is—that it is coming up to the 50th anniversary of the investiture of the Prince of Wales? How can we employ, in that sense of the word, the Prince of Wales’s soft power and so on to promote Wales and the Welsh economy?

[Mr Speaker]

Irrespective of membership of or departure from the European Union, with which matter we would not want to involve him in any way.

[Alun Cairns]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. As we leave the European Union, there is an opportunity to look outwards, and the Prince of Wales is a great champion of Wales and brings about significant soft power. We rightly recognised him last year by renaming the second Severn crossing the Prince of Wales bridge. I pay tribute to Her Majesty the Queen, who will host a reception next week to mark the 50 years since the Prince of Wales was named such.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

The voice of Ogmore will be heard, but I see a great phalanx of men standing and only one female Member. Jo Stevens must be heard!

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Every sector of the Welsh economy is going to be damaged by the UK leaving the EU, so will the Secretary of State for Wales confirm that he will be voting to rule out no deal?

[Alun Cairns]

I will be voting for a deal with the European Union. The hon. Lady will have an interest in a whole range of sectors, be they agriculture or automotive, and all those sectors have strongly supported the Prime Minister’s deal with the European Union. I am disappointed that the hon. Lady voted against that, making no deal more likely.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

11. One of the ways that the Welsh Secretary could start doing his job and providing support for the Welsh economy is by confirming how the Shared Prosperity Fund will work beyond 2020. Treasury Ministers and Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Ministers will not give me an answer, so is it not time that he stepped up, did his job and explained to the House how the Shared Prosperity Fund will work?

[Alun Cairns]

I do not want to pre-empt our consultation, which will go out very shortly, but I say candidly to the hon. Gentleman that he will recognise that more than £4 billion—approaching £5 billion—in EU structural funds has been spent in the Welsh economy over the last 17 years; does he honestly believe that we have had the best value from that, and is there not a better opportunity to deliver better value for money for the taxpayer?

[Chris Elmore]

I am asking the questions, not you.

[Mr Speaker]

The question was a rhetorical one; it requires no answer, and indeed it would be inappropriate, as the Secretary of State knows.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

4. What recent discussions he has had with businesses in Wales on preparations for the UK leaving the EU.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)]

Since the referendum I have been talking to stakeholders the length and breadth of Wales on the implications of EU exit. This includes the discussions I have had with my expert panel and economic advisory board, which met again last month.

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer, but what steps is his Department taking specifically to support small businesses reliant on tourism in Wales?

[Alun Cairns]

My hon. Friend is a great champion of his constituency, and I have no doubt that people in Corby and east Northamptonshire will want to visit Wales regularly. This is a great opportunity to highlight Wales Week in London. Wales Week has gone global this year, being held in New York, in Washington and in all parts of the UK. I would be interested in seeing what we can do in my hon. Friend’s constituency next year.

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

10. My constituent’s restaurant business is under threat because of this Brexit chaos. His Polish and Hungarian staff, who have been with him from the start, have left, and the pound is plummeting, causing huge challenge to him. Does the Secretary of State believe that this chaotic Brexit is really making Wales a more attractive place for visitors?

[Alun Cairns]

There is absolutely no reason why those employees should have left, because we have respected their rights. I only hope and wish that as we continue to negotiate, all the rights of UK nationals living in the European Union will be respected in exactly the same way. The hon. Lady voted against the Prime Minister’s deal with the European Union, and by doing so she is making no deal far more likely. So I would encourage her to look objectively at the data, and to support the meaningful vote when it comes up.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy about relocating the resources that are concentrated on Victoria Street into Wales and into Scotland?

[Alun Cairns]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office already has an agenda to take as many jobs as possible out of Whitehall and relocate them across the rest of the UK on an ongoing basis. Leaving the European Union will bring new responsibilities. I think there is an opportunity for my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I shall be seeking to play my part in ensuring that Wales benefits too.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

In respect of Welsh business preparation for Brexit, can the Secretary of State tell me how many of the hundreds of Government Brexit work streams have been allocated exclusively or primarily to the Wales Office?

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Wales Office sits and acts right across the whole of Government, but my prime lead is with the Welsh Government. We have now ensured that they sit on the European Union Exit and Trade (Preparedness) Sub-Committee, and as I mentioned earlier, I only hope that they will similarly invite a UK Government representative to sit on their equivalent Committee.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

5. What assessment he has made of the effect of changes to policing budgets since 2015 on the effectiveness of Welsh police forces.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Nigel Adams)]

The Government understand that police demand is changing and becoming increasingly complex. That is why, after speaking to all police forces in England and Wales, we have provided a comprehensive funding settlement that increased total investment in the police by over £460 million in 2018-19.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

By 2019-20, Gwent police will have seen a 26% cut in its core Government grant compared with 2010-11. Why do this Government keep making it more difficult for Gwent police to keep my constituents safe?

[Nigel Adams]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the 2019-20 settlement provides total funding of up to £14 billion, and it is an increase of up to £970 million on the previous year. I would also politely remind him that the Labour party voted against that increased funding.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

6. What recent discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on the effect of the industrial strategy on the Welsh economy.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)]

The industrial strategy provides a platform for the Welsh economy to thrive, and we have been working closely with the Welsh Government to ensure that we make the most of the opportunities available. We are already delivering a wide range of projects in Wales, such as through the industrial strategy challenge fund, for which Wales is scoring well above its population share.

[Chris Evans]

If you will allow me, Mr Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to my parliamentary next-door neighbour, Paul Flynn. The unique, unforgettable parliamentarian he was will be missed by all in this House.

I wonder whether the Secretary of State is concerned by the news that the Welsh Automotive Forum says that once Honda stops production in Swindon, 12 companies based in Wales will be affected by that decision. If he is worried, what will he do for those small and medium-sized enterprises to open up new markets?

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. I was in Japan last week when the ambassador received the news. It is necessary to recognise that this is nothing to do with Brexit; it is about changing market habits and about Honda’s changing approach. We have already been in touch with the Welsh Automotive Forum and are engaging positively with its members. The hon. Gentleman is right about the number of companies, but the exposure is more limited than it might initially suggest.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

In terms of the industrial strategy, does the Secretary of State think that the chronic M4 congestion around Newport, which snarled up the England rugby team coach last Friday, was part of a cunning plan to give Wales the edge, or just a consequence of 20 years of failure on the part of a Welsh Labour Government, who cannot build a road?

[Alun Cairns]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Even the Welsh coach, Warren Gatland, said to Eddie Jones that he would never have travelled through Newport at that time of day because of the congestion in the area. That might be light-hearted, but the reality is that the problem is causing serious reputational damage to Wales. The plan is available and makes a positive recommendation, and the money is available from the Treasury. I wish that the Welsh Government would just get on and deliver the road.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I am sure the House will join me in welcoming the serendipity of the alignment of stars whereby in every year ending in “9” since 1949, Wales has beaten England.

Wylfa Newydd was a key development underpinning north Wales growth deal projects. Now that Hitachi has pulled the plug on Wylfa, what is the Secretary of State doing to secure additional funding, specifically infrastructure investment, over and above the £120 million currently committed by the Government?

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Lady has asked an important question, but Hitachi has paused the project and is maintaining the development consent order. It has not pulled the plug. When I met the chairman last week, he was keen to continue to engage. We will look open-mindedly at the north Wales growth deal, but it is of course a matter for local authorities and businesses to submit bids to me so that I can consider them in due course.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the potential use of Crown Estates revenue income from Wales, or other Treasury funds to support the development of energy infrastructure, and specifically to develop the tidal stream energy sector in Pembrokeshire, Llŷn and Ynys Cybi?

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Lady has given some excellent examples of projects that could well gain support through the north or the mid Wales growth deal or the Swansea city deal. Those are the sorts of projects that I should like to explore, but of course they are bottom up. Working with the hon. Lady and with local partners, I shall be happy to see what we can do.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

7. What recent discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on plans to reduce journey times between Chepstow and Gloucestershire.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Nigel Adams)]

We have regular discussions with the Welsh Government about cross-border roads, including the proposed A48 bypass around Chepstow. We know that a bypass could improve journey times between Chepstow and Gloucestershire as well as reduce air pollution, and we look forward to working with the Welsh Government to deliver this vital piece of infrastructure.

[David T. C. Davies]

There are times when a drive through Chepstow resembles the rush hour in Lagos or Mexico City. Will Ministers therefore do everything that they can to encourage the local authorities in Gloucester, the Welsh Government and the Department for Transport to work with Monmouthshire council to deliver that bypass as soon as possible?

[Nigel Adams]

There is no greater champion and voice for Chepstow than my hon. Friend. The Government are dedicated to improving transport infrastructure across Wales, for instance by providing a new relief road. We have abolished the tolls over the Severn, and I know from personal experience on Saturday that Chepstow could do with a bypass.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Ian C. Lucas.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. He is a fine man and Slough is a very good place, but it is a long way from Chepstow or Gloucestershire. If the inquiry consists of one sentence and relates either to Chepstow or to Gloucestershire, I will hear it. If it is about Slough, he must remain seated. Blurt it out, man.

[Mr Dhesi]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The western rail link to Heathrow will significantly reduce the journey time between Wales and the airport. The Government committed themselves to the link in 2012. When will it finally be built?

[Nigel Adams]

The hon. Gentleman—who has been incredibly creative in getting his question in under Chepstow—will be pleased to hear that we are continuing to engage with the Department for Transport on this vital project.

[Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)]

9. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential effect of F-35 contracts on (a) industry in and (b) exports from Wales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Nigel Adams)]

Again there is no stronger voice for Wales than that of my right hon. Friend, who has a long-standing interest in Wales. Yesterday I met the Minister with responsibility for defence procurement, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) to discuss the F-35 contract. The recent announcement puts Wales right at the centre of the global F-35 partnership. It is the largest defence programme in history.

[Greg Hands]

It was a great pleasure to visit the F-35 factory in Fort Worth in the summer of 2016, and of course the F-35 has a huge UK content to it, so does my hon. Friend agree that these contracts show the immense contribution being made by the Welsh defence industry to the UK economy and exports overall?

[Nigel Adams]

The aerospace and defence industries are in very good health in Wales. In the financial year 2017-18, the UK Government spent £960 million with the Welsh defence industry and commerce; that is up from £946 million. This supports an estimated 6,300 jobs in Wales and the half a billion pound F-35 contract is to be welcomed right across this House.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Will the Minister meet with aerospace businesses such as Tritech, Magellan and Solvay in Wrexham to ensure that in the event of a no-deal Brexit we maximise spend within the UK to benefit our businesses?

[Nigel Adams]

I certainly would agree to meet with the aerospace industry. I have already visited a number of companies. I am also committed to holding a roundtable on this very subject and I am more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman as well to discuss this further.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

12. Given the huge challenges that the steel industry and car manufacturers face in Wales, as well as in the rest of the UK, even at this late stage, would it not be better if the Secretary of State and the rest of the Government committed Britain to staying in the customs union?

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)]

The hon. Gentleman raises this issue on the European Union. He voted against the Prime Minister’s deal. That makes no deal far more likely. The only way to secure a smooth, orderly exit from the European Union is to support the Prime Minister’s deal when the meaningful vote comes back to this House.

[Mr Speaker]

Since the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) is conscious that he has a question on the Order Paper, he can have it.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

13. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on the future of the RNLI lifeboat in New Quay.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Nigel Adams)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work on this important issue. The UK Government do not anticipate that the RNLI’s decision to replace the all-weather lifeboat with the Atlantic 85 vessel will have an impact on its capability to co-ordinate search and rescue in Cardigan bay.

[Ben Lake]

I thank the Minister for his answer. He will be aware that the decision to remove the all-weather lifeboat from New Quay has caused considerable concern in Ceredigion and further afield. May I ask him to again raise this matter with the Department for Transport and press for detailed reassurances that the removal will not diminish search and rescue capabilities in Cardigan bay?

[Nigel Adams]

I am more than happy to work with the RNLI and to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss his concerns to ensure there is proper and correct lifeboat coverage in Cardigan bay.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

Q1. If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 27 February.

[The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)]

May I first say that the UK is deeply concerned about rising tensions between India and Pakistan and urgently calls for restraint on both sides to avoid further escalation? We are in regular contact with both countries urging dialogue and diplomatic solutions to ensure regional stability. We are working closely with international partners, including through the UN Security Council, to de-escalate tensions and are monitoring developments closely and considering implications for British nationals.

Mr Speaker, I understand that Eve Griffith-Okai in your office retires at the end of the week. She has worked for four Speakers and I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in wishing her the very best for the future.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Mr Sharma]

I thank the Prime Minister for her initial response. In the face of her total failure to secure the agreement of this House, when will the Prime Minister call time on this farce, extend article 50 and put her deal versus remain back to the people?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I made a statement and answered 82 questions on these issues in the House yesterday. We will be bringing the meaningful vote back by 12 March. As I said yesterday, if that meaningful vote is rejected again by the House, we would have a vote in this House on 13 March on whether the House accepts leaving without a deal on 29 March. If the House rejects leaving without a deal on 29 March, there would be a vote on a short, limited extension to article 50. On the hon. Gentleman’s final point, I continue to believe that it is right for us to deliver on the result of the referendum that took place in 2016.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

Q2. The 2017 Birmingham bin strike led to mass fly-tipping across the borough border in my beautiful town of Solihull. With the threat of another strike ever present, will the Prime Minister join me in urging Birmingham City Council to do what often seems to be beyond it—namely, to be a good neighbour and sort out these strikes, which seem to be just a taster of what would happen under a hard-left Labour Government?

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously, this is a matter for Labour-controlled Birmingham City Council to resolve: rubbish piling up on the streets because of the failure of the Labour council to get a grip. Not only does it show what a hard-left Labour Government would be like; it shows all of us that, under Labour councils, you pay more and get less.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

There is an urgent question coming up on Kashmir, but I will just say that from our side of the House we strongly support rapid dialogue between India and Pakistan in order to reduce the tension and deal with the root causes of the conflict before more lives are lost.

I also join the Prime Minister in wishing Eve a very happy retirement, Mr Speaker. She has been absolutely brilliant in your office over the many years of people rushing in and out and making totally unreasonable demands. She has always sorted it out. Could you pass on to her the thanks of lots and lots of Back Benchers over many years?

The Bank of England forecasts that growth for this year will be the slowest in over a decade. Does the Prime Minister blame her shambolic handling of Brexit or her failed austerity policies for this damaging failure?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I think the right hon. Gentleman should have seen the report that actually showed the expectation that in this country over the coming year we will have higher growth than Germany. He talks about the economy, so let us just say what we see in the economy under a Conservative Government: more people in work than ever before; unemployment at its lowest level since the 1970s; borrowing this year at its lowest level for 17 years; and the largest monthly surplus on record. Conservatives delivering more jobs, healthier finances and an economy fit for the future.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I know that the Prime Minister is very busy—I understand that—and she possibly has not had a chance to look at the Bank of England forecasts, which suggest that there is a one in four chance of the UK economy dipping into recession. Manufacturing is already in recession, car manufacturing has declined at the steepest rate for a decade—down 5% in the past quarter alone—and Honda, Jaguar Land Rover and Nissan have announced cuts to either jobs or investment in recent months. Does she blame her shambolic Brexit or her Government’s lack of an industrial strategy for this very sad state of affairs?

[The Prime Minister]

I have just explained to the right hon. Gentleman the positives in the economy and the consistent quarter-by-quarter growth that we have seen under this Government. What do we know would be the worst thing for the economy in this country? It would be a run on the pound, capital flight and £1,000 billion of borrowing under a Labour Government.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

As manufacturing industry declines, it is skilled well-paid jobs that are lost. But the Prime Minister is right—there is something that is increasing, and that is the income of the top fifth richest people in this country, which went up by 4.7% last year while the incomes of the poorest fell by 1.6%. With the poorest people worse off, will the Prime Minister now commit to ending the benefit freeze, or does she believe that rising poverty is a price worth paying?

[The Prime Minister]

Perhaps it might again help to look at some of the facts. The top 1% are paying 28% of income tax, which is higher than at any time under a Labour Government, income inequality is lower than that which we inherited from a Labour Government, and the lowest earners saw their fastest pay rise in 20 years through the national living wage. The Conservatives are building a fairer society and delivering for everyone.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Some of us cannot forget that it was the Conservative party that so opposed the principle of the national minimum wage from the very beginning. Perhaps the Government could start by tackling the scourge of low pay in their own Departments. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Ministry of Justice pay some of their central London workers as little as £7.83 an hour, and they have been on strike again this week, hoping to get a London living wage. Will the Prime Minister intervene and ensure that they do get the London living wage so that they can continue doing their valuable work for both those Departments?

Low pay means that many workers have to claim universal credit just to make ends meet. This month, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions admitted that universal credit is driving people to food banks. Is it not time to stop the roll-out and get it right, or does the Prime Minister believe that rising poverty is a price worth paying?

[The Prime Minister]

No. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is repeating his previous question, but he talks about universal credit. We have made changes to it as we have rolled it out as we have seen how it has been operating. In my first months as Prime Minister, we cut the taper rate so that people could keep more of what they earn. Since then, we have increased allowances to 100% of a full monthly payment, we have scrapped the seven days’ wait, meaning that people get their money sooner, and we have brought in a two-week overlap for people on housing benefit. When we were making all those changes to universal credit to benefit the people who receive it, why did the Labour party oppose every single one of them?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Can I just give one example of what is happening? Take the food bank in Hastings, which is represented by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, where demand went up by 80% after universal credit was rolled out, and the Trussell Trust said that a significant proportion of referrals are related to benefit changes, delays or sanctions. It is a huge increase in food bank use.

Some 4.1 million of our children are growing up in poverty, and the Resolution Foundation said last week that UK child poverty was on course to hit record levels. Will the Prime Minister act to prevent that? Will she start by ending the two-child limit? Will she end the benefit cap? Will she restore the 1,000 Sure Start centres that have been lost under her Government?

[The Prime Minister]

We want to ensure that we have a welfare system that is fair not only to those who need to use it, but to all the hard-working taxpayers whose taxes actually pay for the welfare system. The right hon. Gentleman talks about child poverty, but absolute child poverty is at a record low. We know that a child growing up in a home where all the adults work is around five times less likely to be in poverty than a child in a home where nobody works. Under this Government, the number of children in workless households is at a record low. So, when the right hon. Gentleman stands up, will he recognise that work is the best route out of poverty and welcome the fact that we now have more people in work than ever before—3.5 million more than in 2010?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

It clearly is not working, because so many people who are themselves working very hard, some doing two or even three jobs, have to access food banks just to feed their children. The Prime Minister used to talk about the “just about managing.” Well, they are not managing anymore. Income inequality— up. In-work poverty—up. Child poverty—up. Pensioner poverty—up. Homelessness—up. Austerity clearly is not over. People on low incomes are getting poorer, while those at the top are getting richer. The economy is slowing, manufacturing is in recession and this Government’s shambolic handling of Brexit—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman will not be shouted down. It is not going to happen. The attempt is foolish and it demeans the House. Stop it. Grow up.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Austerity clearly is not over. People on low incomes are getting poorer, while those at the top get richer. The economy is slowing, manufacturing is in recession and this Government’s shambolic handling of Brexit is compounding years of damaging austerity. Their policies are driving people to food banks and poverty in the fifth richest economy on this planet. Are any of these burning injustices a priority for the Prime Minister?

[The Prime Minister]

Manufacturing is not in recession, and what the right hon. Gentleman says about the lowest earners is not the case. If he had listened to my earlier answer, he would know the lowest earners have seen the highest rise in their pay for 20 years as a result of the introduction of the national living wage—the national living wage introduced by a Conservative-led Government.

If the right hon. Gentleman is talking about actually helping people who are in work, let us talk about the fact that we have cut income tax to help people to keep more of what they earn. We have frozen fuel duty to help people for whom a car is a necessity, not a luxury. Since 2010, those measures have saved working people £6,500.

From the way the right hon. Gentleman talks, one might think that he would have supported those measures. But what did he do? No, he voted against them over a dozen times. That is the reality: it is working people who always pay the price of Labour.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Q5. For rural areas, access to emergency care is hugely important, with distances and journey times crucial. Does the Prime Minister therefore agree with me and the 40,000 Pembrokeshire people who signed the petition against proposals to remove accident and emergency services from the local hospital that the Welsh Government need to look again and ensure that communities such as mine are not left with second-class services that put lives at risk?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this issue. Obviously I recognise the concern those people feel, particularly those who live furthest away from the planned new hospital. As he says, health is a devolved matter for the Labour Welsh Government, but I urge them to consider fully the impact of the changes on local residents. We want to ensure that people can access the services they need, wherever they live in the United Kingdom.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

I am sure the House will want to join me in welcoming the president of the Dutch Senate and the Dutch parliamentarians who are with us. Goedemiddag. Hartelijk welkom, dames en heren.

Some 100,000 jobs in Scotland are under threat from a no-deal Brexit. The Scottish Government’s top economic adviser has warned that it could create a recession worse than the 2008 financial crisis. The Prime Minister must rule out no deal right here, right now. Why is she still blackmailing the people of this country?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman might not be surprised if I point out to him that there are only two ways to ensure that no deal is taken off the table. [Interruption.] It is no good SNP Members shaking their heads or muttering from a sedentary position. They need to face up to the fact that we will not revoke article 50 because we are leaving the European Union, so the only way to take no deal off the table is to vote for the deal.

[Ian Blackford]

I think it will be for Parliament to decide, and of course there are other options: we can extend article 50 and we can have a people’s vote. The Prime Minister should look at the faces of her colleagues; she is fooling no one. Parliament will not be bullied into a false choice between accepting her very bad deal or no deal at all. MPs from Scotland must now decide: will they stand up for Scotland or will they stand up with the extreme Brexiteers on the Tory Benches? Today, the Scottish National party will move an amendment to rule out no deal in any and all circumstances. Scottish MPs can back the SNP or betray voters in Scotland. Will the Prime Minister finally end this Brexit madness and vote for the SNP amendment tonight?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about an extension to article 50 or a second referendum, but that does not solve the problem—it does not deal with the issue. The issue is very simple: do we want to leave with a deal or without a deal? That is the question that SNP MPs and every other MP will face when the time comes. He then talks about betraying voters in Scotland. I will tell him what has betrayed voters in Scotland: an SNP Scottish Government who have raised income tax so that people in Scotland are paying more in income tax than people anywhere else in the UK; an SNP Scottish Government who have broken their manifesto promise and raised the cap on annual council tax increases for homeowners; and an SNP Scottish Government under whom people are facing the prospect of an extra tax for parking their car at their workplace. And all of that—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is a fest of undignified arm-waving, and bellowing, Mr Kerr, from a sedentary position. Calm yourself, man. Take some sort of soothing medicament that you will find beneficial.

[The Prime Minister]

And all of that in a year in which the Scottish Government’s block grant from Westminster went up. The people betraying the people of Scotland are the SNP Scottish Government.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Q6. Yesterday, we heard of the horrific antisemitic attack on an elderly Jewish gentleman in north London. Tonight, right hon. and hon. colleagues from across the House will be breaking bread with the Community Security Trust, a charity that exists to defend against antisemitic violence. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we can never be blasé about antisemitism, we can never be tolerant of antisemitism, and the Labour party can never be too apologetic about antisemitism?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I join my hon. Friend in recognising the work done by the Community Security Trust. It does such important and valuable work throughout the year, and I am pleased that the Government are able to support the work it does. He is absolutely right to say that one can never be too apologetic about antisemitism, but I think what we have heard sums up Labour under its leader: it loses the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and it keeps the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson). That tells us all we need to know about the Labour leadership: they are present but not involved. Perhaps if the Labour leader actually wants to take action against racism, he would suspend the hon. Member for Derby North.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

Q3. One homeless person dying—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady must be heard.

[Layla Moran]

One homeless person dying on our streets is enough for national shame, yet the latest figures show that in 2017 nearly 600 died. In that same year, the Vagrancy Act 1824 was used more than 1,000 times to drag homeless people before our courts. Crisis, Centrepoint, St Mungo’s and MPs on both sides of this House agree that it is time to scrap this law. Will the Prime Minister consider meeting us and the charities so that we can make the case for why we should not wait one more day?

[The Prime Minister]

As I think I indicated in Prime Minister’s questions last week, the number of people sleeping on our streets has gone down for the first time in eight years, but of course there is more to do. On the wider issue of homelessness, there is more to do in terms of building more homes, and we are doing that. I will ensure that the Minister from the relevant Department meets the hon. Lady to discuss the matter.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Q8. Residents of Northpoint House in Bromley in my constituency have aluminium composite material cladding on their building. They are paying out £5,000 a week for a waking watch, repairs and remediation will cost £3 million, and their fire brigade enforcement notice expires on 30 April. The flats are valueless, so the residents cannot raise the money against them. Despite personal intervention by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, for which I am grateful, the freeholders and the developer refuse to accept liability. Under the circumstances, will the Government accept that it may be necessary to intervene directly to ensure that the innocent flat-owners are not out of pocket?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. I know that, as he said, he has been in touch with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, as well as the Treasury. As I have said previously, we fully expect building owners in the private sector to take action, make sure appropriate safety measures are in place, and not pass costs on to leaseholders. We have written to all relevant building owners to remind them of their responsibilities. They must do the right thing; if they do not, we are not ruling anything out. I should also point out to my hon. Friend that local authorities have the power to complete works and recover the costs from the private owners of high-rise residential buildings. I am sure that a Minister from MHCLG would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to continue to discuss this matter, to ensure that the residents are given the peace of mind they need by the action being taken.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Q4. The Government have just decided that in the event of a no-deal Brexit, imports of medical supplies are to be handled by the same company that forced hundreds of restaurants to close because it was incapable of delivering chicken to Kentucky Fried Chicken. It is horrifying that the Prime Minister’s stubbornness is literally putting people’s lives at risk through bargain-bucket supply deals. What guarantee can she give patients who are watching us now, looking at the pantomime and farce in this House, that they will be able to get their vital medicines when they need them in the event of that no-deal Brexit?

[The Prime Minister]

The Department of Health and Social Care is taking the steps necessary to ensure that medicines are available. We have been clear before that it is not necessary to stockpile and that patients should not be stockpiling medicines. Medicines will be available. If the hon. Lady is so concerned about the impact of no deal—

[Caroline Lucas]

indicated dissent.

[The Prime Minister]

It is no good the hon. Lady shaking her head. There is a very simple answer: if she does not want no deal, she should support the deal.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Q11. Yesterday, The Sun newspaper reported on proposals for a £1.6 billion post-EU fund for deprived areas in the north, predominantly in seats held by Opposition MPs. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that money from the fund is available to constituents like mine in Harlow, where we have significant deprivation and disadvantage?

[The Prime Minister]

We will be introducing a fund to ensure that our towns can grow and prosper. The details will be announced in due course by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. I can confirm to my right hon. Friend that Harlow, and indeed other towns across England, will be able to propose ambitious plans to help to transform their communities. Of course, we will work with the devolved Administrations and in Northern Ireland to ensure that towns in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland also benefit from town deals.

[Sir David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

Q7. As a former shop steward and works convenor, I completely understand the need to approach the cliff edge in order to secure a deal, but rational negotiators never go to the edge, hold hands and jump into the abyss. When will the Prime Minister recognise that constructive discussions should take place without the nuclear option of mutually assured destruction?

[The Prime Minister]

Constructive discussions are taking place. This House was clear on what it wanted to be changed in relation to the withdrawal agreement and the deal that we had brought back from the European Union, and we are making progress and having exactly the constructive discussions the hon. Gentleman talks about.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

Q14. Public trust in politics is dangerously low. Failing to honour and deliver the EU referendum result cannot be an option. I campaigned to remain, but I am 100% committed to leaving; the question is how. Most of my voters in Mid Norfolk said that they wanted to be in the Common Market, not a political union. Given the clear warnings from the life science and agriculture sectors—key industries in Norfolk—about the danger of no deal, I welcome the Prime Minister’s decision to give this sovereign House the vote and ask that if the House votes against, she will consider the European Free Trade Association instead of the backstop, giving us the Common Market 2.0 that most British voters want.

[The Prime Minister]

As I said yesterday, in answer to a question from, I think, our right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), the first aim of the Government and my first aim is to bring back a deal that can command support across the House in a meaningful vote, such that we are able to leave with a deal. The arrangements within the political declaration have significant benefits in relation to issues such as customs, but they also provide for us to have an independent trade policy and to bring an end to free movement. My hon. Friend talks about trust in politics, but I believe that those were important elements of what people voted for in 2016 and it is important that we deliver on that.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

Q9. The Prime Minister previously committed to a meaningful vote on her Brexit deal but had to be forced by the courts to hold it. She then committed to that meaningful vote in December, but pulled it at the last minute. When her deal fell to the worst Government defeat in history, instead of listening to MPs, she carried on regardless, so I ask her: what guarantee, other than her word, will she give this House that we will be able to vote to stop a no-deal Brexit before 29 March?

[The Prime Minister]

I set out clearly in my statement yesterday and I have repeated it in answer to a question today, the process that the Government will follow. The Government policy is to leave with a deal. We are working to ensure that we can bring back that deal. The hon. Lady talks about the rejection of the meaningful vote and not listening to Parliament, but the constructive discussions that I am having with the European Union at the moment are exactly about listening to Parliament—[Interruption.] It is all very well the shadow Trade Secretary, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), shouting, “Nonsense!” He might not have noticed that on 29 January this House voted by a majority to say what it wanted to be changed in the withdrawal agreement, and that is what we are working on.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Little moves us more than the death of a child and for bereaved parents that grief is beyond words. Action speaks louder, which is why I have championed, inspired by the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), the Children’s Funeral Fund. Will the Prime Minister tell us when the good work of her Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), will come to fruition and the fund will begin to bring support and solace? We cannot mend broken hearts here, but those who have loved and lost deserve better than delay and doubt.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question and for the work that he has done on this issue with the hon. Member for Swansea East. It is accepted across the House that it is not right that grieving parents have to worry about how to meet the funeral costs when they have lost a child. As he knows, we have confirmed that parents will no longer have to meet the cost of burials or cremations. Fees will be waived by local authorities and paid for by the Government. The relevant Ministries have been working on the most effective way to deliver this, and I can confirm that the fund will be implemented by the summer.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

Q10. In the past few months in my constituency, a 98-year-old man was killed in an aggravated burglary, an Asian couple were robbed, held hostage and beaten in their home, schoolchildren were mugged at knifepoint, and a spate of burglaries were committed across Enfield Southgate. My constituents do not feel safe. Does the Prime Minister recognise the severe consequences of underfunding our police service, and will she commit to restoring funding for community policing to pre-2010 levels?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course we recognise the concerns about serious violence, which is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has brought forward measures such as the Offensive Weapons Bill and set up the serious violence taskforce. In relation to funding for the police, the Metropolitan police will receive up to £2.5 billion in funding in 2019-20, which is an increase of up to £172 million on 2018-19. If the hon. Gentleman also wants to ask questions about funding for police in London perhaps he should speak to the Labour Mayor of London.

[Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)]

With the Government’s review of higher education still under way, does the Prime Minister agree that the reintroduction of maintenance grants is one outcome that could clearly aid social mobility for more disadvantaged students?

[The Prime Minister]

I recognise that my right hon. Friend has been, and continues to be, a huge champion for social mobility. She is asking me to provide a solution to higher education funding and student finance before the Augar report has been received and published. All I can do is assure her that Philip Augar and his panel are working on the report and we will look seriously at the proposals they bring forward.

[Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)]

Q12. In my constituency of Jarrow there is a wonderful young lady, four-year-old Harriet Corr, whose life would improve dramatically if she had access to the cystic fibrosis drug Orkambi. It is available in Ireland and many other European countries, and is due to become available in Scotland. Will the Prime Minister intervene personally in the negotiations between the NHS and Vertex to ensure that Harriet’s family and many other families are not forced to leave their homes and move elsewhere?

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure the whole House will recognise the concerns of Harriet and her family. We want to ensure that patients have access to the most effective and innovative medicines, but obviously at a price that represents value to the NHS. NHS England has proposed its best ever offer for a drug. This offer is the largest ever commitment of its kind in the 70-year history of the NHS, and would guarantee immediate and expanded access both to Orkambi and the drug Kalydeco for patients who need it. We have been closely following the discussions, and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has offered a meeting with the global chief executive officer of Vertex, NHS England and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in an effort to move the situation forward for the benefit of patients.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that five years ago today Russian special forces seized the Government building in Crimea and raised the Russian flag? Will she confirm that the UK Government remain committed to the restoration of Ukrainian sovereignty over Crimea, and will she look at strengthening sanctions against Russia until that can be achieved?

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to give my right hon. Friend that confirmation. This was an illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia, and we have been doing everything we can to ensure that the appropriate sanctions are imposed that will have an impact. We have been one of the voices around the EU Council table that has been advocating the roll-over of sanctions at every stage and ensuring that, as we look at the actions of Russia here and elsewhere, we enhance those sanctions and rightfully put pressure on those who are responsible.

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

Q15. The Scottish Government have used their powers to increase carer’s allowance to the level of jobseeker’s allowance, yet this top-up is being under-mined because carer’s allowance is regarded as income under universal credit. If carer’s allowance is meant to help cover the extra costs incurred by providing care, why are carers on universal credit being penalised?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady knows full well the way in which universal credit operates to encourage people into work, but I will ask the Minister in the relevant Department to write to her on this matter.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

Thousands of young girls—including, sadly, some from Taunton Deane—are purchasing so-called quick-fix diet and detox products that are often endorsed by celebrities on social media, something for which these celebrities can be paid thousands of pounds. NHS chiefs say that some of these products can have highly detrimental health effects and are heaping work on our mental health services. In Eating Disorders Awareness Week, and following this morning’s excellent Westminster Hall debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair), will the Prime Minister agree that the irresponsible and unsafe endorsement of such products should be addressed?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. I am sure that all Members have had constituency cases where they have seen the devastating impact that eating disorders can have on individuals, and on their families and friends. The Government have been taking steps over the past few years. In 2014 we announced that we were investing £150 million to expand eating disorder community-based care for children and young people, and 70 dedicated new or extended community services offer care as a result. As my hon. Friend said, young people may be encouraged to take products because of celebrity endorsement. The celebrities involved should think very carefully about the impact that these products can have in effecting eating disorders, which devastate lives.

[Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

The Prime Minister, and indeed the entire House, know the conditions under which her withdrawal agreement will have a majority. The whole House, and indeed the country, now know that as a result of yesterday’s events the prospects of the Prime Minister being able to achieve the necessary changes have been undermined and her negotiating position has been weakened. That is the reality of the situation. Can we have an assurance, in terms of any possible extension—and I would be interested to know what the Prime Minister thinks the purpose of the extension would be—that she will continue to focus on getting those legally binding changes? Hopefully, during any future negotiations, she will not be undermined in the way that she has been so far.

[The Prime Minister]

First of all, we are continuing to press for those legally binding changes. Those are the discussions we have been having with the European Commission. It is what I have spoken to every European Union leader about over the last 10 days or so. It is what I was speaking to people about at Sharm El Sheikh over the weekend as well. The right hon. Gentleman talks about the extension to article 50. Can I be very clear again? The Government do not want to extend article 50. The Government’s policy is to get the legally binding changes so a deal can be brought back to this House, and this House can support the deal, and we can leave on 29 March with a deal.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Unlike some Ministers who cannot normally take the view that the Prime Minister’s word is binding, I do take the Prime Minister’s word as being binding. Can I ask that she reiterates our manifesto commitment to leave with a deal or to leave with no deal, and that is our commitment?

[The Prime Minister]

Indeed, I have always said that no deal is better than a bad deal. I think we have actually got a good deal from the European Union. It provides for citizens’ rights; it provides certainty for business with the implementation period; it ensures that we have, in the political declaration, the arrangements for customs in the future—for no tariffs, no quotas and no rules of origin; and it covers a number of other areas that I think will indeed be positive for this country. There is an issue that the House wants to see changed. That is what we are working on in relation to the Northern Ireland backstop. I want us to leave with a deal. I want to be able to bring back a deal that this House can support.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

Violet Grace Youens was walking home from nursery with her grandma on 24 March 2017. She was hit by a stolen car driven erratically and at 83 mph in a 30 mph zone. The driver and accomplice immediately left the scene, and the driver absconded from the country. Tragically, four-year-old Violet Grace died in her parents’ arms the following day and her grandma suffers with life-changing injuries. The offenders have since been sentenced to tariffs that do not fit the gravity of the crimes.

In October 2017, the Government published a response to the consultation on driving offences and penalties relating to causing death or serious injury. They confirmed proposals to increase the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving from 14 years’ imprisonment to life, along with other tariffs for serious driving offences, and stated that Government would bring forward proposals for reform of the law as soon as parliamentary time allows. Today, after just one week, the public petition “Violet Grace’s Law” stands at more than 74,000 signatures. The Government are repeating the same response—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is a matter of the utmost sensitivity. I respect that, and that is why I am allowing the hon. Lady to go way beyond the normal length, but she must now put a question with a question mark—one sentence to wrap it up very well. Thank you.

[Ms Rimmer]

Prime Minister, when do the Government truly intend to bring forward the changes for the reform of the law?

[The Prime Minister]

First of all, I am sure that the feelings of the whole House will be with Violet Grace’s family that this terrible tragedy has occurred. I know from a constituency case that I had the concern that parents, family members and others have when they see somebody who has caused a death in this way by their driving being sentenced to a tariff which they feel is less than it should be. The Government have taken this very seriously—that is why we have had the consultation—and we will indeed bring forward our proposals when parliamentary time does allow. But I will ask a Minister from the Department for Transport to meet the hon. Lady to discuss this matter with her.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Mr Speaker, I do not know whether you were as surprised as I was yesterday that, yet again, the media had verbatim reports of the Cabinet meeting straight after it. In fact, there were references to colleagues in front of me as kamikaze pilots. Prime Minister, to sort this issue out, would it not just be easier to televise Cabinet meetings? [Laughter.]

[Mr Speaker]

I want to hear the Prime Minister’s answer. This is a very important question.

[The Prime Minister]

Mr Speaker, when you did a thumbs-up after that question, I was not sure whether that indicated that you had a view on the televising of Cabinet meetings. My hon. Friend has tried to approach that issue in various ways. I seem to remember that last time he asked me about this, it was not about televising Cabinet but sending his CV in to be a Cabinet Minister. Perhaps these are linked—perhaps he wants to sit round the Cabinet table and be on television all the time.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, we never knew that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) had such ambitions, but maybe it lurks within him—who knows? For my own part, I was merely acknowledging welcome and friendly visitors to the House.

Jammu and Kashmir

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Commons Chamber

00:00

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the security and humanitarian situation in Kashmir, in the light of the escalating tensions between India and Pakistan.

[The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)]

I understand that the Prime Minister referred to this during Prime Minister’s Question Time. The UK is deeply concerned about rising tensions between India and Pakistan. Understandably, there has been huge interest in this rapidly developing situation. The House will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail on reportage at this time, as the situation evolves.

We understand that on 14 February, at least 40 paramilitary Indian police officers were killed in a suicide attack in India-administered Kashmir. The Pakistan-based militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed claimed responsibility for that attack. India-Pakistan tensions, which were already at a high level, rose significantly following the attack, and both countries publicly exchanged heated rhetoric. On Tuesday 26 February, Indian and Pakistani news reported that Indian jets had crossed the line of control between India-administered and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. There have been reports of further ceasefire violations across the line of control overnight, and the situation remains unclear but fast developing.

The Foreign Secretary spoke to his Indian and Pakistani counterparts on Monday to discuss the situation, and we are in regular contact with both countries at senior levels to encourage restraint and to avoid escalating tensions further. We are monitoring developments closely and considering the implications for British nationals. I will be speaking to both the Indian and Pakistani high commissioners this afternoon and will continue to press for the importance of restraint. We urge both sides to engage in dialogue and find diplomatic solutions to ensure regional stability. We are working closely with international partners, including through the United Nations Security Council, to de-escalate tensions.

India and Pakistan are both long-standing and important friends of the United Kingdom. We have many and significant links to both countries through sizeable diaspora communities. As a consequence, we enjoy strong bilateral relations with both nations. The UK Government’s position on Kashmir remains that it is and must be for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution to this situation, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for the UK to prescribe, intervene or interfere with a solution or to act as mediator.

I know that the House has previously raised concerns about the humanitarian and human rights situation in both India-administered Kashmir and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. We continue to monitor the situation, and we encourage all states to ensure that their domestic standards are in line with international standards.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I am grateful to the Minister for his response, but this has been an ongoing situation since independence in 1947, and successive Governments have failed, in dealing with the issues associated with Kashmir, to help facilitate peace alongside our international allies.

As the Minister has said, he is aware of the recent aerial attacks from India and then from Pakistan, following on from the militant attack in the Pulwama district of Jammu and Kashmir and the death of the 40 Indian troops. This is a proscribed group in Pakistan. I understand that it is said to be apparently based there, but as I say, it has been proscribed by Pakistan. I am grateful to the Minister for reporting on the action he has already taken and the dialogue he has already had with counterparts in the high commissions for both India and Pakistan, and I would be grateful if he reported back once he has had meetings on this, because it is a very fast-moving situation.

The Minister mentioned the UN Security Council. What specific action has been decided on there? India has said that airstrikes in Balakot in north-western Pakistan yesterday were in response to the militants’ attack and killed a large number of militants, but Pakistan has said there were no casualties. Will the Minister clarify these reports? Today, Pakistan claims to have shot down two Indian jets when they entered Pakistani airspace, and the Indian news agency Asian News International has reported that a Pakistani jet has also been shot down on the Pakistan side of the line of control. Again, if the Minister could expand on some of this information, that would be very helpful.

In the light of the escalation in military action, will the Foreign Secretary be altering his travel advice to UK citizens? The Minister knows there is large Kashmiri diaspora in the UK, many of whom have families still based there, and their safety is a real concern for them. As I say, the escalating tensions have had a profound effect on our communities. What assurance can he give them that the UK Government are doing all they can not just to de-escalate tensions now, but to work towards a sustainable peace in the region?

Both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers. This is not just an issue for the region; it is an issue for the whole world. As the chair of the all-party group on Kashmir, I have repeatedly reiterated our commitment to supporting a process of peace and reconciliation in the region, but the UK Government need to step up and help to facilitate this, alongside our international partners. We have a vital role to play, as I say, not just in de-escalation, but in terms of a sustainable peace, and I urge the Minister to do all that he can to do this.

[Mark Field]

I thank the hon. Lady for her calm and wise words. May I say that I appreciate she has a busy day today already, with huge amounts going on near her own constituency following the large-scale fires? We are very grateful for her work, and we all recognise as Members of Parliament that we are sometimes torn between important international issues that are close to our hearts and dealing with those that may seem very parochial. None the less, I am very grateful for her words—her words of calm.

On the UN specifically, the hon. Lady is right that this is a UN issue of some urgency, simply because obviously both Pakistan and India are nuclear nations. It is therefore all the more important that we try to tone or dial down some of the rhetoric and, dare I say it, some of the actions we have seen in recent days. I think there are many friends of India and of Pakistan—and of Kashmir—not just here in the UK but across the world who are doing their best to try to calm this down.

The hon. Lady will I hope appreciate, in relation to the clarification she has requested on some of the reports—she made reference to reports of Indian planes having been shot down over the last 24 hours—that I do not want, and I hope she will understand why, to be drawn into comment on this because it is a fluid situation and many of these reports are unconfirmed. I therefore think that the most important thing, as I say, is to try to produce a slightly calmer approach.

On the issue of travel advice that the hon. Lady requested, we are very closely monitoring the situation, and we shall keep our travel advice under constant review and update it regularly—not just in Kashmir, but obviously in other countries. I should say to the hon. Lady that, as it happens, I am going to be in the region on a long-prearranged trip—provided we get out of this place, anyway, with Brexit votes later on. I am hoping to go to India tomorrow morning for three days. This is obviously a fast-moving issue, and I will speak not just with our high commissioner out in New Delhi, but obviously with counterparts both there and in Mumbai.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) on securing this urgent question about this very tense situation, and I thank the Minister for his solid answers thus far. Clearly, the escalating tension emanates from the terrorist suicide attack by Jaish-e-Mohammed on 14 February. This group is based in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and in Pakistan, so clearly the answer to this is that Pakistan has to take action to dismantle the terrorist camps and organise so that the terrorists are brought to justice. Will my right hon. Friend tell the Pakistani high commission to own up to its responsibilities and make sure that the terrorists face justice?

[Mark Field]

I have a lot of respect for my hon. Friend, who takes a great interest in these issues. However, I think he is making some categorical statements that are not entirely supportable at this point. As I say, I think it is important for all of us as Members of Parliament with significant diasporas—I know that there is a predominantly Indian diaspora in his own Harrow East constituency—to try to calm feelings and to de-escalate some of the concerns, not least as this is a fast-moving situation.

It is fair to say, however, that Jaish-e-Mohammed has claimed responsibility for the 14 February attack. The UK will continue to support a listing of that organisation and indeed of its leader, Masood Azhar, under UN Security Council resolution 1267. The organisation itself has been listed by the UN since 2001, and Masood Azhar is the head of that organisation. However, I think it is very premature to start making categorical statements about any involvement by Pakistan in this issue. We will obviously keep this under review, and as I say, I will endeavour to speak with both the Indian and Pakistani high commissioners this afternoon to ask them for any updates on the situation.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for securing it, and my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), who I know also sought an urgent question today.

At the outset, let me make it quite clear that we condemn the despicable terror attack carried out in Pulwama on 14 February, and I believe that we speak on behalf of the whole House when we do so. India has been absolutely right to take action against the terrorist group responsible and to urge Pakistan to follow suit. It is also high time that China lifted its veto so that the UN can designate the head of JeM as a global terrorist.

Will the Minister join me in urging the Indian authorities, at national and regional level, to protect those innocent civilians of Kashmiri origin who have faced reprisals across India following the Pulwama attack? On the airstrikes and dogfights of the last two days, will the Minister of State join me in calling for immediate talks between India and Pakistan to de-escalate that crisis, but also in urging them to put an immediate stop to any military activity that risks escalating it further? We have heard both sides claim that their actions have simply been designed to send a message, but it is all too easy in those situations for messages to be misinterpreted and for grave and fatal mistakes to be made.

Finally, will the Minister of State join me in asking both India and Pakistan to think first and foremost of the innocent people of Kashmir, who are literally caught in the middle of this crossfire and have been so for 70 years? Their human rights have been serially abused, their humanitarian needs have been neglected, and their own wishes about their own future have been treated as unimportant. No one in India, Pakistan or this country wants yet another generation of Kashmiri children growing up facing the same cycle of instability, violence and fear that has afflicted their parents and grandparents for decades. Only peaceful dialogue can break that cycle. All parties must commit to engaging in that dialogue.

[Mark Field]

The right hon. Lady is absolutely right that we want a broad-based dialogue, and that the whole House condemned the original attack that took place on 14 February. I have to say that the concern about China’s veto is unfortunately not isolated to issues around Kashmir. There are other areas, not least in relation to the Rohingya population from Burma, on which, as she knows, the prospect of a veto and of a lack of co-operation does not make life easy within the UN Security Council. There are other organisations, such as the European Union and the UN Human Rights Council, through which we will try to utilise as much muscle as we can, again in collaboration in with other countries, to try to bring about the peaceable progress to which she refers.

The right hon. Lady also raised the humanitarian situation. We recognise that there are and have been long-standing human rights concerns in both Indian-administered and Pakistani-administered Kashmir. We believe that any allegation of human rights abuses is of great concern and has to be investigated thoroughly, promptly and transparently. I reassure the House, as I did the Members here who were at the meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on 23 January, that we will continue to raise issues relating to Kashmir, including human rights, at all opportunities with the Governments of both India and Pakistan.

I reiterate the right hon. Lady’s words. It is important for us, given the importance of the diaspora that we have here, to make it clear, as she rightly says, that the worst of all worlds would be many more decades of deprivation and humanitarian problems in Kashmir. To intervene or interfere, or to try to mediate in a broader way, is not necessarily the role for the United Kingdom. Our role, not least because of that diaspora, is to at least try to present that there must be a better future for future generations of Kashmiris than the last 70 years. We need to focus more attention on the future, rather than past. I very much hope that one way in which our diaspora here can make a contribution is to try to help to build up industry, to provide some prosperity for future generations of Kashmiris.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I am grateful that my right hon. Friend the Minister is in the Chamber to respond to this important urgent question from the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). I am very concerned, as many of us are, about the issues that have led to such violence in Kashmir over the past two weeks.

I understand that my right hon. Friend will not play a part as a negotiator or mediator, but will he at least do his best to get around the UN General Assembly and other members of the Security Council and encourage those who are friends of both countries to help them to get together and talk, at least in the margins and the quiet corridors, so that when they get to the actual talks, there is a conversation to be had? Will he also ensure that those members of the UK population with connections to Kashmir are able to support their families and those who may have been cut off or in any way harmed by the economic shocks affecting the region at the moment?

[Mark Field]

We shall do our level best. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that active conversations will take place within the UN corridors of both New York and Geneva. I should perhaps say that this goes beyond simply friends of Pakistan and India. The realisation is that this is an extremely serious situation involving two nuclear powers in that part of the world, and that it is therefore in everyone’s interest to see a de-escalation, but with an eye towards trying to solve some of the underlying problems for the longer-term future.

Unfortunately for the man to my right, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), it is the fate of Government Whips that they do not have a chance to say very much—[Interruption.] I am sure that you look forward for that reason to the day I am elevated—or maybe demoted; whichever way one looks at it—to the Whips Office, Mr Speaker. On a serious note, I am well aware that my hon. Friend does a huge amount of work on this, not least because one of the main towns in his constituency, Nelson, has a significant Kashmiri population. I know that that applies to many Members on both sides of the House.

[Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for raising this important urgent question. I also thank the Minister for his measured response to the situation to date. However, the House will be concerned about the rise in conflict in that region, especially when the nations involved have access to nuclear weapons. Will the Minister ensure that the serious concerns raised in the House are relayed directly to the Governments of Pakistan and India at the highest level, and that the Foreign Office strains every sinew to make sure that both parties act with responsibility and restraint, and that it insists that escalation is not an option?

Many Members have mentioned positive and meaningful talks taking place. In order to protect the civilian populations on both sides of the border, and indeed within Kashmir, we need to ensure that these populations are not put at any further risk. I know that the Government are focused on other matters at the moment, but I hope that the Minister, or the Foreign Secretary, will be able to keep us up to date with developments on a regular basis.

[Mark Field]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive words. He is right that this requires a nimble diplomatic approach. I have to say that I have encountered over the last two mornings a blizzard of diplomatic telegrams from Islamabad, New Delhi and, of course, New York recognising the huge amount of work going in from our diplomatic service in trying to keep open lines of communication and trying to speak to individuals in the military and at the political level. We will do our level best as this situation evolves and we are able to say more, and with more certainty, to ensure that the House is kept fully informed.

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) just entered the Chamber carrying, as per usual, a book. I note in passing something of which the right hon. Gentleman will be well aware. In his party, which used to be my party, it was frequently said that to be seen carrying a book was dangerous, but to be seen reading it was fatal.

[Mr Keith Simpson (Broadland) (Con)]

I do both. [Laughter.]

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I absolutely condemn the perpetrators of the initial act of violence, but I also condemn airstrikes in retaliation for what really could have been a crime, rather than an act of war. Thousands of my constituents will be alarmed about the prospect of escalation because they have families on not only one but both sides of the line of control. Will the Minister join me in saying to the evil people who perpetrate acts of violence for political causes that they defeat their own ends by the revulsion and horror that they cause?

[Mark Field]

I know full well that my hon. Friend has a significant Kashmiri population in his constituency, not least because I have had the chance to meet some of them in recent weeks. He is absolutely right: it is entirely self-defeating. In many ways, we all want to see some sort of normalcy within the Kashmir area, whether under Pakistani or Indian administration. Above all, the clearest way for that to happen is if there is stability in that region, which would allow for economic prosperity. One only has to look close at hand to our situation in Northern Ireland. It was when the worst of the troubles of the 1970s and ’80s were behind us that we were able to see some progress and international investors could comfortable about being able to build businesses in that country. That is the great prize if we can de-escalate some of these long-standing issues within Kashmir.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

Until his election, Prime Minister Modi was banned from entering the United Kingdom for his part in the Gujarat massacre, which resulted in more than 2,000 Muslim deaths. As Prime Minister, he has pursued a divisive, right-wing, Hindu nationalist agenda that has inflamed tensions in both India and occupied Jammu and Kashmir. Instead of pointing fingers at Pakistan for the Pulwama attack, when will Prime Minister Modi look at his own record of persistent state violence and gross human right abuses, as highlighted by both the UN and all-party parliamentary Kashmir group reports, which caused the rise of the home-grown insurgency in Kashmir?

[Mark Field]

I understand the hon. Lady’s heartfelt passion, but let me just say this: that is not relevant to the present situation. We all know we are in a pre-election period in India, and that is one of the factors of concern. We want to see a de-escalation at the earliest possible opportunity to avoid the sorts of issues to which she refers. She will appreciate that from the perspective of the Foreign Office we want to remain strong friends on all sides. To start condemning, in the way she proposes, would only undermine our position of trying to bring both sides together.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

May I ask that the Government recognise the severity of the terrorist threat faced by India in relation to Kashmir, and that our Government offer support where the Indian Government take measures they feel are necessary to protect the security of their citizens?

[Mark Field]

We will offer support to all Governments who look to protect their civilian populations, but we will do so in a way that is managed, manageable and not focused on an overreaction to what has happened. I appreciate that, as my right hon. Friend rightly says, the attack on 14 February was one of the very worst single episodes for some decades, but equally we would like to see restraint on both sides, recognising the importance of having a secure region to ensure that civilian populations are properly protected.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

Just last week, I returned from leading a delegation of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to Pakistan, during which I met the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister assured the delegation of his commitment, reiterating that he wants a peaceful resolution through diplomacy. I am sure the Minister is aware that the central issue in this crisis is Kashmir. While the people of Kashmir are not given their right to self-determination they will not be free, nor can we truly expect to see long-term peace between India and Pakistan. Does the Minister agree that now is the time to change our policy position on Kashmir and play a central role in helping to resolve the issue that we played a part in creating when leaving the region as a colonial power? Will he consider making an application to the United Nations Security Council on this matter?

[Mark Field]

I must say—the hon. Lady will recognise this—that I do not agree with her prescription that we should try to intervene. The reality of the situation, as I am sure she is well aware, is that if the UK Government were to offer to mediate or feel that it is our place to interfere, we would simply lose credibility, particularly with the Indian Government. We would therefore end up not being able to play the role we do in trying to ensure a de-escalation of tensions. Our long-standing position is, and must continue to be, for India and Pakistan to find a political resolution to the situation in Kashmir through their own efforts, taking into account the wishes, as she rightly says, of Kashmiri people. If we were to intervene, interfere, prescribe a solution or purport that we can somehow be a mediator, I think that would very much undermine our position on all sides.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I was going to call the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), but he now seems very pre-occupied with—[Interruption.] We have already heard the fella. I should not have forgotten so quickly. I will remind myself of the eloquence of his contribution in due course.

[Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The Minister is taking a very fine line, trying to sit on the fence, effectively, mindful that there are diasporas from both Pakistan and India living in this country. He is treading a very fine line in his answers. However, where it is abundantly clear that the terrorists are living in one particular country, will he give an undertaking to this House that the British Government will make it absolutely clear to that host country that it should not be tolerating terrorists who are engaging in activity in another country and that they must face the full force of law?

[Mark Field]

My hon. Friend will recognise that, as a diplomat or a Foreign Office Minister, sometimes the most effective way to make an argument to our counterparts is not through megaphone diplomacy. There are robust private conversations that will take place. I do not want to go into detail as to what they will say, but let me just say this. We do understand that there is a need and a desire for any country to act proportionately to secure its borders, people and military, but the idea that the UK should be seen to be robustly on one side of this battle rather than another would be entirely self-defeating. I think it is in the interests of us all to take a calm approach. Of course, we will not in any way do anything other than criticise terrorist organisations. That is one reason why the organisation Jaish-e-Mohammed has been subject to a UN listing for almost 20 years and has been proscribed in the UK for that period of time.

[Mr Speaker]

My profuse apologies to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), on whose every word, as he knows, I ordinarily hang. My attention was momentarily distracted, and I apologise to him.

[Faisal Rashid (Warrington South) (Lab)]

I must express my grave concern and alarm at the ongoing escalation of the conflict between India and Pakistan in disputed Kashmir. War will benefit no one, least of all the people of Kashmir. As of yet, however, there are no signs of a serious—I emphasise that word—international attempt to put an end to this crisis. Does the Minister agree that the international community must do more and act now to put an end to these senseless acts of military violence? If so, what steps will his Government be taking to achieve that outcome?

[Mark Field]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. As I mentioned earlier, we are working as rapidly as we can within all international organisations. If I may touch on a point I did not address earlier about the UN, we are working within the UN. This is a major issue, not least because of the fact that these are two nuclear powers. I suspect there will be a move to de-escalate and negotiate as far as possible. I know from discussions with our US counterparts that they are also expressing concerns. Ultimately, I believe it must be for the Kashmiri people to find a way forward. I appreciate that there is a lot of history. The worry is that a lot of things can be said and done now that could be very difficult to forget. The prize for the future is to try to achieve a more peaceable solution. Ultimately, that must come from the hearts of those who are in Kashmir, whether of Pakistani or Indian origin.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), I have many thousands of constituents who are very worried about family members in Kashmir. I was heartened by what the Minister of State had to say about his robust conversations on human rights with both sides. Does he agree that there is perhaps more we can do as a nation to help investigate human rights abuses and ensure that truth is brought to the forefront, rather than the great deal of misinformation we are hearing at the moment?

[Mark Field]

Yes, I very much agree with my hon. Friend. She will be aware that any allegations of human rights abuses are concerning and need to be investigated thoroughly, promptly and transparently. She will also be aware that our single biggest Department for International Development budget is in Pakistan. Human rights concerns are part and parcel of the money that is spent out there, trying to build up capacity and capability to ensure that such human rights issues are properly dealt with.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

The whole House will support the Government and the United Nations in their efforts to get India and Pakistan to draw back from further conflict, but does the Minister agree that it is the people of Kashmir who are both the victims and spectators of their own future because of the failure of those two countries to reach an agreement on what will happen? Above all else, the people of Kashmir want the chance to live in peace and security, and to have the right to determine their own future, as they were promised over 70 years ago when it was suggested that a referendum might be held. That, of course, has never taken place.

[Mark Field]

I am not sure I would recommend a referendum to anyone in the current circumstances—certainly, it would not be wise for the UK—but the right hon. Gentleman makes a very serious, fair point. We continue to raise human rights issues and to look at this in a humanitarian sense. To add my responses to one or two other contributions, we noted the findings of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights reports and are particularly concerned about allegations of human rights abuses and violations in both India and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. I make it clear that we will continue to raise these issues with the Government in New Delhi.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; as the former chairman of the all-party Kashmir group, I visited the region. Many thousands of constituents are concerned for family, friends and loved ones in the region and have contacted me to raise their concerns. Does the Minister agree that this situation is worrying on two levels—first, because we have two nuclear powers squaring off against each other, and secondly, because the people on the ground in Kashmir are the ones who are suffering? Given that we have heard about the documented evidence of human rights abuses, does he not agree that the right course of action might be for us to send observers, perhaps with our EU colleagues, to make sure that there are no human rights abuses on the ground in Kashmir?

[Mark Field]

I know that my hon. Friend is also a former officer of the all-party beer group—I wondered whether he was going to express that interest today. Again, he makes a serious point about having observers, whether at an EU or UN level. We will do our level best, particularly as this situation develops, to ensure that the international community has a chance to see what is going on on the ground in order to de-escalate the tensions.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to the answer that the Minister has just given, he set out his fears of somehow being seen to take sides. Let me tell him that the community in Walthamstow, who are desperately concerned about the situation in Kashmir, want him to stay on the side of human rights. He spoke about the importance of the work that the UN can do in investigating these cases. He has also told us that he is going to have phone calls this afternoon with both the Pakistani and Indian representatives. Will he commit now to raising directly the importance of them allowing the UN to go to the region and investigate, so that finally, when we talk about allegations, we can show the truth and the people of Kashmir can have justice?

[Mark Field]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and I will be only too happy to commit to making that pledge, as it were, in the telephone calls that I will have later this afternoon. I talk about not taking sides, but the side we take is obviously with the people of Kashmir to try to ensure that lives that have been so blighted can thrive. The danger with being seen to take a side on this issue is that we will lose any leverage or credibility with one or other of the Governments concerned. We are well aware that there is a large diaspora in this country, but this is not simply about there being a diaspora here; it is about doing the right thing as well, and these human rights issues are clearly of grave concern. As I said, I will commit in my conversations not just today, but in the days to come, to ensure that the voice that she puts across—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mark Field]

I am amazed I am so popular—it is great to see. I will ensure that that voice is properly heard.

[Mr Speaker]

Opposition Members’ concern, I say to the Minister, is for the knee muscles of Government Back Benchers buoying up and down in eager expectation of their opportunity to be called.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Apart from being the chair of the all-party group on Pakistan, I was born in Kashmir, and in the 2005 earthquake, I lost 25 relatives, including my grandfather. Muzaffarabad is very near the line of control. The people of Kashmir want peace, prosperity, human dignity and to be masters of their own destiny. As the Minister says, our long-standing position is in line with the 1948 United Nations resolutions 47 and 39, which the United Kingdom signed up to, saying that we will support the people of Kashmir’s right to self-determination. That being the case, will the Minister please push for that at the United Nations and, as other colleagues have said, for a United Nations human rights fact-finding mission? Whatever it says and whoever it finds against—the Indian or Pakistani sides—we will all accept it.

[Mark Field]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. As I said, we note the findings of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights reports, which are deeply concerning. We will make sure that these are brought up in international committee, both in New York and in Geneva.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Ind)]

The attack in Srinagar was absolutely atrocious, and the prospect of descending into a tit-for-tat exchange is immensely depressing. As the Minister knows, this is an incredibly serious issue. I speak as the former chair of the all-party Kashmir group. Last year, we published our report on our inquiry into the human rights situation, as the Minister knows, because he heard a recent presentation on that. I hear what he says about Government policy, but we have a responsibility to help to support confidence-building measures. We have a legacy responsibility in that region of the world, and the UK has an obligation to lead and show the way forward for human rights and peace in this area.

[Mark Field]

I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says and support the idea that there is a leadership role, not least within the UN Security Council, where clearly, long-standing connections between the UK and both India and Pakistan will be brought to bear. We will continue to be in the closest possible contact at senior level in both India and Pakistan to try to avoid escalation and ensure regional stability. Part of that is obviously about the capacity building to which he refers. I think he will understand that quite a lot of work goes on both in India and Pakistan to try to ensure that this is brought to bear and hopefully make lives better for all concerned.

[Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend referred to the discussions and channels that are being used through diplomatic routes both with the UN and directly, and it is very fortuitous that he happens to be visiting the region in the next few days. Before he goes, will he also engage with the Ministry of Defence to encourage senior military leaders and Ministers to engage with their counterparts both in India and Pakistan to make sure that there are senior-level military-to-military back channels between the two armed forces, so that they can help to avoid the accidental escalation of conflict?

[Mark Field]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. He, of course, was a Defence Minister and will understand that those back channels exist. Clearly they are not always entirely avowed, but the UK has back-channels with both the Indian military and the Pakistani military, and I am well aware that conversations have already taken place and will no doubt continue at pace.

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

This is the latest chapter in a horrendous story for the people of Kashmir, as I am sure the whole House agrees. What efforts is the Minister making to ensure that day-to-day communication with the diaspora community is ongoing so that they know what is happening to their friends and family in Kashmir?

[Mark Field]

I very much understand the hon. Lady’s concerns. The picture is very confused at the moment, and I wish we could confirm more what is happening on the ground. Part of the reason that I have not been able to be as expansive as I would like is simply that there are conflicting reports of what is happening. Obviously, we will do our level best to ensure that as many of the diaspora, who must be increasingly worried about the wellbeing of their relatives close at hand, are kept as informed as possible in the circumstances. When I am in the region, I will make sure that we express that.

[Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for securing this urgent question. Like many hon. Members, I have a significant community of Kashmiris in my constituency, who are extremely concerned. I am also the senior vice-chair of the all-party Kashmir group. Does the Minister agree that we must condemn the use of violence and the abuse of human rights wherever it occurs and by all parties in Kashmir?

[Mark Field]

I agree entirely. We do, and will continue to do so.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Those of us of south Asian ancestry were overjoyed recently at the opening of the Indo-Pak border—an historic and commendable decision by both Governments—so that Sikhs and others could pay homage at the final resting place of the founder of the Sikh faith. We had hoped that there would be further border openings, but simultaneously we expressed concern that terrorist attacks or abuse of human rights would once again sow the seeds of hatred and division. Does the Minister agree that we need to impress upon both nations the need to urgently de-escalate tensions, and that we need to work with them to find lasting, sustainable peace for the long-suffering but wonderful Kashmiri people?

[Mark Field]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who always speaks with such calmness about such matters. I have had strong dealings with him on a number of issues, at both ministerial and constituency levels. I entirely endorse what he said. I think we all want to see a regularisation of the situation, with as much access as possible for those who are currently living in India, or currently in Pakistan to be able to go to homelands that their forefathers lived in.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I declare an interest as a friend, admirer and former relative of the new Prime Minister of Pakistan. Does my right hon. Friend share my view that everything we have seen so far from the new Prime Minister demonstrates an absolute commitment to tackling extremism and terrorism? Does he agree with the new Prime Minister’s words, shortly after he was elected, that the surest route to peace between India and Pakistan in the long term is to increase and expand the trade movements between the two countries?

[Mark Field]

I could not agree more. I had a chance to meet Imran Khan, at a time when he was regarded as a potential kingmaker, when I visited KP—Khyber Pakhtunkhwa—the region where his party was the strongest, back in 2017. Obviously, he has arrived at a pivotal time in India-Pakistan relations, with an imminent Indian election, and with all the financial issues concerning Pakistan, which have inevitably taken up quite a lot of his time in his first few months as Prime Minister. Yes, his rhetoric has always been in favour of peace, but he has also shown recognition that having the broadest range of friends across the world is the surest way of seeing prosperity and normalcy in all parts of Pakistan.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Perhaps there is a point on which we can have agreement across the House while, as we sit here today, the drums of war beat once more between two nuclear powers. Surely we must now, in this House, realise our ethical, moral and historical duty to help to provide peace and stability in that region. The central issue, as hon. Members have said, is Kashmir; and the voice that has gone unheard for over 70 years is that of the sons and daughters of Kashmir, who, in the face of oppression, violence and persecution, continue to look towards this House for justice. So, Minister, now is the time to move away from gesture politics and towards finding a concrete resolution, fulfilling our international obligations to actively support the birthright of the sons and daughters of Kashmir, which is self-determination.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Could I just very gently say, and I say it in a convivial spirit to the hon. Gentleman, that the erudition of his inquiry was equalled only by its length, and that has been emblematic of the exchanges on this urgent question—nodding assent to which is provided by the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne). It would be a pity if we took an hour on an urgent question with only about 30 quizzers, because that really should not happen.

[Mark Field]

I think he is suggesting that I am at least 50% to blame for that as well.

I respect deeply the passion of the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain). I hope he does not feel that gesture politics is involved here. We shall do our level best to bring parties together. While I have always said that there is a set policy that we will not have an official mediation, please be assured that we are doing our level best to bring people together. The one message I would give to the hon. Gentleman is that we need to try to de-escalate and calm some of the passions that we shall see within our own country in the weeks and months ahead. It is in the interests not just of all Kashmiris, but of stability within the UK as well.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

Over decades, people have been subjected to violence, oppression and human rights abuses in Kashmir. The events of recent weeks will only compound the challenges and divide people more, rather than bringing a solution in Kashmir. Will my right hon. Friend and the Government do all that they can to use UK influence to bring dialogue between India and Pakistan, to try to prevent the escalation of these issues and the terrorism that is going on, so that we can start again to focus more on dealing with the issue of how Kashmir determines itself?

[Mark Field]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is aware that we are trying to do our level best, precisely along the lines that he has suggested. May I just say this to the House? Interestingly, when I speak to many of my Indian, and indeed Pakistani, constituents, they often marvel at the fact that, on my very first visit to India back in 2003, I had the chance to go to both Srinagar and Jammu. The tragedy, in many ways, is that it is a beautiful part of the world and would offer tremendous opportunities not just for tourism; it would be an amazing place for many, many people with Kashmir in their hearts to visit. That is the great prize—to ensure that things are normalised. We know that a painstaking diplomatic approach will be required to bring about that normalisation, so that the beauty of that part of the world may become obvious to many, many people.

[Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)]

The Minister’s focus on the human rights of the people of Kashmir is genuinely welcome, but the fact remains that the humanitarian crisis has been raging in Kashmir for decades, largely ignored by this country and the rest of the world. Hon. Members throughout the House, from all parties, have repeatedly asked for us to take a leading role and to bring diplomatic peace talks to the forefront. Does he agree that it is a terrible shame that it takes an escalation of violence between two nuclear powers to achieve what, hopefully, will be a wake-up call for the British Government?

[Mark Field]

I am sorry that the hon. Lady thinks this is a wake-up call. This is something that is close to all our hearts, not least because there are significant numbers of diaspora and their many Members of Parliament raise these issues, whether in parliamentary questions or in urgent questions such as today’s, and indeed with the all-party parliamentary group, which I know she attended only a few weeks ago.

Let us be candid. What is particularly serious here, as one or two hon. Members have said, is that we are now dealing with two nuclear powers. The issues of Kashmir were not in a nuclear-to-nuclear state until Pakistan acquired nuclear capability, 25 to 30 years ago. That is why the matter is of particular seriousness. That is not to say that a huge amount of work has not been going on behind the scenes for many years. Obviously, it becomes a lot more high-profile with all that is happening now.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

I know that the Minister will not want to comment on the claim and counterclaim around aircraft being shot down and around the specifics of pilots having been captured, but would he perhaps agree that the chances of a calm dialogue between the parties will be much increased if treatment of each other’s personnel is seen to be humane?

[Mark Field]

I entirely agree. I cannot speculate other than on reports that have come through and I will not go into any great detail on those, but I very much hope that, if there are military captured on either or both sides, they will be dealt with and treated within the Geneva convention and in a humane way.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I do not think any fair-minded person would expect the Government to take the side of Pakistan or India, but we are absolutely expecting the Government to step up and give a voice to the people in Kashmir. In the pursuit of power by aggression, it is always everyday people who pay the ultimate price, and too many people have had their lives on hold for generations. This matters to people in Oldham West and Royton, with a large heritage in that country; when this happens, it happens to their parents, their sons, their daughters, their brothers and sisters. They are just reaching out to the UK Government to say, “Give us a hand. Bring people together, convene and use that role in a positive way.”

[Mark Field]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. We will do all that we can, along the lines that I have suggested. This is a very fluid situation, and obviously the most important thing is to de-escalate the tensions because they are at a very worrying level. He is right to point out, however, that there are underlying issues that also need to be dealt with.

[Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)]

We have all been appalled by this terrorist attack. As has been said, communities like ours across the country are deeply concerned. Many of my constituents have families and friends in the region, and a member of my staff is currently trying to get there to attend a family wedding. Does the Minister agree that any reprisals against entirely innocent Kashmiri civilians elsewhere in India must stop, and will he make it clear to his Indian counterparts that, while we understand their anger, they must ensure that innocent people are not harmed when responding to this horrific attack?

[Mark Field]

I shall be happy to express those direct concerns when I speak to the Indian high commissioner later today.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

May I echo the comments of colleagues? Because of our history in the region, and because of our influence and close relationships with both India and Pakistan, Kashmiri families in my constituency look to the United Kingdom to take a leading role both in the immediate and dangerous conflict that we see before us now, and in bringing long-term peace, justice and freedom to Kashmir.

[Mark Field]

I am sorry, but as the hon. Lady will appreciate, we are just covering the same old ground. I well understand that each and every Member here wants to have his or her say for a range of reasons—often because of the diaspora, but often as well because they feel passionate about the relations between India and Pakistan. I suspect that there is little new that I can add, but I thank her for her words.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

We all condemn all forms of terrorism, and I think we all understand that war is not an option. Many of us have raised this matter multiple times in the House, but have received the same response from the Government time and again. This is an issue between India and Pakistan, but recent events reveal that it is not just an issue between those countries: it desperately requires international attention. The British Government need to facilitate talks and to play a greater role in de-escalating the dangerous level of tension between the two countries. I should like them to do more at a human level to ensure that there is an international investigation of what has happened, and to move towards the core issue, which is the issue of Kashmir.

[Mark Field]

The hon. Gentleman always adopts a measured tone, which I think is important for all our constituents. He should be assured that a great deal of work has already been done by the United Nations in the last fortnight since the latest phase of escalation. Obviously, the events of the last couple of days have been a great worry and there is concern about what may come to pass, but a huge amount of work is going on behind the scenes diplomatically. The UK has an important, although by no means exclusive, part to play at the United Nations, and we shall continue to bring that to bear.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My constituent Madni Ahmed Tahir is one of my many constituents with Kashmiri roots, and has family in Kashmir. Can the Minister explain in a bit more detail what travel advice will be offered to my constituents, and what consideration his colleagues in the Home Office will give to visa applications that are currently in progress?

[Mark Field]

As the hon. Lady will recognise, those applications are a matter directly for the Home Office, but there will clearly be liaison between the two Departments. We are closely monitoring the situation relating to travel advice, on an hour-by-hour basis, as we become aware of confirmation of what is happening on the ground. We will keep that advice under constant review, and will update it on the website regularly.

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

Let me say, at the risk of repeating what has been said by other Members, that we constantly hear of human rights violations in occupied Kashmir, and we cannot be bystanders. What efforts is the Minister making to ensure that a thorough, transparent inquiry into these crimes is commissioned?

[Mark Field]

The hon. Lady will be aware that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights produced a report recently. She will forgive me if I do not try to say any more now on the Floor of the House. I will try to write to her, if I may, providing a list of the actions that have been taken over the past 12 months and an account of what we propose to do in the months to come.

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

I must say that I am very disappointed with the Minister’s response so far. His Government are failing to take the necessary responsibility. This issue is far more serious than he and the Government are suggesting. Tensions are high, and two nuclear countries are on the verge of another conflict. Kashmiris have been dying since 1947. Will the Government take some real action and show some responsibility? Will they put both India and Pakistan at the table, so that they can resolve their issues through dialogue?

[Mark Field]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier answers on this matter. Successive Governments have clearly tried to work on it on a bilateral basis, which I think has been more helpful. A huge amount of work goes on. Our high commissions in both New Delhi and Islamabad, and other staff, work closely together in trying to do what can be done on the ground in Kashmir but, as I said at the outset, it is not our role to bring both parties to the table in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests, and I think that trying to do so would be entirely counterproductive.

[Mr Speaker]

Eloquence and brevity combined? Mike Gapes.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Ind)]

While we should not exaggerate the influence that the British Government could have at this time, is it not nevertheless important for us, as a nuclear-weapon state, to do what Jack Straw did in 1999 during the Kargil crisis, when the role of the British Foreign Office was central to ensuring that it did not escalate into an all-out nuclear war?

[Mark Field]

The hon. Gentleman is right: the issue of being a nuclear state makes the situation particularly serious at the moment, and it is one of the reasons why I think the international community will want to have a part to play. He clearly has some knowledge of and interest in the foreign affairs of 20 years ago, and if he feels that there are important lessons to be learnt from what happened at that time that we could bring to bear on this crisis, I should be happy to speak to him about them.

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

I declare my interest as the recently appointed co-chair of Labour Friends of India.

The Minister has spoken today about the direct involvement of the Government with embassies and through the United Nations Security Council, but what work should the Commonwealth be doing to bring about stability in the region?

[Mark Field]

I think that one of the most important things the Commonwealth can do—I am sure its Secretary General will have it very much in her mind—is bring people together and keep lines of communication open. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that leading figures in the Commonwealth, in both India and Pakistan, have a political or an NGO-related background. We want to have as much dialogue as is possible in these very trying circumstances.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his deep interest in this matter. As chair of the all-party group for the Pakistani minorities, I visited Pakistan in September last year as part of a cross-party delegation to inquire into human rights and the persecution of Christians and religious minorities. We met the regional president of the Pakistan-Kashmir province, who made us aware of attacks on and killings of Pakistan Kashmiris, including the sexual abuse and rape of women. The president told us that the United Nations had a key role to play. What discussions has the Minister had with the UN to bring about a peace process?

[Mark Field]

Discussions about the current issue have taken place at the UN with our head of mission. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, rather than giving a glib and quick answer here, I will write to him in detail about precisely what has happened in recent months.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Members of the Kashmir diaspora make an extraordinary contribution across our communities, nowhere more so than in Nottingham. They will understand, as I do, the Minister’s reluctance to pick a side, as he puts it, but will he be absolutely clear with the House and make a solemn commitment that when it comes to working through international organisations—especially the UN —when it comes to human rights and when it comes to humanitarian aid, the British Government will not be found wanting?

[Mark Field]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will feel reassured that that is very much the British Government’s approach. It is important that we work together on this, not just in the context of the urgent question but in the context of APPGs. I hope that we can work across Parliament, because we will have an even stronger voice if we speak as one. There will of course be disagreements at the margins, but if we can speak as one for Kashmir and Kashmiri people, our voice will be all the more effective in dealing with our Indian and Pakistani counterparts.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I heard what the Minister said about not wishing to be seen to take a side and that he does not believe it is the UK’s role to bring together the Indian and Pakistan sides to form a compromise, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) pointed out, what the Kashmiri community both here and in Kashmir are looking for is a friend and ally who will speak up for them in the international forums, so may I ask the Minister what specific actions he will take inside the UN to make sure it fulfils its responsibility to speak up for that minority community?

[Mark Field]

I would not wish the hon. Gentleman to misunderstand the situation: we are a friend for all Kashmiris, and we are a friend of that region and indeed a strong friend for India and Pakistan internationally on this and related issues. It is a fluid situation and therefore I cannot go into specifics regarding the UN other than to say that feverish conversations are taking place there, albeit while trying to instil a sense of calm. I am sure this matter will be formally dealt with at the UN General Assembly, as well as at the Security Council in the days to come.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

The prime minister of Kashmir was in Glasgow last weekend discussing with a cross-party group of political representatives there the situation in Kashmir. The prime minister of Kashmir is in London today—he cannot return home because of closed airspace. Will the Minister meet him today—he will be in Parliament from 4 o’clock onwards, I understand—to hear directly from the direct representative of the Kashmiri people?

[Mark Field]

The hon. Gentleman refers to the prime minister of Kashmir. The Foreign Office deals only with those whom we formally recognise. I am not sure of all the facts of this situation, but if he is not an individual we formally recognise, this is not a matter that I can pursue. No doubt, the hon. Gentleman will fill me in on the details in due course. I already have phone calls lined up with the high commissioners for Pakistan and for India during the course of this afternoon and will have other conversations as well.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

There have been worrying reports emerging in the last few minutes that the Indian and Pakistani armies are now engaged in heavy artillery exchanges at several locations on the line of control in western Kashmir, so the situation appears to be escalating rapidly. The Minister has undertaken to communicate with both sides in the conflict and understand the situation; will he commit to the FCO updating this House within the next 24 hours on the latest position and the actions the FCO will be taking to de-escalate it, in particular addressing the UN Security Council on this issue?

[Mark Field]

We have the mechanism of urgent questions to deal with such matters, and if there is an update we will want to make the House aware of it at the earliest possible opportunity. I hope to be in the region in the next 24 hours, so that might not be done in quite the timeframe the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but we will do our best once facts are established to inform the House of what is going on.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

Because of the conflict global markets are now trading lower, with Asian investors seeking sanctuary in either the yen or the Swiss franc. Can the Minister give UK investors assurances about their investments within the region? I do not have a huge Indian or Pakistani diaspora, but one UK-born citizen from Dumbarton, Jagtar Singh Johal, is in an Indian jail, held arbitrarily without trial for over 500 days by the Indian republic. Through the fog of impending war, can the Minister, to whom I am grateful for going to India, remind the Indian state of its duty to uphold the rule of international law in border affairs and in human rights for UK nationals in its jails?

[Mark Field]

The Johal case has been raised on the Floor of the House, and as the hon. Gentleman is well aware, we have met on two or three occasions in the Foreign Office on this matter. I pledge to bring it up in my discussions in New Delhi that I hope to undertake on Friday.

It would be unwise to say anything about the international markets. Suffice it to say that I very much hope that businesses, particularly those where the diaspora is engaged in Kashmir and the region, will feel confident in the longer term that they are doing the right thing by engaging as fully as they are.

This urgent question has taken a long time—well over an hour—and I am struck by how passionate many Members are about this issue, and not just those with significant diaspora communities. This is obviously a fast-moving, fluid situation and I am sure we will come back to the House at some point to discuss it further. The one big message for all of us is to do all we can in our communities to de-escalate and calm the understandable passions that have been raised.

Planning (Affordable Housing and Land Compensation)

1st reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 27th February 2019 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

13:55

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to define affordable housing in relation to household incomes; to amend the law relating to land valuation and compensation; and for connected purposes.

Our post-war planning system is a framework for managing change in our towns and cities and ensuring that new development meets the needs of local communities, for brokering and mitigating the gap between individual private interests and collective community needs, and for redistributing the scarce resource of land. Local plans safeguard land for particular purposes, including housing, employment, education, and community uses. Our heritage protection regime and national parks protect the buildings and landscapes that communities value. Planning policies seek to ensure that affordable housing is delivered and that across many dimensions of design, from building height to energy performance standards, new buildings take due account of their surrounding community and wider environment. Despite that, our planning system, deregulated and modified in recent years, too often fails to deliver against either the promises it makes or the real and pressing needs of local communities.

In a wider political environment characterised by a lack of trust in politics, our planning system is part of the problem. Every time a new housing scheme is delivered in which even the “affordable” homes are far out of reach of local people in housing need, every time a new building starts to look shabby after just a short time and every time planning permission is granted but nothing happens on the site for years, trust is eroded a little more. It is time to restore a vision of planning as the key to meeting the needs of local communities while also safeguarding their interests for future generations, and it is time for planning to step up and play its full part in helping to restore trust in democratic processes.

We need an agenda for reform, and I want to set out today two reforms—of the definition of affordable housing and of the rules around land values and viability—that could make an immediate difference. My Bill, which is supported by Shelter and the Town and Country Planning Association, seeks to reform our planning system to deliver the fair outcomes communities desperately need and to accelerate the delivery of genuinely affordable social housing.

The housing crisis is the single biggest practical issue facing communities across the whole country. The critical challenge for our planning system is to deliver the genuinely affordable social homes that are urgently needed in so many places, but there are some major problems that limit the effectiveness of our planning system and work in favour of landowners against the interests of communities.

Too many of the current mechanisms designed to deliver fair outcomes from the planning and development process essentially amount to shutting the door after the horse has bolted. Local planning authorities are required to negotiate affordable housing contributions with a definition of “affordable” that has no relationship to income, and the price of land, which is a key determinant of how many affordable homes are considered “viable”, can be hugely inflated by landowner expectations of a right to “hope value”—future speculative value based on planning permissions which the landowner does not own and has not realised, and which are not confirmed in law.

Our planning system is in need of major reform. The Government’s definition of affordable housing includes homes to buy at up to £450,000 and homes to rent at up to 80% of market rent. I and my party support the delivery of affordable entry-level homes to buy, and although I believe that there are ways to deliver these homes that are more effective and give better value for money than the Help to Buy scheme, my Bill does not cover homes for sale; it addresses the definition of affordable homes to rent.

Market rents vary across the country. Westminster council warned in 2013 that 80% of market rent would require a household income of more than £100,000 to sustain a tenancy on a three-bedroom home, while a two-bedroom home in Southwark in the same year would require £44,000—more than double the average household income in the borough.

The role of affordable housing has always been to meet the needs of those who cannot afford to rent or buy housing in the private market, yet the current definition has completely broken the ability of the planning system to deliver sufficiently for those in the greatest housing need. The figures bear this out. Over the past 10 years, the number of social homes built each year has fallen from around 30,000 to 6,400. At the same time, the number of so-called affordable homes at up to 80% of market rent has increased to 47,000. With 1.25 million families on the waiting list for social housing, there is no justification for a policy that fails to deliver homes that are affordable to households with low incomes. My Bill re-establishes the link between the definition of affordable and income, replacing the current definition of up to 80% of market price with a definition of

“no more than 35% of net household income for lowest quartile income groups in each local authority area”.

Just as important as the definition of affordable homes is the cost of the land on which they are built. Despite reforms introduced last year, which were welcomed, our planning system still affords landowners the right to the future value of development rights or planning permission, which are granted by and in the gift of the planning authority. This so-called hope value dramatically inflates the cost of land, and inflated land prices make it much more difficult for councils to buy land in order to deliver social housing.

In a recent example in south London, a site with an existing use value of £5 million was put on the market at £25 million on the assumption that it could be developed for housing. It was later withdrawn from the market on the expectation that the value would rise even further, setting back the delivery of any housing at all on that site by years and making it almost impossible to deliver affordable housing, even by the current broken definition. This inflation of value either places sites far beyond the reach of councils and housing associations or requires a significant quantum of private homes to be built to cover the costs—homes that either push up density to levels that are unacceptable to the surrounding community or are built at the expense of genuinely affordable homes.

The current viability rules were developed to encourage and stimulate building in a recession, but they have evolved to become something quite different: a quasi-scientific basis for negotiation between developers and councils, with the overt objective on the part of developers of reducing their obligation to build affordable housing. The current system enables this to happen, as viability arguments can justify an appeal against refusal, and cash-strapped councils are reluctant to risk having to pay the applicant’s appeal costs if they lose. These negotiations are often not between equals, as councils struggle to resource the expertise they need to interrogate developers’ figures, and they also slow down planning, often taking years to resolve, creating great uncertainty and frustration.

It is vital that our planning system provides certainty and transparency, and puts an end to speculation on land values that prevents land from being used to deliver new homes. While landowners should receive fair compensation, coded in law, they should not be entitled to speculative value that does not arise from any action or effort on their part. My Bill creates a new requirement in planning law for local planning authorities to have a duty to include a policy in their local plans to capture betterment values where they arise, formally establishing a legal duty in the planning system to capture land value to be used for the benefit of communities and creating a strong justification for councils to argue for the resources they need to engage in viability discussions on equal terms with applicants.

Finally, my Bill seeks to specify in law the key factors used for viability testing in relation to planning decisions, including placing explicit limitations on the expectations of developer profit and land values for compulsory purchase, providing greater certainty and transparency for both landowners and communities. Specifically, my Bill would: amend section 19 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as amended, and add to it a statutory definition of an affordable home for the purpose of all planning decisions; make further changes to sections 14 to 16 of the Land Compensation Act 1961, as amended; and introduce a new statutory definition of the key factors used for viability testing in relation to planning decisions.

In the context of a national housing crisis, our planning system must be able to deliver the genuinely affordable homes that communities need. More than this, communities must be able to trust that it will do so, and that the promises made in local plans and in planning applications will not be watered down later on the ground of viability. My Bill will reform our planning system to place community need at its heart and increase the speed and quantum of affordable housing delivery to address the housing crisis. I am grateful to Members from across the House who have indicated their support for the Bill, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Helen Hayes, Mr Clive Betts, Rosie Cooper, Emma Dent Coad, Ms Harriet Harman, Mr George Howarth, Norman Lamb, Caroline Lucas, Jess Phillips, Andy Slaughter, Alex Sobel and Sir Gary Streeter present the Bill.

Helen Hayes accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 March, and to be printed (Bill 344).

Points of Order

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Commons Chamber

14:04

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In relation to the next item, the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) (No. 2) Bill, we have had no amendments to the law in relation to the Finance Bill, Opposition days are as rare as rocking horse dung, we have a Prime Minister who has got dipping and diving off to an art form, and now we are nodding through £242 billion-worth of current expenditure and £39 billion-worth of capital. Can you advise how the House could better hold this Government to account for the way in which they are spending the hard-earned cash of taxpayers?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, the answer to which, in essence, is twofold. First, the procedure for the treatment of supply and appropriations Bills is contained in Standing Order No. 56 on page 52 of the Standing Orders—a fact of which I suspect the hon. Gentleman, who is well read, is keenly aware—so procedural propriety has been observed, whatever his disquiet or consternation might be. Secondly, the estimates day debates on important matters took place yesterday, when those matters were addressed by the House. The hon. Gentleman has made his point in his own way with some alacrity, and it is on the record for colleagues to study.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker—

[Mr Speaker]

Well, I am not sure that there is a further point to be made to that, but there is a cheeky grin etched upon the contours of the right hon. Gentleman’s face, which suggests to me that he is about to have some parliamentary fun. Far be it from me to seek to deny the right hon. Gentleman, who is a distinguished Lincolnshire knight.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Further to that point order, I just wanted to remind the House that the Procedure Committee has ensured in its report that estimates days now actually deal with estimates and talk about money, whereas before, when I rose to talk about estimates, I was ruled out of order. We are now holding an inquiry into setting up a Budget Committee, so the House is trying to make progress on getting better oversight of public expenditure. This is just to inform you, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

That is a noted reform that has occurred, in response to representations from Members on both sides of the House. In making that point—that public service information notice, if you will—the right hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity to reference the Procedure Committee. He cited it, but he was far too modest to mention the fact that he is a distinguished ornament of it and a contributor on a continuing basis to its work.

Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) (No. 2) Bill

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 56), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question put forthwith, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) (No. 2) Bill and the reform of the estimates process came in response to the introduction of the ridiculous English votes for English laws procedures, but they represent the supply element of the confidence and supply arrangement. I may not be looking properly, but I do not see any Members from the Government’s confidence and supply partners in the Chamber, so is the vote that we have just had actually valid?

[Mr Speaker]

There is no requirement for any particular hon. Member to be present at any given time. The vote remains valid. Whether the hon. Gentleman, who rejoices in the celebrity of his status as his party’s Chief Whip, is satisfied with the process is a matter for him, but it is a quite different matter from the question of orderly conduct and procedure, which have been observed.

Business of the House (Today)

Ordered,

That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU not later than 7.00pm; such questions shall include the questions on any amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; the questions may be put after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Wendy Morton.)

UK’s Withdrawal from the EU

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I have provisionally selected the following amendments in the following order: (a) in the name of Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn); (k) in the name of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford); (c) in the name of the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman); (b) in the name of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa); and (f) in the name of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper).

I remind the House that reference may be made in debate to any amendments on the Order Paper, including those which I have not selected. Under the terms of the business motion just agreed to, the debate may continue until 7 pm, at which time the question shall be put on any amendments that may then be moved. To move the motion, I call the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office.

14:12

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr David Lidington)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the Prime Minister’s statement on Leaving the European Union of 26 February 2019; and further notes that discussions between the UK and the EU are ongoing.

It is a pleasure, as always, to return to the Dispatch Box to debate European policy matters and to see the familiar cast of colleagues on both sides of the House. I start by making it clear that the Government’s political objectives remain to leave the European Union in accordance with the referendum decision of 2016, to do so in an orderly fashion that protects jobs, living standards and investment in this country, and to do so by means of a formal withdrawal agreement under article 50 that includes clear protections for European Union citizens living in the United Kingdom and United Kingdom citizens in the 27 other EU countries, that provides for a financial settlement, and that ensures that there is no hard border on the island of Ireland. We look forward to negotiating a deep and special partnership on trade, security and political co-operation with the European Union—a community of democracies that will remain not only our closest geographical neighbours, but key partners friends and allies in the world.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend, with whom I have been debating such matters for the best part of 30 years, for giving way. As for this community of democracies, how can he can justify article 4 of the withdrawal agreement, which would subjugate the United Kingdom and require us to pass primary legislation to achieve that objective when the decisions that would be imposed on the constituents of every single Member in this House, by virtue of what goes on in the Council of Ministers, will be decided by 27 other member states? We will not even be at the table and will not have even so much as a transcript. Is that not a complete travesty of democracy?

[Mr Lidington]

No. As my hon. Friend says, he and I have been debating European matters for about 30 years —time flies when one is enjoying oneself—but I think his criticisms would have force if they were describing a situation that was intended to be permanent. All that is covered in article 4 of the withdrawal agreement are the arrangements that are necessary to govern the winding down of this country’s membership of the European Union and the residual obligations that derive from that over a period of months.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

In recent days, a number of statements have been made by several different Ministers that have left me somewhat puzzled about, first, Her Majesty’s Government’s policy and, secondly, the policy on collective responsibility. Is my right hon. Friend able to provide some clarification to assist the House?

[Mr Lidington]

The Government’s policy is what the Prime Minister set out in her statement yesterday and is summarised in the words that I have just spoken. The approach to collective responsibility is set out clearly in the ministerial code.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On a more positive note, in order to get the withdrawal agreement through, which we should all want, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not necessary to unpick it? Under international law, we could have a conditional interpretative declaration stating that the backstop is not permanent. If we get that and if the Attorney General changes his mind, will my right hon. Friend join me in urging all my Brexiteer colleagues to vote for this agreement, because the choice is no longer perhaps between an imperfect deal and no deal, but between an imperfect deal and no Brexit?

[Mr Lidington]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We all wish my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General well in his continuing talks with representatives of the European Commission.

[Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)]

I am immensely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he aware that the atmosphere in this debate is changing from a massive concern about crashing out and the damage that might do, to, among those of us who want to leave, a worry that we will get no Brexit at all? Therefore, may I through him tell the European Research Group that the choice that we will face when the Prime Minister’s deal comes back is whether we have the certainty of some deal or, as the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said, no deal at all?

[Mr Lidington]

The right hon. Gentleman accurately encapsulates the decision facing every hon. Member, from whichever political party or grouping they come.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, because this may help us later in the debate. Can he provide some clarity about whether the Government will in fact support amendment (b), tabled by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa)? As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman has been sacked for doing so, but the Home Secretary is supportive of the amendment. I am confused, so will the right hon. Gentleman set out where the Government stand on the issue?

[Mr Lidington]

This may not be the first or last time that the right hon. Gentleman has been confused, but he will have to contain his excitement until I deal with the amendments that have been tabled.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify something following the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday? If the Prime Minister’s deal is defeated when it returns to the House and if leaving with no deal is also defeated, will the time period in the motion proposing an extension of article 50 that will be brought on 14 March be amendable by the House?

[Mr Lidington]

Whether a motion is capable of amendment and which amendments are in order is, of course, always a matter for the Chair, rather than for Ministers, but I would point out that, in addition to the opportunities for amendment that would arise on such a motion in the normal course of events—I cannot predict at this moment how the Chair will rule—the obligations on the Government in the circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman describes in respect of section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 will also remain.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

The Minister will be well aware that we are approaching the 21st anniversary of the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement on 10 April, just days after we are due to brexit. I had assumed, and I want him to confirm this, that in the light of the Government’s repeated emphasis on their commitment to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement throughout the Brexit negotiations, and rightly so, the Government have been busy organising and planning a significant event to mark their commitment to the Belfast agreement. Will he shed some light on that anniversary event?

[Mr Lidington]

The detail of any event to mark this anniversary would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to announce. What I can say to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is that the Government, and I personally, regard the achievement of the Belfast agreement and the development of the peace-making and peace-building process in Northern Ireland as one of the most signal political achievements of successive Governments of different political parties in this country during my career in this House.

I remember being called to a meeting in John Major’s office with other Government Back Benchers when he first reported on the message he had received from back channels to Sinn Féin-IRA about the prospect of a process opening up, and I know how much he, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister have committed themselves to that process. I believe that every hon. Member of this House will share that commitment.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

Does the Minister agree that the phrase “Government policy” implies not just the offering of a choice to the House but an expression by the Government of a preference as to the outcome of that choice? If he does agree, will he inform today’s debate by saying what the Government’s policy will be on either voting for a no-deal Brexit or extending article 50?

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman is asking me to speculate about hypothetical events. My energies and the Government’s energies are focused on achieving a negotiated agreement with the European Union behind which a majority of hon. and right hon. Members would be prepared to rally.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

In relation to the Minister’s answer to the Chair of the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the Prime Minister was very clear yesterday that, if the House voted for an extension, she would bring forward the necessary legislation to change the exit date commensurate with that extension. Can the Minister provide some more clarity? Is he talking about, for example, bringing in a statutory instrument immediately after such a vote to make it happen? Or is he talking about some other way of changing the date? It would be helpful to have some clarity on that point.

[Mr Lidington]

I will come to that point when I address the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman).

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree, further to the point made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), that a good way to commemorate the signing of the Good Friday agreement would be to encourage the European Union to define what it means by “temporary,” as listed in article 1(4) of the Northern Ireland protocol? Without some certainty on that, it is difficult to see how the withdrawal agreement is compatible with the Good Friday agreement.

[Mr Lidington]

I agree that the question about the definition of “temporary” is important, particularly in the light of the position, which the European Union has consistently taken in its negotiations with us over the past two years, that a withdrawal agreement negotiated under the terms of article 50 cannot be a secure legal basis for the creation of a permanent partnership with a third country.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Lidington]

If the House will forgive me, I have given way quite a lot and I want to move on to the substance of my speech.

At the end of this afternoon’s debate, this House will have a choice on the Government’s motion and the various amendments that Mr Speaker has selected, but by 12 March, at the latest, the House will have a more important choice when we bring back a second meaningful vote. There has been a lot of speculation, and we have already heard it in the debate this afternoon, about what should happen if the House declines to vote for a deal. Let me start by saying why I am confident that the Prime Minister will be able to put before the House a deal that it can support, and why this House should support such a deal.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke yesterday of the extensive work that has been taking place to make good on this House’s call for legal changes to guarantee that the Northern Ireland backstop cannot endure indefinitely. The House endorsed an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) on 29 January. Since then, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the Attorney General and I have been engaging in focused discussions with the EU, with the different institutions of the EU and with member state Governments to find a way forward that would work for both sides. We are making good progress in that work, with constructive discussions taking place this week.

As hon. Members will also have heard, there have been discussions on the political declaration, including additions or changes to increase the focus and ambition of both sides to deliver the future partnership, which we both seek, as soon as possible. The ideas we are putting forward in those discussions are not simply the Government’s; they reflect the intensive dialogue we have had with Members on both sides of the House. I have met the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) once and am keen to do so again, as he knows, and I have met colleagues from other political parties and colleagues representing all shades of opinion on this country’s relationship with the European Union.

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. Before he moves on to the question of alternative arrangements, he and the Brexit Secretary are to be strongly congratulated on getting the European Union to accept the need to set up a taskforce of experienced officials on the European side and the UK side to work up the arrangements proposed by our working group. Will he guarantee that, once those proposals are accepted, there will be a commitment in the treaty that is legally binding and will commit the Government and the European Union to a definite and definitive date by which those arrangements will be implemented?

[Mr Lidington]

My right hon. Friend has been championing this approach for a long time. I am grateful to him and to other Conservative colleagues for their detailed discussions with my right hon. Friend the Brexit Secretary and others about the alternative arrangements to ensure the absence of a hard border in Northern Ireland. Let us not forget that the term “alternative arrangements” features in both the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, so it is already a known concept in the documents that have previously been agreed.

This has led to the consideration of a joint work stream with the European Union that will take place during the next phase of our negotiations. Our objective is to ensure that we have a set of alternative arrangements that can be used even in the absence of a full future relationship deal at the end of the implementation period. The EU has agreed to prioritise what will be an important work stream in the next phase, but we will also be setting up domestic structures to take advice from external experts, from businesses that trade with the European Union and beyond, and from colleagues across the House. This will be supported by civil service resources and £20 million of Government funding.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman mentions a hard border and the backstop. Does he understand why the Irish Government last week produced a Bill, which is going through Parliament, to deal with any problem arising if we happen to go out on World Trade Organisation terms, yet there was no mention of any infrastructure and any hard border? How come the Irish Government can do that, but we are saying that the hard border is such a huge issue?

[Mr Lidington]

It is for the Irish Government to explain their policy. We will also have to deal, as I am assuming they will, with the reality of the plans that the European Commission published in December, in which it stated plainly that from the day the UK departs the EU, in the absence of a transitional period, as provided for under the withdrawal agreement, the full acquis in terms of tariffs and regulatory checks and inspections would have to be applied. One striking thing about that Commission publication was that it made no specific reference to, or provided no exemption for, the situation in Ireland. That is something for the Government of Ireland to take up with the European Commission, but it is part of the legal and political reality with which Governments are also dealing.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I wish to pursue the question asked by the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson). Would I be correct in understanding that these discussions that are going on about the backstop relate purely to the next phase of the negotiations and what can be done in relation to the political declaration, and do not involve any question of opening up the withdrawal agreement and changing its force? That is right, is it not? If we look at the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday, we see that it was all about the next phase—a “work stream in the next phase”, as the right hon. Gentleman just said. Will he clarify that: it is not about opening up the withdrawal agreement?

[Mr Lidington]

Let me be clear that when the Attorney General has been talking to representatives of the European Commission this week and when my right hon. Friend the Brexit Secretary has been talking to them, they have been talking about changes to the overall terms of the agreement to facilitate our orderly departure from the European Union.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Ind)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he did yesterday with the publication of the summary of the no-deal papers—let me put it that way. My question to him is: why are the Government only now, after two and a half years, looking at these alternative arrangements, given that the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs did an enormous amount of work on finding some alternatives—they travelled the world—but came to the conclusion that there are no alternatives some considerable time ago?

[Mr Lidington]

I thank the right hon. Lady for what she said about the papers published yesterday. I thought she was being uncharacteristically unfair to the Government in her criticisms about not dealing with this earlier. A lot of official and ministerial time has been spent in the past 18 months examining some of these things. One problem that was identified, which still confronts us today and which we are talking to the European Commission about in the context of these discussions about alternative arrangements, is that we have to deal not only with the problem of the technology itself and making sure there is technology that is fit for purpose, but with the fact that, on the sort of model that has been discussed, we would need to see a significant number of derogations by the EU from its normal arrangements. So there are legal, and not just technical, problems that would have to be overcome.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that because the political declaration is legally non-binding, any concessions he gives on a level of alignment in respect of the single market, a customs union, standards and the environment are intrinsically changeable in the future, and that the only safeguard in place to prevent a slash-and-burn approach by a future Tory Government is the backstop itself?

[Mr Lidington]

I place rather more faith in this House than the hon. Gentleman would appear to do, because I do not think there is any appetite in Parliament for what he described as a “slash-and-burn approach” to standards.

We believe that our deal is the right one for this country and no better one is available on the table. I also believe, as do the Government, that leaving with our deal is better than leaving without a deal.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

rose—

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

rose—

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Ind)]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I will give way to my hon. Friend, as he tried valiantly to persuade you to accept an amendment, Mr Speaker, but was unsuccessful.

[Mr Baron]

Unfortunately, amendment (j) was not selected, but I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree that the Government will have no problem in accepting in principle, and I look forward to hearing about that. Many of us who have wished the Prime Minister well recognise that compromise is required on both sides in these negotiations. The transition period is not brilliant but the backstop does have to be sorted out in respect of its indefinite nature. In recognising that, is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at all concerned that the next steps as outlined by the Prime Minister yesterday might make a good deal less likely, because the EU may hope that Parliament does its work for it by taking no-deal off the table and extending article 50?

[Mr Lidington]

I genuinely do not fear that, because what I am finding increasingly in my conversations with politicians in different parts of Europe is that they want this issue sorted out. Frankly, they have politics of their own. They have important decisions to make on a range of subjects: the future of the eurozone; the negotiation of a multi-annual financial framework without a UK contribution; the tensions that exist between some of the central European and western European powers within the EU; and the continuing problem of the very large-scale movement of people from Africa into southern Europe. It would be a mistake for hon. Members to think that the leaders of the other 27 countries spend every waking hour thinking and worrying about Brexit matters.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

rose—

[Dr Wollaston]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, for old times’ sake. Then I will come back to the hon. Gentleman and then the hon. Lady, and then I will move on.

[Mr McFadden]

The right hon. Gentleman is being typically generous in giving way to Members from all parts of the House. He was just referring to the position of other member states. Yesterday, the Prime Minister told us, for the first time, that she would countenance an extension to the article 50 period, but today President Macron of France is quoted as saying:

“We would support an extension…only if it was justified by a new choice of the British”.

He continued:

“we would in no way accept an extension without a clear objective.”

Is it not the case that if there is to be an extension, it must be an extension with a purpose, rather than for two or three months of the same parliamentary gridlock?

[Mr Lidington]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not think that what he has just said is any different from what the Prime Minister or other Ministers have been saying at this Dispatch Box for several months.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Unfortunately, my amendment (g), which sought to end the whole charade by revoking article 50, has not been accepted, and we have a series of Brexit-enabling amendments before us. I want to take the Minister back to his point about the concessions he is looking for from the European Union on borders. We know that the technology has not been invented and the idea is that we have derogations—so this involves concessions. If the EU is going to give concessions on that border, it will have to give them on every border, and the EU has multiple borders. So why would it not be doing this already? The reason is that we are back to UK pie-in-the-sky, fantasy thinking here—I hope the right hon. Gentleman accepts that.

[Mr Lidington]

The flaw in the hon. Gentleman’s logic is that it should be welcome to any Government or supranational authority such as the European Commission if technology and systems are available that streamline border processes, whether we are talking about the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, the border across the short straits, or other external borders of the European Union with third countries.

[Dr Wollaston]

I am glad that the Government have published at least the summary of the no-deal consequences, and hope that they will go much further and publish the detail. Has the Minister seen the detailed paper published in The Lancet this week about the health consequences of no deal? If he has not seen it, will he assure me that he will look in detail at those consequences? No responsible Government could inflict that kind of pain on their people.

[Mr Lidington]

I have not seen that particular paper but I will make sure that I look at it and draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. I hope it is of some reassurance to the hon. Lady that the Secretary of State has been making these preparations one of this very top priorities. He wrote to the leaders of the healthcare and pharmaceutical sectors in December last year, and the NHS executive is working hard to make sure that contingency arrangements are in place to ensure that supplies of medicines continue to be available.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I want to be a little bit helpful. In response to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), the Minister basically said that he did not see any difference between what President Macron has said and what the Prime Minister said yesterday. There is a huge difference. The Prime Minister said yesterday that she would use an extension for more dither, delay, faffing and kicking the can down the road; President Macron is saying that there has to be a purpose to a delay. The purpose that is gaining more and more credibility across the House is precisely to put this matter to a public vote.

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Lady does not characterise the Prime Minister’s words yesterday accurately at all. The Prime Minister could not have been clearer in many appearances at this Dispatch Box that in every conversation we have had with the European Commission or with Heads of member state Governments, they have said that were we at any stage to seek an extension of article 50, they would want to understand for how long one was being sought and the purpose for which it was being sought, so I do not think that anything President Macron said today came as a shock to us.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will try to give way to him later, but I hope he will let me move on for the moment.

The Government believe that leaving with our deal is better than leaving without a deal. Members who have seen the summary paper published yesterday, and other sources, too, will know that there is no avoiding the fact that an abrupt departure from the European Union without an agreement of any kind would lead to a shock to our economy, and that it would not be possible for a Government, even with the most meticulous planning of arrangements in this country, to mitigate and plan entirely for what might happen outwith our own jurisdiction. In those circumstances we would, for example, be reliant on the readiness of the authorities in France and elsewhere to introduce streamlined checks and procedures, or on the readiness of the European Commission to allow a short-term derogation from its normal rules and practices. As a responsible Government, we have therefore been taking appropriate steps to minimise that disruption and have published extensive information to ensure the country is prepared. We have published and updated 106 technical notices and contacted the 145,000 businesses that trade with the European Union to help them to prepare for no-deal customs procedures.

It is a fact that as long as this House is unable to agree to an alternative course of action and get behind a particular agreement on exit from the European Union, businesses and individuals will have to plan for and take action as well. The Government have taken and will continue to take steps to provide businesses and citizens with advice to help them to make preparations to mitigate the potential impacts of a no-deal Brexit. The paper published yesterday showed that there are more actions that businesses should consider taking and which the Government urge them to plan for as necessary.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

rose—

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) first, then to my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) and to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and then I will move on.

[Gareth Johnson]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way; I think the whole House appreciates his generosity. As he knows, the meaningful vote needs to return to this House by 12 March. If that vote falls, we will presumably move on the following day to debate whether to rule out no deal. Will my right hon. Friend and other members of the Government vote in favour of that or against it?

[Mr Lidington]

I do not blame my hon. Friend for having a good try, but one thing I have learned in my years here, and which has perhaps been reinforced by my observation of events in recent weeks, is that although I may at some stage wish to give advice to my right hon. Friends the Chief Whip and the Prime Minister about whipping for any actual or hypothetical motion, I will do it not from the Dispatch Box but in private instead.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I am sure my right hon. Friend will be aware that a lot of small businesses have not put in place no-deal preparations. Many of them may have been misled or given the impression by comments made in this House that tariff-free trade may be available for 10 years under article 24 of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. The document published by the Government makes it crystal clear that those GATT 24 provisions are not available. I encourage my right hon. Friend to make that clear so that small businesses in my constituency and throughout the country do not rely on what they may think has been publicised as an option when it is not one.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade has publicly rebutted the arguments about article 24 of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, and the reference in the paper published yesterday was a reference to his remarks. The Government are stepping up their communications to business about that point. We accept that in this country, and also among our major trading partners, such as France and Germany, it tends to be small and medium-sized enterprises that for all the obvious reasons do not have the capacity to spend a lot of time monitoring what Governments are saying, and therefore may be further behind in their planning than the larger companies. We will do our utmost to try to communicate better with them .

If I may move on—

[Yvette Cooper]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I beg the right hon. Lady’s pardon. I shall give way to her, then I would like to address the various amendments that have been selected.

[Yvette Cooper]

The question from the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) is so important, because businesses are still worrying and having to move money, jobs and assets abroad because they do not know what is going on. The Minister could give those businesses huge clarity by simply saying that the Government will vote against no deal if it comes to a vote on 13 March. This is really important, because we need to know the status of the commitments that the Prime Minister made yesterday. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has previously dismissed motions passed by this House. He said in reference to previous motions against no deal:

“Frankly, the legislation takes precedence over the motion”—[Official Report, 14 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 1070]

and he also said that the Government’s policy continued to be to leave with no deal on 29 March if a deal was not passed by this House. Will the Minister confirm that as a result of the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday, that policy has now changed, and that Government policy is at least to be bound by the will of this House if no deal is passed by 13 March, rather than simply to leave without a deal?

[Mr Lidington]

The short answer is yes, but I will flesh that out when I respond in more detail to the selected amendments. The words that the Prime Minister used yesterday were ones that had been discussed and agreed at the Cabinet meeting yesterday morning. On the right hon. Lady’s earlier question to me, I think she is leaping too lightly over the fact that, before we get into any debate or motions about how we respond to a potential decision on exiting without a deal, it is the Government’s clear intention to bring forward to this House a motion on a revised deal and to invite the House to support that. I will be supporting the Government when that vote is brought forward, just as I supported the Government on the previous meaningful vote. That decision will remain the earliest possible opportunity for this House to end the uncertainty that businesses and individuals are now experiencing, as she rightly said.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

With the greatest respect, I think the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) and the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) is absolutely key to understanding what the Prime Minister said yesterday. I entirely understand that my right hon. Friend is retreating, as the Prime Minister does, to the argument that the aim is to get a withdrawal agreement, and I support what he says on that. If it does not get a majority—it was defeated by 230 at the first attempt—the key thing to know is whether the Government will actually vote in favour of an extension, or whether they will vote in favour of leaving with no deal. The Cabinet must have considered that when they sorted out their differences yesterday in what was, no doubt, a perfectly private, orderly and good-humoured meeting.

[Mr Lidington]

My right hon. and learned Friend is asking me to comment on a hypothetical whipping decision on a hypothetical vote that the Government do not wish or intend us to confront. We will be voting as a House in favour of the revised deal, which will reflect elements that this House, on 29 January, said it wanted to see changed in order to be able to support the withdrawal agreement wholeheartedly. Exactly the same challenge that my right hon. and learned Friend has posed would be posed in respect of any hypothetical event on the Bill tabled by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). At this stage, it is too early to make those assertions on a hypothetical situation. What we are focused on, and where our energies lie, is negotiating an agreement with our partners in the European Union that delivers on the conditions that this House set when it passed the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady).

[Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I will give way one last time to my hon. Friend, and then I will make some progress, otherwise I will never get on to the amendments.

[Mr Fysh]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. Just before he moves on, I would like to ask one question about the no-deal advice paper. When was it prepared, and why did it not mention the use of the transit system, which means that goods can be delivered into Europe without having to be stopped and checked at Calais?

[Mr Lidington]

Instructions were given to draft that paper following the previous debate during which the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) agreed to withdraw the amendment in her name calling for the publication of Cabinet papers, following an assurance given from the Dispatch Box by the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris). I then spoke to the right hon. Lady to ascertain the information that she wanted. What we have produced is a thorough document, which I am satisfied can be traced in all details to documents that have gone before Cabinet or Cabinet Committees. Internally, I have been able to footnote every assertion made in that paper. We took the words of the right hon. Lady’s amendment in seeking material that had been given to Cabinet and to Cabinet Committees, and the content of the document was determined by that categorisation.

[Anna Soubry]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

As I have referred to the right hon. Lady, I will give way to her and then I will make some progress.

[Anna Soubry]

The right hon. Gentleman is, as ever, being very generous. It is very important to make this clear. I took a sample of the many papers from which this document has been compiled, and I can assure the House that, from my reading of the contents of those papers, it is an accurate and fair summary. Furthermore, the original document that I was given was then edited and updated—that is how up to date it is. I am confident about that. I now want the detail, but that is another matter.

[Mr Lidington]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for that.

I will, if I may, move on to the various amendments that have been tabled. Let me move straight to amendment (f) in the names of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford and my right hon. Friends the Members for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman).

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just before the right hon. Gentleman starts on this important process of critical analysis, to which we all look forward with eager anticipation, I simply point out to him that, as I am sure he is aware, he is currently on 44 minutes. [Interruption.] A snip, I know, but it is 44 minutes.

[Mr Lidington]

I will try to restrain my appetite to take further interventions, Mr Speaker.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister set out three clear commitments to the House that should provide reassurance and clarity about the way forward. First, we will hold a second meaningful vote by Tuesday 12 March at the latest. Secondly, if the Government have not brought forward a further meaningful vote, or if we have lost such a second meaningful vote by Tuesday 12 March, then we will, in addition to the Government’s obligations—I stress that this is in addition to, not in place of them—table a neutral, amendable motion under section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to be voted on by Wednesday 13 March, at the latest, asking this House if it supports leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement and a framework for a future relationship on 29 March this year. The United Kingdom will leave without a deal on 29 March only if there is explicit consent in this House for that outcome.

Thirdly, if this House, having rejected leaving with the deal negotiated with the EU, then also rejects leaving on 29 March without a withdrawal agreement and future framework, the Government will, on 14 March, bring forward a motion on whether Parliament wants to seek a short, limited extension to article 50. If the House votes for an extension, the Government will seek to agree that extension approved by the House with the EU and bring forward the necessary legislation to change the exit date commensurate with that extension. The Government are committing themselves to bring forward—and therefore to support—such legislation. These commitments all fit the timescale set out in the private Member’s Bill in the name of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford. They are commitments made by the Prime Minister, and the Government will stick by them, as we have stuck by previous commitments to make statements and table amendable motions by specific dates.

[Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)]

May I say that I enormously welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has reiterated all that from the Dispatch Box? I have personally had no cause ever to doubt that what the Prime Minister states from the Dispatch Box will be anything other than fully fulfilled, but my right hon. Friend repeating it today is helpful, as were the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Brexit Secretary earlier this morning. In light of those remarks, it is my view that there is not a necessity to proceed in the way in which the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and I, with many others, would have wished to proceed in relation to amendment (c) and the Bill referred to in it.

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention.

[Yvette Cooper]

If the Government were to bring forward legislation in accordance with a vote in Parliament, would they—as I presume—vote for that legislation? Will the right hon. Gentleman also explain what the circumstances would be if there were a disagreement between the Government and the EU about either the length or terms of the extension? Would the Government bring it back to Parliament for a further vote, rather than simply dismissing it and deciding to shift to no deal instead?

[Mr Lidington]

As the right hon. Lady knows, the Prime Minister said that an extension would be short and limited. It is clearly a fact of law that any extension to the article 50 period would have to be agreed with all the other 27 Governments; that just reflects the treaties. It logically follows that if the Prime Minister has committed the Government to bring forward legislation in those circumstances to comply with what would be the will of the House, the Government would therefore support such legislation.

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

With the greatest respect, the Minister did not answer the other question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)—what will the Government do if the EU does not want to agree to a short, time-limited extension? Will they come back to the House with a different proposal? [Interruption.] This is a serious matter. Government Members shake their heads, but we need to know. If the EU were to turn down the extension, what would happen? Would we crash out with no deal or would we have another chance perhaps to ask for a longer extension?

[Mr Lidington]

In the absence of either an agreement to extend article 50, to leave with a deal or to revoke article 50 all together, the default legal position under the treaties is that the exit date is two years after article 50 has been triggered; that is a matter of European law. The hon. Lady asks a perfectly serious question. I do not believe that the other Governments of the European Union have either an economic interest or a strategic interest in seeing a chaotic departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union. My belief is that there would be a negotiated agreement in those circumstances. But as I said earlier, the new obligation that the Prime Minister announced yesterday is in addition to the ones that would already flow in those circumstances as a result of section 13 of the withdrawal Act—that is, section 13 as modified by the two amendments successfully moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). Therefore, the matter would come back to the House and there would be an opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members to table amendments to urge particular courses of action.

[Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Lidington]

I am conscious of the concern about time that you expressed, Mr Speaker, but I will briefly give way to my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles).

[Mrs Main]

I have listened very carefully to just about every debate on this topic, and I understand that the European Union would give an extension only if it thought there was a reasonableness behind the request; I can perfectly understand that. Will my right hon. Friend tell me what rationale we would give to ask for this very short and limited extension, given that the House will have already rejected the newly negotiated deal? I cannot think what else could happen in those couple of months that would be helpful.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is asking me to go deeper into the realms of hypothetical speculation. Tempting though that is, all I can say is that a lot would depend on where we had got to in the negotiations, the reasons for which the House in these hypothetical circumstances had rejected the revised agreement and so on.

[Nick Boles]

Nobody has a better understanding of these issues than my right hon. Friend and there is nobody whose word I would trust more completely at the Dispatch Box. But this is very important detail, and he has referred to the fact that the Prime Minister made commitments yesterday that replicated the provisions in the draft Cooper-Letwin Bill, which we are hoping not to have to move as a result. Now, that Bill very specifically sets out what would happen if, having consulted with Parliament and received Parliament’s approval, the Government proposed an extension to the European Union and the European Union came back and said, “We’re not happy to grant that extension, but we suggest a different length of extension.”

The Bill makes provision to come back to the House with whatever had been negotiated with the European Union to seek the approval of the House for that actual extension, and it is extremely important that we have that same provision confirmed here today at the Dispatch Box. If we do not, I for one will feel bound to continue with the process of supporting amendment (c) in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), and then tomorrow supporting the Bill. If we can have that reassurance from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that the House will get a chance to approve whatever final extension length is agreed between the Government and the European Union—if it were different from the one to which the House had previously consented—I will be happy.

[Mr Lidington]

The straight answer is yes, of course. Frankly, I just do not see any circumstance in which, if a period had been agreed with the European Union or had the potential to be agreed, the Government would not bring this back to the House. Were the Government not to bring it back, it would be brought back anyway under the provisions of section 13 in the way in which I described in response to an earlier intervention, so I think I can give my hon. Friend that clear reassurance on that point.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I thought that that answer was extraordinarily helpful. I agree with my right hon. Friend entirely that the provision actually already exists under section 13, but I think that his confirmation of the attitude of the Government to that matter settles the thing.

[Mr Lidington]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention.

[Stephen Doughty]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is extremely generous and I also take his word very seriously. He did not quite answer my earlier question about the legislation on the extension that he and the Prime Minister have made repeated commitments to bring forward. What would be the form of that legislation? Would it be possible, for example, for the dates to be changed? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who chairs the Exiting the European Union Committee, also asked, how would such disputes be dealt with?

[Mr Lidington]

I do not think that I can go into detail on the legislation at this stage. It would depend a bit on what the outcome of the negotiations with the European Union itself had led to. If it were secondary legislation, clearly there are the normal constraints on amendments. Equally, if it is secondary legislation, it is sudden death in both Houses; both Houses have a veto over secondary legislation. The section 13 provisions do give the House a safeguard that there is always that additional opportunity to bring forward and vote on concerns that the House feels are being overlooked.

Let me turn to amendment (c). I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset for indicating that he thought that this amendment would not now need to be pressed to a vote. If the House will allow me, in the light of his comments, I do not propose to go into detail about this amendment, but if it is brought up further in the debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can respond to those points when he winds up.

I now want to refer to amendment (b) in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa). On citizens’ rights, he has succeeded in an endeavour that some might have thought was impossible in persuading both the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) to share the honours as lead signatories to an amendment. All Members of this House are aware of how vocally and passionately my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire has campaigned on the issue of citizens’ rights for many months now. This is an area that the Government take extremely seriously. We have consistently put citizens’ rights first in our negotiations. It was one of the very first parts of the withdrawal agreement to have been agreed and had negotiations completed with the European Union. Of course, the best way to guarantee those rights, both for our citizens in the EU and EU citizens here, is to vote in favour of the deal, as my hon. Friend did in January.

But there is a lot of uncertainty surrounding no deal. That is why the Government have already committed that the rights of the 3 million EU citizens living in the UK will be protected in any scenario. EU citizens resident here by 29 March would be able to apply for the EU settlement scheme to secure their status. The Home Office has already granted more than 100,000 applications under that scheme and such people will continue to have access to social security and healthcare as before.

Also lying behind my hon. Friend’s amendment is concern about the rights of UK nationals living elsewhere in the EU. In the absence of a deal, this would be a matter for the EU and its member states. Despite the welcome progress made by some member states, there are other areas where the offer to UK nationals, in our view, falls short. Access to healthcare is a particular concern. The Government, led by the Foreign Secretary, are seeking solutions to address these issues through bilateral contacts with member state Governments at the same time as seeking a common EU-wide approach. We should not, though, underestimate the challenge in reaching a joint UK-EU commitment, as the amendment calls for, to ring-fence the agreement on citizens’ rights. The European Union has been very consistent in saying to us that its legal mandate is clear that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and that its view, if these issues were not addressed in the withdrawal agreement, is that there are significant legal problems for the EU in protecting these rights since, in those circumstances, some of these issues would fall within the competence of member states and not of the EU institutions.

Despite those challenges, we do share with my hon. Friend the common goal of protecting the rights of citizens in the event of no deal. So in view of the fact that our political objectives are the same, the Government will accept his amendment today, and following this debate—assuming that the House endorses the amendment —we will take up with the Commission the arguments embodied in it to seek clarification of the EU position on ring-fencing the citizens’ rights parts of the withdrawal agreement and to see whether it can be persuaded to change the position that it has adopted hitherto.

[Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Ind)]

rose—

[Joanna Cherry]

rose—

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Lidington]

No. I am conscious that I am disappointing a number of hon. Friends and other hon. Members, but otherwise there is a danger that my speech and associated interventions are going to take up pretty well all the time available for debate today.

I will move on to amendment (k) and then amendment (a). Amendment (k), in the name of the leader of the Scottish National party in Westminster, wills certain ends without any means. It asserts a determination not to leave the European Union without a withdrawal agreement and future framework under any circumstances and regardless of any exit date. It is therefore asserting a power to override what is actually in the European Union treaties but can have no effect in terms of European law and the implications of the article 50 process. While I understand the political motives behind amendment (k), the problem with it is that it ignores the legal reality that, once article 50 has been triggered, the only ways in which to avoid what the amendment seeks to avoid are to agree a deal or to revoke article 50 altogether and commit this country permanently—in good faith, to use the terms of the Court of Justice judgment—to membership of the European Union for the future. For those reasons, the Government cannot accept it.

I have also seen and studied the amendment tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I would urge Opposition Members to look at what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in her reply to the right hon. Gentleman, because on each of the five points detailed in the amendment, I believe the Government’s deal provides the right answer for the people of the United Kingdom. Let me briefly take each of those five points in turn. First, the amendment instructs Ministers to seek a permanent—

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has now been on his feet for over an hour. Is there anything that you could think of doing from the Chair to exhort him perhaps to reach his peroration?

[Mr Speaker]

Well, it has been 63 minutes. The Minister for the Cabinet Office is known for the intellectual approach that he adopts, which includes analysis in copious detail of propositions advanced by other colleagues, but I feel sure that he is nearing that peroration, which is keenly anticipated.

[Mr Lidington]

It is the hon. Gentleman’s hon. Friends, as well other colleagues across the House, who have been seeking to intervene, and if somebody intervenes on me, I think, in justice, they deserve a considered response to the point that they have made.

Amendment (a) instructs Ministers to seek “a permanent…customs union”, but the political declaration already provides for the benefits of a customs union—no tariffs, quotas or checks on rules of origin. At the same time, the political declaration says that rather than trying to seek a voice in EU trade deals, the UK should have an independent trade policy. Beyond the label of “permanent…customs union”, it is not clear to me what outcomes the Labour amendment is seeking that the political declaration does not offer.

Secondly, the amendment instructs Ministers to seek

“close alignment with the single market”,

but the EU has already said that the deal provides for the closest relationship possible outside the single market, and frictionless trade in goods and agrifood is one of our key negotiating objectives. The truth is, looking at the EU position, that it has said that completely frictionless trade is possible only if we stay in the single market. That would mean accepting both free movement and EU state aid rules in full—things that the Labour party’s leadership has said it does not want to see. That is why, I assume, its amendment is ambiguous about what a “close” relationship really means.

Thirdly, the amendment instructs Ministers to seek “dynamic alignment on rights”. We are committed to ensuring that leaving the EU will not lead to any lowering of standards in relation to workers’ rights. We are prepared to commit to giving Parliament a vote on whether it wishes to follow suit in the future whenever EU standards in areas such as workers’ rights or health and safety are judged to have been strengthened.

Fourthly, the amendment instructs Ministers to seek “participation in EU agencies”. The political declaration sets out how we aim to participate in EU programmes in a number of areas and have the closest possible relationship with EU agencies in the heavily regulated sectors.

Fifthly, the amendment instructs us to seek

“agreement on the detail of future security arrangements, including”

participation in specific EU tools and measures. Anybody who has listened to the Prime Minister speak from the Dispatch Box, whether as Home Secretary or Prime Minister, can be in no doubt about her commitment to the closest, most effective possible partnership now and in the future between police and law enforcement agencies in this country and those in other parts of the European Union.

The amendment ignores the very real negotiating challenge of the EU’s position. It says that, as a third country outside the Schengen area and without free movement, there would be restrictions on the UK’s ability to participate in some EU tools and measures. We do a disservice to the House if we do not recognise the reality of that negotiating challenge.

The deal that the Government have negotiated provides the best way forward for this country to build its future relationship of friendship and deep partnership with the EU outside membership of the European Union. With the work that the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Attorney General are undertaking to get the changes that this House has asked for to the Northern Ireland backstop, I believe we can come back with a deal that the House should be willing—indeed, eager—to endorse. That way, we will be able to deliver a result that honours the outcome of the 2016 referendum but does so in a way that protects the jobs, prosperity and security of citizens in every part of the United Kingdom.

12:49

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I rise to support amendment (a) in my name and the name of the Leader of the Opposition. It is two weeks since we last voted on a Government Brexit motion, but nothing has changed. The Government are no closer to making progress, and that is clear from the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday and underlined by the absurdly limited motion before us today. The motion tabled by the Prime Minister states that the House “notes” her statement of yesterday and

“notes that discussions between the UK and EU are ongoing.”

The Government do not even dare lay a motion reflecting the decisions of 29 January, as they did last time. They are frightened to lay a motion even setting out what has already been agreed—namely, the so-called Brady amendment —and the rejection by this House of no deal as an acceptable outcome. The statement and motion just seek to buy another two weeks and note what they are doing, all of this with just 30 days to go.

One thing that has changed is the acceptance of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa). I want to ask some questions about that, because yesterday the Prime Minster appeared to rule out accepting that amendment. This morning, the Home Secretary was before the Home Affairs Committee, and he was questioned by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald). The Home Secretary said, “What’s wrong with the amendment? Nothing.” “So is the Government supporting it now?” “Yes, what do you mean ‘now’? When was the Government not supporting it? When did you hear that?” “Yesterday.” “From who?” “The Prime Minister.” “Did you?” [Hon. Members: “Shambles!”] Well, that is a vignette of how Brexit has been going. The question that the House is struggling with is why the hon. Member for South Leicestershire has been forced to resign when the Government are accepting his amendment.

Last time we had this debate, I set out the sorry history of the Government’s delays in recent months, and I do not intend to repeat that.

[Lady Hermon]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. I thought he was going to mention the other significant change, which is the Labour party’s policy on a second referendum. As he will know, the Prime Minister warned in January this year that a second referendum could “damage social cohesion”. Does the Labour party believe that the Prime Minister was wrong about that, or is it prepared to take that risk?

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention. I will deal with it. I will come to the background and the amendment we have tabled, and I will answer that intervention. If I do not, I will take another intervention to ensure that I do.

There is, it seems, an expectation that between now and 12 March there will be a change to the deal, and I do not think that that is going to happen. Why? Because there has been no progress at all since the vote was pulled on 10 December. That is 79 days ago. That was when the Prime Minister said, “I’m going to seek changes. I know what the House wants.” No progress has been made since the meaningful vote was lost on 15 January, 43 days ago, and no progress has been made since the Brady amendment of 28 January, 30 days ago.

For all the talk of discussion here and in Brussels, the stark truth is that not one word of the withdrawal agreement or political declaration has changed since it was signed off on 25 November last year—not one word. That is 94 days—three months—ago. The expectation that all of that will change in the next 14 days seems extremely unlikely, and it is not going to be fulfilled. When the Prime Minister went off to do that, I said she was building an expectation that she would not be able to fulfil, and I fear that that is what we are heading for.

The deal today is the same as it was three months ago, and it is that basic deal that will be put before us again on 12 March. It may have some warm words around it, and the Attorney General may be asked to say what those warm words mean, but the withdrawal agreement will be exactly the same in two weeks as it is now. We have to face up to that and stop deluding ourselves that it will change in the next 14 days. There are serious consequences if the deal does not go through because it is precisely the same, which is why there has been such questioning this morning about what happens next.

The deal has not changed because the Government have made three central demands. First, they have asked for a unilateral exit to the backstop. That has been roundly rejected every time it has been asked for, and the deal was signed off 94 days ago. Secondly, they have asked for a time limit to the backstop. That has been roundly rejected every time it has been asked for, and it was on the table 94 days ago. The only other ask is that the backstop be replaced by alternative arrangements. The EU’s response to that to the Government has been, “Well, what are you proposing? What are these alternatives, so that we can discuss them?” Nothing has been forthcoming.

We learned from the Prime Minister’s statement and the Minister for the Cabinet Office that a joint workstream will be considered by the EU and UK, which will be an “important strand”. I do not doubt that a joint workstream on alternative arrangements is a good idea. I do not doubt that any country would seek to streamline any checks at the border whatever the arrangements, irrespective of Brexit. That workstream will apparently work until the end of next year. The announcement that that workstream is in existence is hardly a breakthrough. The idea that the deal that was so roundly rejected is now going to go through because there is a workstream on alternative measures seems to me unlikely, and that is why we have to get real about what is actually going to happen in two weeks’ time, and it is why we predict that we will be left with exactly the same deal.

On the alternative arrangements, the Minister for the Cabinet Office says that those words are used elsewhere in the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. That is true, but they are used only in two respects with two different meanings. One is that the alternative arrangements are the future relationship. That is one meaning provided in those documents, but that is not relevant to this discussion because if the future relationship is ready, there is no question of a backstop. We all know that.

The only other way in which alternative arrangements are actually used in the documents is in relation to the technology at the border making all the difference. We have been searching for that for some time. I do not doubt there will be advances in technology, but the reason the backstop was put in is that the assessment back in November was that there was no prospect of that technology being ready by the time the backstop would be needed, and therefore we needed the backstop. That was the conclusion.

Since I have been in this role, I seem to have spent quite a lot of my time standing on borders looking at lorries and people going across borders. I went to the main Sweden-Norway border to see what a border looks like where a country is in the EEA, and therefore has single market alignment and free movement, but is not in a customs union. It is a hard stop—with infrastructure, with security, with paperwork—and when it works well, each stop takes 13 minutes. Those two countries are not operating the least efficient system that they can; they think they are operating the most efficient system that they can. I do not doubt it can be improved on, but I doubt that this workstream in the next few months is going to make the progress that many people in this House think is going to happen.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to spending a lot of his time standing at borders. When he was at the border in Northern Ireland, was he able to see the complete and total complexity of that border, with the hundreds of crossing points, and has he grasped the total impossibility of anyone anywhere constructing a hard border that could not be avoided with ease?

[Keir Starmer]

I was and I have. I have visited that border many times. I visited it with the Police Service of Northern Ireland many times when I was working there for five years—as it policed the area around the border, which has particular issues—and I have been there since on a number of occasions. I am well aware of the nature of that border. I am also well aware of the fact, in relation to that border, that it is a mistake to think that the only issue is, technically, how to get people or goods over a line in the road. That border is the manifestation of peace: it is a settlement between two communities. Therefore, the very idea that this is just a technical exercise does not understand the nature of that border.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

It goes beyond that, does it not? The right hon. and learned Gentleman may share my anxiety that this issue seems to be consistently ducked. We have a pre-existing international treaty with Ireland that places obligations on us in respect of the border. I do worry, and he may share this anxiety, that in this House this is constantly brushed under the carpet, whereas as we are a rule-of-law state that believes in the international rules-based system, we cannot depart from that without reneging on such obligations.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention and I agree with it.

This is really the heart of it: we know what the problem is, we know what the House thinks about the backstop and we know that there is an unlikelihood that those problems are going to be addressed in the next 14 days. When the Prime Minister lost the first meaningful vote, she had a clear choice. Choice 1 was to plough on with the failed deal in the usual blinkered way, and eventually put the same deal back to us. That was option 1. Option 2 was to drop her red lines, and negotiate changes that were credible with the EU and could command a majority in this House. The Government have chosen the first course—blindly ploughing on, rather than really engaging—and, as we have seen from the last few weeks, that path leads nowhere.

That is regrettable, because there is an alternative, and I want to address amendment (a). We have set out this alternative repeatedly over recent months. It was set out in full in the letter from the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister on 6 February, and it is spelled out in today’s amendment (a). I remind the House that the focus of the changes we are calling for are to the political declaration, not the backstop.

The changes are to negotiate a permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union. That is the first part. Why is that important? Because it is essential for protecting manufacturing, particularly the complex supply chains, and to avoid the hard border in Northern Ireland. I know that those on the Government Front Bench have, like me, gone to many of the big manufacturing companies to discuss with them their complex supply chains and how anxious they are about protecting the customs union arrangements that allow them to do that. As I said, it is also essential to avoiding a hard border in Northern Ireland.

[Dr Murrison]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I will just make this point and then I will give way.

The Prime Minister has pretended that her customs proposals achieve that. I listened carefully to what the Minister for the Cabinet Office said about amendment (a). He said that, under the political declaration, the benefits are already there, because it notes that the single customs territory in the Northern Ireland backstop obviates the need for rules of origin checks. So the political declaration notes the backstop, which is the contentious bit of the withdrawal agreement. I concede that that is a form of customs union, because under the backstop that single customs territory obviates the need for rules of origin checks. The declaration goes on to say—this goes to the heart of what the Minister for the Cabinet Office just said—that if we build and improve on that customs union for the future partnership, we can continue to avoid customs checks.

Let us unpick that. If we build on the backstop, which is the bit that, as I understand it, many Government Members do not like, we can avoid customs checks. So, the temporary backstop—hopefully never to be used; only an insurance policy—has to become permanent, turbocharged and the foundation stone of the political declaration in order to get the protection of a customs union. That is precisely what the political declaration says.

I am not sure that the Minister for the Cabinet Office has explained that to all the Members behind him. If his proposition is that the backstop is just a short-term, temporary measure, whereas it is actually an essential foundation of the political relationship, I think that might be met with a particular response. The pretence that the political declaration equals the same as a customs union goes against the Government’s stated aim to be outside a customs union.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

I listened with care to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s response to the five principles at the end of his speech. Did it seem to the shadow Minister that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster disagreed with any of the five principles? I do not disagree with any of them. My right hon. Friend tried most of the time to demonstrate their compatibility with the political agreement. He might have hesitated, because in the Chequers policy the Government went beyond that and proposed a single market in goods—for about 48 hours. The shadow Minister raises negotiating points such as new trade agreements with other countries and what this would mean for freedom of movement, but all that will eventually be covered in the negotiations. Would it not help if Opposition and Government Front Benchers agreed on these five principles? That might transform the atmosphere of the debate when we move on to the next stage of the negotiations after the withdrawal agreement has been agreed.

[Keir Starmer]

As has been alluded to, I am having discussions with Government Front Benchers, including the Minister for the Cabinet Office. I do not intend to disclose what has been said in confidence in those discussions. They will continue, and we will play our part in them. We are trying to set up the next meeting, which we will hold as soon as possible.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

I will give way, but I want to finish answering this question. The point is that, unless and until the Prime Minister changes her red lines, it will be impossible to find any space for those negotiations to progress. I do not rule out something dramatic happening next week. The Prime Minister may come to the Dispatch Box and say she now understands that her red lines were the problem and that she is prepared to change them, but I do not think that that will happen. I have concluded that the Prime Minister will plough on with the deal that she put before us last time, and that she is not willing to drop her red lines, which would allow more fruitful progress in those discussions.

I say that without prejudice to the fact that those discussions will go on between now and 12 March. However, the fact that a date is already set for the deal to come back in two weeks’ time makes me just a little cautious in suggesting that those discussions will bear fruit in those next two weeks.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. As he knows, I shall be voting for the Prime Minister’s deal. I think something has changed, which he did not admit at the beginning of his speech: the circumstances of the past 24 hours. I think they may change minds on the Government Benches quite significantly and favourably. But if it does not pass, while I completely agree with him that under those circumstances the Government will need to look again at their red lines to try to get an agreement that is somewhere in the region of what he has been describing, will he also commit that the Labour Front Bench will exercise flexibility? My whole experience of dealing with coalition Government was that it takes two to tango. There has to be flexibility on both sides to get to an agreement.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention. We are playing our part in those discussions with the Government and will continue to do so for as long as is necessary. I do not want to go into what we are discussing, but we will continue to do so as long as is necessary. I am just slightly cautious as to the likelihood that that will lead to a breakthrough in the next 14 days.

[Sir William Cash]

I must say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is possibly generating more alarm than he realises. The idea that there is going to be some compromise between the two sides of the House on this question of the red lines raises a very simple question. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman like to state, on behalf of the Opposition, that they would like to see the repeal of the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972?

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention, because what it demonstrates is the point I was trying to make about the customs union. If the Government Front Bench say our political declaration is in effect a customs union by a different name, because we are going to build on the backstop and make it permanent and turbocharge it, I suspect there will be a degree of opposition to that, if I have understood anything about the debates that have been going on here for some considerable time. That is where the difference is.

As for the repeal of the 1972 Act, I have always said—I stand by it—that repealing that Act and putting a date for leaving in the withdrawal Act was a mistake because of the transition period. I have always said that the Act we have passed will have to be repealed before it comes into force, and so it will. The implementation Bill White Paper specifically says it is going to be, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. In other words, between now and the end of March we have got to intercept the withdrawal Act that we have passed if there is going to be any order to leaving the EU and ensure that things like the ceasing of the jurisdiction of the European Court is changed. It was barmy to turn the European Court off at 11 o’clock on 29 March, which is the current law, because you cannot get on to transition. I always said that before that comes into force, if this is going to make any sense at all, it is going to have to be changed, intercepted and repealed. That is exactly what the implementation Bill will do. I am as sure as I possibly can be.

[Dr Murrison]

rose—

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

rose—

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I am going to press on. I will just make some progress. I will give way in just a minute. I do not criticise the Minister for the Cabinet Office, because he quite rightly took interventions from a number of Members who really did want detailed answers, but I am going to try to make some progress. Otherwise, between the two of us, we really are going to get to the wind-ups before we anyone else has got in.

Let me move on to closer alignment with the single market. This part of the Brexit debate is too often ignored. How do we protect our service sector, which is of course 80% of our economy and 80% of our jobs? The second part of this package is also needed, alongside a customs union, to prevent a hard border in Northern Ireland. We recognise that if we are going to have closer alignment with the single market we need that to be underpinned by shared institutions and that would require accepting common obligations. What they are would be a matter of negotiation and how we stay aligned would be part of the negotiations. I am not pretending that that would be trouble-free.

The Minister for the Cabinet Office said that that is effectively there in the political declaration, as close as you can get. It is worth going back to the political declaration that the Prime Minister has put before us, because what it actually says is that we should achieve

“a level of liberalisation in trade in services well beyond the Parties’ World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments”.

Well, you cannot aim much lower than that. To quote the former UK permanent representative, that is

“about as unambitious as it can get.”

The third part of the amendment is

“dynamic alignment on rights and protections”.

That means UK standards keeping pace with evolving standards across Europe. Why is that needed? Because we cannot allow UK workers or consumers to see their rights lag behind those in the EU after we leave, or frankly, to allow future Governments to erode those rights. Again, the Minister for the Cabinet Office says, “Well, that is effectively there in the political declaration, or has been promised by the Prime Minister.” There is a world of difference between keeping up with evolving rights and a non-regression clause that simply says they will not drop behind a frozen level, so the answer from the Government simply is not strong enough. They are promising only non-regression—to freeze, not to keep pace. That is a world of difference, and it is no wonder that the trade unions were never going to sign up to that proposal.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister said, “Well, don’t worry. What we’ll do is that every time there is an evolution of rights in Europe, we’ll come back here and see whether this House wants to keep up,” but she did not say, “My Government will vote to do so.” That would make a material difference, but she did not, so neither we nor working people are going to fall for that one.

The fourth and fifth elements are clear

“commitments on participation in EU agencies and funding programmes”

and an

“unambiguous agreement on the detail of future security arrangements, including access to the European Arrest Warrant.”

I do not doubt the Prime Minister’s commitment on this. I worked with her when she was Home Secretary and I know how seriously she takes it, but I also know that the political declaration does not say that there has been any progress towards replica arrangements for the European arrest warrant. With the Prime Minister back in, I think, 2012 or 2013, we looked at what would happen if we fell out of the European arrest warrant arrangements and what the old extradition treaties were, and we were horrified by what we saw. Outside the European arrest warrant, it takes about 10 years to extradite someone from a country such as Italy to this country, and there are real-life examples of that. Using the European arrest warrant, it takes about 40 or 50 days. These are material differences and there is nothing in the political declaration along those lines. I understand the technical problems with Schengen and so on, but one of the barriers has been the determination that the European Court should have no role in anything at all in future, thus blocking progress in this area.

I am not pretending that the plan—the alternative—that we have set out is easy or painless to negotiate. I have never pretended that it will be the easiest negotiation in history, but I know that that kind of deal—delivering a close economic relationship with the EU—would prevent a hard border in Northern Ireland, reduce the pressure on the backstop and could be negotiated. The EU has said as much in recent weeks. We have heard in meetings with EU counterparts and in public that the customs union/single market alignment proposition is credible. The EU has said that it is a promising basis for negotiations, and to quote Michel Barnier:

“If the United Kingdom chooses to let its red lines change…then the European Union would be ready immediately to...respond favourably.”

I think it could be achieved. If the Prime Minister is serious about reaching out to the Opposition, she should engage with that proposal. It is clear from her response to the Leader of the Opposition and her blind insistence on seeking further changes to the backstop that that is not her intention, so today we put that plan to the House and ask for Parliament to help in delivering the basis for a credible Brexit offer.

[Richard Graham]

I have been listening with some interest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s explanation of the five bullet points that are so important in the Leader of the Opposition’s amendment, but most of them are fundamentally to do with the future phase of negotiations and are not specifically to do with the withdrawal agreement Bill. I am therefore still puzzled about what the major difference is between his party and the Government and why it cannot agree with the Government to secure the withdrawal agreement and get it through Parliament.

[Keir Starmer]

I think I acknowledged earlier that these points go predominantly to the political declaration and not the withdrawal agreement. Those two documents cannot be separated because they go together. [Interruption.] Well, an example of that is the customs union. The political declaration says that it builds on the withdrawal agreement; we cannot treat them as two separate documents, and the legislation that we will be voting on does not allow us to vote on them separately. But on the general proposition—do we accept that, for example, the backstop, whatever our concerns about it, is inevitable? The answer is yes. I said that when I stood here two weeks ago, and I make that clear again today.

[Dr Murrison]

But the Leader of the Opposition has said that he objects to the backstop because it will not be just permanent; it is potentially forever. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman have any qualms about that at all? If he does not, he should be supporting the withdrawal agreement, since most of his amendment, especially point i., is contained within the backstop.

[Keir Starmer]

I tried to deal with that question last time I was at the Dispatch Box, but I will have another go. We do have concerns about the backstop. There are concerns about the exit arrangements. There are concerns that England, Wales and Scotland, on the face of it, will fall out of single market alignment when we are in the backstop. There are concerns about the protection of workplace rights, environmental rights, non-regression protections and so on, and the enforcement mechanism is not the same as it is for other provisions, such as procurement. So there are real, deep concerns. Notwithstanding those concerns, though, we accept, because of our commitment to the Good Friday agreement, that at this stage—two years in, with 30 days to go—a backstop is inevitable. I hope that makes that clear, but I do not accept that it is possible to separate the two documents and treat them as separate documents to be voted on separately. In addition, the legislation does not allow us to do so; it requires both documents to go through in order for us to move forward.

[Mark Pritchard]

Given that Labour party policy on a second referendum was different a week ago from what it is today, may I encourage the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be more optimistic? The Prime Minister could indeed get changes to the backstop—a time limit, or a get-out clause for later on. If she does make those changes—if she is successful—given what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said, will he then support the Government in order that we avoid no deal?

[Keir Starmer]

I understand the point and the force with which it is put. Given the conversations that have gone on here and in Brussels, I have to say that I really do not see the prospect that after 94 days of trying, there will be a breakthrough in the next seven days. If there is, we must all come back to the House; there will be a statement from the Prime Minister and we will consider what she says. It will only be on the backstop, and we have accepted the inevitability of the backstop, so it would be more to try to solve a problem on her own Benches than with the Opposition.

However, I have always said that we will look at what the Prime Minister brings back. It was what we did when she brought back the deal in the first place. People invited me to commit beforehand that we would do this, that or the other, but I said I would wait to see what the deal was. I will faithfully wait to see, but at the moment I personally do not think that we shall be standing here in two weeks with significant changes, or any changes, to the withdrawal agreement. I will wait and see. I know that Members on the Government Benches want to be optimistic. My worry is that there is still the expectation of changes that will not happen, and therefore a lack of focus on what needs to happen next. That is why what the Prime Minister said yesterday was significant, because if the deal does not go through, obviously what happens next becomes deeply significant. However, we will faithfully look at whatever comes back and consider it.

A plan of the type that I have suggested is credible. It is a plan that is capable of negotiation, and it is one that the EU is prepared to negotiate. The only question now is, is the Prime Minister prepared to drop her red lines so that there can be a meaningful engagement with that alternative proposition? I invite hon. Members to vote for our amendment tonight, to ensure that that plan can form a consensus or a majority in this House to take us through to the next stage of the process.

I want to underline the commitment that we made on Monday, that if amendment (a) is defeated and the Prime Minister still refuses to negotiate a close economic relationship, Labour will support or table an amendment in favour of a public vote. That public vote would include a credible leave option and remain. It could be attached to the Prime Minister’s deal—what I have called a lock against a damaging Tory Brexit—or it could be attached to any deal that managed to win a majority in the House of Commons.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I will deal with the earlier intervention. It was put to me earlier that we should not adopt that course because of the social unrest that it might cause. There are a number of answers to that. First, this comes at a stage when we are trying to prevent no deal, and I do not think that no deal is going to be orderly and smooth; I think it is going to lead to huge problems up and down the country. Secondly, I think it important for us not to exaggerate social disorder, because to do so can encourage social disorder, and I am really worried about that. I am not suggesting for one minute that that was what the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) was doing—I take her interventions very seriously, as she knows—but I do not think we should casually say that there will be social disorder.

The third thing I want to say is this. I have been in this place for less than four years, but the idea that we would not take the right next step as a matter of principle because we thought that there might be social disorder is a very slippery slope.

[Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)]

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if a Parliament simply guessed what version or outcome of Brexit people wanted, brought it about and then hoped that it was the right one for the British people, that would not be a pragmatic, sensible, sustainable or democratically acceptable way of proceeding?

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s intervention for two reasons. First, I have been very hard on the Prime Minister, I think justifiably, for the fact that she set out the red lines without any discussion about them in Parliament, or even, I understand, in the Cabinet. It was her almost personal interpretation of the referendum. In my view, many interpretations could have been applied to it, but that was not one of them.

The second reason is important. I am not sure that getting a deal that is not really liked through the House at the last minute is going to settle anything. If, on a sweaty night in March, a measure goes through that no one really likes, the idea that that constitutes closure is very worrying. Of course, we are building up the expectation that if a deal goes through, that will be it, Brexit will be settled and it will all be over. We will still be in the foothills, because all that will happen after that will be the negotiations on the future relationship, which is so thin at the moment.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

May I take up the point about social order? I have faced social disorder in my own constituency and rightly condemned it, however hard that condemnation was for some constituents to hear. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that some in our country on the hard right who are suggesting that there will be social disorder forget that this is the country that faced down Mosley at home and faced down Hitler and Mussolini abroad? We can never give in to hard-right pressure.

[Keir Starmer]

I agree wholeheartedly with my right hon. Friend.

[Gareth Snell]

I too agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). Stoke-on-Trent was the city described by the British National party as the jewel in its crown, and we took no prisoners in fighting its members on the streets to rid ourselves of them.

My right hon. and learned Friend said that there could be a public vote on a deal versus remain at some point in the future. So that I can be clear about our party’s policy, will he outline the nature of the deal that he would like to see on a ballot paper that would persuade him to vote for that deal rather than for remain? It appears to me that at the moment, Labour party policy is actually to revoke article 50 at pretty much any cost.

[Keir Starmer]

It is important to appreciate that at the moment, I am pressing an amendment that favours a Brexit deal. In our manifesto we said that, if elected, we would seek to negotiate. We said that we would

“ end Theresa May’s reckless approach to Brexit”,

and that we would

“scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union”,

and we set out why that was necessary. We also said that we recognised

“that leaving the EU with ‘no deal’ is the worst possible deal for Britain”,

and that we would

“reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option”.

[Pete Wishart]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I have not finished answering the question yet.

What I am putting before the House today is entirely consistent with what we said in our manifesto that we would seek to do. Therefore, the question will be whether we can carry that tonight.

[Pete Wishart]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I have not finished answering the question, and it is an important question.

If that cannot be done, we will be faced in two weeks with what I think will be the Prime Minister’s red-line deal or no deal. In our manifesto we rejected both, and in those circumstances we would either put forward or support a motion on a public vote with a credible leave option—when we tabled a Front-Bench amendment three or four weeks ago we spelled out that that deal or proposition would have to have the confidence of the House—with the other option being remain.

[Joanna Cherry]

I welcome the Labour party’s movement towards a second referendum. Some people say a second Brexit referendum would be undemocratic, but does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree with Martin Wolf writing in the Financial Times today, who said:

“If democracy means anything, it means a country’s right to change its mind”?

[Keir Starmer]

Yes, and I think that was repeated by the first Brexit Secretary on a number of occasions, although I am never quite sure whether I should quote the first Brexit Secretary—[Interruption.] Yes, or the second, but of course I listen carefully to the third every time, and look forward to seeing him yet again tomorrow morning at the Dispatch Box.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

I am going to make some progress, as I have now been on my feet for 40 minutes.

We are putting forward a credible plan, and we are making it clear that if it is not carried and we are left with the option of the Prime Minister’s deal on her red lines or no deal, then we will put down ourselves or support a motion in favour of a public vote in order to prevent a damaging Tory Brexit.

I had a section in my speech on extending article 50 and the amendment put down by others to that end. I hear what they say about that and commend their efforts to push the Government on this and to get the commitments we got yesterday and again at the Dispatch Box today. It would not have happened without a concerted effort by Members on the Opposition Benches, along with others across the House. It is extremely important that we now know that should the deal not go through on 12 March, there will be a binding vote on no deal—we have already had more than one indication where the will of the House is—and that if that does go through there will be a binding vote on extending article 50. In those circumstances, I urge all Members to support our amendment.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before I call the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), I have now to announce the results of today’s deferred Divisions.

In respect of the question on the draft Official Listing of Securities Prospectus and Transparency (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, the Ayes were 317 and the Noes were 280, so the Ayes have it.

In respect of the question on the draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, the Ayes were 317 and the Noes were 260, so the Ayes have it.

In respect of the question on the draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, the Ayes were 318 and the Noes were 288, so the Ayes have it.

In respect of the question on the draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2018, the Ayes were 317 and the Noes were 288, so the Ayes have it.

In respect of the question on the draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2018, the Ayes were 317 and the Noes were 260, so the Ayes have it.

Finally—I know the House is ahead of me on all of these matters, and I am merely reminding Members of the prodigious knowledge they possess on these important questions—in respect of the question on draft Financial Services Contracts (Transitional and Saving Provision) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, the Ayes were 318 and the Noes were 281, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]

It will now be a very great relief to the House to hear Dame Caroline Spelman.

16:03

[Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. To be honest, I was not expecting to be called quite so early in the debate, so I prepared a relatively short speech, having been conditioned by the time limits that have usually pertained in these debates. So I do not expect to detain the House for too long with my observations.

I begin by picking up where the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), speaking for the Opposition, left off. In his final words he acknowledged that something important has changed. Indeed his colleague, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), intervened earlier in the debate to say that the atmosphere is changing, and I think he is right. The pragmatism and courage the Prime Minister showed yesterday in making her statement is a very important change. I also welcome the Brexit Secretary’s recognition that, when my amendment carried on 29 January, Parliament demonstrated a clear majority against no deal. I listened very carefully to him speaking on the “Today” programme on Radio 4 this morning, when he set out that, if that majority should be restated, and if the meaningful vote did not carry before 12 March, Parliament would have an opportunity to vote on an extension to article 50 the following day. I am pleased to see that the will of Parliament will now be respected.

I absolutely agree with the deputy Prime Minister that the best way to avoid a no-deal Brexit is to vote for a deal. I did just that on 15 January and I will do so again when a deal is next put. I really do appeal to colleagues across the House to do the same. Agreeing a deal would help to ensure an orderly Brexit, which is essential to protect jobs. I have been absolutely consistent on my motivation on this issue, which is to protect the jobs and livelihoods of my constituents and those of my colleagues.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

The Prime Minister has indeed repeated ad nauseam that the way to avoid no deal is to vote for her deal, but is it not the case that the way to avoid Parliament voting against her deal would have been to talk to Parliament a year ago to find out what kind of a deal would be acceptable to the vast majority of Members of this House?

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

As an experienced former commercial negotiator—I know that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) is one of those as well—I have learned that, in difficult negotiations of this kind, it is no good harping on about the past. We have to focus on the future and to be relentlessly optimistic and bring good will to the table.

Getting back to the subject that is closest to my heart, I sounded the alarm months ago about the risks to the car industry of a no-deal Brexit. Many workers in my constituency have already lost their jobs, and more recently we heard the sad news about Nissan and Honda. The loss of jobs is devastating, but far more will be risked if auto manufacturers leave these shores. The chairman of Unipart, John Neill, said in the weekend Financial Times:

“If we lose the automotive industry, we lose one of the most powerful drivers of productivity and a powerful source of industrial innovation”.

The UK is now the ninth biggest manufacturing country in the world and we just cannot afford to lose this critical industry.

A no-deal Brexit threatens not only our car makers. Last night, representatives from the CBI, Next, Bosch, Ford, the TUC, Make UK—formerly the EEF—the Food and Drink Federation, the Investment Association and Virgin Media, to name but a few, spoke to a large number of MPs at an event in Parliament. All those organisations fear the chaos of a no-deal Brexit and implored parliamentarians to come together and agree a deal. Those colleagues who think that leaving without a deal is in the national interest must answer the concerns of the industries that millions of jobs depend on.

Chris Cummings, chief executive of the Investment Association, which represents firms collectively managing around £7 trillion, told MPs last night that £19 billion had left the United Kingdom since the referendum. The Investment Association can measure that, because it involves its members. The current run rate of this capital flight is approximately £2.4 billion each month, so the notion that no deal has already been priced into the markets is simply not true. The full consequences have not yet been accounted for.

The human cost of no deal is not just jobs and livelihoods today, which are very important, especially in constituencies such as mine; it will also impact the value of people’s pensions and savings in the future. Having touched on pensions, I want to make a point that is relevant to amendment (b), which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that the Government will accept. Colleagues might recall that I have also sounded the alarm about the plight of UK pensioners living in other EU countries, and especially about the provisions for their healthcare. If the United Kingdom were to leave the EU without a deal, there are at present no provisions in place to ensure that their healthcare would be paid for. Given the size of the contingency fund of taxpayers’ money that the Government have had to make available for the risk of a no-deal Brexit, I suggest to my right hon. Friends that some portion of that could be used to bridge the gap for UK citizens in Italy, Germany, France and Spain who are already receiving letters from the authorities warning them that their healthcare costs will not be covered from 29 March. That is a source of real anxiety and human cost to the people concerned.

Businesses cautiously welcomed the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday, which has the capacity to take away the threat of no deal on 29 March, and the director of the CBI described it as a “glimpse of sanity”. She called on the Government to permanently rule out no deal to provide the certainty that business needs. That would de-risk the situation and create the space to secure a pragmatic deal. People often confuse risk with uncertainty, because a binary choice between a deal or no deal with 15 days to go is a high-risk situation, which creates uncertainty. The Prime Minister’s pragmatic response yesterday helped to reduce that risk and creates the space to secure a deal.

The contingency planning for no deal has already cost business millions and the taxpayer billions. Pfizer alone has spent £90 million on no-deal preparations, and that money cannot then be invested or directed to the frontline, so jobs will be lost in the end. The Federation of Small Businesses reports that 85% of its members are not ready for no deal and, as somebody mentioned earlier, very small businesses do not have the capacity to prepare for a no-deal scenario in the same way as some larger ones can.

Last night’s publication of the Government’s assessment of the state of preparedness for no deal did not provide a lot of reassurance on that, so it is time to be pragmatic—the Prime Minister has taken a lead on that—and to deliver an orderly Brexit. We need to come together across parties to try to get a deal over the line. If we cannot do that, we will fail the nation.

If MPs cannot bring themselves to put the national interest first at a time like this, they should consider the risks we face to security, freight delays, air traffic control, visas, food, medicine and energy shortages, healthcare for UK citizens in the EU, scientific research and educational exchange. We have heard more and more about those things, and all that disruption is having and will have an impact on the people whom we represent. As demonstrated on 29 January, there is a clear majority to rule out no deal, and I expect that that majority will increase at the next opportunity. However, we cannot just stand against something; we must urgently build a consensus for a deal that we stand up for in the British national interest.

It is clear that businesses need a deal to deliver frictionless trade and customs co-operation. Are the parties really so far apart on some form of customs partnership? The 2017 Conservative party manifesto mentioned having a special relationship based on a customs arrangement, and the official Opposition are calling for a customs union, so I feel that we are within touching distance if there is a determined effort to reach a consensus.

[Lady Hermon]

I would be delighted to hear the right hon. Lady encourage those on the Front Bench to confirm that she and her right hon. and hon. Friends will be allowed a free vote in the event that the Prime Minister again does not win the meaningful vote if we have one before the middle of March. Will the Conservative Government allow Conservative Members to have a free vote in the event of a significant decision about taking no deal off the table?

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

I cannot commit the Government to that, but it is clear to the House that these are not normal political times. I do not envy the job of my party’s Chief Whip, which must be one of the most difficult jobs on the planet at the moment. The main parties have difficulty in operating as we normally would, and much of what has been achieved has been achieved by building cross-party alliances. I think the public feel reassured when they see that happen, leastways my constituents and members of my party have told me that they like to see us working together in the national interest to try to bring about a resolution to this process, because we need it sooner rather than later.

With good will and determination, I believe we can get there and secure the new relationship with Europe for which people voted. I believe we will enjoy trading on preferential terms with our largest market, while being outside the constraints of the EU institutions to which many object today. That is what more than 17 million people voted for, and that reality is now within our grasp.

Whether Brexit is delivered on 29 March or is delayed for a few months—I am no great fan of an extended delay, as delay means uncertainty and will cost businesses money—it is up to us to back a deal that delivers certainty and protects prosperity and work. I therefore urge colleagues from all parties carefully to consider the amendments before the House today. More than that, as the debate continues in this place, we must now work more closely together than ever before to deliver Brexit.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), who speaks for the Scottish National party, now has a possibly unrivalled opportunity to demonstrate, by comparison with his Front-Bench colleagues, just how brief he can be.

16:16

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Here we are for yet another debate and yet more votes as the clock ticks towards leaving the European Union on 29 March, and towards a no-deal Brexit and a cliff edge that everyone knows will be disastrous and damaging. From day one, this has been a lesson in gross irresponsibility, particularly from the Government.

Our amendment (k) is simple and straightforward: it would take no deal off the table altogether. The Prime Minister was uncharacteristically clear in her statement yesterday when she said we will have a vote on 13 March to take no deal off the table for the end of March. Our amendment simply goes one step further.

We know from public statements and from what we hear—Ministers will be well aware of this—that even members of the Cabinet and officials are warning of the devastation that no deal would bring. Everybody knows. This is not a negotiating tactic; it is simply a tactic to hold a fracturing Conservative party together. We have a Government in peacetime who we know are preparing for medicine shortages and food shortages, and who we know have discussed martial law and civil unrest. That is deeply disconcerting to everyone, and it underlines why no deal must be taken off the table.

Our amendment is not just something that the Scottish National party is calling for, and I am grateful to colleagues from the Green party, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats for backing it. I know that colleagues from the Labour party and the Conservative party are calling for it, too, including the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) in the previous speech. We must take no deal off the table altogether, which is why this is such a simple amendment.

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

I should have made it clear to the House that, having been reassured by what the Minister said today and by the consistency with which he said it, I will not be pressing my amendment.

[Stephen Gethins]

I thank the right hon. Lady for that clarification. The amendment standing in my name and that of my colleagues will be pressed to a vote, because we think that as the clock ticks we cannot wait for another two weeks. We have been waiting for “another couple of weeks” or for “another few days” for months and years now. This House needs to take a bit of responsibility for the situation in which we have been left, for which posterity and history will judge us.

On the way that history will judge us, let me talk about the human element of this. I do not want to embarrass the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), but I am going to say a few kinds words about him. Three years ago, in Prime Minister’s questions, he asked the Prime Minister not to make him vote against his parents’ interests. We back his amendment about EU citizens, which he has rightly tabled. We back him, and we think he is doing a brave and decent thing. I note the remarks made by former colleagues of his such as Lord Duncan of Springbank about how valuable they thought it was working for him. I hope I have not damaged his future political prospects too much by saying that, but I remark on the decency of what he is trying to do, his own personal situation and the bravery of what he has done today.

What I find incredibly striking is that we have a Government where collective responsibility is breaking down, where a Prime Minister remarks that she does not want a Cabinet full of yes-men because she cannot get collective responsibility and where Ministers have been able to say whatever they like, regardless of what Government policy is, yet you end up sacking a member of Government for agreeing with you. What kind of situation are we in? This is an extraordinary set of circumstances in which the Prime Minister fails to sack Cabinet members for disagreeing with her publicly but sacks a member of the Government whom she has agreed with, whom the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster agreed with at the Dispatch Box, although he is not in his place at the moment, and whom the Home Secretary found himself in agreement with this morning. That is an extraordinary state of affairs. Do not worry; I am sure that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire will return to disagreeing with us on other occasions, but I salute what he has done today and the way in which he has conducted himself, with a common decency that we too rarely see in this Brexit debate.

We get told about “Project Fear”, but it is not that when it is a matter of fact. One in three businesses is planning to relocate some of its operations and one in 10 has done so. The UK is seen as a bad choice for investment. The global chief investment officer at UBS Wealth Management has said:

“The consensus among those investors is that the UK is uninvestable at this point”.

That is not good for anybody. We also have a decline in our public services, where we are seeing a dramatic decline of 87% in the number of applications from European economic area nationals for UK registration, according to the Nursing and Midwifery Council. That is a crucial public service, where EU nationals fill gaps in the workplace to provide it. So much damage is being done by this threat of a no-deal. Our amendment is a simple one and I hope that Members will back it, because it is straightforward and it will help to take this away.

[Mr Baron]

The hon. Gentleman tends simply to ignore the fact that the British economy is doing well. We have record inward investment, record low unemployment and record manufacturing output, despite all the so-called “uncertainty”, and the doom and gloom that the SNP predicts. Do not forget that the predictions last time were so badly wrong that the Bank of England had to apologise very publicly for getting it so wrong.

[Stephen Gethins]

I find that this is the extraordinary thing. The hon. Gentleman knows I have huge respect for him—he and I served on the Foreign Affairs Committee together—but he is telling us that we cannot trust the Government’s figures. Who can we trust any more if we cannot trust his own Government? Who can we trust when we are trying to make a judgment? Who can we trust when we are trying to make judgments about the future? We know that this is having a real impact, and I am going to come on to deal with some of this shortly. We are almost three years on from the EU referendum and I am not even entirely sure why we are doing this at the moment. I have just been reading that, apparently, Poundland is going to be doing burgundy and blue passport covers, and we could all have a choice—they will be a pound a go. Perhaps if the Government decide to buy one for everybody in the UK, we can all have our own choice and it will save us a lot of hassle and be a lot cheaper than crashing out of the European Union.

Let us not lose sight of the gross irresponsibility that has led us to this point. We have a minority Government who are failing to be a minority Government. Other European legislatures manage it, and the Scottish Government manage it. It is not always easy; it is difficult—

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

And the Welsh Government.

[Stephen Gethins]

The Welsh Government do it. A minority Government must speak to the other parties and engage with the Opposition. We have a Government who are trying to run the show as if they have a majority of 100; for their information, they do not. They lost their majority at the last general election. We did not lose our majority at the last general election, but the Government did.

Let us not lose sight of where we are. It was the charlatans and chancers who backed vote leave on a blank piece of paper. They did not have the decency, courtesy or democratic accountability to put down what vote leave meant, and the Secretary of State was one of them. That is why we are in the mess that we are in today. It is a mess entirely of the Secretary of State and his colleagues’ own making, and one for which not only they but unfortunately the rest of us are paying the price, too.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

rose—

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

rose—

[Stephen Gethins]

I have taken some interventions from the Government side, so I shall take one from the Labour Benches.

[Matt Western]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the mess he refers to includes business confidence falling in the last four quarters—3.7% in the last quarter—and consumer confidence at its lowest ever since 2012?

[Stephen Gethins]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are seeing business confidence falling and investment falling. These things are matters of fact.

I will come to some more figures in a moment, but first I wish to talk about the UK’s standing in the world. People talk about democracy and the UK’s standing. They talk of unelected bureaucrats, but the greatest number of parliamentarians are the unelected ones in the House of Lords. That is not democracy. The European Parliament is elected, the Commission is accountable to that Parliament, and the Council is made up of the 28 elected Governments as well. That is a damn sight more democratic than this place is.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a good point about democratic accountability. I have been serving on the Committees for countless financial services statutory instruments that will take powers and give them to the Financial Conduct Authority, the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Treasury, and the Government will not give them to MPs in this House.

[Stephen Gethins]

It has been extraordinary. As usual, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point about how the Government have tried to take powers away. They have tried to take votes from us and they have tried to take away our ability to hold them to account in a way that they just could not get away with in the European institutions, whether they like it or not.

On the lack of planning and that vote leave on a blank piece of paper, I think Donald Tusk was being restrained when he said that there is a special place in hell for those who backed Brexit without a clue about how to get there. For all those snowflakes who feigned outrage about his remarks, this is a man who fought the communists—he was living under a Soviet vassal state at that point, unlike others—and who stood up for and was arrested for his beliefs, yet when he points out the blindingly obvious, he gets dragged over the coals for it. What outrage. It was faux outrage.

[Richard Graham]

rose—

[Stephen Gethins]

I will give way if the hon. Gentleman can possibly justify it.

[Richard Graham]

I honestly do not think that Slovenia has anything to do with today’s discussion of the withdrawal agreement. The amendment proposed by the SNP, which is what the hon. Gentleman should be referring to, talks about this House being

“determined not to leave the European Union without a withdrawal agreement”,

so will he confirm that the SNP will support the Government deal, which will be on the table before 12 March?

[Stephen Gethins]

It is extraordinary: I have not even mentioned Slovenia yet, but the hon. Gentleman knows the reference I am making. I know he is a decent Member and has served his country well in the diplomatic service, and I know he will have been embarrassed by the Foreign Secretary’s recent remarks. I want to talk about—[Interruption.] I am a Front-Bench speaker. I want to talk about the UK’s standing in the world of which we are still a part for the time being.

There are those who are quite content to compare the EU with the USSR and cannot handle these remarks from Donald Tusk. Just at the point when we need friends and influence around the world—as the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who works so hard on these things, knows full well—we are losing them. Let us look at some of the reactions to that. Carl Bildt, the former Swedish Prime Minister, said that Britain used to be a nation

“providing leadership to the world. Now it can’t even provide leadership to itself.”

Latvia’s ambassador to London said:

“Soviets killed, deported, exiled and imprisoned hundreds of thousands of Latvia’s inhabitants after the illegal occupation in 1940, and ruined lives of three generations, while the EU has brought prosperity, equality, growth, and respect.”

I ask Members to please reflect on what our closest friends and allies are telling us. Asked to respond to Hunt’s remarks when he compared the EU with the Soviet Union, the European Commission’s chief spokesman, said:

“I say respectfully that we would all benefit, in particular foreign affairs ministers, from opening a history book from time to time.”

The Foreign Secretary clearly did not listen. He doubled down when he went to Slovenia and referred to it as a “Soviet vassal state” to which the former Speaker of the Slovenian Parliament said:

“The British foreign minister comes to Slovenia asking us for a favour while arrogantly insulting us.”

At a time of crisis, the greatest crisis that the UK has faced since the second world war, we are led by political pygmies who do not understand the history of those countries that are closest to us, never mind the history of the nations of these islands. They have turned the UK into the political basket case of Europe. There is utter astonishment and bewilderment in Brussels and elsewhere at the UK’s decline. There is also astonishment in Scotland at what is going on down here, even by those who, unlike me, backed the Union.

The right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) was right to raise a point of order last night and I listened to it carefully. I am glad that, because of her work, we got the no-deal papers released, and I thank her for it. It has to be said that the document was pretty flimsy, a very small document. There is much more to the Scottish Government’s document. Their analysis, which they were happy to publish a long time ago without having to be forced, has shown that any form of Brexit will be damaging for Scotland’s economy. The deal will be damaging to Scotland’s economy, which is why we cannot vote for it, but a no-deal Brexit could result in a recession worse than that in 2008, causing Scotland’s GDP to fall by up to 7%, and unemployment to rise by around 100,000.

[Anna Soubry]

rose—

[Stephen Gethins]

I will give way to the right hon. Lady as I have made reference to her.

[Anna Soubry]

The point that everybody in this House needs to understand is that, on Privy Council terms, I saw the entirety of the most recent documents that members of this Government’s Cabinet and the important sub-Committee had seen. I saw a large number of those documents, the contents of which make it clear, in the words of the Business Secretary, that a no deal would be ruinous. Last night, I attributed those words to the Brexit Secretary who was very keen for me to set the record straight. I would have liked him to have adopted that view, but it was the Business Secretary who described no deal as ruinous. Notwithstanding that clear information, which was available to the most senior members of this Government, they refuse to take no deal off the table. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that that is the disgrace. The Government know what a no deal would do to this country, and they refuse point blank to take it off the table.

[Stephen Gethins]

As usual, the right hon. Lady makes a powerful and valid point. As this is the first time I have been able to say this, might I also say that it is nice to hear her speaking so much more closely to me now?

[Anna Soubry]

You might regret it.

[Stephen Gethins]

The right hon. Lady is right, I might regret it. As so often, she makes a powerful point. That is why our amendment today—I hope she will support it—is a very simple one that will take no deal off the table. The Cabinet knows how damaging it will be; business knows how damaging it will be. These papers are there. They have been seen, as the right hon. Lady correctly points out. On top of that, the Scottish Government analysis shows that EU structural funds are worth €941 million to Scotland across the EU budget period, and we do not know what happens next. That is almost €1 billion and we do not know what happens.

There are 4,500 EU national staff facing uncertainty in Scottish universities, and I see that daily in my constituency work. A letter from 150 universities says that

“leaving the EU without a deal is one of the biggest threats our universities have ever faced”.

The University of St Andrews, which signed that letter, has been around for more than 600 years, so it has a bit of context; it knows a thing or two.

Do you know what stings? Scotland never voted for this. We were the first to suggest an extension, as common sense. The Scottish Government were the first to propose a compromise, to which the UK Government did not really have the decency to respond. And here we are proposing to reach out and work with the Government to take no deal off the table as well. We did not vote for this process but we have to engage with it, and we have engaged with it. I pay tribute to our friends and colleagues from different parties who have worked with us, because this is the right thing to do.

The Scottish food and drink industry thinks that we will lose £2 billion in sales annually. This does not affect the hedge fund managers or those who have pushed money offshore. It affects the poorest and most vulnerable, as well as small businesses, and it has an impact on unemployment in some of the areas of the United Kingdom that can least afford it.

I hear people saying about the EU as a political union, “Why would you want to be a member of the UK in the EU?” Well, you know what? The EU listens. We are in a partnership of equals in the EU; it cannot force us to do things. We have a Court of Justice, a Parliament and a Council of Ministers—the UK has none of them. The EU is a club for independent, growing and thriving member states. There is no place for independence or a partnership of equals within the United Kingdom.

Our amendment is a simple and straightforward cross-party proposal that rules out no deal all together. Yes, we want to take things out of the hands of the Prime Minister, but we also want her to commit to this because I am sorry to say that, with her twists and turns, it has become increasingly difficult to trust anything the Prime Minister says. Four weeks away from leaving, our amendment seems to be a responsible course of action, as there are so many pieces of legislation still to be passed.

I have raised many points, but I now address the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). We have put £4.2 billion into no-deal preparation. Just think what we could have done with that £4.2 billion at a time of continued Westminster austerity, when our public services are crying out for it and when we should be tackling climate change, poverty and many other challenges. Continuing with no deal is irresponsible, irrational and—I appeal to some of the Tories—very, very expensive. I hope that all Members will join us in backing our cross-party amendment.

[Mr Speaker]

A five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches now applies, although I warn colleagues that that limit will probably have to fall; it is not compulsory to speak to the full limit.

16:37

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I will try to abide by your instructions, Mr Speaker; thank you for calling me so early.

It is customary to say what a pleasure it is to follow the previous speaker, but I must suggest to my friend, the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), that the SNP continually talks down the United Kingdom to such an extent that most people in Scotland do not even listen any more. SNP Members would do well to reflect on this. I gently suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he may be very critical of the UK at the moment—of how the Government conduct themselves and our parliamentary democracy—but we can be proud of the fact that this robust democracy is accommodating a very robust debate. In France, the Government can increase the fuel tax and there are people dead in the streets of Paris. In America, there has not been a Government for months. This is an important debate and there are differences across the House, but we can be proud of our parliamentary democracy in actually accommodating that debate.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

As the hon. Gentleman is busy lecturing Scots and Scotland, I hope he will reflect on this point—that in Scotland today the EU is far more popular among the people, by about 18 percentage points, than the United Kingdom. He should bear that in mind the next time he wants to lecture Scotland.

[Mr Baron]

I actually think that is quite questionable given the SNP’s recent election results and how badly it is doing—

[Joanna Cherry]

rose—

[Mr Baron]

Just wait a minute—sit down. I have taken one intervention. We should look at how badly the SNP is doing in terms of representing the interests of the EU, as it were, with regard to election results.

Let me put the SNP to one side for a second and suggest to my fellow fusilier, the Secretary of State, that, as a leaver, I also accept that there is a need for compromise with regard to the withdrawal agreement. One cannot, after 45 years of integration, move from imperfection to perfection in one bound; there has to be compromise on both sides. That is why, while I have trouble with the transition period—there are many aspects that I do not like—at least it is definite. It is no worse than being in the EU itself—not really. As my right hon. Friend will know, what many Conservative Members have a problem with is the fact that the backstop is indefinite as it is presently constituted. I urge him to ensure that we have a meaningful change to the backstop to address the fact that at the moment we could be locked in an indefinite backstop that only the EU could free us from. No sensible person would enter into a relationship of that sort—it is madness.

When I say “meaningful” change, I mean that it has to have equal standing with the backstop, or the bit that we are changing. The Northern Ireland protocol containing the backstop is an appendix, so there is scope for a further appendix putting this right. It would be face-saving for the EU, if the agreement itself had not been changed. We could put a meaningful appendix into it. I suggest that the Government give that some thought, because it could assuage the concerns of a lot of Conservative Members with regard to the withdrawal agreement. Instead of worrying about where any additional text would go, agreement about the text itself could first being sought. That could be very helpful, because an awful lot of time could be wasted in trying to agree where that text goes before the text itself has been agreed.

That is something for the Secretary of State to think about. I wish him and his team well—genuinely so. I have expressed concern that the Prime Minister’s next steps, as outlined yesterday, may, at the margin, make a good deal less likely because the EU could perhaps hope that Parliament does its work for it by taking no deal off the table and by extending article 50. However, I still wish him well, because it is still within our grasp to achieve a withdrawal agreement that could bring us all together—certainly those of us on the Conservative Benches, and a number of hon. Members on the Opposition Benches—to get this agreement through.

Let me quickly turn to the Labour party’s policy on a second referendum, because that has not been touched on in this debate so far, but it is absolutely scandalous. Labour said that it would respect the wishes of the referendum, and now it is offering a second referendum. In one way, that is good, because it is clear blue water between the Conservative party and the Labour party. However, I would just offer these thoughts to the Labour party with regard to its recent assurances that it is going to offer a second referendum. First, it is a condescending policy—it is saying that people did not understand what they were voting for.

[Peter Grant]

Two days ago, the hon. Gentleman told this House that the United Kingdom already trades on WTO terms with everybody outside the European Union, and the Prime Minister had to correct him. If somebody who led the campaign to have an EU referendum still does not know about the trade deals that we have as part of the EU, what chance have the other 60 million people in these islands got?

[Mr Baron]

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman misheard me. I said that we trade with the majority of the world outside the EU on WTO terms—that is a fact—and we trade very profitably with them. That is the issue. While it is clear that most of us would prefer a good deal to no deal, the exaggeration of how bad WTO terms are has to be set in context.

[Peter Grant]

rose—

[Mr Baron]

I am sorry, but I am going to finish because I do not think that a third intervention will add anything to my time, to be perfectly honest.

The Labour party policy on a second referendum is condescending because it says that people did not know what they voted for the first time round. The predictions of doom and gloom from the establishment in this country—the Bank of England, the International Monetary Fund, the Government and leaflets through the door—and of 500,000 more people unemployed by December 2016 if we voted leave were so badly wrong that most of those public bodies had to apologise.

The policy is condescending, but it is also contradictory, because it suggests that people might not have understood it last time but will understand it this time. Why would they understand it this time if we do not have faith in them to understand it the first time? Why not then have a third or fourth referendum? Finally, it is dangerous, because we made a clear pledge that we would respect that referendum result. I thank the Labour party for its policy, but it is wrong.

16:44

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

We need to begin by acknowledging that we have made a little bit of progress. Yesterday the Prime Minister finally acknowledged that there is no support in the House of Commons for leaving with no deal. It was interesting that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was in most difficulty in his contribution when he was trying to avoid answering questions about how the Government will vote if we get to that point. I will make a prediction to ease his pain: if we do get to that point, I think the Government will vote against us leaving with no deal. How could they do anything other than that given the document released yesterday, which predicts £13 billion of cost to British businesses? For what? To fill in customs declarations, with no benefit to their trade whatsoever. It also predicts rising food prices and delays at the ports. At the moment, French customs officials say, “Go on, go on,” but the moment they put their hands up and say, “Arrêtez”—“Stop”—the chaos will begin.

At the industrial coalition meeting to which the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) referred, the most striking moment for those of us who were there was when representatives of two major parts of manufacturing industry said simply, “If there’s a no-deal Brexit, it will be catastrophic for us.” The thing I always find it hard to understand is why people who do not run things and make things for a living think they know better about the consequences of a no-deal Brexit than people who do.

The other truth that has finally hit home—I hope the Government understand it—is that it does not matter when we are asked to vote against a no-deal Brexit. We will do it in March, we will do it in June and we will do it in October of whatever year, because the House will not allow that to happen.

If the Prime Minister’s deal is defeated when it comes back, there will be an extension to article 50, and the question that has not really been addressed yet is: for what purpose will we use the time? The amendments that probably will not be pressed to a vote today will be very important in the weeks to come, because they will provide us with the means to answer that question.

I think that only three options will face us in those circumstances. The first is to try to reach a consensus on a different kind of Brexit deal. The second is again to extend article 50, to enable us to negotiate the future partnership. The third, if we remain deadlocked, is to take the question back to the British people. None of them will be easy–there are no benefits to the British economy from Brexit. I will turn to each of those options.

The first—Norway plus or Common Market 2.0—would at least minimise the damage to our economy. It would represent a painful compromise for many people, but it would be a much better way forward than the Prime Minister’s deal. Do I think that she will ever agree to it? Sadly not, because she has shown herself to be completely inflexible.

The second option, which is really the obvious thing to do, is to go to the EU and say, “Why don’t we negotiate the future relationship now and extend article 50 for that purpose?” The House refuses to vote for the Prime Minister’s deal because each of us, for different reasons, says that we do not know what the future will look like, and therefore we are not prepared to take this enormous step of leaving the European Union on the basis of a prospectus that is completely vague and uncertain. How do we answer that question? We negotiate the future partnership.

[Mr McFadden]

On the point about the purpose of an extension, what does my right hon. Friend think of President Macron saying that there is no way the EU would accept an extension without a “clear objective”? In his view, what should that clear objective be?

[Hilary Benn]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a challenge the House will face the moment it has voted for an extension, because I am sure that is what the European Union will say to us.

I am setting out what I think are the three alternatives that would be available to the House at that point. The first requires agreement. I do not think the Prime Minister is prepared to give that; that is what the evidence shows. The second would require the European Union to change its approach to the negotiations completely. It would be the sensible thing to do, but the EU may not agree. The third—the one we will be left with if we cannot agree—will be to go back to the people and ask them what they think.

I simply want to say that I welcome the decision that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition announced on Monday. It cannot have been an easy decision to make, and I do not at all underestimate the difficulties of holding a second referendum. However, it would in those circumstances answer the question from the European Union about what the extension is for. When it comes to the question in such a referendum, to me it is clear: the only deal that has been negotiated to leave—the Prime Minister’s—even though it would have been rejected by Parliament, and the alternative of remain, because there is not an alternative leave on the table. Let me say to those who might want to jump up and say, “What about no deal?”: first, if we go back to the referendum of 2016, nobody on the leave side argued for leaving with no deal—nobody; secondly, we know how damaging it would be; and, thirdly, why should an option that was never before the British people in 2016 suddenly appear on a ballot paper in 2019, if we have a referendum?

[Mr Grieve]

I am sorry to bang on about this, but we are a rule-of-law state and it is an unlawful question to put. If a Government choose to put no deal on a referendum ballot paper, they are in effect saying that they will not respect and have decided as a matter of a policy not to observe their international obligations.

[Hilary Benn]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman very forcefully makes one of the arguments for why no deal is not an option in every sense of the word.

In conclusion, we are in a marginally better position than we were when we had the last of these debates, because the Government have been forced to face reality. I pay tribute to Ministers who, we are told, in a series of delegations to the Prime Minister, made her realise that she would not be able to defeat the amendments today if she did not make a concession yesterday.

However, we are still in a very perilous position for the country. I have no doubt at all about our ability to prosper, but our future prosperity depends on the decisions that we choose to make. It is not automatic, as the Brexit disaster is proving. That is why I echo the view of others who have said that those who argued for leave bear a very heavy responsibility for the crisis the country is now in. Parliament’s job is to make sure that, when that moment comes, if the deal is defeated again, we are ready to make a choice about what we are for. The tragedy of Brexit is that the Government have been completely incapable of making those choices. It is Parliament’s responsibility to step up and take those decisions if the Government continue to fail to do so.

16:53

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

To reply immediately to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), it is not actually the duty of this House to surrender parliamentary government to government by Parliament. In fact, that is well established in our constitutional arrangements. Furthermore, any attempt by shenanigans to rearrange the procedures to give private Members’ Bills an advantage over Government business is itself reprehensible for that very good reason.

I want to turn to another question, which is to do with the issue of control over laws. I think it is very important for every Member of this House to ask themselves whether they would be prepared to tell their constituents that, under article 4 of the withdrawal agreement, we would be expected—in fact, we would be required by an Act of Parliament—to surrender control over our laws. If people have not had the time or perhaps the opportunity to read article 4, may I suggest that they do so? To do otherwise would be utterly and completely irresponsible.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. If we do not have control of our laws, we do not have control of our country. Is that not right?

[Sir William Cash]

That is completely right. That is what we are here for. We are not here to voice our own opinions or to fragment into factions and then impose views on others by virtue of deals done across the Floor of the House. We are elected on manifesto commitments, and we have an obligation to our constituents to make laws in their interests, not in ours. I therefore suggest that looking at article 4 is extremely important. I accept that it is said that the article would apply only during the implementation period, but that in itself would put us at the mercy of our competitors.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

It is worse than that, because it would apply not only during the implementation period but during the whole period of the backstop, which is potentially unlimited. The European Court of Justice would therefore remain—against our manifesto commitment—the supreme arbiter of our laws in that area.

[Sir William Cash]

I am so glad that my hon. Friend has made that point, because I was about to make it myself and now will not have to. I am as much against the backstop as I am against the article 4 arrangements, for reasons that both of us agree on.

We have to grapple with the fact that article 4 will apply across all the EU treaties, laws and legal positions adopted by the ECJ over recent years. It is inconceivable that the House would hollow itself out in such a manner as to preclude itself from being able to control such things. I am Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, and we get these regulations and directives week in, week out. We received one last week that intends to turn the veto procedure—or unanimity rule—over the making of national tax policy into qualified majority voting. If people really think that that is a minor matter, let them think again what effect it would have on their constituents.

Under article 4, our country would be reduced, as I said in my intervention on the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, to an undemocratic subjugation to the decisions of 27 other member states. In fact, not only that, but as I said, it would put us at the mercy of our competitors. In addition, the article would have the same effect with regard to the question of state aid during the backstop.

I do not think that the businesses that argued so strongly for this transitional period had any idea that this would be the consequence of the withdrawal agreement. That agreement emerged from the Chequers deal, which itself was an overturning of the withdrawal Act that we passed in June 2018 and had been planned long before that Act was given Royal Assent, without any reference to the Cabinet and in defiance of collective Cabinet responsibility.

If we do not control these laws, who will? It will be the 27 member states. In an important book, “Berlin Rules”, by our former ambassador to Germany, Sir Paul Lever, he says that before decisions are taken by European member states, or indeed by the Council of Ministers, they are cleared with Germany. He also says that it is a German Europe. He does not mince his words.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

I wonder if the hon. Gentleman is aware of the utter irony of this situation. He moans and complains and raises grievances about Europe—he has a chip on his shoulder—but the reality for Scotland in the United Kingdom is worse than everything he says. We have a party in charge that we have not voted for in 65 years. The European Union is nowhere near as bad as what he is going on about.

[Sir William Cash]

I do not concede what the hon. Gentleman says for one very good reason: it is part of the United Kingdom.

That is my first point on control over laws. Article 4 is so offensive because it hollows out this House and hollows out our democracy. On that basis alone, one should not vote for the withdrawal agreement.

As I said in my exchanges with the shadow Secretary of State, I want to know why anyone would want to undermine the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, which is the law of the land and is contained in section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act itself. I would also like people to be honest enough—those who wish to rejoin the European Union, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve)—to say why on earth anyone would want to rejoin the European Union when it is in complete and total implosion. People are voting with their feet in so many countries, including in Italy.

In a nutshell, the withdrawal agreement is deeply, deeply flawed and we ought to vote against it. I believe that the decision at the moment—as I understand it, it has not been concluded—is that the amendments are going to be withdrawn, but I look forward to hearing from the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper).

[Mr Speaker]

We are quite extraordinarily grateful to the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee.

16:59

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

As I follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), I would just point out to him that I am not convinced other European countries are looking at us with any kind of envy at the moment, given the confusion and chaos we seem to be in. I will want to move amendment (f), and I will also speak to amendments (a), (b) and (c).

We are back here again at our usual fortnightly gathering in which nothing has changed. The only thing that has changed in our family, Mr Speaker, is that Ed is currently halfway up Kilimanjaro with Little Mix, Danny Dyer and Shirley Ballas for Comic Relief. That has cued a whole series of bad jokes about which is harder: climbing an extremely high mountain or trying to get anybody to agree anything on Brexit. I fear his mountain climbing will be considerably shorter than our repeated debates.

I would like to deal with the amendments first before, if I have time, addressing the wider issue. The Government have changed their position on the next steps if there is no deal in place and agreed by the middle of March. That is clearly a result of our cross-party Bill and cross-party pressure. I want to pay tribute in particular to the work of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and for Leicester West (Liz Kendall). It has taken a lot of cross-party work to get this far. Frankly, it should not have taken that, and it should not have taken the threats of resignation by Cabinet Ministers, to get the Government to do something sensible and just put in place parliamentary safeguards to avert the kind of no deal that would be hugely chaotic, that nobody has done preparation for, that would mean a real hit to our manufacturing industry, disadvantaging British manufacturing right around the world, and that would hit medicine supplies and push food prices up in shops—deeply irresponsible circumstances for our constituents.

I still have some questions and need some assurances, however, because we have had votes promised and then pulled, and we have had motions passed and then ignored. I hope that the Brexit Secretary will repeat the reassurances. He will know that I have raised questions about his previous dismissing of motions in saying that legislation took priority, and previously saying that no deal on 29 March was the default option. I heard the Minister for the Cabinet Office say earlier that the default position had now changed and it would no longer be the policy of the Government to pursue no deal on 29 March if there was not a deal in place in time and that, instead, Government policy would now be to respect the decision of the House on whether to pursue no deal or an extension of article 50. I would just like to have that confirmation.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. In addition to that confirmation, which I, too, would like to hear from Ministers today, would she like to hear, as I would, what the Government will do in that vote? Will they vote against no deal or could they—extraordinarily—vote for no deal?

[Yvette Cooper]

That is hugely important. I will finish these quick points and then come on to that. I would like confirmation, too—like my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central—that the motions will be amendable. There is also the key issue about what happens if there is a disagreement. Let us suppose that there is a disagreement between the EU and the UK, perhaps with one side suggesting three months and one suggesting two months. In those circumstances, we need the reassurance that the Government will not shrug their shoulders and say, “Okay, we didn’t get an agreement. We are now just going to pursue no deal after all,” and that instead they will come back to this House and allow for some process of resolution, if there is a disagreement.

I really urge Ministers to say how the Government would vote. We will keep our Bill in reserve. We hope that, with these assurances, we do not need to press amendment (c). I hope to press amendment (f) and that we can have confirmation and clarity of what the Prime Minister said as part of the motion, but it is also important for the Government to provide clarity about how they would vote. Businesses still do not know exactly whether there is going to be a majority or not. We can give them some assurances about how people have voted in the past, but the thing they really want to hear is what Government would do in those circumstances. Will Government, faced with that choice, really want to say, “We actually want to cause huge problems for medicine supplies for the NHS, huge problems for the short-life radioisotopes that are used for cancer treatment, huge problems for our manufacturing industry and to turn motorways into car parks”? Will the Government really, honestly, want to do that, rather than just saying, “D’you know what? We might need a bit more time.”

[Sir William Cash]

Let me ask the right hon. Lady a question, as she is taking such a prominent part in this debate. It is the same question that I have put to several people today: would she countenance the idea, on behalf of trade unionists and workers who, for example, worked in the ports and were completely against the ports regulation, that those laws should be made in the Council of Ministers—under the control over laws issue that I just raised—behind closed doors and without a transcript? Effectively, it would be imposed on the United Kingdom without our even being there.

[Yvette Cooper]

We have to get some form of sensible agreement in place so that people can get on with their lives, and so that people are not threatened with the insecurity of having complete chaos from whatever source, if we end up with no deal.

I also support amendment (a) and, in particular, the proposal for a customs union. I think that, if Ministers were honest about being able to reach out and trying to build some consensus around something, they would recognise that if many of the points that are in amendment (a) were put to a free vote across the House, they would—I suspect—get a majority and that that would be a consensus way forward.

I also want to deal with my concerns about the tone of the debate. The right hon. Member for Meriden said earlier that she hoped that the tone of the debate was changing and that there would be some spirit of compromise. I look forward to that, but I am worried that I have still, even today, heard comments from Members of this House about the agreement that the Prime Minister came to yesterday, accusing those of us who have been calling for it of being “mutinous”, “plotters”, “saboteurs” and “blackmailers”. I think that this is really inappropriate, divisive and counter-productive. It really does not fit with the kind of debate that we ought to be having about something so important, particularly when, frankly, I think it is hugely patriotic to be trying to make sure that we can stand up for British manufacturing, that the NHS can get its medicines and that British families across the country do not have to pay higher food prices in shops. I say as a final thought that, in the end, wherever we get to in this Brexit process has to have some form of consensus around it, or it will not be sustainable, and that is what we should all keep in mind.

17:08

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), whom I respect enormously. She always speaks in a measured tone. I take her point about the language and how we have to be very careful in this place about how we address one another. We should also speak outside in measured tones to ensure that we try to get the best deal that we possibly can.

Before I start, I just say that I have been accused, often by my own side, of being a zealot, a right-winger, and all these things. I am not. Let me repeat: I and my hon. Friends are MPs who want the best deal we can get for our country. None of us wants to leave the EU without a deal—not one, contrary to popular opinion. We accept that to leave with a deal is the best option we can possibly get. But we have to ask ourselves, how do we get to that point?

We had a vote in June 2016, and that referendum result was clear. The instruction to everyone in this House was to leave the EU—not half in, half out, a bit here, a bit there. The instruction was clear: to leave the EU. We had two years—two long years—to negotiate a deal, and we are now where we are. I would not be, and never would presume to be, Prime Minister, but had I been—and I do not just speak with hindsight—then when article 50 was invoked I would have instructed my Ministers to prepare for no deal immediately, and to publicise to the public exactly what they were doing, while at the same time trying to strike a deal with the EU.

[Sir William Cash]

Can my hon. Friend, who is a fellow member of the European Scrutiny Committee, recall that very early on, in March last year, we said in our report that we were deeply concerned that the Government were effectively supplicating the EU, and were agreeing to its own guidelines, and not synchronising the withdrawal arrangements with the future relationship?

[Richard Drax]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who is immensely knowledgeable on all these matters.

The House needs to clarify where it stands. I have seen many amendments and I suspect there are more to come, because that is the way that the Government are now playing their hand, for fear of Parliament’s taking control. Do MPs wish to leave the EU, or do they wish to stay in? That is the question. Some hon. Members are very concerned about no deal, and are tabling amendments in the genuine interests of our country, but for others they are a fig leaf for their wish to remain in the EU. How can we take no deal off the table and let the Prime Minister walk naked to the conference table? How can we do that? It is the last negotiating tool that a Prime Minister has.

We know that the EU always takes it to the last minute. Brinksmanship—that is the name of their game. And let us be honest: do any of us in this House think that we shall strike a fair deal before we leave? I do not think so, because the EU does not want us to go, and is making it clear that it wants to make it as hard as possible for us to leave.

Unfortunately, the behaviour of many in this House is signalling to the EU complete and utter chaos—no sense of purpose, no unity. Imagine if 650 MPs had said, “We are right behind the people of this country, and respect their decision.”

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

rose—

[Richard Drax]

I shall not give way. I only have a very short time and I would like to continue, if I may.

Imagine if that had been the case—if everyone in this House had been backing leaving the EU. I would suggest that negotiations with the EU over the past two years would have gone very differently. Now we are facing what some would describe as a cliff-edge, although I would disagree with that description. As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) asked, will moving exit day to April, May or June change the direction of travel—what we are trying to do? No. And in June there will be more amendments, and more efforts by Members in this place to stop us leaving the EU.

So we have to make up our minds. Are we going to leave with a fair deal? The backstop has been mentioned and, as we know, the backstop could go on indefinitely. We will be out of the EU, but with no one at the table. We will be at the mercy of the EU, we will be subjugated, we will be law takers. This is madness. We need a fair deal, and let us fight for it together. Together, we will get the fair deal. We are divided here, and the EU must be sitting back—the Champagne is out, the Chablis is being drunk, the lobsters have been consumed—and why? Because the EU is looking at the chaos in this place. United we stand: united we will get a fair deal, and we will get out of the EU.

17:15

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), although I shall take a somewhat different tack. I shall make a couple of points about what the Prime Minister said yesterday about how things would be voted on in March, and about the related amendments on that issue that are on the Order Paper today.

Yesterday, for the first time, the Prime Minister was forced to admit that we do not actually have to leave the EU without a deal on 29 March, unless that is an outcome for which Parliament explicitly votes. That admission could, of course, have come much earlier, and was only dragged out of her by the threat of ministerial resignations, but it was an important admission all the same. She added that any extension must be short and limited, and must not go beyond the end of June, because that would create

“a much sharper cliff edge in a few months’ time.”—[Official Report, 26 February 2019; Vol. 655, c. 167.]

In other words, she told us that if March was a legal deadline, the end of June was a brick wall. However, there is no point in applying for an extension for a couple of months just to carry on the same parliamentary gridlock in which we lurch from one vote to another every fortnight without the fundamental issue ever being decided.

The Prime Minister is right about one thing. She was right to say that an extension like that on its own will not take no deal off the table. Unless something else changes, it will just give a bit more road for can-kicking. If we are to have an extension, it must be for a purpose, and that purpose should be clarity about the future relationship between the UK and the EU. We are having a huge argument about the withdrawal agreement when the fundamental choices about the future have not been faced up to, let alone decided.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I am generally sympathetic to what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but I should point out that at the start of the negotiations, it was the EU, and specifically the French, who insisted that we separate the leaving deal from the future deal. They are therefore now being a bit harsh in trying to pull them back together, are they not?

[Mr McFadden]

I think that it was a mistake to split them in that way, and I think that they need to be brought back together.

The future has been left blank. We know that we are leaving, and we are told that leave means leave, but leave to where, on what basis? Are we going to have a loose relationship that will mean significant economic disruption, especially for our multinational manufacturing supply chains, and different arrangements for Northern Ireland from those in the rest of the UK, or a closer relationship that will mean the UK’s obeying a whole series of rules over which it no longer has a say? That is the essential Brexit choice, and it has been the Brexit choice since day one. It ought to be spelt out clearly to people.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr McFadden]

I will not, because others want to speak.

The fact that that is not being done is not because it is in the national interest to keep things vague or to have a blindfold Brexit. It is because facing up to those options would mean exposing the divisions in the Cabinet and the Conservative party on which of them to pursue. It would mean slaying the Brexit unicorns that imply that there are no fundamental choices to be made. We must expose the reality of what the choices really are. Doing that would mean that the Government would have to level with the public before we left—but that is not their plan. Their plan is to get us out before all this becomes clear, on the pretence that if we agree the withdrawal deal, we can somehow move on and talk about other issues. Sometimes we see Brexit portrayed as a project for the people, and criticism of it as a project by the elite, but planning a Brexit where we hide the true reality of what it means until after we have left is the most elitist thing of all, and that is precisely what the Government are planning.

It is an illusion to pretend that vagueness achieves closure. Vagueness does not achieve closure; it just carries on the argument after we have left, and it does so when we have been placed in a much weaker position as a third country. People talk about taking no deal off the table undermining our negotiating position. It does not undermine our negotiating position; it removes a gun held to our own head. What undermines the negotiating position is agreeing to pay a £39 billion divorce settlement without having the foggiest idea of what the future relationship looks like.

If there is to be an extension to the article 50 period, let us use it for a purpose: let us set out properly what leaving means, and let us tell the people clearly once and for all whether we are going for a Canada-type model or a Norway-type model, and let us be candid with the public about the consequences of each option. Clarity would also mean the EU having to be more flexible than it has been until now about the phasing of the discussions; it would have to acknowledge that clarity about the future was in its interests too. This would be a much more honest way of proceeding.

The Prime Minister yesterday, as always, did the absolute minimum to keep the show on the road—to make any extension short and limited so it does not really change anything. But that is not good enough. Having opened the door, there is now an opportunity to do this differently, and we should seize it by making sure that any extension is focused not on a particular timescale but on the key purpose of clarity about the future.

17:21

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I agreed entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) when she said the atmosphere of this debate was notably different from that of previous debates, and I am delighted if the system of amendable motions, previously so vociferously attacked, may have made some small contribution to enabling sensible debate to take place, because it is, frankly, doing exactly what I hoped might come out of it: breaking the logjam and enabling this House to look sensibly at problems relating to Brexit and to come to conclusions.

In that spirit I am also delighted that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated yesterday that she would move on this issue of removing no deal and extending article 50 for that purpose and enabling the House to express its opinion. It is manifestly obvious that a no-deal Brexit would be catastrophic. I do not want to repeat all the things that have been said. The Government’s own documentation is there, and on top of that I only have to sit in my constituency surgery to have pharmaceutical companies, of which I have many, coming in and explaining the cost to them of having to anticipate no deal—all of which, I might add, will ultimately be manifested in the takings of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the lack of those funds to pay for public services.

We are impoverishing ourselves; we are making it harder to deliver a good quality of life for our citizens, and we are doing it with a relentless enthusiasm which at last we have found some common sense to check. I have very little doubt that when this matter comes back we will extend article 50, and I hope very much that the Government will finally adopt a policy of indicating that no deal is completely unacceptable.

But I also agree with the point that has been made that there is no point in extending article 50 if we do not know what to do with that. I do not know if this House is going to be capable of coming to a consensus. As a Member of this House, I accept that if there is a majority in this House for some form of Brexit and we vote for it and it is deliverable, that is doubtless what will happen, whatever my personal views may be. However, I will just say this—and I will repeat it, I suspect, ad nauseam until this whole sorry saga is over: I only have to look at the emails I get on Brexit from people who want to leave to see that the principle theme is the demand to leave in the form of catastrophic no-deal Brexit.

The reason that I am getting those emails is that people have, in my opinion, been thoroughly misled over a long period by a form of propaganda that believes that the EU is evil. This was rather highlighted by the extraordinary speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), who put forward the stab-in-the-back theory. I am sorry, but these are mad fantasies. They are absolute fantasies about the EU and its relationship with us. So people are writing in and saying that is what we should be doing, but I have to say that we are not going to be doing it.

The fact is that we are likely to be offering an extraordinary halfway house palliative that a large number of Members of the House absolutely know will be less good than remaining in the EU. Maybe that is a burden that we are going to have to carry because of the 2016 referendum result, but speaking personally I find it deeply unacceptable that I should park every aspect of my own opinion and evaluation of these options simply in order to go along with an instruction that is now nearly three years old and seems to be running out of steam in virtually every single one of its characteristics.

That is why I urge my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench not to ignore the possibility of consulting the public. If the public want the Prime Minister’s deal, which is the only deal we are ever likely to get, then so be it; but if not, they should have the option to express the view that they want to stay. Ultimately, my own opinion is that that would be very much better than anything else we have done.

I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) has been successful with his amendment, and I am happy to have supported him. I should also like to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), in conclusion, that he talks about dysfunctional relationships, and some people looking at the two of us would say that our relationship has been dysfunctional for a long time, but we have stayed in the same party, and that is a good reason for our staying in the EU as well.

17:26

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I wish to speak to amendment (l), which has been tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends. Yesterday, the Prime Minister had the opportunity to completely rule out no deal once and for all and to put forward a credible plan to break the Brexit deadlock. Instead, we had further options, further steps to take and further hoops to leap through. The House of Commons has already voted against no deal, a month ago. The end of March looms and, irrespective of the convenience of the Prime Minister, we do not have time to waste, so I am pleased to have added my name to the amendments tabled by the Scottish National party and other colleagues.

People outside Westminster are looking at the chaos of Brexit, and whatever they thought of this place previously, they now hold the common view that the House of Commons is fundamentally broken. Trust in Westminster is compromised, and faith in our ability to make decisions that will define our economy and society for generations to come has evaporated. Speaking as a Plaid Cymru MP, I find these attitudes towards government from London unremarkable, but it is something else to hear such appraisals from otherwise staunch supporters of the status quo.

Yesterday’s events were of no help, with the leaders of both the major Westminster parties being dragged unwillingly towards the logical conclusion of extending the article 50 period and of getting some clarity so that we can call a people’s vote. Our amendment (l) offers part of that solution. It requires the Prime Minister to respect the wishes of the National Assembly for Wales and of the Scottish Parliament, as well as the will of many in this House. It would avoid a no deal by obliging the Prime Minister to request an article 50 extension to the end of 2021, replacing the 21-month transition period with sufficient time to allow the UK as a member state—a rule maker rather than a rule taker—and the EU to develop plans for their future relationship, with the aim of making the contentious Irish backstop redundant, and then putting the whole thing to a public vote.

My understanding is that Brussels is determined to avoid offering us a brief extension. That august organ, the Evening Standard, is making that point this very afternoon. Brussels is determined to avoid offering us a brief extension, because that would lead to the danger of having to revisit the issue again in the summer if—or when—the Government again fail to win Parliament round. Donald Tusk has indicated that the extension we propose would be the optimal period of time, and an EU diplomat said yesterday that the

“21-month extension makes sense as it would cover the multi-financial framework”—

the EU’s budget period—

“and make things easier. Provided leaders are not completely down with Brexit fatigue, and a three-month technical extension won’t cut it, I would expect a 21-month kick”

of the can.

[Hilary Benn]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a longer article-50 extension might encourage the EU to change its current approach and, since it needs a purpose during the 21 months—if that was the period—recognise that it could turn its attention to negotiating the future partnership?

[Hywel Williams]

The Chairman of the Exiting the European Union Committee makes a fine point. As they say, it takes two to tango, and an extension might induce a bit of dancing from the EU.

Our Government’s disastrous handling of the UK’s departure from the EU can be seen clearly in the statement that the Secretary of State for International Trade gave on Monday, and I was here in a thinly attended Chamber to listen to it. He outlined his decisions on trade protections following a flawed consultation on EU trade remedies that was begun over 18 months ago, when conditions, perceptions, knowledge and understanding of Brexit were, to say the least, a little different from today. According to the statement, we are abandoning most existing trade protections on the basis of criteria that have produced some pretty serendipitous results. Without repeating the details, which are available in Hansard, I am sure that the ironing board industry is mightily pleased with the continuing specific protection for that particular industry, while parts of the steel industry may be less happy. Participants in other sectors, particularly small-scale businesses, may be as unaware of Monday’s outcome as they were of the initial consultation, because the responses to it were few.

On Monday, a former Secretary of State for Wales praised the statement as

“An excellent statement with a good balance”—[Official Report, 25 February 2019; Vol. 655, c. 54.]

All I can say is that he is much more easily pleased than the people of Wales. Indeed, if the statement impressed the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), it was probably not in my nation’s best interests, and the same applies to the whole sorry Brexit saga.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A four-minute limit now applies to Back-Bench speeches. I call Alberto Costa.

17:32

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for selecting my amendment (b). As all Members will probably know, I have been a loyal Conservative Member. I have never rebelled and have scarcely spoken out of turn. I believe and continue to believe that, as Members of various political parties, we are at our best when we stick together and promote the political policies upon which we were elected. However, when an amendment attracts such broad consensus across the House, including from the leaders of every Opposition party and, importantly for me, the support of right hon. and hon. Friends across the Brexit debate on the Government Benches, a sensible Government must accept that reasonable amendment. I am therefore grateful that the Government have acted reasonably in accepting my amendment in full.

My amendment does not deal in goods or services, backstops or borders, but people—living and breathing, skin and bone. That such an amendment is needed is in itself a sad state of affairs. The rights and freedoms of over 1 million UK citizens in the EU and over 3 million EU citizens in the UK should never have been used as a bargaining chip during the negotiations for our withdrawal from the European Union. That such rights were placed on the table in the first place was wrong.

While I welcome the Government’s unilateral undertaking, it does not go far enough, and we need to do more. I have backed the Prime Minister’s deal and will continue to, but with the spectre of uncertainty hanging over the heads of over 5 million people, it is right that this House has positively coalesced around a good message to send not just to the country and to EU citizens, but to President Donald Tusk and the European Council, which is carefully listening to our proceedings.

The time for ring-fencing these rights was at the outset of the UK’s decision to leave the EU, and it is now imperative that the Government do everything they reasonably can to seek consensus from the European Council and get a legal mandate for the European Commission to carve out those rights. The Prime Minister said yesterday that the EU Commission does not have the legal authority. I spoke to Professor Smismans, professor of EU law at Cardiff University, this morning, and he said it is correct that the European Commission has not been mandated to negotiate a separate agreement on citizens’ rights, but that the European Council can revise that mandate at any time. There is no legal hurdle at all.

I would like to hear from the Government exactly what measures the Prime Minister will take to ensure that this amendment, which has been adopted by the Government, is complied with. Will she be writing a letter to President Donald Tusk? If so, when will she write it? What other measures can the Government take to ensure that the Council gives that mandate to the Commission to carve out citizens’ rights as quickly as possible?

[Charlie Elphicke]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this should have been sorted out back in 2016? It is quite wrong that we are discussing it now.

[Alberto Costa]

Yes. As I said earlier, I entirely agree that this matter should have been dealt with at the outset of the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the EU.

[Dr Whitford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alberto Costa]

I do not have time, but I thank the hon. Lady and all her colleagues for supporting my amendment. It is time we sent a clear message.

There has been some discussion about my position in the Government. There is a convention that a Parliamentary Private Secretary is expected to resign if they table an amendment, which is all I would say on the matter.

Finally, I thank all hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House who have graciously and very kindly offered to support my amendment. We can all take pride in informing our constituents and fellow British citizens in the EU that we put citizens’ rights at the very front. I thank the campaigning groups the3million, which supports the rights of EU nationals here, and British in Europe, which supports the rights of British nationals in the EU. Citizens’ rights is not about party politics. It is about people.

17:37

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

It is such an honour to follow the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa). He has handled this issue so well, and he has added so much to the reputation of this place by how he has dealt with his amendment. I thank him, and I am proud to have signed the amendment. He may be right that there is a convention that PPSs resign when they table an amendment that is not in line with the Government’s thinking but, given that the Government have accepted the amendment, I suggest that the convention is an ass. He should be back in his post, because he is doing a sterling job.

It seems that yesterday the Prime Minister did just enough to prevent resignations from her ministerial ranks and to keep her sordid show on the road for a few more days, but the vote she promised on 13 March does not take no deal off the table. On the contrary, it leaves no deal on the table for another two weeks. I fail to understand how that deliberately created uncertainty is supposed to help employers and small businesses in my Brighton constituency, or indeed across the country, to make the decisions they need to make.

It is simply incredible that, with just 30 days left on the clock, this Prime Minister is still prepared to entertain the economic and social catastrophe of no deal. Worse still, my constituents will have been horrified to hear her say yesterday that she could

“make a success of a no deal.”—[Official Report, 26 February 2019; Vol. 655, c. 166.]

Make no mistake, a no-deal exit would tear us from every EU law, instrument and agency overnight, and we would have nothing to replace them with. The Government’s own assessment of the economic impact of no deal, published yesterday, reinforces just what a catastrophe it would be.

My constituents deserve better than that, as does the country, and it does not have to be this way. There are alternatives to this never-ending game of chicken between the Prime Minister and the various factions of her party. The best, most democratic option is to give the public a final say on their future. In 2016, voters could not and did not express any opinion on the terms on which the UK should leave the EU, because those terms were completely unknown then, not least because they had yet to be negotiated with the EU27. What is certainly the case is that no one was voting for this dangerous, blindfold Brexit now offered by the Prime Minister, one that was rejected by this House on 15 January. The Prime Minister keeps saying that a public vote would fail to “respect” the 2016 referendum result, but that is the same as saying that electing a new Government fails to respect the previous election result. This Government have spent almost three years negotiating what they believe to the best possible way of implementing the 2016 result and now the people should get a chance to say whether or not they think this Government have done enough. That does not seem to be radical to me.

Finally, I wish to say a few words about the amendment on environmental protection standing in my name. Yesterday, the Prime Minister talked again of ensuring that Brexit would not lead to any lowering of environmental protection standards. That is all very well but we know that such promises of non-regression are entirely worthless without concrete action to ensure that those standards can be effectively enforced. As I and many others have said repeatedly in this House over the past two years, that requires the embedding of environmental principles in UK law, and the establishment of an independent and adequately resourced environmental body or bodies across the UK, to replace the roles of the European Commission and European Court of Justice in terms of oversight of and, crucially, compliance with environmental law. So my amendment notes that the Environment Secretary’s

“proposals for an Office for Environmental Protection in England need to be significantly strengthened to guarantee its independence from Government, include climate change within its remit and provide it with the necessary powers to ensure the monitoring, reporting, oversight and enforcement of environmental law”.

17:41

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I am a little frustrated, because all the mood music today has been very negative and I think we have forgotten that 52% of the people voted for Brexit. Why did they do it? It is clear that they wanted sovereignty over their laws and the economic opportunity that Brexit would allow. We seem to have forgotten that we are in deficit with the EU and in surplus with the rest of the world, and that is what this is all about.

We are now struggling to negotiate this withdrawal agreement, which seems to be totally trapped in negativity and in terms of finding any real solution. I take my hat off to those on both the leave and remain side who have endeavoured to find a way through this with the Malthouse compromise, but from everything I have seen that simply is not being listened to—I wish to goodness that it were. I am looking carefully at what is being said about the options, because if we cannot agree a deal, we have to accept that we have to look at no deal. So many people have said today that that is unacceptable, but I say to them that when they read the paperwork and the reports, they should remember that there are always two sides to every argument. I ask them to look to see whether or not they have a balanced view, even when looking at the Government paper which has been referred to today.

Of all the possible options that will deliver certainty—we know what no deal means—this is the only one that would deliver sovereignty and give us back our economic freedom. It also puts us in a much better place to negotiate a good deal after 29 March, and we must not forget that. The Government’s paper is not all doom and gloom about it; it says that 85% of the preparation that needs to be done has been done. It also says that the reason that no more has been done is because of a failure to communicate to businesses—that is absolutely right. I serve on the Public Accounts Committee and we have heard from every Department about how prepared they are. We hear what the challenge is; the one thing they are not able to do and allowed to do is talk to the people who really matter—the people who are going to have to implement this. We should be encouraging the Government to get this right, because it will put us in a better place to do a better deal.

No-deal will enable us to negotiate deals with other countries and to deal with the EU, as I said. We should not dismiss GATT—the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade—which has been referred to before. The assumption is being made that the EU will not allow us to exercise article XXIV of GATT to get zero tariffs, a view with which I simply do not agree. For me, no deal should be seen as an opportunity, not a threat.

Equally, I am not happy with the concept of an extension. I cannot see how we can achieve more in three months than we have already tried to achieve. My fear is that at the end of this process we will find ourselves not with the three choices about which the Prime Minister talks, but with a straight choice between no deal and our right to withdraw our notification under article 50. I noted carefully that for the first time without any need, the Prime Minister mentioned that after she said we would be having the three votes. She said that if it comes to it, she would not support our retracting article 50, but she said before that no deal is better than a bad deal and she has retracted that, and she said that there would be no extension but has retracted that. Let us hope to goodness that she keeps her promise, because otherwise it would undermine democracy and the referendum result.

17:45

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I rise to speak briefly, first in support of amendment (i), the Liberal Democrat amendment, which would have established a Brexit redundancy fund. According to the UK Trade Policy Observatory, something like 750,000 people could lose their jobs in a no-deal scenario. That is linked to what the Government’s own report said about a potential 9% drop in GDP. The idea behind a Brexit redundancy fund would be to provide training and advice to people who had lost their jobs as a result of Brexit, or a no-deal Brexit in particular. Of course, some people have already lost their jobs as a result of Brexit uncertainty. It is clear that the Government have some money available for this purpose, because as I understand it the Prime Minister has been seeking to secure £1.6 billion, quite a lot of which is apparently to be spent in constituencies such as Bassetlaw. I am sure that has nothing to do with Brexit, but it is clearly strange that certain constituencies with leave-voting Labour Members are apparently going to receive a substantial portion of the money. The Government should set up a Brexit redundancy fund, and I welcome the support from Members from other parties for the amendment.

Secondly, I wish to draw attention to amendment (h), which would have allowed for the Government to embark on the preparations necessary for a public vote. I suspect that sometime soon we will reach the point at which that will become necessary, because the Prime Minister will have run out of other options and will feel that a people’s vote is the best way to get her deal in front of the public, alongside the option of staying in the European Union. I think she will get there eventually.

I welcome amendment (k) from the SNP, with support from other parties, which does what it says on the tin. In other words, it says very clearly, “We’re not going to leave without a deal, whatever the circumstances.” There would be broad and clear majority support for that in this House.

I also welcome amendment (e) on environmental standards, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) but has not been selected for a vote. The EU has led on environmental standards and many of us are worried that if we leave, it will no longer play that role, which I am afraid is not one that I expect Ministers to pick up with any great degree of enthusiasm.

I was happy to support amendment (b). We need some clarity not only for EU citizens in the UK but for UK citizens in the EU. In France, for instance, people who are trying to secure the equivalent of settled status may be facing a charge of €100 or €150 per person per year, over a five-year period, to secure their status. That is clearly something on which we should be campaigning.

No deal would clearly be a catastrophe. There are examples in the Government’s own report about the hit to GDP. One third of critical projects are off track. SMEs have made virtually no preparations for a no-deal scenario. Indeed, to make matters worse, the Department for International Trade has apparently decided to stop briefing businesses on free trade agreements because apparently there have been leaks. As I understand it, the biggest leaks tend to come from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, so perhaps that needs to be looked into.

It is clear that the Government need to seek an extension to article 50, and the clear purpose for that would be to secure a people’s vote.

17:50

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

On 29 January, I abstained on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) partly because I did not understand it conceptually, but also because I did not see how it was acceptable for a Government to have their own policy and agreement to an international treaty amended by way of a Back-Bench amendment. In the meantime, on the same date, I was pleased to see the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) pass. Although it was not legally binding, it was important to put on record the unacceptability to the House of a no deal. I suspect that, without a Whip, the majority would have been very much more significant.

By 14 February, when this matter came back for debate, I voted for the Government motion, which essentially supported both the Brady and the Spelman amendments. I was sorry to see it defeated. The point here was not that I had suddenly succumbed to the wonders of the Brady position, but rather that I understood that some level of compromise was needed to give the Prime Minister a stable base on which to negotiate.

Of course many Members, myself included, are very concerned at further attempts to kick the can down the road yet again. The problem is that we have now run out of road and decisions will have to be taken. I am actually pretty open-minded on the terms of the deal for our withdrawal from the EU, although I shall certainly have more defined views on what our future relationship should be. To that extent, I would like to see time set aside for indicative votes to be held to debate our future relationship with the EU. We must now look forward to our future with the EU as a partner rather than just look back at how we get out of it. The key mistake we made on leaving was to start negotiations without an agreed position, which made us very easy prey for the EU negotiators. I will advocate Norway plus, and others may have different proposals, but the inaction cannot happen again as we head towards the next round of negotiations on a future deal.

However, my immediate concern is that we do not leave the EU without a deal and that we provide the breathing space that business so badly needs. To fall off the cliff would be to invite scarcity, lower living standards, lost employment and lower investment in the UK, and I share the concern of many MPs that the people will punish us for that. When I say “us” I mean all of us —not just the governing party, but the Opposition, who will be seen not to have acted in the national interest.

I certainly welcome the Prime Minister’s promise yesterday to allow a vote to extend article 50 in the event that the meaningful vote and then a no-deal resolution are rejected. The Government will need to elaborate on whether they will whip to oppose no deal and also to support any article 50 extension. The Minister seemed just a bit uneasy about answering that key question earlier today. Also, will the House determine the length of the extension, and if the EU makes a counter-proposal on the extension period, will the Government bring that period to the House for debate? The answer is seemingly yes from what the Minister said earlier, but I think that we will need further elaboration.

I am also still very concerned about the ongoing delays in bringing forward the meaningful vote, which I will support, with all its damaging delay implications for business. Let me be clear: I have no interest in delaying Brexit day, but nothing could be worse than leaving without a deal.

I was saddened to see the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition failing to engage immediately after heavily losing the first meaningful vote, which I supported. That was the wrong approach, and I think that the Prime Minister knows that we will sort this matter out only when she engages with all Members of this House who are prepared to take a sensible approach to negotiating with the EU. I was pleased to hear the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) confirm today that Labour is prepared to talk.

Since the votes on 29 January, I have seen nothing coming from the EU to suggest that it is prepared to reopen the terms of the withdrawal agreement—quite the opposite. That is not to say that we should not continue to engage with the EU. Indeed, it may be the case that we can agree some kind of ancillary document—perhaps a binding one—that provides a roadmap towards ending the need for the backstop.

[Mr Speaker]

We are extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

17:53

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

This House has witnessed months and months of obfuscation and delay by the Government. At best, that has illustrated the sheer incompetence of their handling of the Brexit negotiations, and at worst, it has demonstrated a wilful attempt to force MPs to choose between two wholly unacceptable outcomes. However, the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday was a step in the right direction, allowing MPs a vote on delaying the UK’s departure from the EU, or ruling out a no-deal Brexit if we reject her deal next month, demonstrating a positive shift in direction. It was the first time that we had had a concession on the Government’s famous red lines. It was an overdue but welcome recognition of the role that Parliament should play in determining the future relationship between the UK and the EU.

Yesterday during the Prime Minister’s statement, I asked her whether she could tell me how much Brexit is costing. Of course, she could not, which I was rather surprised by. The cost to the public purse of £500 million a week is an absolute slap in the face to those who voted to leave on the basis of a £350 million lie on the side of a bus. There is also the cost of the £39 billion divorce bill.

The cost that we will all pay in jobs as companies shift, leave or take their operations to European cities will be immense. The right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) held an excellent series of meetings, where we heard at first hand about the impact of businesses moving abroad and the effect on the workforce. I fear that the steady stream of jobs moving across the channel will become a torrent if we do not grip this crisis.

There will be a cost to small and medium-sized businesses as supply chains are disrupted. For factory workers, their zero-hours contracts could become zero contracts. Then there is the cost to consumers as they face the prospect of new charges appearing for their goods, and other increased costs, including for insurance and mobile phone roaming charges. For our young people, their ability to travel freely—to live, study and work abroad at the drop of a hat—will now be inflicted with a whole lot more bureaucracy and planning.

There is also the cost to our environment. I was pleased to put my name to amendment (e), which lays out best practice for the environment, because we are at risk of leaving the gold standard for the environment set by the EU. Does everyone remember when beaches were too dirty to swim at? Well, now they are clean, and parks that were too dirty to play in now have a green flag. It all originates with key areas of excellence in the European Union’s environmental protections.

I was pleased to hear my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) saying that the current border arrangements between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland are a physical manifestation of the peace settlement, which was so hard fought for over centuries, culminating in 1998. What a terrific achievement of the then Labour Government, and what an obligation on each of us in this House to uphold that important agreement.

The European Union project is grounded in that common cause for peace, recognising that by pooling our efforts we will not weaken the UK’s standing in the world but rather embolden it. As we marked the centenary of the Armistice of the great war last November, we remembered the horrors of the 20th century. Those horrors could come again; this world is so unpredictable. Now is not the time to be stepping back from our European friends and neighbours, and splintering over borders and customs. No—we should be stepping up and joining together to tackle the issues that face us.

17:57

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for his amendment (b). He spoke with great distinction and clarity, demonstrating that this House can be united on such an issue as Brexit. It is challenging, but he has demonstrated great principle and a considered approach in the way in which he has been able to unify us and bring so many of us together.

Those of us in this House who promised to honour the vote in the referendum back in 2016—in fact, that is most of us—and who went on to stand on our respective manifestos seeking to honour that result then voted to trigger article 50 and to leave the EU on 29 March this year. We must now ask ourselves how this situation—not just the debates in this House, but the way in which the negotiations have been taking place and have been handled—looks to the 17.4 million who voted to leave, and to those who voted to remain, when it comes to respecting the result of the referendum.

It is inevitable that I am going to say that the negotiations have not been handled in the most structured way. The Government have missed opportunities to change their approach, and it is fair to say that the warning signs have been there for a considerable amount of time—through the proposals that became the Chequers agreement and then the withdrawal agreement, which in my view were not right for this country. However, the point is that we know that the deal as it stands now is not acceptable to many, and there is more work to do. The right response would be for the Government to carry on listening and to pursue a better deal. At the same time, we are now hearing much more about the whole push for a second referendum that would seek to deny the British people the rights and freedoms that they voted for back in 2016. Voting for delay without even specifying what would be achieved by it is not the right approach at all, and it saddens me that we are now in that position.

The fact is, the Prime Minister undertook to go back to Brussels to reopen the withdrawal agreement, and on 29 January this House voted and showed what sort of deal can command a majority in the House of Commons. No deal is not the outcome that we are all aiming for. We want a deal that can actually speak to the challenges associated with the backstop. All the other choices could mean that we end up going back on the verdict of the British public, backtracking on our promises and undermining democracy. The various arguments have been made about letting down our country. We will end up with irretrievable ramifications, not just for our political parties but for our democracy and our country. None of us wants to see that.

In the coming weeks we have an opportunity, and the Government have an opportunity, to secure a better deal and bring back a withdrawal agreement that has legally binding changes so that the UK can leave the backstop and, importantly, deliver the Brexit that the British people were promised.

18:01

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Yesterday, in sharp distinction to the “Groundhog Day” debates and statements from the Prime Minister that we have had previously, we had two really important concessions and changes in policy from the Government. One was the admission, at last, that the sovereignty of this House is important and that we cannot simply fall out of the EU through no deal and go on to WTO terms without this House having a say. That was always true, but the Prime Minister was forced to concede it yesterday. The second crucial concession was that it is not holy writ that we leave on 29 March and there may be a longer period. Those are both important concessions.

As colleagues of mine have said today, if we do get to the point, as I expect, of no deal being voted down by this House and there being a vote in favour of an extension of article 50, we need to make sure that that extension is used for a purpose and not for more of the ludicrous merry-go-round that we have had in recent months. In that context, I pay tribute to colleagues across the House—in particular, to Conservative Front Benchers who stood up for their values and refused to allow this place to be railroaded by the Prime Minister and driven to the edge of no deal.

However, the truth is that no deal is only marginally worse than the deal that is on offer. Indeed, one could argue quite rightly, as some in the ERG would, that in respect of the sovereignty arguments, the Prime Minister’s deal on offer right now is, in some regards, worse than no deal, however catastrophic that would be for the economy of our country. It is an absolute badge of shame for the Prime Minister that she has been dragged kicking and screaming to this point as we have lost jobs at Nissan, Honda, Ford and so many other companies across our country.

Yet my real concern is that the most likely outcome is still that the armchair generals of the ERG who loll languidly on their Benches are going to get their way—that they are going to get the Prime Minister to the point where Brexit goes through. They will ultimately, I think, be successful—the victors in this Russian roulette game that they have been playing for so long. There are those of us on the Opposition Benches and on the Conservative Benches who still understand and believe that Brexit is ultimately deeply destructive for our country, not just for our economy but for our values—for what we believe in, and not just in a Labour party that is overtly internationalist, outward-looking and tolerant, and understands that we need to be all those things to succeed in the 21st century and for the benefit of the wider culture of our society. It is not only me and other Opposition Members who are deeply worried by the rise in right-wing extremism in our country fuelled and delivered by Brexit. Unfortunately, those things will only be compounded if we exit, whether it is the Prime Minister’s or the ERG’s version of Brexit.

[Sir William Cash]

I think the hon. Gentleman is rather exaggerating, if I may say so. Is not the truth, as I wrote even in 1990, that if we take away the right of the people to decide their own destiny, they will end up moving to the far right?

[Owen Smith]

We have seen a 100% increase in violent racist attacks since the Brexit vote—that is the truth. Brexit is exacerbating underlying problems in our society. It is a racist, xenophobic, right-wing, reactionary project, and we in the Labour party should be fighting against it with every sinew of our being.

I will use my last minute to plead with people in this House and across the country that if they believe, as I do, that Brexit will damage not only our economy but the values that underpin our society—the good values of Britain—then they need to start saying so. There is a narrow window of opportunity to contest this before some form of Brexit, whether the Prime Minister’s or the ERG’s, goes through. It may well go through by the end of this month.

There is an opportunity to speak and march against Brexit in London on 23 March. People the length and breadth of Britain should join us for that and make their voice heard. We should still contest Brexit. There is still an opportunity to beat it and allow Britain to pull itself back from the brink. It is not anti-democratic to give the people one further say. It would be the democratic thing to do, and I will urge people to do that until I can urge them no more.

16:49

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), although I slightly disagree with him, because I know people who have campaigned and argued over many decades to leave the European Union, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who do so for honourable motives of freedom and control over laws. I happen to disagree with my hon. Friend quite passionately about that, but he is almost as left-wing as I am on many economic matters. We should be careful about the way in which we describe the motives of people on one side or the other.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) on the work they have done to reach across the House. That work to bring us together is so important. Nobody will be satisfied with everything; that is an impossibility. However, we can come much closer together, and for the sake of the nation, that is vital.

I agree with the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) that the way in which we talk about our relationship with our European friends and neighbours is extremely important. Most of them are very sad about this. They are not rubbing their hands with glee that we are leaving. They still want us to stay; I have heard that from so many people. They viewed us as a sensible, pragmatic country that helps the European cause, and they regret us leaving. It is therefore vital that as we leave—and I believe we must leave; that was the vote—we must maintain those close relationships and perhaps even get closer, because we will have to conduct them bilaterally and not through the means of the European Union.

I am against this business of leaving no deal on the table. The negotiations have gone far beyond that. This is not some game of chicken. This has to be a mature, grown-up relationship between parties that will remain close even if we are a bit more separate than we have been in the past. Let us do this in a mature way.

I would say to my great friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone—he should be the right hon. Member for Stone—that I gently take issue with what he said about article 4 of the withdrawal agreement. All these matters take time to disentangle. We will leave the European Union, but it will not be a clean break. Some areas of the withdrawal agreement will go on applying for up to eight years when it comes to citizens’ rights. It is vital that, just as when we entered the European Union it took quite a long time for us to come together on the various issues of policy, so as we leave, some issues will be hangovers for a period. We should not confuse that with being subject to the European Union. We should say that those are areas where we will continue to co-operate as we gradually move apart.

My final point is that we need to come together. I believe that today has been the beginning of that—the tone of the debate and the speeches has been very good —and we must continue to do that as we move forward.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A further nine right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, and I am keen to accommodate them. I would simply say that interventions are perfectly orderly, but they are at this stage unhelpful to those waiting to speak. People can do the arithmetic for themselves. There is only half an hour or so to go before the Front-Bench winding-up speeches.

18:10

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Ind)]

It is an absolute pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). How much I agreed with everything that he said.

The situation is really quite disgraceful. It is a disgrace, and when history records what has happened over the last two and a half years, it will not falter to put the blame where I am afraid it has to be put. It will not fail to observe that one of the most striking features of the last two and a half years, among too many right hon. and hon. Members in this place, has been a breath-taking lack of courage and honesty. When I say that I mean honesty about the situation we found ourselves in after the EU referendum, honesty about the choices we face and honesty with the electorate about the consequences of the choices we face.

As I think everybody in this place knows, I was one of the people who, with members of then other political parties—I am not actually in a political party at the moment; that does not really matter—founded, and I am proud of the fact that we worked cross-party, something called the People’s Vote. It came after a great deal of thought and consideration. As far as I am concerned, it is not designed to thwart or frustrate Brexit; I get tired of some of the words that are used in such a disparaging and very silly way. It was a genuine desire to find a solution to the unholy mess that we had got ourselves into, and I still believe that the only way through this mess and through this crisis is by taking it back to the British people.

I take very grave exception to hon. Members on the Conservative Benches, who really should know better, saying that in saying we want a people’s vote we are saying that people were stupid, did not know better and did not understand back in 2016. Let us be very clear about why so many of us who believe in a people’s vote, and it is a growing number, take that view in the face of the death threats, the threats to our safety, the threat of deselection—not now in my happy case—and so on. The reason we say it is that it is right that people are entitled to change their minds. It is right that young people—denied a vote by virtue of their age in 2016, but now obviously of the age when they can vote—should have a say about their future, given that they more than anyone will bear the burden of Brexit. But there is this: now we know what Brexit looks like, and we did not—any of us—know what we meant when we put to the Great British people the option of leave.

I do take grave exception to something else: the fact that this Government—a Conservative Government—have still refused to take no deal off the table. I take grave exception to that not only because there is no mandate for it and it was not promised at all—in fact, the opposite was promised by leave campaigners, who promised us a deal before we even left the European Union—but because this Government know the facts about the huge danger that it poses to the economy and the future prosperity of all the people of this country, and faced with those facts in black and white, as I saw yesterday, they still refuse to take it off the table. That is my priority—making sure that no deal is not an option—and that is why I will be supporting amendment (a).

18:14

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Following the long-running British soap, “Carry On Brexit”, is testing for everyone. However, tonight things have changed, in ways that I do not think the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) quite realised. He said that nothing will change, and that this will not work. In fact, a lot has changed, and I believe that it can work. Let me explain why.

The outstanding issue between the Government and the EU is restricted to an insurance policy for the Northern Ireland border that both sides have said they would not wish to trigger. It cannot be beyond the wit of the UK’s and EU’s diplomatic skills to resolve this issue. When the Exiting the European Union Committee was in Brussels a month ago, I summarised a way through that amounts to a legally binding annexe with a backstop review clause, ensuring that we cannot be locked into the customs union indefinitely against our will. That led to revised advice from the Attorney General and triggered support from the Democratic Unionist party of Northern Ireland and from the European Research Group on this side of the House.

There was no objection to that in Brussels but simply a question about whether such changes would pass in the House of Commons. None of us will know that until the votes are counted, but such changes should—I believe would—be the catalyst for success, urged on by a recognition of what would happen should Parliament not approve the withdrawal agreement Bill and then vote, under the Prime Minister’s commitment, to proceed without a deal. There can be no doubt about the result of that.

We may not have the support of all my colleagues, judging from the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Sir William Cash) and for South Dorset (Richard Drax), but paradise is not for this world. What matters today, therefore, are the amendments proposed. I believe the Letwin-Cooper and Spelman-Dromey amendments will not be moved, and the Costa amendment has been accepted. As a signatory to amendment (b), tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), I know that the EU has the same difficulty in agreeing to the same commitment to the rights of UK citizens in the EU as we have to EU nationals here, because it does not have the authority to do so over the 27 member states’ sovereignty. However, the European Parliament’s Brexit co-ordinator, Guy Verhofstadt, has clearly said that the European Parliament will not accept uneven citizens’ rights when it considers the withdrawal agreement Bill and will therefore oblige the European Union to ensure reciprocity. I am therefore pleased that the Government have accepted the spirit and direction of this Conservative-led amendment.

That leaves us with amendment (k), tabled by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), which has been made redundant by the Government’s commitment to a vote on no deal if the withdrawal agreement is not approved, and amendment (a), tabled by the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras’ explanation of amendment (a) was, in my view, weak. None of his points referred directly to citizens’ rights, money and Northern Ireland—the three ingredients of the withdrawal agreement. Everything that he mentioned is sketched out in the political declaration and will be negotiated in detail during the transition period, as he knows. I therefore cannot see any reason why Labour Members, elected on a similar manifesto to Government Members, should not support the Government on the withdrawal agreement Bill.

My message is clear: the Government and the European Union must resolve the backstop issue, to relieve and reduce the already increased uncertainty of citizens and businesses across Europe, as soon as possible. Having done so, Labour should continue to talk with the Government, because the differences between our manifesto, which seeks a customs arrangement, and theirs, which calls for a customs partnership, should surely not be insurmountable. Everyone—especially those who have emailed me to suggest that no deal is no problem—should read the Government’s recently released analysis. It would be a problem. We must support the Bill.

18:18

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I have not met a Member who supports no deal who has experienced real poverty—the scarcity that, in previous eras, was so common: the destitution that families endured in workhouses in Victorian England, the deprivation in the east end that led to the birth of the Salvation Army. There may be a few left now who experienced forced rationing during the second world war.

However, having grown up in the shadow of the Broadwater Farm estate in Tottenham in the 1970s, I know what it feels like to get home and find the cupboards empty; the indignity of living pay cheque to pay cheque; the melancholy of not being able to spend time with family at weekends because they work three jobs, as my mother did.

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Lammy]

I will not, because of the time available.

If we do not stop a no-deal Brexit, a whole generation of families will be impoverished. “Project Fear” will become project reality. The Government’s own assessments, forced out last night, estimate that no deal will make our economy up to 9% weaker over 15 years. Food prices will rise and customs checks will cost British businesses £13 billion per year. This will make the 2008 recession seem like a blip. Hundreds of businesses and thousands more jobs will leave the country. The Governor of the Bank of England has warned that house prices will crash by up to a third. Sainsbury’s, Asda and Co-op told us that no deal will leave our shelves empty. The Health Secretary could not rule out medicine shortages causing early deaths. Britons living in Europe will lose their rights overnight. We will fall out of the EU’s crime-fighting agencies and lose the European arrest warrant. No-deal Brexit is a dereliction of the first duty of a Government, which is to keep the public safe, so I suggest to the Government that they should say tonight that they would vote against that no deal.

Crashing out of the EU without a deal would be the single greatest failure of this Government and of any Government in modern British history: a failure of leave campaigners to deliver the utopia they sold to voters in 2016; a failure of Parliament to stand up for our constituents; and, most of all, a failure of the Prime Minister to put the country before her party and her narrow self-interest. By refusing to rule it out herself, she is deliberately causing confusion, pain and panic. The Prime Minister has made a Faustian pact with the hard-right mob in her party who want to dismantle the EU’s social protections at any cost.

Brexit is a con by multi-millionaires to convince the poor that the metropolitan middle class has screwed them, knowing full well that the financial crisis is the fault of their own gambling on the markets and that Brexit is a chance to double down on it again. The Brexiteers have enough capital to profit out of this disaster, so I will call them out. The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) has already moved two investment funds to Ireland. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) has campaigned for a hard Brexit while advising investors to pull their money out of the UK. Lord Lawson of Blaby has applied for French residency, Nigel Farage has got German passports for his children, and Sir James Dyson has moved his company headquarters to Singapore. Mr Speaker, leave really did mean leave for these men.

Let me say this directly to those who told us that Brexit was about taking back control. You do not have control when you are living in destitution. You do not have control when you cannot find work. You do not have control when your rights are sold off and dismantled for profit. There is no dignity in poverty, only shame. So shame on the ERG for what they are doing to this country. Shame on the Prime Minister for failing to say “no. And shame on anyone who would vote to make this country poorer. We should take no deal off the table.

18:22

[Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)]

Eighty-four days ago I last spoke in this Chamber on Brexit and since that time nothing has fundamentally changed: the EU remains as intransigent as ever and people in this place are seeking to frustrate the will of the people, as was so eloquently outlined by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). As the son of a milkman and the grandson of miners, I will take no lessons from him.

I and people like me who voted to leave still believe in leave. All the while, the people out there—the 17.4 million people out there—are bewildered by what goes on in this place and by what is happening. I can tell you what has changed in this place in the past 84 days: we have lost our nerve, if we ever had it in the first place. The hyperbole has gone up and the hysteria has gone up, but all the while people out there do not understand what we are doing.

What should have changed in this place in the past 84 days is that we should have got real and recognised that what has happened is only hamstringing our ability to get a deal from the European Union right now. What also should have changed in the past 84 days was that the Government should have actually tried to negotiate in a meaningful way, and taken something like the Malthouse compromise and pushed it through in a way that I am not convinced they are yet doing. We have to realise something in this place, and I hate to break it to you all, but it is not about you—[Interruption.] You outsourced this decision in 2016 to the people and you are now trying to in-source, erroneously, the implementation, and it is not working. You do not understand the democratic deficit that is coming out and that I see in my constituency, and I am sure hon. Members—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must be heard. I know that he is using the word “you”—he is using it as a rhetorical device. I do not take offence at that, but he must be heard.

[Lee Rowley]

Hon. Members do not understand the democratic deficit that is coming out and that is completely obvious in places like my constituency and elsewhere. This is not about us. We have a decision to make. I am happy to compromise. I will compromise on money and on timelines—if I have to—and with such things as the Malthouse compromise, but I will not take false choices and false options, which it seems are about to be presented to us.

We have a clear decision to make. If a good deal is put to this place in a few weeks’ time, I will vote for it, and vote for it happily. However, this place has already said that the deal that came here last time was a bad one. If that deal comes back and it is not materially changed I will vote against it, because it will not work for our country in the long term. I will vote against taking no deal off the table because that would hamstring our ability to negotiate, and I will vote against an extension of article 50, because there is no reason to extend it when we do not know why we are asking for that extension. We have a choice to make. The people out there are watching and they are tired of and bewildered by the games that are being played in here. We have to leave on 29 March, and I hope that people will wise up in the next few days and weeks to make sure that happens.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. After the next speaker, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), the time limit on Back-Bench speeches will go down to three minutes in a bid to accommodate everybody, but he luxuriates in the lather of four.

18:26

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I know that it is traditional in this House to say, “It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman,” but may I say that it is not a pleasure at all? I represent probably everything that he does not, and I will tell him something: I loathe Brexit—I truly, utterly loathe it. I hate the economically disastrous, isolating ugliness of the whole project. I particularly loathe the fact that the Government are prepared to take my beautiful, consensual, inclusive nation out of the European Union against its national collective will.

Just when we thought that this overwhelming, chaotic cluelessness could not get any worse, we have this week. I am trying to figure out what has happened this week. I hear all the warm remarks that somehow there is a bit of progress and that we are actually a few steps forward. My sense of what we have actually done is this: we are still going to leave, but just not on the day that we thought. We might have a no-deal Brexit, but it is very unlikely that no deal might extend to the 29th. We have not got a clue on what sort of basis the Government want to leave. They are hoping in vain that somehow the European Union will grant some sort of concession on the backstop. We have already heard from the French that they are not prepared to have an extension unless it is for a purpose. This is all for absolutely nothing. Their Brexit is breaking the country. It is now starting to break the UK political parties, and it is well on its way to consuming this Government, too.

This is perhaps the greatest post-war political disaster in our politics. It will be remembered as the single greatest failure of any British Government, and let us remember that it is exclusively a Tory Brexit, almost laughingly designed to try to resolve the differences about Europe in the Government’s own party. Not only has it further divided their rotten party, but it has divided a nation and taken it to the brink. It is they that initiated, designed and administered it. It will define them for decades to come. This chaos will be their legacy.

The Government have driven us along this Brexit road with all the guile of Wile E. Coyote with an Acme rocket strapped to his back. Now the road is running out and that final boulder is about to come crashing down on their head, yet they say that I have to support their Brexit. They say that if I do not support it, I risk a no-deal Brexit and all the chaos that will bring. I will never support their Brexit. I will never accept my country getting taken out against its will. I will not support anything that makes my constituents poorer. I will not support the end of freedom of movement, which will decimate businesses in my constituency and stop population growth in my country. I will never, ever accept the fact that the rights that I enjoyed to live, to work, to love across a continent will be denied to future generations of young people. I will never, ever accept that. We have tabled an amendment to revoke the whole ugly business. This madness must end. We have had our chance. I know that our amendment (g) cannot be debated because it has been signed by only 12 Members, but I bet that if it were put to the public just now, it would be about the most popular option in this country, just to end this madness, and I hope that we still get an opportunity. To vote on it.

However, Scotland has a way out. We can get off the sinking ship. At some point, the question will have to be put to the Scottish people: do you want to be part of this doomed Brexit deal, or do you want to be an independent nation, making its own way in the world? Imagine if all we could aspire to as a nation was Brexit Britain. Scotland deserves much better than that, and when Scotland gets that opportunity and that chance, Scotland will take advantage of it, and we will be that independent nation—an independent nation within the European Union.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Three-minute limit. I call Joanna Cherry.

18:26

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I rise to support amendment (k), in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford).

The distinguished political journalist Robert Peston has pointed out that the amendment rules out a no-deal Brexit completely, not just on 29 March but in perpetuity, and should therefore be supported by all Opposition Members, including the Labour party, and many Conservative Members. I am delighted that the amendment has the support of Plaid Cymru, and of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), of the Liberal Democrats, of the Independent Group, and of the Labour party and, I understand, some Members on the Government Benches. I think it shows that there is a majority in this House to rule out no deal completely.

Given that the Government’s own Business Secretary has said that no deal would be ruinous, given what the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) has said about the documents that she has viewed in some detail, and given what the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) said about this not being a game of chicken, supporting the amendment is a no-brainer. I entreat hon. Members across the House to put aside any reservations about the Scottish National party. They may not agree with all our programme. That is fine; that is their right. But there is a majority across this House to rule out no deal, and I ask hon. Members, particularly on the Government Benches, to live up to what they have said across the media and to have the gumption to support this now cross-party amendment, albeit led by the SNP, to rule out no deal completely.

It is simply not true that no deal cannot be ruled out completely. Why would any country want to shoot itself in the foot in that way? It is ruinous, as the Government have said. We can rule out no deal. The reason we can rule out no deal is that even if the European Union did not give us an extension, we have the means to revoke article 50, thanks to the case that I and others took to the European Court of Justice. I declare my interest in respect of the Good Law Project in that regard.

I entreat hon. Members: today, rather than this being yet another talking shop because certain amendments have been pulled, this is an opportunity to rule out no deal in perpetuity. Those on the Opposition Benches are supporting the amendment. I know that some hon. Members on the Government Benches have said that they will support it. I hope that more will do so, because we can defeat the Government’s madness on this tonight.

18:33

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

With 31 days to go, yesterday saw us take the first step back in this House from the precipice towards which we were heading. Had we plunged over the precipice into a no-deal Britain, our country would have been the poorer for a generation. At the next stages, there can be no backsliding on the commitments that have been given, both yesterday and today. The progress made follows sustained cross-party campaigning, exemplified by the excellent leadership of the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman).

In bringing home the consequences of a no-deal Brexit, we have built a powerful business coalition, and their voice could not be clearer. Only yesterday they met here, against the background of already painful consequences being felt, including in our factories, such as Jaguar Land Rover, where thousands of jobs have gone.

The CBI said that it had seen the fastest drop in services since 2008. Barclays was moving £190 million of investment to Dublin. Billions were being spent on contingency planning. The TUC talked of a devastating impact: already thousands—tens of thousands—of workers were losing their jobs. The chief executive of Virgin said that the company had invested £30 billion, and had brought in American investment in particular, but now the growing uncertainty was leading to investment decisions being taken against Britain. The Food and Drink Federation said that an eighth of its members felt that no deal could threaten their viability.

The National Farmers Union spoke out. From plough to plate, there were grave concerns about the consequences of a no-deal Brexit. Ford said that vehicles were already in transit, but that it did not know what the tariffs would be when they landed. A major health and safety company that was to make a 1,000-strong investment in Northern Ireland has now pulled back from that investment. The ceramics industry is panic-stricken at hard Brexiteers’ notion of zero tariffs, fearing the impact that it would have on their businesses. The Investment Association talked of the shift of investment to Asia in particular. A major engineering company said that a £35 million regional headquarters had been shelved.

I could go on, but all I can say in the time available to me is that if we have taken a step back from the brink—and we have—there is no majority in the House, and never will be, for a hard Brexit, a no-deal Brexit. It is therefore crucial for us to come together during the next stages, across parties, as we have done, to frustrate a no-deal Brexit and to agree a new settlement for our country that can command the confidence of the country, and will be in the best interests of the country. We stand ready to undertake that great enterprise, and I hope that all Members will do likewise.

18:36

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

It is easy to ask what has changed since the last debate, and the one before that, and the one before that. I was tempted to talk only about what has changed, because I could quite easily fit “nothing” into four minutes. However, something important has changed. The clock has changed. Cliff-edge day is getting nearer and nearer. The Prime Minister insists that this is not a deliberate, cynical and criminally reckless ploy to run down the clock and blackmail us into voting for a rotten deal as the only alternative to no deal at all. I do not believe that, and I doubt that many other Members in the Chamber do either.

I have been accused tonight of not understanding democratic deficits. I have visited the Dutch Parliament, and I know that Dutch Members of Parliament are able to vote every time a Minister goes to the European Council to tell the Minister how to vote. We are not able to do that. I serve in a Parliament nearly three quarters of whose Members are appointed by patronage and favour, not by democratic mandate. I know about democratic deficits. I have never been alive at a time when my country has voted for a Conservative Government, but Conservative Governments have ruled over me, and misruled over me, for more than half my life. No one in this place is going to tell me, or five and a half million of my fellow Scots, that we do not understand what a democratic deficit means.

I must point out to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham)—although I do not know whether he is still in the Chamber—that our amendment is not redundant. The Prime Minister has not promised to give us a chance to take no deal off the table. She has offered to give us a chance to take it off the table on 29 March. I want it off the table on 30 March, 31 March, and every day from then till kingdom come. It is not acceptable that the Prime Minister has refused to confirm that that will happen if the House rejects no deal for a second time. We have already rejected it, and it is still on the table. How is that for a democratic deficit?

We have seen so many principles of good government thrown out of the window by a Government who now seem almost to be playing the game that winning a vote is all that matters. It does not matter what is in the vote. It does not matter if they win a vote to take us over a cliff edge, as long as they win it. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford)—who I do not think is in the Chamber now—brilliantly described the choice that we are being offered: she said that the Prime Minister’s deal takes us over the cliff edge, but with luck we might have time to knit ourselves a parachute on the way down, before we hit the ground.

This is not a good enough choice. Those who want to force Parliament into such a non-choice are not being democratic. They are seeking to frustrate the clearly expressed will of the House. The House does not want to be forced to choose between a rotten deal and no deal. Some of us have another choice before us. Scotland will never accept the xenophobic, isolationist and divisive future that the Government are trying to force us into. Scotland has an alternative future, and that future will be claimed by the people of Scotland before very long.

18:39

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

One thing I have noticed in the whole debate about Brexit is that small groups with very loud voices tend to dominate, and this afternoon I had a message from a constituent who said:

“Where did it say ‘leave with a deal’ on the referendum paper; it never did—did it?”

There are small groups who think no deal is the way forward but the vast majority of my constituents, many of them among those who voted to leave in 2016, want to leave with a deal that delivers on the promises made in 2016.

I certainly believe it is reckless to leave with no deal, and what the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) said about the negotiations now having gone too far and that no deal should be taken off the table is absolutely right. I welcome the fact that we will have the opportunity to stop a no deal crash-out of the EU in the next few weeks, although very late in the day.

I want to speak briefly to amendment (a). I am pleased that it has been tabled by my Front-Bench team and selected. It is credible; it is a sensible way forward. Of course it opens up the political declaration, but we know that the EU is open to that. It is such a shame, and I feel really let down by the Prime Minister, that over the last two years she has not felt able to act in the national interest and reach out across this House. She has decided on those red lines, it seems, all by herself, agreed with no one but herself. There has been no real attempt to work cross-party.

It could have been so different, and I do think it could have strengthened her hand in her negotiations with the EU if she had had Parliament backing her when she went into those discussions. I also think it would have stopped her suffering the biggest ever defeat in parliamentary history, which happened last month.

Amendment (a) is the best chance to deliver on the promises made to my constituents and everyone else’s constituents in 2016: to protect jobs and trade, and, as an MP representing a university seat, to protect some of our excellent educational schemes such as Erasmus, and also to protect the security of this nation and, finally, the dynamic alignment of rights and protections—which must be, of course, something we all support. So I am pleased that amendment (a) will be voted on this evening and I encourage everybody to get behind it.

18:42

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

There have been a number of excellent contributions to today’s debate from across the House, and while time prevents me from mentioning each of them I do want to single out a number of hon. and right hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) and for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), as well as the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), who made a particularly passionate contribution.

We find ourselves here again debating much the same issues because we are in an impasse, yet there was little in the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday, or the thoughtful opening speech from the Minister for the Cabinet Office, to suggest that that impasse will be broken any time soon. I think it unlikely but it is of course not inconceivable that the Prime Minister will secure changes to the backstop, yet if she does they will almost certainly be minor, if not entirely cosmetic. They will certainly not be changes of the magnitude necessary to satisfy the very clear instruction set out in the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), supported by the Government, that the Northern Ireland backstop be

“replaced with alternative arrangements”.

That highlights the fact that that amendment was merely a sticking plaster which hid all manner of sins in an effort to generate a temporary sense of unity among the warring factions in the Conservative party.

Now it may be that some of the less cavalier members of the European Research Group have realised what a hostage to fortune the Brady amendment was: perhaps they are now looking for a way to climb down; perhaps they are no longer insisting that the backstop be replaced in its entirety and are prepared to consider the type of reassurances that for so long they dismissed. But I would be amazed if they would satisfy both the DUP and all of the ideologues in the ERG. As such, the fundamental issues have not changed and the Government’s present strategy is likely to continue to fail. What is shameful is that the Prime Minister is fully aware of the risks she is taking yet is ploughing on regardless in an attempt to force this House to blink and accept her flawed deal. Is it any wonder that businesses and individuals across the country, many of whom are already feeling the impact of the Prime Minister’s gamble, reacted with alarm at her entirely self-serving and purposefully reckless decision to once again delay a second meaningful vote?

It has long been obvious to many of us on this side of the House that the UK will inevitably have to seek an extension to the article 50 process and postpone exit day beyond 29 March—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has said so repeatedly from the Dispatch Box—yet the Prime Minister has insisted repeatedly that the UK will leave the EU on 29 March, no matter what. Yesterday, she was forced to concede that an extension might be necessary after all, and, as the Minister for the Cabinet Office made clear in his opening remarks, we will now have a vote on a binding motion on 14 March if the House rejects the Prime Minister’s revised deal and again rejects a no-deal exit. This is the right thing for the Government to have done, and we will support amendment (f), tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, if she decides to press it to a vote, to bind the Government to those commitments.

We on this side of the House will support any and all efforts to prevent a damaging no-deal departure from the EU, including supporting amendment (k), tabled by the Scottish National party. Providing for a means to reduce the time pressure in the article 50 process does not ensure that a no-deal exit is ruled out categorically as an option, but it is a crucial first step in preventing a no-deal exit from happening, either inadvertently or as a matter of intent. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd stated in their powerful contributions, the EU will agree to an extension only if it is for a purpose, and that purpose cannot be more of the strategy that the Prime Minister has adhered to in the 43 days since 15 January. That is why it is almost inevitable that this House will have to explore credible alternatives to the Prime Minister’s deal that might be capable of commanding a majority in this House.

We have set out our alternative in amendment (a), and we know that it is a credible alternative because the EU has said as much, privately and publicly. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras exposed forensically in his opening remarks, it is very different from the political declaration that the Government have currently negotiated. Importantly, amendment (a) would enshrine our new negotiating mandate in primary legislation so that no Government or Prime Minister could renege on it. We will continue to urge Ministers to abandon the pretence and move seriously to engage with our proposal, but we will also put it to the House this evening and ask Parliament to assist us in ensuring that it is the basis for a revised agreement.

I want to end my remarks, as my right hon. and learned Friend ended his, by underlining the commitment made by the Leader of the Opposition on Monday. If amendment (a) is defeated this evening, Labour will then move to propose or support future public vote amendments in Parliament that offer the British people a choice between a credible leave option endorsed by this House and the option of staying in the EU. As my right hon. and learned Friend made clear, we will do that because we have to, in order to prevent a damaging Tory Brexit of the kind that the Prime Minister is proposing and to avert a disastrous no-deal exit.

18:48

[The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen Barclay)]

The Government’s focus is on securing a deal and passing a meaningful vote by 12 March. The Prime Minister has now spoken to the leaders of all 27 EU member states to set out the UK’s position. The Attorney General, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and I have been engaged in discussions with the EU to make progress, and both teams are continuing their work. We have agreed to review progress with the EU again over the coming days.

[Alberto Costa]

I have two questions for my right hon. Friend. Given that the Government have accepted my amendment in full, will he confirm at the Dispatch Box whether the Prime Minister will be writing to President Tusk and the European Council requesting that the European Council give legal authority to the EU Commission to seek to enter into discussions with the UK to carve out the citizens’ rights deal? If so, when?

[Stephen Barclay]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. Many Members from across the House spoke in support of him during the debate, and I am happy to confirm that we will write to the EU institutions in the coming days. The reality is that we have a shared goal of protecting citizens’ rights, and the Government do not oppose my hon. Friend’s amendment for that reason, but the issue is more about what the European side is willing to do, because the EU has previously said that it is a bilateral matter for member states, rather than something within the EU Commission’s mandate.

Turning to amendment (c) in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), she kindly referred to my remarks in the media this morning, and those of the Prime Minister, that the will of the House will be respected in respect of a vote on whether to leave with no deal should the meaningful vote on 12 March not be passed. I am grateful to her for indicating, in the light of the assurances that we have provided, that she does not intend to press the amendment to a vote.

Moving on to amendment (f) in the name of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), I can confirm that the Government will accept it. It is no longer necessary, because we have made clear commitments to hold a second meaningful vote on 12 March and another vote on leaving without a deal. The Chairman of the Exiting the European Union Committee asked whether those motions would be amendable, and that was addressed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. As the Chairman of the Committee well knows, it is for you, Mr Speaker, to decide whether a motion is amendable, but the Government are happy to give a commitment subject to that decision. I do not want to pre-empt what the motion will say, but we expect that a substantive motion would be amendable, which I hope reassures him.

Going back to amendment (c), the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford and the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) asked me to confirm the Government’s position on the record and to reiterate the position set out by the Prime Minister, who said:

“First, we will hold a second meaningful vote by Tuesday 12 March at the latest. Secondly, if the Government have not won a meaningful vote by Tuesday 12 March, then they will, in addition to their obligations to table a neutral, amendable motion under section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, table a motion to be voted on by Wednesday 13 March, at the latest, asking this House if it supports leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement and a framework for a future relationship on 29 March. So the United Kingdom will only leave without a deal on 29 March if there is explicit consent in this House for that outcome.

Thirdly, if the House, having rejected leaving with the deal negotiated with the EU, then rejects leaving on 29 March without a withdrawal agreement and future framework, the Government will, on 14 March, bring forward a motion on whether Parliament wants to seek a short, limited extension to article 50, and, if the House votes for an extension, seek to agree that extension approved by the House with the EU and bring forward the necessary legislation to change the exit date commensurate with that extension. These commitments all fit the timescale set out in the private Member’s Bill in the name of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford.”—[Official Report, 26 February 2019; Vol. 655, c. 166-167.]

Those commitments were made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and the Government will stick by them. While I do not normally like to read text out verbatim, I hope that that provides the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford with the clarification that she was seeking.

[Yvette Cooper]

There are some reports online that the Leader of the House may have said something different and that there might be circumstances in which we could leave with no deal even if the House had voted against that. Is the Brexit Secretary aware of that?

[Stephen Barclay]

As the right hon. Lady knows, I have been sat in the Chamber for the vast majority of the debate, so I do not know about any such comments. The reason why I was so explicit in what I set out and in repeating what the Prime Minister said—and indeed why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was so clear in what he said—is that that is the Government position, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will take things in that spirit. Obviously, I do not know what other comments have been made, but I am happy to confirm the Prime Minister’s comments at the Dispatch Box.

In introducing amendment (a), in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) said that nothing has changed over the past two weeks, notwithstanding that several Members, including the right hon. Members for Leeds Central and for Birkenhead (Frank Field), contradicted him. The latter said he thinks there has been a change, but I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman was being too modest, because over the past two weeks something material has changed: the position of the Leader of the Opposition. Two weeks ago we thought he was honouring the referendum and honouring his manifesto commitment, whereas we now learn that he is committed to a second referendum.

The Leader of the Opposition started out with six tests, and he now wants five commitments. His five commitments relate to the political declaration, but he uses them to justify not voting for the withdrawal agreement, even though that withdrawal agreement includes protecting citizens’ rights, honouring our international obligations and protecting the Northern Ireland border, all of which he calls for. Indeed, he says he wants to be part of the single market but, at the same time, he wants not to be part of state aid rules or freedom of movement, which shows all the consistency we are familiar with from the Leader of the Opposition.

Amendment (k) expresses the SNP’s discontent with no deal, regardless of whether we extend article 50. I do not think we need a vote in this House to understand that the SNP is discontented—we can probably take that as read.

My right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) raised the issue of alternative arrangements, and I am happy to confirm that the UK and the EU have agreed to consider a joint work stream to develop alternative arrangements to ensure no hard border on the island of Ireland. We will also be setting up domestic structures to take advice from external experts, from businesses that trade with the EU and beyond, and from colleagues across the House. That will be supported by civil service resources and £20 million of Government funding. The work will be done in parallel, without prejudice to the ongoing negotiations.

[Mr Baron]

The Secretary of State knows we wish him well with these negotiations, but can he confirm that, when it comes to addressing the concerns of Conservative Members and some Opposition Members about the backstop, what is achieved will not only be meaningful but have a cast-iron guarantee of legal force?

[Stephen Barclay]

My hon. Friend has exquisite timing, as I was just about to namecheck him. In addition to referring to the fact that we need to address the indefinite nature of the backstop, he spoke of the need for compromise. He reflected one of the themes of today’s debate, which is that, among those who voted remain and among those who voted leave, there is consensus in this House on recognising the importance of securing a deal. The best way to mitigate the risk of no deal is to have a deal. Indeed, as the Prime Minister frequently says at this Dispatch Box, the only way to avoid a no deal is either to revoke Brexit entirely, a betrayal of the votes of 17.4 million people, or to secure a deal.

We have listened to Members across the House, and we have listened to their concerns about no deal. We have clearly said to Members across the House that there will be a vote in this place on the issue of no deal. However, in securing a deal, which is our priority, we will protect the rights of EU citizens, along with the wishes of my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), not only in the EU but in the UK, and we will do so in a way that delivers Brexit and delivers on the biggest vote in our country’s history. That is why I commend the approach set out in the motion.

Amendment proposed: (a), leave out from “House” to end and add:

“instructs Ministers

(a) to negotiate with the EU for changes to the Political Declaration to secure:

i. a permanent and comprehensive customs union with the EU;

ii. close alignment with the single market underpinned by shared institutions and obligations;

iii. dynamic alignment on rights and protections;

iv. commitments on participation in EU agencies and funding programmes, including in areas such as the environment, education, and industrial regulation; and

v. unambiguous agreement on the detail of future security arrangements, including access to the European Arrest Warrant and vital shared databases; and

(b) to introduce primary legislation to give statutory effect to this negotiating mandate.”.—(Jeremy Corbyn.)

18:59

Division 345

Ayes: 240

---

Labour: 235
Independent: 2
Conservative: 1
Liberal Democrat: 1

Noes: 323

---

Conservative: 310
Democratic Unionist Party: 10
Independent: 2
Labour: 1

The Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Order, this day).

Amendment proposed: (k), in line 1, leave out from “House” to end and add—

“is determined not to leave the European Union without a withdrawal agreement and future framework under any circumstances, and regardless of any exit date.”—(Ian Blackford.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

19:15

Division 346

Ayes: 288

---

Labour: 225
Scottish National Party: 33
Independent: 12
Liberal Democrat: 11
Plaid Cymru: 4
Conservative: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 324

---

Conservative: 305
Democratic Unionist Party: 10
Labour: 7
Independent: 2

[Mr Speaker]

We come now to amendment (c) in the name of the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman).

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

Not moved.

Amendment made: (b), at end, add

“; and requires the Prime Minister to seek at the earliest opportunity a joint UK-EU commitment to adopt part two of the Withdrawal Agreement on Citizens’ Rights and ensure its implementation prior to the UK’s exiting the European Union, whatever the outcome of negotiations on other aspects of the Withdrawal Agreement.”—(Alberto Costa.)

Amendment proposed: (f), at end, add

“; and further notes in particular the commitment of the Prime Minister made in this House to hold a second meaningful vote by 12 March and if the House, having rejected leaving with the deal negotiated with the EU, then rejects leaving on 29 March without a withdrawal agreement and future framework, the Government will, on 14 March, bring forward a motion on whether Parliament wants to seek a short limited extension to Article 50, and if the House votes for an extension, seek to agree that extension approved by the House with the EU, and bring forward the necessary legislation to change the exit date commensurate with that extension.”.—(Yvette Cooper.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

19:29

Division 347

Ayes: 502

---

Labour: 233
Conservative: 204
Scottish National Party: 35
Independent: 13
Liberal Democrat: 10
Plaid Cymru: 4
Green Party: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 20

---

Conservative: 20

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes the Prime Minister’s statement on Leaving the European Union of 26 February 2019; and further notes that discussions between the UK and the EU are ongoing; and requires the Prime Minister to seek at the earliest opportunity a joint UK-EU commitment to adopt part two of the Withdrawal Agreement on Citizens’ Rights and ensure its implementation prior to the UK’s exiting the European Union, whatever the outcome of negotiations on other aspects of the Withdrawal Agreement; and further notes in particular the commitment of the Prime Minister made in this House to hold a second meaningful vote by 12 March and if the House, having rejected leaving with the deal negotiated with the EU, then rejects leaving on 29 March without a withdrawal agreement and future framework, the Government will, on 14 March, bring forward a motion on whether Parliament wants to seek a short limited extension to Article 50, and if the House votes for an extension, seek to agree that extension approved by the House with the EU, and bring forward the necessary legislation to change the exit date commensurate with that extension.

Business without Debate

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Commons Chamber

Joint Committee on the Draft Domestic Abuse Bill

Resolved,

That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on the draft Domestic Abuse Bill (CP 15) presented to both Houses on Monday 21 January 2019.

That a Select Committee of six Members be appointed to join with any committee to be appointed by the Lords for this purpose;

That the Committee should report on the draft Bill by Friday 17 May.

That the Committee shall have power:

(i) to send for persons, papers and records;

(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;

(iii) to report from time to time;

(iv) to appoint specialist advisers; and

(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.

That the quorum of the Committee shall be two; and

That Diana Johnson, Gillian Keegan, Mrs Maria Miller, Alex Norris, Helen Whately and Dr Philippa Whitford be members of the Committee.—(Iain Stewart.)

[Mr Speaker]

Any moment now, I shall invite the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) to speak to his petition, when very large numbers of right hon. and hon. Members have beetled out of the Chamber, preferably quickly and quietly, and those absorbed in absolutely fascinating conversations, including the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), who is having a most engaging conversation with other hon. and right hon. Members, and indeed other Members too, whose animated exchanges would better take place outwith the Chamber. I am playing for time here, so that the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton is afforded the courtesy that he deserves as he presents his petition on a matter of considerable concern to his constituents. If the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) feels that he can beetle out of the Chamber—I am sure he is happy with his prestigious efforts for today—we look forward to seeing him, and indeed we look forward to seeing the Leader of the House as soon as tomorrow morning.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Does the right hon. Gentleman really wish to raise a point of order? Oh, very well.

[Sir John Hayes]

I only raise a point of order in this respect; I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker. If on some future occasion, for some future purpose, I were to want to present a petition to the House, if I were delayed for some perfectly excusable and understandable reason, would it be in order for other Members to seek to eat up the time of the House to a sufficient degree, as a matter of civility and courtesy, to allow me to make my way here to present my petition? I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker, on that very matter on this occasion.

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the right hon. Gentleman, whose curiosity is legendary, is that there would be nothing to stop Members seeking to do so. I simply posit to the right hon. Gentleman that the scenario is not entirely to be taken for granted, for it rests upon the premise that very large numbers of Members, united by their commitment to and, dare I say it, even their adoration of the right hon. Gentleman, are so utterly distraught that he is not yet present in his place, but confident that he will shortly be, that they wish to aid and abet him in what they hope will be a fruitful endeavour by him. That is quite an assumption. They could make that attempt, and if the Chair were in a benevolent mood, the Chair could legitimately accommodate their efforts. I hope that the curiosity of the right hon. Gentleman has now been satisfied—at least for tonight.

If there are no further points of order, either from the right hon. Gentleman or from any other hon. or right hon. Member, we come now to the petitions.

Petitions

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Commons Chamber

19:53

[Jim McMahon]

On behalf of myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), I present the petition of the residents of Oldham. Over 3,100 people object to the proposed closure of Oldham Crown post office and its relocation to WH Smith. Oldham post office is the borough’s last remaining Crown post office, serving a population of 235,000 people and over 6,000 businesses, and its current location is vital for the vibrancy of the market hall and the surviving businesses, as well as being easily accessible for those who use public transport and those with limited mobility.

The petition states:

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Post Office Ltd to think again about the decision to close Oldham Post Office and to ensure that the consultation is genuine with the real concerns we have fully taken on board.

Following is the full text of the Petition:

[The petition of residents of Oldham,

Declares that we object to the proposal by Post Office Ltd to close our main Crown post office in Oldham town centre and relocate it to WH Smith; further that the proposed closure from its High Street location and relocation to WH Smith in Spindles/Town Square shopping centre is a nonsense as evident to anyone who uses the post office; further that the post office is a busy branch and well used; further that there is no public interest in closing it; further that even if some services will be relocated, services, staff and our high street will be compromised; further that not only will we lose a visible institution on our high street, the experience of post office services in WH Smiths tells us that it will be smaller, queues will be longer and services will be reduced.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Post Office Ltd to think again about the decision to close Oldham Post Office and to ensure that the consultation is genuine with the real concerns we have fully taken on board.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P002430]

19:55

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I am greatly obliged to you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to present my first petition this evening, which was given to me today by the Representation in Westminster group from the British overseas territory of Gibraltar.

As you will know, Mr Speaker, the people of Gibraltar are proudly British, and they would like to be represented in this place as all British citizens expect to be. They have collected this chunky petition, which bears no fewer than 14,000 signatures, 11,200 of which are those of Gibraltarian citizens. That represents 68% of the electorate of Gibraltar. They will be losing their representation by Members of the European Parliament, so they feel that the time has come for them to have their own Member of Parliament here in the sovereign Parliament of our United Kingdom. The petition is supported by the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Fabian Picardo, and the Deputy Chief Minister, Joseph Garcia. It reads as follows:

The petition of British Citizens of Gibraltar,

Declares that it is a fundamental right of ours to representation in the Houses of Parliament, Westminster.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to grant Gibraltar representation in the Houses of Parliament, Gibraltar.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P002427]

19:57

[Andrew Rosindell]

A further petition has been handed to me by the residents of the London borough of Havering. It relates to Britain’s departure from the European Union. You will know, Mr Speaker, that 70% of Havering residents voted to leave the EU, and that that was one of the largest votes to leave in the country. The petition, which is addressed to the honourable Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Parliament assembled, reads as follows:

The Humble Petition of Lawrence Webb and the citizens of the London Borough of Havering,

Sheweth,

That in 1975 the British people, in a referendum, agreed to remain members of a Common Market, a group of equal and free European Nations trading together without barriers and tariffs. By default, the British people have, without their consent, become citizens of a European State run by a non-elected bureaucratic Commission in Brussels. This foreign power has suborned our legal system and the authority of our Parliament.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House do all in its power to re-establish our sovereign right to rule ourselves in accordance with the freedoms, liberties and rights granted to us and our heirs forever under Magna Carta 1215 and the Bill of Rights 1689, and that we leave the European Union, the Customs Union, the Single Market and that we end Free Movement of People on 29th March, 2019 as set out in law under the European Withdrawal Act 2018.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.

[P002429]

Dental Health: Older People

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Iain Stewart.)

19:59

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

This Adjournment debate provides an opportunity to discuss a very important but often overlooked issue, which can have a major impact on the wellbeing of older people: their oral health. Many of us will have older relatives who have reached the stage where they need some extra support. It might be that they live in a residential care home, have a carer who visits them in their home a couple of times a week, or just require a bit of extra help from us personally to stay independent.

However, one issue that often slips under the radar when we think about an older relative’s needs is their oral health; it can often seem like a small issue, but in fact poor oral health can have much wider implications. Having a painful oral health problem can impact on someone’s ability to eat comfortably, to speak and to socialise with confidence, and on the ease with which they can take medication, something which may be a particular issue if an older person is living with other long-term health conditions. Maintaining good oral health can also become much more challenging for older people with reduced dexterity, who may for example have more difficulty with brushing their teeth. Furthermore, for the most vulnerable older people, such as those with dementia, who may have difficulty communicating where they are experiencing pain, an oral health problem can be especially distressing.

Ensuring that older people are supported to maintain good oral health, and have access to dental services when they need them, is therefore very important. However, while data on this issue is limited, the information that we do have suggests that these are areas in which we often fall short.

The Faculty of Dental Surgery of the Royal College of Surgeons published a report on “Improving older people’s oral health” in 2017, which estimated that 1.8 million people aged 65 and over in England, Wales and Northern Ireland could have an urgent dental condition such as dental pain, oral sepsis or extensive untreated decay. Moreover, the Faculty of Dental Surgery also highlighted that this number could increase to 2.7 million by 2040 as a result of several demographic factors, thereby increasing pressure on dental services in the future. As well as the ageing nature of Britain’s population, increasing numbers of people are also retaining their natural teeth into old age; while this is good news, it also means that dental professionals are facing new challenges as they have to provide increasingly complex treatment to teeth that may already have been heavily restored.

Separately, in 2014 Public Health England published the findings of research looking at oral health services for dependent older people in north-west England, which found that access to domiciliary and emergency dental care can often be very challenging for those living in residential care homes or receiving “care in your home” support services. More recently, Public Health England last year published the results of a national oral health survey of dependent older people living in supported housing. This revealed that nearly 70% of respondents had visible plaque and 61% had visible tartar, indicators of poor oral hygiene, and that in some parts of the country, such as County Durham and Ealing, over a quarter of dependent older people would be unable to visit a dentist and so required domiciliary care in their home.

It is difficult to get a complete up-to-date picture of the oral health needs of older people across the country, partly because there has not been an adult dental health survey for 10 years, an issue I will return to later. However, these figures, as well as anecdotal reports from dental professionals working on the frontline, suggest there is a real issue here which potentially impacts on large numbers of often vulnerable older people.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this important issue to the House. As he said, 1.8 million elderly people across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have problems, which is shocking. The hon. Gentleman outlined some of the solutions such as extra attention on domiciliary care and in residential homes, and for those at home and dependent on carers. Does he agree that older people’s confidence can also be diminished by not having their teeth correctly done? My mother went this week to have her teeth done; she is 87 years of age and she depends very much on her dentist. She has attended over the years, but many have not, and we need to have that care at all those different levels.

[Andrew Selous]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us his personal family experience of this issue.

There have been some welcome developments over the last few months, including the recently published NHS long-term plan highlighting oral health as one of the priorities for NHS England as it rolls out a new “Enhanced health in care homes” programme across the country. However, I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to five particular areas in which more could usefully be done: training for health and social care professionals; access to dental services; data; regulation; and the social care Green Paper.

First, on training, health and social care professionals regularly do a brilliant job of caring for older people, but as I have mentioned, oral health is one issue that can easily fall between the cracks, particularly if someone is living with a range of other health conditions that also require care and attention. One example of this is oral care plans. Ideally, whenever someone is admitted as a resident to a care home, their oral health needs should be considered as part of their initial health assessment. Those needs should then be reflected in an oral care plan that all their carers are aware of and that will, for example, set out whether the resident needs extra help brushing their teeth.

There is some good guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, but this can often be overlooked. In Public Health England’s research in north-west England, 57% of residential care home managers said that they did not have an oral care policy, and one in 10 said that an oral health assessment was not undertaken at the start of care provision. Knowing how to provide good oral care is especially important when it comes to supporting those with more complex needs. For example, for those with dementia, electric toothbrushes can sometimes be quite intimidating, and it makes a big difference if a carer knows that they should use a manual toothbrush when helping with tooth brushing. More broadly, if someone who is living with dementia refuses oral care, this can become an obstacle to maintaining good oral health, so it is important that carers understand how to manage these situations, ideally with input from a dental care professional.

Equally, for those with dentures, it is important that training and procedures are in place to minimise the risk of a denture getting lost, even if this is a simple thing such as ensuring that they are kept in a jar by the bedside when not in use. A lost denture takes weeks to replace, and this can be a devastating experience for an older person who relies on them to eat and speak. This is particularly sensitive if someone is coming to the end of their life, when it may not be possible to manufacture a replacement in time as they spend their remaining days with loved ones. An understanding of good denture care is particularly important in these situations.

Improving awareness of oral health among health and care professionals should therefore be a priority, and was a key recommendation in the Faculty of Dental Surgery’s 2017 report. This highlighted schemes such as the Mouth Care Matters programme, in which mouth care leads are recruited to provide oral care training to staff in hospitals and care homes, and I would be interested to know from the Minister whether there were any plans to replicate such initiatives nationwide.

Secondly, ensuring that older people can access dental services when they need them is essential. It is not uncommon for people to think that if someone has no teeth, they cannot be experiencing pain or other oral problems. Sadly, this is not the case and they should still have an oral check-up once a year, not least because the majority of cases of oral cancer occur in people over 50. There are all too many tragic instances of an older person being diagnosed with oral cancer too late—the saddest two words in the English language—simply because they had not seen a dentist in a number of years. Attending a dental appointment can be a particular challenge for those with reduced mobility—for example, if they are unable to climb stairs to reach a dental practice on the first floor—in which case, domiciliary visits are vital. However, evidence suggests that access to domiciliary dental care can be challenging, particularly for those living in care homes or supported housing, and I would appreciate the Minister’s thoughts on how we can address this.

In 2015, Healthwatch Bolton reported that it was easier for a local care home resident to get access to a hairdresser than to a dentist. In 2016, Healthwatch Kent reported that care homes had told it about accessibility problems for wheelchair users within dental practices. In 2016, Healthwatch Lancashire reported that care home staff said:

“The residents don’t get regular checks; they are only seen when there is a problem.”

Healthwatch Derby was concerned about the lack of information for social care providers about how to access dental services for their residents. While the commitment in the NHS long-term plan to

“ensure that individuals are supported to have good oral health”

in care homes under the “Enhanced health in care homes” section is welcome, there is no mention of a similar commitment for older people who use domiciliary care agencies. Those people should not be forgotten, so what do the Government intend to do about that for domiciliary care agency users under the NHS long-term plan?

Thirdly, the intelligence around older people’s oral health is quite limited, making it difficult to build a full picture of the level of need or assess the barriers that older people face in accessing dental care. The most immediate action that could be taken to address that would be for the Government to commission a new adult dental health survey. It is one of the few resources to provide detailed, national-level data on standards of oral health among older people, and it is a key reference for many commissioners, policy makers and dental professionals. The survey has been conducted every 10 years since 1968, but the last edition was published in 2009, so a new one is due. However, the Government have yet to give any indication of when or if a new survey will be taking place, which is causing increasing concern within the dental profession, so an update on that would be most welcome.

There are other steps that would help to improve our understanding of such issues. For example, NHS Digital publishes a regular set of NHS dental statistics for England, which reports on the proportion of children aged zero to 17 who attended an NHS dentist in the preceding 12 months, as well as the proportion of adults aged 18 and over who attended an NHS dentist in the past two years. That data provides a useful measure of access, and expanding the figures to include attendance rates for older people would help us to develop a clearer picture of whether there are particular groups or areas where access to an NHS dentist is a problem.

[Jim Shannon]

Many elderly people are independent and proud, and one of the things that puts them off attending the dentist—I see this in my constituency—is that they think they have to pay for the treatment, but they do not. Perhaps we need to put out a reminder about that.

[Andrew Selous]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record.

Fourthly, in addition to health services, care home providers and dental professionals, regulators can play an essential role by monitoring standards of oral care and driving improvements. The Care Quality Commission in England does not explicitly look at oral health during its inspections of hospitals and care homes, although I understand that it is doing a lot of work behind the scenes to try and push that on to the agenda for care providers, which is obviously welcome. Health and care regulators in other parts of the UK can also make a valuable contribution to ensuring that the importance of oral health is recognised by those that they inspect.

Lastly, I continue to look forward to the publication of the Government’s long-awaited social care Green Paper. Given the importance of oral health to our wider health and wellbeing, an all-encompassing model of care for older people must include dental services, so it will be important that the Green Paper clearly sets out how social care and dental services can work together in the future and what more can be done to ensure that older people have access to dental services when they need them. As I have mentioned, one of the most valuable things we can do to improve older people’s oral health is to ensure that it is not overlooked amid the many other issues that we are dealing with, and I hope that the Government will show leadership on that in the Green Paper.

Oral health can sometimes seem like a small issue, but it has a significant impact on quality of life. The Minister will be aware that we have spoken a lot in recent years about the need to improve children’s oral health, and quite rightly so, but it is also essential that we do not take our eye off the other groups who need support. For an older person who is in pain because of an oral health problem, finding it difficult to eat or speak, or who may be distressed at the loss of a denture that will take weeks to replace, such issues are very real. We can all contribute to addressing them, including Members who care for older relatives in our everyday lives. Indeed, the Faculty of Dental Surgery published some useful advice over Christmas about using visits to older relatives as an opportunity to check their oral health and for how to spot the signs that they might have an oral health problem. That is something that Members could do over Easter when visiting elderly relatives, and we could encourage our constituents to do the same. However, I hope that the Minister will recognise that Government also have an important role to play and will look carefully at what can be done to help improve oral care for our older people.

20:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Brine)]

I realise that a debate on older people’s dental health is merely of passing interest to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you are many years from it being of direct interest, but I hope you enjoy my response.

I congratulate my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), on securing time for this debate and on setting out his case so clearly. I will do my best to answer his points in the time available. As he knows, I will write to him on anything I do not answer.

Oral health has improved significantly over the 40 years that I have been alive. At the start of the NHS—it is worth noting this incredible statistic—40% of the population had no natural teeth. The figure is now—answers on a postcard—6%. These massive improvements are to be celebrated but, of course, with improvements come new challenges.

As we are all aware, older people—we categorise those aged over 65 as older people for the purpose of this conversation—make up an increasingly large proportion of the population. By 2032, we project there will be 13.5 million people aged 65 and over in our country. Older people are retaining far more teeth, often heavily filled, than previous generations. As people age, so do their fillings and all the other bits of their bodies, and ongoing restorative work is needed.

Many older people live independently and are in full charge of their oral health, as are working-age adults, but we recognise that frail older people—those with additional needs, often living in care homes or supported to remain at home, as my hon. Friend set out—can face real barriers to accessing the appropriate care and support they need to maintain good oral and dental health.

My hon. Friend set out some of the reasons why good oral health is an essential part of active ageing. We know that poor oral health can affect an individual’s ability to eat, which can lead to an acute episode and an encounter with the tertiary sector, or even to speak and socialise. Obviously, poor oral health hits their confidence and then it spirals. For older adults who are frail, good oral health is particularly important to maintaining hydration and the ability to eat comfortably and easily, which helps them to stay healthy and independent for as long as possible, and even to stay well in a care home setting.

As we set out in our 2017 manifesto, we are committed to improving the nation’s oral health, from children right the way through to older people. The NHS long-term plan, published last month, set out our plans specifically to ensure that individuals in care homes are supported to have good oral health. My hon. Friend raised that point.

The long-term plan national implementation framework, due to be published later this spring, and the national implementation plan, due to be published this autumn, will provide further information on how the LTP will be implemented, but I will now turn to the five specific issues raised by my hon. Friend.

[Andrew Selous]

The Royal College of Surgeons obviously raised concerns about people who use domiciliary care agencies. While there is still time, will it be possible for the NHS long-term plan to address that issue, too, so that we look after all older people whatever type of care they receive, not just those in care homes?

[Steve Brine]

I will touch on that, but I take my hon. Friend’s point. I will make sure it is flagged up in writing as a note from me, the Minister, to the relevant officials as a response to this debate.

In 2016, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence published its “Oral health in care homes” report, which was an important piece of work. As we know, it set out a number of recommendations for care homes to help maintain and improve oral health and ensure timely access to dental treatment for their residents. In dental health, as in every other part of health, prevention is better than cure.

I completely agree that we expect care homes to follow NICE guidance and NICE recommendations in this area, as in every other. Alongside the importance of appropriately trained staff, my hon. Friend makes an important point about the role regulators can play in this area.

The Care Quality Commission is responsible for this area, as it is for many other areas of policy, and it is currently looking in depth at oral health for older people in residential care settings, and much needed that is, too. So last autumn, the CQC’s dental inspection teams joined adult social care inspectors on visits to about 100 care homes to gain a better understanding of the oral health care support for residents. I know that the CQC intends to publish the findings later this year. I have asked to be kept updated on the progress of this work and to have early sight of its findings. I will update the House and my hon. Friend in particular on this, given his interest and the fact he is a member of the Health and Social Care Committee. I will make sure the rest of the Committee are aware of this as well.

We should also recognise and highlight the ongoing work of NHS England and Public Health England, which I sponsor within my portfolio, to improve the oral health of vulnerable older people. As is referred to in the long-term plan, NHS England considers oral health for older people, particularly those in care homes who may be vulnerable, an important issue. I have asked also to be kept updated on progress as NHS England takes forward action on this and other areas highlighted in the plan.

Public Health England has published “Commissioning better oral health for vulnerable older people”—a snappy title—which is designed to support commissioners of services to improve the oral health of vulnerable older adults so that they can lead a healthy, long and meaningful life outside the acute sector. My hon. Friend highlighted the Mouth Care Matters programme, which, as he says, is a local training initiative from Health Education England offering support and training in oral healthcare for the elderly and for hospital staff looking after patients who may need help with mouth care. I know the programme has been very successful locally in Kent, Surrey and Sussex. Decisions on whether to extend the training more widely are for HEE, but I would hope the success of the programme to date means that HEE is able to take it forward to new areas in the longer term, including to his county. I cannot give the nationwide answer that he asked for in his speech, but I suggest that the early signs are positive.

On access to dental services currently, NHS England is legally responsible for commissioning services to meet local identified need, and that includes the commissioning of domiciliary care services, where appropriate. However, it is important to say that where residents can, the care home and the local NHS work together, often very successfully, to ensure that dental services are provided in the most appropriate setting for those residents, whether that is within the care home itself or in a dental practice, or provided by the community dental service. Often people in care home settings will enjoy the trip out to the dentist; it is part of their socialisation and their routine, and we should not overlook that.

I note my hon. Friend’s concerns about the availability of oral health data, particularly for the older age groups. I agree that the adult dental health survey is an important tool for understanding oral health changes over time. I can reassure him that although there is not yet a date set for the next survey, no decision has been taken to discontinue this important source of information. I take this debate as a bit of a nudge to ask more questions about this. If my hon. Friend looks at my track record, for example, on the cancer patient experience survey, which I was clear was an important tool to give me information about cancer patients’ experience, he will see that I place value on such patient health surveys. In the shorter term, I agree that the regularly published NHS dental statistics on numbers of people seeing an NHS dentist could provide more helpful information by analysing the data by age. I am going to ask my officials to work with NHS England and NHS Digital to pursue this further, and I will ensure that my hon. Friend is kept informed on that point.

My hon. Friend made a point about the social care Green Paper, which remains very much a priority but is not yet in reach. The Green Paper will cover a range of issues that are common to all adults with care and support needs, and will bring forward proposals to ensure that we have a social care system in which people know that the care they receive will help them to maintain their independence and wellbeing, and that we have a social care system that we can be proud of. We will publish the document shortly, and it will set out proposals to reform the adult care system. I take the points made by my hon. Friend about the importance of including dental and oral health in the Green Paper. I will make sure that a copy of this remarks is sent to the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage).

In the remaining few minutes, I wish to touch on the prevention Green Paper. We set out our prevention strategy last year, and it is one of the Secretary of State’s three priorities. We are now in the process of developing the prevention Green Paper, which is an exciting piece of work with which to be involved. It will be called “Prevention is better than cure” and will do exactly what it says on the tin. I will engage with key dental stakeholders—including the British Dental Association, Mr Deputy Speaker, so there is no need to tweet me—in the coming weeks. I look forward to those engagements.

In conclusion, although I am disappointed not to have heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) during my speech, I know he has already intervened, and I am pleased that we have had the opportunity to discuss these issues. I think this is the first time I have responded to an Adjournment debate on this subject, and I have responded to quite a few. I hope I have been able to demonstrate the Government’s commitment to improving oral health. Of course there is more to do, and that commitment absolutely includes work on the oral health of older people in care homes, as set out in the long-term plan, and in domiciliary care settings. Our plans to engage in the coming weeks with key dental stakeholders on the development of the prevention Green Paper are honest and sincerely meant. I will continue to watch the work of the CQC and the outputs of its report with interest, and I will follow up on the dental survey so that we have the key data we need to improve services for the people we are here for—our constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

20:26

House adjourned.

Deferred Divisions

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Commons Chamber

Division 339

Ayes: 317

---

Conservative: 306
Democratic Unionist Party: 9
Independent: 2

Noes: 280

---

Labour: 232
Scottish National Party: 31
Liberal Democrat: 8
Plaid Cymru: 4
Independent: 4
Green Party: 1

Division 340

Ayes: 317

---

Conservative: 306
Democratic Unionist Party: 9
Independent: 2

Noes: 260

---

Labour: 233
Independent: 11
Liberal Democrat: 8
Plaid Cymru: 4
Scottish National Party: 2
Green Party: 1

Division 341

Ayes: 318

---

Conservative: 307
Democratic Unionist Party: 9
Independent: 2

Noes: 288

---

Labour: 232
Scottish National Party: 31
Independent: 11
Liberal Democrat: 8
Plaid Cymru: 4
Green Party: 1

Division 342

Ayes: 317

---

Conservative: 306
Democratic Unionist Party: 9
Independent: 2

Noes: 288

---

Labour: 232
Scottish National Party: 31
Independent: 11
Liberal Democrat: 8
Plaid Cymru: 4
Green Party: 1

Division 343

Ayes: 317

---

Conservative: 306
Democratic Unionist Party: 9
Independent: 2

Noes: 260

---

Labour: 233
Independent: 11
Liberal Democrat: 8
Plaid Cymru: 4
Scottish National Party: 2
Green Party: 1

Division 344

Ayes: 318

---

Conservative: 307
Democratic Unionist Party: 9
Independent: 2

Noes: 281

---

Labour: 233
Scottish National Party: 31
Independent: 10
Plaid Cymru: 4
Green Party: 1
Liberal Democrat: 1

Draft Road Vehicle Emission Performance Standards (Cars and Vans) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Road Vehicles and Non-Road Mobile Machinery (Type-Approval) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Wednesday 27th February 2019 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Mr George Howarth

† Brock, Deidre (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)

Campbell, Mr Ronnie (Blyth Valley) (Lab)

† Dodds, Anneliese (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)

† Donelan, Michelle (Chippenham) (Con)

† Duguid, David (Banff and Buchan) (Con)

† Foxcroft, Vicky (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)

† George, Ruth (High Peak) (Lab)

† Glindon, Mary (North Tyneside) (Lab)

† Hart, Simon (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)

† Heappey, James (Wells) (Con)

Killen, Ged (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)

† Norman, Jesse (Minister of State, Department for Transport)

† Robinson, Mary (Cheadle) (Con)

† Smith, Royston (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)

† Stewart, Bob (Beckenham) (Con)

† Swire, Sir Hugo (East Devon) (Con)

† Turner, Karl (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)

Yohanna Sallberg, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Twelfth Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 27 February 2019

[Mr George Howarth in the Chair]

Draft Road Vehicle Emission Performance Standards (Cars and Vans) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

14:29

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Road Vehicle Emission Performance Standards (Cars and Vans) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Road Vehicles and Non-Road Mobile Machinery (Type-Approval) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

[Jesse Norman]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. As the Committee knows, the Government have a responsibility to be prepared for any scenario on EU exit day and will therefore continue to lay before the House EU exit statutory instruments for a no-deal outcome. If they are no longer required on exit day, we expect to defer, revoke or amend them in time for the end of the implementation period.

As the Department responsible for vehicle regulation, the Department for Transport has conducted intensive work to ensure that there continues to be a functioning legislative framework for this important sector of the economy. Although we strongly believe that leaving with a deal is the best outcome for the UK and the EU, it is our duty to make reasonable preparations for all scenarios. The statutory instruments are an essential part of those preparations, and they will ensure that there continues to be a well-functioning regulatory regime in the UK.

Currently, motor vehicles can be registered and placed on the UK market only if they have a valid EU type approval that demonstrates that they conform to EU standards, including safety and emissions requirements. The legislation governing that is a mix of domestic and directly applicable EU regulations.

The draft type approval regulations will ensure that the Government continue to have control over the registration of vehicles in the UK, while minimising the burden on manufacturers. The regulations were tabled under the negative procedure and considered by the sifting Committees of both Houses, which both recommended that they be upgraded to affirmative, given the potential impact on manufacturers. I thank the Committees for their consideration of these and other statutory instruments.

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

This is an ill-informed question, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s answer. The legislation seems to pertain to cars and light commercial vehicles. Will there be similar legislation relating to lorries, buses, motorcycles and so forth?

[Jesse Norman]

I will come to that issue later, so I will respond to my right hon. Friend then. The most apparently naive questions are always the hardest to answer.

The regulations will require vehicles to be registered using a provisional UK approval, and they allow the Vehicle Certification Agency to issue provisional UK approvals to manufacturers who hold a valid EU type approval without additional costly re-testing. Importantly, the environmental and safety standards to which vehicles will be approved under the UK scheme will remain unchanged from those applicable under the EU regime.

There is a good reason why the UK should not simply accept EU approvals, rather than creating the UK scheme proposed in the regulations. Without the UK scheme, the Government could not act to stop another Volkswagen-type emissions scandal—we could not prevent those vehicles from being put on the road, withdraw approval of them or require additional testing to ensure that they conformed to the applicable standards until the EU had acted on the matter.

The regulations temporarily double the limits for the national small series type approval until the end of 2019. That specific measure reduces the burden of regulation on smaller manufacturers who sell only in the UK market. Many are UK companies that provide essential and sometimes unique vehicles and products to our domestic market.

The regulations are subject to a sunset clause, so they represent an interim arrangement that is valid for a maximum of two years. That allows the additional time required to develop a full UK type approval scheme and to correct the remaining deficiencies in the thousands of pages of technical annexes to the retained EU legislation. We will formally consult on those proposals, and we aim to lay the statutory instrument before the House later this year for Parliament to debate and vote on.

The draft regulations will be made for the most part under the powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. To correct a deficiency in existing UK legislation, the powers conferred by the European Communities Act 1972 will also be used to harmonise the legal definition of type approval certification across the UK. The regulations create a UK approval scheme by amending the Road Traffic Act 1988 in Great Britain and the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. In addition, the regulations amend the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 to provide that vehicles entering the UK after exit day can be registered only if they have a UK approval. Further minor amendments are proposed to the Road Vehicle (Approval) Regulations 2009 and to the three retained frameworks for motorcycles, agricultural vehicles and engines for non-road mobile machinery, to ensure that that retained EU legislation remains operable after the UK leaves the EU. The amendments will come into force on exit day, except for the harmonisation of the legal definition of type approval certification across the UK, which will come into force 22 days after the regulations are made.

During the development of the regulations, the Department engaged widely across the automotive sector. We have spoken directly with all the major trade associations—the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the Motorcycle Industry Association, the Agricultural Engineers Association, as well as those representing specialist manufacturers such as the Wheelchair Accessible Vehicle Converters Association. The meetings have included those who are directly involved in the day-to-day process of type approval, as well as people in managerial roles from manufacturers. Although the industry does not want a no-deal Brexit, it recognises the proposals as a light-touch, pragmatic contingency plan.

I turn to the draft Road Vehicle Emission Performance Standards (Cars and Vans) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The existing EU regulations establish mandatory fleet average CO₂ emissions targets for all cars and vans registered in the EU each calendar year. For cars, the target is currently 130 grams of CO₂ per kilometre, and it will reduce to 95 grams in 2020. For vans, the target is 175 grams of CO₂ per kilometre, lowering to 147 grams in 2020. Those requirements have been one of the key drivers towards improving the efficiency of new cars and vans since their introduction.

On the basis of those top-level targets, manufacturers receive individual targets based on a comparison between the average weight of their fleet and the average weight of all relevant vehicles registered in that calendar year. Manufacturers with heavier fleets receive individual targets above the headline target, while those with lighter fleets receive targets below it. As only the manufacturers’ fleet average is regulated, they may sell any vehicle they wish provided that the emissions of their fleet balance out to meet their target. Fines of €95 per vehicle per gram of exceedance are levied on manufacturers that miss their target.

The EU regulation contains a number of provisions that give manufacturers flexibility in delivering their target. Those include derogations, which ease emissions reduction requirements on manufacturers registering fewer than 300,000 cars or 22,000 vans a year; pooling, which allows manufacturers that fall under the same umbrella group to combine their registrations, effectively becoming one manufacturer for the purposes of emissions reduction; eco-innovations, which allow manufacturers to receive credits for technologies that reduce CO₂ on the road, but that are not taken into account during vehicle testing—for example, the use of a solar roof—and super-credits, which provide manufacturers with additional incentives for registering ultra-low emissions vehicles.

The regulations align national policy as closely as possible with the existing EU regulation, providing certainty for industry that its already established business plans will not be affected by the UK leaving the EU. The regulations we are considering also ensure that we meet our long-standing commitment to having a post-EU emissions regime that is at least as ambitious as the current arrangements, and they provide the framework for the Government to assume the obligations and functions of the European Commission under the existing EU regulation. That can best be summarised by explaining that these regulations retain the target-setting approach and formulae establishing individual targets, as is already the case under EU law, but they will apply only to cars and vans that have been newly registered in the UK after exit day.

The related provisions that I have outlined—for example, the derogations and pooling provisions—are also amended by the regulations to make sure that those provisions will work sensibly in the UK context while maintaining existing standards. All minor deficiencies have also been corrected as appropriate—for example, by replacing “Commission” with “Secretary of State”. Six related delegated regulations and 25 implementing decisions that will be retained are also amended by this statutory instrument to ensure their continued function in the UK. The amendments will come into force on exit day.

Legislation on CO₂ targets does not directly exist in the EU at present, so the targets are for vans and cars only. Provisions on the monitoring and reporting of data from heavy goods vehicles have been laid before the House in a separate statutory instrument.

Although we want a deal that recognises the equivalence of UK and EU type approval schemes, the changes made in the type approval regulations and the new car and van CO₂ emissions standards regulations will ensure that we retain control of the registration of vehicles; that we maintain continuity of vehicle approvals and emissions; that we minimise costs to industry; and that the legal framework continues to work after the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, while maintaining the Government’s commitment, set out in the strategy “The Road to Zero”, to

“a future approach as we leave the European Union that is at least as ambitious as the current arrangements for vehicle emissions regulation.”

I hope colleagues will join me in supporting the regulations, and I commend them to the Committee.

14:41

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Howarth, and it is always a privilege to serve under your chairmanship. I do not intend to detain the Committee too long. The proposed changes to the road vehicle emissions performance standards are designed to ensure that after the UK withdraws from the EU, CO₂ emissions of new cars and vehicles registered in the UK continue to be regulated in a manner that is at least as ambitious as the current arrangements. Regulations are maintained to match the current arrangements in the UK as closely as possible. That will minimise any burden in relation to administration and environmental performance as a direct consequence of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. The emission performance standards regulations are entirely sensible, and for that reason the Opposition support them.

The Road Vehicles and Non-Road Mobile Machinery (Type-Approval) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 will ensure that the type approval regime is effective after we withdraw from the EU. A range of road vehicles as well as non-road mobile machinery are currently subject to obligatory EU approval to ensure that they conform to high standards of safety and environmental protection. The instrument will enable the UK type authority, the Vehicle Certification Agency, to issue provisional UK type approvals to manufacturers that produce vehicles or engines under an EU vehicle or engine type approval issued by the EU27 authorities. Additional testing or inspection will not be required unless the VCA becomes aware of evidence that raises doubts about compliance. That is entirely sensible and will keep disruption to a minimum, and for that reason we support the regulations.

That arrangement is an interim one, pending a review and reworking of the UK’s type approval arrangements. The legislation is planned for mid-2019, which seems quite vague. Can the Minister give us a clearer idea of when exactly the legislation will be introduced?

14:44

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Howarth. I certainly hope that Punxsutawney Phil will be along soon, because if this is not “Groundhog Day”, it is just a failed and unfunny joke that is being practised on the people we represent. We are once again debating legislation that we need and already have, but that we are going to get rid of and replace with identical legislation, except for the wee bits we have to change because we are doing something utterly bonkers with the constitution. There are still about 300 of these pieces of legislation to come from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs alone, so we will be spending an awful lot of time doing very similar things to achieve something that is not sensible in the first place—taking back control by doing exactly the same thing but giving it a different name.

That is an incredible use of the millions of pounds spent on consultants, the thousands of new civil servants hired, and the hours and hours spent here doing the legislative equivalent of watching paint dry. This is all for the sake of a last hoorah at the echoes of global significance. We lost an empire, could not find a role and decided to dive off a cliff, all because of a sense of British exceptionalism that is unsupported by evidence or analysis—an empty, cracked and broken bell that peals only in the imagination of fervent Brexiters.

But let us pass this legislation, which we already had but did not like because some people suspected that it might have been imposed on us. Let us prepare for a chaotic exit from the EU that was brought even closer by yesterday’s manoeuvrings by a Prime Minister who cannot control a Government that barely exist, and that are surviving only because—

[The Chair]

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Lady, but she is making a speech about the process rather than the regulations that we are considering. She is perfectly entitled to do that, but the Committee would be grateful if she moved on to the substance of the regulations.

[Deidre Brock]

I will. Forgive me, Mr Howarth, but I sometimes get to the point where I need to vent my frustration at the nonsense that goes on in this place.

Let us pass this legislation so we continue to have some standards on the emissions of vehicles and some control over the quality of motor vehicles, for a while at least, until some maverick Minister decides to remove them all. To cut to the chase, this is rushed legislation with no impact assessment and, like so much of what we are doing, it is needed only because of the chaos caused by the mad dash to Brexit.

There is no impact assessment, because the Department reckons that one is not needed, but the Transport Secretary’s track record does not instil confidence in that judgment. Without a proper policy trail or proper thought about what we are doing, we are asked to nod this legislation through. Proceedings in this place are descending into full-blown farce, so the SNP will abstain on the two statutory instruments.

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Deidre Brock]

I have finished my speech.

14:47

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with you in the Chair, Mr Howarth. I rise to speak briefly on the type approval regulations, because I have a strong constituency interest in the matter. As the Minister indicated, type approval, which is known in the trade as homologation, is essential to the automotive industry. Without type approval, it is impossible for cars to be marketed in different jurisdictions.

That is a particular problem for highly customised models. Every single Mini on the production line at BMW’s Cowley factory in my constituency is produced for a specific customer, and thus individualised, from the beginning. Without type approval, it would not be possible for any of those cars to leave the factory and go to their new owners. Given that the production process starts weeks before the cars leave the factory, and that the Government continue recklessly to entertain the possibility of no deal, we need arrangements to secure the continuity of type approval in the event of no deal, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East.

It is important to ensure that British-approved cars can still be marketed in the EU27 and that EU27-approved cars can still be marketed in the UK. There has been considerable concern in the industry about the lack of legal certainty in the area. In fact, getting the arrangements sorted out has been an urgent requirement for some time. I hope that the arrangements can be speedily enacted in the worrying eventuality that they might be needed.

14:49

[Jesse Norman]

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East asked about the timing of legislation, and I assure him that we expect to lay a second statutory instrument before the House by the end of the summer. That is well in hand.

I am not sure what question the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith asked. She denounced us for being bonkers with the constitution when it is, of course, SNP policy to do exactly the same thing with the UK. I have no doubt that a considerable body of legislation would have to be homologated in Scotland’s own constitutional arrangements, whatever they are, once that had taken place.

[The Chair]

This is all very interesting, but I am sure the Minister will now move on to the regulations.

[Jesse Norman]

I will indeed, but I think it is important to give the hon. Lady the proper scope, and to acknowledge and recognise her venting. I wondered why she was venting, but then I realised that she had appeared in an episode of “Home and Away”, and therefore it came with the turf. It is right to say that these are serious pieces of legislation. In fact, work has been done on the impact assessment—I think that was the one substantive point that the hon. Lady raised—but it is of a de minimis kind.

The hon. Member for Oxford East rightly raised a point about the urgency of and need for the legislation, and I share her view. That is why we are taking the matter as seriously as we are doing, and it is why we are pressing ahead with the statutory instruments that we are considering and those that are to come.

Question put.

Division 1

Ayes: 8

---

Conservative: 8

Noes: 0

---

Draft Road Vehicles and Non-Road Mobile Machinery (Type-Approval) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Motion made, and Question put,

That the Committee has considered the draft Road Vehicles and Non-Road Mobile Machinery (Type-Approval) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(Jesse Norman.)

Division 2

Ayes: 8

---

Conservative: 8

Noes: 0

---

14:50

Committee rose.

Draft Transparency of Securities Financing Transactions and of Reuse (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Wednesday 27th February 2019 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Philip Davies

† Chishti, Rehman (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)

† Dowd, Peter (Bootle) (Lab)

† Fitzpatrick, Jim (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)

† Glen, John (Economic Secretary to the Treasury)

† Hendry, Drew (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)

† Jayawardena, Mr Ranil (North East Hampshire) (Con)

† Knight, Sir Greg (East Yorkshire) (Con)

† Knight, Julian (Solihull) (Con)

† Lord, Mr Jonathan (Woking) (Con)

† Pow, Rebecca (Taunton Deane) (Con)

† Smith, Jeff (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)

† Spellar, John (Warley) (Lab)

Streeting, Wes (Ilford North) (Lab)

† Thomson, Ross (Aberdeen South) (Con)

† Timms, Stephen (East Ham) (Lab)

† Walker, Thelma (Colne Valley) (Lab)

† Whittaker, Craig (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury)

Peter Stam, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Eighteenth Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 27 February 2019

[Philip Davies in the Chair]

Draft Transparency of Securities Financing Transactions and of Reuse (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

00:00

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Transparency of Securities Financing Transactions and of Reuse (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

May I start by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Davies? The draft regulations—like the draft Securitisation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were debated this morning—are part of our programme of legislation under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to ensure that if the UK leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period, there will continue to be a functioning legislative and regulatory regime for financial services in the UK.

The draft regulations will fix deficiencies in EU law on securities financing transactions to ensure that it continues to operate effectively after the UK leaves the EU. They are aligned with the approach taken in all 52 of the statutory instruments that I have laid before Parliament under the 2018 Act: providing continuity by maintaining existing legislation at the point of exit, but amending it where necessary to ensure that it works effectively in a no-deal context.

The draft regulations concern securities financing transactions, in which securities such as equities are used to borrow cash or vice versa. A common type of SFT is a repo—repurchase transaction—in which a party sells an asset to another party at one price and commits to repurchasing it at a different price on a later date. SFTs were not regulated before 2015; there were major concerns about their effect on the economy, especially because during the financial crisis repurchase transactions were associated with increases in leverage and exacerbating boom and bust cycles in the economy.

After the Financial Stability Board identified significant risks associated with such instruments, the EU passed the securities financing transactions regulation to introduce a framework under which details of SFTs must be reported to trade repositories, which are effectively databases for reporting transactions. Under the regulation, such information must then be disclosed to investors, and national regulators are required to act where they identify risky practices by firms.

The regulation is therefore crucial to protecting financial stability and ensuring that the benefits of SFTs remain available to firms that use them and to the wider economy. On exit day, it will be transferred to the UK statute book under the 2018 Act. In a no-deal scenario, however, the UK would be outside the European economic area and outside the EU’s legal, supervisory and financial regulatory framework, so the legislation would no longer be operative.

The draft regulations will make the necessary amendments to ensure that the relevant provisions continue to work properly in a no-deal scenario. First, they will amend the treatment of EEA branches of financial services firms in the UK, so that after the UK leaves the EU, EEA branches operating in the UK must report their transactions to a UK trade repository. That means that they will be treated in the same way as other third-country branches operating in the UK, which is consistent with the approach that we have adopted in other financial services SIs laid under the 2018 Act.

Secondly, the draft regulations will amend the list of entities that have access to data on securities financing transactions reported to UK trade repositories. EU bodies will be removed, making the list UK-specific to reflect the UK’s status as a third country outside the EU in a no-deal scenario. That will not preclude UK entities from co-operating with EU entities in future.

Finally, the draft regulations will transfer to the Financial Conduct Authority the European Securities and Markets Authority’s responsibilities relating to the requirements for the registration of trade repositories, and will amend the rules so that they continue to work in a domestic context. That is appropriate, given the FCA’s current role in supervising and regulating SFTs.

Because of limitations in the powers available under the 2018 Act, one of the main provisions of the securities financing transactions regulation cannot be domesticated at this stage: the requirement for firms to report details of SFTs to trade repositories. Depending on the type of institution concerned, that requirement will not apply until 12 to 21 months after the EU’s publication of relevant regulatory technical standards. Those standards have not yet been published, so the requirement could not be included in the draft regulations, since it will not be

“operative immediately before exit day”,

in the wording of the 2018 Act. However, we have introduced separate legislation—the Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill, or “in-flight files Bill”, which had its Committee stage yesterday—to ensure that the requirement will apply in a domestic context in due course.

In drafting the regulations, the Treasury has worked closely with the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority. We have also engaged with the financial services industry, and we will continue to do so. On 19 December, we published the regulations in draft, with an explanatory policy note to maximise transparency to Parliament and industry. Prior to publication, we shared a draft with the industry for technical analysis, and we incorporated its feedback into the final draft.

In summary, the Government believe that the draft regulations are necessary to ensure that the UK has a workable regime for securities financing transactions, and that the legislation will continue to function appropriately if the UK leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period. I hope that colleagues across the parties will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I commend them to the Committee.

14:37

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Davies. Once again, the Minister and I are in a Committee Room discussing a statutory instrument that would set up a regulatory framework after Brexit in the regrettable event that we parachute out of the EU without a parachute. On each such occasion, my Labour Front-Bench colleagues and I have explained our objections to the Government’s approach to secondary legislation. The Minister referred to financial stability, but the best way to maintain financial stability would be through continued access to a customs union and a single market—that is a hint that he may wish to take to the Chancellor.

The volume and flow of secondary legislation on EU exit raises deep concerns about accountability and proper scrutiny—I have just raised a very similar matter in the main Chamber. The Government say that no policy decisions are being taken, but establishing a regulatory framework inevitably involves policy and raises questions about resourcing and capacity, as we have heard many times. The Government should be using secondary legislation to make technical, non-partisan and uncontroversial changes, but they are persistently using it to push through contentious legislation with high policy content.

As legislators, we have to get this right. The draft regulations could represent major changes to the statute book, so they need proper, in-depth scrutiny. In that light, the Opposition put on the record our deepest concerns that the process behind them is not as accessible and transparent as it could be, or as the Minister suggests.

The draft regulations will introduce into UK law a regime for securities financing transactions. They set out a process to allow the Financial Conduct Authority to suspend reporting obligations for up to a year. It would be useful to understand the logic of the one-year period. What assessment has been made of the subsequent impact on transparency standards?

Regulation 8 will give the Bank of England and the FCA powers to draft technical standards. Has any consideration been given to allowing Parliament to undertake that role or giving it greater oversight? It is not completely clear—I would be grateful for clarification from the Minister—why the requirement for the ESMA to draft certain regulatory standards is being replaced with the option for the FCA to do so. In particular, will he assure us that the draft regulations are not being used to dilute democratic accountability?

Regulation 23 will give the Treasury the power to make more secondary legislation. I would like the Minister to provide more information on that, if possible, especially in relation to scope and accountability.

Part 4 of this SI makes provision for trade repositories, which is a different subject with different EU regulation. The SI seems to allow the FCA to issue new penalties. The Opposition feel that that is not the sort of thing that should be done through an SI. We note that the FCA has been asked to issue a statement of policy for penalties, but surely that should have been done before the SI was introduced, not afterwards. That seems perfectly reasonable. The explanatory memorandum states that these regulations include:

“Changes to the treatment of EEA branches of financial services firms in the UK, so that after exit, EEA branches operating in the UK must report their transactions to a UK trade repository. This will bring treatment of EEA branches into line with the current treatment of other third country branches in the UK.”

I would be grateful to hear more from the Minister about that. For example, could it represent a change to regulatory standards? That would be quite worrying. I note that the explanatory memorandum refers elsewhere to

“reporting the same data on the same templates, but to two separate trade repositories.”

Again, I seek clarification on whether there could be any changes to such a template.

The explanatory memorandum also states:

“Given the highly regulated nature of financial services, the volume of trade between UK and EU markets, and a shared desire to manage financial stability risks, the UK proposes a new economic and regulatory arrangement that will preserve mutually beneficial cross-border business models and economic integration for the benefit of businesses and consumers. Decisions on market access would be autonomous in our proposed model, but would be underpinned by stable institutional processes in a bilateral agreement and continued close regulatory and supervisory cooperation.”

The use of the word “new” does not suggest continuity. Similarly, the phrase “preserve mutually beneficial” suggests some element of selection and discretion. It will not surprise the Minister to learn that the Opposition do not always share the Government’s analysis of what is beneficial for our economy or our constituents. I would be grateful if the Minister elaborated on the planned “autonomous” nature of the decisions on market access.

Why are parts still highlighted on pages 6 and 7? Is that a drafting error? Is it a sign of the hurried chaos of the process? As the Opposition have made clear numerous times, this process is unprecedented in its scale and scope, and there are unquestionably many areas that have received insufficient scrutiny. The potential for problems to be discovered only after the fact is very real. In fact, on Monday it was rightly acknowledged that there had been mistakes in the drafting of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Last week, the Financial Regulators’ Powers (Technical Standards etc) and Markets in Financial Instruments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 had to make technical amendments to correct measures passed just last December—not years ago, but pretty recently. I have to say that we opposed those regulations and called for greater scrutiny of them.

The Minister knows that we have identified drafting errors in other SIs that have been presented to us. Indeed, during a Committee sitting last week in the other place, the Conservative peer Lord Lexden voiced concerns about the number of drafting errors in instruments. I want to make it clear that I do not believe that this is the fault of civil servants, who are working enormously hard on this package of legislation in extremely difficult circumstances—they have a Herculean task. The fault is in the process. The Government are recklessly pushing through the process with incredible short-termism and a lack of respect for the magnitude of the task and for Parliament in general.

I note that the ESMA is having its responsibilities shifted to the FCA through regulations. I am forced, once more, to give voice to our concerns and queries about this unprecedented transfer of powers via secondary legislation. What consultation has there been on this transfer? Were other institutions considered? What resourcing has been provided? Has the Minister considered the possibility that too many powers are being given to the FCA—more than is practical?

The Opposition have repeatedly stated our increasing alarm at the Government’s unfolding approach to regulating financial services: still no overall plan, still no indication of how different pieces fit together and still, above all, no clarity. I put on the record again that the Government are continuing to put the economy at risk through their shambolic handling of Brexit. Rather than pushing through such a large volume of piecemeal secondary legislation, we clearly need a consolidated piece of primary legislation that can be scrutinised in the proper way.

I know that the Government do not like a great deal of scrutiny and go out of their way not to enable it—well, there we are—but it does not alter the fact that that is what we are asking for. The regulations will transfer far too much power, have possible ramifications that are too significant, and they are shrouded with too many unanswered questions. We cannot in conscience just wave through something like this. Therefore, we do not feel that it would be responsible to agree that the Committee has considered them adequately today.

14:46

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. This is yet another part of a poor attempt to patch up the damage to the financial services industry caused by a Brexit that my constituents, and indeed all of Scotland, did not vote for. It is just another piece of Brexit red tape. Any version of Brexit is bad for Scotland, which voted overwhelmingly to remain.

Financial services firms are already voting with their wallets and have moved a trillion dollars from the UK since the 2016 Brexit referendum. Ten years after the financial crash, in which securities played a major role, our financial services sector needs meaningful reform, not new problems stemming from Brexit. Instead of planning to minimise the damage, we should be using our time to plan a successful future inside the EU. This SI does nothing to protect our economy from Brexit and we cannot accept the UK Government’s attempt to run down the clock in an attempt to force their MPs to back Brexit motions. The UK Government must instead extend article 50.

14:47

[John Glen]

I very much respect the points made by the hon. Members for Bootle and for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey. I will respond to each of the 10 or 11 points that have been raised in succession. The opening remarks of the hon. Member for Bootle concerned the process with respect to the volume and flow, the adequacy of the resourcing, the capacity and transparency.

I will address all of those points, but I will say that the SI is needed to ensure that the EU law on securities financing transactions continues to operate effectively if we leave without a deal or an implementation period. It is not the policy of the Government to get to that point, because we are seeking a bilateral agreement with the EU that would expand the scope of cross-border activity beyond existing equivalence and ensure structured dialogue to manage regulatory change. Our proposal for a future UK-EU relationship in financial services seeks to be both negotiable and ambitious, but it is obviously prudent and necessary for us to have no-deal preparations such as these.

The hon. Member for Bootle commented on the onshoring project and the powers used. The 2018 Act does not give the Government the power to make policy changes, as has been spelled out in this SI, beyond those needed to address deficiencies arising as a result of exit. They are limited and seek simply to onshore existing provisions into domestic regulators and fix deficiencies as they exist.

The hon. Gentleman then referred to the reliance on secondary legislation. Those of us who have sat through a number of such Delegated Legislation Committees in recent weeks, including the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), all recognise that, under the powers granted by 2018 Act to make all these financial services statutory instruments, restrictions are in place to ensure the appropriateness of their use. The central objective of the SIs is to provide, as far as possible, legislative continuity for firms. No policy changes are intended; the exercise is an intelligent onshoring one.

[Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

May I probe the Minister a little further? He talks of onshoring policy, not changing it. The FCA is picking up a number of different roles under the draft regulations, particularly on enforcement, so will he assure us that there will be no resulting policy deviation in relation to the penalties that might be imposed?

[John Glen]

I am happy to say that the FCA has been intimately involved in the whole process. Its objective is to provide continuity to the market and to ensure that appropriate scrutiny of market activities is undertaken. No extension of power is given to the FCA through this process. As the national competent authority, it is simply taking on more responsibilities that were often elsewhere previously.

[Mr Jayawardena]

I thank the Minister for that answer. May I probe further? Given that the FCA is taking on those responsibilities, is it recruiting more people to undertake that work? If so, is it making good progress in doing so?

[John Glen]

Yes. I can tell my hon. Friend that, for example, 158 individuals or full-time equivalents in the FCA are now working on Brexit matters, which contrasts with 28 such individuals or full-time equivalents in March last year. It will shortly be setting out its plan for 2019-20, which will set out how it is allocating resources. The FCA has the power to increase the levy should it require additional resources.

I have sought to address the issue of the reliance on secondary legislation with the inherent restraints placed on the Government in the process. The hon. Member for Bootle went on to ask whether the change in the SI to how branches are treated will lead to duplicative requirements for firms, but firms are simply reporting the same information at the same time using the same template to the UK and EU authorised trade repositories, so yes, there is duplication, but it is straightforward—exactly the same form is sent to two institutions simultaneously.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the suspension of reporting for one year. The draft SI, like other financial services SIs, does not make changes beyond what is necessary to ensure that we have a functioning regime after exit. With regard to the powers to make regulatory technical standards, that reflects an approach that applies across the entire body of onshored legislation. In addition, the SI will ensure that regulators have sufficient flexibility to avoid cliff-edge risks for firms.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the robustness of the SIs and drew attention to the admission that I made on Monday on the Floor of the House about some minor typographical drafting errors, including one or two that happened previously. There are, I think, 1,000 pages of the SIs. My officials and I have done our best, we have acknowledged where those mistakes were made, and we have corrected them as quickly as we could, but they were not meaningful in their substantive legal effect, with the exception of one case, which has now been corrected. We have engaged with industry on the content of the SIs. We usually—I cannot remember circumstances in which we have not—publish the drafts of the SIs in advance of laying them before Parliament, and we have allowed an iterative process to exist.

The hon. Gentleman asked, in connection with regulation 4, whether we should use an SI to allow the FCA to issue penalties. The 2018 Act allows that in limited circumstances, with safeguards, including the affirmative procedure. The FCA needs the power properly to supervise trade repositories. He then asked about resourcing, but I have discussed that in response to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire.

The hon. Member for Bootle also asked about consultation. We published a document in June that set out our approach and emphasised the aim of ensuring continuity. That was widely welcomed. The draft regulations were published on 19 December, so people have had two months to examine them.

On the unavailability before the debate of a consolidated text, it is not normal practice for the Government to provide consolidated texts for debates on secondary legislation. I think that the hon. Gentleman was making a wider point about the overall need for all financial regulations. Frankly, that would be very difficult to achieve, given the wide range of contingency arrangements that are needed. However, the National Archives will publish an online collection of documents capturing the full body of EU law as it stands on exit day.

The SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, made a point about the volume of capital moving outside the UK and asked what the Government’s response was to that. The Treasury is in frequent contact with firms and regulators about their contingency planning for EU exit. Although we have been clear that passporting will come to an end after we leave the EU, we are seeking a relationship with the EU that allows for continued cross-border trade in financial services, as set out in the White Paper. Although I acknowledge that there has been movement of some capital and execution of contingency arrangements, there is a great deal of resilience to the City of London and financial services in the United Kingdom. We need to draw a distinction between wholesale movement of jobs, and capital being located somewhere else but still being acted upon in the United Kingdom and the City of London.

The hon. Member for Bootle asked about discretion for mutual co-operation arrangements and market access. The Government’s priority is to exit the EU with a deal that ensures continued co-operation with EU institutions on all regulatory matters, including SFTs. However, we are working hard to ensure that, in the no-deal scenario that we are seeking to cover ourselves for, we can maintain a degree of co-operation with the EU. Like all such SIs, the draft regulations ensure that we are prepared for all scenarios.

I believe that I have answered the points that were raised. I recognise the wider political point about the adequacy of this process, but I hope that Members have found this Committee sitting informative, will respect the answers I have given and will be able to support the draft regulations.

Question put.

Division 1

Ayes: 9

---

Conservative: 9

Noes: 7

---

Labour: 6
Scottish National Party: 1

14:59

Committee rose.

Draft Animals (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Aquatic Animal Health and Plant Health (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Wednesday 27th February 2019 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: David Hanson

† Beresford, Sir Paul (Mole Valley) (Con)

Blackman, Bob (Harrow East) (Con)

Champion, Sarah (Rotherham) (Lab)

† Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab)

† Hollinrake, Kevin (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)

† Latham, Mrs Pauline (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)

† Mc Nally, John (Falkirk) (SNP)

Mahmood, Shabana (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)

Mann, John (Bassetlaw) (Lab)

† Moore, Damien (Southport) (Con)

† Pollard, Luke (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)

† Quince, Will (Colchester) (Con)

Reynolds, Emma (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)

† Rutley, David (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

† Sobel, Alex (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)

† Stewart, Iain (Milton Keynes South) (Con)

† Watling, Giles (Clacton) (Con)

Medha Bhasin, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Tenth Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 27 February 2019

[David Hanson in the Chair]

Draft Animals (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

14:30

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Animals (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Aquatic Animal Health and Plant Health (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

[David Rutley]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Hanson. There are two sets of regulations for members of the Committee to consider. These statutory instruments are made under the enabling power in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to take powers currently held by the European Commission and transfer them to the appropriate Ministers in the UK.

I should first make it clear that neither instrument makes any change to policy. The instruments are technical and ensure a smooth transfer of powers from the EU to the UK. I should secondly make it clear that the instruments in no way diminish our controls in the important subject areas covered. There is no proposal to alter or reduce our biosecurity controls for animals or plants, our animal welfare standards or our capacity to protect public health.

Thirdly, Ministers will be able only to make negative resolution statutory instruments on specific procedural or technical matters—I stress that it will be technical matters—that are laid down in the various legislative functions currently exercisable by the Commission. The new enabling powers in these SIs will therefore be confined to only those matters that the EU Parliament and Council have delegated to the Commission to implement by way of tertiary legislation, with input from relevant experts.

Legislative functions are currently conferred on the Commission by EU legislation. They enable the Commission to set out the technical details of the regimes in what is known as tertiary legislation. These two instruments take the powers currently held by the Commission and transfer them to the appropriate UK Ministers. Therefore, the instruments are correcting measures enabled by the 2018 Act. The crucial point is that they do not introduce new policy. They preserve the current animal, fish and plant health regimes and simply ensure that we will continue to operate effectively when we leave the European Union.

The Animals (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019—the first instrument we are considering —cover animal health and welfare. They provide for legislative functions to be exercisable by UK authorities. The exercise of those functions will principally be by way of domestic secondary legislation by the appropriate authorities that is made under the negative resolution procedure because it will involve minor technical amendments to the EU retained law. This instrument transfers existing functions currently conferred on the Commission in the areas of animal transport, which is regulations 2 and 6; livestock identification, which is regulations 3 and 5; transmissible spongiform encephalopathies —TSEs—which is regulation 4; seal products, which is regulation 7; animal slaughter, which is regulation 9; animal by-products—ABPs—which is regulations 8 and 10; and zootechnical conditions, which is regulation 11. That allows us to react and develop the legislation in line with changes in technical requirements and in response to any relevant developments in the future.

The functions include such matters as amending implementation rules and procedures when amending detailed rules in respect of sampling and laboratory methods; approval of new scientific disease-related tests; revisions to disease monitoring and surveillance; setting down rules for breeding programmes to recognise disease resistance in livestock; determining feed safety practices; amendment of training and educational programmes; and the uniform application of disease contingency plans. The functions also include the powers to amend the welfare requirements for transporting live animals and to amend animal slaughter methods to take account of scientific and technical progress.

Regulation 12 is a cross-cutting regulation applying across this instrument generally. It contains transitional and saving provisions relating to standard form documents. For example, new forms will be introduced for the UK, but under these regulations it will be permissible to use the current EU forms after exit day for a period of time, so that the movement of products can continue unhindered in a pragmatic way while new forms are being considered and published.

Turning to the Aquatic Animal Health and Plant Health (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019—the second statutory instrument before us—I wish to draw to hon. Members’ attention to one matter relating to the explanatory memorandum, which has been amended. The amended version, which was published last week on 18 February, merely deletes incorrect references to powers not included in the SI, and therefore does not affect the content of the SI itself.

The first of these powers—to edit the criteria of listing diseases—was not included in the SI because the focus of the instrument is to ensure day one readiness. The power to amend the criteria, as listed in directive 2006/88, does not require being transferred at this stage, as the current criteria are well established and effective. The power to edit the criteria may be transferred to UK Ministers in future, but it is not required in the short term.

The second change involves the power to set out detailed rules for the introduction into the EU from third countries of aquaculture animals and related products. This was moved from this instrument and covered in the Import of and Trade in Animals and Animal Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, debated in the House on 19 February, which contains a number of similar amendments. I apologise to members of the Committee for the inconvenience that might have caused.

The second instrument ensures that a series of legislative functions currently conferred by EU legislation upon the European Commission will be exercisable instead by Governments in the United Kingdom. The difference is that this instrument relates to EU directives, while the previous instrument—the first one we discussed—covers EU regulation brought into UK law by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

Directives in this SI are transposed into domestic law by UK regulations and, in some cases, primary legislation when they come forward, so they are already on the UK statute book. However, the functions conferred on the Commission in those directives were not transposed, as it would not have been appropriate to do so, because they refer to EU institutions. They are now being brought in by these regulations to the appropriate Ministers in the UK.

I reiterate my earlier point that Ministers will only be able to make negative resolution statutory instruments on the various legislative functions currently exercisable by the European Commission in specific procedural or technical matters that are laid down. The new enabling powers will therefore be confined to only those matters that the European Parliament and Council have delegated to the European Commission to implement by way of tertiary legislation with input from relevant experts. As with the previous instrument, there is no change in policy.

Part 2 of the second instrument relates to aquatic animal health and part 3 relates to plant health. The regulations relating to plant health do not extend to Scotland—plant health is devolved and Scottish Ministers have chosen to bring forward their own legislation to deal with technical operability issues solely arising from EU exit from plant health legislation.

In part 2, which transfers functions relating to aquatic animal health, the instrument transfers existing European Commission legislation functions to appropriate UK Ministers. It will enable them to amend the list of diseases for disease control purposes, and draw up and, importantly, update this for third countries or parts of third countries, from which aquaculture animals and related products can be introduced into the UK post-exit.

In part 3, which deals with transferring functions in relation to plant health, this instrument transfers the legislative functions to appropriate Ministers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to make amendments, keeping pace with developments in scientific knowledge or changes in risks in plant health. The appropriate Ministers will also be able to specify import conditions that apply to plants and plant products originating in a third country. This is important in enabling international trade based on an assessment of the risk. It also enables appropriate Ministers to put in place temporary emergency measures for the purposes of preventing the introduction or spread of a plant pest. As I have said, there is no lessening of our prior security controls and these measures will enable us to respond to emerging threats.

These instruments will ensure that an operable legal framework is in place for exit day. They make no policy changes. For the reasons set out, I commend them to the Committee.

14:39

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Hanson. The Minister will be relieved to know that the Opposition will not vote against either of the two statutory instruments, but I have a number of questions, which I will be grateful if the Minister can address in his remarks, about the additional resources required for the new duties, the vague nature of some of the new appropriate authorities that the SIs refer to and the potential loss of scientific expertise.

I want to put on the record the Opposition’s general concern about how the Government are rushing through so many statutory instruments and pieces of secondary legislation, which means that scrutiny is often very limited. I note what the Minister said about errors in the explanatory notes. I am grateful to him for setting out what went wrong, but I carefully suggest to him that one reason why mistakes are being made may be the speed and pace of SIs being pushed through his Department. I have a lot of sympathy for the plight of Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, because that Department is most affected by Brexit legislation and has the most SIs to get through. My concern is that, given the speed that they are being pushed through, mistakes can be made and there can be unintended consequences.

The Minister said that all these SIs do is simply transpose EU law into UK law, deleting “Europe” and inserting “the Secretary of State in the United Kingdom”, for instance. Secondary legislation should be used for technical, non-partisan, non-controversial changes, but the Opposition are concerned that the SIs could contain contentious elements that are not being scrutinised sufficiently. Some 400 statutory instruments have been tabled since June 2018. I would be grateful if the Minister can update us on how DEFRA’s SIs are doing. I understand that we are barely a quarter of the way through the pile of DEFRA SIs that is being considered by the House of Commons. My hon. Friends on the Back Benches are very good at turning up for these Delegated Legislation Committees, and they will want to know about them.

[The Chair]

Order. We are dealing with just these two today.

[Luke Pollard]

Indeed, which brings me to the lack of scrutiny that comes with the frequency and volume of the instruments we are being asked to consider.

On the surface, this SI does not seem particularly controversial, but I fear that we run the risk of exposing ourselves to unintended consequences if we continue to pass rushed legislation. There are elements in these two SIs that deal with some severe and important issues, so it is right that we ask about the scrutiny of them. In particular, I want to ask the Minister about the pre-legislative scrutiny of both SIs. For previous statutory instruments, I have invited the Minister to open the DEFRA reading room to allow parliamentarians and not just invited stakeholders the opportunity to review draft SIs to ensure sufficient scrutiny.

Both SIs deal with very important aspects of biosecurity and animal and plant health, and a certain level of technical expertise is required to understand their full implications. I note that the Minister has said in the past that DEFRA would be looking at opening its reading room so parliamentarians can carry out pre-legislative security, but has since decided against that. I invite him to revisit that decision, because in technical areas such as this, the greater the scrutiny, the better the legislation that comes out of it at the end.

Part 4 of the plant health regulations states:

“Regulations made by the Secretary of State…are to be made by statutory instrument”,

which leads to a number of questions about both SIs. Will the statutory instruments be affirmative or negative? What will their sequence be? Given the volume that is still to be introduced and the separation of key topics across a number of different SIs, we might not see the aggregated effect of the regulatory changes. For instance, today we are dealing with both plant health and animal health. That is a broad range of topics to consider. We know that there will be subsequent SIs on both topics, which means that we are not able to see the whole picture. I invite the Minister to think about whether the sequencing of SIs can be looked at to enable greater scrutiny.

I have mentioned previously my concerns about the loss of expertise and information-sharing with our EU friends as we leave the European Union. At the moment we have access to much EU-wide research and analysis to shape our decisions. The Minister has mentioned the transfer of competences from the Commission to relevant UK authorities, but I would be grateful if he could answer a few questions on scientific advice about plant animal health.

What steps are being taken to ensure that the scientific advice will be of the same technical and authoritative standard after this legislation is transposed? The European Commission has very high data quality, and I expect the UK Government to have similar. Will the Minister set out how he intends to ensure that the data quality will be the same? Will he tell us whether there will be additional funding allocated to authorities to look at the research and data collection that would be required under both statutory instruments? The UK has world-leading science. I do not meant to do down our science, but there is real value in peer-reviewed Europe-wide data that enables us to benchmark ourselves, particularly because plant health and animal health have cross-border implications on biosecurity.

I am concerned that there is additional demand on the resources of the competent authorities that the statutory instruments deliver additional powers to. They create new responsibilities for what will be deemed appropriate authorities after Brexit. In parts 2, 3 and 4, considerable powers are conferred to UK authorities, but it is not entirely clear where those mysterious authorities are and who will exercise those powers. I am reminded of Tony Benn’s five basic questions for democracy on allocation of powers. They include: what powers will they have? In whose interests will they be used? Who are they accountable to? How can we get rid of them if they cross the line? What is not certain about the powers created is the accountability and who will exercise them. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to that.

There are concerns about the toothless nature of the new environmental protection agency. The Opposition understands why that is necessary following our exit from EU institutions, but we need to ensure that the competent authorities that will exercise those powers are sufficiently well resourced and have accountability and scrutiny of those decisions. Part 2 of the draft Aquatic Animal Health and Plant Health (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 creates new powers for the appropriate authority—without naming it—to amend Annex 1A and Annex 3 to Commission regulation 1251/2008. Having the authority to amend that annex means that the appropriate authorities will be responsible for adding, varying or removing an exotic or non-exotic disease in Annex 1A where necessary. At what point will that be open to scrutiny to make sure the scientific basis of those decisions is appropriate? The EU Commission provides much of that but it is not certain how that will be done in future.

Part 3.10 confers to the appropriate authority

“Power to modify the lists of regulated plant pests and relevant material”

where modification is

“necessary or appropriate in the light of developments in scientific or technical knowledge”

and

“technically justified and consistent with the risk to plant health.”

Part 3.11 confers:

“Power to make further derogations”.

There are an awful lot of powers there. After many years of austerity and cuts to competent authorities in DEFRA land, what additional funding will be allocated? Has any assessment been made of whether any additional funding will be required for the proper exercise, scrutiny and data collection and reporting of the new duties? Has the Minister made any estimates of additional staffing that will be required?

Part 3.13 confers

“Power to make provision in relation to emergency measures”.

I am of the view that it is best to scrutinise emergency powers before they are used rather than at the point of use. The appropriate authority will have the ability to modify plant health regulations to make temporary provision for the purpose of preventing the introduction of a plant pest into a relevant territory. What additional resources can we put in place to ensure that those emergency powers can be scrutinised?

I was very concerned to read in the explanatory notes that the powers under directive 2006/88/EC and directive 2000/29/EC have not been transferred in this SI, given the lack of urgency. It says that they may be transferred in due course. I would be grateful if the Minister can set out, in relation to my concern about sequencing, when he expects those powers to be exercised in conjunction with the ones we are considering today. As a package, they work together, and individually they do not provide the full picture.

I echo the remarks made by my noble Friend Baroness Jones of Whitchurch in the other place. She made the point that the circumstances in which these controls are put in place in aquaculture seem to relate solely to the adverse economic impact and the likely production or export losses. There is no reference to the welfare or suffering of the species concerned. Could the Minister not have a wider responsibility to ensure good animal husbandry and disease-free environments for those fish and species, regardless of the economic consequences? I realise that this SI transfers current EU regulations, but the Minister knows that there is cross-party concern to ensure that high levels of animals husbandry for all species are transferred appropriately into UK law after we leave the EU. I hope the Minister will take into account the increasing evidence that fish that are farmed in an aquaculture environment that closely replicates their natural environment and are kept disease-free are less stressed, more productive and more robust in the longer term. There is a benefit all round to ensuring that the regulatory environment is appropriate.

The Animals (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019—hon. Members will be relieved to hear that I am now 60% of the way through my remarks—is about animal health and welfare, and food composition and labelling. Although it amends a wide breadth of legislation, as with the SI on aquatic animal and plant health, there has been no impact assessment. In previous Delegated Legislation Committees, I have raised concerns about the wording used in explanatory notes about impact assessments, and I would like to repeat them now. The explanatory memorandum says that there is no impact, or little impact, and therefore the Government have not carried out an impact assessment. The precise wording is:

“There is no, or no significant, impact on business”.

Given the volume of SIs that we need to get through, that is an unhelpful phrase, because those are two different things. I realise that the Minister is bound by the duties of the House, and that is the set terminology. I am sure he will blame the House authorities for it. There is a distinction between “no impact” and “no significant impact”. I would be grateful if the Minister can set out which of the two he believes it is, and how he can make that decision in the absence of an impact assessment.

This SI amends 10 pieces of EU legislation and transfers new powers to UK authorities. Individually, they do not seem to be huge changes, but I am concerned about the incremental change and the unintended consequences. I am especially concerned about how, as a nation, we provide identification, keep records, issue health certificates and transport animals. In aggregate, that creates a huge amount of work for the relevant institutions that will be receiving those powers.

My questions are similar to those that I asked about the previous SI. I would be grateful if the Minister can set out what assessment he has made of the requirement for any additional resources to ensure that these powers are appropriately used, and that the results of that work is appropriately reported. We currently rely on EU institutions to do that and aggregate that data, but that responsibility will now be transferring to UK authorities. I am not certain what the implication is of that transfer.

It would also be helpful to know what the appropriate authority referred to in these regulations is, the extent to which its advice is given independently, and whether that advice will be made public. One of the advantages of the fact that the EU scrutinises much of this is that many of its decisions are available on the European Commission website. It is quite a website, and it is not necessarily the easiest place to find that advice, but it is published. Does the Minister plan to transfer over that element of transparency? It is not within the SI per se, but it relates to how the powers in the SI will be delivered.

There are concerns about the level of scrutiny. There is a degree of stakeholder fatigue about the level of scrutiny and expertise that we have in reviewing some of these elements. Understanding the full implications of this SI requires a high level of technical knowledge. I do not for one moment pretend that I have such expertise, so the Opposition rely on outside expertise. That is one of the reasons why the sequencing of this particular SI with the other ones to come creates not only uncertainty about the proper scrutiny of this SI, but also the ones to follow. Will the Minister set out how he intends to address stakeholder fatigue and provide the robust scrutiny that certainly the Opposition and, I am sure, Members on both sides of the House rely on to make sure that what we are passing is appropriate?

The Minster has set out elements of the regulations. Regulations 2 to 9 and 11 give powers to the Minister to push through more statutory instruments. The Minister has set out what those particular SIs enable him to do. As we heard earlier, they range from implementation rules and scientific tests to disease resistance and food safety practices. Feedback from stakeholders in general is that dealing with a jigsaw puzzle one piece at a time does not enable us to see the bigger picture. There are elements here about how the competent authorities will use those individual regulations to create a full picture of the effect on the sectors that will be regulated by them. Will the Minister address that?

My noble Friend Baroness Jones raised a point in discussing this SI a few days ago about transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. You and I, Mr Hanson, might know them as mad cow disease or zombie deer disease in deer and elk. The Opposition are concerned that the regulations on TSE seem to water down the requirement in the annual monitoring programme to check animals in remote areas with low animal density. They also allow the overall programme to be revised based on a comprehensive risk analysis. There seems to be a slightly different effect in contrast to what the Minister set out as a simple cut and paste of EU legislation. On the TSE elements, why has there been no impact assessment on the potential monitoring reduction? Who will carry out any risk assessment to look at TSE? Mad cow disease and its similar forms in other species is an area where it is right and proper that additional questions are asked because of the potential effects. I represent an urban seat in a very rural part of the world in the south-west, so can the Minister give some reassurance to the people who want to know there is no reduction in the monitoring?

In relation to animal welfare, why have cows, goats and sheep been lumped together in an SI on aquatic plant health and disease? I echo the concerns of my noble Friend in the other place who said last week:

“It seems a bit of an act of desperation to produce these composite SIs, which have completely different subject matters, particularly when there are other SIs in the pipeline covering more specific regulations relating to these individual topics.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 February 2019; Vol. 795, c. 484.]

We will not oppose this SI today, but we have concerns about the pace at which the SIs are being pushed through. We simply cannot afford to get it wrong when it comes to plant and animal health and the impact that may have on the environment, consumer welfare and public health. For example, in part 2, regulation 9 refers to Council regulation 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter. These matters are not trivial and legislation dealing with slaughterhouses requires the utmost scrutiny. Will the Minister confirm that there is nothing in the regulations that will roll back animal welfare standards, especially in relation to slaughter?

In Monday’s REACH debate in the main Chamber, the Minister was unable to satisfy the House that no deal would not risk animal testing having to be duplicated. Some of the implementation of these particular regulations may add additional costs, not just to the public competent authorities mentioned in the SIs, but to those who work in aquaculture and agriculture and associated settings. Can the Minister set out whether he expects there to be any additional costs to those communities?

My general concern about many of the DEFRA SIs that we are considering, including the two before the Committee, is that future animal welfare still looks uncertain under this Government. There are lots of good warm words, but I am concerned about the aggregate effect of many of the changes, and about how they work as an overall picture. There are particular concerns about how one element of animal welfare consideration works with another and what the aggregate effect of changes to responsibilities will be on organisations that will receive additional powers.

To ease my concern, I would be grateful if the Minister spoke about how the SIs will be implemented. Is he asking the competent authorities, once identified, to implement them as they come out of the parliamentary process, or will he look at aggregating them to be implemented en bloc? Knowing whether the SIs will be aggregated for implementation or will be implemented in turn along the way will address how much scrutiny needs to be applied to each.

To conclude, I am concerned that there has been insufficient scrutiny of many statutory instruments, including the two before the Committee. We know that Brexit must not be used as an excuse to reduce or weaken our environment protections. There is a distinction between the protections in law and on the face of regulation, and those that are actually implemented by authorities that have the resource and powers to do so. I would be grateful if the Minister sets out answers to those concerns, particularly on funding for the organisations that may receive additional powers. The Opposition will not vote against the two instruments, but we have laid out our concerns, which I would be grateful if the Minister addressed.

15:02

[David Rutley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his characteristically in-depth and thoughtful contributions and his extensive questions, which I will endeavour to address to his satisfaction. I also thank hon. Members for their presence on the Committee.

As we have discussed, the two instruments transfer specified functions to the UK Minister. Without establishing those powers in United Kingdom law, respective UK Ministers would be unable to bring forward measures for which the European Commission currently has authority on behalf of member states.

The hon. Gentleman kindly referred to the fact that DEFRA is under a lot of pressure with respect to SIs. Let us be absolutely clear: as part of leaving the EU, we are onshoring environmental, agricultural and fisheries policy in one go, so there will inevitably be a lot of SIs on the back of that. I am grateful to him and his team for bearing with us, which they have generally done in good spirit in the light of the amount of work going on, as has the ministerial team. I should more than anything pay tribute to officials at DEFRA for the huge amount of work that they do to make this possible.

We have laid out the SIs that are required for day-one exit. Final scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments determines what needs to happen, and the final few SIs are passing that hurdle as we speak. We are getting most of the SIs into the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments’ hopper, so we are well through the programme and making good progress. We sorted instruments that are legislative in nature into the affirmative procedure and decided that it was more efficient to pass others via the negative procedure, as hon. Members would expect. The drafts are considered in detail by the JCSI and are published several weeks before the parliamentary debate, so there is time to consider them, but I understand what the hon. Gentleman says.

A huge amount of work is going on, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear with us. I have not personally come across what he calls stakeholder fatigue, but I am conscious that there is a lot going on, and we are working very closely with stakeholders to try to provide the information that is required to help them.

It is important to recognise that, given the amount of work that is going on, we are trying to focus on the right piece of legislation at the right time. The policies within the SIs we have brought forward remain unchanged. The hon. Gentleman asked whether there was little or no significant change. I do not want to dance on the head of a pin, but I assure him that these are incredibly minor technical amendments. I know he has gone through them in great detail, and I am sure he can see that they are incredibly technical.

The hon. Gentleman requested further clarity on the appropriate authorities. They are the Secretary of State, the Welsh Ministers, the Scottish Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department. The definition of “other responsible authorities” depends partly on which part of the SIs we are talking about, but in the aquatic animal health and plant health SI they are simply other Ministers or the Northern Ireland Department.

As I said, these are minor technical amendments to retained EU legislation. The hon. Gentleman talked about sequencing. I think—I hope I have got this right—he is concerned about when the future negative SIs that are referred to in the two instruments would come into place. They would come forward when there was a need. We are transferring powers so that the Minister—the UK Minister or the Minister in a devolved Administration —can recognise that there has been a change in circumstances and update the technical requirements as a result. That is what we are talking about. We are not looking at a tsunami of future SIs all in one go. We are transferring powers to respond. At the moment we are in a very good place—we have good positions in place on plant and aquatic health and animal welfare—but we want to ensure that we have the power to make amendments in the future.

The hon. Gentleman asked about consultation and impact assessments. There was no consultation because there is no policy change. These changes are very technical and forward looking. For similar reasons, there was no impact assessment either.

The hon. Gentleman asked a number of very important questions about science. We have outstanding science, which is supported by the Government and the taxpayer, and we are considering how best to allocate resources. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is well aware of our demands, or suggestions, and no doubt of those of other stakeholders.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned our science agencies. We are very fortunate to have outstanding Government agencies and expert committees, which have genuinely worldwide recognition for undertaking risk assessments and advising the Government. They have been doing that work for many years, and we will be able to retain that expertise. We have the expertise of the Animal and Plant Health Agency and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. We want to ensure that we retain that and, in time, build on it.

I think I have already answered the hon. Gentleman’s question about the various authorities that would be passed on to different Ministers, and about who those Ministers would be. I hope I did so to his satisfaction. He also talked about ensuring that we have the necessary resources in place. In debates on previous SIs, I have discussed with some of his counterparts what we are doing to support vets, for example. That includes ensuring that there is enough training to enable vets to step up and do what will be required on export health certificates, and we have also made strong representations to the Migration Advisory Committee about returning veterinary surgeons to the shortage occupation list, which I know the hon. Gentleman strongly supports.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned fish husbandry. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 made it an offence to cause animals, including fish, avoidable pain or suffering. There are mechanisms to ensure that welfare standards are in place. We have no current plans to extend animal welfare legislation to cover specific husbandry requirements for fish, but we do not rule out making such additions in the future.

The hon. Gentleman also made important points about TSEs. I can assure him and other members of the Committee that the TSE monitoring programme will not be watered down by the amendments and will continue unchanged after EU exit. The regulations exactly reflect the current EU programme, and the Government have no plans to revise our existing annual monitoring programme for TSEs, which will remain at pre-EU exit levels for the foreseeable future.

I hope that I have answered just about all the questions. Of course, the hon. Gentleman and I have a good relationship, and I can answer any other questions afterwards—or it can be done in writing. I hope that hon. Members are now more fully aware of why the regulations are needed. Overall, the regimes will continue to function similarly to how they did before. For the reasons that I have set out, I trust that members of the Committee will give the regulations their support.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Animals (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Draft Aquatic Animal Health and Plant Health (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Aquatic Animal Health and Plant Health (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(David Rutley.)

15:10

Committee rose.

Draft International Waste Shipments (amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Wednesday 27th February 2019 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Stewart Hosie

† Benyon, Richard (Newbury) (Con)

Coaker, Vernon (Gedling) (Lab)

† Coffey, Dr Thérèse (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

† Courts, Robert (Witney) (Con)

† Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab)

† Dhesi, Mr Tanmanjeet Singh (Slough) (Lab)

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall) (Lab)

† Kinnock, Stephen (Aberavon) (Lab)

† Law, Chris (Dundee West) (SNP)

† Martin, Sandy (Ipswich) (Lab)

† Morris, David (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)

† Paterson, Mr Owen (North Shropshire) (Con)

Phillipson, Bridget (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)

† Pursglove, Tom (Corby) (Con)

† Seely, Mr Bob (Isle of Wight) (Con)

† Stewart, Iain (Milton Keynes South) (Con)

† Sturdy, Julian (York Outer) (Con)

Nina Foster, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Ninth Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 27 February 2019

[Stewart Hosie in the Chair]

Draft International Waste Shipments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

08:55

[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 International Waste Shipments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. This is one of a number of affirmative statutory instruments to be considered as the UK leaves the European Union, as provided for by the result of the 2016 referendum and as subsequently agreed by Parliament. In line with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the regulations simply make technical, legal amendments to maintain the effectiveness and continuity of the legislation controlling shipments of waste, which would otherwise be left partially inoperable, so that following our exit from the EU the law will continue to function as it does today.

The statutory instrument is quite lengthy and makes many adjustments. However, I assure the Committee that those adjustments represent no changes of policy, and nor will they have any impact on businesses or the public. The regulations do exactly what they say on the tin: they bring over what is required to ensure that, the day after exit, things operate just as they did the day before—no more and no less. Otherwise, I would have been breaking the ministerial code when I signed the transparency statement. There is no change in policy; the regulations are simply technical.

The territorial extent of this instrument is the United Kingdom. It applies to all of the United Kingdom, including the territorial sea adjacent to it. The legislation in this area is reserved, but this instrument has been the subject of extensive consultation with the devolved Administrations and the UK regulators.

Part 1 of the regulations contains technical introductory provisions. Part 2 corrects outdated references in the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 2007 to the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment, which is now known as the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. It also updates a reference to the legislation governing waste management licensing in Scotland to the current 2011 regulations. Part 3 makes technical changes to the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 2007.

Regulations 14 and 15 omit references to “Community Regulation”. Regulations 16 and 17 omit regulations that implement provisions relating to an EU body and historic transitional provisions in the EU legislation from the 2004 and 2007 enlargements of the European Union.

Regulations 18 to 25 make provision for the UK plan for shipments of waste of May 2012 to continue to have effect and to be changed in the future. The amendments provide that any future change must meet Basel convention objectives to have adequate disposal facilities, to minimise the movements of hazardous wastes and to ensure that shipments of wastes are allowed only if the state of export does not have the technical capacity or the facilities to dispose of the wastes in question in an environmentally sound manner.

Regulations 26 to 41 make technical changes to the offence provisions in the domestic regulations. These changes preserve the scope of existing offences and ensure that no new offences are created.

Regulation 42 omits regulation 60 of the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 2007, which revoked previous versions of the domestic regulations. This change tidies up the law and is intended to make it clearer. Regulation 43 omits schedule 1, which also relates to historic transitional provisions in the EU legislation from the 2004 and 2007 enlargements of the European Union.

Part 4 makes technical changes by omitting references to the relevant retained EU law in annex 20 to the European economic area agreement, so far as that annex forms part of our domestic law. The references are no longer needed because the retained EU legislation on waste shipments has been amended so that it sets out all the rules that govern shipments to or from European Free Trade Association countries, for example by treating Liechtenstein as an OECD decision country.

Regulations 45 to 109 in part 5 make technical changes to the principal retained EU regulation on waste shipments, namely European Commission regulation No. 1013/2006. Regulations 46, 47 and 50 amend the scope of retained EU law to make clear that it applies to waste shipments to, from or through the United Kingdom. They also correct definitions and out-of-date references to EU legislation to ensure operability and to make the law clearer.

Regulation 48 amends definitions and makes technical changes to ensure that references to competent authorities and to the 2008 waste framework directive, which appear throughout the retained EU legislation, continue to be effective. Regulation 49 omits a deficient reference to the European Union.

Regulation 51 omits or modifies references to “the Community” and, where required, substitutes those terms with appropriate UK terms. It removes an obligation to inform the Commission about national law related to financial guarantees.

Regulation 52 amends EU provisions that allow the regulators to object to shipments of notifiable waste for disposal that are not in accordance with the principles of proximity, priority for recovery and self-sufficiency at EU and national levels. Those principles are currently defined in the context of an obligation to encourage the establishment of an EU network of waste disposal installations and consequently are no longer relevant to the UK. The instrument substitutes references to the principles with Basel convention obligations to have adequate disposal facilities, to minimise the movements of hazardous wastes and to ensure that shipments of wastes are only allowed if the state of export does not have the technical capacity or the facilities to dispose of the wastes in question in an environmentally sound manner.

Regulations 52 and 53 also make technical changes that preserve the existing powers to object to notifiable waste shipments for disposal or recovery where a destination site operates to lower environmental standards than those in the UK.

Regulations 54 to 62 and regulations 64, 66, 67 and 68 omit or modify references to “Community”, “within the Community”, “Member States” “within a Member State”, “competent authorities”, “the Commission” and “third”, as in third country, and where required substitutes those terms with appropriate UK terms. Regulation 63 removes a reference to an EU directive that is no longer in force, substituting it with a reference to the current EU legislation.

Regulation 65 omits article 30, which relates to border area agreements between member states. Regulation 69 omits all of title 3 of the EU regulation, which requires member states to set up systems for internal waste movements consistent with the system used between member states. Given that the UK has a system for internal waste movements, those provisions are considered redundant.

Regulations 70, 71 and 72 relate to the export of waste to EU and EFTA countries for disposal. The technical changes contained in the draft regulations maintain the control procedures for such exports and preserve the existing prohibition on exports of waste for disposal except to EU or EFTA countries. Approval to export waste to the EU for disposal is contingent on a third country providing appropriate justification. A requirement is included for the Secretary of State to provide such a justification to the competent authority in the relevant EU or EFTA country. Regulation 72 also omits redundant obligations to provide documentation to EU customs offices and substitutes references to EU customs officials’ duties to the duties of UK customs officials.

Regulations 73 to 79 make technical changes to maintain the existing controls and procedures that govern the exports of wastes to non-OECD countries, OECD countries, the Antarctic, and British and EU overseas territories and to EU member states for recovery.

Regulations 80 to 89 make changes to maintain existing procedures that control imports of wastes for disposal or recovery and controls on wastes that transit through the UK. The regulations also omit redundant obligations to provide documentation to EU customs offices and substitute references to EU customs officials’ duties to the duties of UK customs officials.

Regulation 90 omits redundant references to “the Community”, movements of waste “in the Community”, “Community legislation”, “third” and “third countries”. Regulation 91 makes a number of amendments to enforcement provisions. The provisions of article 50 have already been implemented in the UK through the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 2007 and so some of those provisions will now be redundant and can be omitted. Regulation 90 also modifies those provisions that place obligations on member states to co-operate with each other so that such obligations now fall to the UK regulators.

Regulations 91 and 92 make changes that preserve obligations to provide reports to the secretariat of the Basel convention and omits obligations to provide information to the European Commission on the movement of waste between EU member states. Regulation 93 makes changes to maintain obligations in respect to international co-operation. Regulation 94 omits redundant provisions that require member states to designate competent authorities and contact points to the European Commission.

Regulation 95 makes technical changes that preserve the power for the Secretary of State to designate places at which waste entering or leaving the United Kingdom is controlled. Regulation 96 modifies a provision such that the Secretary of State is required to notify specified information to the secretariat of the Basel convention, rather than the European Commission. The regulation also places an obligation on the Secretary of State to publish UK information previously published by the Commission.

Regulation 97 omits article 57, which relates to an EU body. Regulation 98 omits article 58a, which provides a power to the European Commission to amend annexes to the regulation. Regulation 99 omits article 60, which places obligations on the European Commission to review the regulations. Regulation 100 omits articles 62 to 64, which are considered redundant. Article 62 provides transition rules for shipments of waste approved under the previous EU legislation on waste shipments. Article 63 covers historic transitional provisions in the EU legislation from the 2004 and 2007 enlargements of the EU. Article 64 makes provisions for the entry into force and application of the EU regulation. Regulation 101 omits a reference to the direct applicability of the EU legislation to member states.

Regulations 102 to 104 make technical changes to instructions on the completion of forms. Regulations 105 to 108 update or remove references to redundant EU legislation. Regulation 109 modifies the questionnaire for reports on inspections and enforcement, omitting the elements of the EU questionnaire that related to movements of waste between member states. Regulation 110 makes minor technical changes to retained EU legislation that sets out the control procedures for exports of waste for recovery to non-OECD countries. Regulation 111 makes minor technical changes to retained EU legislation that provides a correlation table between EU customs codes and EU waste codes.

The statutory instrument addresses technical deficiencies in the waste shipment legislation, in order to ensure that the legislation will continue to operate effectively when we leave the EU. As I have said, it does not introduce new policy. In the development of the instrument, we have sought to ensure minimum disruption to businesses that are involved in the shipment of waste, by retaining existing law. No enforcement mechanisms or enforcement bodies are being changed, and there are no significant impacts on the enforcement bodies, such as the Environment Agency, or other regulators. The instrument has been designed to ensure the continuation of the current system for the control of waste shipments, and no significant direct impacts have been identified.

Should the UK leave the EU without a withdrawal agreement in place, 545 of the 556 existing approvals to ship notifiable waste to EU countries will continue to be valid. No new applications will be required to allow the export of those wastes and there will be no additional administrative costs associated with the approval process. Unfortunately, Spain is the only EU member state still to provide a response in respect to 11 approvals. My officials have met officials from the Spanish Ministry of Environment, and given that those shipments have previously been approved, there is agreement on both sides that it is important to avoid unnecessary duplication. Our principal export to Spain seems to be car batteries. We have had discussions with prominent exporters there, and there are certainly other countries in the European Union that could accommodate those materials, if necessary.

For those reasons, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

09:07

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. The Opposition acknowledge the need for legislation to ensure that, post-Brexit, waste shipments can continue in a timely and effective manner between the UK and the European Union, but we will abstain on the regulations because of our concern about how the Government are tabling such secondary legislation with limited means of scrutiny.

The Government’s last-minute rushing through of SIs has massively constrained our ability to examine in depth their real implications. We have not had the necessary time to consult all stakeholders or to satisfy ourselves that this SI raises any problems. We do not think that the Government have allowed themselves enough time to do that either, which is worrying.

The Commons sifting Committee agreed with the Government that the SI did not require debate in Parliament, but the Lords Committee disagreed. I understand that its decision was made in response to a EU document and because it had concerns about the lack of approvals issued by the UK and EU competent authorities that authorise the shipments of waste.

At the time of the Lords decision, there had been only 61 responses to the 533 letters seeking agreement to roll over the process of waste shipments after Brexit. The Minister assures us that now only 11 approvals have not yet been agreed and that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working with Spanish authorities to authorise the shipment of UK waste to Spain. However, that accounts for only 68,700 tonnes of waste, and there is a worrying degree of uncertainty for the exporters of that waste.

I thank the Minister for her update, but I must ask her how many businesses are waiting on these approvals. What happens if those approvals are not agreed before the UK leaves the EU on 29 March, and what would the cost be to businesses if there were no approvals? If the Spanish Government do not agree to those 11 approvals, is there a plan B in place? If so, can she tell us what it is? Given the risks involved, why have the Government not produced an impact assessment?

In the longer term, how are we going to proceed with waste policy? If, for reasons such as non-alignment between UK and EU waste legislation, we no longer have access to EU recycling facilities in future, where will that waste go? Will material that has previously been recycled at European facilities be incinerated in the UK? How can we ensure that it will not go to less suitable countries that have a dubious record in recycling waste that is registered as having been recycled?

China stopped taking UK waste about a year ago, but during the 12 months to October 2018 the UK exported 611,000 tonnes of recovered plastic packaging to other countries, such as Malaysia and Indonesia, which are both in the top 10 countries for the quantity of waste plastics polluting the oceans. The Basel convention supposedly prevents shipments of waste to countries without sound environmental management, but that has not stopped the UK shipping huge quantities of plastic to Malaysia and Indonesia, where much of it ends up in the sea. What confidence can we have in UK regulations preventing unsustainable waste exports in future? We need a comprehensive and robust strategy to reduce waste and improve UK waste and recycling infrastructure, to not only be more responsible for where our rubbish ends up but to benefit the UK economy and create green jobs.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

On the long-term vision, does my hon. Friend agree that rather than having a vision for building the nation’s recycling infrastructure and dealing with core issues right now, the Government’s waste strategy merely talks about voluntary action and distant target deadlines?

[Sandy Martin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is not a debate about the Government’s waste strategy, but leaving the European Union will have an impact on it. The Government need to be cognisant of the fact that without an effective waste strategy that prevents pollution and encourages recycling, leaving the European Union will exacerbate the problem.

The SI cannot guarantee anything, because it is just an administrative tool, but there is a real danger that the UK will become a cheap and less regulated alternative for EU member states to offload their waste on us. What expert advice has the Minister obtained about whether the new arrangements could result in any additional environmental impact compared with our current legislative arrangement with the European Union?

This instrument is about the status quo and ensuring that the current environmental protections on the shipping of waste remain in place on the day of Brexit. However, it is clear that when it comes to the UK’s waste and recycling strategy, the status quo is far from adequate. Plastics and other recyclable materials are piling up in the UK and are being dumped illegally on the other side of the world. Like every other SI in preparation for Brexit, this may be portrayed as simply a copy-and-paste job that amends references to the EU and replaces them with UK equivalents, but we fear that there may be real problems associated with leaving the EU that the Government have still not fully understood.

09:13

[Dr Coffey]

To respond to the hon. Member for Ipswich, seven businesses in England have been affected by the situation in Spain. I do not have the statistics for countries whose regulators are different from the Environment Agency, but I know that the agency has spoken to each of the seven businesses and they are making contingency plans. As I outlined in my opening comments, there are alternative places for people to send car batteries and other products that are currently being sent to Spanish recycling processors.

It is important to recognise that we are still part of the Basel convention, which itself has international laws. I have explained how we are taking the Basel convention, a lot of which was applied through EU regulations, into domestic law so that we continue to have those obligations. The hon. Gentleman referred to countries such as China not taking waste, but China does still take some waste. It is about the level of contamination. We were exporting a lot more paper waste than plastic waste to China, recognising that packaging often gets remade in China and other countries in Asia. Nevertheless, the Environment Agency, proactively and on an intelligence-led basis, works to target exporters in trying to prohibit, prior to export, the movement of waste that would otherwise be illegal. In some countries—including, I think, in Malaysia —waste seems to have been exported to an illegal business, and the Environment Agency was not informed that that business was illegal. Now that our intelligence is better, measures such as stop notices can be deployed more often, and we need an intelligence-led approach for that.

The United Kingdom has always had a strong legal framework for enforcing environmental protections on waste. In terms of EU countries offloading into the United Kingdom, we are all members of the OECD and there is a convention that, in essence, countries can export to other OECD countries. The receiving country will designate the waste as what it considers to be either high or low risk, and processes are followed in that regard, including on what controls are needed when exporting or importing. EU regulations do not allow EU member states to export their waste outside the EU for final disposal, although that is allowed for recycling, so there is no risk in that regard.

We take waste for disposal from other EU member states, and the EU will need to change its rules if it wishes that to continue. I know of one example where the recycling processor has already made arrangements for that EU member state to divert, so instead of that waste coming to the UK facility, it will go to another facility within the European Union. Contingency plans and preparations are well developed in that field.

I think I have covered the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that the Committee will approve this statutory instrument.

Question put and agreed to.

09:18

Committee rose.

Draft Law Enforcement and Security (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Wednesday 27th February 2019 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Sir David Amess

† Bridgen, Andrew (North West Leicestershire) (Con)

† Cartlidge, James (South Suffolk) (Con)

Creasy, Stella (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)

† Dakin, Nic (Scunthorpe) (Lab)

† Docherty-Hughes, Martin (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)

† Elliott, Julie (Sunderland Central) (Lab)

† Hoare, Simon (North Dorset) (Con)

† Huq, Dr Rupa (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)

† Hurd, Mr Nick (Minister for Policing and the Fire Service)

† Johnson, Dr Caroline (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)

† McDonald, Stuart C. (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)

† Maynard, Paul (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† Mills, Nigel (Amber Valley) (Con)

† Ross, Douglas (Moray) (Con)

† Smith, Eleanor (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)

† Thomas-Symonds, Nick (Torfaen) (Lab)

† Warburton, David (Somerton and Frome) (Con)

Jack Dent, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Eleventh Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 27 February 2019

[Sir David Amess in the Chair]

Draft Law Enforcement and Security (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

14:30

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Law Enforcement and Security (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Sir David, it is an enormous pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and to propose the regulations to the Committee. The Committee will be aware that the Government are preparing for all scenarios relating to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, including the scenario in which the UK leaves the EU without a deal in March 2019. As part of those preparations, the Government are bringing forward a programme of secondary legislation that is intended to ensure that there is an effectively functioning statute book on exit day.

This afternoon’s statutory instrument forms part of that programme of secondary legislation. It addresses deficiencies in our domestic statute book that would arise if we leave the EU without a deal and focuses in particular on deficiencies in the area of security, law enforcement, criminal justice and some security-related regulatory systems.

By way of context, the Committee will, I am sure, be aware that the UK currently participates in a number of EU tools and measures that support security, law enforcement and judicial co-operation in criminal matters, some of which, such as the European arrest warrant or Europol, will be very familiar. We also participate in a number of security-related EU regulatory regimes related to firearms, drug precursors and explosive precursors.

Should the UK leave the EU without an agreement next month—the no-deal scenario—the UK’s access to those tools and measures would cease. At the same time, the UK would cease to be bound by those security-related EU regulatory systems. That decoupling would occur as a result of the UK having withdrawn from the European Union—that is, as a result of the article 50 notification, not as a result of the provisions found in this instrument.

The regulations clearly play no part in bringing about the UK’s withdrawal from the EU; rather, their purpose is to make amendments to the UK’s domestic statute book, including retained EU legislation, to reflect that new situation. The changes they make are those that we cannot or should not avoid, in the event of a no-deal exit. The regulations do not contain significant policy choices.

Against that backdrop, let me be clear that the regulations will do three main things. First, they will revoke or amend retained, directly applicable EU legislation and domestic legislation in the area of security, law enforcement, criminal justice and some security-related regulatory systems. That will ensure that the statute book continues to function effectively in a no-deal scenario.

Secondly, where necessary the instrument includes transitional or saving provisions to address live or “in flight” cases—that is, provisions confirming how cases that are live on exit day should be dealt with, or how data received before exit should be treated. That will provide certainty for operational partners such as the police and prosecutors who currently operate the EU tools and measures, and who need to be clear on what activity can continue and on what terms, at the point of exit.

Thirdly, in the case of extradition, the instrument will ensure that the UK has the correct legal underpinning to operate the no-deal contingency arrangement for extradition, which is the 1957 Council of Europe convention on extradition with EU member states.

Overall, the making of the instrument will provide legal and operational certainty to the public sector, including our law enforcement and criminal justice partners across the UK, such as the National Crime Agency and our police and prosecution services. Although it remains the Government’s position that exiting with a deal is in the UK’s best interests, the instrument makes important changes to ensure readiness on exit day in a no-deal scenario.

I should make clear, however, that for the most part the instrument is not a vehicle for implementing the Government’s policy response to a no-deal exit. Our contingency arrangements for co-operation with EU partners on security, law enforcement and criminal justice involve making more use of Interpol, Council of Europe conventions and bilateral channels. Those are alternative channels that are already in use and therefore do not require domestic legislation to set up. That is why these contingency arrangements are largely outside the scope of what the regulations set out to do. Even the Council of Europe convention on extradition, in respect of which this instrument links into our contingency arrangements, is already in place and in day-to-day use by the UK with non-EU countries. For the purposes of our domestic law under the Extradition Act 2003, the instrument re-categorises EU member states so that we can administer requests from EU member states under part 2 of the Act rather than under part 1, as at present.

I should make it clear to the Committee that the instrument would come into force on exit day, as defined in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Should we enter an implementation period, the entry into force of these regulations, along with most other EU exit instruments, will be deferred until the end of that period. This would be achieved via the withdrawal agreement Bill. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

14:36

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I want to make it clear that the Opposition do not oppose these regulations or the aim of having a functioning statute book without prejudicing the outcome of the negotiations. I will, however, make a number of observations on the regulations and on the wider security position with regard to our exit from the European Union. I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on them.

The UK participates in about 40 European Union measures that are meant to enhance security, law enforcement and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. They are very important tools, as is our participation in security-related EU regulatory systems. As the Minister has set out, the regulations essentially do three things. First, they seek to revoke or amend retained EU law that is directly applicable to our current domestic legislation. Secondly, they try to deal with a situation in which we would have a live case that has not been completed at the point of exit. That is a particular concern with regard to data: what would be the status of data that we held without a legal means to continue to hold it?

Thirdly, there is the issue of extradition. The Minister has referred to the 1957 Council of Europe convention on extradition, which, according to the explanatory memorandum accompanying the regulations, would be used

“in lieu of the European Arrest Warrant”,

but this is undoubtedly a far more limited measure than the European arrest warrant. It is clear from part 14 of the instrument that the UK and the EU would allow EU extradition requests from other member states in lieu of the European arrest warrant.

Paragraph 3 of article 2 of the convention itself states:

“Any Contracting Party whose law does not allow extradition for certain of the offences referred to in paragraph 1 of this article may, in so far as it is concerned, exclude such offences from the application of this Convention.”

In other words, an EU member state is required to surrender a wanted individual only if there is dual criminality across the two jurisdictions. That would be an important restriction on the regulations, and I would like confirmation that the Home Office is seized of it and an explanation of what it would do to plug that gap.

The Government’s own advice, as set out in the explanatory memorandum, states:

“In 2017/18, the UK arrested over 1,400 individuals on the basis of European Arrest Warrants…issued by the other 27 EU Member States. In the same period, EU Member States arrested 183 individuals on the basis of EAWs issued by the UK.”

It is a very important tool, and there will be practical consequences if the necessary measures are not in place.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

We will not vote against these regulations, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that they do not replace the fundamentally important European arrest warrant? The warrant has assisted constituents of mine, including the family of Lisa Brown in the Vale of Leven. Her mother was buried only last week, and Lisa is missing and presumed to have been murdered by a UK national. We used a European arrest warrant to get him from Denmark to Spain.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, who is absolutely right. Although the Opposition do not oppose the narrowness of the regulations, there is a whole host of wider issues relating to security capacity. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of the European arrest warrant mechanism, which has clearly been very important in the situation to which he referred. There is real concern about the potential state of uncertainty, and we need clarity about the impact of different outcomes on our security.

On “The Andrew Marr Show” on 3 February, the Home Secretary refused to dispute claims made by Sir John Sawers, the former head of MI6, that

“the harder the Brexit, the greater the damage,”

and by Neil Basu, the head of counter-terrorism policing at the Metropolitan police, that a no-deal Brexit would be

“a very serious flaw in our security arrangements.”

When pressed, the Home Secretary conceded only that there would be “a change in capability” and that

“most of these capabilities were only relevant for us from 2015 onwards.”

Yet it is clear, even from these regulations, that there is a loss of access to databases. I will come back to that issue.

There is lack of clarity in both the regulations and the explanatory memorandum, which states:

“The practical impact of a ‘no-deal’ exit on security, law enforcement and criminal justice cooperation with EU Member States is outside the scope of the provisions found in this instrument.”

That may be technically correct, but the Government need to set out what they plan to do to at least maintain our security capacity through co-operation with the EU27, and how they propose to build on it. I have read the Government’s assessment of the security partnership. It is a list of ambitions, but there is very little in the way of practical proposals to achieve them.

Quick access to information and co-ordinated work across borders is vital to our security, and there is a Europe-wide interest in working together to keep all our peoples safe. In their negotiations thus far, the Government have failed to get the Schengen information system—SIS II—and the European criminal record information system included in the political declaration. As I have indicated, this instrument would actually revoke access to databases such as Prüm and SIS II.

Similarly, the Government’s current promise to

“establish effective arrangements based on streamlined procedures and time limits”

is insufficient for the UK to maintain the benefits of the European arrest warrant. As I have said, reliance on the 1957 Council of Europe convention on extradition will not have the same effect, because it does not have the same capacity as the European arrest warrant.

Similarly, the Government have not identified exactly what our crucial relationship with Europol and Eurojust will be. To say that they are still working on the terms of co-operation is not good enough—it is nearly three years since the 2016 referendum.

Although the Opposition do not oppose the narrow measures in these regulations to have a functioning statute book on exit day, the Government have to focus on the vital issue of security co-operation and come up with workable solutions to maintain that level of co-operation, rather than allow that capability to be diminished.

14:43

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I will be very brief, because the shadow Minister has said pretty much everything that I would have said. I simply echo his concerns that any sort of Brexit will be a challenge and risks harming security co-operation. In the meantime, we must make the statute book as robust and complete as possible, which is what this delegated legislation is about.

Each week, parliamentarians are asked to look through a host of very detailed and complicated statutory instruments. We get helpful explanatory memorandums alongside them, and Ministers’ introductory statements are also helpful. There is an assurance that stakeholders will be consulted, including devolved Administrations, which is important from my point of view. It would also be useful if we could see a summary of the consultation responses, because all I know is that consultations took place. I have tried to contact various stakeholders to see what they think, but it would be preferable if the Government could provide that, rather than our constantly having to do that homework week after week. Other than that, we fully support what the Government are trying to do with these regulations, which we certainly do not oppose.

14:44

[Mr Hurd]

I thank both main Opposition spokesmen for their constructive and thoughtful approach to the regulations. They understand them for what they are, which is narrow in scope and design in order to ensure that we have a fully functioning, effective and relevant statute book in a scenario in which we do not expect or want to be.

The main thrust of the argument from the hon. Member for Torfaen takes me away from the narrow scope of the regulations, but I am happy to follow him because the context of this Committee is one of debate and discussion about the way through on Brexit. On no deal, I have been clear to the Select Committee on Home Affairs and others, as has the Home Secretary, that in a no-deal scenario, which we want to avoid, we will fall back on contingency arrangements. They are relatively low-risk, in that they exist and have been tested, but they are not as good as what we have at the moment. That is just fact.

On the European arrest warrant in particular, we will be forced to fall back on slower and clunkier processes, which are therefore sub-optimal. There is no sugar coating that, which is why we want to avoid that scenario. For context, the point that the Home Secretary made—I have said the same myself—is that although we may lose some capability on day one, we can rebuild that over time through bilateral relationships. On day one, however, there is no doubt at all that we will lose some capability.

It is important to note, however, that some of the most significant capabilities have come on-stream relatively quickly. SIS II went live in 2015 and the passenger name record directive went live in 2016, and I do not remember Ministers of previous Governments claiming that the country was unsafe before they came into force. They are good instruments; they work and are embedded into our systems, and with our European partners we have spent years developing such platforms and tools together. We do not want to fall back on the contingency arrangements, but we have to plan for a no-deal scenario.

On the ongoing security partnership, my reading of the political declaration is that nothing is taken off the table. I understand and believe strongly that for any Government the security of the public is the No. 1 priority. The underlying data of all those instruments—the European arrest warrant, Europol, SIS II—shows that the UK’s contribution to their success is fundamental. We are the second biggest contributor of data to Europe. When the Home Secretary and I meet Interior Ministers and counterparts in Europe, as we have done regularly over the past few months, I am very clear and they are extremely clear about the mutual interest in not losing the exchange of data.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I have met Rob Wainwright, who was the director of Europol, and heard about its excellent work. I do not think there is any doubt about the UK’s contribution to that agency and other areas. The issues regarding Europol, however, relate to third-country status and the level of access and quick access. There should be a focus on finding a practical solution to prevent our capability from being diminished.

[Mr Hurd]

I could not agree more. That is not nailed down; it is still open to negotiation. The point I am labouring is that when seeking a deal, one looks for the levels of mutual interest in securing that deal. Security co-operation is arguably the area where the mutual interest is clearest, because we have constructed those tools and platforms and they work in large part because of the UK contribution.

I am as clear as I can be that our European partners, at the Interior Minister level at least, are very keen to maintain the status quo as far as possible. The related political reality is that our status will change once we leave the European Union, but I am clear that as far as possible, the intention, both from our end of the pipe and that of our colleagues in Interior Ministries across Europe, is to end up in a place where we have very similar capabilities to those we have at the moment. That is the underlying objective for the security partnership.

Question put and agreed to.

14:50

Committee rose.

Draft Securitisation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Wednesday 27th February 2019 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: David Hanson

† Beckett, Margaret (Derby South) (Lab)

† Cadbury, Ruth (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)

† Dunne, Mr Philip (Ludlow) (Con)

† Glen, John (Economic Secretary to the Treasury)

Hepburn, Mr Stephen (Jarrow) (Lab)

† Hughes, Eddie (Walsall North) (Con)

† Knight, Julian (Solihull) (Con)

† Linden, David (Glasgow East) (SNP)

† McCarthy, Kerry (Bristol East) (Lab)

† Mak, Alan (Havant) (Con)

† Menzies, Mark (Fylde) (Con)

† Reynolds, Jonathan (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)

† Rowley, Lee (North East Derbyshire) (Con)

† Shelbrooke, Alec (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)

† Smith, Jeff (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)

† Walker, Thelma (Colne Valley) (Lab)

† Whittaker, Craig (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

Dominic Stockbridge, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Seventeenth Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 27 February 2019

[David Hanson in the Chair]

Draft Securitisation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

08:55

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Securitisation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson.

This statutory instrument is part of a programme of legislation under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 aimed at ensuring that, if the UK leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period, there continues to be a functioning legislative and regulatory regime for financial services in the UK. The SI will fix deficiencies in EU law on securitisation to ensure that it continues to operate effectively after the UK leaves the EU. The approach taken in the legislation aligns with that taken in other SIs laid under the EU withdrawal Act, providing continuity by maintaining existing legislation at the point of exit, but amending where necessary to ensure that it works effectively in a no-deal context.

The SI concerns securitisation, a process by which financial assets such as loans can be pooled into a single financial instrument called a security, which can then be sold to investors. Securitisation allows banks to transfer some of the risk associated with the assets they hold to investors, freeing up regulatory capital to facilitate further lending. Securitisations can themselves be used to finance business activities and reduce the concentration of financial stability risks.

To respond to concerns about the opaqueness and complexity of securitisation transactions, the EU adopted the securitisation regulation, which is based on international standards agreed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. The EU securitisation regulation simplifies and consolidates a patchwork of earlier rules, and introduces the concept of a securitisation that is “simple, transparent and standardised”, also referred to as an STS securitisation. Under the regulation, those are incentivised through preferential capital treatment. The securitisation regulation is important for protecting domestic financial stability while ensuring that the benefits of those instruments to firms and the wider economy remain available.

The securitisation regulation will be transferred to the UK statute book by operation of the EU withdrawal Act on exit day, but in a no-deal scenario the UK would be outside the European economic area and outside the EU’s legal, supervisory and financial regulatory framework, and that legislation would no longer be operative. The SI makes the necessary amendments to ensure that the provisions continue to work properly in a no-deal scenario.

The SI amends the geographical scope of the EU regulation to ensure that UK investors can continue to have access to the EU market for STS securitisations and to global securitisation markets more broadly. Under the current EU regulation, all parties involved in an STS transaction must be located in the EU. The SI amends that to allow UK counterparties to continue to participate in cross-border STS securitisations where some of the parties are located anywhere in the world, expanding the current scope. That approach is appropriate because most securitisations are structured across borders, and it ensures that third countries are treated equally in the event of a no-deal scenario.

For UK securitisation markets to have maximum depth and liquidity while being subject to the same strict rules introduced by the securitisation regulation, it was important not to constrain the UK market by requiring all parties to be located in the UK. I recognise that that expansion of scope is likely to arouse concerns, but it is also clear that the SI requires at least one of the parties to a securitisation to be located in the UK. The overall effect of that change in scope is to support liquidity in domestic securitisation markets while ensuring that UK supervisors retain effective oversight of securitisation as a whole.

The SI also introduces a transitional regime for the recognition of EU STS securitisations in the UK during a two-year period after the UK leaves the EU. That ensures that UK investors can continue to participate in the EU market for STS securitisations for that limited period. Any STS recognised by the EU during that two-year period will continue to be recognised in the UK until its maturity.

The SI also clarifies the definition of “sponsor” in the securitisation regulation to ensure that, when a sponsor wishes to delegate day-to-day portfolio management to a third party, that third party can be located anywhere in the world and not just in the EU. The securitisation regulation currently limits the location of the delegated firm to the EU. The European Commission has acknowledged that that is an unintended effect and is currently developing an EU-wide solution.

Finally, this SI transfers several functions carried out by the European supervisory authorities to the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority. Most importantly, the SI transfers responsibilities for the authorisation and supervision of trade repositories and the publication of STS notifications to the Financial Conduct Authority. That is appropriate given the FCA’s considerable experience in supervising securitisations and it has been preparing for that role in anticipation of the regulation going live on 1 January this year. The Treasury has worked very closely with the PRA and the FCA in drafting the instruments. It has also engaged the financial services industry and will continue to do so. On 19 December, the Treasury published the instrument in draft, along with an explanatory policy note, to maximise transparency to Parliament and industry. An impact assessment was published on 19 February.

In summary, this Government believe that the proposed legislation is necessary to ensure that the UK has a workable regime regulating securitisations, and that the legislation will continue to function appropriately if the UK leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period. I hope colleagues will join me in supporting the draft regulations, which I commend to the Committee.

09:01

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. Once again, the Minister and I are here to discuss a statutory instrument that would make provision for the regulatory framework after Brexit in the event we crash out without a deal. On each occasion, my Front-Bench colleagues and I have spelled out our objections to the Government’s approach to the process.

Today we are here to discuss the draft Securitisation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Given the impact that securitisation had on the wider economy and its role in the 2008 global economic crisis, I am sure I do not need to remind anyone in the room of the importance of ensuring that the securitisation market is properly regulated and monitored. The Opposition have laid out its wider concerns on the no-deal regulatory provision process for financial services, which incorporates dozens of statutory instruments and the in-flight Bill for EU legislation that is in train but not yet implemented. We believe there should have been a consolidated financial services Bill that presented a single overview of the changes proposed, which would allow us thoroughly to scrutinise and assess the new allocation of powers across different regulators and institutions.

This statutory instrument is a case in point. We have already debated one business-as-usual securitisation SI, which was subject to the negative procedure, to implement new European regulations. Now we have another securitisation SI, related to no deal and subject to the affirmative procedure, just a few weeks later. The powers allocated in the other SI are complicated by their interaction with this one, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) stated on 13 February in the debate on that instrument.

I want the Minister to clarify some points that are of concern to the Opposition. First, the explanatory memorandum highlights that an exemption is provided to national promotional banks, and that the exemption will continue for UK parties only, namely the British Business Bank. Where does that leave existing securitisation deals with exposure to entities such as the German KfW, given that their preferential treatment will be removed? Will those deals need to be liquidated and novated the British Business Bank? I am sure the Minister agrees that that has the potential to be highly disruptive. What would their legal status be?

Secondly, what long-term plan does the Treasury have to ensure that securitisation regulations will continue to be robust given the volume of powers that will be transferred to the FCA? Much of the securitisation regime has not been developed domestically, as the Minister said, yet we will take full onshore responsibility for regulating and monitoring a regime that might contain substantial risks.

I reiterate my hon. Friend’s comments in the debate of 13 February about the new powers bestowed on the FCA, and on which we still do not have full clarity. It seems that under the Treasury’s proposed approach of transferring powers that rest with the European systemic risk board, the FCA can permit re-securitisation for specified legitimate purposes in an exemption to the general ban. The general ban prevents the underlying assets of a securitisation from being themselves securitised assets, which as we know is the type of circular activity that caused the issues that in many ways led to the financial crisis. Will the Minister explain what checks and balances will be in place to ensure that the development of this regulation is properly scrutinised and monitored? That is all I have for the Committee this morning.

09:05

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I have a degree of sympathy for the Minister, who I believe is pretty much camped out here in these Delegated Legislation Committees—I am just the latest in the rota of Scottish National party colleagues to cover a DL Committee.

With only a month until the UK leaves the EU, it is frankly a disgrace that the UK Government are only now getting round to sorting out these details. Time is of the essence when we know the UK is due to leave at the end of next month. Scotland’s financial sector has been clear that its interests are best served in the EU single market and customs union. Ten years after the crash, our financial services sector needs meaningful reform, not new problems stemming from Brexit. Instead of planning how to minimise the damage, we should instead be using our time here to plan a successful future inside the EU.

We know that this statutory instrument will not stop the tide of financial services jobs and assets leaving the UK because of Brexit. Financial services firms are voting with their wallets already and have moved assets worth $1 trillion from the UK to the rest of Europe since the Brexit referendum, according to EY. According to Bloomberg, Deutsche Bank AG is repatriating at least €400 billion to Frankfurt, with JPMorgan taking €200 billion, Goldman Sachs €60 billion, CitiGroup €50 billion and Morgan Stanley €40 billion.

We know the impact that these Brexit shenanigans are having on our economy, and I do not think this SI will do anything much to stem that tide of financial services jobs leaving the UK. While I will not be pushing this to a vote, I want to put that on the record. What we see here is a British Parliament and a British Government that are making no sense whatsoever and are not serving Scotland’s interests.

09:07

[John Glen]

I acknowledge the points made by the hon. Members for Stalybridge and Hyde and for Glasgow East. I accept the wider concerns raised about the extensive use of this mechanism. I have never described it as the perfect solution, but it is a necessary solution to the risk of a no deal situation. I am determined that, by the time we get to the end of this process on 11 March, we will have a functioning regulatory regime in place, but the volume of SIs has been considerable. It was a blessed relief when the hon. Member for Glasgow East convened a three-hour debate on bank closures the other week and gave me a change of venue.

The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde raises three specific points. The first was the removal of preferential treatment for exposures to national promotional banks and how that affects UK firms holding such exposures. Under the EU securitisation regulation, exposures to national promotional banks are exempt from the requirements, so in a no-deal scenario the UK would fall outside the scope of the exemption in the EU and domestic institutions such as the British Business Bank would not be able to benefit from the EU’s exemptions.

This SI removes the exemption for EU national promotional banks such as the one the hon. Gentleman mentioned, ensuring that under the domestic regime only UK national promotional banks would be able to benefit from the exemption. This is in line with the Government’s general approach to treating the EU as a third country if there is no deal and no implementation period. We have raised the point with industry and we understand that it is not likely to create significant difficulties for UK firms.

The hon. Gentleman went on to raise an issue that has been raised previously, and perfectly reasonably, about the adequacy of the resources of UK regulators to handle their new responsibilities. It is important to make clear to the Committee that the purpose of the EU securitisation regulation is to encourage and to ensure that the mistakes of the financial crisis in respect of securitisation are not repeated. By keeping securitisations simple in form and making them more transparent, that will be achieved.

Under the regulation that applied from only January this year, the PRA and FCA already carry out most of the functions conferred on them by this SI. The main responsibilities transferring into the FCA relate to the authorisation and supervision of a small number of trade repositories and the publication of STS notifications on its website. It is not anticipated that that will create a significant new burden. The FCA has specialist securitisation expertise and has made extensive preparations, including training for supervisors in anticipation of the implementation of the regulation and the onshoring of the requirements. It has also carried out an assessment of the resource implications and will keep those under review to ensure that it can deliver on its responsibilities, so I do not have any significant or meaningful concerns about that.

As to checks being made to ensure that the developments in regulation are scrutinised, it is worth noting that the SI does not make any substantive policy changes. To ensure that the UK regime is operative after exit, the UK regulators maintain full oversight of UK STS securitisations after exit, and will have sufficient enforcement powers where there is non-compliance. The regulators will monitor the market, and the Financial Policy Committee will also play a role in ensuring the functioning of the regime.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East raised the issue of moving high volumes of capital out of the UK. The Treasury is in frequent contact with firms and regulators regarding their contingency planning for EU exit. The political declaration reflects the full ambition of our proposals, set out in the White Paper, and is a strong and credible basis for moving our negotiations with the EU forward into the implementation period, to achieve a deal that works in our mutual interests. I acknowledge the significant footprint of financial services firms in Scotland, and in Edinburgh and Glasgow particularly. We believe that what is set out will serve their interests well. While we have been clear that passporting will come to an end after we leave the EU, we are seeking a relationship that will allow for cross-border trade in financial services, and allow firms to continue European operations within the UK.

I think that those were all the points that were raised. The SIs being brought forward are needed, and the one before the Committee is particularly needed, to ensure that EU law on securitisation continues to operate effectively in the UK if we leave the EU without a deal or implementation period, which is not the Government’s policy. I hope that the Committee have found this morning’s sitting informative and will join me in supporting the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

09:12

Committee rose.

Ministerial Corrections

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Ministerial Corrections

Wednesday 27 February 2019

International Trade

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Ministerial Corrections

Trade Remedy Measures: UK Interests

The following is an extract from a statement to the House on 25 February 2019.

[Dr Fox]

Of 109 existing EU measures, we will maintain 43 where they are directly applicable to the UK and have met the criteria to be maintained. Those measures cover a wide range of goods, from ironing boards to aluminium foil, to ensure continued protection from known unfair trading practices for important industries such as steel and ceramics.

[Official Report, 25 February 2019, Vol. 655, c. 50.]

Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox):

An error has been identified in the statement I made to the House.

The correct wording should have been:

[Dr Fox]

Of 109 existing EU measures, we will maintain 43 of these measures where they are directly applicable to the EU and have met the criteria to be maintained. Those measures cover a wide range of goods, from ironing boards to aluminium foil, to ensure continued protection from known unfair trading practices for important industries such as steel and ceramics.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Ministerial Corrections

Topical Questions

The following is an extract from Foreign and Commonwealth Questions on 26 February 2019.

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

The stability of Lebanon is vital to the wider security situation in the middle east. It has taken Prime Minister Hariri nine months to put together a Government that reflects all the different complex denominations and sects in Lebanon, including several Ministers from Hezbollah. What discussions have the British Government had with Prime Minister Hariri or the Lebanese Government about the proscription of the political wing of that organisation?

[Alistair Burt]

By good fortune, the Prime Minister and I met the Prime Minister of Lebanon on Sunday at the summit in Sharm el-Sheikh. We were able to discuss not only the issue relating to Hezbollah, but our own efforts to support the stability of the Government of Lebanon. Prime Minister Hariri recognised the support that the United Kingdom gave. We want to see Lebanon’s Government formation completed and also for the Government to go forward economically, a process in which our own investment conference in December was a landmark event.

[Official Report, 26 February 2019, Vol. 655, c. 164.]

Letter of correction from the Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt):

An error has been identified in the response I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire).

The correct response should have been:

[Alistair Burt]

By good fortune, the Prime Minister and I met the Prime Minister of Lebanon on Sunday at the summit in Sharm el-Sheikh. We were able to discuss not only the issue relating to Hezbollah, but our own efforts to support the stability of the Government of Lebanon. Prime Minister Hariri recognised the support that the United Kingdom gave. We are pleased to see Lebanon’s Government formation completed and also for the Government to go forward economically, a process in which our own investment conference in December was a landmark event.

UK Soft Power

The following is an extract from Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions on Tuesday 26 February 2019.

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

The Minister is right to point out outside organisations. Will he, like me, pay due credit to the brave non-governmental organisations that do fantastic work and enhance our soft power in some of the most difficult conflict environments in the world, not least Yemen? Today, the United Nations is appealing for £3.2 billion to help organisations such as Saferworld and International Rescue Committee. Should that not be our focus, rather than the £4.6 billion we spent on arms?

[Mark Field]

We have announced only today, in the aftermath of the Sharm el-Sheikh negotiations, that we will be putting a further £200 million into Yemen. It is important to recognise the tremendous contribution made by so many British citizens and British NGOs across the globe. That is one aspect of soft power that will enhance our standing in the years to come. It is in this sort of area where I hope we will continue.

[Official Report, 26 February 2019, Vol. 655, c. 146-47.]

Letter from the Minister for Asia and the Pacific, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field).

An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins).

The correct response should have been:

[Mark Field]

We announced on Sunday, in the aftermath of the Sharm el-Sheikh negotiations, that we will be putting a further £200 million into Yemen. It is important to recognise the tremendous contribution made by so many British citizens and British NGOs across the globe. That is one aspect of soft power that will enhance our standing in the years to come. It is in this sort of area where I hope we will continue.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill (Twenty Eighth sitting)

Committee Debate: 28th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 27th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Ms Nadine Dorries, †Albert Owen

Allan, Lucy (Telford) (Con)

Bone, Mr Peter (Wellingborough) (Con)

Charalambous, Bambos (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)

† Fletcher, Colleen (Coventry North East) (Lab)

Foster, Kevin (Torbay) (Con)

Harper, Mr Mark (Forest of Dean) (Con)

† Khan, Afzal (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)

† Lee, Karen (Lincoln) (Lab)

† Linden, David (Glasgow East) (SNP)

Matheson, Christian (City of Chester) (Lab)

Mills, Nigel (Amber Valley) (Con)

Norris, Alex (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)

Paisley, Ian (North Antrim) (DUP)

† Smith, Chloe (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office)

Stewart, Bob (Beckenham) (Con)

Wiggin, Bill (North Herefordshire) (Con)

Adam Mellows-Facer, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Wednesday 27 February 2019

[Albert Owen in the Chair]

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill

10:00

[The Chair]

May I welcome you all back to our monthly gathering and remind you that electronic devices should be switched to silent? As the Committee cannot consider the clauses of the Bill until the House has agreed the money resolution, I call Afzal Khan to move that the Committee do now adjourn.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the Committee do now adjourn.

I, too, welcome Members back after a month’s break. I do not know where all the Minister’s Back Benchers are, but I am sure she can hold the fort.

This week has shown that the Prime Minister is insistent on recklessly running down the clock, in a desperate attempt to force MPs to choose between her deal and no deal. I cannot help but feel that the same irresponsible tactics are being deployed to prevent progress on this Bill. Although it is evident that delaying strategies are the favoured approach of the Government, that does not mean that they would solve any problems.

As I highlighted in our last sitting, the urgency of the Bill has not diminished. In fact, against the backdrop of Brexit, the need for the Bill should be even more apparent, so will the Minister enlighten us as to any developments?

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

As ever, it is an immense pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Owen, and to be back in this esteemed Public Bill Committee, which is making rapid progress through the legislative agenda—not. Having missed the Committee for a month, I have been reflecting on some of the other things that I have been able to do on a Wednesday morning. Of course, it has been a great sadness not to be here every Wednesday morning, which is why I am particularly pleased to be back.

I am incredibly busy today. I served on a Delegated Legislation Committee at 8.55 am, and now I am serving on this very heavy Committee. In all seriousness, this afternoon I am serving on the Committee considering the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) (Amendment) Bill, which was brought forward by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers). I have been reflecting on how quickly we have managed to make progress on that Bill but not this one. Although I fully support the right hon. Lady in trying to take that legislation through, it sticks in my craw somewhat that, in the course of one afternoon, we will consider that private Member’s Bill, take it through its process and quite rightly ensure that it lands on the statute book, whereas the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton is forced to come here—no longer weekly, but monthly—and sit through this complete charade.

That is symptomatic of what is happening in this place. Whether it is Brexit or this Bill, the Government are running down the clock until Parliament prorogues for a new Session, when, as we know, this Bill will unfortunately die. Of course, it is never too late. The Minister could go back to her Chief Whip and say, “We need to take this Bill through and ensure that the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton gets it on the statute book.” I think that is very unlikely, but I will still come here every month and make those points.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)]

It is a great pleasure to see you again this morning, Mr Owen. I have missed the Committee’s various interpretations of proceedings before today, but I can confirm, contrary to all such interpretations, that the order is in hand, as it was before, and that work proceeds to bring it back to Parliament as expected.

[Afzal Khan]

I am sad that, throughout this whole history, the Minister has been unable to enlighten us as to any progress. Even now, the word “progress” means nothing. Can the Minister give us some dates or a timescale?

[David Linden]

rose—

[The Chair]

As we are not overcrowded, you may come in, Mr Linden.

[David Linden]

I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr Owen; I know that many hundreds of colleagues wish to contribute, so I will be brief. Perhaps the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton and I can make our way to the Table Office after this sitting and table some named day questions to pin down the Minister specifically on how she and her civil servants are getting on with those Orders in Council. The hon. Gentleman is right that we should nail down those dates. I look forward to joining him in the Table Office once we have finished with the hundreds of other speeches that we are about to hear.

[The Chair]

Would Mr Khan like the last word?

[Afzal Khan]

I would be absolutely delighted to join my colleague in that endeavour.

Question put and agreed to.

10:04

Adjourned till Wednesday 27 March at Ten o’clock.

Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) (Amendment) Bill (First sitting)

Committee Debate: House of Commons
Wednesday 27th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Sir David Crausby

† Blackman, Bob (Harrow East) (Con)

† Brennan, Kevin (Cardiff West) (Lab)

† Brown, Lyn (West Ham) (Lab)

† Cameron, Dr Lisa (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)

† Caulfield, Maria (Lewes) (Con)

† Docherty, Leo (Aldershot) (Con)

† Ellis, Michael (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport)

† Howell, John (Henley) (Con)

† Linden, David (Glasgow East) (SNP)

† Mann, John (Bassetlaw) (Lab)

† Masterton, Paul (East Renfrewshire) (Con)

† Offord, Dr Matthew (Hendon) (Con)

† Percy, Andrew (Brigg and Goole) (Con)

Smeeth, Ruth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)

† Spellar, John (Warley) (Lab)

† Streeting, Wes (Ilford North) (Lab)

† Villiers, Theresa (Chipping Barnet) (Con)

Adam Mellows-Facer, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Wednesday 27 February 2019

[Sir David Crausby in the Chair]

Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) (Amendment) Bill

14:29

[The Chair]

Welcome to the Public Bill Committee on the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) (Amendment) Bill. May I ask that those present switch their electronic devices to silent? I have already done mine.

Clause 1

Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act 2009: repeal of sunset provision

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 2 stand part.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David? I thank all Members present for agreeing to serve on the Committee.

This is a simple two-clause Bill with a simple objective: to retain on the statute book the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act 2009. Section 4(7) of that statute is a sunset clause, and means that the legislation will cease to apply after 11 November this year. Clause 1 of the Bill would repeal section 4(7) and thus leave the 2009 Act to continue in operation indefinitely. This private Member’s Bill enjoyed strong cross-party support when it was introduced as a ten-minute rule Bill and on Second Reading. No amendments have been tabled.

For the following reasons, I hope the Committee will feel able to support the passage of Bill to Report and Third Reading on Friday 15 March. The 2009 Act was introduced as a private Member’s Bill by Andrew Dismore, the then Member of Parliament for Hendon. Mr Dismore was noted for talking out many such Bills, but thankfully on that occasion he was strongly supportive. He was backed by both sides of the House, and by the other place. His legislation allows 17 UK national museums and other institutions listed in section 1 to return cultural property lost, seized or stolen during the Nazi era to its rightful owners. Those institutions include the British Museum, the British Library and the National Galleries of Scotland.

Property can be returned following a recommendation by the Spoliation Advisory Panel, with the agreement of the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. That panel of experts was established in 2000 by the Government to advise on claims for cultural objects lost or stolen during the Nazi era. It formed part of the follow-up to the historic Washington conference, where 44 Governments pledged to redouble and renew their efforts to return cultural property removed during that era, defined as 1933 to 1945.

Until the 2009 Act became law, certain national institutions were unable to give effect to a recommendation to return an object, because their governing legislation prevented them from transferring ownership of items in their collection, except in very narrow, specified circumstances. An example of that kind of legal constraint can be found in section 5 of the British Museum Act 1963.

Clause 2 covers territorial scope and commencement. The 2009 Act and the Bill both extend to England, Wales and Scotland, but not to Northern Ireland. A number of the institutions specified in section 1 of the 2009 Act are located in Scotland. I am pleased to inform the Committee that a legislative consent motion has been passed by the Scottish Parliament in relation to the Bill, and I am very grateful to the devolved Government for their support. None of the institutions covered by the 2009 Act is located in Wales or Northern Ireland, so no legislative consent motion is necessary from those parts of the United Kingdom.

Although much information is available about the items held in our national art collections, research into the provenance of items that changed hands during the Nazi era is ongoing, and potential claimants may still be unaware of the location of objects that used to be in the possession of their families. I also emphasise that the narrow and specific nature of the 2009 Act means that it has not had a destabilising effect on collections held in our national museums, with only a modest number of cases being determined under its provisions, and nor has this narrowly drawn piece of legislation had an impact on wider debates about the potential return of cultural objects to their countries of origin. There is widespread acceptance that the horror of the holocaust and the systematic attempt to wipe out an entire race and its culture make it a unique case that justifies a unique response.

There is significant support for retention of the 2009 Act among the museum community. For example, Sir Nicholas Serota, the former director of the Tate Gallery, has said:

“In recent years, new claims have become less frequent, but there is a strong moral case to remove the ‘sunset’ clause that provides for a time limit on cases being considered. It is important that potential claimants should not feel that the door is being slammed in their face.”

The Government expressed support for keeping the legislation on the statute book at the London spoliation conference in September 2017, and that announcement was warmly received. The Commission for Looted Art in Europe, which does excellent work in this area, has also given its backing to the legislation that is under consideration today.

I hope I have been able to outline clearly how this two-clause Bill will operate and why it should be supported today. In closing, I reflect on Second Reading, when hon. Members spoke movingly about the important reasons they had for supporting the Bill. A number of them made the point that, in addition to the appalling mass murder that took place, the Nazi persecution of Jewish people involved a deliberate and systematic attempt to wipe out all trace of Jewish culture. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) put it:

“We must remember that the goal of the Nazis was not just to murder their victims, but to annihilate all trace of them…They did not just murder those who were living; they demolished cemeteries, burned down synagogues and sought to erase the entire culture from Europe. That is why it is so important that where these artefacts are preserved and retained, they are returned, so that they can be exhibited and be shown by families again as a reminder of what once existed.”—[Official Report, 8 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 562.]

I believe that provides a powerful summary of why this Bill is needed, and I close my remarks, as I did on Second Reading, by quoting a family involved in this type of case. One family seeking restoration of property told the Commission for Looted Art:

“Whether it’s a painting or a book or a porcelain jar, every object represents the life and lives that were lost. Their restitution restores a personal connection, a link with those lives so utterly transformed or destroyed by the Nazis. Hitler’s project was to erase the Jews from history. But by recovering objects and documenting their owners, restitution also returns those people to their families and to the historical record.”

There is no justification for applying an arbitrary time limit to the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act 2009. That legislation has worked well and it is still needed, and I commend this Bill to the Committee.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

As we all know, the theme of Holocaust Memorial Day this year was being “Torn from home”. In the speech I made that day, I took the opportunity to speak about the way the Nazis’ attacks on Jewish people began slowly and escalated painfully. The attacks on lives were harrowing, because each new law, each new confiscation and each new theft of property was compounded by the awful, awful events that followed. We talked about how being torn from home was about the destruction of a whole way of life and a whole culture.

Of course, what was lost can never really be recovered, but we have a duty to respect, to remember and to understand that history, and to keep those memories alive. That takes a lot of work. Tragically, it is important to say that that work has never been more important than it is today. Each year, we lose more survivors of the holocaust—people of exemplary courage, resilience and moral fortitude who have suffered so much. We lose those who have taught us so much about not only the horrors they were subjected to but the ways in which the disease of antisemitism spreads: through lies and conspiracy, through baseless and manipulative accusations of disloyalty, and through an insidious, creeping and escalating dehumanisation of a people.

In recent years, we have seen a sharp rise in antisemitism across Europe, at home in our communities and, tragically, in our political parties. On the Friday we discussed this excellent Bill, other hon. Members mentioned the Community Security Trust, a group that I admire and thank. It has provided me with so much personal support in the work I have done over the years on community cohesion. The trust has released its report on antisemitic incidents in the UK in 2018, in which it has recorded a massive 1,652 incidents. That is the highest annual figure on record—more than 100 incidents every single month. I can only imagine how scary that must be.

We must all redouble our efforts to reject the politics of fear, division and conspiracy. As the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said better than I, that change starts here, and it continues with this Bill. In that spirit, we are expecting to have a new holocaust memorial near Westminster in 2022, and like other hon. Members here today, I hope it will be very near here. The Imperial War Museum is due to open a new permanent holocaust gallery in 2021, which I also warmly welcome.

Returning stolen cultural objects wherever possible is an important part of this project. Returning artworks and cultural objects is not just about undoing the past but about recognising it and, frankly, about justice. Millions of people had their lives and their futures stolen by the holocaust, but we must remember that property was stolen too, and tens of thousands of objects stolen at that time are likely to remain hidden. Ultimately, we do not know how many cultural objects stolen and looted from the Jewish community by the Nazis are still in collections here or how many have not been returned within the lifetime of the 2009 Act so far.

That is why it is absolutely right that the Act is extended by this important Bill. The destruction wielded by the holocaust was intended to destroy a culture, a history and all the rich memories of that culture, that history and that people. For those who have lost family, the testimonies show what an important emotional experience it can be to have possessions returned to them. It is right that the named 17 institutions are able to make these experiences possible, as I am sure they will all want to.

In my final remarks, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, who has spoken so passionately and articulately about this Bill, for her tireless work on this issue. We must all ensure that what was stolen and can still be returned is returned, and we must create every single chance for some fragments of justice—however small in comparison with the enormous injustice of the holocaust—to be done.

[Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)]

I want to speak briefly, partly to put on record my thanks and the thanks of the Jewish community in East Renfrewshire to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet for bringing this Bill forward.

More than 50% of Scotland’s Jewish community live in East Renfrewshire, and I can say without hesitation that this Bill has their unequivocal support. The local Jewish community strongly opposed the sunset clause when it was first introduced, partly for the reasons explored in today’s debate. It is no surprise that claims are still coming forward only sporadically; given that some holocaust survivors have only recently found living family members, it is hardly surprising that it has taken longer and been harder to find objects that were in their families’ possession.

There is a worry that if holocaust survivors or their heirs were prevented from having property restored to them simply because they became aware of an object’s continued existence and location only after several decades, we would be doing a huge disservice to all those who lost their lives in the holocaust. As was explored by the hon. Member for West Ham, a completely arbitrary time bar entrenches one aspect of the holocaust in perpetuity. Property was stolen, expropriated, forced to be sold or transferred under duress, with the sole intention of destroying any memory of the Jews, their culture and their history. Being able to continue to return property is a very small part of what is a hugely important process for our Jewish communities.

14:45

I reiterate my complete support for this Bill, and the thanks of the Jewish community in East Renfrewshire to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet and all Members who have been so supportive of the Bill in its progress through the House.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. Like the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire, I rise briefly to offer my full support for this Bill and to the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet.

On a day when, sadly, the reputation of this House has once again been brought into disrepute by offensive comments about the Jewish community, we are reminded again of the horrors of the holocaust and its devastating consequences. It is estimated that 20% of Europe’s cultural treasures were stolen by the Nazis, most notably from Jewish families, and that over 100,000 of those works are still lost, presumed to be in both private and public collections.

Even though many of the survivors are now passing away, their children and heirs still want the transparency, accountability and justice that was promised, and the restitution of what was taken and never returned. I welcome the fact that Her Majesty’s Government and the House have recommitted to this issue, and I am pleased to support the Bill that is before the Committee. I wish it a speedy passage.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I will make a small contribution to, of course, support the legislation, but also to pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet for her work on this issue.

As the hon. Member for West Ham referenced, the Bill offers us an opportunity for further education. At a time when the scale of holocaust denial is rising, both in this country and across Europe and the world, we have an opportunity to once again explain the full horrors of the holocaust, including, of course, the concentration camps and the dehumanisation of people, but also the dispossession of people in such an inhumane way.

While we are on that subject, I pay particular tribute to the Czech Memorial Scrolls Museum at Westminster synagogue—the synagogue that I attend—which demonstrates what that theft of property resulted in. It contains 1,100 scrolls that were stolen by the Nazis and recovered after the war. Those scrolls were preserved for one reason only: so that once the Nazis had concluded their murder and killing of the Jewish community, they could create a sick museum to a wiped-out and eradicated race of people.

That decision by the Nazis was totally disgusting, but those scrolls are now in the possession of the Czech Memorial Scrolls Museum, and they are used for educational purposes. They could not be returned to their communities, because those communities do not exist anymore. Those scrolls are used in services all around the world, and now act as a reminder of the horror, hate and theft undertaken by the Nazis. I encourage all right hon. and hon. Members to visit that museum and to encourage that educational work to continue. This legislation is limited and narrow, but it is so important, and it offers us another opportunity for education.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to rise, albeit briefly, to support this important Bill and to once again thank the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet for having brought it forward. She has been assiduous in doing so, and in all the other work she does in the House against antisemitism. The strength of support across parties for her Bill, and also against antisemitism, is a credit to her.

I support the Bill legally, morally and in terms of justice. Justice cannot be time-barred, and remembering the holocaust cannot be time-barred either. It is important that we pass that on to future generations, and that future generations also have the opportunity of restitution. As the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole just said, it is unfortunate that so many people seek to deny the holocaust. It is therefore important that we work together to put in place measures such as this and, collectively, to do all we can, and all that is right, to ensure that it does not happen.

Antisemitism is on the rise in society and in politics, from the left and the right. I have experienced it myself. All party leaders must act—I have said that before, and I say it again. As parliamentarians, it is important that we act. Today, we act together and send out a strong signal that there is collective cross-party support for the Bill, not just in the UK Parliament in Westminster, but in our Scottish Parliament. I wholeheartedly thank everybody who has been involved.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I thank everyone who has spoken, including my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw and for Ilford North, who are here in support of the Bill and who have done tremendous work themselves in this area over the years.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet on bringing this important Bill to Committee. I am happy to confirm that it has the full support of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. She spoke once again with great force and authority on this issue. In doing so, she does a great service to not only the British Jewish community and the Jewish community throughout the world but humanity as a whole. The Bill says that the sun should never set on justice and righteousness, and that principle, despite its application to the uniquely horrifying episode that was the holocaust, nevertheless carries universal force in its message of human redemption.

I was privileged some years ago to travel with a group of MPs, prominent figures and sixth-formers to visit Auschwitz-Birkenau. It was one of many such visits organised by the Holocaust Educational Trust, led by its inspirational chief executive Karen Pollock and supported by the then Government. I am glad to say that the scheme exists to this day. Anyone who has undertaken that visit could not help but be horrified by the capacity for human depravity exemplified in the industrialisation of death at the Birkenau death camp, or to be moved to renew their pledge to fight antisemitism and oppose the politics of racism and hatred. The Bill is a small practical manifestation of the fulfilment of that duty, and I thank the right hon. Lady for piloting it thus far.

I also pay tribute, as the right hon. Lady did, to the work done by Andrew Dismore, the former Member of Parliament for Hendon and a current London Assembly member. He was rightly praised by the shadow Culture Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson), on Second Reading. Andrew Dismore worked tirelessly to get the original Act, which the Bill seeks to extend, through the House in 2009—even sleeping on the floor of the Public Bill Office overnight, as one used to have to do, to ensure that he had a high enough place in the ballot to get his Bill heard.

Andrew Dismore also introduced the private Member’s Bill that established Holocaust Memorial Day in 2001. I recently attended the Welsh national Holocaust Memorial Day event in Cardiff city hall, and other hon. Members will have attended their own events. We heard from the First Minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford, and from Renate Collins, who was “torn from home”, which was the theme of Holocaust Memorial Day, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham said. As a child, Renate Collins was evacuated from Prague in 1939, and she came to live in Wales, where she still lives.

As we know, the holocaust was one of the worst events in human history, with millions of lives extinguished and millions more changed forever. The fact that it happened on our continent, in the heart of western civilisation, is a reminder of why we must be constantly vigilant against antisemitism and all forms of racism and remember that genocide starts with casual prejudice—in the dehumanisation of others who are deemed different by virtue of religion, ethnicity, lifestyle or sexuality. That such horror could be perpetrated, not just by those directly involved, but because of the indifference of others in the general population, should make us all reflect on what Hannah Arendt called the banality of evil and on our own roles in actively preventing it from taking root. Let us give thanks to the important work of all organisations that ensure that the world will never forget.

The Bill addresses an extremely important subject: the return of cultural objects looted by the Nazis. During the Nazi reign of terror, millions of precious cultural objects were stolen from the Jewish community. Some have been recovered, but many thousands remain missing. It has been estimated that around 100,000 objects stolen by the Nazis are still missing. We should do everything we can to reunite cultural objects that surface with their rightful owners. More than 70 years from the end of world war two there are still families who have not been reunited with precious artefacts that rightly belong to them.

As many survivors of the holocaust reach the sunset of their lives, it is vital that their descendants have confidence that this Parliament is committed to ensuring that the sun does not set on their ability to recover what is rightfully theirs. The Bill, as we have heard, repeals the sunset clause provision of the 2009 Act, which gave our national museums and galleries the power to return these special cultural objects on the recommendation of the Spoliation Advisory Panel.

Since 2000, 23 cultural objects taken by the Nazis have been returned to their rightful owners, including a John Constable painting, stolen by the Nazis after the invasion of Budapest, which was returned by the Tate in 2015. We must ensure that the panel can continue its vital work. It has carried out its work fairly and delivered justice to the families of those whose precious possessions were stolen. It works in co-operation with our national museums and galleries, the directors of which I addressed at their council meeting at the Science Museum yesterday. They support the panel’s work and are in agreement on the urgency and necessity of returning stolen objects to their owners.

This is a carefully targeted, specific piece of legislation that works well. It is particularly important for those whose stolen possessions have, sadly, still not been found. For those who might not even know about this process and might not even harbour a hope of getting back what their families once treasured, the Bill can also give hope.

When I undertook that visit with the Holocaust Educational Trust over a decade ago, the spectre of antisemitism might have seemed, to some, to be on the wane, but it is clearly on the rise again, with antisemitic hate crimes, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham mentioned, hitting a record number in 2018. That should anger us all, and we must do everything in our power to face it down, including by supporting honourable colleagues from all parties who have been the subject of death threats, racist and misogynistic abuse, bullying and antisemitism. I once again thank the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet for all the work she has done on this vital Bill, which delivers a small amount of justice to those who have suffered so greatly.

In closing, let me say that I had the pleasure in 2017 of watching the Liverpool Everyman theatre production of the beautiful musical “Fiddler on the Roof”, which included—I hope no one minds my mentioning this—my brother Patrick in the starring role of Tevye. Colleagues will know that it tells the story of a Jewish family in Russia who were forced from their home by the pogroms that were the precursor of the ultimate obscenity of the Nazi holocaust. In thinking of the Bill and what it seeks to do, the words of one song my brother sang in that production came to mind:

“Sunrise, sunset, sunrise, sunset

Swiftly fly the years

One season following another

Laden with happiness and tears.”

As the years fly ever more swiftly by, let us hope that the right hon. Lady’s Bill, in removing the sunset clause, will bring a small ray of happiness to some victims’ families, as they contemplate through tears the horror that befell their relatives because good people did too little, too late to stand up to evil.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Michael Ellis)]

I start by thanking all colleagues who have spoken so powerfully this afternoon. This is one subject where we should all speak as one. Let me say on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government that we strongly support the Bill. As a nation, we must continue to pursue every effort to track down and return cultural objects lost during the Nazi era, when families were wrongfully and criminally dispossessed of these items, often in the most vicious and cruel way.

Our national museums take these issues very seriously, as they should, and they have been working to identify objects in their collections with uncertain provenance from between the years 1933 and 1945. That research is held on a recently upgraded online database, which is actively maintained by editors from the 47 contributing UK museums, and co-ordinated by the Collections Trust on behalf of the Arts Council.

15:00

This is an ongoing task. Potential claimants may still be unaware of the location of objects that used to be in the possession of their families. Given that progress is still being made in carrying out comprehensive research on the provenance of items in relation to the 1933 to 1945 period, it is vital that the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act 2009 be renewed, as the Bill in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet proposes, in order that claimants may continue to have their property returned to them where they Spoliation Advisory Panel recommends it and Ministers of the Crown agree.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the brilliant work she has done and is doing. It is not easy to progress a private Member’s Bill through this House, and I would like to express my admiration and thanks to her. Her constituents can be very proud of her.

[Theresa Villiers]

I rise briefly to provide a brief summary of some of the comments in this excellent discussion of the two clauses of the Bill. Making a guest appearance on the Front Bench has been a bit of déjà vu for me. I am deeply grateful to the Minister for the Government’s support, and I am also grateful for the strong support that everyone who has taken part in the debate has expressed for the Bill.

Being present in Parliament for debates on the holocaust never fails to move me; it is always harrowing. No matter how many times I hear the facts recounted and the stories told, it is always moving and, frankly, disturbing and distressing to know that this happened on this continent within living memory. As many have said, the Bill is another opportunity to stand up to the holocaust deniers and to reiterate our strong commitment against antisemitism and the horrors to which it can lead. In this Committee, the House has spoken clearly with one voice on that matter.

The hon. Member for West Ham emphasised the insidious nature of antisemitism and highlighted the grave concerns felt about recent increases in antisemitic incidents. With many other Members of this House, I will be meeting the Community Security Trust at its annual event this evening. I am sure we will have important discussions with it on these matters. I wholeheartedly endorse the hon. Lady’s rejection of the politics of fear and conspiracy, which are fuelling antisemitism.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire spoke movingly about his constituents’ strong support for the Bill, and I am grateful for that. As he said, there should not be a limitation period on the semblance of justice that we can deliver via the return of treasured objects to the families of people from whom they were seized or stolen.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East gave his support and highlighted the staggering figure that 20% of Europe’s cultural treasures are believed to have been lost, stolen or misappropriated during the Nazi era. That demonstrates the scale of the task and the importance of ensuring that the 2009 Act stays on the statute book.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole highlighted that, at a time of holocaust denial, it is important for us all to stand up against the extremists who perpetrate these falsehoods. He also said that this is an opportunity to reflect on the horrors of the holocaust. I was grateful to him for his words about the Czech Memorial Scrolls Museum.

The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow—I am not sure I have pronounced that entirely correctly—rightly said that future generations should still have the opportunity of restitution of precious objects owned by their relatives who perished in the holocaust, and that we should all act together, across parties, to send a strong signal about our support for that process.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff West, spoke movingly, saying that the sun should never set on justice and righteousness, and told us about his visit to Auschwitz-Birkenau and the horrors that took place there. Like him, I would like to praise Andrew Dismore, which is something I have been cautious about, as we have battled against him in Hendon for many years. However, in this regard, he did a great service by taking through the 2009 Act. It is not an easy business to turn a ten-minute rule Bill into legislation, but he did it. We should pay a strong tribute to him for his role in creating Holocaust Memorial Day.

Finally, I thank the Minister for the Government’s support today, and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport for its administrative support and briefings on the Bill. I hope the Committee will support the two clauses, and I commend the Bill to Report and Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

15:07

Committee rose.

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 27 February 2019

[Mr Adrian Bailey in the Chair]

Eating Disorders Awareness Week

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Eating Disorders Awareness week.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey, for this very important debate. As we are in the middle of Eating Disorders Awareness Week, this is a timely day on which to remind ourselves of the good work that has been achieved in the past year, but also to look forward to where we want to be by this time next year.

I want to take this opportunity to thank Beat—the Eating Disorders Association—and the many other charities that have been in touch with me ahead of the debate for their sheer hard work and determination to keep this issue at the forefront of the Government agenda. I see many of you in the Public Gallery and want to say thank you for all that you do.

There is always great cross-party support in debates on eating disorders. I have been in this place for only 18 months, but it is the debates in which we are all travelling in the same direction that are so powerful, because we show our constituents that we can agree, and when we do, this place is much stronger and improves lives much more quickly.

As we know, eating disorders affect more than 1.25 million people throughout the United Kingdom, but that is a conservative figure, because many sufferers have not yet been diagnosed or identified. It is for that reason that this debate is opportune. We are all here today for those in the Gallery, for those who are fighting for this cause, for those who are currently fighting this debilitating disease, for those who have fought and come through it and for those who are currently living their daily lives as normal but may suffer at some point in the future. My colleagues and I will always fight your corner, and I am delighted to see many hon. Members here today to support the debate.

I wish to begin with the topic of stigma, which is the focus of the Eating Disorders Awareness Week campaign this year. As we know, eating disorders affect all age groups, genders and backgrounds. An eating disorder is not a diet gone wrong, a fad or a phase. It is not caused simply by a young female being exposed frequently to magazine images of skinny models or going on online platforms with similar material and deciding that they wish to look the same. It is an illness so deep rooted in the individual that it leads to devastating consequences for those who are suffering and for those around them.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has talked about the effect on constituents. I have to say that, in this case, it was the effect on me, because a close member of my family suffered from an eating disorder. The help that was available was pretty close to negligible. Does my hon. Friend think that there is much more that we can do to increase the help available for people whose family members are in that sort of situation?

[Kirstene Hair]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The sufferer of course needs specialist support, but I will go on to speak about how I believe that we also desperately need to support families and, indeed, all those around them. This disease is so complex that it is often difficult to treat and, trapped in the disease, sufferers feel that there is simply no way out. Many believe that if the disease does not take them, they will take their own life, just to rid themselves of it. No matter how strong an individual is, an eating disorder is so all-consuming that once it has taken hold, some people believe that they will never live a normal life again, and many do not: the condition becomes chronic for about 20% of sufferers.

Normally, a series of events has encouraged the person’s mind to think differently about their body image. Perhaps they have decided that they are not good enough: one too many times, people or life events have created a narrative in their mind that they are inferior to those around them, or perhaps life is out of control in many aspects—nothing is going right. They compare themselves with others around them and see only the negatives in their own life and the positives in other lives, but they can take back control of one aspect of their life—control of what they eat. That may well start off as a diet, but not a diet that would be followed by a normal individual, which often fails. It soon becomes a focus and then a more extreme calorie-counting exercise that involves hiding food, burning off every calorie possible and social isolationism. Before they know it, the candle is burning at both ends. Before a sufferer has identified that they need help, the registered impact on their body is always perceived as being caused by some other reason. There is a voice inside a sufferer screaming that too much food is being consumed or not enough exercise is being done—praise when they miss a meal or hear the sound of a rumbling stomach. That voice inside a sufferer will not and cannot go away.

The loved ones around a sufferer see their daughter, son or friend fade into a shadow of their former self; they are helpless in every way. Parents struggle and are in emotional turmoil. They know that if their daughter falls and skins her knee, they can bathe it, put a plaster on it and make it better. If their son is upset because he is struggling at school, they can get him the support that he needs. We have solutions, and it is human nature to want to fix and help those we love. However, when it comes to eating disorders, everyone is helpless and feels hopeless. No one, unless they are trained, can provide support, other than the individual themselves. Many, if not all, sufferers who have managed to recover will say that it was the hardest journey that they have ever taken, but having spoken to some of Beat’s bravest ambassadors, we have seen at first hand the amazing, inspiring individuals they can become—but that is only if we help them.

As a result of the stigma attached to eating disorders, black, Asian and ethnic minority people, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and people from less affluent backgrounds are less likely to seek and get medical support. Research developed ahead of today’s debate showed that four in 10 people believe that eating disorders were more prevalent in white people than in other ethnicities, yet research shows that they are just as common or more common in the BAME community. Thirty per cent. thought eating disorders were more likely to affect the more affluent; in fact, they evolve at the same rate irrespective of education or income. Sixty per cent. of respondents believed that they affected only young people. That is having a significant impact on adults coming forward for support, and we see men and boys not being referred as soon as girls and females.

The statistics might not be surprising, but we have to challenge them continually. They are preventing certain groups in society from appealing for help, and creating an inequality in support. As a result, people are more ill by the time they are referred, making the recovery process much more difficult and sometimes impossible. We have seen fantastic work by members of the royal family as well as other notable figures, who have raised awareness of mental health disorders and who seek to break down the barriers to people speaking out, but also recognise that it is okay to talk and okay for someone to say that they need help.

When sufferers reach out for help, they have often been suffering for years. They need urgent specialist help immediately. The average cycle of relapse and recovery lasts six years, and there must be constant efforts to reduce that. To undo months and years of torture, specialists need time and resources to allow a patient to open up, to analyse, to find out the root causes, to get under the skin of the issues and to develop the mind to fundamentally change—a long-term approach, but a life-changing one.

Families, too, need guidance and support on how to deal with this troubling time. Many do not know where to go for support. This was one comment from the social media campaign that I ran before the debate:

“When anorexia arrives in a family it is like throwing a grenade into a home and watching it explode...caring for my daughter has impacted on the mental health of all those in my family.”

That is why I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) that family-based therapy would provide a much-needed support base throughout the recovery process.

Without the investment of time, those patients will be back in our GP surgeries and hospitals time and again. We must look beyond weight. This is an issue of the mind, so whether it is a case of referral or recovery, it cannot be determined by the number on the scales. As a result of the digital campaign that I ran, I heard from many people up and down the country, and I thank them for coming forward with their stories. One person, who wished to remain anonymous, said that

“my granddaughter never got so thin but she died nearly 7 years ago at the age of 19 and I feel that if there had been some positive help she would have been alive today.”

She had been disregarded simply because her weight was not low enough. Recent research shows that GPs do not have adequate training for supporting individuals who have an eating disorder, with three in 10 sufferers not being referred when required.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

I call Louise Haigh.

[Rachael Maskell]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. I am troubled by the fact that, a year on, services in York are still completely inadequate. On Friday, I spoke to GPs who are trying to manage individuals with eating disorders. They have been instructed to take patients’ blood, to monitor the electrolytes, and to weigh them frequently, without the psychological support and clinical competencies that are necessary. Is it not absolutely essential that GPs receive the training that they need, so that we can put in place the holistic services that patients need?

[Kirstene Hair]

The hon. Lady is absolutely correct. I will come on to speak about that in detail. I hope the Minister will give further detail on how she is approaching that with other Departments.

In any five-year medical degree at UK medical schools the average amount of training in eating disorders was 1.8 hours, and one in five gave no training at all. The concern is not confined to one part of the United Kingdom; it is a widespread issue across all nations. That seems absolutely extraordinary, given that this is one of the most fatal mental health disorders, affecting 1.25 million people. GPs must be able to tell the difference between a healthy exercise routine and a compulsive one, low body-mass index and lack of nutrition, and going through a diet phase and the beginning of an eating disorder. They must recognise the clear indicators and how eating disorders manifest in order to deliver the right treatment plan, but to do that they need training.

I would like to see further encouragement of self-referrals and more work with schools, where many members of staff may be able to identify unusual behaviour. I warmly welcome the approach taken by my secondary school, Brechin High School, which has appointed a member of staff to lead on mental health who has a support base within the school and is linked up with the local primary schools, so that at the end of primary school, when an eating disorder—or any mental health disorder—may begin to develop, that support is monitored and continued as pupils enter secondary school and progress their education. I am keen to hear from the Minister how the training aspect can be addressed. I would like to hear from the Scottish National party spokesperson how the Scottish Government could do more to include training within university tuition, and how they will address the role that schools can play in early intervention.

When help is needed, how long do we have to wait? Waiting time targets have been a focal part of the campaigns run by many charities for years. In England and Wales, by 2021, 95% of eating disorder referrals for those under-19 are due to reach a specialist within four weeks, and within one week for urgent cases. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are on track to deliver that target, which is already making a huge impact? Along with the charities, I warmly welcome the ambition shown by this Government.

This is not a political debate and I do not wish to make it one. However, once again, when I wrote to the Scottish Government asking why they refused to equalise that target for young people, no substantive reason was given. I have also asked the Scottish Minister for Mental Health about that, and I look forward to her response. The UK Government have stepped up to treat under-19s. I encourage work so that those targets continue to be ambitious. We know that the sooner patients are seen, the higher the chance of recovery and the lower the long-term cost to the NHS. The current 18-week target in Scotland simply has to be addressed. When sufferers determine they need help, their illness is more likely to be treatable, but by the time they may be seen, the likely outcome is much more negative and potentially fatal. I want my constituents to have the same opportunity for early intervention as people south of the border. I want the Scottish Government urgently to address this needless inequality.

As we know, those with an eating disorder often take up to three years to identify that they have such a disorder. Sufferers must do two things: realise something is wrong and wish to make themselves better. When a sufferer comes forward, given their scepticism about all those trying to help them, we have a moral responsibility to grasp their ask for help and support them as a matter of urgency. That requires step-by-step help, to nurture these fragile but wonderful people and not let any of them fall out of the system.

I want to conclude with a point about social media, which is a force for good in many ways, but a stain on the life of many families, which recognise it as the tool that tore them apart. All age groups regularly browse online to determine what everyone else is up to or to catch up on the news, but they normally see only positive news. I have not seen one Instagram image of anyone in this room getting up in the morning, doing mundane things, such as washing the dishes, or having a bad day at work, because we submit only positive images. However, if we also put out negative images, things might feel slightly more normal.

Social media is a platform for showcasing the positive aspect of our lives, with no balance of the negative aspect that we encounter every day. For someone with an eating disorder, or any mental health disorder, that only accentuates their problems. Recent cases have made us all stop and think. There is so much pro-ana and pro-mia material promoting a harmful mindset, which forms or heightens an eating disorder. We must not forget that this material is often put up by sufferers themselves, so we must push supportive materials towards those who promote such images and material.

I do not believe that that is above any of the social media companies. The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport made a hugely positive step forward in that respect earlier this month. Will the Minister explain the conversations that her Department has had with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport? Social media platforms cannot take all the positives of social media, but refuse to take responsibility for some of the damage it causes.

In summary, I would like to thank all hon. Members for supporting this debate. I know that it is close to the hearts of many in this place. I hope that the Minister will show those who have suffered, those who are suffering and those who do not yet know that they will suffer that this Government are on their side. I hope the Minister will show that we will never rest on our laurels, but will continue to address the flaws and increase our ambition, reduce waiting times, develop support and facilities for all who need it, wherever they live in the country, intervene early and offer the right support throughout the whole process, expel the postcode lottery of support, encourage our world-class universities to improve teaching programmes, so that they are in line with the impact this disease has on so many, and ensure that social media companies play their part in bucking this trend. We have to help those who are, through no fault of their own, helpless about their own aid. For many it will be the first time in their lives, because that is what Government is here to do: help you when you cannot help yourself.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

Before I move on to the other speakers, I point out for the record that the intervention was made by Rachael Maskell, not Louise Haigh, her close friend. However, I noticed that she did not notice; confusion reigns. I call Paul Farrelly.

09:47

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Bailey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) on her success in securing this debate during Eating Disorders Awareness Week. I thank Beat, the eating disorders campaign group, for its unstinting efforts on behalf of the more than 1 million sufferers across the UK. After this debate, from 11 o’clock to 3 pm, during the lobby of Parliament, I am hosting a drop-in event with my good friend, the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), in room R of Portcullis House; colleagues here and those listening can go there to find out more about Beat’s work.

This debate follows that secured last October by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), which shows that support for this cause is truly cross-party. We also had a debate on the subject in September with the children’s Minister, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), highlighting the issues for vulnerable children going into adulthood. In that debate, I focused on concerns that regularly pop up in my area of north Staffordshire for young adults suffering from anorexia, bulimia and other eating disorders, which have such devastating effects on them and their families.

The impact on young adults is one example of a core concern of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s groundbreaking 2017 report, which I will focus on again today. This suffering and vulnerability does not stop when children reach the age of 18. However, in my immediate locality—Newcastle-under-Lyme, Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire Moorlands, which have a population of well over 600,000 people—the commissioning of specialist support and treatment does stop at the age of 18.

Staffordshire is served by six clinical commissioning groups, with one common accountable officer. The budget for specialist, post-18 eating disorder services in the four CCGs serving the centre, east and south of the county is £428,000 a year, but for the North Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent CCGs, it is exactly zero. Sufferers who, up to the age of 18, had been used to specialist support in the community or at in-patient facilities have to rely thereafter on the hard-pressed, overstretched and generalist child and adult mental health teams. It is a postcode lottery—an “unwarranted variation”, in the NHS jargon—that has persisted for far too long, is patently unfair and lets local families down badly.

Of course, the last thing those families and their children want is the publicity that would bring pressure to bear on the CCGs to change course and give them the specialist support that is available just a few miles down the road. Last September, however, after our debate here, one of my constituents, Sarah Pustkowski, was brave enough to speak out publicly about the effects on her.

Sarah is 25 and developed anorexia nervosa when she was 16. She is slowly recovering—touch wood—but her father says that she is not out of the woods yet. Her case shows how long the anomaly in our area has persisted, because her dad first approached me in 2014 when she was 20 to relate what a cliff edge they had fallen off, in terms of specialist support.

Until then, Sarah had access to the excellent Kinver Centre, a hospital in Stafford just down the A34. When discharged, however, all the expert support that the family was used to stopped, because our CCGs failed to commission it. The Kinver Centre can admit people from all over the country, not just the county, but not from north Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent or Staffordshire Moorlands, because our CCGs provide no funding. Sarah and her family are not alone.

Since the autumn, we have been working with sufferers, concerned local health professionals and providers, and Beat to resolve the situation. A business case has been drawn up for the two CCGs as part of their annual prioritisation process, which aims at consistent commissioning across the county. The professionals involved are more hopeful than before but, with intense financial pressures on our NHS, I pray that the dawn does not again prove false in the coming weeks.

Something that should help to make the case and, one would hope, to inform and form Government policy, is information as to what happens across the country as a whole. Last October, after our debate here, we asked the new Secretary of State which of the 190-plus CCGs in England also did not provide specialist 18-plus eating disorder services. His written reply stated:

“This information is not held centrally…NHS England does not hold information about all of the specific services commissioned by individual CCGs.”

But specialist in-patient units are commissioned by NHS England, so the response could have been more helpful.

The Secretary of State’s reply went on to say that the Government were investing £150 million in community-based care for eating disorders, which will mean that

“70…new or extended…services are now either open or in development”,

which will benefit

“at least 3,350 children and young people a year”.

We are still, however, at a loss to know precisely where. Perhaps the Minister could write to us with some more details after the debate.

In December, we served freedom of information requests on all 190-plus of England’s CCGs about the full extent of their services and funding. As hon. Members who have done that before know, it is a mammoth exercise that takes quite some following up. Thankfully, only a handful of CCGs did not respond and are being chased, and about 25 swerved the questions and gave little meaningful information, but the overall picture for adults and young adults is certainly better than the situation in North Staffordshire, and no doubt in the areas of many hon. Members present.The majority do provide specialist 18-plus services—in the community, at least.

There is still a glaring hole in the picture of specialist adult in-patient provision, however. Most CCGs defaulted on that question and referred it to our old friends at NHS England. Coming full circle, we formally FOI-ed it, too, in the new year. Under the statutory limits, a reply was due by last Thursday, but despite chasing, none has yet come. It would have been good to have had it by the end of last week to inform our local business case, and it would have been respectful to the families and sufferers for NHS England to have responded before this awareness week.

I am sorry to speak at length about our travails, but the saga demonstrates only too clearly how difficult it is for conscientious campaigners such as Beat, the families and the MPs who support them to lay their hands on the information they need. If it is difficult for us, it is fair to ask how Ministers can draw up effective and informed policy, and make sure that recommendations for improvement, such as those in the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report, are put into practice.

One of the five core recommendations in that report was that

“The Department of Health and NHS England should review the existing quality and availability of adult eating disorder services to achieve parity with child and adolescent services.”

It is that lack of parity, and the progress in reducing it, that we have been so frustratingly trying to get to the bottom of in the last six months. If the Minister has more information, I hope that she will share it with us and, importantly, ensure that NHS England does, too.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

Before I call John Lamont, I inform hon. Members that I intend to start calling the Front-Bench spokespeople by 10.30 am at the latest. After some simple arithmetic, that works out as about five minutes per speaker, if we are to get everybody in, as I intend to. I will not impose a hard time limit now, but each speaker should bear that in mind.

09:55

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) on securing this important debate during Eating Disorders Awareness Week. She made a passionate, well-informed and thoughtful speech, which I learned much from.

In my area of the Scottish Borders, some great charities and organisations work with young people to overcome issues such as eating disorders. There are now counsellors in every high school in the Scottish Borders, so teenagers have someone to speak to at school who is not a parent or teacher. We also have a specialist eating disorder nurse based in the Scottish Borders and some great work is done in the child and adolescent mental health service to support younger people.

I am sure that there are many good examples around the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) has spoken to me about the Brownhill eating disorder clinic in his constituency. He holds the clinicians and the work they do for his constituents in high regard.

Treatment across Scotland is patchy to say the least. In the Scottish Borders, there are no community tier 1 services aimed at preventing the onset of eating disorders locally and waiting times for help are far too high, as we have heard. I will focus on the impact that technology can have on the issue. The all-party parliamentary group on technology addiction looks at how smartphones, tablets and social media can have a detrimental impact on our health.

We have all seen the shocking stories about how diet pills, some of which contain lethal substances, are readily available to buy on social media, or how eating disorder-related hashtags and accounts are available and easily accessible to vulnerable people. Some of the content is more subtle. Platforms where we show only the best of ourselves mean that young people in particular can find it harder to feel content with their lives. Online images of thin and happy people clearly act as a trigger for some.

Social media platforms are working to tackle the issue and remove negative content, and so they should be. The idea of allowing the promotion of a category of mental health illness that kills so many people is completely unacceptable. I agree with those who argue that the likes of Facebook, Instagram and Twitter are on their final warning and that if they do not step up to properly tackle the issue, it is time to regulate. Given the clear link between mental health and social media use or abuse, there is certainly a case for requiring tech companies to mitigate the negative effects of their product, as the tobacco and alcohol industries are required to.

Although TV, films and social media are undoubtedly part of the problem, it is important to recognise the good work that some do. There are more documentaries and storylines in our soaps raising awareness about eating disorders. Social media platforms are also taking some action to tackle the issue. For example, Instagram has rolled out a warning that displays when users search for pro-eating disorder content and offers them help and support.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for making an excellent speech. Does he agree that this process should be about more than warnings and that there should be a proactive attempt to stop this sort of material being visible in the first place, which needs to be algorithmic and technology-based, so that people can recover in the community?

[John Lamont]

I absolutely agree with that important point and the social media platforms that are responsible for their content need to understand it much more clearly. They cannot just allow a free market, as it were, on their space, and if people are putting content on it that is clearly leading people to harm themselves, action needs to be taken, either by the companies themselves or, if they fail to do so, by the Government.

Perhaps above all, a vast array of online communities has been set up by people who have been through this experience and want to offer support. The internet can provide something that is immensely powerful—the sense that someone is not alone if they suffer from an eating disorder. That is what makes this issue so complicated. When it comes to eating disorders, the internet is both an enabler and potentially a powerful tool for good.

We will never get to a situation where eating disorder triggers can be removed entirely from social media. So, instead let us use technology as part of the solution, as best we can.

10:00

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair), who secured this debate and made an excellent speech, and to the other colleagues who have contributed to it so far.

Without doubt, eating disorders have acquired a greater profile in recent years, and there are two things that are apparent and that we can learn from. One is that, as a society, we are better at talking about these things, and organisations such as Beat, which has already been mentioned, do outstanding work in making people feel that the stigma around these issues is something that we, as a society, need to get over, and therefore people will feel more comfortable about coming forward, which is good.

The second lesson that we might learn is that we are a society that, for some of the reasons that have already been mentioned, increasingly breeds poor mental health. So, I will focus my remarks on the support—or lack of it—for young people living with mental health conditions and particularly for those with eating disorders in my constituency of Westmorland and Lonsdale.

Very often, it is the parents who come to me first. Parents come to me with two clear emotions: one is terror; and the other is guilt. It is absolutely essential that we are clear to people with eating disorders, and indeed to those who love and support them, that there is absolutely no need for guilt; there is no blame attached whatever. Likewise, we need to tackle the fear and the terror, which often stem from a lack of understanding or an absence of hope as to where to go next, by showing that there are things that we can do to help.

In my constituency, we estimate that three quarters of young people with eating disorders were not seen within the target time of one month, and that 100% of those with an urgent need were not seen within the target time of two weeks. That is not acceptable, but what is even more terrifying is that the numbers involved are ludicrous. In the year up to August 2018, a grand total of 13 young people in South Lakeland were registered as living with eating disorders, which is baloney: we all know that that is not true. I would comfortably say that the real number is 10 times higher. In my office, we deal with at least one new case of an eating disorder every single week. So what is happening, such that our young people with eating disorders are falling through the gaps? We need to look at a whole range of things, but I especially ask the Minister to investigate personally why this is happening, particularly in South Lakeland but—I suspect—around the country as well.

One GP got in touch with me about this issue. I will not name her, but she was very keen for me to share her experience with everyone here in Westminster Hall and everyone who is listening. She did not have any training at all in mental health while she was gaining her qualifications, but she has sought to bring herself up to speed on it in her job. She is a general practitioner. She does her best to help young people and indeed people of all ages presenting with mental health conditions, but she feeds people into the system, or refers people into it, and there is no triage.

There is no general triage once a young person has been referred for help: “Does this person have anxiety?”; “Does this person have an eating disorder?”; or, “Does this person have some other condition?” That person could be referred to the wrong silo and then sit there for months, undiagnosed or misdiagnosed. I am sure that is one window into why such pitifully low numbers of people are being diagnosed, against the backdrop of what I think are many hundreds of people living with a condition who are left in desperation and not even getting the beginnings of the support that they desperately need. We are failing to catch our children and our young people when they are at their most vulnerable, so how can we then go and help them?

Anorexia nervosa has the highest mortality rate of any psychiatric disorder in adolescence. The consequences for someone of not getting the right treatment are absolutely huge and extremely serious. However, even those who are diagnosed—this goes for younger people and for adults—may not get the help that they need. Colleagues have already referred to the fact that people will have experience—I have, with constituents of mine—of being told, “Frankly, you’re not thin enough yet. Come back when you are. You are not manifesting physical conditions to back up your mental health condition, therefore come back later on.”

Would somebody who had been fortunate enough to have been diagnosed with cancer at stage 1 be told, “Clear off till you’ve got stage 4. Come back when you’re at death’s door”? Come off it, but that is how we treat people with mental health conditions and in particular people living with eating disorders. There are people with eating disorders—I can think of some who I know myself—who may have experienced no appreciable or noticeable weight loss. They still have an eating disorder, which needs to be tackled, and tackled quickly.

In Cumbria, three years ago—to the week—we were promised a specialist one-to-one eating disorder service for young people. Three years on, it still does not exist. That is why so many people will be cynical about promises made at this time of year at events such as this. We want to see real delivery for all of our young people in every part of the country.

Finally, the Government—rightly—emphasised preventive care in the NHS long-term plan just a few weeks ago. However, just a few days before Christmas they had sneaked out the funding cuts for public health, which is genuinely preventive care. Those cuts included a £500,000 cut in preventive health care in Cumbria. At the moment in Cumbria, we spend 75p per child on preventive health care. If we want to support those people who may struggle with eating disorders in the future, it is vital that we invest early and invest now. That will be not only more efficient and more effective, but far, far kinder.

10:06

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Bailey, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) for securing this important debate in Eating Disorders Awareness Week.

According to YoungMinds, one in 12 teenagers in the United Kingdom suffer from eating disorders, and about 25% of those with eating disorders are noted as being male. Statistics for 2017-18 recorded that 536 Scots were treated for eating disorders. Eating disorders are complex illnesses that take many forms, such as anorexia nervosa, which was mentioned earlier, whereby people erroneously believe that they are overweight.

The root causes of these disorders are unclear, but they may include things such as career choices. The biographies of many jockeys speak of crash dieting and sometimes dehydrating themselves with the aid of saunas, to reach a low weight prior to a race. The image of the ballerina is of a slight and fragile figure floating through the air. What must it take to maintain such a body image? In show-business, there are child stars of stage and screen for whom the limelight proves too much, or perhaps they fear losing popularity during the transition to adulthood. How will growing up affect their future career?

It is important not to stereotype and to be alert to the fact that eating disorders befall people regardless of their age, gender, race, or socioeconomic circumstances. What is clear are the dangers associated with the resulting malnutrition and the serious complications, such as osteoporosis, low blood pressure, heart failure, oedema and anaemia. Anorexia can be life-threatening; it is one of the leading causes of deaths related to mental health problems. Every single such loss is a tragedy for the individual themselves and their family—indeed, the unnecessary loss of a life is also a tragedy for the nation.

Binge eating is characterised by an uncontrolled addiction to food, involving over-eating and exceedingly fast eating in secret, whether the person is hungry or not. And bulimia is a combination of the worst elements of both anorexia and binge eating.

Encouragement to seek treatment at the earliest opportunity will no doubt enhance the chances of recovery, which very often is a long-term process, requiring an immense amount of support from professionals and family members. However, as with any addiction, the person must acknowledge their problem—in this case, unhealthy eating—and they themselves must want to seek assistance. Anxiety and depression are common threads, whether as a cause or a result of an eating disorder.

I acknowledge the good work of the child and adolescent mental health staff of NHS Ayrshire & Arran, but from the complaints I have heard at surgeries from my constituents about waiting times for appointments, it is clear that the numbers of those much-welcomed professional staff do not match society’s demand for their time and support. When individuals with eating disorders reach out for help, we as a society must grasp that hand and be there for them. I welcome the new guidelines for Scotland announced at the beginning of this week, which it is stated will assist in providing a range of approaches to mental health issues, ensuring that help is available when and where it is needed.

In closing, I ask both Governments to continue providing vital funding for much-needed support services for persons afflicted with eating disorders and their heartbroken families—heartbroken does not sum it up; it does not describe the agony and the pain that those families go through. I also ask them to consider whether there needs to be enhanced control of slimming and dietary products, especially the marketing of those products to young and vulnerable individuals. I understand from the news that only this week, concerns were expressed by Food Standards Scotland that DNP—dinitrophenol, an industrial chemical—is being illegally marketed as a slimming pill, which FSS considers to be potentially lethal. It is still available to purchase on the internet, and we as a Government need to rein in social media platforms that permit, condone, or have a policy of turning a blind eye for the pursuit of profit, regardless of the health and wellbeing of our young people. As a Government, as has been said earlier, we must seriously bring those people to book for the damage and harm that they are causing to families throughout the United Kingdom.

10:11

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) for having secured this important debate, and I am delighted to participate in it, although I wish it was not necessary. A debate about Eating Disorders Awareness Week is, of course, very important.

Despite what we have heard, in so many ways, we have come so far with regards to this illness. I think back to someone of the stature of Karen Carpenter, who died in 1983 at the age of 32, when I was 15 years old. Those of us among the general population who mourned her passing did not appreciate what an eating disorder was. It has to be said that we are still learning, but we are having this debate during Eating Disorders Awareness Week, at a time when the general public are more aware—and becoming much more aware—of an illness that so many people can fall prey to. This week is an international event that aims to raise further awareness of the issue of eating disorders, and the stigma that too often goes with them. Charities work hard to encourage people from all walks of life to come forward, because as we have heard, this illness respects no gender, no class and no race.

This week, the UK eating disorder charity Beat has continued to work very hard to break down the barriers that so many people face when they try to access support. It is important that those living with this condition and their families know that they are not alone, so sharing stories of how an eating disorder has affected others from all walks of life can be a powerful tool. Those who are in the darkest days of this disorder can be greatly comforted by hearing the stories and experiences of those who have lived with it, but have come through it and are in recovery. However, we also need to remember, as we heard earlier, that eating disorders can still be present during the process of recovery, and indeed can overshadow a person’s entire life, even when recovery might seem a long time ago.

One of the key barriers to tackling eating disorders is that too often, they are stereotyped and not taken seriously. Only by continuing to raise awareness of the struggles that sufferers go through, by talking about eating disorders in places like this and by supporting charities in their outreach work, can we make the change happen that we all want. We have heard—it is worth repeating—that social media has brought added complications to dealing with an already complex condition. Our young people are immersed in social media, a forum that projects so-called “perfect” images of lifestyles and bodies, and given how much young people are exposed to those images, it is not difficult to see how a young, vulnerable person could lose sight of what looks healthy or real. We know about the scandal of particular websites advising people on how to not eat without it being noticed by friends and family, which is very chilling indeed.

We need to continue to drive improvements in mental health services and ensure that everyone who needs high-quality mental health services, including people with eating disorders, has access to the care that they need when they need it. There is no denying that there have been positive first steps in increasing the visibility and public awareness of eating disorders and mental health challenges over the past decade. However, the demand on mental health services is so great that we must always seek ways to do better by those who need the specialist support that those conditions require.

Challenges remain for mental health services across the United Kingdom, and it is worth remembering that since the year 2000, the number of people diagnosed with eating disorders has risen by 15%, and that hospital admissions for adult males suffering from an eating disorder have risen by 70% over the past six years. That demonstrates the scale of the challenge that we face. On top of that, on average, it takes about 149 weeks before those experiencing an eating disorder even begin to seek help—that is almost three years lost. Offering support in ways that match young people’s lives—in fact, these days, all people’s lives—means increasing the amount of online peer support that can assist with recovery. That peer support allows someone living with this disorder to pair with a trained volunteer who has recovered from an eating disorder, who can share their experiences and offer support as and when it is needed.

Having this week dedicated to raising the profile of this illness, talking about it, and recognising its complexities and its stigma is a good start, and represents very good progress from where we were in the 1980s, when so many of us could not understand how Karen Carpenter died or appreciate the full extent of the difficulties that her family had gone through. We have come a long way, but we have a long way to go, and this debate shows that we are keen to go further down that road.

10:16

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) on having secured this debate, especially during this important week—Eating Disorders Awareness Week. Last month, we had a debate on eating disorders, during which I revealed my own struggle with body dysmorphia when I was a teenager. Since then, I have gone on a journey. My mother spoke to me after that debate and asked, “Why didn’t you say anything?” I said, “Well, it was normal. That was how I thought everybody acted. I wanted to look that way, and it was normal and personal.” My mother said, “The only thing I noticed about you during that period was that you were a little bit obsessive and compulsive about things”, but that was a symptom of what I was going through.

I am one of the lucky ones, because my body dysmorphia went away on its own. I feel that I have gone on a journey since our previous debate. So many people have contacted me, including people I know or I have met through my job as a Member of Parliament, and talked about their personal struggles with eating disorders. Those I thought of as confident, or those I looked up to, have said to me that they struggled with the problem of an eating disorder. For them, it was a personal and private battle, as it was for me. I pay tribute to those people for the courage that they have shown in admitting that they had a problem.

I also pay tribute to Beat for all the work it does to ensure that people feel they have a safe space in which to talk about the problems they are going through. As the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) has said, such a space did not exist when I was suffering from body dysmorphia in the 1990s, but it is there now. Another thing I learned when I met Hope Virgo and her fantastic Dump The Scales campaign team was that eating disorders are not necessarily about weight. So many people go to their GP, but get turned away because they are not light enough. They do not get help, so they turn to other mechanisms to cope.

A number of Members have talked about social media. I want to make it clear that in many respects, social media is a force for good. However, as the hon. Member for Angus said, there is so much pro-ana and pro-mia content, and it is widespread on social media. Instagram has made progress on banning images that contain suicide or self-harm. It has banned certain hashtags, but that does not stop people from going into them. It is a real problem. Some websites I have looked at are helpful and provide the type of support that sufferers of eating disorders need. People are allowed to post a diary. They meet a community that is there to help them, but other websites mask their communities. They start off by saying, “Yes, there is help for you”, but then it suddenly moves on to, “How to hide your eating disorder from your parent”, “How to hide your eating disorder from your school”, and “Anorexia and bulimia are normal.” I should make it clear that if someone does not have an eating disorder, those images of eating disorder will not bring one about. However, such images do affect the most vulnerable in society.

A recent BBC investigation in 2018 led to Instagram placing more harmful hashtags relating to eating disorders on an “unsearchable” list; if somebody enters one of those terms, no results will appear in the search box. Instagram now has more terms—including alternative spellings of “suicide” or “anorexia”, using “1” instead of “I”—that, when searched for, direct people to help and health warnings. One search term had 38 alternative spellings that could still be used by users to access harmful images. It is all very well Instagram using warm words to the Government about banning those harmful images, but it does not have moderators. It is self-moderated. If someone proactively searches for content that is against the rules, there is a good chance they will find it.

I do not want to eat into others’ time. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for the work she has done in bringing eating disorders to the fore. I spoke in her earlier debate, too, so I will bring my remarks to a close. The Government have to be careful when they regulate social media. The content could simply be driven underground into WhatsApp groups or the dark web. I raised this issue with the Prime Minister a couple of weeks ago at Prime Minister’s questions. She agreed to the Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries meeting me, Beat and Hope Virgo, who has her Dump the Scales campaign, to talk about how we can bring about a system that discourages eating disorders and provides the support that people need. I make one advertisement for Hope’s campaign: if people have not signed her petition, please do so. She is up to 68,000 signatures this morning. She needs 100,000 for the petition to be debated here, so that we can bring about a serious debate on eating disorders.

I say this to anyone suffering from an eating disorder: you are not alone. Look at the people around this room—not just the MPs, but the people in the Public Gallery. There is support there for you. This is personal and private, but when you find the courage to talk about it, there are people there for you. I urge anyone with an eating disorder to find it in themselves to talk to someone.

10:23

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) for securing this important debate. It has already been said that this debate has cross-party support, and we have come a long way in recognising and understanding eating disorders. I find it depressing that although we have made this progress, increasing numbers of people are suffering from eating disorders. We must get away from just talking and start getting some change. I hope that Eating Disorders Awareness Week will bring about that change, so that we do not stand here next year without having made significant progress.

I will limit my remarks to the research that Beat has done that shows that eating disorders do not discriminate, and the importance of early intervention and prevention. Over the past five months, I have been campaigning to raise awareness. I have spoken before in this place about the need to recognise eating disorders early. Stories such as Hope’s highlight how ludicrous it is for people seeking help to be told that they are not thin enough.

At the heart of any improvement to eating disorders treatment lies education—of our medical staff, of the whole of society, of schools and of families. I have personal experience of a family member with an eating disorder, so I know very much how families and friends suffer around a sufferer. It is not just the sufferer who is affected, but those around them.

Eating disorders are too often trivialised and seen as an illness that exclusively affects one type of person. That is reinforced by research released this week by Beat, which found that discrimination was ingrained in how we view eating disorders. Beat’s research found that four in 10 people believed that eating disorders were more common among white people, and nearly 30% thought that eating disorders were most likely to affect people from higher socioeconomic backgrounds. The reality is that eating disorders do not discriminate.

The tragedy of eating disorders is that they are preventable. By focusing on early intervention, the numbers of those suffering can be greatly reduced, but the stereotypes around eating disorders mean that certain people are far less likely to recognise the condition and seek or be referred to treatment. For example, ethnic minorities are substantially less likely to be referred to eating disorder services than white patients, but once referred, ethnic minorities receive the same treatment as white patients. A central problem is what doctors and the public understand about the population of people who suffer from eating disorders. The network of family and friends who surround those with eating disorders make a great deal of difference to their recognising the condition and receiving the correct help.

Research on specialist out-patient family intervention for children shows that it is highly effective and reduces the need for in-patient care, which eases pressure on the NHS. New ways of looking much more holistically at the treatment of eating disorders are highly effective, and we should look at them. The research identifies the importance of a truly joined-up approach to recovery, ensuring that the community around an individual with an eating disorder is supportive and supported by the medical team. Those types of programmes are being run in select areas across the country, and they must be extended, given their positive outcomes.

Treatment for eating disorders is a postcode lottery. We need to look at that. We must set standards and deliver training that will help doctors and medical staff to identify people who need treatment, regardless of any preconceived stereotypes. Additionally, it is vital that we continue to listen to the stories of real people who have suffered from eating disorders, and hear what they have to say about their experiences of the system.

The last thing I want to mention is the Local Government Association’s “Bright Futures” campaign. It highlights to councils across the country the importance of increasing funding, and ensuring that all the promised £1.7 billion for children’s mental health is spent in children’s mental health, not elsewhere. Prevention and early intervention, as we have heard several times today, are absolutely key to saving many lives from being destroyed, including those of friends and families of sufferers. Together, we can make a real difference, but let us make it happen, rather than just talking about it.

10:27

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this debate on Eating Disorders Awareness Week, Mr Bailey. We have certainly raised awareness today, cross-party, and have paid credit to the week. We will continue to work together on this.

I thank the hon. Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) for introducing this important debate. She feels strongly about this issue and wants to contribute. She mentioned that she had contacted the Minister for Mental Health in Scotland and would like an appointment with her to discuss services. I am sure we can work together to take things forward, and to ensure that collaboration throughout the United Kingdom continues.

We want to improve our services. Today, we heard that there are gaps in eating disorder services in just about every area. We have also heard how things have moved on. When Karen Carpenter had an eating disorder and sadly died, there was not much awareness at all. Now, there is greater awareness, but that has raised demand. It is incumbent on us to ensure that we are able to meet that demand, so that when young people, or people of any age, come forward, they get help in a timeous fashion.

The hon. Member for Angus spoke about stigma, an extremely important issue. She also spoke about how the stigma affects ethnic minorities, particularly males, and prevents them from coming forward. We must do much more to ensure equality in service provision, and send the message that eating disorders do not discriminate. We must support everybody who comes forward.

I want to thank the voluntary agencies who work in this field so tirelessly: the Beat campaigners, many of whom are here today; our NHS staff up and down the United Kingdom, who do their utmost every day, often going beyond the call of duty in the work that they do; and the Scottish Eating Disorders Interest Group, who also do a great deal of work in the field.

The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) talked about the lack of psychological support, which I hope the Minister can comment on. We have heard eating disorders described as being about weight, which is wrong on so many levels. It is psychological as well as physical. Relying simply on physical manifestations of eating disorders means that many people do not get the treatment they should at the time that they should. Often people who have, for instance, bulimia might not have a reduction in weight, and it will therefore not be obvious to a practitioner unless they have specialist, or at least additional, training in primary care and specialist services.

We have spoken a lot today about anorexia and have mentioned bulimia, but there has been no mention of obesity, interestingly, around which there is a real stigma across the population. We need to do more to make sure that those who suffer from obesity have psychological support, too, because their journey to recovery is extremely important. Again, that is linked with mental health.

Crucially, the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) spoke about technology and images online. We have done a lot of work in the all-party group on textiles and fashion, which I chair, to look at the impact of social media and the industry on body image, and the negative and stereotypical images that very few of us will ever live up to, and should not aspire to. Often the images are not healthy, either. Much more has to be done. I agree with him on what he said about regulation of the companies, the information that is put out, and being proactive.

We also heard from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who spoke about lack of support and comorbidity, mental health issues being very much conjoined with eating disorders. When I worked as a psychologist in mental health services, often referrals would come in for individuals who had depression or anxiety, but underlying that was a long-standing eating disorder. That is why it is important that training in primary care reaches out across community mental health teams, and is not just given to specialist eating disorder services, because often the initial referral will not give an indication of the underlying difficulty.

The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) spoke about bulimia and the new guidelines for Scotland, which he welcomed. We know there is an issue with providing services for people in rural areas in a timeous way. I am pleased that the Scottish Government have dedicated £54 million to look at that. There will be new guidelines in line with SIGN, the Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network, and we look forward to collaborating on taking those issues further.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) spoke about peer support, which is extremely important. Young people are often much more able to reach out to other young people, so I ask the Minister: what best practice is happening around that, and what can we roll out across the United Kingdom? One of my local schools, Duncanrig Secondary, is doing mental health peer support work very successfully. It is that type of project that young people grasp hold of to make a difference for each other. I pay tribute to the Trust Jack Foundation in my constituency, which reaches out to young people with mental health problems and has filled a gap in our local services in Stonehouse. Its service is being used assiduously by our local young people.

The hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) spoke about his eating disorder, body dysmorphia, and personal struggle. That is such an important message to give in Parliament. In coming forward and seeking support, he is a role model for others, so I thank him for that. He also spoke about why it is so important to have person-centred and holistic care, and I entirely agree with that.

The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) is an absolute champion in the field. She has collected thousands and thousands of signatures, and we support her work across this House in a truly cross-party effort to ensure we get the services that people require. I am sure the campaign that she runs to raise awareness will be successful in making a difference to people.

When I worked in psychology in the NHS, it was difficult at times to bridge the gap between primary, secondary and tertiary care, and difficult for people to be referred smoothly. I have raised that with Ministers in Scotland. When people present with an eating disorder, they do not always say, “I have an eating disorder. Can you help me?”, so it is key to have the training in place and a smooth care pathway—the two issues that I want the Minister to comment on. I know she is dedicated on this subject. I have met her numerous times, and I am keen to hear what she says today.

10:37

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) for securing this very important debate today, particularly during Eating Disorders Awareness Week. I was deeply moved by her powerful opening speech and I thank her and the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for their persistence in bringing the issue to the House. May that never stop.

It is only four months since we were last here speaking about this issue and how we could work together to remove the stigma around eating disorders. Many colleagues here today also spoke in that debate and I thank all of them for taking the time to be here again today. I have been struck, as I am sure many have, by the collegial nature of this debate. That is important and it is what people who experience eating disorders, and their families, want. They want us to put our party colours to one side and work together to try to bring about the much- needed improvements in this area.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) talked eloquently and powerfully about the issue. As we all know, it is brave to talk about our personal experiences in this place, and he talked about his own experience of body dysmorphia. He also talked about the bravery of others, but I hope he takes time to reflect on his own bravery and courage. I am very proud of him and I thank him.

I also want to reflect on the comments made by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) about what happens in schools, which is incredibly important. The hon. Member for Angus also touched on it. I recently attended one of the high schools in my area and talked about what psychological support was available to children, specifically teenagers.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I apologise that I could not be here earlier; I was at the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Over the years, I have had the opportunity to help some of my constituents, particularly ladies, who have had eating disorders, and we have been able to sort those things out. I have noticed a dearth among males, who unfortunately seem not to address these issues. I commend the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) for speaking about that.

The hon. Lady talked about helping schools, youth groups, and other youth network facilities. I believe that there is a need for trained officials who can notice disorders and step in early. Early diagnosis and early intervention is the way forward. Does she agree?

[Paula Sherriff]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Frankly, a debate would not be complete without an intervention from him. I absolutely agree. When I was speaking to the professional at the Mirfield Free Grammar, she told me that much of what comes through her door relates to eating disorders, crucially in boys as well as girls. Sometimes we continue to stereotype that eating disorders affect only women. The reality is quite different.

As a number of Members have suggested, social media can be a double-edged sword. I will talk about Beat in a moment. Beat does excellent work and has fantastic online resources, as do a number of other mental health charities. However, other sites that we have heard about that encourage people with regard to suicide and their eating disorders can be problematic to say the least.

The Government have made a commitment that, by 2020, 95% of children and young people who are referred with an eating disorder will be seen within one month, or one week if it is considered urgent. That is obviously very welcome, but with 2020 just around the corner I am concerned that, given current workforce and funding pressures, that will be difficult to achieve, or will possibly result in manipulation of waiting time figures. A patient will get a first appointment within the timescale, but any follow-up or effective treatment will still come many months, or even years, after referral. I would be grateful if the Minister would say how it will work in practice.

Although that is all well and good for children and young people, there are still no clear plans for adults with eating disorders. I recently visited a NAViGO service in Grimsby that supports people with eating disorders, and I was struck by how many people who were older than me were experiencing in-patient treatment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) talked about his constituent Sarah. I have a constituent who was diagnosed with an eating disorder at 16. Owing to the severity of her illness, she was sadly admitted to hospital for a lengthy stretch. On her release, she attended fortnightly appointments with an eating disorder specialist. As her recovery was going well, my constituent decided that she would like to take up an offer of a university place in Manchester, because despite her very difficult illness she had achieved the most fantastic A-level results. She saw going to university as a positive step in her healing and as a way of getting on with her life. The local NHS trust that delivers mental health services in my area informed her that she would have to transfer over to mental health services in Manchester.

Neither my constituent nor her family thought too much about that, as it was not raised in such a way that allowed them to foresee any issues. However, five months on, my constituent is still waiting for the handover to be completed and, sadly, during that time she has suffered a serious relapse and is once again looking at in-patient care. I recently attended the all-party parliamentary university group, and we talked about transition when people go to university, and about mental health in general. We need to look at that in some detail.

[Paul Farrelly]

Clearly, the administration in the health services that led to that outcome is of grave concern. It is also concerning when specialist services in a particular area stop for young people when they turn 18. Only those people going away to university or college in areas that provide such services, or those people whose families have a lot of money and can fund treatment privately, have the prospect of change. The people who are left are effectively discriminated against.

[Paula Sherriff]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I absolutely agree. We had a very interesting discussion at the APPG about whether we could do more pre-screening when people go to university. We must also remember those in further education, not just those in higher education.

I ask the Minister whether what happened to my constituent would have happened had she been suffering from a serious physical condition. Earlier, a colleague made an analogy with cancer—“Your cancer is only at stage 1; we’re not going to treat you until it becomes more advanced.” As we all know, eating disorders carry the highest mortality rate of any mental illness; yet this young lady has been left to suffer, in a new city, away from family and friends and without any support network. We all have to ask ourselves how on earth that was allowed to happen.

I commend the fantastic work being done to raise awareness of eating disorders and to support sufferers, and crucially their carers and families, by the charity Beat, some of whose representatives are in the Gallery. They work relentlessly to battle against the stigma of this dreadful disease, and to push for better access to services and treatments. When my office spoke to them about the case of my constituent, they said that sadly it was very typical of the stories that they hear every day on their helpline. How many families are going through the same mental torture day after day while waiting for that elusive appointment confirmation to drop through their letter box?

With no specific waiting time targets for adults with eating disorders and poorly funded mental health services, many overstretched mental health trusts are unable to put the necessary resources into those vital services, and treatment availability has become a hideous postcode lottery, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme highlighted. Service access and levels of funding vary widely from one area to the next.

Furthermore, there is a huge disparity between access to adult services and to those for children and young people, with adults on average waiting twice as long. The eating disorder charity Beat has had a huge rise in calls to its helpline over the last year. In 2017-18, Beat staff helped 17,000 people, and they estimate that by the end of 2018-19 they will have helped more than 30,000. It is commendable that they managed that increase in demand so well, and I know that with more funding they could help even more people.

In October 2018, following an eating disorder storyline, which Beat had been very involved in helping with, on the popular teenage soap “Hollyoaks”, calls to Beat’s helpline spiked to more than double those in any previous month. That highlights the need to raise awareness about eating disorders and, crucially, to quash the stereotypes and stigmas so that more people know that they can seek help earlier. Reportedly, it could take an adult with an eating disorder more than two years before they realise that they have an issue, and up to another two years to seek help. More needs to be done to increase awareness and access to treatments.

Beat recently undertook some research into eating disorder stereotypes. When people think of eating disorders they often think of young, white women, but that is a popular misconception. The reality is much more complex. More adults suffer from eating disorders than young people, and the number of male sufferers increases year on year, with people who identify as LGBT+ at significantly higher risk. Stereotypes prevent people from seeking and receiving medical treatment in the earlier stages, which, in turn, makes it harder for people to recover.

I am grateful that the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) raised over-eating. When we think of eating disorders, we often think of anorexia or bulimia. It is important that we consider the full spectrum of disorders. Beat’s research also found that people from black, Asian and minority ethnic and less affluent backgrounds would feel less confident in seeking help from a health professional for an eating disorder. That stigmatisation and fear of speaking out can have far reaching and dangerous consequences.

We also need to work to ensure better training for those on the frontline. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) made an important point about training for those in health professions so that they can better recognise and support those who present with eating disorders.

Another constituent of mine waited more than two years to be seen by a psychiatrist for depression and anxiety. During that time, sadly, she also developed an eating disorder. She was consuming less than 700 calories a day and avoiding any foods with even a trace of fat, and her weight had plummeted over a period of six months, but at her first psychiatric appointment she was told that she was not underweight enough to be considered to have a serious eating disorder. At her second appointment, the psychiatrist weighed her and congratulated her on her increased weight and body mass index. As hon. Members can imagine, that was the last thing that she wanted to hear. The psychological effect set her recovery back by weeks.

Sadly, that was not an isolated incident. There are many fantastic people working on the frontline of our health services, but there is also a minority who would hugely benefit from extra awareness training in what an eating disorder looks like, how best to treat it and where to refer patients for treatment.

I know the Minister well and am satisfied that she has huge compassion in the area, but equally I hope that she has listened to the points raised in this debate and will press the Government to put eating disorders higher up the agenda, make promises and set targets that will ultimately save the lives of sufferers. She will have my full support in doing so.

10:50

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)]

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this very constructive debate. They all showed massive care and compassion, with a recognition that we have come a long way but need to go a lot further. I am grateful for their constructive contributions.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) on securing this debate in Eating Disorders Awareness Week. I thank her for her very frank exposition of eating disorders, and of the helplessness felt not only by those who are suffering, but by those around them. It is essential that we ensure that people have access to the right mental health support in the right place and at the right time, because time is of the essence. Improving those services is a key priority for this Government, as part of our wider agenda to improve mental health services.

As several hon. Members have said, eating disorders are serious: they have some of the highest mortality rates of any mental health disorder. We need to ensure, more than ever, that people get access to support as early as possible, because eating disorders quite often begin when people are young. Representations have been made today about why our targets are for children, rather than adults. Those targets recognise the fact that early intervention is best and that issues often surface when people are younger, but that does not in any way diminish the challenge of ensuring that adults also have access to services.

That brings me to a point that several hon. Members have made: the perception that eating disorders affect only young white women. They do affect adults. I have heard of a case of an elderly lady in a care home being diagnosed with an eating disorder that she had obviously been suffering from for decades. One of the tests that I will set myself is for that never to happen again, because we need to ensure that people get early diagnosis.

As the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) very frankly reminded us, eating disorders affect men and boys too. If there is a perception otherwise, it may partly be because men and boys are much less likely to seek help than women and girls. We need to make it clear that the issue can affect absolutely anyone, as the hon. Gentleman showed very courageously by sharing his own experience; I am very grateful for his comments.

It is important to continue to raise awareness. We need to reduce the stigma associated with eating disorders so that people are more likely to talk about them. Like all hon. Members, I pay tribute to the campaigners who do so much to raise awareness, particularly the charity Beat, which does absolutely excellent work. I also pay tribute to Hope Virgo for her campaign and look forward to meeting her very soon.

We cannot emphasise strongly enough that this is not about weight; it is about the mind. Some of the stories that were shared in this debate were quite horrific. If there is such lack of understanding among medical professionals—if the people we trust to look after us end up doing harm because they see eating disorders as a weight issue—we have a serious problem to tackle. Of course training has its part to play, but I should add that we expect a lot of our GPs. One of the real challenges is to continue to roll out multidisciplinary GP service teams to ensure that there is much greater expertise in each medical practice, rather than relying on one individual to be the expert on everything. Frankly, they are only human beings—they are not God.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank the Minister for giving way; I know that her time is very limited. When services let people go too early, the danger of relapse is much higher. We could prevent relapses by not letting sufferers go too early, when they are half better but not fully better.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

The hon. Lady makes a good point that I will address further if I have time. We need to look carefully at the care pathway and at the whole practice of referrals and the journey that people take, so that we can ensure that they are in a position to manage their disorder. The truth is that no one is ever cured of these things; it is a matter of managing their wellbeing to tackle them.

I thank the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for her acknowledgment that we have come a long way. She is right that we need to ensure that we have proper specialist services to do this work, because of the risk of harm. She is also right to mention obesity, which we could do an awful more to address. I watch a lot of rubbish TV—we work long hours here, so that is my relaxation—and I am horrified by some of the channels, which basically run a succession of programmes about weight that are almost freak shows. That is not how we should be talking about the issue if we want to encourage people to access help. We need to tackle the stigma around obesity as much as the stigma around any other disorder.

The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and I have already discussed his concerns about his area. I know that there are challenges and we need to ensure that provision is sufficient. He spoke very frankly about the guilt and terror that people around those who suffer from eating disorders feel, because they genuinely do not know how to help their friend or loved one. Reducing stigma and raising awareness is partly about helping people to understand what they can do. Everybody wants to help, because nobody wants to see people suffer so much.

Social media has been mentioned a lot. I absolutely recognise that it can be a force as much for good as for bad, but I must say that we are seeing content that encourages harmful behaviour. It is about the whole psychology of people joining communities. When people use social media regularly, they can become isolated from the physical world and join an online world in which everyone is like them. It becomes normalising, and it can worsen their experience.

Equally, social media can be a community of self-help. I agree completely with the hon. Member for Islwyn that we have to be careful: of course we must challenge companies to be responsible, but it is not black and white, and we need to handle the issue sensitively. I am pleased to say that some companies are very responsive, but not all, so we will continue to challenge them. The hon. Gentleman raised an issue that particularly concerns me. It is one thing to regulate public platforms, but encrypted direct contact is having a growing impact. We need to look at Snapchat, WhatsApp and so on, because the fact is the Government are always three steps—probably more—behind technology.

The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow emphasised peer support. I could not agree more: peer support is important for mental health generally. If I could make one challenge to NHS commissioners, it would be to recognise that providing support to people who suffer mental ill health is not just about clinicians; it is about the voluntary sector and peer support workers. If we are to really step up to that challenge, I hope to see much more imagination in how services are commissioned.

I have so much more to say, but I am running out of time. With hon. Members’ indulgence, I will write to them—not least the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly)—to outline our response to the points that they raised. We have a lot of figures and have shown that we are meeting targets, but I think all hon. Members would be more confident if there were more granularity—not least because of the cases raised today in which people have not received the treatment that they deserve.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Adriatic Land 5 Ltd (Stevenage)

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

Order. Would the people leaving the hall please leave quietly? Another debate is about to begin. I call Stephen McPartland.

11:00

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Adriatic Land 5 Ltd, Stevenage.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey, and to be here today to debate the impact of companies such as Adriatic Land 5 Ltd with the Minister. I know she has a personal desire to try to resolve such issues for leaseholders up and down the country.

Companies such as Adriatic Land 5 Ltd hold freeholds and charge ground rents. Often, the rents double every 10 to 15 years and there are other conditions, and it is that situation that is preventing homeowners in Stevenage from remortgaging or selling their properties. I want to talk a little about leasehold, about Adriatic Land 5 Ltd, and to give a few examples from constituents.

There is a discrepancy at the moment about how many leaseholders there are in the country. The figure ranges from 2.5 million, or 4.5 million, to the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership suggesting 5 million to 6 million in England and Wales alone. Scotland and Northern Ireland have different conditions. Today, I am addressing the situation in England and Wales, and in Stevenage in particular.

Leasehold is a form of residential tenure that has been abolished in most countries around the world. The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 was passed with the best of intentions to give commonhold a big boost but, at the moment, that does not seem to have worked. My real focus and concern in this debate is leasehold and shared ownership. Often, first-time buyers have used Help to Buy to get on the ladder for the first time.

Adriatic Land 5 owns the freehold on a building in Stevenage called Six Hills House. Predominantly teachers, police officers, nurses and other public sector workers live there. They feel that they have been let down by their surveyors and the people that they purchased their properties from. They are first-time buyers who used Help to Buy; they now feel trapped by these conditions.

Who are Adriatic Land 5? We found it very difficult to find information about them, but we have had some help. We now understand that Adriatic Land is a residential freeholding company of various formulations, managed by the Long Harbour Ground Rent Fund. All Adriatic Land companies hide their ultimate beneficial ownership behind the directors of the Sanne Group, which has its headquarters in Guernsey. Long Harbour is a £1.4 billion fund and claims to have revenues of only £4 million on the ground rent fund, with a total of £340,000 in profits. Its sister company, Home Ground, told the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government in November 2018 that it collects £32 million per year in ground rent. Long Harbour claims to be investing in residential freehold primarily for pension funds, but there is no evidence of this, and there is a belief in the wider industry that predominantly hedge funds and speculators are behind it.

Buyers of leasehold properties can be seen as tenants on a very long-term rental, while the freeholder owns the land that the home is built on. The homebuyer of a leasehold property is required to pay ground rent to their freeholder, and the consent of the freeholder must be sought before any changes to the property are made, such as installing new windows or, if it is a house, a conservatory. The issue in my area is with flats. In flats, the ground rent often doubles every 10 years or so.

There is an accepted understanding that, as flats have communal spaces, there needs to be some kind of mechanism to collect money so that if the lifts break or there is a problem with the roof, everybody shares equally in the pain of putting that right financially. At the moment, companies such as Adriatic Land 5 do not seem to be providing any services, but are charging tenants in order to make a profit, and that is causing a great deal of disruption. In Six Hills House in Stevenage, it is preventing mortgage companies from offering mortgages. The homeowners in the flats are trapped, and that has caused huge concern among these decent public sector workers, who have tried to do the right thing and get on the housing ladder, and now seem to be trapped in the first home that they have bought.

There is a feeling in the wider media that these people should have known what they were getting themselves into; they should have read the contract; they were overexcited when they made the purchase. A first-time buyer considering a ground rent of £10 or £100, which will double in 10 or 15 years, does not expect to be there in 10 or 15 years; it is almost as if it does not apply. They do not expect to be there. Given that the mortgage company has extended a mortgage to that buyer, they do not imagine that as the terms get more onerous another mortgage company would refuse to remortgage or refuse to extend the terms to somebody else who then tries to buy it from them. The situation is causing a great deal of disruption.

My real concern is that these are shared-ownership properties, but the tenants seem to be responsible for 100% of the freehold, even though they will often only own 10%, 15% or 25% of the actual property. That does not seem fair. All the barriers to moving forward in their lives seem to be loaded on the people who are 75% tenants and 25% homeowners. It does not seem fair.

Ground rents of as little as £1 a year used to be charged by many freeholders across the country. In the early years of this century, developers began inserting clauses where ground rent was set at £200 to £400 a year, with the charge doubling every 10 years or so. The Government have taken action on that; they have launched consultations and the previous Secretary of State announced that ground rents would be reduced on new home builds to zero or a £10 peppercorn rent. The current Secretary of State met a variety of leaseholder and retirement holder groups in late January. He also said that he thought a peppercorn rate was zero, so it could not double every 10 or 15 years and could not be a barrier to moving on in property.

The Government are trying to take action on the current situation—they are trying to stop it going forward—but there are real problems with retrospective action for people who are currently in these leases. The Minister and I have had some correspondence in the past on this issue, and I know she is keen to resolve it. The hope was that developers would put pressure on the people who owned the freehold, then the freeholders would come to an agreement with the tenants, and as a result they would be able to move forward.

I will give some examples from the case of Six Hills House in Stevenage. One of my constituents said:

“I live in a fairly new department block of flats in Stevenage that were built in 2016 called Six Hills House. I moved in in November 2016 and bought a 45% share as a shared ownership help to buy scheme. This year it came to light that the lease has a clause in it that states the ground rent (which currently stands at £300 per year) will double every 15 years with a break at 90 years. Whilst this wasn’t a problem for lenders in 2016 when the flats went on sale, it has since become illegal for leaseholds to include this type of clause and has therefore made the flats unsellable to anyone other than cash buyers. I have recently put mine up for sale and whilst I found a buyer within a week, no banks would lend on the mortgage and so the estate agents have advised that I cancel all other viewings and limit to cash buyers only.”

This is two years after the individual bought their property. The constituent continues:

“I feel this option is extremely limited as the shared ownership proposition is meant for first time buyers who wouldn’t necessarily have the money to buy this share outright leaving a building of around 150 flats unsellable.

I have spoken with metropolitan housing who are the landlords for the rented part of the building who have said that they are trying to negotiate this clause with land charter who own the building however they have not heard anything back from them and they couldn’t give a timescale that this would be sorted.

This now means that the people who have put their flats up for sale including myself have paid out for private valuation fees…to get the flats to sale we are left out of pocket with flats on the market that we are unable to sell. Plus I have now come out of a fixed mortgage rate thinking I was going to sell after 2 years which was the original plan and am now paying a higher interest each month without having the option to fix in again in case it does sell.”

She goes on to say that she wanted to get in contact and explains some of the other reasons why. I stepped in and asked Land Charter what had happened. It confirmed:

“Metropolitan Housing Association purchased all the apartments from us, and then sold them on to their clients. The freehold was sold soon thereafter to Adriatic Land 5 Ltd…Although we have sympathy we have not control over the matters raised by her.”

We are still not aware of whether it was Metropolitan Housing or the developer, Land Charter, that sold the freehold. I have spoken to Metropolitan Housing, which responded in December 2018:

“Thank you for your communication received…We can confirm that Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing are not the Freehold owner of this site. We have a head lease which requires us to pay Ground Rent to the Freeholder and we have created under leases for our residents which require them also to pay ground rent as per the head lease.

When the lease was originally entered into, it was common for ground rent clauses doubling every 15 years to be included. Whilst this is not illegal it is now not considered to be good practice and the Government are currently consulting on restricting ground rent on new leases. We do not believe they will be regulating existing leases which have already been entered into.

The ground rent payable at present is a reasonable amount, however when a resident attempts to sell their property, the mortgage company of the proposed purchaser declines to lend as the lease contains potentially onerous ground rent terms for the future. In effect, this means that the properties can only be sold to cash buyers.”

That is Metropolitan Housing Association, which owns most of the shared ownership, confirming that the people trapped in those 150 flats cannot sell their properties unless they do so to cash buyers, because of the nature of the lease. In fairness, Metropolitan is trying to fix the issue. It says:

“We first became aware of this issue a few months ago and we wrote to the Freeholder asking them to vary the Ground Rent clauses in the lease in light of the wider publicity around onerous Ground Rent terms and the effect it was having on sales. The lease can only be varied if the Freeholder consents. The Freeholder refused to allow any variation in the lease stating that they purchased the Freehold in good faith based on the potential income from Ground Rent.”

It goes on to explain why Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing, as a social housing provider, cannot step in and resolve the issue financially.

I have had correspondence with the Minister on this issue, and other constituents have contacted me. People in this block of 150 flats are increasingly frustrated. I received an update from a constituent on the solution that has come forward from Metropolitan. The constituent states:

“They’ve given the option for us to extend the head lease. However, this will come at a cost and we will also be required to pay all our legal fees, including Metropolitan’s and the freeholder’s legal costs etc.”

She attached the letter for my reference, which I could read out, but I will just hand it to the Minister instead. It is easily working out to be around £10,000, which is half the deposit that the constituents saved up to get on the ladder in the first place and enter into the part-buy and rent scheme. She says:

“If I decided to go down this route and spend £10,000 to get out of this lease, allowing me to sell, I’d then be left with half the deposit I did have, unable to buy somewhere new or benefit from any other first-time buyer schemes again.”

As I say, Metropolitan has come up with a means by which it will vary the head lease and do what it can to try to extend that forward over the 90 years, so that the current tenants have to pay only a small, peppercorn rate. Unfortunately it will cost the tenants over £10,000, because although they own only part of these properties, they are responsible for 100% of the freehold fees. As a result, they have to pay both the shared ownership and freeholder fees, which come to over £10,000.

Essentially, no one really thinks this is fair. Everybody in the building is very upset about the escalating price, which is now between £10,000 and £15,000. My constituents feel frustrated and trapped, as can be imagined. From their point of view, they are missing out on any other first-time buyers schemes, because they are not currently first-time buyers, so they will never be able to benefit from any other schemes again—they have already used Help to Buy.

The tenants feel that the surveyors and the people working with them are part of a very large property industry and are involved in this field on a day-to-day basis, just as Members are. We can all use our own jargon about delegated legislation and statutory instruments—it is very easy for us, but it is not easy for someone out there to understand what any of that means. It is the same with those people who are very excited to be buying their first property. As the mortgage companies were happy to lend to them on their leases, most of the tenants felt that they would only be in those properties for five to 10 years maximum, and that they would be leaving before the ground rent began to double. It seems that within a two-year timeframe, 150 people—predominantly public sector workers—have now been trapped in a scheme in Stevenage, which is not fair. It is really frustrating my constituents and me.

The Government’s policy is to lean on developers and social housing providers to try to vary the leases, but those 150 flat owners are trapped because the freeholder—Adriatic Land 5 Ltd, which is registered in Guernsey—will not play ball. The simplest solution would be for Adriatic Land 5 Ltd to change the details on the deed, so that the ground rent clause is changed to something more appropriate. That would resolve all the issues with the mortgage companies and social housing providers. My question to the Minister is: how do we bring forward somebody who owns a freehold in a property, such as Six Hills House in Stevenage, but will not play ball? How do we encourage Adriatic Land 5 Ltd, which is registered in Guernsey, to help ensure that these 150 flat owners can move forward with their lives and sell their properties if they choose to do so?

11:17

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Mrs Heather Wheeler)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I thank the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) for being here; I did not realise this was a walk-on part—that does not need to go in Hansard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) on securing this important debate on issues concerning leaseholders, and particularly the problem in Stevenage.

The Government are committed to improving consumer choice and fairness for the increasing number of leaseholders. That includes our work to make it easier and cheaper for leaseholders to enfranchise, the support we are providing for those with onerous ground rent terms, and our aim to make service charges more transparent for all. That work should act as a guard against the practices that form the subject of this debate, namely, where freeholds are sold on to a third-party investor without the leaseholder’s knowledge.

I am aware that many hon. Members have heard from their constituents on this matter, as have I and my Department, and the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee also received evidence on it, so I recognise the importance of the debate. It is clear that we need to act to address the issues; I will use this time to set out the work that is under way to drive these unfair practices out of the leasehold sector.

The problem here is the excessive ground rent that leaseholders are being asked to pay. My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage has rightly highlighted many issues that are faced particularly by those in shared ownership properties, but I know that the issue of onerous ground rents affects many other leaseholders. As he says, leases with onerous ground rent terms can make it difficult for the leaseholder to sell their property or re-mortgage. In this instance, as I understand it, the ground rent is £300 a year and doubles every 15 years. We have heard from the Housing Committee that many regard this as onerous, and it could also make the property hard to sell, exactly as he mentioned. People can therefore feel trapped in these arrangements.

It is the Government’s view that, in most cases, any lease with doubling ground rents will be significantly worse than an inflation-based arrangement. A rise in line with inflation maintains the value of the ground rent over time, whereas a doubling term every 10 or 15 years can significantly increase the value—too much—over time. The Secretary of State met freeholders last year and made that clear. There should be no reason why any clause that doubles ground rent every 10 or 15 years should be enforced. I welcome the proposals from some developers and freeholders to vary clauses so leaseholders pay less ground rent.

We have been clear that variations must have consumers’ best interests at heart. We will not look kindly on those who reduce the cost of ground rents with one hand and rip off leaseholders with the other, whether through permission fees or anything else. We need a proportionate response. I want industry to take the lead and make the changes voluntarily. It is not right that hon. Members should have to highlight the sort of issues that have been raised here today.

I want to see support extended to all leaseholders with onerous ground rents, including second-hand buyers, and for customers to be proactively contacted. We will continue to work with the industry on a way forward to help existing leaseholders with onerous leases. I want to stress that leaseholders should seek impartial legal advice about potentially onerous ground rents contained in their leases. Free advice is also available from the Government’s Leasehold Advisory Service—LEASE. Leaseholders and prospective leaseholders can get advice on all aspects of leasehold properties, including ground rents, service charges and the enfranchisement process, so I urge them to take advantage of that free service. We have recently appointed a new interim chair to that organisation, and I am confident that the standard of advice that leaseholders receive will be further strengthened. Furthermore, if the leaseholder’s solicitor or conveyancer did not point out the onerous terms at the point of purchase, the leaseholder can make a complaint against them, which can be escalated to the legal ombudsman. I suggest that my hon. Friend takes that point back to his constituents.

I have also heard from leaseholders who have seen a sharp increase in the level of their service charges, often with poor value for money. Many leaseholders are unclear about their service charges, how they were calculated, and whether they are paying too much. I believe very strongly that service charges should be transparent and communicated effectively, and that there should be a clear route to challenge or redress if things go wrong. With that in mind, the Government asked Lord Best’s working group to look at service charges and consider how they should be presented for both existing and prospective consumers. I have also asked the working group to look into fees and charges that go beyond service charges, and consider the circumstances under which they are justified and whether they should be capped or banned. That includes administration charges and permission fees. I am absolutely clear that we must see an end to leaseholders being charged excessive and unfair fees. I am following the working group’s progress with keen interest. I look forward to receiving Lord Best’s report in July, and I will be meeting him shortly.

I hope that my remarks demonstrate the Government’s strong commitment to supporting existing and future leaseholders. Although this debate has been on a specific practice in the leasehold sector, it is clearly a wide-ranging area that is in need of reform. The Government will introduce measures to deliver that reform. The work that is under way makes that commitment clear. Although successive Governments have left that work unfinished, we are just getting started. Nothing, including legislation, is off the table. In that spirit, I thank my hon. Friend for his speech and questions, and I look forward to pushing ahead with our programme of leasehold reform.

Question put and agreed to.

11:23

Sitting suspended.

Future of DFID

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Ms Nadine Dorries in the Chair]

14:30

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of the Department for International Development.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Dorries. I have secured this debate because of deep concerns about the future of the Department for International Developments and its funding, and threats to our proud tradition as a distributor of aid to the most impoverished places on the planet.

Today, I seek cast-iron guarantees from the Minister that my fears are misplaced, that we will continue to make our full contribution of 0.7% of our national income to the world’s poorest communities, and that we will continue to address the deep scars of poverty and inequality that disfigure our world—the legacy of centuries of colonialism, wars, and unequal and unjust distribution of the world’s resources. We must continue to consider ourselves internationalists—brothers and sisters with the peoples of the world—not narrow isolationists, cowering behind our drawbridge.

The Department for International Development has a proud history. As right hon. and hon. Members will know, it began as a separate Ministry under Harold Wilson’s Labour Government in 1964. Wilson appointed Barbara Castle as the first ever Minister in charge of overseas aid—a reflection of his own internationalism and humanitarian beliefs—which then moved in and out of the control of the Foreign Office, depending on who was in Government.

Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath put overseas aid under the control of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 1970, before Wilson once again returned its independence in 1974. Margaret Thatcher downgraded it to an agency again in 1979 until finally, under Tony Blair in 1997, it became a full Department with a Cabinet-level Minister. It is to the credit of the coalition Government elected in 2010 that that cycle of upgrading and downgrading was halted, with DFID remaining part of the machinery of government, and that its budget was maintained despite deep cuts to the rest of Whitehall. Perhaps that shows how effective the work of DFID is, and how established and respected it has become, in Britain and around the world.

Some notable politicians have been at its helm. I mentioned the formidable Barbara Castle, but no less formidable were Clare Short, Judith Hart, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), and on the Conservative side, I should mention Chris Patten and Baroness Chalker. The first ever black woman to serve in a British Cabinet was Baroness Amos, who was appointed Secretary of State for International Development in 2003.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman did not omit him deliberately, but another great Secretary of State for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), is taking part in the debate. In fact, it was he and former Prime Minister David Cameron who ensured that DFID stayed under a Conservative-led Government. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, DFID had been downgraded under previous Conservative Governments, but that time, it was not.

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I had only reached 2003, and was coming gradually to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), but he makes a valid point. That is why I congratulate the coalition Government on their tremendous decision to keep DFID as a separate Department.

DFID works in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Iraq, Malawi, Nepal, the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Sierra Leone, Syria, Tanzania, Yemen and Zimbabwe, to name but a handful. It tackles gender inequality, helps to build health and education systems, and works with communities shattered by war, genocide or famine. It is respected and admired in all the places that it operates, some of which are the hardest places to reach for other organisations.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He has quite rightly drawn attention to the good work that has been done, with our 0.7% commitment, in the countries that he listed. Does he agree that we must continue to be extremely vigilant? In a small number of those countries—particularly on the continent of Africa—corruption is rife, and many people in the United Kingdom have concerns that some of that money is not going to those who would benefit most from it.

[Mr Dhesi]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. We must ensure that aid reaches those who need it most and that it is not siphoned away by corrupt individuals in Governments, whether in Africa or in other parts of the world.

DFID is respected and admired in all the places where it operates. Wherever the UK aid logo appears, it shows the world how much the British public care. Since the passage of the International Development Act 2002, all overseas aid must be spent with the explicit purpose of reducing global poverty. That is an important piece of legislation, because it makes clear the distinction between aid and trade: one is not a quid pro quo for the other. The Pergau dam scandal showed that some aid in the 1980s and 1990s was being linked to trade deals. In that instance, despite clear objections from civil servants, there was a link between British aid for building the dam and British arms sales to Malaysia.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend mentions a very troubling incident and he will notice echoes of that today, with renewed calls for our aid budget to mirror trade interests. Does he agree that common global interests are what matter, rather than narrow self-interest?

[Mr Dhesi]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Indeed, he may be telepathic, because I was just about to mention that, but I concur fully with his view.

The Pergau dam affair was declared unlawful in a landmark court case in 1994. More recently, as my hon. Friend says, fears have been raised that our aid budget has not focused solely on poverty reduction. An article in The Guardian revealed that charities such as Oxfam, Save the Children and ActionAid were deeply concerned that some of the funds were used by

“classing politically convenient projects as aid,”

rather than exclusively helping the most vulnerable. We must of course contribute vital overseas aid owing to our obligations as one the wealthiest nations in the world. I am sure that the Minister will offer warm and emollient words. She will no doubt tell us of the commitment to DFID as a Department and that the 0.7% target remains in place.

At this point, it is pertinent to pay tribute to both the former Liberal Democrat MP Michael Moore, for introducing a private Member’s Bill to enshrine the 0.7% target in law, and the then Government for allowing it to become law. We should welcome the commitment in the 2017 Conservative manifesto to maintaining that 0.7% commitment, which I am sure the Minister will mention in her speech.

Why exactly should we be concerned about DFID’s future? The tectonic plates of politics have shifted in recent months and the voices that considered overseas aid a waste of money have become louder and more mainstream within the governing party—the critics are moving from the fringe to centre stage. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), seemed more aligned with the TaxPayers Alliance than with the global anti-poverty movement. She resigned after running errands for the FCO in Israel rather than running her own Department.

The previous Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), called the establishment of DFID in 1997 a “colossal mistake”.

This month, he endorsed a report by the Henry Jackson Society that calls for a dilution of DFID’s role in alleviating poverty, with a diversion towards broader international policies such as peacekeeping. He told the BBC’s “Today” programme:

“We could make sure that 0.7 % is spent more in line with Britain’s political commercial and diplomatic interests.”

Commercial interests? What could he possibly mean by that?

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) has made it clear that he believes this is the opening act in a move to downgrade DFID and to slash overseas aid. It is hard to disagree that that is the Secretary of State’s secret agenda.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

On that “Today” programme, it was telling that no Minister was put up to defend the Department or to shoot down such ideas. To me, that suggests complicity with the idea itself.

[Mr Dhesi]

That is precisely why I and others of like mind applied for and secured this debate. We are concerned about the lack of leadership in the Government, or of Government members saying “We do not agree with that.” I will elaborate on that shortly.

We are rightly concerned that UK aid and the Department with the primary responsibility for spending it are under threat, or will be diverted from the alleviation of poverty and into being linked to trade. Today, will the Minister go beyond the same old stock phrases committing the Government to the continued existence of DFID and the 0.7% target, and instead give us some cast-iron guarantees?

First, will the Minister distance herself absolutely from the comments made by the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, about the future of DFID? Secondly, will she guarantee that any review of DFID’s departmental policy post Brexit will in no way undermine, downgrade, obfuscate or dilute the commitments enshrined in the International Development Act 2002 and the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015? Thirdly, will she guarantee that her party will enter the next election with a manifesto commitment to maintain, as a minimum, the existing levels of expenditure on overseas aid, with the aim of eradicating poverty and tackling gender inequality? The Minister has an open goal; will she settle the issue once and for all?

Finally, I am sure that we all stand united in our gratitude to the staff of DFID, whether they are freezing in the mountains of Tajikistan or sweltering in the heat of Mozambique, or are in the offices at Abercrombie House or just up the road at 22 Whitehall. We offer them our thanks—they are truly the best of British.

14:42

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing this debate and on his very good speech.

No Department should feel that it is there in perpetuity—Departments have to justify their existence, and changes come from time to time. I therefore make no criticism of those who argue that such matters should be reviewed, but I am in the Chamber today to make it clear that the existence and role of DFID have been settled, and should remain settled. Mercifully, I think DFID’s role was settled in the time of Michael Howard, when he was leader of the Conservative party, and by David Cameron, both in Opposition and in Government. We made it clear that we strongly supported the decision of the then Labour Government to set up the Department for International Development. Since then, everything that DFID has done has justified those decisions.

Development is very long-tail; it is different from the disciplines of foreign policy. Tony Blair, I think, used to say that just as the Foreign Office was extremely good at prose and not at numbers, DFID was very good at numbers, but not necessarily at prose. Development is long-tail and different from Foreign Office disciplines, and I used to tease diplomats when I had some responsibility for such matters by saying that they thought that development was the favourite charity of the ambassador’s spouse. That, however, is not development; development is not building schools, but ensuring that when a teacher retires there is someone to replace that teacher in his or her role.

DFID had teething problems as a new Department. From time to time, it stuck out in the Whitehall archipelago as a bit of a sore thumb; sometimes, it looked like a well-upholstered charity moored off the coast of Whitehall. Those difficulties, however, were dealt with and addressed by the time the Department came of age under the coalition Government. The National Security Council, which wired together development, defence and development, clearly brought DFID into the Whitehall constellation—it has never looked back.

Sometimes, we can become inward-facing, focusing our own problems, so we should be clear that DFID is respected around the world as the most effective organ of development policy. It is a world leader and, as I used to say, just as America is a military superpower, so Britain is a development superpower. British academia, ideas and development policy, and Britain’s brilliant international charities and non-governmental organisations, show real world leadership. Today, many people talk about global Britain and Britain post-Brexit. I would argue that Britain’s exercise of soft power—the Government’s work in development led by DFID—is a compelling part of what global Britain means: some might say it was the only aspect of global Britain.

To focus directly on DFID, it is no surprise to find that the Department has attracted to leadership roles some of the most effective civil servants and public servants Britain can boast. There have, I think, been four permanent secretaries: Suma Chakrabarti, who is now head of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and highly respected; Minouche Shafik, who became deputy head of the International Monetary Fund and deputy governor of the Bank of England, and is today director of the London School of Economics; Sir Mark Lowcock, with unrivalled experience and now Britain’s lead official at the United Nations, in charge of the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs; and, today, Matthew Rycroft, formerly the UK’s permanent representative at the UN.

When I left university, people who wanted to go into public service went first and foremost to the Treasury and the Foreign Office; my equivalents today want to go to DFID or the Treasury. The Department exercises a powerful appeal. I am always keen to say that this is not an area of policy that is Labour or Conservative; it is an area that is British. We should all, whatever party we are from, be very proud of the work that Britain does in development. In that spirit, it would be wrong not to mention Clare Short who, in my opinion, although she and I are polar opposites politically, did an absolutely outstanding job in setting up DFID. The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and Valerie Amos, Baroness Amos, were both outstanding Secretaries of State who drove forward that British agenda with such effectiveness.

I will make a final point. I am incredibly proud to have served in a Government that, notwithstanding the austerity then in place in Britain, declined to balance the books on the backs of the poorest people in the world or in Britain, and stood by the commitment to the 0.7%. Although Labour Governments had talked about the 0.7% for many years, it was a Conservative-led coalition Government who introduced it. The hon. Member for Slough, who led the debate, was good enough to make that point clear.

Our commitment is not only to the 0.7%, however, but to the rules. That is the point that came out in the “Today” interview that has been mentioned, in which I had a walk-on part. If we lose the rules, we can forget about the 0.7% because it will be plundered by stronger Departments such as the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office. We must not forget that a large part of the Foreign Office budget is paid for from the official development assistance DFID budget, because much of what it does is eligible under the rules—but the rules have to be kept. My comment on that “Today” programme, which I repeat, is about my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). We all know his views, but on DFID he is in the role of a medieval pirate whose eye has alighted on a plump Spanish galleon, laden with the gold and silver of the development budget. He wants to board it and plunder it. I understand that but, nevertheless, it is wrong.

The rules are therefore probably more important than the 0.7% figure, although both go together. They are hugely to the credit of Britain and of our generations. We should be immensely proud, and we should use this debate to celebrate the effectiveness and brilliant world leadership of this great Department.

14:49

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful for the contributions from the Members who spoke before me—generally, I agreed with what they said.

In my role on the International Development Committee I get to see some of the fantastic projects we are doing around the world, whether supporting M-KOPA, which is a solar power scheme in Uganda, Kenya and the wider region, investments via DFID alone and working with CDC Group, or garment workers providing safety and education in Bangladesh after that awful tragedy only a few years ago. DFID and British aid lead the world not only in transforming lives but in ensuring that the goods we receive in Britain are safe and help people around the world. It is right to say this is the best of British.

I begin by discussing why we have a moral responsibility to show leadership in development. Three months after becoming Britain’s first Secretary of State for International Development, Clare Short said:

“Out of our complex history—all the bad and good of it, and the role it leaves us with on the international stage—I want us to do all we can to mobilise the political will for poverty elimination.”—[Official Report, 1 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 126.]

Of course, “ our complex history” is a reference to hundreds of years in which UK foreign policy was literally designed to extract the wealth of poor countries, although not so poor at the time, around the world under our Empire or under other spheres of British influence. It is therefore a reference to our duty to pay some of that back and to the post-colonial days of tied aid; we have already heard about the Pergau dam scandal where €200 million of UK aid went to Malaysia to buy billions of pounds of weapons. That complex history is why Labour untied aid by scrapping the aid and trade provision, why we passed the International Development Act 2002 and why Labour established the stand-alone Department.

The Cameron Government must be applauded for continuing the Department and breaking the previous tit for tat. But I am afraid that this Government are wilfully unlearning past lessons, to ally not the majority of the Conservative party but a lunatic fringe of their own party—including a “pirate”, according to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). That fringe is against the 0.7% and the rules-based system. It is undoing the good that the coalition and Cameron Governments did following the good that the Labour Government did.

Over the course of this Parliament, aid spent outside DFID has tripled—something the cross-party International Development Committee has criticised. Most of that money is channelled through organisations such as the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund, which is constituted of many dubious programmes by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, often based on training and equipping militaries rather than alleviating poverty or creating long-term peace.

[Mr Mitchell]

Surely, it does not matter who spends the money, but that it is spent in accordance with the rules as well as it can be. If it appears that it is not spent as well as it could be, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact is the right vehicle to find that out. It does not matter who spends it; what matters is that it is spent well and within the rules of ODA.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I agree that ICAI has a key responsibility. Last year, ICAI—the Government watchdog—said that aid spent through the CSSF could not be proved not to be making the problem worse. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we need scrutiny, but if the money is spent by many Departments, there is not one head to be held politically accountable. The Government can spend it where they want, but the political responsibility must be with the Department, otherwise the expertise and the political responsibility are gutted from the Department. That was the case with CSSF, which cannot prove that it is not making the situation worse.

Things were already bad enough, but they have been made considerably worse by the Secretary of State feathering her leadership ambitions and sending signals to Tory Members rather than focusing on poverty alleviation. We need look no further than her recent speeches; even senior civil servants in her own Department cannot identify any of the changes in policy from those speeches. In recent months, her office has said that our commitment to 0.7% is “unsustainable”, and it would like aid spent on building UK battle ships to

“take pressure off a stretched fleet”.

That is not part of a rules-based system.

We have heard that CDC profits should be counted as aid, which in anyone’s book is double counting and is against the rules-based system. We have even heard threats of leaving the Development Assistance Committee if it does not agreed to all our demands. Finally, there was nothing but silence when another leadership contender, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), backed a plan to decimate DFID and the Department for International Trade—a barmy proposal to reduce the aid budget and to spend the remainder on propping up the BBC. In no terms is that aid spending.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) asked the Secretary of State why we should trust her to spend the UK aid budget when she makes those sounds off, even though she is not acting on them, she said:

“They should trust me as the Secretary of State and as someone who has been an aid worker.”

It is astonishing that the Secretary of State’s defence is not one of policy or action but a personal anecdote that she happened to be a gap year worker for one year, 30 years ago, in Romania. That demonstrates clearly how much we need DFID to be governed by people who understand what aid is about. The joint Ministers of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and DFID do, but those at the top do not. We need someone at the top who does not wave red rags at the Conservative party.

Last year, the International Development Committee published the report “Definition and administration of ODA”, for which I acted as rapporteur. Almost all its recommendations were dismissed out of hand by the Government, although I understand many civil servants in the Department were friendly to the ideas. The report offers a very good basis for rebuilding the Department. Why can the Minister here not commit to our request that

“The Secretary of State for International Development should have ultimate responsibility for oversight of the UK’s ODA and the Department should have the final sign off of all ODA”?

That sounds pretty reasonable to me, but it was rejected. Perhaps the Minister could reconsider.

We put heavy emphasis on our concerns that the prosperity fund promoted UK trade above poverty reduction. Could the Minister allay our concerns? Finally, will the Minister reconsider the rejection of our request that

“The Government should make systematic improvements to coherence, transparency and—most crucially—the poverty focus of cross-government fund projects before increasing their share of UK ODA any further, and ensure that DFID”—

and ICAI—

“has oversight of all ODA spending”?

In some cases with the CSSF, ICAI has had restricted access to investigate spending, on national security grounds. That is no basis for finding out whether funds have been spent effectively—I grant that it could have been done in camera.

In total, the Committee made 34 recommendations, which were generally dismissed by the Government. I believe that implementing those recommendations would have strengthened the hand of the world’s best deliverer of aid projects, which we can be genuinely proud of and, as we have already heard, has fantastic staff. However, those recommendations were not accepted. Instead, we hear hyperbole about getting out of the DAC, double counting and other dodgy deals with aid. I am afraid that is the wrong tone to strike about our great Department.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Ms Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. I have to impose a five-minute limit on speeches. Anybody who goes over that limit will, unfortunately, take time away from the people who come after them, so please stick to it if possible.

15:00

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I very much welcome this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) for his excellent remarks. Like the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), I had the pleasure of serving on the International Development Committee. In my seven years on the Committee, I saw the great work that is being done in so many countries by DFID staff and by organisations that are financed by the Department. I pay tribute to them, because they put themselves on the line, sometimes at great risk. They sometimes even pay the ultimate price for their work in development.

I am a great supporter of the Department for International Development, for the reasons that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) outlined. It gives aid and development a real independent voice in the Cabinet, and it allows a long-term view to be taken of development. I fear that if international development were put in another Department, that Department’s priorities would take precedence, whereas the Department for International Development can take that long-term view. I will say more about that in a moment.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on malaria and neglected tropical diseases, I have seen the tremendous progress that has been made against those infectious diseases and others, such as tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS, as a result of the investment by the Labour Government from the early 2000s through the global fund and bilateral aid, and by subsequent Governments. That investment has resulted in many millions of people being alive today who otherwise would not have been. DFID and the United Kingdom have played a huge role in that, through universities in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales—right across the United Kingdom—and the work that people have done on the ground.

DFID has also played a major role in humanitarian responses. I remember someone in Sierra Leone telling me that the Royal Navy ship—I think it was HMS Bulwark—sitting in Freetown harbour that was used to support the Sierra Leonean Government to tackle Ebola gave them confidence that the world cared about bringing that appalling epidemic to an end. That was an example of joint working between UK Departments.

I stress the importance of long-term projects. I was honoured to see the community forestry project in Nepal. That joint piece of work by the Government of Nepal and DFID has run for more than 30 years and has led to a huge amount of afforestation. I ask the Minister to ensure that we look at projects in the longer term rather than on four-year cycles.

On funding, I am a firm believer in the 0.7% target. I was a sponsor of Michael Moore’s Bill, which became the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015. There are opportunities to look at the OECD/DAC rules—sometimes they are a bit out of step—but, ultimately, they have to be concentrated on the alleviation of poverty. I point to peacekeeping: without peace, we can have no development, so it does not seem right that only a small part of peacekeeping in countries in conflict is attributable to ODA. That is just one example, but we have to be very clear and to abide by the rules that are in place.

On gaps, I believe we need a development bank in the United Kingdom. That would give us much greater opportunities to fund long-term projects that cannot be funded through short-term grants. Every other major development actor—the Germans, the French, the Japanese, the Brazilians and the European Union, of which we will no longer be a member—has a development bank, so it is important that we look at establishing one. I am delighted by the establishment of the small grants fund. That needs to be expanded, because it brings our constituents right into play with what is happening on the ground and enables them to see that their work in support of local charities is supported by the UK Government. Finally, DFID is very good at data, but it needs to do an awful lot more. We need to ensure that all action is data driven.

There is so much more I want to say but not enough time to say it, so let me say in conclusion that DFID is an excellent Department. Of course there is much more that can be done, including more scrutiny, and there are times when the work is not good enough, but the answer is not to abolish the Department. The answer is to strengthen it, to scrutinise it and to ensure it does the job it was set up to do—to relieve poverty.

15:05

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), whom I commend for securing this debate. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) rightly criticised the Secretary of State’s effort to get the rules on development assistance changed. She seeks to undermine rules that have rightly forced Governments around the world, including ours, to be held to account for the amount of development assistance they give the world’s poorest people. It was good to hear the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) make a similar point. I take credit for much of his success as Secretary of State, because I schooled him while he was in training as the shadow Secretary of State.

There are three compelling arguments both for Britain sticking to its 0.7% level of funding for international development assistance, and for retaining the Department for International Development. First, there is a moral argument. We are one of the richest nations in the world. Surely we have a responsibility to help those in other countries who, through no fault of their own, live in terrible circumstances.

Secondly, it is surely in our country’s interests to try to support countries around the world in becoming stable, so their populations do not have to flee either to our country or to neighbouring countries. We should help them become stable so that their economies can grow, and they can have strong public services of the sort we would recognise. Given that conflict is much more likely to break out in a country where there has recently been conflict, if we continue to want to reduce the amount we spend collectively on peacekeeping, it is surely sensible to put in the hard yards by providing development assistance to help those countries get strong, effective Governments who are respected by people of all opinions.

The third argument is about soft power, which others mentioned. As a result of its huge commitment to international development, Britain is highly regarded at the United Nations. It was always highly regarded in the European Union and in a whole series of other international forums because of the work it did on development assistance, and the knowledge that everyone in the Government was committed to maintaining and enhancing the role of the Department for International Development and the aid budget.

Arguments against spending 0.7% are being made again, predominantly by people from the right of political discourse. It is argued that charities know best. I have a lot of respect for charities, particularly Britain’s charities. They make a considerable difference in the areas in which they are able to operate. However, no global player other than the Department for International Development can operate at the level that is needed to transform the poorest countries by providing aid that helps to build up the effectiveness of their Governments. Charity has a role to play, a demonstrative role in particular, and it certainly plays a useful role when a tsunami or other humanitarian crises occur, but we need to build up Governments in other countries.

Corruption is a risk, but if we use our aid money effectively, we help to strengthen the systems that stop corruption continuing to be a problem. As for the idea that charity should begin at home, every Member of the House can give examples of further Government funding being required in their constituency, and I hope we will see a change in direction when a new Government are in place, so that more resources can be made available for all of us, but I again make the point that we are one of the richest nations in the world, and we should be able to provide further development assistance.

I simply do not buy the idea that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is somehow diminished by the effectiveness of the Department for International Development. They have different roles, and they complement each other. We want a strong Foreign Office, but its strength will not be ended by an effective Department for International Development. I hope that the Secretary of State changes the language that she deploys, and that the Department’s future can be guaranteed.

15:10

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Britain is an instinctively compassionate, outward-looking and humane nation, and we rightly expect our country to lend a hand in the struggle against poverty, misery and injustice; long may that continue. However, our country also has a keen sense of fairness. The British people want and expect taxpayers’ money to be used with integrity, and allocated sensibly and in accordance with their international priorities. Before I look at the central tenet of the speech made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), it is worth considering the sums of money we are talking about; that has not yet been discussed.

The 0.7% translates to approximately £14 billion. To put that into context, I was at a meeting this morning looking at legal aid in the criminal justice system—indeed, in the overall justice system—and we spend about £1.6 billion a year on legal aid. Or what about the schools high needs block, which funds such things as special educational needs, a big issue in my constituency? Its budget is about £6 billion. Our entire prisons budget is about £4 billion. Although the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown, is right and is entitled to criticise, let us not forget the very significant sums of money allocated by this country. We can hold our heads high because we meet the commitment. The United States, France, Germany, Italy and Spain do not. This House must not fall into the trap of thinking that we are somehow skimping on our international obligations. Far from it. We stand comparison with any nation on earth. The former Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who spoke with his customary passion and eloquence, made that point crystal clear.

If we are to ensure that the British people retain their enthusiasm for meeting international commitments, it is critical that the rules be modernised and the money allocated in a way that meets priorities. Lest we forget, priorities change all the time; we must not be tone deaf to those changes. Although it is appropriate to keep a separate Department, there is a case to broaden its scope. I am delighted that the Government have acted with a great sense of purpose. I note, for example, that where the Development Assistance Committee’s rules are outdated, the Government have led the way in pushing for reform, so in October 2017 the UK secured an increase in the proportion of aid spending that can be contributed to peacekeeping missions. That is perfectly understandable and reasonable, but there is one central point that we also ought to consider in this House: the Department for International Development. Is it the exclusive purview of the £14 billion budget, or are there other broad areas that we ought to consider?

When I go to schools in Cheltenham—we ought to consider the next generation—one of the key concerns about Britain’s role in the world and how we want to express ourselves internationally is not so much to do with development but with conservation. The people in Charlton Kings Junior School that I spoke to are deeply concerned about plastic pollution, flora and fauna, biodiversity, habitat protection and climate change. The point that I want to make gently is that of course we must be internationalist and globalist, and we must continue to have a role in the world that shows that Britain is on the right side on the great moral issues facing our planet, but should that exclusively be about development? I think we need to have a debate in this House about whether there are other global priorities that we ought to consider.

When I see the tide of plastic in the Pacific ocean, I want us to do more. When I see species losing their habitats in sub-Saharan Africa and the hideous effects of climate change, I want to do more.

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend rightly talks about conservation, but that comes under the 0.7%, and the three things he has just mentioned are within the official development assistance rules and also come under the 0.7%, so I think I can lift his spirits a little.

[Alex Chalk]

To some extent it does, but cosmetic changes could be made. Why can the Department for International Development not be the Department for International Development and Conservation? That would send an important message. Also, we ought to be far clearer about the amounts that we can allocate to such causes. There is a huge amount of pushback, inevitably, from the likes of Oxfam. I understand why they would want to protect their realm, so to speak, but we could lean into these areas far more effectively; that would be more consistent with the instincts of the British people, and would gain further support.

15:16

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Ms Dorries. I congratulate the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing this debate, and thank him for giving us a chance to participate. Like other Members, I add my thanks to the Department and the Minister for what they do. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) referred earlier to the soft power that DFID generates across the world.

I got a very helpful parliamentary briefing from Christian Aid, which is very active in Newtownards in my constituency. I want to pass on some of its comments, which I wholeheartedly support. Clearly, DFID is able to address many things, including the root causes of poverty: discrimination, tax avoidance, climate change, unsustainable debt and unfair trade rules. However, it cannot be forgotten or overstated that aid is vital for saving lives—DFID aid has saved lives; I reiterate that—as well as making sustainable investments for a fairer and brighter future.

It is estimated that UK aid saves a life every two minutes, for less than a penny in every pound. Between January 2015 and December 2017 alone, UK aid supported the immunisation of approximately 37.4 million children, saving 610,000 lives. If we ever needed a reason for DFID, the best reason I can think of is that it saves lives. Over the past 30 years, we have seen impressive progress on global poverty. Our Minister, her Department and our Government can take some credit for that, and I support what they do. It is nice to see the Minister back in her place. She seems to be as regular in Westminster Hall, as am I—and, indeed, the rest of us.

The UK has led many of the international responses to humanitarian crises across the world, providing life-saving health services, food, clean water and sanitation to those in need. The UK—with the support of all parties, rightly—has been first to help those affected by earthquakes and tsunamis. Christian Aid believes that Britain’s commitment to providing effective aid is a badge of honour worthy of pride and fierce defence, and I agree; long may it continue. There has been some negative publicity about the 0.7% of GDP, but there is still strong public support for international development. I see that every year in my constituency when Christian Aid engages with the general public to ensure that money is raised. The people of Newtownards and Strangford are very generous every year.

As to possible changes, such as the merging of DFID with the FCO, I must express concern. In 2017, the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies concluded that poverty reduction in the world’s poorest countries is at risk of being diluted by the Government’s increasing tendency to prioritise UK national interest in aid spending. I want the present arrangement to be retained, because it works. If it works, why change it?

Many people say that aid should be given primarily to fight poverty. I am quite happy with where it is going, as long as it goes to the right place, and there is not the corruption referred to by other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who is not in his place.

UK overseas assistance is one of the most heavily scrutinised areas of Government spending, with oversight from the Select Committee on International Development, the National Audit Office and the Independent Commission for Aid Impact. There is international recognition that the UK leads in the shaping of the global development agenda, and the Department for International Development scores highly on the international aid transparency index. I see many reasons to continue to support DFID as it is. I would consider a decision to take money away from a Department that meets the gold standard to be wrong, and I urge the Minister and the Government to stand firm to ensure that it continues to do what it does—saving lives, addressing global poverty, ensuring that immunisation programmes can continue, and helping with sanitation and water quality. Many Members have spoken in the debate, and those still to speak will cover similar issues. Those things are important; my constituents want them to be dealt with, and the House should support that.

15:21

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries, and to go where the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) has taken us in this debate. I am thrilled to be sitting next to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who has done so much work in the field of international development.

The key statistic for me is that it is estimated that for less than a penny in every pound, UK aid saves a life every two minutes. When it comes to value for money, the DFID budget is more important than many others, because it has such an impact. That is what brings me here, to stand up for DFID. I take the point made that it feels as if there has been a change of tone in the past couple of years. There has always been negativity and criticism about aid being sent abroad. We should make the case for what it does for the people of this planet, and what it does for our country. It is essential to stand up for a Department that spends money well. Interestingly, in the recent transparency index, out of almost 50 countries—and, in our case, two Departments—DFID scored third for value for money, which is “very good”. The Foreign Office’s score level was “poor”; it was pretty much towards the end of the list. As a Conservative who values the concept of getting good value for money, why would I want money to be taken from a Department that spends it well and to go to a Department that has been spending it poorly?

I had a meeting at the FCO to discuss attempts to have one Minister across both Departments, and questions were asked about why the Foreign Office had got things wrong. DFID has often been beaten for mistakes, and in some of the stories that the Daily Mail has been so fond of, when the projects in question were not DFID’s, but the Foreign Office’s. The answer to the question was that whereas DFID has a ministerial requirement to go through every spend above £250, in the Foreign Office, officials have that remit. There is not the same ministerial oversight, so I can see why issues may arise. However, I believe that almost a third of the UK overseas aid budget will be spent outside DFID by 2020, and it is that creep that causes me concern, because I want our money to be spent well, and to save the 610,000 lives that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned in connection with immunisation. That is what DFID does, whereas the Foreign Office has to focus its attempts on diplomacy and other key areas. When it comes to spending aid money, I believe that DFID is the Department that should do it.

I have travelled with DFID officials and charity aid partners to see how the money is spent, and have been very impressed. When I first went to Jordan and the Syrian border to see whether our money was spent well, and to see different approaches, it was with an open mind. I was incredibly impressed by DFID’s work with international partners that deal with distribution on the ground, and with partners within Government. The Jordanian Government are a classic example: they are hosting 600,000 refugees in a relatively peaceful country, propped up by a lot of aid from this country. Other countries in Europe took the view that they would take migration, but the people we met did not want to come to Europe. They wanted to stay in their country—or, I should say, go back to Syria when it is safe to do so. It is UK aid that is keeping them well. The sanitation I saw was heart-warming compared with what I thought it would be. When I compare what I saw at Sangatte in France with what we are helping countries such as Jordan to deliver, it fills me with pride at being British.

I recently went to Africa. In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) about our colonial past, I would issue a warning that it is the Chinese who are now doing what he described happening in Africa. Perhaps that is where the Foreign Office could intervene—by putting more pressure on China not to take from countries, treating them almost as a back office to China, but to put something into them. The corruption that is going on in Africa is a disgrace. However, I was heartened by the fact that in Djibouti, where 40% of the population are children, the mortality rate has halved as a result of UK aid helping our partners on the ground. There is much that we do, and we do it well. In April, I am going to Iraq to see what is being done.

I absolutely support the Minister in her post. I look forward to DFID continuing in its role, and to all of us standing up to champion what it can do, and pushing back on those voices that, I am afraid to say, do not always have its best interests at heart.

15:26

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing the debate. The topic is incredibly important. A challenge for MPs is the fact that it is sometimes a hard sell with our constituents. Often they do not see the results of what is done; they just hear about the money going in at the front end. They do not see what good comes of it.

I must admit that I was slightly sceptical when I was elected in 2015, but subsequently I was appointed a Parliamentary Private Secretary in DFID—on two occasions. First I assisted the ministerial team—or un-assisted them, depending on how you looked at it. Afterwards, I worked with the Secretary of State. I saw at first hand the complete and utter dedication of the Secretary of State, the ministerial team and the civil servants who helped to pull the whole thing together. Those people have great pride in what they do and the way they deliver it. They are delivering life-saving changes around the world.

I disagree with some comments by Opposition Members that the Secretary of State does not care as much as previous Secretaries of State. I have seen at first hand that she absolutely does. I was struck in my first meetings in the Department by her insistence that it was important to prove not only that money was being spent well, but that it could not be spent better. That is a critical point that we should always have at the forefront of our mind. In January 2018, she set out five pledges, which included a proposal for boosting trade and investment with developing countries, helping developing countries to stand on their own feet with sustainable health and education systems in which they invest, and finding ways to help other Departments make their spend more effective. There is a commitment to deliver on those things.

I want to make two quick points, relating to my earlier comment about our constituents not always necessarily understanding the importance of the Department. We are talking about huge sums of money—billions. It is worth reminding the House and our constituents of some of the things that DFID helps to deliver. Between April 2015 and March 2018 it reached 26.8 million people with humanitarian assistance and supported 11.4 million children in getting a decent education. It also supported 40.3 million people in accessing clean water and better sanitation. Since 2015, UK aid paid for more than 37 million children to be immunised, saving more than 600,000 lives across the world—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised that point.

As I said earlier this week during Second Reading of the Children Act 1989 (Amendment) (Female Genital Mutilation) Bill, DFID has supported programmes to help more than 8,000 communities—representing more than 24.5 million people—who pledged to abandon FGM and let more than 3 million women and girls get FGM protection and care services. Those things are being delivered around the world as we speak.

We should not underestimate the benefits of soft power because, as colleagues have said, that is why we are respected around the world. That is not because of our football teams—certainly not my football team, Newcastle—our pop music industry or our cars, but because we are known to be a reliable partner that is there to help less fortunate countries when they need that support. As the world’s fifth largest economy, we have a responsibility to help those countries, but that help also benefits Britain. By investing at source, problems are less likely to escalate and become more difficult, or perhaps to end up on our shores, meaning that we have to deal with those issues here, thereby putting pressure on other services. Work to prevent conflict, disease and disasters helps make this country more secure, and for those reasons I am very proud of DFID’s work. It is important that DFID remains a standalone Department, not only so that can it continue to deliver services, but so that the quality and oversight of what is being delivered receives the best possible scrutiny.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Ms Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. We have gone slightly over time so I would be grateful if Front-Bench speakers kept their speeches to nine minutes.

15:31

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. It is a rare experience for me to be in Westminster Hall these days, but I am delighted to speak about the Department for International Development. Once upon a time I was the SNP spokesperson for international development, and our current spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West (Chris Law), is currently attending the International Development Committee—this debate has slightly unfortunate timing because I know the Committee is hearing important evidence, but it is good that some of its members have made it here today.

I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing this important and timely debate, and I agreed with practically every word he said, just as I agreed with other Labour Members and more broadly across the Chamber—there has been a fair degree of consensus today, which is positive. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) defended the Department for International Development and the 0.7% target, and if the Government’s confidence and supply partners are keen on DFID, I think its safety is secured for the foreseeable future. We look forward to hearing from the Minister—she will also bring a bit of gender balance to the debate, as there has not been much of that. By way of an informal declaration of interest, I serve on the board of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy on behalf of the SNP, and I chair the all-party group on Malawi.

In the short time available—we want to hear from the Minister—I wish to reflect on some of the things we have heard and offer some perspectives from Scotland. In opening the debate, the hon. Member for Slough gave a good overview of DFID’s history, particularly of its achievements in its current incarnation. DFID was one achievement of the new Labour Government, and for all the faults that some of us might have seen during those years, the establishment of the Department and its continuation has been a significant achievement. The United Kingdom played a huge role in the establishment and delivery of the millennium development goals, and it has gone on to do the same with the sustainable development goals. Again, we should give credit where it is due and to the role of the coalition Government in drafting the SDGs, under the leadership of the then Prime Minister, David Cameron. However, writing down goals on a piece of paper is one thing, but ensuring they are delivered is another, and that responsibility must be maintained by the Department.

DFID is one of the most scrutinised Departments, and as the former SNP spokesperson on international development I regularly took part on debates on aid spending—I know such debate continue to occur. We have the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, the International Development Committee, and there are all kinds of mandatory reporting mechanisms. It is perhaps no wonder that, as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) said, stories end up in the Daily Mail, precisely because there is so much scrutiny—far more than for some other Departments.

Such scrutiny leads to a mismatch in public perception. According to opinion polls, analysis and focus groups, the public seem to think that not 0.7%, but closer to 7% or even 10% of national income is spent on aid. The perception is different from the reality, and when people see first-hand and understand the impact that aid is making, attitudes change—that point was emphasised very personally by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey). As the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) said, the small grants scheme is an important and welcome innovation, and for many years the Scottish Government have used their budget to allow that localised connection.

The amount of money spent on aid is about one tenth of spending on the health service. We spent £2 billion a year on Trident, and multiples of that on arms sales—that issue was raised by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk). If money was diverted from that sort of spending, it could well complement the relatively small amounts that still go on aid. Importantly—this theme has come out of today’s debate—DFID must maintain its role as the lead Department, and we must recognise the importance of investing in the long term.

There is a proper debate to be had about quality versus quantity, and although it can be difficult to measure the long-term impact of aid programmes, that does not mean they do not have an impact, or that years down the line it will not be clear that the investments have paid off in the long term because cultures, habits and attitudes have changed. That is why investing in monitoring and evaluation is important—it is part of delivery, and part of what the spending is for. Recent Secretaries of State have attempted to cut bureaucracy or reduce some of DFID’s spending, and that is when we end up with money that has to be shovelled out the door and it is perhaps not monitored as effectively as possible. We must get right the balance between quality and quantity.

Since 2005, the Scottish Government—again on a cross-party basis—have run a small international development programme, and they continue to prioritise human rights, sustainable development goals, global citizenship, and a concept of ultimately moving beyond aid. There will always be a need for aid in some shape or form, but ultimately we need an holistic approach across the Government. Part of the point of the sustainable development goals is that global vision of how to achieve a better, more sustainable planet for everybody. We must implement those goals here in the United Kingdom, as well as ensuring that they are implemented effectively in developing countries.

In Scotland we sometimes hear that DFID is one of the United Kingdom’s great assets, and a reason why Scotland should not consider embarking on its own constitutional independence. If DFID is to be undermined, and if we are to be told that the aid budget needs to be scrapped and is not effective—perhaps people should be a little careful about the logic of that argument if we in Scotland want to maintain our role as global citizens. That is why the rhetoric that we hear from Ministers about aid working in the national interest must be questioned.

I have never understood—no Minister has ever been able to tell me—how achieving the sustainable development goals, eradicating poverty, and ending the impact of climate change is not in the national interest. It is in our collective interest as human beings to meet those development goals, and we should not need to try to make some sort of distinction. It is correct to have these debates and for DFID to be properly scrutinised, but the immediate context of this debate is worrying. As the hon. Member for Slough said, the Government must immediately distance themselves from the report by the Henry Jackson Society, and say that that is not their direction of travel.

The metaphor of pirates cruising around looking for galleons filled with gold is slightly unhelpful, because the amounts of money we are talking about are not vast, and the returns that we get from them vastly outstrip that investment. Finally, I say to people who think they can undermine the aid budget that there is a majority in this House and in this country who support the work of DFID. The people who campaigned, marched and lobbied for the Jubilee Campaign, the Trade Justice Movement and Make Poverty History have not gone away. They will use their voices and votes to stand up for the poorest and most marginalised around the country and the world. They can be assured of the SNP’s support and, I believe, the support of the majority of Members in the House.

15:40

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) for securing this important debate. It is a shame that Members feel that they have to bring such debates to the House, when we thought we had settled the matter of the Department for International Development, as has been said over and over again today.

It is a pleasure to follow so many assured and supportive speeches, the majority of which gave total support for the future work of the Department for International Development, and to follow the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) gave an excellent speech; he does a lot of important work with the World Bank on behalf of this House. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) gave an outstanding speech that showed that if we look at this matter independently and objectively there is no question about the need for the independence of the Department, the 0.7% and all the arguments that he went through. On my own side, I follow the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), and my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), who is a member of the International Development Committee.

In 1997, when Labour established the Department for International Development, Clare Short, the first Secretary of State for International Development, told the House of Commons that her Department had

“been given the most noble and honourable work that anyone could be asked to do.”

She said that eliminating global poverty, while

“both…affordable and…achievable”,

was also

“the single greatest challenge the world faces.”—[Official Report, 1 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 116.]

In the two decades since then, politicians from across the political spectrum have ensured that this country steps up to that challenge.

The International Development Act 2002 ensures that all aid spending remains tightly focused on poverty reduction overseas and is not diverted to other ends. In 2014 Parliament improved on that and passed the International Development (Gender Equality) Act, to ensure aid spending strives to tackle the associated challenge of discrimination against, and oppression of, women and girls. In 2015 Parliament enshrined in law the commitment to spend 0.7% of national income on overseas aid, making us one of only five donor countries to meet the internationally agreed commitment.

Since DFID was established 22 years ago, it has become a global leader in international development. Every year it spends UK aid in ways that make tangible differences to people’s lives the world over. DFID has helped some of the world’s poorest people realise their right to health and education. It has provided emergency life-saving aid for people caught up in major humanitarian crises and has led the way in bringing gender equality into the mainstream through its development work. The UK public should be proud of the development work that their money has supported over recent decades, but all too sadly they do not hear the success stories of UK aid and the work of DFID. Instead, they hear a loud and vocal anti-aid lobby, which does its best to discredit the work, as many Members today have mentioned.

The charge against the country’s aid programme is spearheaded by a small number of major media outlets, who revel in spinning and stirring the few occasions when UK aid programmes might not have worked as we had hoped. They are hell bent on driving a hysterical hatred of the UK’s work to end global poverty. The anti-aid media narrative is a serious problem, but even more worrying are attacks from a number of Tory Members, which have many guises. I will mention three of them.

First, there is the straightforward misspending and diverting of aid away from poverty reduction. Last weekend the Guardian reported a letter sent to the Chancellor from 23 international development agencies, raising their concerns about the way Ministers are spending aid. They warned him that aid is being diverted away from the poorest countries in order to promote commercial and political interests. From using aid to help UK companies expand their businesses overseas, to suggestions that aid be spent on UK naval ships, we are seeing more aid than ever being spent on projects that no one sincerely believes are about reducing global poverty. Those attempts do nothing but feed into the idea that the UK aid programme is a waste of UK taxpayers’ money.

Secondly, there are blatant attempts to dissolve the Department altogether. It is no secret that the former Foreign Secretary wants to see the Department dismantled. Earlier this month, he threw his weight behind a report that said DFID should be folded back into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and that the UK’s aid budget should be slashed. Such a move would be a disaster for the country’s aid programme. It is only DFID that has the specific and sole purpose of poverty alleviation and a dedicated staff working to achieve this goal. Merging the Department with the FCO—or any other Department for that matter—would dilute the agenda and see more money diverted away from poverty towards other foreign policy interests.

We can learn from Australia, where the international development department was merged with the foreign office, with a number of negative knock-on effects. The country’s strategic vision for aid was lost, the Government witnessed a brain-drain of development expertise and an estimated 2,000 years of collective experience left the department.

We already know from our own experience, where almost one third of our aid is spent outside DFID, that only DFID meets the highest spending standards. The Aid Transparency Index, the only independent measure of aid transparency among the world’s major development agencies, rated DFID “very good”, while the FCO’s aid spending was rated “poor”, according to the same measure. Likewise, the ONE Campaign recently launched an aid index that rates aid spending by different Departments. It found the FCO to be “weak” on its ability to keep aid focused on poverty, and that no other Department spends aid as well as DFID.

The third threat, which is related, is the worrying challenge to our aid and development work presented by the persistent undermining of the very concept of aid. The Secretary of State has made clear her desire to change the definition of aid. She recently launched a consultation on her plans to reduce the amount of public money that needs to be spent on aid by counting profits from private investments towards the aid budget. There are no two ways about it—aid is either spent to alleviate poverty and the causes of poverty, or it is invested to make a profit. The Labour party rejects any attempts to commercialise the UK aid budget.

The Secretary of State has said that she thinks the 0.7% of aid spending is unsustainable. Will the Minister expand on that comment, which was reported to have been made in a Cabinet meeting? We know that the Secretary of State wants to rewrite the international rules set by the OECD that govern aid spending. In the context of the sustained threat that is faced by DFID and ODA, I am delighted this debate has been called.

Anyone who believes that this country has a role to play in international development must be ready to defend the Department and the budget. I cannot fathom why some people are so obsessed with eroding and ending aid.

[Alex Chalk]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it was right for the British Government to seek to rewrite the rules to allow aid spending to be used to deal with some of the appalling consequences of the dreadful storm in British Overseas Territories? Does he agree that it was appropriate that British aid should go towards that deserving cause?

[Dan Carden]

As we heard from the hon. Gentleman’s earlier contributions, maintaining the focus of the 0.7% is the most important issue. If we keep trying to erode and change the definition of aid, we are not backing that concept.

It disgusts me that people put so much energy into blocking support for the world’s poorest people, when a fraction less than 1% of our country’s income is spent on aid. I am a proud internationalist and I am proud that my party was responsible for setting up the Department for International Development. I believe the country’s aid programme is about morality, justice and pragmatism.

It is a shame that we are debating whether we should continue with our UK aid commitments and whether our world-renowned Department for International Development can survive many more years of Tory in-fighting, or be saved from being turned into a political football in any future leadership contest. I hope the Minister can give some guarantees on behalf of the Government.

15:49

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Harriett Baldwin)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing today’s debate. It is worth highlighting that we have had a range of excellent speeches, eight of which were from Conservative and Democratic Unionist party colleagues, while there are five Labour Members here. The way in which the issues were raised in the debate, and the endorsement that the Conservative manifesto at the last election gave to the 0.7%, sets our record straight right off the bat, in terms of our commitment and our pride in being part of the movement that put 0.7% in statute—we are the only country in the world to have done that so far—and to the Government’s policy to retain the Department for International Development as a stand-alone Department. The reasons for that were well articulated by a range of Members.

I am a Minister in both the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. That makes a great deal of sense because, to highlight just one, South Sudan, of the worst humanitarian crises—where some of our biggest DFID budgets are—we can see that it is entirely a man-made conflict, and we need to work not only through providing humanitarian assistance, but by doing what we can on the political track to try to bring that conflict to a resolution. That is why it makes sense for me and the Minister for the Middle East to be in both Departments.

We have heard a range of excellent speeches, many of them focused on history and some of the lessons we have learned through history on how to do what we do more effectively. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who spoke eloquently about the role of the Department, many of the people who have served in the Department over the years, and the role of overseas development assistance in soft power and Global Britain. His characteristic modesty did not allow him to mention that he, I think, came up with “UK aid—from the British people”. That is now widely used in our projects—I saw it on an Ethiopian water tank only last week. We should pay tribute to him for that; I know Ministers would like to see more of it.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) spoke about M-KOPA and CDC. I was glad to hear that, because I have not always heard a consistent message of support from Labour Members on CDC, the private sector development arm. It brings a great deal of private sector capital into development issues and M-KOPA, which he highlighted, is a particularly good example.

The Conflict, Stability and Security Fund plays an important role. I reassure colleagues that 100% of our 0.7% spending comes in a form that is approved by the Development Assistance Committee. We have pushed to change some of the rules over the years and have been successful in doing that, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) highlighted one of those successes. We have also been able to get the allocation for peacekeeping up from 7% to 15%. The role of the UN peacekeepers is important and the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund providing the foundation of peace and security for development is vital.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) rightly highlighted the important work that has been done through the aid budget to tackle a wide range of diseases, not just malaria and neglected tropical diseases but diseases such as polio. He spoke of the need for long-term development funding, which we do primarily through the World Bank now. He is making a powerful case for the UK to have its own bank. He rightly highlighted the importance of the Small Charities Challenge Fund and the aid match projects that allow us to match one-to-one the wishes of the British public with spending.

[Gareth Thomas]

The Minister will be aware of the SheDecides global movement, which supports the right of every girl and woman to make the decisions that only they should make. SheDecides Day is coming up fast. Will the Minister tell the House why the Secretary of State has not agreed to be an ambassador for the movement?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I cannot, because I was not aware of it, but I know that there is no one who women and girls around the world can count on more than our Secretary of State for her championing of the need to put women and girls first. It is putting women and girls first, and creating an environment where they do well, that enables the rest of the country to do well. That is vital and is incorporated in all of our programming.

The hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) also raised the issue of corruption, which is an example of where cross-Government working is so important, so that we can work with the National Crime Agency to tackle some of the financial flows and corruption that flow from some developing countries where we are spending overseas development assistance, through the UK courts and UK financial system. It is a good example of where we need to work across government.

Members discussed the fact that some other Departments spend overseas development assistance. Of course they do, for a range of things, whether that is trade, development, the work of the National Crime Agency, the work on the environment and plastics through the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, or the work that we do on tackling climate change, which needs to be joined-up across government. There was a wide outbreak of consensus on that.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised an important, underlying function: for us to save lives through what we do with aid. He was absolutely right to highlight that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) highlighted the importance of value for money and being able to tell the British taxpayer that we are getting it. The debate has allowed us to highlight some excellent examples of value for money.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey), who I thank for the excellent work he did as my previous Private Parliamentary Secretary—he would be welcome back any time; he just needs to support the withdrawal agreement—highlighted that it is not just that the money should be spent well, but that it could not be spent better. The hon. Members for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) and for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) also made supportive comments.

I am glad to be able to reassure hon. Members that it is indeed Government policy to continue with the excellent stand-alone work of the Department for International Development. We can point to a strong track record of delivering results. We will continue to work across Government in a joined-up way in trying to achieve the sustainable development goals by 2030. We have heard a lot about the past of the Department. The future of the Department must surely be about focusing on achieving the sustainable development goals and on spending more of our money in areas of extreme poverty.

[Mr Dhesi]

Will the Minister categorically say that she is against the former Foreign Secretary’s comments? Some of us are looking for the reassurance that post Brexit there will be no downgrading of our legal commitments.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.

15:58

[Mr Dhesi]

I am very much heartened by the comments from the Minister, and her commitment. I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the Chamber for their invaluable contributions to this very important debate and for the cross-party consensus that we have managed to maintain throughout.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future of the Department for International Development.

Electoral Funding: Unincorporated Associations

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Westminster Hall

15:59

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the role of unincorporated associations in electoral funding.

It is very good to see you in the Chair, Ms Dorries; I believe this is the first Westminster Hall debate I have participated in where you have been in the Chair.

I will introduce this somewhat obscure topic of the role of unincorporated associations in UK electoral funding by setting the scene. We begin in the Glasgow suburb of Clarkston, the type of place that is usually prefixed with “leafy”. As many hon. Members from Scottish constituencies, especially in the west, will know, it is composed of the mid-century, semi-detached houses that are a familiar sight across the west of Scotland and, I am sure, elsewhere. Anyone who has watched “Two Doors Down” on BBC Scotland might know what I am talking about.

In one of those houses lives a seemingly upstanding citizen by the name of Richard Cook, a former vice-chair of the Scottish Conservative party and former Scottish Conservative and Unionist candidate for East Renfrewshire. A cursory search turns up photos of Mr Cook with numerous Tory grandees, including the current leader of the Conservative and Unionist party in Scotland, Ruth Davidson, Member of the Scottish Parliament, and her interim replacement, Jackson Carlaw, the local MSP. There is also a photo of Mr Cook with the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, who came to East Renfrewshire to campaign for Mr Cook in 2010, in the election campaign that, as we all know, made Mr Cameron Prime Minister.

During that campaign, voters in East Renfrewshire were given an impression of a candidate in a Tory target seat who fitted the zeitgeist well—a waste management consultant who could almost have been hand-picked by Conservative campaign headquarters to represent the new, green Tories. His leaflets spoke about protecting green spaces and improving recycling.

Incredibly, during the campaign, the company that Mr Cook founded, DDR Recycling, was involved in a scam relating to the illegal shipment of waste tyres around the world, as confirmed by the Environment Agency in the UK. During investigations into those shipments, it was alleged that Mr Cook submitted false evidence to authorities in the United Kingdom and in the Republic of India investigating the case. That case is the loose thread that pulls apart the Scottish Conservative and Unionist candidate’s carefully managed public persona.

Thanks to the excellent work of investigative journalists such as Peter Geoghegan and Adam Ramsay at openDemocracy, we have been led carefully through a mystery tour of Mr Cook’s business dealings, which belied the conventional suburban milieu from which he came. DDR Recycling is now in liquidation, owing the UK taxpayer £150,000, but before that, it became embroiled in a Californian court case brought by an international haulage firm, which alleged $1.5 million of unpaid bills for waste shipments to South Korea.

That was only the beginning. Just before leaving DDR in 2014, Cook set up a company called Five Star Investment Management, with 75% of its shares held by the now late Prince Nawwaf bin Abdulaziz, a former head of Saudi Arabian intelligence, and the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United Kingdom. A third partner, a Danish national by the name of Peter Haestrup, had previously been involved in a gun-running scandal in the Republic of India. That is only a glimpse into a dazzling array of international deals, including another $1 billion environmental project in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which looked to most trained observers like a litany of fraudulent deals.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

While my hon. Friend wets his whistle, before he moves on from the role that journalists played in exposing the Constitutional Research Council and Mr Cook’s activities, will he acknowledge the role played by Jim Fitzpatrick of BBC Northern Ireland’s documentary series, “Spotlight”? His marvellous documentary, “Brexit, Dark Money and the DUP”, began this whole investigation and should be commended.

[Ms Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. That should be an intervention, not a speech.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Perhaps I can remind the Chamber that my hon. Friend’s name is Brendan O’Hara. I totally agree with him and commend those who have assisted in exposing dark money to the light.

Why is all that relevant to a debate about unincorporated associations in the political process? Mr Cook is the poster boy for the way in which UAs have been used to funnel vast swathes of dark money into our political process. Even worse, the Electoral Commission allows fraudsters such as him effectively to mark their own homework. The Electoral Commission gave me a very informative briefing ahead of this debate, and I will use its definition of an unincorporated association:

“UAs are associations of two or more people, which do not fall into any of the other categories of permissible donors, are carrying on business or other activities wholly or mainly in the UK and have their main office here. They are permitted to donate money to political parties, non-party campaigners, individuals in elective office such as MPs, and referendum campaigners.”

The key phrase in that definition is,

“which do not fall into any of the other categories of permissible donors”.

That is what today’s debate is about. If the Minister answers only one question in this debate, I would like it to be this one: why, given all the ways in which individuals and organisations can donate money to political parties and groups in a transparent and straightforward manner, do we still allow this backdoor method, which seems to me to be easily exploited by those who would seek to obscure the provenance of funds?

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is giving an excellent speech. Is he surprised and disappointed, as I was, to learn that when SNP councillors lodged a motion asking Tory councils in North Ayrshire to make a statement on dark donations to local Tory branches, the Labour councillors abstained? Does he, like me, suspect that that is not unrelated to the much-denied informal confidence and supply arrangement that exists between Labour and Tory groups across Scotland?

[Mr Ian Austin in the Chair]

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

It sounds like “Better Together”.

The case that proves my argument beyond doubt is the unincorporated association that Richard Cook leads: the Constitutional Research Council, or CRC. He describes the CRC as a group

“to start promoting the Union in all its…parts”,

and while it is based in Scotland, critically, it has managed to spread its tentacles across the rest of these islands. The CRC is most famous—or should I say infamous?—for the £435,000 donation it made to the Democratic Unionist party during the Brexit referendum.

[Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Not at the moment, no.

That was a vast sum for a party whose election expenses do not normally even get past five figures. Some £280,000 of that donation was spent on a wrap-around advert in the Metro newspaper in the lead-up to the Brexit referendum, despite the fact that the only part of these islands where the Metro is not distributed is the part in which the DUP itself stands.

The bizarre situation, Mr Austin—it is good to see you in the Chair, sir; perhaps you will remember folks’ names, if they are allowed an intervention—allied with the fact that the advert itself closely resembled the type of advertising promoted in the official “Vote Leave” campaign, meant that the case soon came to the attention of those investigating illegal collusion between the campaigns, including this Parliament’s own Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

While the where or why of that collusion is not relevant to the debate, the vehicle used by the campaigns as a conduit for this cash—the CRC—is. Because the CRC is an unincorporated association, it could mask the ultimate sources of those funds. I will let the Committee report say it, as it is incredible.

[Colin Clark]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I will not, no. The Committee stated that

“this Committee and the wider public have no way of investigating the source of the £435,000 donation to the DUP made on behalf of the CRC and are prevented from even knowing whether it came from an organisation, whose membership had either sanctioned the donation or not, or from a wealthy individual.”

This is a political donation equivalent to twice the price of the average house in most parts of these islands. It is almost 60 times greater than the £7,500 threshold for naming normal political donors, but we know absolutely nothing about its source, and the Electoral Commission cannot tell us, as elected Members in this Parliament, how it verified that it was permissible.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

Will my hon. Friend give way on this point?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I will briefly, yes.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I am extremely grateful. Sometimes this stuff is hiding in plain sight. The Electoral Commission figures released earlier today tell us that the Conservative party has received a total of £400,000, with one donation coming from the household of a former Putin Minister eight months after the Salisbury poisoning, which killed a British citizen, and the other one coming from a weapons dealer and gunrunner who is a personal friend of the President of Syria, Bashar al-Assad. Does my hon. Friend agree that if that money is not returned, it confirms the Tory party’s status as a complete moral sewer?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

rose—

[Colin Clark]

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

No, I will not. I will make it clear that I fundamentally agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), and the Minister will not be able to turn to civil servants to answer on behalf of the Conservative party, because this is purely political. Let me also make it clear that this is the exact opposite of the probity and good governance that we would expect from a properly functioning liberal parliamentary democracy. I am sure that I am not the only one to come to the same conclusion as the DCMS Committee—that the CRC used this method.

Let me quote the Committee again. It stated that

“in order to avoid having to disclose the source of this £435,000 donation, the CRC, deliberately and knowingly, exploited a loophole in the electoral law to funnel money to the Democratic Unionist Party in Northern Ireland.”

I am of course disappointed not to see, for the first time ever, a member of the Democratic Unionist party at a Westminster Hall debate.

[Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

No. I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to speak on behalf of the DUP, but I will not give way. I wonder how many DUP Members know what the true source of the money was and whether it did the requisite due diligence before accepting it. Why do we continue to let cowboys such as Richard Cook effectively mark their own homework? Surely there must be a way to ensure that the probity of major political donations can be assured.

Let us not forget that there is a legitimate reason for UAs to exist; it is not my intention to suggest otherwise. In a legal sense, it is understandable that certain groups may want to keep structures that have no legal existence separate from their members.

[Colin Clark]

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

No. As someone who worked for many years in the third sector in my constituency, I know very well—[Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members will listen, rather than asking for an intervention they will not get. I know very well the value of UAs to organisations that do not want to be encumbered by the bureaucracy of other statuses.

[Mr Lord]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Once again, no. Political parties do this, of course. My own SNP branches—Clydebank, Dumbarton and the mighty Vale of Leven—make donations to the party, and vice versa, but the point is that they are able to do so in a transparent and accountable manner. Political parties and the sub-units therein are already, as you will know, Mr Austin, regulated as accounting units. Anyone going on to look at the list of donors to my political campaigns will know exactly where the money came from, and if it is not from an individual, people can be certain that it is from a group whose aims are well stated and well understood.

However, as we can see from the outcomes of the DCMS Committee report, donors who want to obscure the source of their donations are using unincorporated associations as a vehicle to do that. Quite simply, unincorporated associations beyond regulated political parties are a subtle legal fiction that allows fraudsters to dump dark money in our system, which is not confined to the outer reaches.

[Mr Lord]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

No.

[Mr Lord]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Again, no, I will not. [Interruption.] One moment. It turns out that using UAs and similar convenient legal fictions to funnel dark money into our political system is the favoured modus operandi not only of Richard Cook, but of the Scottish Tory party of which he used to be the vice-chair.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a really powerful speech. He speaks of transparency and accountability being important and of a functioning liberal democracy being something that we should all support. Does he share my astonishment, because of course electoral support comes in forms other than hard cash, that the Prime Minister has yet to reply to my letter of 7 January about the visit of AggregateIQ to Downing Street? That follows on from her failure to write to me after Prime Minister’s questions as she said she would on 12 September.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

It does not surprise me, because the leader of the Scottish Conservative party has never even responded to my request in terms of a letter about dark money.

[Mr Lord]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

No, I will not at the moment. I am going to make some progress, because I know we are short of time.

Let us be quite open: news outlets such as openDemocracy and the Ferret have documented how UAs and similar legal entities designed to obscure donations have been used to flood Scottish politics with cash. During the 2016 Holyrood election campaign that saw the Scottish Tories become the official second party, hundreds of thousands of pounds were funnelled through other organisations with an illegal remit such as the Irvine Unionist Club, the Scottish Unionist Association Trust, the Scottish Conservative Club and, of course, Focus on Scotland. Indeed, during the election to this place, in which Members from the other parties were elected, several elected candidates from the Scottish Conservative party accepted donations from opaque organisations.

Quite simply, I do not think it is befitting of our political system to continue with this type of ambiguity. In 2017, all my colleagues and I stood on a manifesto to enhance the powers of the Electoral Commission and increase the punishments available to it. The manifesto stated:

“SNP MPs will support new powers for the Electoral Commission, providing them with legal authority to investigate offences under the Representation of the People Act 1983. We will also support the Electoral Commission’s call to make higher sanctioning powers available to them, increasing the maximum penalty from £20,000 to £1,500,000.”

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

No. I think that we are all very rapidly—[Interruption.] If this is a debate, perhaps a member of the Democratic Unionist party should have been here, rather than members of the Scottish Conservative party.

[Mr Lord]

rose—

[Colin Clark]

rose—

[Bill Grant]

rose—

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

No. I think that we are all very rapidly—[Interruption.] One moment. I think that we are all very rapidly becoming aware, if we were not already, that the current regulations and various pieces of legislation that police our electoral system are being tested to the absolute limit, and most certainly at the wrong time.

In learning about the activities of shysters such as Richard Cook in our own political process, I was sadly reminded of some of the characters in the recently released book “Moneyland” by the investigative journalist Oliver Bullough. In that book, we see how the unscrupulous and corrupt have used the mechanisms of international finance and regulation effectively to create a place—Moneyland—that puts them outside the normal jurisdictions that mere mortals such as ourselves must live under. One of the more upsetting aspects of the book is the way in which this city has become the clearing house par excellence for both the money and the reputations of a whole host of unsavoury characters who see the banks, the legal services and a whole range of other civil society bodies and institutions as ready and willing to help them in that regard, and do not ask too many questions about it. [Interruption.] Not at the moment.

Ultimately, this is what Richard Cook has done with the CRC. He has used his reputation as a former chair of the Scottish Conservatives and as a former candidate in East Renfrewshire to create the appearance of probity in the organisation, while at every turn refusing to reveal the ultimate source of its donations or even who constitutes its membership. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether she is happy to see the reputation of her party being used for that purpose. Although I have many profound disagreements with the Conservative party on policy, I understand that, in terms of parliamentary democracy, its reputation affects the entirety of our political system, and I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would be happy with those realities.

[Bill Grant]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

No. This Government have undoubtedly allowed that to happen to our political system, with dark money now flooding unhindered through it. Dark money is a cancer in our political system, and unincorporated associations are the most prominent way in which that cancer enters the bloodstream. It is a malignancy that works by removing transparency and confidence in the system of political funding—something that undermines trust in the political system as a whole.

[Colin Clark]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

No. And we must be—

[Colin Clark]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

No. We must be unflinching in our determination to root this out. As Oliver Bullough writes near the end of “Moneyland”, political parties have been guilty of accepting money when they cannot be entirely clear about the ultimate source of those donations. Whether it be the Conservatives, the Democratic Unionist party or the Vote Leave campaign, they have simply failed to do the correct due diligence. I will draw my remarks to a close with a quote from that book:

“Disapproval of these surreptitious payments should not depend on whether they are befitting your own side or not. They are inherently harmful. Without trust, liberal democracy cannot function.”

I shall recap and pose the questions that I would like the Minister to answer. Given all the ways in which individuals and organisations can donate money to political parties and groups in a transparent and straightforward manner, why do we still allow unincorporated associations, which are not political parties, to participate so freely, especially in a way that is easily exploitable by those who would seek to obscure the provenance of funds? Will the Government support the Scottish National party’s manifesto commitment to increase the sanctioning powers available to the Electoral Commission from £25,000 to £1,500,000? Will the Government do the right thing and extend the transparency rules around donations made in Northern Ireland from 2014? The cancer of dark money must be removed from our political system. I call on the entire House to join us in that process.

16:21

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)]

It is an absolute pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Austin. I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) for calling this debate, and for the contributions made by various hon. Members. I am only amazed that he took no intervention from anyone other than his friends.

[Mr Lord]

rose—

[Chloe Smith]

I would be delighted to hear from my hon. Friend.

[Mr Lord]

I am hoping that the Minister will say that the Government and all political parties want to root out any wrongdoing. I came here for a Westminster Hall debate, but the sewer of accusations spewed forth by the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) is an absolute disgrace. As the Minister said, he took many interventions from his own party, but refused dozens of interventions from others. This was not a debate; it was a diatribe, and he should be ashamed of himself.

[David Linden Glasgow, East (SNP)]

On a point of order, was there a question to the Minister in that last intervention, or was that also a diatribe?

[Ian Austin (in the Chair)]

As far as I can see, nothing disorderly has taken place so far. The Minister can respond to Mr Lord’s question, if she wishes.

[Chloe Smith]

Thank you, Mr Austin.

I will set out the rules surrounding the involvement of unincorporated associations in election funding, which will be helpful in responding to the debate. These associations are included in the list of permissible donors set out in section 54 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The additional Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 introduced reporting rules for UAs that supported political activities; those rules are in schedule 19A of the 2000 Act.

Unincorporated associations must notify the Electoral Commission if the political contributions that they make over a calendar year are more than £25,000, whether that is through a single contribution or several. An unincorporated association must also notify the Electoral Commission of the reportable gifts that it received in the calendar year before it made the contribution, the calendar year of the contribution, and the calendar year following the contribution. That information is published by the Electoral Commission in its register of unincorporated associations and its register of recordable gifts to unincorporated associations. In this way, there is transparency as to who is providing the funds that are paid out by the associations.

[Patricia Gibson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chloe Smith]

No, I will not, for entirely unsurprising reasons.

Reportable gifts include a single gift of more than £7,500, two or more gifts of over £500 given by the same person in the same calendar year that total more than £7,500, and any additional gifts of more than £1,500 given by a source from which the UA has already received a gift of more than £7,500 in the same calendar year. Electoral Commission guidance also states that any UA that intends to make contributions of more than £25,000 should keep records of all the gifts it receives that are worth more than £500.

There are various ways in which offences are deemed to have been committed. As hon. Members are aware, responsibility for regulating political finance sits with the independent Electoral Commission. It is right and proper that that should sit with an independent body. Any concerns about breaches of the law should be reported to the appropriate authority, and a record of the regulated groups who make and receive donations, including MPs, MSPs and other politically active people, is publicly available on the Electoral Commission’s website. That data is a treasure trove of information, because it reminds us that the Scottish National party and pro-independence campaigners have accepted political donations from unincorporated associations. Who would believe it?

[Colin Clark]

It is very good of the Minister to give way; it is unfortunate that the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) would not. As the Minister was about to say, the Scottish Women’s Independence Fund Trust, an unincorporated association, has donated money to the SNP. On an associated subject, I would like to ask her opinion of another way of raising finance. The SNP have mentioned sewers; the former First Minister, Alex Salmond, raised £100,000 for a court case—and may have raised more money subsequently. We are talking about a different way of raising money, but does the Minister agree that perhaps Alex Salmond should give that £100,000 back? [Interruption.]

[Ian Austin (in the Chair)]

Order. I call the Minister to respond.

[Chloe Smith]

Thank you very much, Mr Austin. My hon. Friend reminded us that all parties ought to be above board and transparent about their donations. I can confirm that the Conservative party is above board and transparent, as I would expect it to be.

The Government believe that the rules governing permissible donors and the reporting rules for unincorporated associations are sufficiently comprehensive. The permissible donor rules capture the groups that operate in this area, and the relevant reporting rules provide appropriate transparency, but do not swamp these often small organisations in red tape, which is a consideration. The Government therefore have no plans to amend the law. The 2000 and 2009 Acts introduced greater transparency into this area. We welcome that, because it means that we are able to have this debate backed up by a record from the Electoral Commission of who has received what, allowing us all to be transparent.

I will address transparency in Northern Ireland before closing my remarks. The anonymity provisions there have an important historical provenance. They were introduced by the Labour Government in 2001 and were based on careful recommendations in the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s fifth report, published in 1998, which concluded that it would be unsafe to disclose the names of those who had made donations to the Northern Ireland parties, as it might result in their intimidation. The retrospective removal of anonymity could put individuals’ safety at risk. We understand the history of that rule. That is why the donations and loans regime for political parties in Northern Ireland was different from that in Great Britain, and that is a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

However, thanks to this Government, there is once again greater transparency around those donations and loans; the Electoral Commission publishes full details of all donations and loans to Northern Ireland parties from July 2017. That start date was set because it represented a consensus across the Northern Ireland parties, which is very important.

Finally, donations to the Conservative party are properly and transparently declared to the Electoral Commission. It is unhelpful when hon. Members make accusations that do not seem to fit with what senior members of their parties say. One might note what the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said on “Good Morning Scotland” in July 2018. Was there any evidence that the Conservative party had improperly received donations? “No. Absolutely not.” Let us have some consistency, and an understanding of what our elections rules exist to do and the way in which they provide transparency. That applies to unincorporated associations, as well as to the range of other organisations that are correctly mentioned in our electoral law. It is important that we have those rules.

I hope that I have set out why those rules exist, and how they provide transparency to the public. Through that transparency, some perhaps surprising points have arisen from the records. I hope that that is helpful to the House. I hope it allows us all to conduct politics in the respectful manner that we expect, and to display such respect to our constituents.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Residents of Leisure Park Homes

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Westminster Hall

14:15

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered rights and protections for residents of leisure park homes.

It is a pleasure to open this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Austin. If you were to visit my constituency, drive along the A20 past Harrietsham, then turn up a winding single-track lane into the rolling hills of the North Downs area of outstanding natural beauty, after about five minutes you would find yourself at Pilgrims Retreat. It is a beautiful spot surrounded by fields and woodland, and there is hardly a building to be seen other than on the site. It is an ideal spot for a holiday, within easy reach of Leeds castle and the Kent coast, and a lovely place to retire to. That is the dream that several of my constituents gave their life savings to buy into.

The reality is a long way from the rural idyll that they were hoping for. Some have spent a six-figure sum on a park home that they believed they could spend the rest of their days in, only to find that they have bought a holiday home, which means that they do not have the same status as permanent residents and leaves them vulnerable to exploitation.

Some arrived at their new property and found that they could not get in, because there was no path or steps up to the front door. The site owner, Fred Sines, a man with a record who has been previously mentioned in the House, then demanded thousands of pounds in cash to fix the problem. I am told that he has also hiked pitch fees overnight with little warning, and that there is a culture of fear and intimidation, with people being banned from using facilities such as the club room, and threatened with having their properties demolished. All the while, they are paying council tax to the local authority, even though they are not permanent residents.

I recognise that leisure park homes or holiday homes are a significant part of Britain’s tourism industry. They are often in beautiful rural or coastal settings, and can be important drivers of the local economy when used for their true purpose: holidaying. According to a recent report by the UK Caravan and Camping Alliance, holiday homes in mobile home or caravan parks make up 8% of the UK’s tourism sector, generate £3.9 billion in visitor spend, and support 170,000 jobs.

When run in a decent and proper way, holiday parks support local economies and provide much-needed jobs in areas where work can be hard to find, but that is not always the case, and Pilgrims Retreat is not a one-off. In my constituency and elsewhere, holiday homes appear to be being mis-sold as residential homes, depriving the local area of tourist income and leaving residents, some of whom are elderly, in poor health and vulnerable to exploitation, with few rights or protections.

The situation is compounded by the failure of local authorities to enforce the terms of holiday home licences consistently by checking whether people are living there all year round—they should not be—and that they have another, main address. There are undoubtedly many wonderful holiday parks where the owners follow the rules, holidaymakers come and go in peace, and the local economy benefits, but that is not always the case.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a strong case as to why the subject needs to be looked at, and is highlighting the problems that her constituents have experienced. Does she recognise, however, that many operators do a good job and provide employment for local people? I have several examples in my constituency, such as Meadowhead Ltd, which provides a good service. It is important that the whole industry is not tarnished by the way that those bad examples have conducted themselves.

[Helen Whately]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are also well-managed park homes sites in my constituency, which is a reason to take action where the system is not working. We have to make sure that the whole industry is not tarnished by the actions of an unscrupulous minority.

For a subset of sites, there is a problem. Gaps in the law and inadequate oversight by local authorities allow unscrupulous site owners to benefit from a lack of consumer awareness. To fix that, we need to strengthen the rights and protections for holiday home owners, make sure that owners and potential owners know those rights, and make sure that the law is properly enforced.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a coherent case on both sides of the argument. Does she agree that in some cases—not many—tenants are gaming the system to the disadvantage of park owners, and that a way forward may be more formal legal requirements, through which people who sign leases receive legal advice and are properly bound by the contracts that they sign?

[Helen Whately]

I have heard the same thing. It is as if my hon. Friend had seen my speech in advance—although I know he has not—because we have clearly come to some of the same conclusions.

I reiterate that where the law does not work and enforcement does not happen, the industry overall gets a bad name. As a consequence, individuals’ dreams of an idyllic retirement in a country or coastal setting turns into a nightmare. One specific reason for that is because the owners of a holiday park home do not own the land that they live on; they are simply leasing the caravan or the mobile home on that land. People think that they are signing up to own the property in the long term, but they are actually signing a short-term lease, which can be for as short a time as 12 years. As they are leaseholders, they are covered only by consumer protection legislation, not wider housing laws.

Under the Mobile Homes Act 2013, local authorities have powers to issue notices to residential site owners when the site is not kept in a good condition. They can be fined up to £5,000 for failure to comply with those notices. The Act also gives councils emergency powers to enter sites at short notice to enforce those notices. Holiday park homes are excluded from the Act, however, so although it has helped to reduce exploitation on residential sites, that exploitation seems to have shifted to holiday home sites. Solving one problem appears to have created another.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this timely debate. In Scotland, there is a requirement for licences to have been issued to owners by May, whether they permanently reside on a holiday or residential site. The purpose is to give them the guarantees that are lacking in the cases she has referred to. The Scottish Confederation of Park Home Residents Associations has come together to help those people, and to give them a voice that can be heard by the council when there are complaints, and, more importantly, by the site owners when they deviate from what we would all expect.

[Helen Whately]

In general, we should look at what is happening in all parts of the United Kingdom to see what works best, and learn from it. I will refer to Wales in a moment, and no doubt the Minister will do the same.

I have already had conversations with the Minister on the issue. She is sympathetic and concerned, and is very much looking into it, which I appreciate. My first questions are whether she will consider extending the relevant parts of the 2013 Act to holiday home owners; whether she will consider introducing tougher penalties for unscrupulous holiday site owners to discourage them from acting in an exploitative way; and whether she will look at the fit and proper person test, which could be introduced in England for residential homes under the Act, and has already been introduced in Wales. Although the test is not perfect, it would be a step in the right direction, and would make it harder for a known unscrupulous landlord to get a site licence.

As well as introducing stronger rights and protections for the purchasers of holiday homes, we need to make sure that existing legislation is enforced. My understanding is that in England, the responsibility falls on local councils; the local council, for instance, should check that holiday home owners have another primary address, so that their holiday home is not their only and main address, and should also ensure that holiday home owners are not staying in their holiday home all year round.

It appears, at least in Maidstone in the case of Pilgrims Retreat, that my local borough council has not been doing those things, so the situation has been allowed to continue, not just for months but for years. It has built up, so that tens, indeed potentially hundreds, of people who believe they are residents are affected, even though the same local authority has been collecting council tax from these individuals, as if they were permanent residents.

The site licence at Pilgrims Retreat has been extended from 11 months to 12 months, which compounds the confusion of individuals seeking to buy properties there and live in them by giving them the impression that they can stay in these places all year round. I do not believe that my local council is alone in doing that.

Given the situation and the various ways in which individuals at Pilgrims Retreat have been let down, I welcome the fact that my local council is considering an amnesty for them and is trying to find ways to avoid making the residents—as they believe they are—homeless, because these properties are their only residence, and they have spent their savings on them; but in general, the situation should not and must not be allowed to continue.

If borough councils across the country are really struggling and failing to enforce the rules, it would be right to look at other options for licensing and enforcement. I ask the Minister to consider what could make enforcement work better. What changes to the rules might make enforcement easier? Should there be other organisations involved, or other levels at which enforcement and licensing occur, perhaps at county level? Or should there be an independent regulator with statutory enforcement powers?

To make things easier, perhaps there should also be a change to the rules. When a site has a 12-month licence, people might be told that they cannot stay there all year round, but it is really hard to enforce that rule. It would be easier if a site simply closed for a period of the year, for one or two months. That would not necessarily be popular with the holiday park owners, who are trying to run a business in which people might want to take a holiday at any time of the year, but there is a balance to be struck between making sure that the business model works, and making sure that these properties are holiday homes, because if they become de facto housing developments, they are totally failing to achieve their objective for the economy.

We need stronger protections for the individuals who live in these homes, and need to make sure that any new protections are properly enforced. We need to make sure that consumers know their rights. I have spoken to the British Holiday & Home Parks Association and listened to stories from all around the country, and it seems to be clear that many people are not alert to the risk of being mis-sold a holiday home. They hear that residents pay council tax; they know about 12-month leases; and often the site owners are the only source of information and advice for somebody planning a purchase, up to and including the point of sale. Many purchasers genuinely believe that they are buying a residential home.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making some good points. On the issue of advice, is there not a potential role for solicitors in providing advice about the transactions involved? We are not talking about inconsiderable sums of money; sometimes we are talking about a lot of money for the individuals who are buying these park homes. What role does she feel that solicitors and the legal process should have in helping people to make wise decisions and understand the risks involved?

[Helen Whately]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which is similar to one that was made earlier. When individuals are spending these sums of money—£100,000 or £200,000—perhaps they should be required to get some form of legal advice; it would be right to consider that. Clearly, we do not want to make the process more onerous than the process of buying a home, but one cannot buy a bricks-and-mortar house without going through a conveyancing process. Perhaps if there was a requirement for some kind of more formal process, fewer people would fall into the trap of misunderstanding what they are buying.

There is also a role for communication. Perhaps there is an opportunity for a communications campaign targeted at this market—at potential and current holiday park home owners—so that we get the message to people who might well become victims of this situation. We need to address the mismatch between people’s perceptions and the reality of buying a holiday park home. People need to understand that they are not buying the land; they are buying a lease. They need to know the implications of that.

Looking around, I believe that there are colleagues who may wish to speak, and I am very keen to make sure that my hon. Friend the Minister has time to answer my questions, so I will conclude by saying that by strengthening legislation to give protections to holiday park home owners, by ensuring proper enforcement, and by improving consumer awareness, we can and must make sure that other people do not fall into the same trap that my constituents at Pilgrims Retreat did.

16:46

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to speak in Westminster Hall at any time, but this issue is one that I have a particular interest in, because I have a leisure and park homes facility in my constituency of Strangford, located in the village of Ballyhalbert. It has been there for many years.

I thank the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) for securing this debate. I am mindful that the last time I spoke in Westminster Hall on the issue of leisure and park homes, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), was not a Minister, but she is now. She brought this issue forward in that debate, and she and I both spoke then. It is a pity that some years have passed by and we have not seen the conclusion that she and I wanted to see.

I will speak on a very specific point, which relates to some of the problems that we have had in my constituency. They may not be the issues that the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent has referred to, but they are issues that I feel I have to air in Westminster Hall today.

They relate to my time prior to coming to Westminster, when I was in the Northern Ireland Assembly, doing the job I had before this one. During my time in the Assembly, the Caravans Bill, which was a private Member’s Bill, was brought before us and I fully supported the rights not simply of those who owned holiday caravans but of those who chose to live permanently on site, of whom there were many. Caravans were a burgeoning business at that time, but from the local council to the Assembly and then obviously to here in Westminster, I have followed the issue. I was supportive of proper rights then and I am supportive of them now. The hon. Lady has put forward a very good and solid case today.

I am very pleased to see the Minister in Westminster Hall again. She seems to be in Westminster Hall almost as often as I am; this is two days running. [Laughter.] I jest.

Back in 2015, I questioned the then Minister—now Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—about electricity prices for park home residents, outlining concerns about the lack of energy efficiency schemes for those living in park homes. I was ever mindful of the fact that the age of those living in park homes is from 55 upwards, perhaps up to 80, and I asked the then Minister to see what she could do to help those people, taking into account the fact that park homes cannot have electricity meters. That was just one of the many issues that I raised at that time. It was clear that there were indiscretions and difficulties, and I want to highlight some of those as well today.

We are considering another issue in this debate. The Mobile Homes Act 1983 gives protection, as do the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which protects consumers from enforceability of unfair terms in contracts—the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent referred to unfair terms in contracts. In addition, there are the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. There are all of these pieces of legislation, and yet residents are not protected and are unsure of their rights. I want to air those issues today.

For the record, it is important that I say that this matter is a devolved one in Northern Ireland, and so it is not the Minister’s responsibility to respond to all of my points. Nevertheless, I want to air these issues, because the problems that the hon. Lady mentioned are happening in England—that is why all the English Members are here today—and they are probably also happening in Scotland and Wales. In Northern Ireland, they would be under the control of the Assembly—if only we had a functioning Assembly.

I have been dealing with an issue related to the park homes in my constituency, in co-operation with the local council, and these matters are certainly not straightforward or simple. As an example of the litigation and the problems that occur as a result of it, the removal of fences was a battle from beginning to end. The owners of the park homes site are required to operate under a licence issued by the council, which is displayed on site. The licence conditions relate to amenity and safety, and are based on model licence conditions issued by the environment Department in 1992.

I had a meeting with local residents. Again, many things happen at those meetings: some local residents come with problems, and others sometimes need some encouragement to follow the rules that are laid down.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

Like the hon. Gentleman, I have many holiday parks in my constituency, and it is important to put on record that not all are as unscrupulous as some of the examples that we have heard about. However, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point: often, the constituents who come to us with problems are not fully aware of their rights, or of some of the remedies that are available to them. Does he agree that we should be looking at how to raise awareness of those remedies?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. What he has said is what we are all trying to achieve, including the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent and myself.

All parks are inspected annually for compliance with the model conditions during the annual site licensing visit to the park homes. The licence states:

“Fences must not be erected around or near to individual caravans unless they are of non-combustible material and they do not present a safety hazard.”

I felt at the time, and still feel, that many of these people have had these fences in place for 10 or 15 years, and there was never a bit of bother until about three years ago. People planted their wooden palisades, their trees or small bushes, and some council staff then interpreted those things as dangerous.

The council stated:

“While the Council has a duty to ensure compliance…the responsibility rests with the park owner. In this case…the owner had failed to ensure compliance and to recognise that the presence of such combustible materials can assist the rapid spread of fire, and that”

enclosing individual sites

“does not allow for access for emergency vehicles.”

That was what the whole issue was about.

[Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

I urge the devolved Administrations, when examining issues with residential park homes, to look at what this Parliament did with the revised legislation and regulations. I had a steady stream of casework prior to those revisions; I have not had a single piece of casework since. In the light of the residential issues that the hon. Gentleman is talking about, I urge the devolved Administrations to look at what this Parliament has introduced.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; I am just coming to my conclusion, Mr Austin, as you will be glad to hear. The conclusion is that we got to the end of the road and got the problem sorted—hallelujah for that. However, getting it around took a long time. After much deliberation, and by agreement between the park homes and the council, the residents have been permitted to retain the boundary fencing as it does not assist the spread of fire from property to property, which we always said it did not.

That one issue highlights the quagmire that living in a park home can create. We need to have specific, clarified regulation to protect park owners and residents, and to allow a better working relationship with local authorities. Those in park homes are typically retired and sometimes vulnerable people, and I do not feel that the current quagmire of guidance and legal protection offers those people protection. I truly believe that this must change.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Ian Austin (in the Chair)]

I have to call the Front Benchers at 5.10 pm. There are four people who want to speak, so I would be grateful if Members could restrict their remarks to about four minutes.

16:53

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) for raising this issue, and endorse much of what she has said. The holiday park homes in my constituency bring in hundreds of thousands of holiday makers, and their revenue, every year. Those homes are extraordinarily well managed; they produce a very high-quality consumer product; and a huge amount of reinvestment takes place every year to keep that product at its high standard. I am always aware of the problems that I have had with park homes in the past, but those were largely—in fact, exclusively—confined to the residential homes in my constituency. I have never had any difficulty with the holiday homes; they are all extremely reputable organisations.

With respect to the residential homes, by and large, I have again had little difficulty, particularly when they are operated by public limited companies in which there is someone who people can deal with. There are, however, a number of homes run by—I am struggling to find the delicate words to use—people who have neither the social nor managerial skills to make a success of it, if I can put it that way. It is sometimes difficult to contact anyone representing those park homes, and that is the area in which we need to come up with a better form of intervention. The question of “fit and proper person” has been raised, and it is an appropriate question to ask.

One of the issues that many residents of residential homes raise with me is that of the 10% selling-on fee. It is extraordinary to me that people enter into contractual arrangements without advice and without realising what they are letting themselves in for. Nevertheless, if that is to be addressed, we have to recognise that realistically, it is part of the economics of running a park home and we would therefore expect that revenue to be paid for elsewhere in these people’s site fees. However, for park home owners of the nature that I have described, there is always an incentive to increase the turnover of sales by making vulnerable people’s lives miserable so that they move on. Removing that incentive is a clear argument for addressing the issue of the 10% fee.

16:56

[Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) for raising this important issue, which affects a lot of us here. I have visited both residential and leisure park homes in my constituency, and under the correct management, there is no doubt that they can be well-run sites that are great places to live or to go on holiday. However, some of them are in the wrong hands, and bad practice can creep into leisure sites, creating an exploitative way of doing business. The lack of regulation is certainly making that situation worse.

During my visit to a leisure park site in my constituency, I heard accounts from many constituents of maintenance disputes, intimidation and harassment by site management, and rules being changed: one day, those residents could have an outdoor shed, and the next day they could not. One day, they could have plant pots, and then suddenly they could only have three plant pots, with all the rest being smashed. The management was quite threatening, and the residents were definitely frightened.

Even more concerning were reports about mis-selling of leisure homes as permanent accommodation, and unclear contractual arrangements on reselling and pitch fees. There were many stories of people having been sold a dream of selling up and buying a holiday home, with an emphasis on the site being open for most of the year. I was even handed photographic evidence of signage stating that a site was an ideal starter home, and encouraging people to move into those starter homes. In places such as Chichester, where the average house price is over £300,000, that is an attractive offer for many. Of course, all the buyers think is that they have to go on holiday for two weeks, which most of us do. Many of the residents were only given part 1 of their licence agreement during the sales process, with part 2—the terms and conditions—made available only after the sale, or in some cases never supplied. One gentleman I spoke with explained that he had signed his contract despite not seeing all the small print because, after divorcing, he needed to find somewhere to live really quickly.

From those examples, and from others shared by Members today, it is evident that there is a widespread problem of holiday park sites being used residentially, with owners not adequately protected under consumer rights legislation. Of course, local authorities have enforcement powers, but they are concerned about using them: they know that this is going on, but they are concerned about creating a problem that they cannot solve, because if people are made homeless there are not enough homes. If an owner is a member of the National Caravan Council, then they can also use that council to raise concerns. However, not all sites are members. I visited a park home site recently, and it had left the NCC, so there was no means of redress.

Where site owners are guilty of mis-selling, the balance of power is completely in their favour. Residents have no permanent address and possibly no local connection to the area. That can lead to problems registering on the electoral roll, accessing local services or receiving benefits they need. Residents are often too scared to come forward with complaints because they are all too aware of their vulnerable position. They are almost stateless in a way; they do not have any rights. Essentially, they are fearful of being evicted and made homeless. Consumer rights legislation does not offer these grey area residents the same level of statutory protections, such as against harassment or rights over information such as utility charges, as those living on residential sites. I fully support the calls we have heard for the Mobile Homes Act 1983 to be extended to leisure home owners, which would go a long way to evening up the imbalance and protecting the many vulnerable and often elderly residents.

17:00

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) on securing this important debate, and on highlighting a growing problem in the leisure park sector that is devastating the lives of many people, and turning what was supposed to be a dream into a nightmare.

The issue is of interest to me for two reasons. First, the Mobile Homes Act 2013, which was brought in to stamp out abuses in the park homes sector, started off as a private Member’s Bill that I took through the Commons. It appears that the measures introduced by that Act to outlaw rogue site owners have had the unintended consequence that they now focus their attention on holiday parks. Secondly, the holiday parks sector is important in my constituency. Leisure park homes are a vital component part of the tourism industry around Lowestoft and along the Suffolk and Norfolk coast. Generally, those businesses are well run. It is important to bear in mind that the vast majority of site owners are responsible business people.

As I see it, we have to address two issues: the unscrupulous operators who have moved into the sector, and the people who have moved into the parks with the intention of living, rather than holidaying, there. They can be addressed in two ways. First, there is a whole raft of legislation that prohibits mis-selling and fraud, and it should be enforced. That includes the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the Misrepresentation Act 1967, the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and, very importantly, the Fraud Act 2006.

Secondly, responsible site owners should do all they can to ensure that people do not live on parks as their main homes. That means properly checking the purchaser’s home address, and asking for a utility bill and a council tax receipt to confirm it. It means watching out for tell-tale signs that the mobile home might be being used as a permanent home, such as cars leaving and returning at what could be described as commuter times, and washing being on the line throughout the year—in particular, school uniforms being hung out to dry.

My concern about additional legislation is that we would need to ensure that it did not have an unintended negative impact on local economies, many of which are in coastal locations and are fragile and heavily reliant on tourism. Moreover, it has to be pointed out that in many instances local authorities do not enforce existing laws and regulations due to financial restrictions and staff shortages. I have to ask: what is the point of passing new laws that will not be enforced?

We need to get the councils a better local government funding settlement at the forthcoming comprehensive spending review, so that they can properly regulate the sector, applying the rules so as to drive out the rogues who are making many peoples’ lives a misery. My hon. Friend has highlighted a growing problem that must be stamped out, and I will work with her to do that.

17:00

[James Heappey (Wells) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) on securing this debate. The issue has arisen on a number of occasions in my constituency, and I have carried out casework on behalf of people on both sides of the equation. Before I get into that, may I use this opportunity to pay tribute to the emergency services in Somerset, who responded so well to the ceiling that collapsed at Pontins in Brean the other night? A number of people were injured. I hear that the emergency services responded with their usual professionalism and expertise, and ensured that injury and inconvenience were absolutely minimised.

Brean is a wonderful place to go for a holiday. Tens of thousands of people do so every week, all season long, and there are many more caravans and mobile homes in the wider Burnham-on-Sea area. I understand that it is second only to Skegness in the European rankings for concentrations of caravans. We are very proud of that.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

I feel that I should mention that my hon. Friend is completely correct: Skegness is the proud owner of the highest concentration in Europe. While I envy my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) for securing this debate, it is important to set it in context. The overall benefit to the economy of the industry is enormous, and the rogues are small in number, even if their effects are genuinely profound.

[James Heappey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He knows, as I do, that what Brean lacks in quantity as against Skegness, we make up for in quality. I know he agrees with that.

There are effectively four groups affected by the issue. The local community beyond the park are frustrated that there is additional pressure on local services and infrastructure without any due planning process having been followed. Sedgemoor District Council has had to retrospectively allow planning permission to protect the value of the asset that the residents of park homes have spent money on, but there is a lack of consultation and transparency in the planning process when that emergency measure is taken. There is also a loss of tourism revenue, because permanent residents tend not to eat out and use local attractions as much as those visiting for just a week.

The local community is disadvantaged, too. Reputable, law-abiding caravan and leisure parks in the area miss out. There is the reputational risk to the industry of all operators being tarred with the same brush, which is unfair. When this issue arose two or three years ago, Sedgemoor employed a company called Capacitygrid. I am sure it did nothing other than what it was invited to do, but its method of checking that all the tens of thousands of caravans in the Brean area were legit was to be quite harassing in how it did its business, and how it got proof of another address. The park owners had to put up with their residents being affected by that company, which had been instructed by Sedgemoor to go in and check on the scale of the problem.

The local council has to pay for enforcement out of our council taxes. It has the grumpiness that comes with the difficult planning decisions that it needs to take if it is to retrospectively approve the caravans as permanent places of residence. As the caravans are already there, there is none of the community infrastructure levy or section 106 money that would come with a more routine planning decision, so there is none of the development that comes with having secured that money during the planning process.

Most importantly, the residents are so often taken for a ride. They are overly trusting, but they see an opportunity to have a permanent home in a place where they have enjoyed holidaying their entire working life. They take that opportunity and put their life savings into it, only to find that what they have bought is effectively worthless, because there is no planning permission for that residence to be used year round. I have had it reported to me that residents struggle to access local services. They are at the mercy of unscrupulous park owners.

I agree with so much of the expertise that has been shared with us about what could be done. There is plenty of legislation that protects consumer rights, and our first instinct should be to use what is on the statute book, rather than to develop new laws. However, it is important that we address this issue. From my experience in nearly four years as the MP for Wells, I have seen enough of this problem on the coast to know that it is something that the Government should address. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

14:15

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin. I thank the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) for introducing the debate.

For anybody watching, I begin by making clear the distinction between leisure park homes and residential homes, because that is extremely important. The terms are not interchangeable. I completely agree with the concerns about leisure park homes raised by the hon. Lady and others. Leisure park homes can be bought by unsuspecting people in the mistaken belief that they can live in them all year round, when that would be a clear breach of licensing conditions for holiday homes. Those who have purchased a leisure park home must have a permanent residential address elsewhere, as such homes cannot be used as a main residence. That can affect council tax, planning permission requirements and so on, as the hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) said.

Permanent residential park homes, of which I have a couple in my constituency, are not the same; owners can live in those houses full time, all year round. The regulation of those sites is a matter for the Scottish Government. However, clearly the terms and conditions attached to the different kinds of parks—leisure park and permanent residential park homes—need to be made absolutely clear to prospective buyers. As we have heard, that is not always the case.

The situation is complex. With regard to permanent residential homes, I have heard of situations in Scotland where parks are not properly maintained, despite significant charges being levied on residents for that very purpose. In response, the Scottish Government have introduced a new licensing system that gives local authorities enforcement powers that they had not enjoyed before. That means that the local authority can serve improvement notices if the site owner commits a criminal offence in breaching a licence condition.

In addition, the local authority can take the steps set out in an improvement notice if the site owner defaults. Penalty notices can be served, and the local authority can apply to the sheriff for the appointment of an interim manager. Furthermore, emergency action can be taken if there is imminent risk of serious harm to the health and safety of a person. That represents a significant beefing up of local authority powers, and is a response to site managers or owners simply collecting money while not fulfilling their obligations to keep sites maintained to the standard that those with park homes are entitled to expect. Where there are gaps in the law regarding leisure park homes, they should be addressed, as the hon. Member for Chichester pointed out.

Another issue relating to permanent sites that owners are simply not aware of in every case, until they reach the point of resale, is that permanent residential park home owners have to pay sales commissions of up to 10% on the resale of their park home, as the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) pointed out. The question that we must ask is: if residents do not know about the charge, why do they not? Clearly the system is not working as we would wish it to. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, the power supply to these homes is also an area of concern.

[Martin Whitfield]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Patricia Gibson]

We are really short of time; I think the Chair would like me to proceed. I do apologise.

In Scotland, we hope to counter some of those difficulties. All prospective mobile home buyers will now have 28 days’ notice to consider the terms of the agreement before the sale can be concluded. It is important that this group of consumers have the proper protection that they need when choosing to live year-round on licensed permanent mobile home sites, because it is a very expensive undertaking. It is important that the system be transparent, open and fair, both to permanent residential site owners, and to those who choose to live on such sites.

I say to the Minister, as other Members have said, that protections are required to make the system of purchasing leisure or residential homes, and the rights and responsibilities of each party, fair for all concerned and transparent. Those measures need to be in place. As I always say in such debates on devolved matters, it is really important that England looks at what Scotland has done to see what can be learned, and vice versa. We should all pursue best practice, no matter where in the UK we live.

17:14

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin, and to speak in this debate. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) made a convincing case for the need for protection of leisure park homes. She also painted a lovely picture of her constituency. Is it any wonder that people want to go to the rolling hills of the north downs and retire there? What a terrible thing it is when they find that it is not quite what they expected.

We heard tales of pitch fees increasing, and about the culture of fear and mis-selling. The right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) rightly asked who some of the people running these homes are, and what can be done about the problems. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked why nothing had been done, when he has been raising these issues for some years. The hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) talked about people feeling almost “stateless”, which is a strong and apt word.

The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) talked about his role with regard to previous legislation, and made a really important point about the need to protect the tourism industry. Anything that we do must not damage that. The hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey) told us that his area is second only to Skegness in its concentration of caravans, and we must listen to what he has to say.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I am very sorry that I was not here earlier; there were distractions in the House. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is incredibly important to draw a distinction between sites that are badly run and badly managed, where bad practices are endemic, and really well-run sites that have had zero complaints over many years? For example, there is Pinewoods in my constituency, near Wells-next-the-Sea, Searles park in Hunstanton, and McDonnell caravans park. We have a number of really well-run sites with no history of complaints whatever. We need to find a way of ensuring that we drill down and protect those people who need protection, while not damaging those well-run sites.

[Sarah Jones]

I agree with that completely. The poor form tarnishes the whole industry, and people who are doing things well do not, on the whole, object to changes to regulation or legislation because they are already doing what they should be. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.

As we have heard, there are lots of problems that we need to try to fix. Residents in leisure park homes are not afforded the limited protections of mobile home owners on sites with residential planning permission. They do not have the special protections under the Mobile Homes Act 2013, as we discussed. In the Opposition’s view, it is right to call for protections to be extended to residents living permanently in leisure park homes. We should also ask why residents are being sold permanent homes in leisure parks that do not have residential planning permission. It is unclear how widespread that practice is. Perhaps the Minister can tell us her sense of the scale of the problem, and what the Government consider the issues to be.

The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent talked about the protections afforded to residents of park homes through the 2013 Act, but it is worth emphasising that abuses are still happening across all park homes despite those changes in law. There is a need for wider reform. Organisations such as the Park Home Owners Justice Campaign and the Park Homes Policy Forum have worked for years to expose the exploitation of park home residents, which is still ongoing. Park homes have been described to me as

“like leasehold bullying, but with criminal thuggery thrown in.”

We know that 62% of leasehold home owners feel as if they were mis-sold them; I would not be surprised if a similar, or higher, number of park homes residents felt the same way. Just as there are leaseholds with onerous ground rents, park home owners can be charged extortionate pitch fees that can increase rapidly each year. As with leaseholds, hidden clauses in park homes contracts can cause significant hardship down the line; residents have limited routes of redress when things go wrong, and any enforcement is often affected by a lack of transparency and opaque structures.

However, unlike the situation with most leaseholds, park home owners also report, as we have heard, experiencing or being threatened with violence and other illegal activity. We saw that most prominently in the disgraceful treatment of Sonia McColl, a leading campaigner for park homes reform. After campaigning for action on rogue park owners, Sonia had to sell her park home and move due to death threats. She then, astonishingly, had her entire home stolen while waiting for it to be delivered to her new site. She was made an OBE for services to society, but I think society has let her down. I asked her what issues she would like to raise with the Minister; she wants to know, first, when the consumer prices index instead of the retail prices index will be used to calculate the increase in pitch fee, and secondly when independent research will be done on the 10% commission payable to site owners on the sale of residence properties. She will be happy to share the Minister’s response with the 30,000 residents on her database.

I want to give the Minister time to respond, so I will say only a little more. The Government have recognised the systemic problems with park homes, and have promised to legislate on areas such as pitch fee reviews, but they have not done so yet. They have been promising for some time to get a grip on the wider leasehold scandal, but there has been no primary legislation on it. Stronger laws are worthless if they are not enforced; I am sure that the Minister will talk about the duties of local authorities, but in their own recent analysis the Government admitted that the 2013 licensing and inspection powers are not being applied because of a lack of dedicated resource in councils. That is not really a surprise, given the billions of pounds of cuts made to local authorities under this Government.

I hope that the Minister will outline when her Department will introduce the legislation that was promised back in October, and will say how she will support councils that are too strapped for funds to enforce it. The Conservative party claims to be the party of home ownership, but here we are again, talking about homeowners being exploited, mis-selling, exploitative contract terms and excessive fees and commissions charged to residents who were told that they were buying a home, with all the rights and freedoms that that affords. This is the third time today that the Government have been challenged by a member of their own party about the treatment of homeowners on their watch. I look forward to hearing when they will act on their promises.

17:21

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Mrs Heather Wheeler)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) on securing this important debate and on her tireless work on rights and protections for holiday caravan owners. Fifteen other Members have made estimable contributions, and I commend them all; they really know their stuff, and it has been a great debate.

Last year, my hon. Friend brought to my attention her concerns about some terrible issues facing holiday caravan owners on a mixed-use caravan site in her constituency. Since then, she and I have had fruitful discussions to better understand the issues. Some of those issues fall within the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy; I extend my thanks to the Minister for small business, consumers and corporate responsibility—the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst)—for her interest in the matter. We have already had discussions and agreed several actions for both our Departments, and we hope to update my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent on them over the coming weeks.

Several important issues have been raised today about the rights of holiday caravan owners and the challenges that they face. The Government have already introduced significant protections for holiday caravan owners. Planning permission may be granted for part of a site to be used for holiday purposes and other parts for residential purposes; I understand that my hon. Friend’s concerns relate to such mixed-use sites. Sadly, our discussion will not include the information that Sonia McColl was after, because we are talking about holiday sites.

Those who live permanently on the residential part of a mixed-use site are protected under the Mobile Homes Act 1983, but as we have heard, that protection does not extend to holiday caravan owners on the site. The local authority will also issue a site licence once planning permission has been granted, but before I talk about site licensing, let me address my hon. Friend’s queries about the rights of holiday caravan owners.

As my hon. Friend highlighted, some holiday caravan owners end up living permanently on their holiday sites, for complex reasons. Some consumers see holiday caravans as a cheaper option—my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) mentioned the disgraceful situation facing first-time buyers—and may buy them without seeking legal advice, which obviously should not happen. Some holiday caravan owners can end up living permanently on the holiday site because they have been mis-sold their holiday caravan by a rogue site owner who has presented it as being suitable for residential use. That can put them under huge financial pressure, so I understand the suggestion to tackle the problem by extending the protections of the 1983 Act.

The mobile homes legislation, which sets out the contractual relationship between a site owner and a resident, applies only to those on sites with planning permission for residential use. Applying it to all holiday caravan owners would mean such accommodation no longer being available in the tourism sector. As we have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) and for Wells (James Heappey), and from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), it is important that we protect the holiday sector and the many benefits that it provides.

The Government have already introduced significant protections for holiday caravan owners under consumer legislation. What is required is to ensure that prospective purchasers of holiday caravans are aware of the rights and responsibilities available to them under consumer law. The rules, which are designed to protect individual buyers from unfair commercial practices, are set out in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Breaches of those rules are a criminal offence. In 2014, they were supplemented to provide a private right of redress for consumers who have fallen victim to misleading commercial practices such as presenting a holiday caravan as a permanent residence, hiding information, or providing information in an unclear, ambiguous or untimely way.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Wheeler]

Very briefly, dear boy.

[Jim Shannon]

Sometimes purchasers do not know that their property will depreciate massively within a year or two. They need to be told that at an early stage.

[Mrs Wheeler]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman brings luminosity to the problem.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent knows, enforcement of the legislation is the responsibility of the local authority trading standards service. There are already strong penalties for mis-selling by providing misleading advice or omitting material information: it is a criminal offence punishable by a fine on summary conviction, up to the statutory maximum, or up to two years’ imprisonment, as my hon. Friends the Members for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for Wells mentioned.

[Helen Whately]

I am very aware of the mis-selling legislation, but I am sure that the Minister is aware that some residents are truly fearful of going down that route, because they think that they are so vulnerable that they may lose their homes.

[Mrs Wheeler]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Towards the end of my brief speech, I will answer her as best I can.

Another measure that I know is of interest to hon. Members is the fit and proper person test. We have also heard of cases of harassment and intimidation of holiday caravan owners; harassment is a criminal and civil offence, so I advise anyone being harassed to immediately contact the police.

Let me expand on the caravan site licensing requirements that I mentioned earlier in relation to the fit and proper person test. Under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, all caravan sites in England, except those exempted, are required to have a site licence in addition to planning permission. The purpose of licensing is to ensure that sites are safe for residents and other users.

The Mobile Homes Act 2013 amended the 1960 Act to introduce a new local authority site licensing regime, which applies to all “relevant protected sites”, including sites with planning permission for residential use only, as well as mixed-use sites with planning permission for both holiday and residential use. Local authorities’ powers include the ability to issue compliance notices if a site owner breaches their site licence conditions. If an owner fails to comply with a notice, the local authority can prosecute them; if convicted, they face an unlimited fine. The 2013 Act also made provision to introduce a fit and proper person test for site owners and managers of all relevant protected sites, including mixed sites. I know that Members will be pleased to learn that we will publish a technical consultation in the summer and legislate to introduce the scheme when parliamentary time allows.

The issues that we have discussed today are very complex, but I reassure hon. Members that the Government are committed to improving the sector. We have already introduced important legislation to strengthen the rights of consumers, but we know that there is more work to be done. I will continue to work with the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood, to consider what other measures can be taken on consumer protection, to raise consumers’ awareness of their rights when purchasing holiday caravans and traders’ awareness of their legal obligations.

I will arrange a further meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent to update her on the actions that I have set out to undertake. Once again, I congratulate her on securing this debate on such a hugely important matter. It is a pleasure to be in Westminster Hall again.

17:29

[Helen Whately]

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I feel that it has been a very balanced conversation: it has made it clear that the vast majority of those who operate holiday home sites do so in an appropriate and thoughtful way and look after the users of their park homes, but that we need to crack down on the unscrupulous owners.

17:30

Motion lapsed, and sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(14)).

Written Statements

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Written Statements

Wednesday 27 February 2019

Jordan: Growth and Opportunity—The London Initiative 2019

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Penny Mordaunt)]

I wish to update on the London initiative, a major international conference that the UK and Jordan will co-host here in London on Thursday 28 February 2019. The event will convene senior leaders from international Governments and the private sector, and will champion Jordan’s ambitious plans for economic transformation as set out within King Abdullah’s Vision 2025.

Jordan’s stability is inextricable from the UK’s global interests. The UK sees Jordan as a key ally, an island of stability at the heart of a turbulent middle east, and a partner with whom we have enjoyed a mutually supportive relationship for over a century. Jordan’s stability matters to the region; it has been a long-time host to the victims of its neighbours’ conflicts—some 670,000 refugees of the Syria crisis have made their home in Jordan. And it matters to the UK. Jordan has similarly played host to approximately 6,000 UK troops annually for essential training. Jordan matters as a stable buffer against encroaching threats posed by malign influences within the region. It was through the vital use of Jordan’s airspace that 5,000 UK aircraft flew in the fight against Daesh.

But Jordan’s resilience is being tested—not just by the influx of refugees from Syria that it has sheltered with characteristic generosity, but also by long-standing economic challenges which the global financial crisis only exacerbated: a surge in the cost of energy following the Arab spring; the loss of access to key export markets in Syria and Iraq as conflict brought a halt to trade flows; declining remittances and investment following the economic slowdown in the region; and rising interest rates that are pushing up the cost of borrowing and debt repayments.

Jordan’s efforts against these factors have been valiant. Successive Governments have implemented vigorous fiscal adjustments to rein in the size of the public deficit, at times testing the boundaries of the social contract which has held Jordan together since its independence in 1946. And yet, despite apparent political costs, Jordan has persevered, demonstrating a resounding commitment to economic transformation. And not without success—exports increased in 2018, supported by the re-opening of the border with Iraq, while tourism has grown strongly, and credit to the private sector has grown at solid rates for the third consecutive year. However, as Jordan confronts these challenges, the success of its new fiscal policies and macroeconomic reforms still relies on the backing of the international donor community and an upsurge in interest from international businesses.

In November 2017, the Prime Minister announced in Amman that the UK would be entering into a new long-term partnership to support and strengthen Jordan’s resilience in line with HM King Abdullah II’s Vision 2025 for economic transformation. The partnership is framed as a 10-year long relationship between the UK and Jordan recognising Jordan’s importance to the UK today and offering a “whole of government” effort to support the country’s resilience. This is why we are holding the London initiative, an international conference that will rally the international development and finance communities around a new approach to supporting Jordan; an approach that pivots the UK’s support for Jordan away from humanitarian-focused grants and towards developing sustainable economic growth, led by private sector investment and helping Jordan to continue to provide for its population, including its young people, women and refugees. That is not to say that the UK’s humanitarian support for Jordan ends here. The UK remains committed to its humanitarian support for Jordan, including to Syrian refugees, recognising the increased pressure a rising population puts on community services. However, the conference will rally the donor community around a new model for engagement in Jordan—one in which Jordan’s advances in reforms will unlock greater international financial support.

The London initiative will offer an opportunity for the Government of Jordan to demonstrate its commitment to economic transformation on an international platform, and will present Jordan credibly to international businesses as an opportunity for investment. In return, we will deploy an integrated UK “whole of government approach” providing technical expertise and establishing peer to peer partnerships from a range of UK Government departments. For example, HMRC is already working with the Government of Jordan’s Income Sales and Tax Department to design new methods of limiting tax avoidance, exposing tax havens, and improving data collection to better identify leakages in the Jordanian system; and the Department for Education, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and the Bank of England have additionally offered partnerships of their own. But the London initiative will also be a global approach. In keeping with global Britain, we, the UK, will use the full extent of our convening power to leverage global financial and policy backing behind Jordan’s reform vision.

Jordan is ambitiously transforming its economic model, reforming its labour, and taking the right steps to encourage vigorous private sector growth. At the core of its objectives, the London initiative sets out to champion the progress already made in all of these areas.

First, the initiative will be the driving force for the Government of Jordan to present a robust and realistic strategy for unlocking economic growth, underpinned by practical demonstration of its commitment to a package of necessary macroeconomic reforms, including those aimed at attracting private sector investment and increasing women’s participation in the workplace. Secondly, the initiative will invite partners, including the G7 and GCC countries, to promise collective political backing for this vision, following the UK’s lead on an initiative linking aid to reform implementation and unlocking larger volumes of concessional and private finance. Finally, the initiative will also be a showcase for some of Jordan’s most exciting, investment-ready sectors— particularly tourism, infrastructure, ICT and professional services—of which British businesses are already benefitting.

Britain, as a trading nation, relies on strong markets to thrive and through this conference, we are helping support an important ally’s stability whilst building a market of the future. The event will initiate new public-private dialogues championing the Government of Jordan’s pipeline of infrastructure projects ready for investment, new funding vehicles to assist their financing, and their commitment to investment climate and ease of doing business reforms.

As well as bringing together CEOs, international investors and Heads of State from around the world, the conference needs to have an impact that reaches the ordinary people on the streets of Jordan. In particular, it must provide opportunities for women and young people. Jordan’s young, educated and aspirational population has helped position the country as a pioneer in ICT, start-ups and creative industries. All of these, alongside the Government’s commitment to reforms, are reasons to invest in Jordan.

The London initiative on 28 February will be a staging post within the UK-Jordan partnership and the starting point of a long-term growth trajectory that will increase foreign investment and create high-quality jobs for all Jordanians. It should also provide a tangible demonstration of the UK’s leadership on the international stage and will be one of the clearest examples of the potential of global Britain.

Jordan matters to the UK and is a natural partner for a global Britain, a steadfast ally on the frontline of conflict and instability. The conference will be a demonstration of our strong relationship and will pioneer a new model for development in a vulnerable middle-income country, anchored squarely in UK national interest.

[HCWS1363]

Banning Old Tyres: Consultation

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)]

Colleagues across the House will be aware of the potential dangers posed by ageing tyres. In that context I would like to update the House further about potential changes to legislation that the Government are proposing to improve the safety of buses, coaches, heavy goods vehicles and minibuses.

This country has one of the best road safety records in the world. But over 1,700 people were killed last year on UK roads, and we are determined to improve the UK’s road safety record still further. In my written statement to the House on the 13 June 2018 I reported on the progress made toward the ambitious goals listed in the Government’s 2015 road safety statement.

Penalties for using mobile phones while driving have been increased and commitments for police funding to tackle drug driving have been exceeded. Learner drivers can now gain valuable experience of motorway driving when accompanied by an instructor in a car with dual controls.

We are pioneering new mobile breathalyser technologies, supporting the use of photographic and video evidence in police enforcement, and going further than ever before in investigating the causes of road collisions.

However, in recent years the safety of older tyres on heavy vehicles has become a matter of serious concern to my Department, and to this House. This followed a tragic coach crash in 2012 in which three people from the wider Liverpool area lost their lives. Mrs Frances Molloy, whose son Michael was one of those killed, has campaigned unceasingly for a ban on the use of older tyres on buses and coaches.

She has been vigorously supported by the hon Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who has highlighted this issue in a number of parliamentary questions, and tabled a Private Members’ Bill on this subject on several occasions.

Responding to public concerns, in 2013 my Department provided guidance to all bus and coach operators on how to establish the age of the tyres on their vehicles, and against the use of tyres more than 10 years old on the steering axles of those vehicles. This was updated and extended in 2016.

The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency has also been monitoring compliance with the guidance on age: since June 2017 they have inspected 136,263 buses and coaches and found 82 to be non-compliant. I am pleased to say that this represents a non-compliance rate of 0.06% —that is, less than one tenth of 1% of over a 100,000 vehicles inspected.

But I, with the full support of the Secretary of State, have been determined to go further. In May 2018, in response to evidence that emerged from a collision investigation, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency introduced a change to roadworthiness requirements for tyres. In my written statement to this House on 23 November 2018 I announced further measures to address non-compliance with the tyre age guidance, and provide the basis for the Traffic Commissioner to intervene in cases of non-compliance.

Importantly, this guidance also covered the misuse of older tyres not only on buses and coaches, but on all heavy motor vehicles and heavy trailers.

A key constraint on this work has been the absence of robust and objective evidence as to the effect of age on tyre integrity. But we have addressed this issue too. In March 2018 I reported to the House that I had commissioned specialist research to investigate changes in the characteristics of tyres based on their age. I am pleased to tell the House that the investigative element of this pioneering work is complete, and we expect to report on the overall findings later in the spring.

Yesterday in the Coroner’s court there was another awful case involving an old burst tyre which cost the lives of several people. Independent experts came together to testify that here too age was a factor. Their analysis fits with the Department’s own emerging body of evidence.

The Government now intend to consult on options to ban older tyres on heavy vehicles, including legislation that could make it illegal for buses, coaches, heavy goods vehicles, and minibuses to have tyres more than 10 years old. We also intend to extend this consultation to taxis and private hire vehicles. Subject to consultation, we would expect antique and heritage vehicles to be exempt.

I would like to pay tribute to Mrs Molloy, to the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, and to all involved in the Tyred campaign. Road safety affects us all, often in the most direct and personal and distressing way. As this legislation underlines, this Government are committed to ensuring that the UK continues to have some of the safest roads in the world.

[HCWS1362]

Grand Committee

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Grand Committee

Wednesday 27 February 2019

Arrangement of Business

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Grand Committee

Announcement

15:45

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Ullswater) (Con)]

My Lords, if there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.

International Waste Shipments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

15:45

Moved by

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

That the Grand Committee do consider the International Waste Shipments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Relevant document: 14th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B)

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, the primary aim of this instrument is to amend EU and domestic legislation on waste shipments to enable their continued operability. The technical changes contained in this instrument will eliminate the risk that UK regulators would be unable to prosecute for, or prevent, illegal shipments of waste. They also provide legal clarity, certainty and reassurance for UK businesses involved in waste shipments. The legislation is this area is reserved, but this instrument has been the subject of extensive consultation with the devolved Administrations, who are content.

This instrument makes many adjustments, and I will highlight some of them. Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that they are fairly technical in nature.

Part 2 corrects outdated references to the “Department of the Environment” in Northern Ireland to its new name, the “Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs”.

Regulations 14 and 15 omit references to “Community Regulation”. Regulations 16, 17, 42 and 43 omit provisions in the domestic legislation relating to EU bodies, historic transitional provisions and previous revocations, which are all now redundant.

Regulations 18 to 25 make provision for the UK Plan for Shipments of Waste, dated May 2012, to continue to have effect and to be changed in the future.

Regulations 26 to 41 make technical changes to the offence provisions in the domestic regulations. These changes preserve the scope of existing offences and ensure that no new offences are created.

Part 4 removes references to the relevant retained EU law in Annexe XX to the European Economic Area agreement. The references are no longer needed because the retained EU legislation on waste shipments has been amended so that it sets out all of the rules which govern shipments to or from EFTA countries.

Regulations 46, 47, 50, 63 and 105 to 108 amend the scope of retained EU law to make it clear that it applies to waste shipments to, from or through the UK; they also correct definitions and out-of-date references to EU legislation.

Regulation 48 amends definitions and make technical changes to ensure that references to competent authorities and references to the 2008 waste framework directive, which appear throughout the retained EU legislation, will continue to be effective.

Regulations 52 and 53 make technical changes that preserve the existing powers of the regulators to object to notifiable waste shipments for disposal or recovery. The draft instrument substitutes references to principles in the EU’s waste framework directive with Basel convention obligations to have adequate disposal facilities and to minimise the movements of hazardous wastes and to ensure that shipments of wastes are only allowed if the state of export does not have the facilities to dispose of the wastes in question in an environmentally sound manner. The changes also ensure that regulators can continue to object to proposed shipments where the destination operates to lower environmental standards than those in the UK.

Regulation 69 omits Article 33 of the EU regulation, as this requires member states to set up systems for internal waste movements consistent with the system used between member states. Given that the UK has a system for internal waste movements, these provisions are considered redundant.

Regulation 91 makes a number of amendments to enforcement provisions. The provisions of Article 50 have already been implemented in the UK and so some of these provisions are redundant and can be omitted. The changes made preserve the requirement for a national inspection plan.

In addition, Regulation 91, and Regulations 92, 94 and 96 make changes that preserve obligations to report to the secretariat of the Basel convention, publish information and omits obligations to designate competent authorities and provide information to the European Commission.

Regulation 95 makes technical changes that maintain a power for the Secretary of State to designate places where waste entering or leaving the United Kingdom will be controlled.

Although there was no statutory requirement to consult on this instrument, Defra officials have engaged with industry and NGO representatives. The Explanatory Memorandum refers to,

“a large face-to-face event”.

In fact, there have been two large events and a number of one-on-one meetings with industry representatives to explain this instrument’s approach. No substantive comments or issues were raised, and questions received related to clarification on how the existing processes will function after the UK leaves the EU.

The Committee will be aware that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised concerns about the UK’s ability to continue exporting hazardous and other notifiable waste to the EU in a no-deal scenario. On the basis of those concerns, the committee recommended that this instrument should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. It highlighted a transitional issue with the validity under EU law of approvals to ship notified wastes where those approvals extend beyond the date of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. The Committee will be pleased to hear that this issue has now been largely resolved.

Should the UK leave the EU without a deal, the UK regulators have obtained agreement from their EU counterparts that 98% of the approvals to ship notifiable waste to the EU can continue in their current form. No new applications will be required to allow the export of these wastes, and there will be no additional administrative costs associated with the approvals process. Spain is the only member state still to provide a response to 11 approvals. Defra officials have met with officials from the Spanish ministry of environment. Given that these shipments have previously been approved, there is agreement on both sides that it is important to avoid unnecessary duplication.

These adjustments represent no changes of policy. While there was no statutory duty to conduct an impact assessment, in developing these instruments we have sought to ensure the minimum disruption to businesses involved in the shipment of waste through retaining existing law. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for setting out the background to this instrument, which I welcome. I would like to ask a couple of questions.

The Minister referred to a national plan being in place. Has anyone voiced concerns about this plan? Are they entirely happy with it? At what date will that national plan kick in?

I think that my noble friend has addressed the concerns raised by Sub-Committee B of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, but there was a scenario referred to whereby 556 UK approvals to export notified waste to the EU, with an associated tonnage of just under 25 million tonnes, might be caused to fall into an abyss. Can my noble friend put my mind at rest that the situations in paragraphs 3.6 and 3.7 on page 3 of the Explanatory Memorandum have been resolved?

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I would also like to thank the Minister very much for participating in a meeting—I only managed to get to the very end of it, but the invitation was there. I also congratulate her on making what seems like a mundane statutory instrument really exciting through the enthusiasm of her reading.

However, this is an exciting issue, and it is a global issue. This whole market has fundamentally changed since the beginning of last year—almost a year ago—when China refused imports of what it called low-grade plastic, anything below about 99.7% pure plastic recyclate. Since then, that tide of waste from the developed world to the developing world has now been stopped by Thailand temporarily, as well as by Vietnam and Malaysia. We had the irony of President Trump blaming Asia for the litter that was washing up on the west coast of America, when of course most of it had already been exported from developing countries, particularly the United States, to east Asia. I will come back to this theme at the very end, but I want to put this SI in the context of an important issue and a quickly changing world.

Perhaps I could go through a few questions about the SI itself. I understand from it that we are, obviously, already members of the OECD and tied by those regulations and agreements, but are also we signed up not just as a member state of the EU but as a member in our own right to the Basel convention, which covers this area, so that we do not have to have a treaty change for that?

I was interested that the Minister mentioned Spain and, as I understand it from her, we have got to a stage where we are agreeing to agree but have not actually agreed. I understand also that the SI’s territorial limitations are to the United Kingdom. Does the Minister have any information about the relationship between Gibraltar and mainland Spain regarding its waste disposal? I think that the overseas territory—that is its status—relies very much on Spain for that as well. I do not know whether that is included as part of the negotiations going on at the moment.

I note the Minister’s remarks on consultation, but I would be interested to understand whether waste contractors and waste exporters have now been sent precise instructions on what they have to do.

I found the actual form on page 33 of the SI rather quaint. It read a little like one of those forms you get when you go to the United States, which says, “Have you indulged in terrorist activities recently?”, as if you are going to casually tick that for yes. I was quite surprised to see such a 1950s-style document here, but perhaps it is all computerised. I would be interested to understand that from the Minister.

I want to be clear on another area which affects all these things. As we know, Defra is the department that has suffered more cuts under our fiscal regime than pretty well any other department, outside that for local government—the MHCLG, as it is now. Does the Environment Agency have the capacity to take on any additional responsibilities in this area, particularly given the rise in waste crime that there has been? Frankly, I suspect that the amount of waste crime internally in the UK is absolutely dwarfed by the amount of potential exported material that should not be exported. Despite saying that we should not export waste to countries that have lower environmental standards than us, I see no track record of that whatever.

I come back to the fundamental point I made at the beginning. I read through the resources and waste strategy published by Defra at the end of last year. Chapter 6 of that is entitled “Global Britain: international leadership”, and I could not see anywhere in it a wish to stop this trade in waste, so that we would clean up our own backyard and no longer send that waste to other parts of the world. The greatest thing about this SI ought to be that it should become absolutely redundant within five to 10 years.

16:00

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I join in thanking the Minister and her officials for a useful and helpful discussion yesterday. It was probably intended to answer questions to shorten this debate, but unfortunately it gave me more things to think about after the discussion, so it may not have achieved its end. However, I appreciate the trouble the Minister and her officials went to to answer questions and to brief us.

I appreciate this SI is based on the Basel convention, which is not an EU convention, and therefore it is quite right that we should conform to it. I also hope that the bulk of what we are talking about will be proved unnecessary if we do not crash out of the EU, as some people fear. I am not sure whether yesterday’s discussions in the House of Commons have made that easier, but that is not for debate today. I understand that something has to be done, even if we leave the EU on the basis that the Government are suggesting, as some elements of this will have to be carried over eventually, but that is not for today.

There is obvious concern about Spain and Gibraltar but not because there may not be a simple answer. I read in the papers that the Spanish Government are concerned about Gibraltar and may be using this and other measures to bring pressure to bear on our Government about the future of Gibraltar. The danger is that this may drag on beyond the exit date—although we now probably have three months longer—but what happens if the Gibraltar and Spain issue is not resolved by the time we leave the EU? How many businesses will be affected? What is the position there? The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was,

“concerned that any refusal by a competent authority to treat an existing approval as valid could have an impact on the UK’s ability to export notified wastes”.

If we cannot reach an agreement with Spain in time, we would presumably have to have new agreements with other countries to get rid of the waste there, or are we stuck with it? What is going to happen?

I have a few more questions beyond Spain and Gibraltar. Do the Government expect an additional workload for the UK’s competent authorities—the Environment Agency, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales—as a result of Brexit? What will be the cost to taxpayers of any additional workload?

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee recommended that the instrument should be upgraded,

“to the affirmative procedure so that the House may consider any potential impact on UK manufacturers”.

Can the Minister tell us a little more about what impact there might be on British manufacturers? Is there an impact assessment somewhere, or do the Government feel one is not necessary?

Paragraph 6.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which is perhaps easier to understand than the main document—that is not surprising—states:

“Provisions …. on waste shipments, which transfer legislative powers from the European Commission to the Secretary of State, are included in a separate cross-cutting transfer of legislative functions instrument relating to the environment”.


Is that a different statutory instrument? If so, which is it, when will it be published and how does it relate to the SI we are discussing now?

Paragraph 7.4 states that, in the event of no deal,

“UK exporters will need to familiarise themselves with the customs guidelines the EU has laid down for imports of waste from outside the EU”.


What have the Government done to publicise these guidelines to UK exporters? What is the cost to UK exporters if we leave the EU without a deal?

Paragraph 7.6 states that the instrument is:

“Amending references to the EU and EU institutions and administrative processes to UK equivalents”.


What are the UK equivalents? What is the cost to the UK taxpayer for this additional workload? Will the UK equivalent institutions need to take on new members of staff to handle the administrative processes? How many new members of staff have already been hired to deal with this?

Paragraph 7.8 states:

“A number of amendments … on waste shipments are not included in this instrument but will instead be contained within a separate cross-cutting statutory instrument relating to the environment”.


Which SI is that? Is it the one I asked about earlier? Has it already been published? If no, when will it be?

Paragraph 10.2 states:

“Government informally engaged stakeholders at a large face-to-face event … No substantive comments or issues were raised”.


What stakeholders did the Government engage with? What were their concerns?

Finally, I am not trying to pull a fast one, but page 29 of the instrument refers to Article 55 under the heading “Designation of frontier crossing points”. I must ask about Northern Ireland; the Minister is nodding. Is any waste going back and forth between Northern Ireland and the Republic? If so, what are the implications of this designation on the wider discussions concerning an open border between the United Kingdom and the Republic? I should have given the Minister some warning about the last point; she will not have been expecting it, but I thought I should make it anyway.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions, especially the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, whose approach to this SI has been particularly forensic—I hope that he will do many more. I will address some of the issues raised today. A number of questions were asked that go into slightly more detail beyond the nugget of legislation that noble Lords are looking at today. I will therefore probably write a letter in addition to what I say today, particularly on the border crossing issue, which goes far beyond the scope of our considerations. I hope that I can answer noble Lords’ questions and put their minds at rest.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh mentioned the UK plan. I assure her that there are no concerns about the UK plan; it has been in place since 2012 and will continue.

Furthermore, my noble friend referred to the 556 approvals. She is quite right: when this instrument was laid, it looked like we had a mountain to climb in getting this waste approved and out of the country. I am pleased to say that this is an example of us working really well with our EU counterparts, who recognise the same as us that the shipment of this type of waste is hugely beneficial on both sides. It is an economic arrangement and makes sure that we get our waste treated in the right place, particularly where we do not have the capacity to do it ourselves.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned the trade in waste, both with China and more generally. If we lived in a perfect world, we would be able to dispose of and treat waste in our own nations, and that would continue for ever. However, some waste has a greater economic value to other countries or they have greater facilities to process that specific sort of waste, so I cannot see a future, at least in the short term, where we will ban all waste exports, because we simply cannot deal with some waste ourselves. However, we want to promote UK-based recycling and export less waste to be processed abroad. We are looking at a suite of measures, such as increasing the monitoring of international waste shipments and charging higher fees to improve compliance. We set out all these ideas in the recent resources and waste strategy, as the noble Lord will know, and we will publish more detailed plans soon.

The instrument retains the prohibition on the export of waste for disposal to countries outside the EU or the European Free Trade Association. The export of hazardous or household waste for recovery to countries outside the OECD is prohibited. Where we export waste destined for recycling to countries such as China—there will be other examples—that are better able to cope with this sort of waste, they will have specified which wastes they are willing to import and the procedures that UK exporters must follow are very well set out.

[Lord Teverson]

Do we have officials who check what happens to this stuff once we have exported it outside the EU and EFTA? Do we follow the supply chain and check what happens to it?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I would not want to confirm that 100%, but I hope very much that that is the case. I will investigate exactly what happens in the supply chain in order to find out whether we know exactly what happens at the other end. I think that all noble Lords will find that interesting; I know that I certainly would.

Turning to the Basel convention, I can confirm that we are members in our own right and that in fact we play a leading role within the convention in the way that it moves forward. We ensure that we get the best environmental outcomes from that particular organisation. That will remain the case and noble Lords should be reassured in that regard.

On Gibraltar, we are working closely with the Government of Gibraltar to support their EU exit preparations on waste shipments. Where the UK has 11 approvals outstanding, Gibraltar currently has 45 consents to ship waste to Spain which extend beyond exit day, and these will require reapproval by the Spanish authorities. It is a transitional issue for approvals to ship waste which have already been consented to. The EU legislation provides a framework for where consent has yet to be granted. Gibraltar is covered by the UK’s ratification of the Basel convention and our membership of the OECD, so there is no legal impediment to Gibraltar continuing to ship waste to Spain after our departure from the EU. If no agreement is reached within the next short period of time, what will happen is that Gibraltar would put forward new applications which will be submitted from 30 March onwards. Again, there is no legal impediment to those applications being agreed to. There will be a slight break in the continuity of service, but we do not think that it would be for very long. The Environment Agency has spoken to the affected exporters and contingency plans are being made.

I turn now to consultation, an issue which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. This is a technical instrument and, if I may coin a phrase, nothing has changed. Much of what happens already will continue to happen. Organisations will get their approvals. There will be two countries working together, and the waste will go from A to B. However, it is important that we make sure that everyone is aware of the plans we have in place. As I explained earlier, we have held events where we talked to the stakeholders involved in this area. The conversations were focused strongly on contingency planning and encouraging them to make sure that they are ready for Brexit, if it is a no-deal Brexit, on 29 March. We have issued a technical notice on the continuity of waste shipments which was published on 14 October.

A number of questions were asked about costs and resourcing. I would like to reassure noble Lords that much of this will not change. The amount of enforcement which has to happen will stay the same, and the number of applications which have to be submitted to a certain office in a certain place will also remain as it is. We do not foresee any significant changes in costs or additional resources being required as a result of us leaving the EU without a deal. The systems are already in place, and we are confident that they will continue.

I would like to respond to some of the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. He mentioned the sister—or brother—legislation, which has been mentioned. This is happening with some of the no-deal SIs, in particular Defra SIs. Some of the cross-cutting SIs are picking up various issues from other SIs and putting them into one because they sit more comfortably with each other. The SI we are talking about is the Environment and Wildlife (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. These regulations were approved by the House of Lords on 12 February and the instrument was then passed by the House of Commons on 14 February. That piece of legislation has gone through and, once this instrument has gone through, the two will combine together and the SI will be made.

Turning now to the imports of waste from Ireland and the impact on the Irish border— which again I will try to answer as much as possible—we have in the past agreed to allow imports of hazardous waste to the UK for specialist disposal, for example, by high-temperature incineration. This has been at the request of the Irish Government, and these imports have been agreed on the basis that suitable disposal facilities are not available in Ireland. This is the same for many countries when they work together on these transactions. When the UK leaves the EU, such import of waste for disposal from EU member states will be prohibited under EU law. If EU member states wish to continue to export waste to the UK for disposal—that is, from Ireland to Northern Ireland—it will be for the EU to amend its legislation to make this possible. So it will not be possible in the future. In 2017, the UK imported 12,973 tonnes of waste from Ireland. Of this, 7,978 tonnes of hazardous waste was imported to England for HTI.

I shall probably stop at this point on the Northern Ireland-Irish border issue. I can see myself getting into hot water around it, and it would be sensible for us to give a considered response on this specific issue.

However, in general terms, I hope noble Lords will agree that the SI does what it says on the tin and keeps as much the same as possible. We hope it will not be needed in the future, but if it is, we know that the international transfer of waste will happen in an orderly fashion. I commend the Motion to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Veterinary Medicines and Animals and Animal Products (Examination of Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:17

Moved by

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Veterinary Medicines and Animals and Animal Products (Examination of Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Relevant document: 14th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A)

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)]

My Lords, veterinary medicines are tightly regulated here in the United Kingdom and in Europe. They are essential for the treatment of animals and ensuring animal welfare but can also present a risk to human health and the environment. If misused, they can affect human health directly or may enter the natural environment, causing long-lasting damage. The UK’s existing Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013 set out the requirements on the manufacture, authorisation, supply, possession and administration of veterinary medicines in the UK.

Separately, the surveillance of residues from veterinary medicines in animal produce is an important safeguard to provide assurance that any meat, eggs or milk consumed is free from harmful residues of medicines used in animals. The Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015 provide for a surveillance programme for residues in England and Scotland. These regulations adopt the level of permissible residues set by the EU and also prohibit the use of certain substances as growth promoters. As residues surveillance is a devolved matter, there is equivalent secondary legislation covering Wales and Northern Ireland.

The Government share the British public’s high regard for animal welfare and the need for safe and effective veterinary medicines. These regulations address technical deficiencies in our veterinary medicines legislation to ensure that it continues to operate effectively when we leave. They will ensure that the legal framework continues to provide an effective regime for the regulation of veterinary medicines through which we can safeguard the well-being of our animals. The instrument does not diminish the high standards in the established veterinary medicines and residues surveillance regimes. I emphasise that the amendments in this instrument are to ensure operability and that the high safety standards we have in place will continue. I particularly emphasise, given the reference in the Explanatory Memorandum to some concerns, that these regulations—I repeat this on the record—are for nothing other than to retain the high safety standards that we all desire and must have in this country.

The UK’s regulator, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, is already established as one of the leading regulators in Europe for veterinary medicines and will continue to lead on the international stage. The current legislation is designed to work in the context of EU membership. Some elements will therefore not work sensibly in a national context. Part 3 of this instrument amends the existing national legislation. For example, the mutual recognition provisions for medicine approvals between member states are no longer relevant. Similarly, approvals of generic marketing authorisations rely on the sharing of information between member states, and cannot continue to operate in the same way. Minor corrections are also made to the text to address references concerning EU membership which are no longer accurate or appropriate.

The instrument introduces a change in relation to the location of holders of marketing authorisations for veterinary medicines, which is needed as a consequence of leaving. Marketing authorisation holders must be established in the UK. As set out in the Explanatory Memorandum, this may result in a small increase in cost to those marketing authorisation holders currently based outside the United Kingdom. This is necessary to ensure that there are appropriate regulatory controls to ensure full compliance with UK law and standards, and that all marketing authorisation holders are treated equally. It is vital that marketing authorisation holders can be held accountable for their products, and these regulations provide for that.

Part 4 of the regulations sets out the necessary amendments to retained EU regulations. Regulation 470/09 sets out how maximum residue limits for substances used as veterinary medicines are set. MRLs are the maximum safe limit of a particular substance in produce from animals. These limits are used to establish withdrawal periods—the period that must elapse after the last administration of a medicine before produce from that animal may enter the food chain.

The Government have proactively engaged with the animal health industry to ensure that the regulatory regime continues to function effectively after exit day. I have met the veterinary pharmaceutical industry association, the National Office of Animal Health, on a number of occasions as part of our extensive engagement. Officials from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate continue to hold regular meetings with key industry representatives. Industry has welcomed our proactive and continued engagement with them. We have also worked comprehensively with the devolved Administrations on this instrument where it relates to devolved matters, and they have given their consent to this instrument being made on a UK-wide basis.

The Government are committed to ensuring continued levels of protection for human and animal health, as well as making it straightforward for businesses to put products on the market; and ensuring UK businesses and individuals can continue to access a range of veterinary medicines. This instrument will help to maintain the established veterinary medicines and residues surveillance regimes, and ensure that an effective regulatory framework for veterinary medicines is in place. It remedies deficiencies in the law to enable that operability and I beg to move.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explicit and clear explanation of these regulations. I have very little quibble with them, but just a few points. As he emphasised, a significant change is to require the holders of market authorisations to be registered in the UK. This will impose a small burden. About £100 was estimated in the Explanatory Memorandum, which seems extremely reasonable and justified, because this measure is required to bring the market authorisation holders under UK legal jurisdiction. That is clearly extremely important to protect animal health and public safety.

The monitoring of residues, to which the Minister referred, is extremely important. As he mentioned, it is devolved. Can he tell us which processes are, or will be, in place between the devolved authorities in the UK to ensure that we maintain consistent levels and standards, so as not unduly to interfere with internal trade within the UK? I was going to ask the Minister about the concerns raised by your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in relation to the lowering of standards, but I accept his assurance that those concerns are unfounded.

Finally, I make a plea to the Minister, which I am sure he will fully understand. These regulations will significantly increase workload for the regulatory departments in our pharmaceutical companies, which form an important industry in the UK. I ask him to ensure that at least some degree of understanding and flexibility applies to the government agencies responsible for interacting with those companies. All in all, however, this is a very satisfactory SI.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on introducing this SI. I am not a vet but an associate fellow of the British Veterinary Association, and I am grateful for the briefing it has given me for today’s purposes. I want to press the Minister on the question of the potential cost. Historic and current approvals will obviously remain in place, but can he put my mind at rest on what the future cost will be? Can he also assure the Committee that the SI before us this afternoon will not potentially raise a barrier to trade?

In particular, I understand that the previous harmonisation and mutual recognition of products will not necessarily go forward. It is good that we are being nice about products coming this way, but will the Minister ensure that those going the other way will be equally assured? I understand that reciprocity will not be guaranteed in the event of no deal. I do not disapprove of the SI; I understand the absolute need for it, and welcome it. But what is happening to ensure reciprocity going forward?

Can my noble friend also give a hint to the Committee—this could be in the SI; I might have missed it—of what the cost would be of placing a veterinary product from the UK across the EU? That would be most helpful to know, as I understand that there will potentially be additional costs going forward. Could this lead to some companies, which might otherwise have chosen to establish themselves in the UK, choosing not to do so? This is one of the concerns that was expressed by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee Sub-Committee A, as it could mean a reduction in the number of veterinary medicines being available after exit. I assume this is something that the SI deals with. There are two sides to the coin. One is that a new product is going to cost more to be placed in another EU member state, or potentially an EEA country, even in spite of this. The flip side is that a company that may have wished to place itself in the UK may have second thoughts about doing so. Will this cover the situation if there is no deal, as the statutory instrument before us will presumably replace what would have been a transition period?

16:30

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, as a tenderfoot in no-deal SIs, I seem to have landed on my feet in a comparatively soft zone. No one I have received briefing from thinks that this, unto itself, is a bad thing. That seems to be the general consensus. Although there are going to be small rising costs—and as we have just heard, there is always the danger that we will be going into a world that is not as good for trade as Europe as it was before—that probably comes with the territory. We will have to accept that, if this SI comes into being; that is the reality of what we have here.

My only question is—and the briefest of thumbnail sketches is all I would require—what would be the alternative? Some idea about what might be happening or what might be the other way might put in context whether this is necessary at the moment. Most of the time, everybody says it is good, but if we do not do this, what else would be available? We had a brief look at the briefing meeting which the noble Lord very kindly arranged. A little hint at what else is available might let us stare a little closer into this pool of reality that comes with these documents.

[Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as I have horses. One issue of particular concern relates to the deletion of the requirement to retest horses entering the UK for disease when initial test results are inconclusive. The omission of this requirement suggests diseased horses will potentially be allowed to enter the UK without adequate care or protection for other animals and human health after the UK leaves the EU. Does this mean that we—

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

May I help the noble Baroness? I have a slight feeling that this might be in tune with the next SI, on the animal products and arrangements, rather than veterinary medicines, but I may have got that wrong.

[Baroness Masham of Ilton]

I had 2019.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

They are all 2019.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Just to make it easy.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

This may well come into the trade and animal-related products SI.

[Baroness Masham of Ilton]

I will repeat it then.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

Thank you for the forward notice.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this SI and his helpful briefing beforehand and all noble Lords who have spoken. As the EM set out, this is an important issue for animal welfare, the safety of treated animals, the people handling the medicines, consumers and the environment. It is important that we get the regulation of veterinary medicines right for the future. We know, for example, that the overuse of antibiotics in animals is contributing to a developing public health crisis, as resistance and immunity to their impact becomes more widespread. It is very important that we are able to continue to harness the best and latest scientific advice to control the use of veterinary medicines.

The EM also made it clear that a partner SI will set the future maximum residue limits. Unfortunately we do not have before us today. We have debated why that happens on many occasions, and I will not repeat those arguments.

Both the Lords and Commons Scrutiny Committees recommended that this SI should be upgraded from a negative to an affirmative procedure. They did so for two reasons, which I would like to explore in more detail. First, they had concerns about the new requirement on holders of marketing authorisations for veterinary medicines to be based in the UK. The Minister has already explained in a little detail why this is necessary. The Explanatory Memorandum states that 90 companies would have to establish a UK base. Can the Minister say whether we have concerns about the quality of any authorisations currently being carried out by these 90 companies? The cost of registering a UK base seems insignificant, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and others have said, the Scrutiny Committees were concerned that some of the companies would not simply bother to register and would therefore not be able to authorise EU veterinary products being imported to the UK. Can the Minister explain the consequences for animal health if this were to happen? Could there be a shortage of products? Has any risk assessment been carried out to ensure that this will not be the case?

Can the Minister also respond to concerns that if we banned products from EU companies that did not have a base in the UK, the EU could retaliate and ban UK-authorised products in the EU? Can he clarify whether products authorised by UK marketing companies will still be valid in the EU after exit? This is particularly concerning given that mutual batch testing would cease after Brexit. This would mean that additional checks for veterinary medicines manufactured in the UK and exported to the EU would have to apply. Is any dialogue taking place to ensure that these trade issues are resolved? Has an assessment of the risks to UK research and business been carried out?

The EM gives the reason for requiring a UK base as being to facilitate enforcement, as the Minister said. It goes on to say:

“The ability to prosecute a holder in appropriate circumstances is an important deterrent to bad practice”.


Can the Minister explain what these bad practice risks are? Which UK agency would prosecute the companies if bad practice continued to exist? Have there been any prosecutions in recent memory? I am trying to get to the bottom of where that concern really lies.

The Scrutiny Committee also raised concerns about the potential lowering of safety standards in respect of certain amendments. Clearly this is a scenario we would want to avoid at all costs. The SI appears to retain many of the standards currently in operation within the EU. Can the Minister confirm that we will comply with EU regulatory standards or standards at least as stringent as those currently in place?

We will no longer have the checks and balances on standards which the EU offers. Responsibility for some decisions will now be delegated to the Secretary of State. For example, under Paragraph 22, the veterinary medicines regulations are amended to say that before placing an immunological product on the market, written approval must be sought from the Secretary of State. Can the Minister clarify which agency or department will be authorised to give this approval and what scientific evidence will be required?

With regard to applications for new or amended residue limits, page 9 refers to an appropriate authority producing an assessment report with a risk assessment. In this case the appropriate authority is again defined as the Secretary of State, so will he, in effect, be making a recommendation to himself? Can the Minister clarify how the responsibilities will be defined so that there is a separate assessment and decision-making function?

There are several references to exporting countries having,

“equivalent medicines regulation standards to those of the United Kingdom”.

Can the Minister clarify who will determine whether those standards are equivalent?

For the avoidance of doubt, can the Minister state categorically that there is nothing in this SI that would enable the USA to start exporting hormone-injected beef to the UK? He will know that this is a matter of great concern to the British public. I look forward to his response.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I am most grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. We will consider another SI which is yet to clear JCSI. I want to put on record that I am fully seized of the point that statutory instruments should be grouped together wherever possible, appropriate and helpful to your Lordships in scrutinising regulations.

Although I mentioned it in my opening remarks deliberately, I emphasise again that this SI is absolutely about continuing existing high standards for veterinary medicines and ensuring that UK businesses and individuals can continue to access as wide a range of veterinary medicines as possible. I specifically reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that there is no way that this statutory instrument can do anything to unpick the existing ban on hormone growth promoters, as it is already in UK law. I repeat emphatically that this is not the purpose or intent of these regulations.

A number of your Lordships mentioned the requirement for marketing authorisation holders to be established in the UK, which will result in a small additional cost—there are references to £100 and a further annual fee of £40. We believe it is necessary to ensure the safety and effectiveness of UK medicines and that all companies can be held accountable for the medicines they market. We have endeavoured to make this process as simple and robust as possible. The cost of establishing a UK presence is small compared with the overall cost of developing a medicine and bringing it to market. We do not believe that companies will be discouraged from bringing their products to the UK market. All new companies wishing to market products in the UK may continue to manufacture medicines in Europe and elsewhere, but as a company they must be established here in the UK.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, is right that we considered alternatives when preparing this in order to provide the same assurance that the products in question are safe and effective. Final manufacturing and product surveillance assurance processes would have been required to take place in the UK under that alternative. That would mean moving manufacturing processes and staff and would certainly have resulted in significant increases in costs to industry. This is why we chose the option that we believe provides the necessary assurances that we would require with the least impact on and cost to business. As the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said, it is a reasonable and proportionate response to what these instruments intended.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh raised the issue of UK companies wishing to market products in the EU. At this stage, the European Medicines Agency has been clear on its expectations. Marketing authorisation holders, final manufacturing certification and post-authorisation surveillance must all be located in the EU. As I have said, our approach has been somewhat different. We have intentionally intended to be pragmatic. We think that is the right way forward. On whether there will be any changes in the arrangements, this is the position as we understand it at the moment. I think this is an area where continuing collaboration is important.

I profoundly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, about the imperative of reducing the use of antibiotics in livestock. We must reduce it in humans too. In livestock, there has been a 40% reduction already. We need to go further for all the reasons we understand about animal and human resistance.

16:45

On working with industry, there has been considerable engagement with NOAH and the Veterinary Pharmacy Association, and officials from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate are having continuous meetings with key industry representatives. As I have said, industry representatives have said to me that they welcome this continued and proactive engagement.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, I have had no indication from the industry that companies have decided not to continue marketing products in the UK. Indeed, we are a nation with considerable livestock and animal interests as animal lovers. The UK animal medicines market is worth in excess of £645 million per annum. The additional costs which will result from this regulation have been acknowledged by many of those I have spoken to as being very small compared with the extremely high costs of developing and marketing veterinary medicines. The whole point of this statutory instrument is to ensure that this country has the appropriate medicines we need to look after animals.

Bad practice was another point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. Broadly speaking, it means operating outside the scope of the regulatory regime. In this context, that would include failing to report adverse reactions to the VMD or changing a product specification without going through the necessary regulatory approvals. I have not been made aware of any examples of such practices, but if I do hear of any, I will write to the noble Baroness and send a copy to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. This is an important feature of the necessary regulatory approvals. We should ensure at every turn that if there are adverse reactions or if there is a change in a product specification, the VMD must be informed.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about the cost of placing products in the EU. As I understand it, the reality is that costs will vary across member states. Due to the complexities of the products, member states are able to set their own fees depending on the number of countries involved and the costs incurred by the individual assessment authorities. I cannot give precise figures to assist my noble friend but, again, if I have any further detail, I will be in contact.

This is about bringing these matters back into the national context and ensuring that there is confidence that it is done robustly. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, asked about the scrutiny arrangements of Ministers. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate is the UK’s competent authority for veterinary medicines and authorises medicines on behalf of the Secretary of State. There is an established statutory appeal mechanism set out in the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013 for anyone who is aggrieved about a decision made under those regulations. This instrument does nothing to reduce or diminish those protections. Regulation 28 of the 2013 regulations provides for an appeal to be made to the Veterinary Products Committee while Regulation 29 provides for an appeal to a person appointed by the Secretary of State to hear the appeal. Once these routes of appeal have been exhausted, the applicant may bring forward judicial review proceedings in respect of the Secretary of State’s final decision.

It is important to emphasise that the VMD is recognised across the EU as having considerable experience and a very strong scientific standing. It is acknowledged across Europe as one of the best-performing national EU regulators. It already undertakes a substantial amount of scientific assessment work, the majority of which takes place at national level, so there is a high degree of continuity. Indeed, the VMD has an excellent reputation not only within Europe, but internationally based on the strength of its scientific and regulatory expertise. The industry across the EU uses VMD as one of the lead agencies because of its reputation for excellence.

On scientific expertise and advice, it is important for me to express that in the national context, we will be well protected. VMD already has considerable expertise, but it also has access to independent advice and can draw on the expertise of the UK’s Veterinary Products Committee. The committee’s membership includes academics with expertise in ecotoxicology, toxicology, the fate of veterinary medicines in the environment and residues in food. In other words, we believe that considerable expertise is already available to us.

The noble Lord, Lord Trees, mentioned consistency. VMD co-ordinates on a UK-wide basis and meets all DAs yearly to set the annual residues control plan to ensure consistency. More generally on all these matters, in the framework and understanding in respecting the devolved arrangements, the common link and common standards, particularly in areas such, as this are well understood by the devolved Administrations. As I said, their engagement was very much alive on this instrument.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about authorisation costs. In the UK, the costs will remain the same. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, mentioned product quality. There are no specific concerns about any of the products from holders currently based outside the UK but, clearly, we need to ensure robust assessment to keep animal and human health safe.

Other points were made. On our arrangements and approach, which I described to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I say to my noble friend Lady McIntosh that we do not wish there to be any barriers to trade. We wish to collaborate and work to ensure that animal medicines are available in this country. In working with NOAH and industry, everyone is seized of the importance of this issue. I will study Hansard because I want to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, with specific details on mutual batch-testing.

In our arrangements with the EU, we all want a deal that reflects the importance of collaboration. That is precisely because in this country, we have expertise that the Europeans wish to use and we in turn wish to work with them. This is a strong area in which we wish to work collaboratively.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My specific concern is about whether we have told the EU that we plan to bring in UK-based registration. Is there a danger of some kind of tit-for-tat? What negotiations are taking place with the EU to make sure that it does not retaliate in some way? We all want a good ongoing relationship, but this SI raises specific questions about the consequences.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. The EU knows about our arrangements. The way in which we have set out the market authorisation holders could not be a stronger signal to our European friends that we have found what we think is an appropriate way of ensuring that we have the protections we believe we need. We are not being draconian or difficult; we believe that it is important to have an international trade in good animal medicines. That is what we seek. For those reasons, I will look at Hansard for any other points to address. In the meantime, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

4.55 pm

Moved by

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Relevant document: 15th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B)

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to the instrument grouped with these regulations—the Import of and Trade in Animals and Animal Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019—as I think it will be helpful to noble Lords, given the close connection between the two.

The Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 amend provisions related to imports, and transit through the EU, of: live animals, including horses; animal products, including meat; reproductive material used for animal breeding, such as semen, ova and embryos; and the non-commercial movement of pet animals.

This instrument importantly ensures operability of our main English animal trade instrument, the Trade in Animals and Related Products Regulations 2011. This is key legislation for the import of these commodities into England that establishes a system for trade in live animals and genetic material with other EU member states and imports of animals and animal products from outside the European Union.

This instrument also ensures the operability of two related instruments that regulate the non-commercial movement of pet animals into Great Britain and ensure protection against the introduction of rabies: the Non-Commercial Movement of Pet Animals Order 2011 and the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) Order 1974. The Non-Commercial Movement of Pet Animals Order 2011 enforces in Great Britain the EU pet travel scheme, which sets out rules for identification, vaccination and documentary requirements for pets entering member states from other member states or third countries, and the rabies order sets out requirements for quarantine when a pet is not compliant with these rules, in order to protect our biosecurity and prevent the introduction of rabies.

I emphasise that this instrument makes purely technical changes to EU-derived domestic legislation about animal trade to ensure that it continues to operate effectively. It does not introduce new policy and preserves the current regime for protecting the UK’s biosecurity. This instrument applies only to imports and does not legislate for export of animals and animal products from the United Kingdom to the EU. The amendments in this instrument will allow all these laws to continue to work after exit, by, for instance, removing redundant references to EU bodies, functions or legislation and replacing them with domestic equivalents. It will also amend phrases that would no longer be correct, such as changing “legislation of the European Union” to “retained EU law”.

Different parts of this instrument have different territorial extent and application, and the devolved Administrations were closely engaged in its development. Part 2 applies to Great Britain, whereas Part 3 applies to England only. The devolved Administrations are tabling their own versions of the amendments in Part 3, which will generally reflect the approach taken in England.

Without this legislation, there would be considerable disruption to the UK’s import system and a lack of clarity for industry and non-commercial pet travel.

The Import of and Trade in Animals and Animal Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 again amend provisions related to imports, and transit through the EU, of: live animals; animal products, including meat; genetic material used for animal breeding, such as semen, ova and embryos; and the non-commercial movement of pet animals. The instrument makes purely technical changes to directly applicable EU regulations and decisions. It does not introduce new policy and preserves the current regime for protecting the UK’s biosecurity.

17:00

This instrument makes technical amendments to ensure continued operability of: 14 EU instruments concerning imports of live animals and reproductive products; 17 concerning imports of animal products intended for human consumption; four that lay down protective measures against the introduction of particular diseases; four that cover the EU pet travel scheme; and seven that relate more generally to the import regime for animals and animal products. This instrument also contains similar technical amendments to references to powers to charge fees found in two domestic instruments.

The amendments ensure the continuation of veterinary controls and other import conditions which safeguard animal and public health. They allow for authorisation of businesses to continue, and for the maintenance of health certification and transport requirements, and allow appropriate actions to be taken in case of reported non-compliance or disease outbreaks in other countries. Furthermore, they provide for the continuation of the existing health and documentary requirements for the non-commercial movement of pets into the UK under the EU pet travel scheme.

In addition, the amendments transfer certain powers and functions from the European Commission to the respective Ministers in the UK. The amendments give Ministers the power, formerly reserved by the Commission, to take appropriate action in relation to trade restrictions resulting from disease outbreaks abroad. Regulation 3 and Schedule 1 lay the foundations for the appropriate Minister and the Northern Ireland Office to amend lists of third countries approved as having equivalent official disease controls for continuing trade with the UK in live animals and animal products, and thus to refuse trade or impose more stringent conditions on countries that pose a biosecurity risk.

Regarding the EU pet travel scheme, the amendments are required in order to ensure that safe pet travel without quarantine can continue into the UK. If these amendments were not made, EU pet passports for pet animals travelling from the EU would no longer be valid in the UK, which would clearly cause disruption. The UK’s ongoing application to become a listed third country for the purposes of pet travel between the UK and EU member states is also dependent on maintaining EU minimum health standards.

This instrument applies to the whole of the UK; the devolved Administrations were closely engaged in its development and have given their consent.

Defra has carried out extensive engagement with stakeholders on animal trade and pet travel more generally. Concerning importers of animals and animal products, the department has engaged with over 300 stakeholders to date, covering 50 events. All border inspection posts and all known impacted trade associations have been consulted. Defra will continue this engagement with importers over the coming weeks to ensure they understand the changes that will come into effect.

In relation to the equine sector, Defra has engaged with key stakeholders, including the British Horseracing Authority, World Horse Welfare, the British Equine Veterinary Association and Weatherbys, throughout work on EU exit. The equine sector is content with the proposed approach for imports.

In relation to pet travel, Defra has engaged with key stakeholders, including carrier and industry groups, the British Veterinary Association, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the Kennel Club, Guide Dogs UK and Dogs for Good. The pet travel sector is also content with the proposed approach.

Additionally, on the subject of this legislation Defra has engaged with various major stakeholders—the Food and Drink Federation, the International Meat Trade Association and the NFU—who raised no concerns with Defra’s approach.

The trade in animals and animal products that do not constitute a risk to human or animal health is clearly of significant importance to the UK’s food security and economy. These technical amendments are essential for the continuation of the UK’s current trade and import regime and for minimum disruption to pet travel. They will also ensure that our strict biosecurity controls with regards to animal trade are maintained at their current levels when we leave. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome these two sets of regulations, one of which is clearly more substantive than the other. I would note that the value of exports of animals and animal products is currently running at £6.7 billion, so this is not an insignificant trade. I have some questions for my noble friend.

Concern has been expressed by the British Veterinary Association and others—this is also mentioned by Sub-Committee B of the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee—that there could be a hurdle. My first question is this: if we pass this statutory instrument today, will it take immediate effect, thus ensuring that there will not be any form of hiccup? I have read that it could take six months for Britain to be listed as a third country. Does this statutory instrument prevent any hiatus occurring? I hope that my noble friend can reassure the Committee today that our exports will continue. It has been put in terms that the UK may not be permitted to make the application to become a third country until after 11 pm on 29 March—if that deadline is upheld. The briefing from the BVA goes on to state that the process can take several months, while according to the National Farmers’ Union, Defra itself has indicated that the process could take up to six months. It would be reassuring to know that that is not the case.

My noble friend will be aware of my concern especially about racehorses. He mentioned that the statutory instruments before the Committee relate to imports. That begs the question: what is the position as regards exports? We have the tripartite agreement which relates to racehorses, presumably covering racing, breeding and so on. What is the position as regards exports under this instrument? Are we going to have a separate SI to cover that aspect, or have I missed something here? Can my noble friend assure me that our racehorses will be able to go to Ireland and France to compete in races on 30 March and beyond?

I turn to passports for pets. What reciprocal arrangements are in place? Again, my noble friend has reassured the Committee adequately on the position of dogs and other animals coming into this country, but if someone wishes to take their pet to an EU country on 30 March, will that still be the case? Where are we as regards reciprocal arrangements for pet passports?

I would like to put down a marker. I know that my noble friend and the department are coming under great pressure to ban the trade in live animals. I would like to be first out of the stalls—to use a racing analogy—that we do not want to see an end to the trade in live animals. I presume that these two statutory instruments should put my mind at rest in that regard.

In introducing the two sets of regulations, in particular as regards the plethora of regulations that they are amending, my noble friend has said that we want to ensure the safety of food and animal products coming into this country. What progress has been made on our remaining within the European Food Safety Authority and signing up to the rapid alert system for food and feed scheme? My noble friend will be aware of my interest since I followed the “horsegate” scenario in 2013 very closely. Obviously, we want to make sure that there is no possibility of that arising again after March this year.

With those comments, I thank my noble friend once again for introducing these two important sets of regulations.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I had not intended to visit the Grand Committee on these SIs today because, as the Minister said, there are no major policy changes. I declare an interest—it is not an interest, really—because I am a member of sifting committee B, helping the world go by with statutory instruments.

We published a brief note on these two SIs in our 15th report and I wish to raise a couple of points which I did not know about until earlier this morning. It is not without significance that the medicine SI we debated earlier and this SI started life as negative instruments from Defra, which did not want them debated. That was the view and that is what it is all about. These two SIs were upgraded following the sifting process.

Defra has about 10% of the instruments we have seen and recommended for sifting. It has agreed all the recommendations—I am not complaining about that—but I wish to address a point which was raised with me this morning by Friends of the Earth. While I have been sitting in the Room, I have realised that exchanges have taken place between Defra and Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee officials. I want to put on record that Friends of the Earth have sent a note about several matters, including incoherent amendments and drafting errors.

In relation to the Import of and Trade in Animals and Animal Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, the Friends of the Earth note states:

“Regulation 50 … amends the Commission Regulation 2018/659. Regulation 50(13) of the 2019 Regulations omits Article 12(2) of the 2018 Commission Regulation which requires that when checks on live horses coming into the UK return inconclusive, they should be subject to a definitive testing for African Horse Sickness and a list of other diseases listed in Article 11(1) which is retained”.


To cut a long story short, Article 12(2) is omitted and not replaced and there is no mention of it in the Explanatory Memorandum. Is this the case?

While the lawyers from Defra were not available earlier today, I understand that the policy lead believes it has fully copied across into the SI the provision from the EU regulation that requires that when checks on live horses coming into the UK return inconclusive they need to be retested. That is the point I want the Minister put on the record. There should be no weakening of testing arrangements, but if Defra has not copied across something then it will be somewhere else. I found this enormously complicated instrument as I tried to go through the aspects raised by Friends of the Earth.

I shall not go through the details of what Friends of the Earth has said—I am quite happy—and I presume it has sent a copy of the note to the Minister. However, there are references to changes in regulations which do not exist. Regulations 7, 26 and 32 all refer to amendments and points which do not exist; they modify something which does not exist. I am quite happy to leave the note for the Minister and his officials. I do not want to go over issues that would not be suitable here.

The central issue is that some people have looked at this and thought, “Hang on a minute, we have not fully copied across but policy lead thinks we have”. I thought it worth while to raise the point because, if it gets out there, you cannot pull it back if it is wrong. If it can be satisfactorily dealt with here, it would be for everyone’s convenience.

[Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise for my bungle on the previous regulations. These SIs merge into each other well.

An issue of particular concern which has been referred to—I am going to speak to it again—relates to the deletion of the requirement to retest horses entering the UK for disease when initial test results are inconclusive. Omitting this requirement suggests that diseased horses could potentially be allowed to enter the UK without adequate care or protection. This could apply to other animals and humans after the UK leaves the EU. I declare an interest: I have a pony stud, have exported ponies and am waiting for some to be imported.

There are many different infections. Does this mean that we are downgrading standards? This is one of the fears that many people have about leaving the EU. I hope that the Minister will look at this and do something to make it safer for horses entering the UK.

17:15

[Lord Trees (CB)]

As the Minister said, this is a very large instrument, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said, particularly complex and pretty hard reading. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. I did not have that briefing. The matter is quite significant and I hope it might be addressed.

I will say a few words about the pet travel scheme and one or two other things. I understand that additional rabies controls will be required for the movement of domestic pets, particularly dogs. There will not only be vaccination but post-vaccination blood testing for dogs leaving this country to confirm satisfactory antibody responses. Can the Minister confirm that this will apply to all imported dogs coming to Britain, including those originating in the EU 27 and coming to the UK for the first time, as well as travelling dogs leaving here and going to continental Europe for short periods? In other words, is there reciprocity in that respect?

Also, can the Minister confirm that travelling dogs will require a veterinary health check and an export health certificate before travel? That would impose cost burdens on the owners and substantial workforce burdens. If travelling dogs require export health certificates, are Her Majesty’s Government satisfied that there are sufficient designated official veterinarians based in small animal practices to carry this out with hundreds of thousands of dogs potentially moving out of and back to Britain? There are currently a number of countries outwith the EU included in the pet travel scheme. What rabies measures will we require from those countries post-Brexit? Will dogs imported to the UK from those countries require vaccination and testing as required for movement between the UK and continental Europe?

There is one matter not included here—it is not fair to include it—but there are concerns about the importation of ticks and tick-borne disease. I urge that we take every opportunity to impose controls to minimise the risk of ticks being imported when dogs come back to Britain. I hope that Defra will consider and legislate for this at some stage in the future.

This SI refers to the non-commercial movement of dogs. What plans are there, if any, to transfer the regulations on commercial movement of dogs covered by the Balai directive? Will that be dealt with in a different SI?

I have a couple of small final points. Commission Decision 2001/812/EC refers to the expertise of personnel required at border inspection ports. Can the Minister assure us that there will be no change at all in the level of expertise—the numbers as well as the quality—of personnel required at border inspection posts?

Lastly, there are several references in the SI to the “EU Exit Day 1” project, which will affect movements of dogs, which is being worked on by Defra. Can the Minister outline what that project will address?

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, given the plethora of issues raised by colleagues around the Committee, I am just going to focus on one additional matter that has not been raised either here or in the Commons. It relates to the welcome introduction from the Minister, who made it clear that this is a technical statutory instrument; my disappointment is that it is not more substantial. My question, which I will expand on a bit, is: if the Government are really serious about banning circuses with wild animals, why did they not take the opportunity in this statutory instrument to ban the importation of circuses that do just that?

The Minister made it clear—and the EM made it absolutely clear—that we are not under any legal obligation to adhere to the EU rules for trade following exit. This is a unilateral decision. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also made it clear that it hoped that this Committee would scrutinise the department’s choice of unilateral recognition of current import arrangements. As other Members have made clear, our own animals may not be able to be exported if we are not accepted as a third country, and even if we are accepted as a third country, it may take some time. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has heard six months; newspapers at the weekend suggested nine months. There could be a considerable time lag and administrative burden on pet owners and commercial exporters of equines and dogs, and yet we are unilaterally saying that anybody who has a circus with wild animals can happily bring them in.

The Minister made clear in his opening remarks that this is all about making it easy for business to trade with the UK post Brexit. However, we know that circuses with wild animals are cruel. The majority of the population oppose them; in Defra’s own recent consultation on the matter, 95% of the consultees said they wanted them banned; and Scotland and Wales have banned such circuses. I appreciate that this statutory instrument is only about circuses with wild animals coming into the country, and to be fair, none has done so in the past few years. However, acts and trainers may move around, and resident UK circuses can bring them in. The somewhat inappropriately named Great British Circus brought in some elephants just a few years back. That is elephants, lions, tigers and bears cooped up in small mobile cages, travelling around Europe, coming with the consent of this SI to the UK.

The Secretary of State, Michael Gove, has said that he will ban circuses with wild animals:

“as soon as parliamentary time allows”.

My question, therefore, is: why was this SI not looked at as a possible vehicle? On page 19, Regulation 18 sets out quite clearly the conditions that have to be met by circuses bringing animals into the United Kingdom. Paragraph 3(b), which Regulation 18 inserts into Article 4 of the EU regulation, requires:

“a register of animals in the circus in accordance with the model laid down in Annex I”.

I have looked at Annex I, which is a one-page document, and in box 2.4 you have to identify the “Species” that you are bringing in. I am no lawyer, but a little asterisk about not allowing wild animals might have been something that the Government could at least have thought about.

The Minister will say, I suspect, that any such amendment goes beyond what is required to maintain the operation of the law after EU exit. However, the Government have made changes in other statutory instruments. The Chemicals (Health and Safety) and Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 proposed removing,

“unnecessary legal burdens on industry”.

So, we can take out burdens on industry but we cannot protect animal welfare. Will the Minister tell us whether Defra discussed the potential for using this statutory instrument to halt the importation of circuses with wild animals? Specifically, did it take any legal advice before it laid the instrument to achieve just that?

Unless there are overwhelming legal reasons why this has not happened, we will be forced to believe that, when the Government have to choose between supporting trade and supporting animal welfare, we know where they will go. It gives us little confidence that, in future deals, animal welfare, which we all hold so dear, will be upheld.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, in harmony with our commitment on the Labour Front Bench to recycling, I am speaking for my party in a guest slot. These regulations are complex and somewhat impenetrable—I think I drew the short straw—so I am afraid they raise many questions, some of which may be related to, but not directly affected by, these regulations. I hope the Minister will forgive me for that. Personally, I very much support the points just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, on circus animals.

According to figures that I have seen, products of animal origin and live animals imported to the UK are valued at over £19.3 billion each year. Of this, 80%—about £15 billion, which is twice the amount suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh—comes from trade with the EU. This covers an area of huge significance to our agricultural economy and the economy as a whole; given its effects, it also risks a further nudge for the nation in the direction of veganism should the trade be too much disrupted.

As we have heard, the UK will be treated by the EU as a third country if we leave without a deal. The SLSC recommended that the SIs be subject to the affirmative procedure, and I welcome the Government’s decision to accept this recommendation.

Without listed status, no exports to the EU can take place. Defra’s no-deal technical notice confirmed that,

“The EU would require the UK to be a listed third country”,


and it could not,

“be certain of the EU response or its timing”,

for an application. Without this,

“no exports … could take place”.

Can the Minister tell us what the usual timeframes are for dealing with third country applications? As we have heard, there are concerns that this could take up to nine months.

In order to be prepared for all possible outcomes, we understand that the UK submitted its application for listing as a third country in November. Can the Minister assure the Committee that the UK’s application will be granted? Have the Government formally requested that the UK’s application be expedited? Is the Minister 100% confident that, in the event that we leave the EU on 29 March with no deal, the approval for the export of live animals and animal products will have been granted in time for day one? If not 100% confident, what level of confidence does he have, and how will that change if there is a delay—to, say, June—for a no-deal exit?

The NFU says it has been told informally that, although Britain is in complete regulatory alignment with the EU, if there is no deal the same health checks that countries such as China and the US undergo will apply to UK suppliers. This would mean that 6,000 meat processing plants that export to the EU would have to undergo individual audits by British authorities. These would be checked by EU officials and then put to a standing veterinary committee for approval, a process that the NFU has calculated will take six months, “at a conservative reading”. These checks will also be conducted on any other companies supplying food and drink to the EU, including those exporting bottled water, honey, jam, dairy and other fresh foods. Does the Minister agree with this projection by the National Farmers’ Union? What is his assessment of the impact on the viability of food and drink businesses in the UK in the short and long term if that is the case?

I turn now to model certificates. Paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that the instrument,

“has provision to allow existing forms of model certificates to continue to be used for transitional purposes for such period as is published by the appropriate authority”.

I would love it if the Minister could expand a little on this. Is it dependent on the transition period following a deal, or can this also apply in the event of no deal? The use of the word “transitional” is quite confusing in that respect.

Then there are border checks. Under EU law, all animal and agri-food, including animal feed and plant produce, has to go through health checks. However, the necessary border inspection posts do not exist at, for example, Calais. This is because those checks have not been needed for anyone trading within the single market. The nearest border inspection posts are in Zeebrugge and Rotterdam, which have historically acted as the gateway for non-EU traffic, or Liverpool on the route to Ireland. Does the Minister envisage placing UK officers in Rotterdam, or will we reply on post-import checks within the UK?

17:30

A no-deal Brexit will require more work from vets to meet increased demands for the certification needed for the export of animals and animal products and for pet travel. In addition, exiting from EU surveillance systems and uncertainty around access to medicines could have negative impacts on animal health and welfare further down the line, requiring yet more veterinary capacity. The Public Accounts Committee has warned:

“In a no-deal scenario there is a risk of UK exports of animals and animal products being delayed at borders because of a shortage of vets”.

That committee also found that the department is cavalier about there being enough suitably qualified staff to take on this work. What help are the Government providing vets—this echoes the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trees—in the event of a no-deal scenario to prepare for increased demand for export health certificates for animals and animal products? Does the Minister share my concern that a no-deal Brexit will exacerbate the current shortages in the veterinary profession and create significant risks for trade, animal health and welfare, and food safety?

Further, in the event of a no-deal scenario, what help is going to be provided to prepare for increased demand for export health certificates? What will be done to safeguard animal welfare in the scenario of live animals being stuck in trucks for long periods as they wait to go through ports and border inspection posts? Do we have to depend on the failing Secretary of State for Transport’s use of disused airfields for queuing freight including, for example, provision for livestock grazing?

The department has created a new role, that of the certification support officer, to provide administrative support for official vets so that they can more easily process the new export health certificates. The main concern of the British Veterinary Association is about who will do some of the checking and that they have the required level of skills. Can the Minister assure the Committee that the veterinary professional will remain as the provider of oversight and reassurance for the whole process of this trade?

I turn to the question of border inspection posts. From my research, it appears that there are none in Wales and the only facilities in Northern Ireland are in Belfast. Is my understanding correct that, if I am a farmer on the Northern Ireland border who wants to take livestock across the border to the Republic, once I have the export certification, and assuming my hauliers have successfully applied for and received their international driving licence, I then have to take my animals to Belfast airport for inspection before driving them back to cross into the Republic of Ireland. Is that right? How much cost will that add? Will the border inspection posts have the capacity for this? Is the Minister making any efforts to expand the number of border inspection posts to ease this burden on farmers?

In respect of hygiene and health, I too have seen the Friends of the Earth briefing. The only point that I will pick up on is one that has not been mentioned already. Regulation 26 provides that, in Part 2 of Annexe I,

“in the section headed ‘Notes’, omit the general notes and additional notes for day old chicks”.

One of the notes under this heading requires that chicks not destined for the EU or with lower quality health should not be transported together. This is not replaced, which will allow for chicks of a lesser quality of health and thus more susceptible to disease and infection to be transported alongside those that meet the health standards of the UK and, as such, possibly subjecting healthy chicks to disease. Why is this change being made? I also share the concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Rooker and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, in respect of Regulation 50.

I turn now to trade deals. Although the UK is under no legal obligation to adhere to EU rules for trade following EU exit, failure to do so could result in the UK being unable to trade in animals and their products with EU member states and third countries. We therefore welcome these regulations which seek to maintain current standards, legislation and arrangements relating to such trade on the day the UK leaves the EU. Food safety and harmonisation will also have a lot to do with who we sign free trade deals with. There is significant public concern about the implications of a US trade deal for the quality and standard of British food, given the routine use of chemicals and antibiotics used in food production to promote faster growth. Washing chicken in chlorine and feeding growth hormones to beef are both legal in the US but currently banned in the EU. Will maintaining the existing important regime prevent chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-treated beef from being imported to the UK? The World Health Organization is concerned that overuse of antibiotics in farming is a major contributor to antibiotic resistance worldwide. Can the Minister advise whether the regulations will prevent antibiotic-farmed produce, banned in the EU, from being imported? If so, will the Minister commit to preserving these standards when making future trade deals?

There is also the matter of cost. Leaving the EU without a deal would cause considerable disruption to the UK’s import system, which would be likely to lead to additional costs for importers and stakeholders. Furthermore, the Minister has advised that these instruments make technical amendments to maintain the existing standards and no impact is anticipated. However, paragraph 6.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that these regulations include,

“amendments to the domestic powers to recover fees in relation to activity relating to imports of animals and animal products from the EU”.

Does the Minister accept that there may well be additional requirements and costs to stakeholders, and will he commit to a public consultation on any fee increases allowed by these regulations?

I have a few concerns around science, innovation and research. The main concern around the impact of Brexit on science and innovation is about the supply of essential resources to conduct biomedical research and development here in the UK. Animals are used in biomedical and veterinary research to advance scientific understanding, to develop solutions to medical problems to protect the safety of people, animals and the environment and as models to study disease. Critical to the continuing success of our highly significant life sciences centre will be the timely and efficient transport, import to and export from the UK of purpose-bred research animals; biological samples—such as blood, tissues, organs, embryos—from these; medical and pharmaceutical supplies; and supplies of specialised animal feed and research diets for that sector.

In a no-deal scenario, exports of biological samples would require compliance with customs formalities and export health certificates for each individual shipment and for all animal species. As a third party to the EU, the UK will need to negotiate each certificate’s content separately with each member state. When the UK leaves the EU, the efficient supply of animals and animal-derived products should be maintained without delays to ensure continued support of the sector, to protect the welfare of animals and to retain the integrity of any consignment being transported.

However, many stakeholders remain concerned about the UK’s capacity to cope with the demand for export health certificates and CITES permits. The National Office of Animal Health has specifically raised concern that the replacement for the EU trade control and export system, IPAFFS, referred to in the Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, will not be fully functional on day one of a no-deal scenario, with stakeholders unsure how to use the system. Is the Minister confident that the required IT systems will be up and running? Assuming that this is being developed using modern techniques, is it currently being user tested? How long is the beta phase likely to last? What discussions have taken place with stakeholders to prepare them to use the new system? Has the department prepared and published user guidance? If not, when will it? The no-deal guidance published last week states:

“Businesses importing animals and animal products from within the EU will need to use a separate interim system until the summer”.

Can the Minister elaborate? How many businesses will be affected?

I have a couple more points to make. On the pet travel scheme, the Explanatory Memorandum advises that the amendments are required to ensure that safe pet travel without quarantine can continue in the UK. We have heard how important and significant that is. Can the Minister update the Committee on the UK’s ongoing application to become a listed third country for the purposes of pet travel between the UK and the EU?

Finally, regarding the Friends of the Earth briefing, I also noted the incoherent amendments referred to by my noble friend Lord Rooker. There was also an issue around penalties: Regulation 43 requires Article 42 of the EU regulation to be omitted. This places a duty on the Commission to assign penalties for failure to comply with these regulations. Without an appropriate body to replace the Commission’s role, I fear failure to comply with this regulation could go without penalty.

I look forward to the Minister’s reply on that issue and to my questions, of which there were far too many.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I rather feel that we have gone into interesting territory on a number of the subjects that, in the end, go back to the parent regulations when we are dealing with technical amendments. However, I will endeavour to answer as many of the important points made as I can.

I start with an explanation for the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. My understanding—I may need a stewards’ inquiry on this—is that Article 12(2) was omitted because it refers to samples being sent to the relevant European Union reference laboratory but after exit day, in a no-deal scenario, the UK would have no formal access to check test results at that laboratory. The paragraph is therefore otiose. However, I emphasise that there will be no lowering of standards in checks on horses imported into the UK, so there will be no greater risk of horse disease. I have not seen the Friends of the Earth briefing but all the instruments have been checked by two specialist drafting lawyers in addition to our own. I will take a copy of the briefing, either from the noble Lord or any other noble Lord with a copy, back to the department. In truth, I find the statutory instruments pretty impenetrable without a Keeling schedule, and the Explanatory Memorandum gets me out of trouble. I will look into this issue. I want to take this opportunity to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that we have absolutely no intention of allowing a diminution in standards. The omission is because we would not be in a position to refer to an EU reference laboratory in that instance.

A number of noble Lords mentioned listing. I discussed these matters with the Chief Veterinary Officer only two days ago. The Commission’s recent contingency action plan states:

“On the basis of the EU veterinary legislation, the Commission will—if justified—swiftly ‘listʼ the United Kingdom, if all applicable conditions are fulfilled, so as to allow the entry of live animals and animal products from the United Kingdom into the European Union”.


Following the UK’s application, there have been technical discussions. We are working with the Commission to process our application quickly. Obviously, I cannot give any assurances on that point. I am not in charge of the Commission on this matter—I wish I were—but I raised it with the Chief Veterinary Officer, who has been in communication and is working on it.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh mentioned pet listing. If she will forgive me, I will write to her on exports, given the huge number of replies I must give on instruments relating to imports. I understand the import/export point, but a lot of the detail on exports is not in the department’s gift. It will be a matter for negotiations and arrangements, but I have set out our proportionate views on how we in this country, where we will have responsibility, will deal with animals and imports coming in from the EU.

On pet listing, the department has submitted its application to allow the UK to become a Part 1-listed third country under Annexe II of the EU pet travel regulations and is currently in technical discussions with the European Commission. Obviously, it will be for the Commission to consider our application. Clearly, if we become a Part 1-listed country, there will be very little change to current pet travel arrangements.

17:45

In the event of an unlisting, pets would continue to be able to travel from the UK to the EU, but the requirements for documents and health checks would differ, depending on what category of third country the UK is treated as under the EU pet travel scheme. If we were to leave without a deal and were treated as unlisted, pet owners travelling from the UK to the EU would have to obtain a health certificate for their pet which would need to be issued by an official veterinarian no more than 10 days before travel. Considerable work has been done with the veterinary profession. Some months ago—it was some time last year—a lot of discussion took place with the profession, because there would need to be, for example, appropriate and adequate immune responses to rabies vaccinations. That shows why we are working as strongly as we can to get the listing, but it is not in my gift or the Government’s gift to agree these things. All that I can assure your Lordships on is that the Chief Veterinary Officer, in whom I have the greatest confidence, and her team are working extremely effectively and collaboratively because our working relationship with EU member states and the Commission on disease and such things is very strong.

The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, asked why we did not deal with wild animals in circuses at this juncture. I am advised that it is because what we are doing here is through the mechanism of the EU withdrawal Act, which does not give scope for doing what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, would wish. It is not within scope, so I suspect that we would have been ultra vires of the Act. As the noble Baroness said, since the licensing regulations were introduced no travelling circuses based outside the UK have applied for a licence to tour. This is unfinished business. The department very much hopes that the Private Member’s Bill of the Member for Copeland will have a successful passage—it is currently in the other place—as this matter needs to be attended to.

The noble Lord, Lord Trees, asked about dogs coming in from third countries. These instruments make no policy changes, so the requirements for dogs entering the UK from third countries will not change. On ticks, as the Biosecurity Minister I am always thinking about ways to heighten our biosecurity in the future. However, the Government have no immediate plans to change the pet travel requirements in the short term. For entry into the UK, the current pet travel health requirements will continue to apply. Looking to the future, it may be open to us to look at new opportunities to manage pet travel arrangements and to think more strongly about whether, given that we do not have some diseases that occur in other parts of the EU, we should think about more robust controls on disease, which obviously is important for animal welfare.

A point was made about reciprocity. The Government took the decision not to impose any additional import requirements on movements from the EU. That decision was taken because we did not believe that the biosecurity risk to the UK would change in such a way for us to feel that we should change them on day one. We also think it important to ensure that there is a flow of goods at the border. We already have our existing controls in place, so these instruments do nothing more than to maintain the status quo.

I was asked whether the commercial movements of dogs and others under the Balai directive are still covered. Commercial movements are covered by the Trade in Animals and Related Products Regulations 2011, which are amended by a domestic statutory instrument. I think I had better unclutter that for the noble Lord because it did not flow frightfully will. Regarding disease and import requirements, APHA at Weybridge will undertake the testing on UK exports, and its equivalents in other member states will do the testing before arrival in the UK.

The noble Lord, Lord Knight, made a number of points. I start by saying emphatically—I hear this point every time and will say this for as long as I need to—that we will not compromise food safety in pursuit of a trade agreement. Maintaining safety and public confidence in the food we eat is of the highest priority and any future trade deal must work for UK farmers, businesses and consumers. Any new products wishing to enter the UK market must comply with our rigorous legislation and standards. If any food safety rules change after we leave or any new food products come on to the market, we will apply our usual rigorous risk assessment to ensure that consumers remain protected. On chlorine and hormoned beef, we will continue with all the arrangements we have as a member of the EU; they will continue when we leave the EU. I am delighted to put that on record, I think for probably the tenth time—it may be more—but it is important that I should do so.

The noble Lord, Lord Knight, was absolutely right to raise the veterinary profession, as did the noble Lord, Lord Trees. A lot of work has been done with the veterinary profession, and the department has had very strong and collaborative discussions with the BVA and the royal college. Certification support officers were mentioned. Those officers are there to assist with the paperwork for export health certification. They will be fully responsible to the qualified official veterinary surgeon, who will be the only person that can sign off the certificate. This is designed to enable the vet to get on with their job, given their qualifications. It is entirely pragmatic and no noble Lord should see it as a ruse to suggest either that we are lowering standards or that we want to reduce the number of vets—absolutely not. This is about what we think would be a proportionate way of managing. Indeed, there have been very considerable discussions with the veterinary profession about training and the continuing work that needs to be done to keep our country safe.

The noble Lord, Lord Knight, also referred to BIPs. Consignments originating in the EU will not initially be required to enter the UK through a border inspection post. For this reason, we do not anticipate a significant increase in demand for BIPs at UK ports receiving ferries coming from the EU. This is based on our assessment that, as there were requirements within the EU for food safety and so forth when we were a member, this is a sensible and pragmatic approach.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

Before the Minister moves off border inspection posts, can he comment on the role of BIPS in terms of exports, whether we have sufficient capacity and whether the scenario I painted in respect of Northern Ireland is accurate?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

On the particular points about exports, my understanding is that, from the point of view of port authorities and others such as port health authorities, the ports feel that they have sufficient resources to handle imports and exports. However, I think it would be helpful, particularly given my noble friend Lady McIntosh’s points about exports and imports, if after this debate I produced one page on imports and one on exports as to how the geography looked.

On the noble Lord’s question about import notification systems, with us no longer being part of EU TRACES, the noble Lord is right that we will introduce our own system for import notifications and controls: the Import of Products, Animals, Food and Feed System. IPAFFS will allow importers, or agents acting on their behalf, to create an import notification and legal declaration of consignments bound for the UK before arrival. The notifications will be received by the port health authorities, which can then recall checks on the system. IPAFFS is being released in phases, with testing already under way, and will be available for those importing from outside the EU from day one.

However, as the noble Lord has said, UK importers importing from the EU will need to use a separate electronic process until the summer of this year. My note here says, “Why the delay?”, so I should say that the highest-risk goods such as live animals, germplasm and certain animal by-products currently require an ITAHC validated by an official vet in the EU member country on TRACES. The UK is then notified of the movement and required health assurances to follow risk-based post-import checks. To ensure certainty for businesses, and to ensure IPAFFS’ delivery for non-EU imports from day one, Defra has decided to remove EU imports from the system until the full functionality is available in the summer. As a result, UK importers importing from the EU will need to use separate electronic system processes, as I have said.

Detailed guidance is to be published very shortly. This process is expected to involve importers downloading forms from GOV.UK and emailing them to the APHA to process ahead of any import arriving in the UK. The rules on the documentation required for travel are unchanged. The APHA will continue to arrange post-import checks on high-risk consignments and sample checks on low-risk consignments, as it currently does. In other words, the same arrangements on checking would continue. I sense that the noble Lord has another question.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

I am terribly grateful. I understand that there is a need for the new system to be fully functional—I guess, to be able to have the right integration with TRACES. The question then is: if it is just an interim system, is it already in existence? Is it being tested? Can we have some assurance that it will work smoothly? The new one is not fully functional yet there is some magical interim solution that is going to work, which seems a little odd to me.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

Again, the best thing I can do is to ensure that I get this absolutely right. We are undertaking this in the phase I described to ensure that importers know which system they should use and have a guarantee that the system works. The system we are bringing in—IPAFFS—is being tested and is working. Dialogue and engagement with importers is under way. We thought it pragmatic to ensure a straightforward interim system for importers from the EU, until I can give your Lordships an absolute assurance that IPAFFS will work for the full range of them. Most importantly, this ensures that the level of checks will not change, so high-risk consignments will benefit from the clarity of checks and low-risk consignments will face the same arrangements.

18:00

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

What is the interim system?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

It will be pulled off GOV.UK and sent to the APHA, in the same way as it would be checked in arrangements from the EU where the EU standards will be the same as ours from day one.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh mentioned EFSA. Obviously, these decisions will relate to negotiations. The FSA undertakes robust risk assessment and provides evidence-based risk management advice and recommendations for future food and feed safety issues. The FSA has built its capacity for risk assessment and risk management. The independent scientific advisory committees are being strengthened by recruiting new experts to establish three expert groups. The FSA has already expanded its access to scientific experts providing advice and other scientific services to inform our work. However, again, it is not in my gift to talk about EFSA. It is a matter for negotiations at a later stage.

[Lord Rooker]

Following what the Minister said in reply to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I suggest that he had better have a better answer when he comes to deal with the food regulations next week. The noble Baroness asked about RASFF, the rapid alert system for food and feed, but the Minister has not addressed it. We understand that there is still no agreement on whether we can participate in it. The only countries allowed to participate are EU members and EEA members. We need an answer on that. Every day, 10 alerts are issued around Europe—3,800 a year—but we will not be part of that system. The Minister will be asked about that when he comes to deal with the food regulations next week, whereas on this instrument he can easily say that it is slightly outside the scope of the regulations.

While I am on my feet, I know that the Minister has not finished but I am waiting for an answer to the question about farmers needing to take their animals to the central Belfast airport before they can reach the border. I have not heard an answer to that yet.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords—[Interruption.] Do I need to look at that? This is very novel for me. The Government continue to negotiate full access to the rapid alert system as it will be mutually beneficial for the EU and the UK. I am rather looking forward to an Oral Question from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on the matter too so noble Lords will get all the bites of the cherry.

The noble Lord, Lord Knight, referred to Northern Ireland. Although it is desirable for the four nations of the UK to co-operate in respect in powers returning from the EU, the SIs do not extend across the entire UK. The UK Government will co-operate with the devolved Administrations so that, for example, powers can be exercised concurrently and collaboratively where appropriate. Continuing close co-operation between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations remains essential to ensuring that an exit works for all parts of the kingdom. These instruments involve joint decision making. We are working with other administrations to agree the detail of the process for delivering joint decision making, as set out in the SI.

I will come back quickly to the tripartite agreement but I have not finished with all the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Knight. There is no current intention to increase fees for import checks. I can assure your Lordships that the normal consultation procedures with affected sectors would apply if they were to be increased.

[Baroness Parminter]

We still have not got an answer about Northern Ireland. It is a really specific question. The Minister’s point about co-operation with devolved Administrations is fine, but my understanding is that things are not going that well over there at the moment. What is the position with regard to animals? Are they having to go to an airport and back again? Can we have some clarity on that point?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

That is an interesting Box note. I think the most important thing is to say that I will write to your Lordships in respect of all those matters. As I have said, this particular SI is absolutely not about exports, but I have ended up answering a lot of questions about them. If I was going to start to get tetchy, I would say, “This instrument is about imports, my Lords”. If one wants to spend five hours talking about the whole architecture, we will lose the thread of having proper briefings and discussions on matters so that I can give your Lordships proper answers. I am not a magician. I do not know all the answers about exports at this stage. Noble Lords will get them when I am in that position, and I will write to them on those matters.

Regarding the tripartite agreement, all these matters are for negotiation. We understand fully that this has worked very well for the UK, Ireland and France, and have issued technical notices on equine movements. It is clear that the UK would no longer have access to the tripartite agreement if we were to leave with no deal. The equine sector, with which we have worked extremely strongly, understands the position. Technical notices have been circulated and are widely put across in the equine sector. I will ensure that that element of the points is put in the note that I will send—as I said, it will include exports, although those are way out of scope with the technical instrument about operability on imports before your Lordships this afternoon.

Motion agreed.

Import of and Trade in Animals and Animal Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

18:08

Moved by

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Import of and Trade in Animals and Animal Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Relevant document: 15th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B)

Motion agreed.

Waste (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

18:10

Moved by

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Waste (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government take the issue of waste and resource efficiency very seriously and place real importance on this area. We always have in mind the need for strong policies to enhance and promote the circular economy and encourage actions to reduce, reuse and recycle. This instrument being presented before your Lordships makes technical changes to ensure the operability of waste-related legislation after exit. These technical and legal amendments will maintain the effectiveness and continuity of UK legislation that would otherwise be left partially inoperable following our exit from the EU. We wish to ensure that the law will continue to function as it does today. It will preserve the current regime, ensuring protection and maintaining improvement in the environment.

I can assure noble Lords that these adjustments represent no changes of policy, nor will they have an impact on businesses or the public, or indeed put any additional burden on or require any working practice changes for the Environment Agency or other UK enforcement bodies. Our recently announced resources and waste strategy sets out how we will preserve our stock of material resources by minimising waste, promoting resource efficiency and moving towards a circular economy. At the same time, we will minimise the damage caused to our natural environment by reducing and managing waste safely and carefully, and by tackling waste crime. It combines actions we will now take with firm commitments for the coming years and gives a clear longer-term policy direction in line with our 25-year environment plan.

The instrument makes technical amendments to three waste-related Acts of Parliament: the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989, Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and the Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003. It also amends 14 related EU regulations and decisions to ensure operability. The general changes in this instrument include amending references to the European Union, EU institutions and EU administrative processes to UK equivalents, and updating legal references to refer to relevant UK legislation. The instrument introduces modifications into the Acts of Parliament and retained direct EU legislation relating to waste, so that references to EU directives continue to function after exit day as they function before exit day.

One purpose of these modifications is to ensure continuity as to which public bodies exercise certain functions. Those obligations and discretions placed on member states under the directives will continue to be exercised after exit by the same appropriate authorities, appropriate agencies and/or local authorities before exit. In this context, “appropriate authority” means the Secretary of State in relation to England and each of the devolved Administrations in relation to their respective parts of the United Kingdom. “Appropriate agency” means the Environment Agency in relation to England and the relevant environment agency or body in the other parts of the United Kingdom.

The main amendments made to these EU regulations by this instrument are therefore to insert new provisions which set out modifications to the way in which references to EU directives in the EU regulations are to be read on and after exit day. Additionally, technical operability amendments are made to account for the fact that we are no longer a member state. The UK will no longer be allowed to authorise participation in the EU’s Eco-Management and Audit Scheme, known as EMAS.

In the United Kingdom, verification will be through a conformity assessment body accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service. In the meantime, verifiers can still apply to be accredited EMAS verifiers through other member states offering the service. Defra made all the businesses and organisations directly impacted aware of this prior to legislation being laid.

18:15

Under the waste framework directive, there is a target to recycle 50% of UK household waste by 2020. As part of the technical amendments made by Regulation 21 of this instrument, we have made changes to ensure that the Secretary of State publishes a report called the “progress report” on whether this target has been met in respect of England. This progress report must be published by the Secretary of State before 1 January 2022. This instrument does not create an obligation on the devolved Administrations to publish such a report and it will be for each country to address these matters.

The instrument also revokes directly applicable EU legislation relating to waste. Some of this legislation is being revoked because it is redundant in a domestic context. For example, Commission Decisions 97/622/EC and 2009/851/EC set the format of questionnaires that EU member states complete and return to the European Commission every three years in relation to the implementation of EU directives on packaging waste and waste batteries respectively.

Some of the directly applicable EU legislation is being revoked because its requirements are already embedded in UK legislation. For example, Commission Decision 2003/138/EC covers material and component coding standards for end-of-life vehicles, and another, Commission Decision 2002/151/EC, relates to minimum standards for the certificate of destruction for those vehicles. In both cases, the requirements of these decisions are already set out fully in the End-of-Life Vehicles Regulations 2003.

We have worked very closely with the devolved Administrations on this instrument and, where it relates to devolved matters, they have given their full support and consent. These regulations will help to ensure that our waste management legislation continues to operate as intended, and as before, following EU exit. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, first, I declare my interests as a member of a local authority and a vice-president of the LGA. I thank the Minister for his comprehensive opening remarks and for his time and that of the Defra officials in the very useful briefing sessions held ahead of these SIs being debated. This SI, as indicated by its title, is something of a catch-all on the waste front, covering a number of waste issues from scrap metal to hazardous waste, batteries and accumulators, glass cullet, as well as landfill. I have a number of minor points to raise.

In paragraph 2.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum there is reference to the criteria for determining when certain of the materials that I have just mentioned would cease to be waste and to calculations of the efficiency of recycling processes. I would be grateful if the Minister could say what is meant by the,

“efficiency of the recycling processes”.

A number of EU Commission decisions on waste are revoked, and the Minister has just broadly referred to that. They include Decision 76/431/EEC, which concerns the setting up of a committee on waste management. This is referred to on page 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum and in the main SI on page 62. Can the Minister explain why there is no mention of a replacement committee on waste management? Is there no longer any need for this committee?

The Minister referred to Decision 2003/138/EC establishing component and material coding standards for vehicles, which is being revoked along with Decision 2005/293/EC on the reuse/recovery and reuse/recycling targets on end-of-life vehicles on the basis that they are already enshrined in UK law. I just wonder why they need to be mentioned if they are already enshrined in UK law.

The powers under directive 2008/98/EC, which were in place before exit day, will transfer after exit day to,

“the appropriate authority, appropriate agency or local authority”.

After exit day, the European Eco-Management and Audit Scheme, EMAS, will no longer have status and registrations will become invalid, although those wishing to can register under EMAS Global. The Government are proposing to make alternative provision for references to the certification of environment management standards by retaining a reference to a conformity assessment body. Transitional provisions will ensure that certifications granted to quality management systems will continue to be recognised as valid. Can the Minister say what these transitional provisions will be and when they will come into operation?

I am concerned about the mechanism for publishing and monitoring targets on waste. The Secretary of State is required to produce a progress report on the UK’s target to recycle 50% of household waste by 2020. However, this does not have to be published until 1 January 2020 and is not a requirement for the devolved Administrations, which the Minister has already referred to. Given the public’s concern about the level of waste, especially plastic waste, would it be better to bring this date forward so that action can be taken to ensure that the targets are met and adhered to?

This SI empowers the Environment Agency and equivalent bodies in other areas, including local authorities, to deal with decisions relating to landfilling of waste and waste from extractive industries, as well as waste criteria for metals, glass and so on. There is, however, no mention of additional resources being allocated to allow these agencies and bodies to take on these powers. Could the Minister say whether there are any plans to provide sufficient resources for this work to be carried out effectively and efficiently?

Finally, reference is made to the reclassification of some hazardous waste products in 1357/2014. The list in Annex III—I am very grateful to officials for providing this—which is referred to in the SI, contains some extremely toxic materials, including explosives, flammable liquids, irritants and carcinogenic materials. This is potentially extremely concerning and could have implications for public safety. Could the Minister give a little more detail on how this might be implemented?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this SI and his helpful prior briefing; I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for her contribution.

As the Minister described, this SI contains a series of amendments to different aspects of the waste management system required to be in place by exit day. In the main, we are content with the proposals, which appear to replicate closely the current arrangements with the EU. These are regulations from which the UK has benefitted in the past and it is important that these standards are upheld.

However, I want to make a couple of points about the drafting, then I have some questions. On the drafting of the SI, although this is a very lengthy document, I found both the SI and the Explanatory Memorandum very clear and I commend those that drafted them. In particular, I welcome the inclusion in the SI of a very clear definition of who is the appropriate authority and appropriate agency in each case. The Minister will know that we have raised this issue time and again, but in this document, it is spelled out; indeed, the document goes further. Where there is a more generic reference, it is qualified by the phrase,

“the appropriate authority, appropriate agency or local authority which, immediately before exit day, was responsible for the United Kingdom’s compliance with that obligation”.

I commend that wording and I believe that this phrase could be used more widely in other SIs to avoid ambiguity. There is learning for us all in that.

I now have a few questions. Along with the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the arrangements for external verification, reference to which is made several times in the document. For example, on page 22, the amendment to Article 5(7) uses an EU regulation to define a “conformity assessment body”. Do the Government intend to retain that EU definition and accreditation in the longer term? Is that how we will operate—namely, that we will not have our own UK definition and we will stick with the EU definition?

Paragraph 7(c) adds that other accreditation can be solved through the EMAS scheme, which has been referred to. However, this seems to be slightly at odds with the wording on page 4 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which states that references to EMAS “will be omitted” and that any registration would have to be through EMAS Global. Can the Minister clarify that wording? What is the difference between EMAS and EMAS Global? Does EMAS Global have the same authority and impact as EMAS and are the same resources available to provide the required verification?

I refer now to the reporting on the UK target to recycle 50% of household waste by 2020. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said, this is an issue of great public interest, particularly as we seem to be heading towards missing that very important target. This was a requirement to report to the EU, which has been replaced by one called the “progress report” to be published,

“in a manner that the Secretary of State considers appropriate”,

before 2022. I am grateful to Richard Gregson, the Defra lawyer, for sending me the existing wording to compare with the new wording. The original wording refers to an “implementation report” that should demonstrate compliance with the targets to the Commission. This is to be replaced by a progress report, which it appears the Secretary of State will publish to himself with no penalty for inaction.

Let us compare this to what would happen if we remained in the EU. I am advised that if a member state is found guilty of failing to meet targets in a directive, an EU penalty formula would be applied—in this case, a maximum fine of around €700,000 each day if we do not meet the target in 2020 and continue not to meet it for a significant period. It does not need too much imagination to see how that threat would concentrate the minds of those responsible for the targets in Defra. Moreover, it once again puts into stark relief the need for an independent watchdog that can hold the Government to account and issue fines that will deliver real compliance with these important environmental objectives.

I am very unhappy with the wording of this SI as it stands. It seems to represent a considerable watering down of the current provision and I would contend that it goes further and represents a policy change as the 50% target now becomes advisory rather than compulsory. This is of course compounded by the fact, as we have heard, that the targets will apply to England only with no obligation on the devolved nations to report. I ask the Minister to look at this wording again to bring it more in line with the expectation of implementation as set out in the original wording and to put on record that the interim watchdog, the details of which we still await although the clock is ticking, will have equivalent powers to issue fines similar to those currently in operation in the EU.

Finally, on a small point of detail, there is a provision on extractive mining which covers the definition and the dangers therein. However, paragraph 5(c) of new Article 2B on page 16 of the SI includes a reference to,

“Article 2 of Council Directive 2009/158/EC on animal health conditions”,

relating to trade with the EU and third countries in “poultry and hatching eggs”. I struggle to see the connection between poultry and hatching eggs and extractive mining. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain that connection and why this provision appears not only in the paragraph that I have referred to but in several others. I am curious to hear the answer to that, but I look forward more seriously to his substantive response on the issue of waste targets.

18:30

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I first thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for her generous remarks on the drafting of the statutory instrument and Explanatory Memorandum. I am the first to say that I always go to the Explanatory Memorandum and hope that I can then somehow figure out the statutory instrument—so many regulations can be most complicated. I will pass the noble Baroness’s remarks back as a template; they are on the dot.

I re-emphasise from the start that these regulations make only technical changes that maintain continuity. They will not: make any changes to policy; lead to any change in operational delivery; impose additional costs on businesses, individuals or public organisations; or result in any additional environmental impacts, compared with the legislation being amended or replaced.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, made an important reference to the efficiency of recycling processes under paragraph 2.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum. Regulation 493/2012 sets out a method of calculating recycling efficiency in relation to waste batteries and accumulators. The calculation method is set out in Annexe I to that regulation. It provides a standard approach for all recyclers of waste batteries so that, in any given case, it can be confirmed whether recycling processes have met the minimum efficiency standards set out in Annexe III to Directive 2006/66/EC. I am sorry to be technical again, but I wanted to make that response.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, also asked about revocations in relation to the end-of-life vehicles directive. The three EU decisions relating to that directive, referenced in the Schedule to the instrument, are to be revoked instead of being retained and amended. Commission decision 2001/753/EC sets out a questionnaire for member states to report on the implementation of the end-of-life vehicles directive. Following exit, the requirements of this decision would be redundant. The requirements of the two Commission decisions on end-of-life vehicles which relate to minimum requirements for the certificate of destruction, and component and coding standards, are already implemented in UK law. This has been done through Regulation 29 in Schedule 3 and Regulation 15 in Schedule 2 respectively to the End-of-Life Vehicles Regulations 2003. Accordingly, these two decisions are to be revoked as their requirements are already embedded in domestic legislation.

I very much agree with the noble Baroness about plastic waste. Clearly, a huge amount is going on in both the public and private sector to reduce the use of plastic, in relation to the resources and waste strategy as well as what we look to retailers to do, but clearly there is much more to be done. I will endeavour to explain the references to the reporting progress requirement, which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, emphasised. As has been said, Article 5 of Commission decision 2011/753/EU, as amended by this instrument, requires the Secretary of State to publish a progress report before 1 January 2022. Following exit, it would not be appropriate to publish a report on the implementation of EU obligations.

This amendment commits the Government to publish a report on progress towards the attainment of the 50% target set out in law for England and the devolved Administrations. The format of this report is to be determined, but it would set out whether England has attained the target and any other necessary information on progress in relation to these targets. On the question of progress or implementation, my understanding is that it is all related to it being set out as before: a report on the implementation of an EU obligation would no longer be an obligation when we are no longer a member. The noble Baroness should not interpret removing “implementation” and putting in “progress”—

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I am sorry to intervene but on this important subject of reports on recycling, particularly of plastic waste, which my noble friend will remember that I am very interested in, he seems to be saying that this is about implementing an EU obligation which we will no longer have. I thought that the principle of these regulations, which I fully support, was to bring into UK law equivalent provisions to those that exist in EU law. Therefore, it would be helpful if he could tell us—either now or in writing—what the plan is for reporting on the recycling of plastic and other waste in the UK once these regulations come in, because I am worried that there might be a gap. I think that is what the noble Baroness was saying earlier.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

Perhaps I might add to that. One cannot have it both ways, as the Minister is trying to do here, because the new wording says that in the progress report for 2020, the Secretary of State shall demonstrate,

“compliance with the targets set in article 11(2)”

of directive 2008. It makes reference to that directive, so it is either a progress report or an implementation report. Either way, it is referring to the directive, and I would contend—as with the noble Baroness’s helpful intervention—that an implementation report puts slightly more teeth into it than a progress report.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. It is in reference to Article 11(2) of the waste framework directive, which is still referred to in domestic legislation with the modifications that have been made in this instrument. The 50% household waste recycling target is already part of our statute. I understand what she says: she thinks that “implementation” is stronger than “progress”. But because it is already in statute, it is still going to have to deal with whatever references are contained in Article 11(2). There will still be the same requirements of that directive in setting out whether the target has been attained and any other relevant information.

The noble Baroness referred to the environment Bill, which clearly everyone is waiting for. Everyone will be waiting for the new independent body—the office of environmental protection, with its powers to review and take action in relation to the attainment of this target. We will definitely need to attend to those points.

I also have some references, which I have mentioned before. It is understood that with the environment Bill not being on the statute book until sometime in the second Session, while I am not in a position today to talk about the form of that body, the Government have made it absolutely clear that there will be no governance gap. If there were any issues between the day of exit and the day of that office having legal authority, it would be in a position to act on it with full authority. Clearly, the body needs to have a legal entity but, in the meantime, interim arrangements will be announced should there be a governance gap. Obviously we are seeking a deal. I think noble Lords realise that everyone wants a deal, meaning that there would not be a governance gap, but if there is a need to ensure that these matters are attended to, announcements would be made.

Perhaps I should not quibble about the word, but I had better use it again and refer to the “progress” report. We will publish, as we do, yearly statistics setting out the UK and devolved Administrations’ progress towards meeting the 50% recycling target. We need to do it.

I am afraid that I did not realise my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has been here since the beginning of the debate. I am sorry. I would have expected her to say something before. These statutory instruments are absolutely to do with operability. We will need to attend to a range of areas through the resources and waste strategy and the clean growth strategy. As I said, work is going on in the public and private sectors to ensure that we move quickly to a circular economy so that we are less wasteful as human beings.

On efficiencies and transitional provision for EMAS, EMAS Global is the European Commission’s answer to allowing non-member states to enter and place goods on the market in accordance with the management standards set out in EMAS. Those are the arrangements as I understand them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned the wording “appropriate authority”. This wording has been used more frequently in exit SIs where modifications have been made to EU directives. By their nature, directives often place obligations on a number of different authorities, and we need to maintain that effect. In other EU regulations, decisions are placed more firmly on a finite set of authorities and bodies. In those cases, EU exit legislation will refer specifically to the authority in question.

On poultry and the connection between extractive waste and animal health, given the reference in Regulation 9, I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that the reference to EU poultry legislation relates to modifications to the industrial emissions directive which is further down the page. The connection between the two is that the industrial emissions directive applies to pollution arising from industrial activities. One of those activities, which is described further at 6.6 of Annexe 1 of the industrial emissions directive, is the intensive rearing of poultry and pigs. I hope that explains how that appears on that page.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, raised hazardous waste. Annexe 3 of the waste framework directive sets out the definition of waste which can be classed as hazardous. The statutory instrument makes provision in law to allow reference to Annexe 3—I am sorry, I will have to set that out more clearly—in delivering what waste can be considered hazardous. I have an awful feeling that my official must have been a doctor in another life—prescriptions for chemists are always interesting. I should declare that I have three godchildren who are doctors.

18:45

As to who and what are the verifiers that will replace the EU bodies, in the case of end of waste, UK-based conformity assessment bodies—CABs—can take on the role of verifier to assess whether producers and suppliers have the appropriate management systems in place. We are confident they have sufficient expertise because the option to verify a management system through a UK-based CAB already exists and is currently used by producers and suppliers. Previously, this could be done through either a UK-based CAB or an accredited EU-based body, referred to in the statutory instrument as “any other environmental verifier”. The SI will remove this second option so that, after exit day, verification will be done only through a UK body.

Three verifiers are accredited by the UK Accreditation Service—UKAS. These independently verify that the environmental management system—EMS—and the environmental statements prepared by organisations applying to be registered with the EU eco-management audit system meet the conditions for being part of the scheme. For example, for an EMS to meet the requirements of the ISO 14001, internal audits will be undertaken, including checks on legal compliance, environmental performance improvements and environmental statements. Arrangements are in place, but I will look at whether any further details would be helpful.

I want to respond on one further issue. We are not weakening our environmental protection. We will maintain, and wish to enhance, our already high environmental standards. The EU withdrawal Act will ensure existing EU environmental law continues to have effect in UK law. We are absolutely clear that this is a technical instrument to ensure that the law is operable. In every case, there is no change to policy or to the environmental standards already in place. We have a lot of work to do on enhancing the environment, and the reduction of waste and moving to a circular economy is a clear component of that. We want to ensure that this country is in a better state than when we inherited it. It is important we make sure that this operability SI is successful.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

Unless I missed it, the Minister did not refer to the committee on waste management. I am very concerned about what, if anything, will replace it.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I think a letter would be a good idea.

Motion agreed.

Ozone-Depleting Substances and Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

18:49

Moved by

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Ozone-Depleting Substances and Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, this instrument corrects deficiencies in retained EU law so that the UK can continue controlling the use of ozone-depleting substances and fluorinated greenhouse gases—F-gases—following our exit from the EU.

Almost all uses of ozone-depleting substances, such as chlorofluorocarbons, have been phased out under the United Nations Montreal Protocol. EU legislation implements the United Nations Montreal Protocol agreement by restricting ozone-depleting chemicals to certain limited uses where there are no viable alternatives, such as fire extinguishers on aircraft. Usage is kept below the very low levels permitted by the Montreal Protocol by restricting sales to certain registered companies and by applying quota limits on how much each can sell and use. The legislation also requires all imports and exports to be licensed in order to help monitor global compliance.

F-gases replaced ozone-depleting substances for many uses, including refrigerants, aerosol propellants and other industrial processes. These gases do not damage the ozone layer, but they are still powerful greenhouse gases. EU legislation from 2014 requires a 79% cut in the use of F-gases by 2030. Following our lead, a global agreement came into force this year, amending the Montreal Protocol to phase them down internationally over the next 30 years. Most of the provisions in retained EU law can operate in the UK without amendment. However, crucial elements of these EU regulations would not function without this instrument.

Most importantly, the restriction on the amount of F-gas which can be sold is currently achieved through quota limits placed on importers and producers. These quotas are currently allocated by the European Commission directly to individual businesses that are producing and importing. These regulations transfer quota allocation powers to the Secretary of State and the devolved Administrations. This means establishing UK quota systems which are separate from the EU’s systems. Instead of an importer or producer of F-gases getting a single quota from the Commission limiting how much they sell in the EU28 market, they would get two quotas, one from the Commission for sales on the EU27 market and one from the Environment Agency for sales on the UK market. UK companies will be able to continue exporting F-gases to the EU as long as they establish an office in the EU or appoint a company to represent them. In order to determine the level of UK quotas and ensure that UK supply remains on track to achieve a 79% cut in 2030, all companies supplying the UK were asked to provide independently audited data on how much they placed on the UK market between 2015 and 2017. This period was after the EU quota restrictions were already in place, meaning that the total UK supply will remain within the existing phase-down limits.

The current EU process assigns quotas to individual companies for placing F-gases on the EU28 market rather than to member states for their domestic consumption. This makes it difficult to identify exactly how much gas is supplied to the UK, as some EU-based companies use some of their quota to supply the UK, and some UK companies use theirs to supply customers in the EU. This mismatch between the location of the quota allocation and the place where gas is used means that there is a risk that in splitting the quota system, we no longer get our current share of supply, as some EU companies may choose not to supply the UK in the future. These regulations therefore include a power to adjust companies’ quotas if we find that the overall UK supply of F-gases is below the level it would have been had we not left the EU. This power would be used only where there was evidence of a supply shortfall and where there was a high probability of a significant impact on critical sectors. The power would not be used to increase supply beyond where it would have been had we remained in the EU.

Regarding the specific changes made by this instrument, I would like to highlight a few of the more noteworthy. Regulations 4, 5 and 25 in Part 2, and Regulations 37, 38 and 56 in Part 3 facilitate the transfer of functions to the Secretary of State and the Environment Agency with respect to England, and to devolved authorities with respect to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Regulations 7 and 9 reduce the maximum limits for the use of certain ozone-depleting substances to reflect the lower usage in the UK relative to the EU. This is done pro rata based on the population of the UK relative to that of the EU. Regulation 43 enables training certificates issued in EU member states to continue to be recognised in the UK to ensure that EU-trained technicians can continue to work here. Regulation 48 requires the authorities in one part of the UK to consult the authorities in other parts before establishing their own F-gas quota system.

I should now like to bring noble Lords up to date on progress since the Explanatory Memorandum was published. I am delighted to say that on 11 February, the IT system needed to administer UK quotas went live. So far, more than 100 businesses have already registered, including two-thirds of the main suppliers, ensuring that they can continue operating in the UK. On 12 February, a power was approved by your Lordships’ House through the Environment (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 for regulators to charge businesses a fee to cover the cost of operating a UK system. This is in line with the long-established principle that the polluter rather than the taxpayer should pick up the cost of regulating. Although there was no formal duty to consult, Defra officials have engaged with businesses and environmental groups throughout the process. The clear message has been that we should not vary the F-gas phase-down schedule: neither slowing down nor speeding up. We published guidance for businesses in August, December and earlier this month on how the UK system would work, helping them to prepare for exit.

The requirements of the EU systems will remain very largely unchanged, so the direct impact of this instrument on businesses is small. Defra has assessed that there will be an additional administrative cost for those companies which have to deal with two quota systems—the UK and the remaining EU—rather than one in the future. This is estimated at about £60,000 per year in aggregate for the 50 or 60 UK companies affected. The Environment Agency will administer the quota and reporting systems and the agency has secured the additional staff needed.

Enforcement arrangements will remain the same as they are under EU regulations, with the Environment Agency and devolved Administration regulators undertaking the same sort of activity as they do at present. We do not expect enforcement costs to increase significantly as the number of companies being regulated will be similar.

Dialogue has continued with the devolved Administrations and I am pleased to say that all have agreed to this instrument. For our exit day preparations, they have also agreed that they will remain part of a single UK-wide system, in particular for the purpose of allocating quotas. That means that, immediately after exit, the Environment Agency will allocate quotas for the whole UK market. Discussions are also progressing well on the longer term governance arrangements for the operation of the system and the joint decision-making process, although this does not need to be in place from day one. Should an Administration wish to diverge from a UK-wide approach in the future, they will need to consult the other Administrations to ensure that preparations on both sides can be made.

I end by pointing out that the legislative powers being returned to the UK from the Commission will be exercised in almost all cases by regulation, enabling significantly greater scrutiny by your Lordships’ House than has previously been the case. I beg to move.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing the instrument and congratulate Defra on having gone live with the system and being much more successful than the Department for Transport with its ferries—hypothetical as they were.

This is a serious subject, so I will not make light of it. We are delighted that the statutory instrument will maintain the continuity of the ambitious targets that are necessary. In researching this, I reminded myself how much more warming fluorinated gasses are than CO₂: 23,000 times. The Minister said that it is more powerful. I had to check the figure several times because it seems very large, but they are extremely powerful substances. Ozone-depleting substances were one of the first things on which the world got together and decided to act—very successfully, it seemed.

However, in researching this I also came across a disturbing fact discovered by the University of Bristol, which is that some 40,000 tonnes of carbon tetrachloride are still being emitted, although not by anywhere that Defra is responsible for because it seems to be in the Shandong province of China. However, maybe the FCO would like to take that up, because although the EU and the UK are doing their bit, it seems that China is still emitting 40,000 tonnes of this extremely damaging chemical. You can use it in the production of chlorine, but again, that is a staggering figure. The noble Baroness told us about the continuing search for less damaging alternatives; I think the protocol also agrees that we should allow equipment to continue for its useful life so that we are not replacing things unnecessarily but that at the end of its life, we should go for something that involves a less damaging gas.

19:00

I want to ask about a couple of things in the regulations. The noble Baroness kindly explained the UK quota system, which will be UK-wide, and the Environment Agency will negotiate that with the devolved Administrations. However, what happens in the event that the devolved Administrations disagree about how much quota they get? Does she foresee that that will be an issue? The noble Baroness also mentioned that EU-certified technicians will be able to continue to work in the UK, but will it work the other way round—will UK-certified technicians be able to work in the EU? I understand that access to the EU quotas will require an office being set up in the EU to negotiate them and administrate that process. It would be useful to know whether that exchange of technical personnel will be reciprocal, and to know about the quotas. However, other than that, I hope that by 2030, we will have achieved our targets and perhaps even done better than that and moved past them. It concerns me that, according to the University of Bristol study, other areas of the world continue to emit such vast amounts of something that is so damaging to the atmosphere.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I join the noble Baroness in congratulating Defra, both on this regulation and on the very clear Explanatory Memorandum. I know from the useful briefing Defra gave me last summer that it was getting ahead very well with the EU exit regulations, and it is good to see them coming through.

I also wanted to look backwards. In the early 1980s, I was a junior civil servant in what is now Defra, and responsible for research and development in a small way. I went to an interdepartmental meeting to discuss various proposed cuts, one of which was to the British Antarctic Survey. I remember arguing, contrary to my brief, that we should continue to support the survey because I believed in fundamental research and that sometimes you did not just do research near to the final product. Of course, later in my career, history showed that the survey was very important. That is a story I like to tell to youngsters in schools because it shows the importance of R&D.

I was pleased that the Minister described the work Defra had done to look at the impact on business of this regulation. I have just one point of clarification. She mentioned that 100 businesses were being regulated and then said that the estimate was that the cost—I think of the extra administrative system that we have had to bring in because of the transfer—would be £60,000 in aggregate for 50 to 60 companies. I could not understand the difference between the 100 companies that seemed to be affected by the proposal and the cost figure, which, if that is the only cost, seems modest for this important area.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her introduction to the order before the Committee and for undertaking prior discussions with her team. As she said, this order, while not specifically made to cover the scenario where the UK leaves the EU without a deal, nevertheless makes provision for a no-deal exit with the repatriation of authorising authorities and regulators. It also corrects a series of deficiencies in retained EU law on ozone-depleting substances under Part 2 and fluorinated greenhouse gases under Part 3. The order therefore maintains the 79% cut on a UK basis, as for example in F-gases between 2015 and 2030, as the Minister stated, by steadily reducing quotas for companies that operate in this field. The order maintains that it will continue.

Although many of the changes introduced through this order on the transfer of powers currently exercised in Europe to the UK are technical in nature, other minor noteworthy changes could be construed as shifts in policy. Labour certainly does not challenge the order and will approve it today.

Although the order was laid in December and subsequently relaid on 6 February following exchanges with the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, I understand that it is essentially the same document. The order has not been flagged by your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, but it is worth recognising that progress has been made in several areas in which there have been concerns and to which the Minister drew attention. However, there are a few questions around these outcomes, which I will highlight for the Minister.

It is good to note that the UK Government and the devolved Administrations have agreed to the repatriation on the basis of a single UK-wide quota. This quota, following dialogue with the relevant companies on how much they place in the UK market, will be set at 12%, roughly aligned with the size of the UK’s population relative to the EU. That the UK’s usage aligns in this way is certainly interesting. Under paragraph 2.8 of the draft Explanatory Memorandum, it is agreed between the Government and the devolved Administrations that, should an Administration wish to diverge from the protocol in the future, they must consult the others before doing so. Have the Government consulted the Commission on whether the EU has also agreed to the 12% and on whether, should the UK in the future wish to diverge in any way from the process agreed in the 1987 Montreal Protocol, it will consult with the EU and others before undertaking any divergence?

Paragraph 6.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that the Environment Act 1995 will be amended to include a charging regime under the authority of the Environment Agency on a UK-wide basis. I certainly join others in saying that good progress is being made, with this having happened, but I note that these changes are on a cost recovery basis. Can the Minister confirm, because it was in some divergence to the £60,000 figure she gave in her introductory remarks, that the total amount costed in the other place was estimated at £500,000 per annum for the administrative costs? I understand that the Government have put this out to consultation regarding cost recovery, so I have a few questions for the Minister regarding the scope of that consultation.

Paragraph 6.2 also states that the EU allocation mechanisms for quotas and the format for company reports will not be replicated in the UK, as different IT systems will be established here. I understand that this IT system has also been completed, and I congratulate the Government on that achievement as well; while not wishing to appear churlish, let us hope that it will continue to operate successfully under stress.

Returning to costs and charters, I understand that this set-up cost has been financed through the Government. The Minister in the other place, Dr Coffey, stated:

“Future charges will be for the overall regulation system”.—[Official Report, Commons, Eighth Delegated Legislation Committee, 26/2/19; col. 8.]


Will the Minister clarify what that means for cost recovery? Will there be an element of repayment of capital included in running cost recovery of fees from operating companies? That is, will companies ultimately be charged for this set-up cost?

The Government will also continue paying into the Montreal Protocol assistance fund to help developing nations across the world move to less harmful gases. Can the Minister confirm whether industry will be re-charged any of these contributions? It would be good to understand whether the Government have included either of these potential costs as possible cost recovery items out for consultation.

The final concern in this regard is about impact assessment. While the Government are satisfied that the cost is de minimis, as the Minister explained, have they assessed whether the new charges could impact on companies’ costs in a way that will affect whether they continue to operate in the UK? Several companies operate across the UK and in the EU, and their quotas will come from both in future. Are the Government satisfied that any disruption will not detrimentally impact on these companies continuing in the UK in such a way that the Government may have to use their new powers of increasing quotas to make up for a closure of any company’s shortfall to maintain the UK in a steady state? In their dialogue with companies when undertaking these regulations, can the Government confirm that companies operating across borders are generally satisfied with the outcome? One element behind this question on reciprocity—mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller—is whether UK trading certificates and authorisations will be accepted in the EU after exit in the same way, replicating the recognition of EU certificates in the UK.

I am sure that all contributors to this order will agree that these regulations are vital to the safeguarding of the environment across the world. Can the Minister confirm that, despite abiding by the increasing quota restrictions since 2015, these have been effective in reducing emissions? That is, are they working as envisaged, without loopholes appearing such as displacements on to other gases not specified in the protocols?

While these regulations appear technical, they will certainly be important to companies operating in the UK and the EU, especially given the lack of coherent data on how they may be reapportioned in individual quotas. Can the Minister confirm that, through the Government’s discussions, all the operators essentially agree with the regulations and their individual outcomes, and that any potential disputes can be reconciled via due process through the Environment Agency?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank all noble Lords who took part in what has turned out to be a very interesting and I hope fairly straightforward debate. I have the answers to nearly all of the questions, which is always an added bonus.

I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for her congratulations on getting the system up and running. We will take congratulations where we can get them. I was very interested by her observations on the wider environment in relation to ozone depleting substances, F-gases. I have a few responses to the questions that she raised. The UK and other parties raised their serious concerns about carbon tetrachloride in China at the Montreal Protocol meeting last year. China has agreed to take enforcement action. We will continue to monitor the situation and make representations in that area.

The noble Baroness also mentioned an F-gas being 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. That is true: there is an F-gas—there are many different types of F-gas—that is 23 times more powerful, called SF₆. But this one is rarely used and accounts for less than 3% of F-gas emissions for the UK. It is the HFC emissions that account for 95% of UK F-gas emissions. As the noble Baroness pointed out, many other gases can now be used in various pieces of equipment to the same effect and industries are certainly moving over to those.

19:15

I turn now to the detail of the regulations. Going back to the noble Baroness’s point about the devolved Administration, a point that was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, the important thing here, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, is that initially we have this agreement with the devolved Administrations. The Environment Agency will allocate quotas for the whole of the UK. There will basically be one bucket of quota. It will be handed out to individual companies which will then be able to trade their F-gases within a single UK market; it will not be country specific. In the longer term, we need to make sure that that system is very solid, so there will be governance arrangements and joint decision-making. We do not expect there to be divergence in the future, but there may well be. However, the devolved Administrations will not be allowed to diverge without consulting all the other nations in order to make sure that we do not go over the total target, which of course is set for the UK as a whole.

I move on to the certified technicians. This is quite an interesting one, and I certainly had not realised this: there are around 47,000 technicians certified by UK bodies, which is quite a number of individuals. We do not hold figures on how many technicians are working in the UK with EU certificates but, based on the proportion of EU certificates leaving the UK, it could be around 2,000-3,000 people. The point here is that this is clearly a very skilled job, but it also seems to be quite local because it is a practical job in terms of maintaining the pipework, the cylinders and the places where these things are used. At this moment, we cannot guarantee that the EU will accept UK training certificates. We very much hope that we will reach a deal such that it will do so in future. We have made a very open and generous offer to accept the EU training certificates.

I turn to the comments made by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. There was slight confusion or perhaps misunderstanding about the different types of cost that will be incurred with this process. The 50 to 60 businesses are those that most engage with the system. These are the bigger companies that may need to engage in the UK and may have F-gas quotas. There will be many other companies interested in far less and which might have just a tiny quota for some ODSs. The cost to the business of engaging with the system therefore varies enormously, but in aggregate we expect it to be less than £60,000. However, in the interests of transparency I note that some charges may well go back to the suppliers of these gases on the basis that the polluter rather than the taxpayer should pay. The additional cost of the system that the Environment Agency will face is estimated to be around £500,000 per year. If the agency chooses to recover the cost through charging fees, we estimate that it would be spread among 800-1,000 companies right across the UK, the EU and the rest of the world which might need to use the UK system at some stage. This will all be subject to consultation, which has not yet started. The actual cost to each company will vary depending on the extent to which it uses the system. It is not in place at the moment. For the time being, the costs are being met out of funds received for no-deal preparation work.

I turn to some comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on the 12.4%—I presume he was referring to the ODS quota value. The data for how much ODS is used in the UK is not readily available as the amount is very small and this information has not been aggregated at a UK level—it is available only at an EU level. The use of ODS is very small and is probably not worth the time and effort to try to figure it out. Following the global phase-out, it is utterly disproportionate to try to quantify the amount of ODS sold and then compare that to the amount sold in the EU. What will we gain as the phase-down has already happened?

I am not as concerned about that side of things, but on F-gas we have to make sure that we are comfortable. Overestimating how much we use is unlikely; it is more the case that we will underestimate because we have asked all these companies how much they supply to the UK market. They have all sent us their numbers, but it could be that a company has not sent its numbers because it has decided that it will not continue in this market. That is what we have to be concerned about. We will watch that to make sure that we get the right amount of F-gas into the country.

We have been talking to the EU while we have been splitting the quotas, but on divergence from the EU with respect to issues relating to the Montreal protocol, we will, as with all of these issues, be speaking to all of the major partners in the world. We take a very serious leadership role in this.

I return to a question asked by the noble Lord about what happens if a company ceases to trade and so that quota no longer comes into the market. We would have a bucket of quota which can be reallocated to people. It is essential that we make sure that we have the correct supply, but it is also essential to make sure that the phase-down happens within the limits that we are expecting over the coming years, so should a company no longer trade, that quota would be able to be allocated to a separate company.

What has been the impact and has this reduced emissions? It has. We know that the regulations took a little time to come into place—I accept that that was when the EU regulations were put into place. Now that they are in place, the amount of gas being placed on the market is already 37% below 2015 levels, so the EU regulations are having a significant effect. What noble Lords are being asked to approve today is for those EU regulations to be copied over and for some small changes to be made to make sure that they continue to work in the UK and that we too can continue to reduce our usage of F-gases and monitor the very small use of ODSs.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I thank my noble friend for her clarification on the costs. I had one thought: if the Environment Agency was to decide to recover the administrative costs, would it be possible for it to look at charging smaller companies a smaller amount of money? This was done in relation to the changes on data and was very well received. I do not ask for a commitment, but I make that proposal.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

Yes it can.

[Lord Grantchester]

I was ready to jump up before the Committee was asked to agree the Motion, but I will sit down while the Minister answers the noble Baroness and I will then rise again.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank my noble friend for that comment—I was going to say that anyway. That would be part of the consultation process with the Environment Agency. It seems like a very good idea, but it should at least assess whether that is a viable option.

[Lord Grantchester]

I apologise for intervening perhaps a little too early on other Members. While paying great regard to the Minister, who has answered all the points most succinctly and very well, I wanted to get a feel for the impact on these regulations and the discussions Defra has had with the various companies. Has the Minister got a sense, or not, that they are going to cause disruption for companies operating in this field, albeit that they then buy and sell the quota in terms of moving in and out of different countries? I understand that happens already, but is there a sense of disruption to industry causing them some dismay, in bringing the regulations back into the UK?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I apologise to the noble Lord; he asked about that and I forgot to answer. The department has contacted every single supplier across the EU in this process, so we have a strong feeling of where the industry is coming from. We have spoken to key business, industry and environmental representatives as well. For example, the Federation of Environmental Trade Associations is an umbrella trade body representing refrigeration and air conditioning manufacturers and suppliers. We have spoken to the British Refrigeration Association, the air conditioning and refrigeration board and Mexichem, the biggest producer of F-gases in the UK. While there will certainly be some change, I have tried to highlight that the change will not be significant. If a company trades in the UK and the rest of the EU, it will have to apply for two different buckets of quota, but apart from that, much of the system will stay the same.

Motion agreed.

Committee adjourned at 7.26 pm.

House of Lords

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Lords Chamber

Wednesday 27 February 2019

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

Genocide Prevention

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Lords Chamber

Question

15:06

Asked by

[Lord Selkirk of Douglas]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the United States’ Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act, signed into law by the President of the United States on 14 January 2019; and what steps they are taking to help ensure the timely prevention of the genocide of religious minorities.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, the UK does not normally comment on the policy of close allies—however, we welcome all efforts to help prevent mass atrocities. As a majority of mass atrocities occur in and around conflict, the Government believe that a focus on conflict prevention is the best means to prevent most mass atrocities. Through our diplomatic development, defence and law enforcement engagement, the UK participates in a range of international initiatives aimed at preventing atrocities.

[Lord Selkirk of Douglas (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her reply. She will recall that it is 70 years since the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Should the Government not consider the introduction of new legislation which would ensure that their response to genocide is as immediate and effective as possible, and which would also protect religious minority groups, including Christians?

[Baroness Goldie]

I thank my noble friend for a pertinent question. The UK’s work in this area is long-standing, both in preventing atrocities and in securing accountability and justice for atrocities committed. My noble friend will be aware that UK activity has in-built flexibility, both in identifying situations and in swiftness of response—for example, we work across early warning mechanisms and diplomacy, and from development to programmatic support to help with prevention work, and defence tools. That offers an effective and a swift response, where necessary, to any unfolding situation.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, given what we have seen unfold against the Yazidis and the Christians in northern Iraq and northern Syria, and against the Rohingya Muslims in Burma and the Kachin, is it not clear that the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, is absolutely right that we need to look again at the ways in which we conform to our duties under the 1948 Genocide Convention—to prevent, protect and then to punish? Does the Minister not think it would be prudent to do as the noble Lord suggested, and to look at the American Elie Wiesel legislation which has just passed—especially the complex emergency fund and the mass atrocities taskforce that have been established—and to consider doing something similar in the United Kingdom?

[Baroness Goldie]

I respect the noble Lord’s immense experience in relation to these matters. As I indicated to my noble friend, the UK has, over many years, developed a long-standing modus operandi to deal with mass atrocities. The benefit is obvious in terms of preventing situations unfolding where we deploy or in the humanitarian aid we offer where those situations have unfolded, particularly in relation to Christians who have found themselves persecuted. The noble Lord will be aware of the current review commissioned by the Foreign Secretary—that is a very important step forward. We are aware of the scale of the problem—for example, we are aware that about 215 million Christians experience extreme persecution. However, the UK, as I indicated, works closely across a range of areas and sectors, and it works well.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I was pleased that in the coalition Government we managed to put in place measures in Syria and Iraq to gather evidence in these conflicts—an extremely difficult and novel approach—so that those who committed crimes against humanity, war crimes of genocide could be held to account. Will the noble Baroness fill us in on what progress has been made and say whether people will indeed be held to account?

[Baroness Goldie]

I thank the noble Baroness for raising an important issue. It is fundamental that where such atrocities have been committed, people are investigated and held to account. The noble Baroness will be aware that the United Kingdom has been working closely in endeavouring to facilitate the gathering of evidence to ensure that if matters are appropriate for reference to the International Criminal Court, there is a proper evidence base on which they can proceed. I do not have detailed information on the specific point the noble Baroness raises, but I shall undertake to look into that and respond to her.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that many countries turn a blind eye to genocide carried out by important trading partners or strategic allies? Will she further agree to ensure even-handedness with regard to those responsible for the mass killing of minorities? Responsibility for the pursuit of punitive action should be taken out of the hands of government and placed with an independent arbiter such as the High Court, as suggested in a debate in this House last September.

[Baroness Goldie]

The noble Lord will be aware that the United Kingdom Government work closely with global partners in the consideration of such situations and in determining how best to address them. The system has demonstrated that trying to gather evidence is at the root of this, as evidence matters for whatever legal process we then choose to deploy. The United Kingdom Government take the view that the International Criminal Court is an important forum, and, as I indicated to the noble Baroness on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the Government have been working to try to facilitate getting hold of evidence and making sure that it is preserved; that will then facilitate prosecution.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome what the Minister said about conflict prevention and the excellent work the FCO has been doing on that. However, is the FCO training its staff, particularly its overseas representatives, to spot the early signs of atrocities and genocide? Often they are not simply about people being murdered—they start in a much more pernicious way.

[Baroness Goldie]

The noble Lord makes an important point, with which I am sure the entire Chamber is in sympathy. Again, I do not have specific information about training, but I will undertake to get hold of that. The noble Lord will be aware that the FCO is proactive with regard to activity in other countries where we detect problems, and we try to facilitate training in these other countries where that is possible within the framework of the country.

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords, the training point is an important one; Section 4 of that Act specifically makes it routine to spot the early signs and not just to deal with the after-effects. I urge the Government to look seriously at co-operating with the United States and our other allies on this trend, because it is a very important point. Can the Minister also thank our noble friend the Leader of the House for her robust letter in support of the Holocaust memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens, immediately outside this House? I am most grateful for that positive act from the Government rather than just pious words.

[Baroness Goldie]

I have noted my noble friend’s letter to the Leader of the House; I am sure she will welcome it. On his point about training, he is absolutely right. A lot of cross-government work is currently being done to tackle insecurity and instability, whether through the National Security Council, the Cabinet Office, the FCO, DfID, the Ministry of Defence or the Stabilisation Unit. They are all supported by the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund. So there is a lot of very positive work going on.

Human Bodies: Commercial Exhibition

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Lords Chamber

Question

15:15

Asked by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to updating the Human Tissue Act 2004 to ensure that human bodies being imported into the United Kingdom for commercial exhibitions are governed with the same ethical and legal responsibilities that pertain to bodies originating from the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Manzoor (Con)]

My Lords, in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the law requires that people who wish to be displayed in public after death must give written permission. This does not apply to bodies imported from abroad and any change to the provisions would require amendment of the Human Tissue Act. The Government are working with the Human Tissue Authority to consider what more can be done within existing legislation to address any concerns around the display of bodies.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. The Human Tissue Authority does a very good job. However, as the noble Baroness said, the key provisions of the Act do not apply to bodies imported from abroad. This means that, when it comes to commercial exhibitions such as the Real Bodies exhibition in Birmingham last year, there is no guarantee that the bodies used are not those of executed prisoners, including prisoners of conscience from China. The noble Baroness said that the Government were prepared to work with the HTA to look at the existing legislation. Does she accept that we need an amendment to the HT Act in order to be able to regulate these commercial proceedings? Will she agree to meet noble Lords to discuss that?

[Baroness Manzoor]

My Lords, I am always happy to meet noble Lords to discuss this issue. As the noble Lord knows, changes to primary legislation will be required to activate the change that he is seeking. To be clear, the Human Tissue Authority ensured that the Birmingham exhibition met licensing standards and licensed it in line with the law. We have no evidence to suggest that the exhibition contained the cadavers of political or other prisoners from China.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, do the Government recognise that in a statement in 2004 Gunther von Hagens, who is behind the plastination of bodies, said that he could not prove that the bodies had not been executed? He has publicly stated that he received fresh bodies from which livers had been removed only a few hours previously, indicating that this may be the tip of the iceberg of organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience. This has resulted in a call from the medical fraternity for 400 papers to be withdrawn from the literature, because consent has probably not been given by those people who were deemed to be patients.

[Baroness Manzoor]

My Lords, as I have said, written consent is deemed to be necessary in the UK. It is different for other countries. There are allegations and concerns about organs being removed from people who are being held, for instance, in re-education camps in Xinjiang province, though we do not have evidence to corroborate this. We are working closely with the HTA to ensure that consent is sought in line with the countries concerned.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, there is a much more fundamental ethical issue at play here. Leaving aside the need for cadavers and human tissue for scientific and medical training purposes—which is regulated by the HTA—it seems likely that all the exhibitions which use plasticised cadavers and foetuses for supposedly educational purposes could use modern materials and production to create the same exhibits. That begs the question: why use cadavers and human body parts at all? If the answer is that people want to see such things and will pay to do so, I remind noble Lords that people used to flock in their thousands to see public executions until 1868. Does the HTA exist to regulate what, in this case, is akin to ghoulish curiosity and its manifestations? What is the ethical position and who should be examining it?

[Baroness Manzoor]

My Lords, of course the ethical position is not one for government. The Government have made law and set up the Human Tissue Authority in primary legislation. The exhibitions that have been taking place are in line with the law. However, I understand the noble Baroness’s point, which is valid, and I have empathy with what she says.

Out of interest, I looked at the exhibition review and interview in What’s On: Your What’s on News and Culture Guide. This is what it wrote about the exhibition:

“Fabulously fascinating, incredibly informative, gloriously gruesome … Real Bodies The Exhibition is an unforgettable experience for sure”.


That is the other side—it is not my view, I am just saying—but I understand the noble Baroness’s point.

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, I have never quite understood the morbid curiosity that drives some people to attend commercial exhibitions of human bodies which, in many cases, are imported. There are two questions: what criteria are being used by local authorities to allow such public exhibitions to take place; and what efforts are being made to ensure that such bodies are not imported from countries such as China where the illegal harvesting of organs is rife? We are repeatedly told about the representations that the Government have made at a very high level to the Government of China. We have never been told the reaction of the Chinese Government.

[Baroness Manzoor]

My Lords, involuntary organ removal is illegal under Chinese law. In January 2015, China committed to stop removing organs from executed criminals without their prior consent or the permission of their relatives. But NGOs have reported that organ harvesting from ethnic minority groups, religious groups and political prisoners predominates in this practice and that the trade could cover 60,000 to 100,000 people per year. As my noble friend Lady Goldie said on Monday in answer to an Oral Question, we cannot find evidence to corroborate that at this moment.

River Ecosystems

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Lords Chamber

Question

15:22

Asked by

[Baroness Redfern]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they are taking to address the threat posed to river ecosystems by a combination of farm chemicals, sewage and excessive abstraction.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. England’s river ecosystems are the healthiest they have been since the Industrial Revolution. More than 5,900 miles of rivers have been improved since 2010. Where our catchment-sensitive farming programme operates, pesticides in our rivers have fallen by 50% since 2006. Serious sewage pollution incidents have fallen by 89% in the past 25 years. More than 40 billion litres per year of unsustainable abstraction has been prevented since 2008. We intend to go further.

[Baroness Redfern (Con)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for his encouraging words, but farmland birds have declined by more than half since 1970. More urgent action is needed to tackle sewage effluent chemicals and damaging abstraction of water from rivers and groundwater, which is preventing 15% of rivers meeting good ecological status. On the announcement for abstraction reform to review existing licences and introduce more controls to protect water resources, will this review feed into the 25-year environmental plan, and will targets be set?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the whole 25-year environmental plan—and, indeed, all our plans, including in the Agriculture Bill and the environmental land management schemes—is predicated on the need to enhance our environment. Water quality and water supply is clearly one of our priorities. On abstraction reform, we will certainly be looking at increasing supply, reducing demand and reducing leakages. We are already bringing back targets in many of those areas into our law.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my declaration in the register of interests. Natural England has responsibility for ensuring that our farmland is managed responsibly and our rivers protected, but its budget has been cut by 47% over the last five years. In addition, 50 staff have been poached by Defra to deal with Brexit. How can it possibly be expected to carry out its job effectively when it really does not have the resources to do it?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the figures have shown how not only Natural England but the Environment Agency and the water companies have actually produced very strong improvements in difficult times, when everyone has had to retrench. River basin management plans involving Natural England, Defra and water companies are all about improving water quality across river basins from 2015 to 2021. All of this, and a lot more, is why water quality and supply will be increasingly important.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, among the most important components of sewage that have become more detrimental to wildlife are the pharmaceuticals going down the lavatory as part of human sewage. They are causing infertility in everything from killer whales to dog whelks, because hormones are extremely damaging to wildlife in the long term. Can sewage treatment plants do anything to improve this situation?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, this goes back to the products produced and the importance, with research and technology, of alternatives. It is why our ban on microbeads is tremendously important. We need to do more, both in our own products but more generally with what we put on the land. That is where alternatives and precision farming will be very important.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell us his department’s assessment of the impact of future climate change on our rivers and freshwaters and what steps are being taken to deal with the threat of climate change on water quality and quantity?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

The noble Lord raises something hugely important: we have not only to adapt but to mitigate. That is why the environmental land management schemes, involving what we hope will be 70% of the land farmed in this country, will be precisely about how we mitigate and adapt and how we ensure that we improve water quality through things such as planting trees and better environmental management generally.

[Lord Ribeiro (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a riparian owner. Abstraction is an issue in any area with few reservoirs, and particularly with rivers designated as being of special scientific interest. Of equal concern is abstraction for commercial purposes to clean salads. In particular I point to Bakkavör, a company in Alresford, which imports salads from Europe and cleans them, and the water then goes back into the river system. My question to my noble friend the Minister is: what steps can we take to ensure that water that goes back into the river after cleaning processes is of the same quality as the water abstracted in the first place?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, this goes back to the point about needing to ensure that we reduce abstraction and that we have only sustainable abstraction of water. On the principle that the polluter pays, we certainly need to ensure—and we do increasingly ensure—that people using water return it in better quality than they might do now.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, our rivers are now cleaner than at any time since the Industrial Revolution. That is a very reassuring and fine achievement, but is it not largely the result of the environmental policies and directives of the European Union?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

The noble Lord raises the point that we are bringing back environmental law. We the British have been some of the pioneers of that within the European context and we are very pleased to have that environmental enhancement, wherever it comes from.

[Viscount Ridley (Con)]

My Lords, the Northumberland Rivers Trust, of which I was at the time a trustee, tried to solve the problem of poor water quality in the River Blyth in spring and summer, when it went turbid and cloudy and there was a detrimental impact on the ecosystem. After doing a lot of work on farms, it was concluded that the main problem was the invasive alien signal crayfish. Does my noble friend agree that invasive alien species are a form of pollution that can be even more damaging than other forms?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, even invasive species usually need good-quality water in which to, unfortunately, flourish. I am very strong on this—invasive species have caused great harm to our natural ecosystems, and we need to manage those species properly, because otherwise we will lose our natural ecosystems.

Help to Buy: Housebuilders’ Profits

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Lords Chamber

Question

15:29

Asked by

[Lord Shipley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to restrict the profits being made by housebuilders through the Help to Buy scheme.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)]

Schemes such as Help to Buy equity loan have helped to deliver 222,000 new homes in 2017-18, the highest level since 2007-08. However, we expect builders to act responsibly. We expect all housing developers to deliver good quality housing, to deliver it on time, and to treat purchasers of new-build homes fairly.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his reply. He will be aware that yesterday, the housebuilder Persimmon declared annual profits of over £1 billion, having built 16,449 homes. That is £66,000 per house built, with half the sales funded through Help to Buy. That represents almost a trebling in profit per house since Help to Buy was introduced in 2013. Does the Minister accept research concluding that Help to Buy has led to house prices being 15% higher than they would be compared to similar properties that were not eligible—in turn, fuelling profits? What plans do the Government have to clamp down on huge bonuses arising from the increased profits, made from the public purse under Help to Buy?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I should point out to the noble Lord that the Help to Buy scheme was initiated under the coalition Government. Some of the figures he has quoted were made by his leader, the right honourable Member for Twickenham, Vince Cable, who is in a much better position than I am to know how successful the scheme has been in delivering houses. It has delivered over 190,000, and he was a Cabinet Minister when it started. Ensuring we get value for money is of course important, and we are focused on that. Regarding directors’ salaries, there are provisions in the Companies Act 2006 relating to directors’ duties. Section 173 includes a complex corporate code that governs listed companies. Persimmon, which he has referenced, realised how unacceptable the situation was and the chairman, the chairman of the remuneration committee and the chief executive resigned. That is an indication of the realisation, which I share, that it was inappropriate.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Government should set a framework for space standards, quality of design and energy efficiency so that, no matter if the home is for sale or rent, it will provide a quality dwelling for many years to come? It is disappointing that many of the homes benefiting from the Government’s scheme fail in these respects.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I do accept that standards are important. The noble Lord will be aware that the National Planning Policy Framework tightens up some of these quality and design requirements, and there are also rules relating to safety. These will be at the forefront of the Government’s mind when we have the new Help to Buy scheme. We will look at all of the providers, not just Persimmon, to make sure that they are delivering value for money for the consumer and the taxpayer.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

Will the Minister return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley: that the vast profits Persimmon is making would be far better invested in bricks and mortar and new council houses?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I leave it to the Labour Party to have an assault on profits; there is nothing wrong with profit itself. It is inappropriate when the money is not being invested properly and providers are not taking proper account of their duties; that is unacceptable. The noble Lord will know that the lifting of the cap on local authorities will help with an issue on which he and I agree: the need for more social houses.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister is suggesting that the oligopoly of major-volume housebuilders has let us down on quantity, affordability, design, workmanship and quality of product. Could he update us on the arrival of a new homes ombudsman, who can deal with a good number of the complaints that, justifiably, people are making about the appalling quality they experience when they buy some of these properties?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, most of the suppliers of homes under the Help to Buy scheme are small and medium-sized enterprises, although I accept that the larger players are delivering the volume. I agree with the noble Lord about the need for a new homes ombudsman and he will know that, when legislative time allows, we will introduce that. In the meantime, with the Home Builders Federation we are looking at the possibility of a voluntary homes ombudsman, to make sure we have the qualities he and I are keen on and that they are enforced.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand that, as of 2021, the scheme will be restricted to only first-time buyers. In those conditions, what will stop first-time buyers being subjected to inflated house prices?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right: the new Help to Buy scheme, which will start in April 2021 and run for two years, will be restricted to first-time buyers. At the moment, 81% of the uptake is first-time buyers. We will look carefully across the board at who is designated under that scheme as a provider, and we will have an opportunity to review that because it is a new system. We will look at it in the round to ensure that there is quality and proper consumer reference around some of the complaints that may be made. We will look also at leaseholds, to ensure that is no longer there. In 2021, all the new entrants and refreshed members will be required to sign up to that.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, it is important to state for the public record that the figures provided by my noble friend Lord Shipley are from research done by the Times. Is the Minister aware that in 2018, the largest housebuilders declared dividends amounting to £2 billion? On hearing this, does he have any sympathy for the many council planning officers who regularly do battle with those developers who are still exploiting the Government’s viability loophole to avoid paying the community infrastructure levy and Section 106 money rightly owed to councils, thus depriving communities all over the country of millions of pounds that should be spent on roads, schools and much-needed social housing? When will the loophole finally be closed for good?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, the figures are right, to the extent that they stack up mathematically. I accept that the figures set out by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, featured in the press, but they are simply an exercise in looking at the profit and then dividing it by the number of houses built, without any attempt to isolate those in the Help to Buy scheme. It is very much a back-of-a-fag-packet exercise and does not bear mathematical analysis.

I hope the noble Baroness will accept that her more detailed questions have slightly blindsided me because they are not on this specific point. However, I will write to her and ensure that a copy of the letter is placed in the Library.

Jammu and Kashmir

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Lords Chamber

Statement

15:38

[Baroness Goldie (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 Mr Mark Field in response to an Urgent Question in the other place. The Statement is as follows:

“I understand that the Prime Minister made reference to this earlier during the course of Prime Minister’s Question Time. The UK is and remains deeply concerned about rising tensions between India and Pakistan. Understandably, there has been huge interest in this rapidly developing situation. This House will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail on reportage at this time as the situation evolves.

However, what we do understand is that, on 14 February, at least 40 paramilitary Indian police officers were killed in a suicide attack in India-administered Kashmir. The Pakistan-based militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed, or JeM, claimed responsibility for that attack. India-Pakistan tensions, already at a high level, rose significantly following that attack, and both countries publicly exchanged heated rhetoric.

On Tuesday 26 February, Indian and Pakistan news reported that Indian jets had crossed the line of control between India and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. There have been further reports of ceasefire violations across the line of control overnight and the situation remains unclear but fast developing.

The Foreign Secretary spoke to his Indian and Pakistani counterparts on Monday to discuss the situation and we are in regular contact with both countries at senior levels to encourage restraint and to avoid escalating tensions further. We are monitoring developments closely and considering the implications for British nationals. I shall be speaking to both the Indian and Pakistani high commissioners this afternoon and I will continue to press the importance of restraint.

We urge both sides to engage in dialogue and to find diplomatic solutions to ensure regional stability. We are working closely with international partners, including through the United Nations Security Council, to de-escalate tensions.

India and Pakistan are both long-standing and important friends of the United Kingdom. We have many and significant links to both countries through sizeable diaspora communities. As a consequence, we enjoy strong bilateral relations with both nations. The UK Government’s position on Kashmir remains that it is, and must be, for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution to the situation, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for the UK to prescribe, intervene or interfere with a solution or to act as mediator.

I know that the House has previously raised concerns about the humanitarian and human rights situation in both India-administered Kashmir and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. We continue to monitor the situation and encourage all states to ensure that their domestic standards are in line with international standards”.

15:41

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I should have done this earlier: I wish the Minister a very happy birthday.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

I thank the Minister for repeating the response and for the Government’s efforts with Pakistan and India to cease all action that risks escalating the conflict. Mark Field said that we would work closely with international partners, including through the UN Security Council, to de-escalate tensions. Surely one action would be for the UN Security Council to formally designate Masood Azhar—the head of the group responsible for this terrorist atrocity—so that he can face the resulting sanctions and restrictions. Therefore, will she urge the Foreign Secretary to speak to his Chinese counterparts about lifting their inexplicable veto on that designation?

Our thoughts today must also be with the innocent people of Kashmir, who are literally caught in the middle of this crossfire and have been for the last 70 years. Can the Minister tell us how we are working with international partners to ensure that the UN is on the ground and able to investigate all human rights abuses?

[Baroness Goldie]

I thank the noble Lord. I will turn to his last point first, if I may. Yes, we totally share his concern about the plight of the citizens within Kashmir. Our thoughts particularly are with the victims of the terrorist attack in Pulwama and their families.

The United Kingdom is conscious of the importance of the United Nations as a forum for influence and action. The UK continues to support the listing of Masood Azhar, the leader of Jaish-e-Mohammed, under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1267. That organisation is already listed by the UN and has been proscribed in the UK since 2001. To our knowledge, Azhar remains the head of JeM. The noble Lord makes a very important point. We will continue to work closely with global partners, as we work closely on our bilateral relationships with the two countries to exercise restraint and to try to ensure that a safer environment can be created in Kashmir.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question on this extremely challenging development in the region. Did she hear a commentator on the “Today” programme this morning regretting a lack of leadership in the world when conflicts such as this arise? He said that that was, from the Americans, because of Trump and, from the UK, because of Brexit. Does she agree? If not, what specific action is the UK taking in the UN and elsewhere to seek a peaceful resolution to this conflict, especially to its underlying causes?

[Baroness Goldie]

Sadly, the conflict in Kashmir long predates Brexit. The noble Baroness will be aware that the United Kingdom has, with global partners, been working tirelessly and doing everything it can to urge restraint and to encourage both sides to avoid escalation and discuss constructively a political resolution to this situation. The United Kingdom has demonstrated, both in its diplomatic activity and in the high-level contact between the Foreign Secretary and his counter- parts in India and Pakistan, that it is an influential bilateral partner. As I said in the initial response, Pakistan and India are good friends of the United Kingdom. We are deeply concerned about the escalating situation in Kashmir and are using all the influence we can, both bilaterally and in global fora, to try to improve it.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the fact that my noble friend has set out so carefully the work that is being carried out by the international community to defuse the situation, with the UK playing a leading part, because the security situation there will be of great concern to the wider region. However, can the UK work through the Human Rights Council on a longer-term basis to help those who clearly find life extremely difficult in both parts of administered Kashmir? I understand that the Human Rights Council is sitting this week and it may be an appropriate time for it to consider the matter.

[Baroness Goldie]

My noble friend makes a very pertinent comment. We recognise that there are deep human rights concerns in both India-administered Kashmir and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Any allegations of human rights abuses are deeply concerning and must be investigated thoroughly, promptly and transparently. I am sure that her observation will be heard clearly.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

Kashmir is a large and beautiful state, which in normal circumstances could get by and do well on tourism alone. Unfortunately, as has been mentioned, it has been caught in this crossfire between India and Pakistan. Should we not encourage both states—Pakistan and India—to move towards recognising near autonomy for Kashmir, with important trading and cultural links between both countries?

[Baroness Goldie]

That is an important observation. Both countries have much to gain from a more peaceful environment in Kashmir and both have much to lose if that peace is disrupted. As a Government, we have made it clear that we regard it to be the responsibility of both India and Pakistan to resolve this situation politically and, in doing so, to take into account the wishes of the people of Kashmir. However, both countries will recognise that there are gains to be made if peace can be achieved.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, some 20 years ago, India and Pakistan came within a hair’s breadth of nuclear weapon exchange. As the CDI at the time, I was shocked to discover that a lot of opinion-makers and decision-makers on both sides felt that it was quite practical to have a nuclear war and to use nuclear weapons for war fighting. There was no understanding of nuclear deterrent theory and absolutely no understanding of the fallout patterns for the targets that both sides had selected, and we embarked on a major programme of trying to teach those things. Has that continued and have we resolved those issues within both countries? There is absolutely no doubt that nuclear weapons are not war-fighting weapons.

[Baroness Goldie]

I cannot answer that specific question, as I do not have that information in my brief. However, I undertake to investigate and shall write to the noble Lord. He refers to 20 years ago, since when I think that there has been a far greater global awareness of the huge significance of nuclear weapons. Although this country and others, as participators, support multilateral nuclear disarmament, there is clearly still a place for a nuclear deterrent in current times. However, he makes an interesting point and I shall investigate it.

[Baroness Warsi (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the comments of the Foreign Secretary this morning asking for both sides to de-escalate. I would like to put two matters on record and ask my noble friend to comment on them. Are the Government familiar with the comments made by Prime Minister Imran Khan, with his clear and unequivocal condemnation of the attack in Pulwama; his open and unconditional offer to assist India in every way in relation to that investigation; and his consistent hand of friendship and diplomacy in this matter? I am sure that the House is familiar with the fact that there was a 10-year boycott of Narendra Modi because of his association with religious violence—violence that took the lives of British citizens who lived in Dewsbury and Batley, where I was born and raised. Therefore I encourage the Government to speak to Prime Minister Modi and ask him to put the interests of the Indian people—most significantly, personnel within the Indian Air Force—over and above his personal political interest, given the forthcoming elections.

[Baroness Goldie]

What I would say to my noble friend is that this will require wisdom and reflection by both countries. We have India-administered Kashmir and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Any gestures by statesmen in either country that facilitate dialogue, investigation and exploration of how life can be made more peaceful and the risk of escalation of violence can be avoided is to be commended.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister says that the dialogue between India and Pakistan is the way to resolve this conflict. How would she suggest that India is brought to the table, in the absence of international pressure?

[Baroness Goldie]

Speaking for the United Kingdom Government, they have been very proactive in engaging with both India and Pakistan. As I said, on Monday the Foreign Secretary communicated by telephone with both his counterparts. On a bilateral level, we are certainly deploying every diplomatic measure available to us to encourage both countries to speak to each other and try to investigate, explore and—it is hoped—bring to fruition the necessary political resolution that is the only way to deal with this situation.

Further Discussions with the European Union under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

15:52

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

That this House takes note of the further discussions with the European Union under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to be opening, yet again, today’s debate. Before I begin, I ask noble Lords for their patience, as, like many Members of the House, I am struggling with rather a troublesome cough.

The Motion before the House asks us to take note of the further discussions with the European Union under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. Those further discussions were set out in detail during a Statement repeated by my noble friend Lady Evans, the Leader of the House, yesterday. Today, both here and in the other place, we will be taking stock of our position and, in the other place, voting to help set the direction going forward.

Following the vote on 29 January and the mandate set by the other place, the Prime Minister and members of the Government, including my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, have been engaging with colleagues on all sides of the House and across Europe to find a way forward that will work for both sides. As my noble friend told the House yesterday, the Prime Minister was in Brussels last week to meet President Juncker, to take stock of the work that has been done by the UK and EU teams so far. The Prime Minister also discussed what legal changes are required to ensure that the backstop is temporary, along with whether there are additions or changes to the political declaration that could be made to secure Parliament’s confidence in this starting point for a strong and ambitious future relationship with the EU.

The Prime Minister has been engaging extensively with EU leaders over the past few weeks, and has now spoken to the leader of every other EU member state to explain personally the UK’s position. We have made good progress in our discussions, and that work continues so that we can leave on 29 March with a deal that commands the support of the other place.

Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I will not test the patience of the House by restating in full the Statement repeated yesterday by my noble friend the Leader. However, I would like to touch on a couple of the key points made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The UK and the EU have agreed to work on arrangements that will ensure the absence of a hard border in Northern Ireland, with the aim of avoiding the need for the backstop ever to be used, even in a scenario where the future relationship is not enforced by the end of the implementation period. Beyond the backstop, we have been working in other areas so that we can reach a deal that, again, the other place can support. The UK has a proud history of upholding and protecting standards in workers’ rights, environmental protections and health and safety. We are committed to ensuring that leaving the EU will not lead to the diminution of standards in those areas. The Prime Minister set out yesterday how we will bring forward proposals to uphold, and even strengthen, protections in areas such as workers’ rights and health and safety. We will do this engaging with colleagues across parties and with businesses and trade unions.

The Prime Minister has recognised MPs’ concerns that time is running out and Parliament will not be able to make its voice heard on the next steps, as well as concerns over the uncertainty facing businesses. She has set out a clear process that will guarantee that Parliament gets a vote on whether it wants to leave without a deal on 29 March and, if that is rejected, a vote on extending Article 50. The Prime Minister does not want to extend Article 50; she has never wished to do so.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. The Prime Minister has made a commitment that there will be a vote by the House of Commons as to whether it wishes to leave without a deal or not, but that is a resolution. The law of the land is that we leave on 29 March, as enshrined in the Act of Parliament. What is the significance of the vote? What will happen as a consequence of the vote if it is, let us say, against leaving with no deal? What would actually happen to alter the law?

[Lord Callanan]

As a consequence of that vote, nothing. What will then happen is that the following day the Government will ask the House of Commons whether it wishes to extend the Article 50 process. If the House decides that it wishes to do so for a short, time-limited period, the Government will introduce the necessary legislation—and will of course need to negotiate the relevant extension with the EU, as that is something that we cannot just decide to do unilaterally.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

Has the Minister seen today’s statement by the Government of Gibraltar that, from their point of view, the best solution would be immediately to revoke Article 50? That has been suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and many others. It would be the best thing from the point of view of the UK, it would end uncertainty and it would enable us to get on with our business in an untroubled way. What is the reaction to the request from the Government of Gibraltar? They are literally on the front line in this matter.

[Lord Callanan]

The noble Lord will be unsurprised to know that, as usual, I disagree fundamentally with him. The Prime Minister has been clear that we will not be revoking Article 50 because to do so would disavow the results of the referendum. We take the concerns expressed by the Government of Gibraltar seriously, but the whole UK family, including citizens in Gibraltar, will be leaving the EU together.

As I said, the Prime Minister does not wish to extend Article 50 and has never wished to do so; it would simply defer the moment of decision and put off difficult choices. We want to leave with a deal on 29 March. Should MPs vote for an extension to Article 50, it should be time-limited and as short as possible, as I said in response to the earlier question. It remains the case that the best way to rule out no deal is to agree a deal. We do not want a no-deal outcome. The Government’s primary aim is to ensure that the UK leaves the EU on 29 March with a negotiated deal that will honour the result of the referendum. However, as a responsible Government, we continue to plan for all eventualities.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, on the matter of Gibraltar, if we leave without a deal, what will the consequences be for the people of Gibraltar, and their close economic relationship with Spain?

[Lord Callanan]

Many serious consequences will flow from leaving with no deal, but we do not want to leave with no deal. If the noble Lord is so convinced of the need to leave with a deal, perhaps he could talk to his colleagues in the House of Commons and ask them to vote for the deal that is on the table.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

The Minister has just said that the Government are planning for all eventualities. If the House of Commons has a vote on 13 March on whether to support no deal, what would the Government’s position be in that eventuality?

[Lord Callanan]

Does the noble and learned Lord mean if the House of Commons votes to support no deal?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

If the House of Commons has a vote on whether to support no deal or not, what will the position of the Government be?

[Lord Callanan]

That is a very good question. I will leave my colleagues, the Whips in the House of Commons, to determine that. I suppose it will depend on what the Motion says and the results at the time.

Yesterday, we published a paper that summarises government activity to prepare for no deal as a contingency plan and provides an assessment of the implications of a no-deal exit for trade and for businesses, given the preparations that have been made. More information for businesses and citizens can be found on the Government’s exit website.

Yesterday, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister set out three clear commitments to the other place that should provide reassurance and clarity about the way forward:

“First, we will hold a second meaningful vote by Tuesday 12 March at the latest. Secondly, if the Government have not won a meaningful vote by Tuesday 12 March, then they will, in addition to their obligations to table a neutral, amendable motion under section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, table a motion to be voted on by Wednesday 13 March, at the latest, asking this House if it supports leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement and a framework for a future relationship on 29 March. So the United Kingdom will only leave without a deal on 29 March if there is explicit consent in this House for that outcome.


Thirdly, if the House, having rejected leaving with the deal negotiated with the EU, then rejects leaving on 29 March without a withdrawal agreement and future framework, the Government will, on 14 March, bring forward a motion on whether Parliament wants to seek a short, limited extension to article 50, and, if the House votes for an extension, seek to agree that extension approved by the House with the EU and bring forward the necessary legislation to change the exit date commensurate with that extension. These commitments all fit the timescale set out in the private Member’s Bill in the name of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/19; cols. 166-67.]

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

It seems to me that the crucial words are “short extension”. Can the Minister confirm that there is an imperative in the conclusion of any short extension—a date in June? Should that not be observed, we would be in the indefensible situation of having to fight European elections for a new European Parliament. Can he think of anything more insulting, not just to the 17.4 million people who voted to leave the European Union three years ago but to our democracy, if we were to say to them, “Sorry about that decision you made three years ago. We’re now in the process of electing a brand new European Parliament”? That would not be an economic cliff edge, but a democratic one.

[Lord Callanan]

Despite the chuntering from a sedentary position from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, the noble Lord speaks great sense—as he does on so many things. It would make no sense whatever to have European Parliament elections because we will not be members of the EU going forward and, indeed, the legislation no longer exists on the UK statute book.

While these discussions continue at the European level, work continues domestically to prepare ourselves for all negotiated outcomes. The Government have undertaken extensive work to identify the primary legislation essential to deliver our exit from the EU in different scenarios. The Government are also making good progress on laying statutory instruments to ensure a functioning statute book for exit day. Over 450 statutory instruments have been laid to date, which is over 75% of all SIs required for exit day. Of these, almost half have been sent to the sifting committees of both Houses.

The Government are committed to ensuring that we have a functioning statute book for when we leave the EU, while also ensuring that legislation receives appropriate scrutiny. Once again I place on record my thanks, for their valuable and extensive work, to the committees chaired by the noble Lords, Lord Trefgarne and Lord Cunningham.

I can only reiterate that this Government stand firm on their commitment not to second-guess the result of the 2016 referendum by holding yet another people’s vote. Noble Lords will be well versed in these arguments now but, nevertheless, I will quickly recap.

[Viscount Waverley (CB)]

Could the Minister clarify one point? Was Mr Alberto Costa MP sacked, or did he resign, over his attempt to have EU citizens’ rights in the event of no deal ring-fenced? What is the Government’s view on this amendment—do they support it or not?

[Lord Callanan]

The noble Lord is asking me to comment on what happens in the other place. My understanding—it is no more than that; I have not spoken to him—is that Alberto Costa resigned following the long-standing tradition that members of the Government and PPSs do not table amendments to government Motions. I also understand, however, that the Government are accepting the amendment put forward—such is the logic of government.

When we held the referendum, the Government pledged to respect the result, whatever the outcome. We repeated this commitment once the result was delivered, and this Government, as well as the Opposition, were elected on a manifesto maintaining this same commitment: to uphold the result of the 2016 referendum. Even though the Opposition seem to be U-turning on their manifesto commitment, we still stand by ours. Indeed, as the PM said yesterday, it is,

“the very credibility of our democracy”,—[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/19; col. 168.]

that we jeopardise if we break our explicit promises.

[Lord Dykes (CB)]

I am grateful to the Minister, who is struggling not only with a bad cough but with some very bad arguments; I sympathise greatly. At the beginning of his remarks he emphasised that the Prime Minister had been badgering people endlessly in Brussels, the Middle East and elsewhere, and had spoken to the Heads of Government, or whoever was appropriate, of the 27 other member states. How many of those member states agreed with the Prime Minister’s bizarre arguments, and how many thought them a load of rubbish?

[Lord Callanan]

The noble Lord will not be surprised to know that I have not seen read-outs from all those conversations, but I know from speaking to other Europe Ministers at various gatherings that there is considerable sympathy for many of our arguments.

It is imperative that the British people are able to trust in the Government to respect democratic processes and deliver effective outcomes for them. For that reason, it is our firm belief that even to consider holding a second people’s vote would set a damaging precedent for our democracy and the principles that underpin our constitutional order.

[Lord Garel-Jones (Con)]

Would my noble friend give way?

[Lord Callanan]

I thought that might prompt some interventions.

[Lord Garel-Jones]

My noble friend will no doubt be aware of the ruling by the Supreme Court following the 2016 referendum. It stated that the,

“legal significance is determined by what Parliament included in the statute authorising it, and that statute simply provided for the referendum to be held without specifying the consequences. The change in the law required to implement the referendum’s outcome must be made in the only way permitted by the UK constitution, namely by legislation”.


Consequently, if Parliament is unable to reach a consensus on any particular deal, is not the logic then that the people should be consulted again?

[Lord Callanan]

I am afraid I do not follow my noble friend’s argument. Parliament agreed to respect the outcome of the referendum in tabling the notification of withdrawal Bill.

[Lord Garel-Jones]

But the Supreme Court has made it clear that under the British constitution, while Parliament agreed to hold the referendum, it did not agree on the outcome, and that outcome must be agreed by Parliament. If Parliament cannot agree, the people must be consulted.

[Lord Callanan]

I am afraid that I do not follow the noble Lord’s logic on this. Parliament did support the outcome of the referendum. The Government made it clear at the time that they would abide by the result and spent £9 million putting a leaflet into every house in the country saying, “It’s your decision—we will respect the outcome”. Parliament then voted for the notification of withdrawal Bill, which gave notification of our intention to leave the European Union. Parliament then confirmed our exit date in the EU withdrawal Bill, passed in the summer. So it is not true that Parliament has not supported the result of the referendum.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend again. Has he seen the demonstration—unusually, by people supporting leave—outside the Palace of Westminster today, with placards saying, “Parliament versus the People”? Does the Minister consider, given what he has just said, that this might give resonance to the terrible shame of this country, and indeed to the detriment of its democracy?

[Lord Callanan]

I have not seen any particular demonstration; I do not take an awful lot of notice of them. There seem to be people from all sides shouting at all of us as we walk in. I often wonder why they think that it will make a difference if they shout loudly “Stop Brexit” every five minutes—that somehow we are all going to have a flash of inspiration and suddenly change our minds. The wider point, however, is that the votes of 17.4 million people should be respected. It was the largest democratic vote in the history of this country. We said that we would respect the outcome of the referendum, and this Government are committed to doing that, even though many noble Lords are not so committed. Perhaps we have another one here now.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

I am grateful to the Minister, as always, but does he not accept that in neither the referendum nor the general election did any party advocate a no-deal leaving of the European Union? In those circumstances, should this not be ruled out—and if it cannot be ruled out by Parliament, should it not, in line with what is being shouted outside, go back to the people?

[Lord Callanan]

No, I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Lord. Neither the two-year time limit set by the notification of withdrawal Act on when the treaty will cease to apply to the UK, nor the exit date placed by Parliament in the EU withdrawal Bill, is dependent on whether we have a deal: they were firm commitments now set in statute at both European and domestic level. Of course we want to leave with a deal, but under domestic legislation we will leave on 29 March unless something changes. I give way.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

The Minister will be aware, because he carried the Bill through, that the withdrawal Act has a provision that allows the Government to amend the date and time of leaving simply by regulations—it can be done overnight.

[Lord Callanan]

I have to say that many noble Lords have argued strongly against statutory instruments being approved “overnight”, as the noble Lord suggests, in other cases. He is, however, quite correct that there is such a provision. Nevertheless, the original provision is in the legislation. I give way to the noble Lord.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am very grateful for my noble friend’s generosity in allowing these interruptions. He is manfully explaining all these processes, but he has not yet discussed the most important one: can the Government bring back—not least to the other place—a withdrawal agreement that the other place is likely to accept? Without that, we are in a very unenviable dilemma, and that question goes to the essence of the discussions that we are currently holding in Europe. Can he give the House any update on the possibility of a change to the withdrawal agreement that would allow us, once we have entered the backstop—although we may not—to leave it?

[Lord Callanan]

The noble Lord speaks with great experience and wisdom, and he is absolutely correct: the important thing is for us to bring back to Parliament solutions to the backstop that the House of Commons can accept. While I do not want to go into further detail, I can assure him that discussions are continuing as we speak: the Attorney-General was in Brussels yesterday for further talks, which will be continuing at pace as we attempt to get the reassurances that the House of Commons has asked for.

The debate is taking place in the other place today, and I know that contributions made here will be of great interest to MPs and to those outside this House.

[Lord Grocott]

It is the way he tells them.

[Lord Callanan]

Absolutely true, of course. I look forward with interest to hearing noble Lords’ contributions this afternoon. I do not know who writes this, but that is good. I must pay tribute to the stamina of many noble Lords on the speakers list today who have spoken in many, if not all, of the Brexit debates we have had in the past few months. Yet again, the challenge will be to introduce new points that we have not heard before: I am sure that noble Lords will rise to the occasion. As usual, my noble and learned friend Lord Keen is champing at the bit in his enthusiasm and looking forward to the utmost to responding to the issues raised in his winding-up speech.

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

I can help the Minister with a new point. Is not one of the serious difficulties that we have entered into an arrangement with Brussels whereby we cannot discuss new relationships until we have left? Yet all the time people are trying to spatchcock new relationships, whether it is the customs union, the single market or other arrangements. Is it not time to consider whether the sequencing is satisfactory? I do not know how one would answer that, but there is a difficulty in the way in which the sequencing has been laid down.

[Lord Callanan]

Of course, we can and have discussed the future relationship. There is a whole political declaration devoted to the new relationship, but the legal position is that the EU cannot legally conclude a further, ongoing relationship until we are a third country. If there are no more interventions, I beg to move.

16:16

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a good thing that the Minister has a sense of humour. I have to say that he is struggling not just with his throat but with finding anything new to say. That, I understand: some of us are in the same position. More seriously, he is struggling to recognise the seriousness of the state we are in. I think it would be good if the Minister would heed the advice given to him the last time we met that he should stop being,

“the boy who stood on the burning deck”,—[Official Report, 5/2/19; col. 1430.]

and face today’s reality. The reality is that a 29 March departure is simply not going to happen.

What we are witnessing, to the mystification of observers here and abroad, is a wholly divided Government and a Prime Minister who has let down Brexit voters by failing to provide the promised “smooth and orderly” departure to get the very best out of leaving—a Prime Minister who has unnerved the very businesses which have traditionally looked to her party to understand and promote their interests, who has divided her party and Parliament and who, unforgivably, has failed to unite the country after a divisive referendum. She has failed to reach out to remainers to reflect their interests as well as those who voted to leave. We see a Prime Minister who has failed to reach out to the Opposition, engaging not at all until the last few weeks, and even now refusing to move one iota towards our priority for a deal—a Prime Minister who promised the Commons a vote to halt no deal only when she faced defeat in the Lobbies, yet who even then offered only a temporary reprieve, leaving a no-deal threat on the table after 29 March and, as we have just heard, only the promise of a vote, with no indication of whether the Government would whip against a no-deal exclusion. That, to me, means that she is keeping it tight in her armoury. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, endlessly reminds us that no deal is the legal default position. We say to him that it is not the moral default position.

I fully expect, when some future committee, no doubt chaired by someone in your Lordships’ House, reviews how the Government handled this sorry saga, it will ask the normal tin-opener question written by the secretary to the committee—cui bono? Had we girls been taught Latin at school, I would be able to pose in Latin, instead of having to do so in English, the more important question—not just cui bono, but who pays? I am sure it is not the ERG members.

It will be businesses, consumers and the country. Fitch is putting our AA credit rating on negative watch, due to the potential exit without a transition period. Of course, that signals a possible downgrade. Meanwhile, the UK would lose its current market access to the 60 third countries covered by special arrangements with the EU, Mr Fox having spectacularly failed to roll these over or to prepare all those exciting new ones with a swathe of other countries, as we were promised.

All of us have heard endlessly about the risk to supplies and businesses of no deal—from a shortage of pallets and life-saving medicines to delays, handling costs, legal queries and, of course, tariffs. I discussed tariffs earlier this week with the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, when we were at LBC. I am glad to see him here in his place in case I get this wrong, because I have to say that he slightly shrugged off the tariff problem, saying that a drop in the pound would compensate for it. That is not what it would feel like to consumers.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. What I said was that the drop in the pound would compensate those whose tariffs were around the average of 4%, but that, in aggregate, the tariffs amount to £5.3 billion. The saving we make from leaving is more than £10 billion. We would therefore be in a position to help those who face above-average tariffs and still have money in hand.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

So the consumers will pay. Just an extra 5% on tariffs? Are we really going to go round subsidising food?

[Lord Lilley]

With respect, the money we save will not come from consumers; it will just no longer be available to the EU to finance its projects. Every year, we pay £10 billion more to the EU than it gives us back. We will no longer do so, and will therefore be in a position to use some of that money to help those industries—particularly farmers and car producers—and ensure that the effect of tariffs, if the EU is foolish enough to continue applying them to us, is offset.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I am talking about the tariffs that we will have to apply to the goods that we import, such as meat and cheese. Those will be paid for by consumers. The Government’s own analysis shows the likelihood of food shortages and increased prices just from the interruption to trade, but a lower pound—whereby people will have less money in their pockets to buy any imported food—means that, in addition to prices going up because of shortages and delays in things arriving here, it will be even more expensive for consumers. The answer to “Who pays?” will be the consumers.

For those wanting to travel, mile-long queues for Eurostar trains, long waits at ferries, green cards for drivers and the loss of health cover will all impact British families. Does this no longer matter to a party traditionally careful of consumer prices and its electorate? The noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, warned last year in your Lordships’ House of the electoral damage to his own much-loved and lived-in party. This continuing drift to no deal must be fuelling his fears. It is certainly fuelling mine, as well as those of the CBI, the IoD and all those affected by the Government’s recklessness.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

Since the noble Baroness has mentioned morality, I raise a question with her: does morality lie with no deal? Brussels asked us what we wanted and we said we wanted a change to the border situation—a way out of the backstop—and it said no. It is not this Government who have led us to no deal—it is Brussels. When it comes to moral leadership, I have no idea what the leader of her party in the House of Commons has wanted for the last two years—it is not clear to the average observer. Leaving aside, for a moment, the moral swamp going on there, we have no idea what his position is.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

We do. I made it clear yesterday—I am not sure whether the noble Baroness was in her place when I spoke to the House—that no deal is our choice because if we amend the deal on the table, we can get one. It is our choice, not that of the other side.

The costs of no deal, as I said, have been set out. The worries of the CBI, the IoD and of all the others have been made pretty clear to the Government—I am sure they have been if they are making them clear to me—and I wonder sometimes whether Ministers read their own papers. Yesterday, the Government’s own paper predicted that the economy would be between 6% and 9% smaller in the long term in a no-deal scenario compared with today’s arrangements, with the north-east losing out more than anywhere else—I am sure the Minister noticed. I thought that that, at least, would have attracted his attention.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

Would the noble Baroness ask the Minister to agree that yesterday’s paper which predicted the 6% to 9% reduction in the economy in the event of no deal noted that that excluded any short-term disruption costs from no deal?

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

It is a shame that he will not be replying but I am sure that his colleague—judging from that lovely poker face of his—has made a careful note of that and will respond later today.

We know that one bit, at least, of the Government is listening because we know they are preparing to set up a hardship fund—presumably with the money that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, thinks will be available to pay for all those who will lose out; this seems a funny way of running the economy. Despite all that and the pressures for the hardship fund, the no dealers today have been attacking the grown-ups in their own party as “saboteurs, wreckers and blackmailers”. This, coming from politicians who have blackmailed the Prime Minister by voting against her and who are willing to wreck the economy and sabotage business, all for their own ideological hang-up. This has to stop and it has to stop now.

Will the Minister who will sum up, and who is definitely not an ERG hardliner, push his political masters—or, perhaps, his political mistress—to rule out unequivocally any no-deal departure, with its lack of a transition period and the chaos that goes with that? Will he urge the Prime Minister to change her approach and to find a consensual way forward to unite the Commons and the country, and will he ensure that an extension to Article 50 is requested this week? It is clear we will need it, but requesting it this week, rather than being forced into it, will help to calm nerves and offer some certainty to business. Will he work to see that such an extension is used not for more pretence and tweaking of words, but for a serious reconsideration of how we withdraw from the EU?

16:29

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, this is now the 11th debate or Statement on the Government’s withdrawal agreement and political declaration since last December. During the three months in which these debates have taken place, not a single thing has changed. The purgatory continues.

For a number of months, when my colleagues have become exasperated that Jeremy Corbyn appeared to set his face against supporting a referendum on the Brexit deal, I have sought to reassure them by using the analogy of the five year-old schoolboy who does not want to go to school. As he is being dragged to school by his parents, he stamps his foot and says, “I don’t want to go to school! It’s not fair! I’m not going to school!” He knows, of course, that he will have to go to school, but his amour propre will not allow him to admit it. Only when he crosses the school threshold does he stop his wailing and run to join his classmates. Mr Corbyn has now crossed the threshold.

This is a fair analogy of Mr Corbyn’s behaviour, but until yesterday, I did not think that it applied equally to the Prime Minister. Yet this is exactly what she has done with regard to an extension of Article 50. She has said publicly, all along, that 29 March is a sacrosanct departure date. She stamped her foot as late as the weekend to repeat this mantra but she has now proposed giving the Commons a vote to extend Article 50 for an unspecified number of months. She must have known for some time that she was going to have to shift her position but she has done so with the greatest reluctance, and in a manner which will enable her to blame the Commons for the decision which she will have flunked. She should herself be advocating a short extension on the basis of her conviction that her deal will succeed, for without an extension, it is simply impossible to get the necessary legislation through in an orderly manner.

When I debated this with Brexit Minister Chris Heaton-Harris on last Saturday’s “The Week in Westminster” programme, he said that everything would be on the statute book in time, but apparently only by dropping half the primary legislation which we had previously been told was necessary and by implying the use of emergency procedures to get the rest through. Can the Minister tell the House which pieces of legislation the Government believe they will need to pass before 29 March if their deal is approved by the Commons? Specifically, does it include the Agriculture, Fisheries, Trade and immigration Bills? We have repeatedly asked these questions but from the Government, answer comes there none.

Yesterday, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said in respect of Brexit-related primary legislation that we,

“need to ensure that this House has adequate time to scrutinise it in the usual manner”.—[Official Report, 26/2/19; col. 148.]

Can the Minister explain how we will be able to scrutinise the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Bill in the usual manner? We will not know until 12 March whether the Government’s deal has been approved. If it has, that gives a mere two weeks to take the Bill through all its parliamentary stages. Will the Minister acknowledge that we would have to break our normal rules in considering legislation if we were to get the Bill through in time, and will he apologise to the House on behalf of his noble colleague the Leader for giving such a misleading impression yesterday? Therefore, the Prime Minister refused to contemplate extending Article 50 to give time for her deal, if it is passed, but she has been forced to concede a vote on the extension of Article 50 if, as is highly likely, it does not.

The purpose of any extension, as is clear both from the Cooper-Letwin initiative and the possible rebellion of members of her Cabinet and government more generally, is to ensure that we do not crash out without a deal on 29 March. If anybody had any doubts about why they should avoid no deal, the Government’s damning document of yesterday, Implications for Business and Trade of a No Deal Exit on 29 March 2019, should put them right. The noble Lord, Lord Livingston of Parkhead, summarised the position brilliantly yesterday when he described no deal as,

“not a negotiating card, but an act of wilful self-harm”.—[Official Report, 26/2/19; col. 154.]

There are going to be votes on 12 and 13 March, which are likely to lead to further rejection of the Government’s deal and a rejection of no deal. The following day there will be a vote—which is likely to pass—to ask the Government to request an extension of the Article 50 period. The danger is that everybody then relaxes. That would be a big mistake because the clock will still be ticking—just for slightly longer. The Government will still argue that no deal is on the table.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

Can the noble Lord remind me: is that not the ides of March?

[Lord Newby]

I am afraid I did not have the benefit of a classical education, but I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, will be able to answer the question.

[Noble Lords]

It is the 15th.

[Lord Newby]

Only in your Lordships’ House would the vast majority of people know the answer to that question. I believe the answer is yes.

[Noble Lords]

No, it is the 15th.

[Lord Newby]

Sorry—it is 15 March. I am not sure whether that answer is helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, or not.

What are the options going forward beyond 14 March if an extension is approved? In reality, there are very few. We know that Labour will be supporting a people’s vote on the Government’s deal versus remain, as a way of breaking the impasse. So will we. We know that a mere extension does nothing to make resolving the backstop issue easier. We would be no clearer about our future relationship with the EU if, by some miracle, the Government were to get their deal through the Commons. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, demonstrated last week, the lack of substance in the political declaration condemns us to years of wrangling, during which time investment, business and jobs would leach out of the UK. In these circumstances, what will those Conservative parliamentarians—inside and outside Government—who are fiercely opposed to no deal and believe that remain would be in the country’s best interests, actually do?

We have been watching with fascination as, week after week, a growing chorus of members of the Government has been discussing circumstances in which they might resign and follow the example of Phillip Lee and Sam Gyimah. So far, they have all teetered on the cliff edge. If Ministers remain in post after 13 March, they will, according to the Prime Minister’s Statement yesterday, be still working in support of a Government who are keeping no deal on the table until the end of the extension period. Liam Fox, Chris Grayling, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and the Leader of your Lordships’ House, might not find that offensive to their beliefs, but many—most—of the Government Front Bench in both Houses would. Yet they seem willing to keep going along with it. Why? What greater good than an aspiration to keep the Tory party in one piece can possibly motivate them? Might I suggest that they heed the statement of Duff Cooper who resigned as First Lord of the Admiralty in October 1938, in opposition to the Government’s appeasement policy? He said:

“I have ruined, perhaps, my political career. But that is a little matter; I have retained something which is to me of great value—I can still walk about the world with my head erect”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/10/1938; col. 40.]


Kicking the can down the road remains the Prime Minister’s defining attribute, but this is now no longer a credible strategy. Purgatory has its limits. For every parliamentarian, the day of judgment really is now at hand.

16:39

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, it has been a habit in these debates to say at the beginning of each that there is nothing new to discuss, but this time there is a great deal to discuss, and I want to share my thoughts on it with your Lordships. In addition, we have had a new joke from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, which is always helpful and familiar.

From inside the Westminster bubble, I can see that things still look very confused, but if one stands aside outside and pauses for a moment, the situation is in fact as clear as daylight. In practice, the great binary choice on offer has shifted from the withdrawal deal or no deal to the withdrawal deal or Article 50 being delayed. The delay may be short and limited or it may be longer; it depends on what goes on in the other place. We have no control over that and no one really knows.

Obviously, the Prime Minister was always going to be reticent, to put it mildly, about what happens if she loses again before 12 March. That is entirely understandable. You do not enter a race announcing what you will do if you fall off at the first big fence; you enter the race to win. But this new situation, where the binary choice has changed, poses an acute dilemma for the European Research Group warriors, who now face an almost impossible choice. With the Prime Minister having nodded towards a short delay, as she did yesterday, the dilemma for the Brexiteers—the harder-line ones—is even deeper. The excellent Mr Nicholas Boles MP pointed this out in the Evening Standard the other night, and he is right, although he did not mention that this will also encourage some of the strongest remainers to oppose Mrs May’s deal in the hope of ending up with no Brexit at all. That is their hope and they are quite open about it.

None the less, it seems to me that the Prime Minister has outfoxed her own rebels, half the media and now the Cooper-Letwin ensemble—we shall see about that this afternoon; it is going on now. Labour’s new-found love of a second referendum—although on precisely what question is not at all clear—deepens the dilemma for the ERG rebels even further. If they vote with the Prime Minister, with or without add-ons to the withdrawal treaty and with or without a backstop softening or any other so-called alternative arrangement, she is over the hump, at least for the moment. If they vote her down, we delay and lurch into another bog land of uncertainty with all sorts of outcomes, of which a second referendum is only one—that would please the Liberal Democrats—and no Brexit is another.

In all this, the group I feel most sorry for—well, not really, but almost—is the ERG warriors, with their marshalled ranks and drawn swords. We were just talking about the Ides of March. My mind went back to Lars Porsena and his glittering Etruscan hordes, who planned to capture Rome but found that things went rather differently when they got to the city gates and the bridge. Instead of taking control, they ended up with those behind shouting “Forward!” and those in the front crying “Back!”

Of course, the absolute diehards in my party will never give in. I read one ill-informed article, alas by a recently joined Member of your Lordships’ House, claiming that they had taken over the Tory party. In reality, they now risk losing everything. If even half the ERG breaks ranks now and just some of the Labour remainers who are waverers support the Prime Minister, she will win this round, contrary to all the predictions of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and his friends.

This is what I believe will happen. The people worrying about shipping goods here by sea from Tokyo after 29 March need not worry. By April, we will either be on the path to frictionless trade and an admittedly slow journey out of the present customs union to a new form of free trade or still in the European Union. There can now be no crash-out, managed or otherwise. That does not seem to have been absorbed, judging by some of the comments made this afternoon. I am afraid the Brexiteers’ dream has, for the moment, gone up in smoke. My belief is that the Prime Minister, with her deal, the massive agreed treaty with the European Union and all those in this country—the majority, I suggest—wanting to settle matters now and move forward, will win the day. Any further concessions from Brussels may come before 12 March if Brussels is feeling helpful, or afterwards if not. Obviously the negotiators will not reopen the agreed treaty, but they may well agree to a codicil about its interpretation as time goes by. I gather they are now working it—the so-called joint interpretative instrument.

My prayer is that after this unhappy phase we will get on vigorously with building close relations—not just in trade but in security, defence, cybertechnology and even possibly in physical links such as the mooted second channel tunnel—with all our regional European neighbours, all as part of our new, unfolding international policy stretching out to Asia, Africa and the Americas, and to carefully balanced ties with China, where all the growth will be. For this we will need powerful networks and the know-how to nourish and benefit from these networks, the Commonwealth being foremost among them. Old alliances are falling away and new ones are becoming necessary as we enter a new cycle in international history.

This morning your Lordships’ International Relations Committee heard evidence that we were on the verge of a terrifying new arms race and the possible spread of tactical nuclear weapons, and that the limits on nuclear warfare that the world has hung on to since Hiroshima are now slipping away and could leave our cities in smoking ruins. Somehow our Brexit bickering, breakaways and gabbling interviews with excitable MPs all seem rather small in comparison.

16:46

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Following the noble Lord, I am reminded of how much he has done down the years to encourage our engagement in Asia and Asian investment in this country. I feel very sorry for him, because this must be a sad time for him. If you take just Anglo-Japanese relations, his work down the years was remarkable. We know what the Japanese banks here are doing. We know what Hitachi and now Honda are doing. We know what Toshiba is doing. We know about Sony and Panasonic. When will we hear from the third of the great car companies, Toyota? Actually, we did hear from it. It exports 80% of its UK production to the European Union. Its executive vice-president, Didier Leroy, said that:

“The UK government should … understand that we cannot stay in this kind of fog when we don’t know what will be the output of the negotiation”,


and that any kind of EU import tax would create a huge,

“negative impact in terms of competitiveness”,

for its UK plant. That quote—

“we cannot stay in this kind of fog”—

was from October 2017. It is still in this kind of fog. We have not told it anything, so it is not surprising that it has given up and is backing off. It has given up expecting clarity from us.

[Lord Lilley]

I am sure the noble Lord will want to congratulate Toyota on opening in this country a year later—in October last year—a line producing the best-selling car in the world, opened by the Secretary of State. That shows a rather different picture to that he was portraying.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I wait to see what will be the fate of its massive investments in Deeside and in Derbyshire, both of which are very important. I am concerned; I know the company is concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, has worked very hard to secure investment in this country and must be very sad.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, started with a Churchillian quotation, which put me on my mettle. I was determined to match him. I can just beat him on vintage; mine is a 1936 quotation. Churchill described Chamberlain as,

“decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/1936; col. 1107.]

As we kick the can down the road, somehow it came to mind. It is actually quite unfair to Mrs May; it was probably unfair to Chamberlain too. What is more striking about Mrs May is her messianic, Mosaic mission, and her determination not to listen to anybody else. I am impressed by her belief that she knows all the answers, and does not have to pay attention to any of us.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord will find that Moses listened. That was one of the issues.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

But what he brought down was graven on a tablet of stone, and what Mr Nick Timothy drafted for the Prime Minister in September 2016 was not, in my view, to be taken as graven on a tablet of stone. We know now that the Cabinet was not consulted about it. We knew at the time that the country and this Parliament were not consulted, but these four red lines have determined where we are now.

The European Union has said all along—it said it in the cover note of its first mandate—that if our red lines were to change, then it was happy to look again at its mandate and change it. However, we do not seem to listen to those across the House of Commons who propose something that would break one of the red lines. When Labour talks of customs union, and this House votes for customs union, it is dismissed because it breaches one of the four red lines.

By the logic of the Prophet Timothy, Switzerland, Turkey and Norway are not sovereign states independent of the EU, because in at least one respect each breaches at least one of the four red lines laid down by Mrs May in the party conference speech in September 2016. Yet the Swiss think that they are independent. They do not think they are in the EU, and are commonly regarded as not being in the EU. I do not know why the definition of Brexit that was laid down without consultation in September 2016 has to be accepted as the only definition, and why it is a denial of Brexit, flying in the face of democracy, to argue that there might be a better Brexit than the one defined by Mr Timothy and the Prime Minister in September 2016. That is why I am offended by the “my deal or no deal” choice.

As everyone has been saying and as the document published yesterday proves, no deal is an economic catastrophe for the country, but it cannot be right that the only alternative is the lineal descendant of the tablet brought down by Moses to the party conference in September 2016. There are at least two more options available. One is to try for a better Brexit, which I do not believe the Prime Minister is going to do with the short extension she says that she might be ready to foresee. She is not looking at anything other than the sort of declaration that could be fitted into the political declaration, or might be free-standing, in some way adding emollient words about the backstop. However, the backstop is not the only defect in this dreadful, humiliating package—this humiliating treaty and vacuous declaration.

If we were prepared to contemplate the Swiss approach to free movement of persons, the Turkish approach to a customs union or the Norwegian approach to the single market, or if we were prepared to envisage an EEA-type arrangement, we do not know what new prospects might open up—we have never tried, because No. 10 does not listen. It has never been tested. We have never discovered what the EU means when it says that, if we were to change our red lines, it would change its negotiating position. That makes the “my deal or no deal” position irresponsible.

Others have explained why no deal is extremely bad for our trade. There would be no preferential arrangement with the EU or with any of the countries with which it has preferential deals, which amounts to more than two-thirds of our trade. The non-EU countries I am talking about include some very big ones, such as Japan, South Korea and Turkey. We are told that we have rolled over six agreements, but these are with minnows—not Japan, not South Korea and not Turkey.

Quite apart from the question of our domestic tariff, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, spoke about, we have to accept that our export market would be seriously damaged by no deal. Whether it happens in April, May or June, no deal is no better then than it would be on 29 March.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord—he said some very nice things about me and I have a lot of very nice things to say about him. However, he has presented me with a puzzle. He keeps talking about this business of “my deal or no deal”. In fact, the Government have now recognised that it is not “my deal or no deal”, but “my deal or postponement”—admittedly, in the words of the Prime Minister, a “short” postponement. We all know perfectly well that an overwhelming majority in the other place supports a delay in Article 50. If the Prime Minister fails on 12 March—I do not think she will—there will be a postponement. The concept of “my deal or no deal” is last week’s story. It is simply out of date, so why is the noble Lord worried about it?

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I am worried about it because I do not believe that the Prime Minister intends to use the short delay she says she is prepared to settle for—although she has not said that she would vote for it—to explore the possibilities of a better Brexit. As far as she is concerned, the only deal is that which she brought back in November, possibly titivated slightly in the declaration to try to deal with the objections of some to the backstop. I believe that is all she intends to do. The right thing to do is to have a long enough extension to go back and consult the people. This has turned out so differently from what we were told, and it is absolutely right that we would go back and consult the people.

The point I was trying to make was about trade. I would like to end on a warm and friendly note towards the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who is in such sparkling form today—I shall try to sparkle back in what is, for me, an unusually friendly way. I congratulate him on his honesty in the last debate, when he put to rest the Legatum Institute theory that the answer to the problem of WTO terms and no preferential trade deals was Article 24. It was extremely straightforward and honest of him to say of Article 24:

“This provision refers to interim agreements. In order to use it, we would need to agree with the EU the shape of the future economic partnership, together with a plan and schedule for getting there. This would then need to be presented to all 164 WTO members and they would be able to scrutinise it, suggest changes and, ultimately, veto it”.—[Official Report, 13/2/19; col. 1935.]


That, I believe, is absolutely correct. I think it was generous and honest of a Minister to put it on record. Article 24 is absolutely no way out in the situation we would be in with no deal. It depends on a deal being struck. It depends on a process going on. It is possible that eight years into future negotiations this is what we might be able to do, although we would, as the Minister rightly said, be dependent on the agreement of 164 parties in GATT. Therefore, even that cannot be assumed.

17:00

[The Lord Bishop of Oxford]

My Lords, I always rise to speak in this Chamber with some fear and trepidation but never more so than today: not only because of the expertise, passion and conviction in this Chamber but also the jeopardy in which we find ourselves as a nation and a Parliament. My journey through the Brexit process is that for seven years until the referendum year, I was the bishop in Sheffield and south Yorkshire, where some of the communities voted by almost 70% to leave the European Union. I moved shortly afterwards to the diocese of Oxford, where the three counties, by and large, are significantly in favour of remain.

I suspect that historians will look back on this process and focus not so much on the calling of the referendum or even the referendum itself but on the long period of indecision and paralysis that has followed. I spent some time in Canterbury Cathedral some weeks ago and stood on the place where Thomas Becket was murdered. We were reminded in the cathedral of Eliot’s play “Murder in the Cathedral”. In his moment of great peril and jeopardy, Becket is visited by four tempters who, in the play, become his four assassins.

I think four significant temptations have grown in proportion to become dangerous assassins facing Parliament in the coming weeks. The first is to allow our course to be shaped by self-interest and personal ambition. This Brexit debate has been marred from the beginning, it seems, by the narrow calculation of those hoping to gain or retain high office. From the perspective of the country, nothing has undermined trust in our politics more than this untrammelled ambition, which is apparent to all.

[Lord Lilley]

Who is the right reverend Prelate accusing of this untrammelled ambition which is apparent to all?

[The Lord Bishop of Oxford]

I prefer not to name names.

[Lord Lilley]

Even though it is apparent to all?

[The Lord Bishop of Oxford]

I do not single out a particular party or a section of a particular party. One of the dangers of our politics at present is that personal ambition is being put before the country and I think we need to draw that period to an end with great urgency, lest our politics and our confidence in democracy be damaged for a very long time. Conversely, nothing will restore trust in our politics more than putting the interests of the nation ahead of personal position.

The second temptation is to allow yourself to be swayed by narrow party interests and the pursuit of or retention of power in the short term. The issues at stake here are much greater than the rise and fall of particular parties or factions. We need our MPs and Peers to act in the greater national interest and for national unity. I would argue that Parliament needs to come together if the nation is to come together and emerge from this long period of division and introspection.

The third temptation is nostalgia—a romantic attachment to the past. It is wrong to imagine that we can reverse the effects of one referendum by another or go back to a time before the Brexit debates began, when all was well, or go back still further to a different age of independence and imagined glory. We cannot. We must deal with the world as it is, not as we would like it to be, and steer our course accordingly; the leadership that we offer will be judged by this measure.

The fourth and final temptation is idealism: in a world of difficult choices and necessary compromise, holding on to an ideal which is no longer tenable, whether it is a particular kind of leaving or remaining or something else. This, it seems to me, is currently the greatest barrier to positive cross-party consensus. A coming together across Parliament is impossible without the willingness to compromise, and one of the encouraging features of recent weeks has been cross-party engagement.

As others have said, there are huge issues facing our world and our country: climate chaos, care for the poorest, increasing equality and opportunity, our changing relationship with technology, and the challenge of social care and health funding. We cannot allow our national attention to be diverted from these issues by prolonging still further a series of adjustments to our relationship with Europe. The nation is looking to its political leaders for a strong, compelling and united vision of the future that enables us to see beyond these debates in a way that brings unity and common purpose.

The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has spoken in this House about the vital importance of reconciliation in these debates and the protection of the poorest in society. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York has written of the need to preserve trust and confidence in our democratic institutions through a time of significant national jeopardy. I hope and pray that, in the midst of these difficult debates, we will be able to turn aside from those four temptations, seek meaningful compromise and act for the common good. I underscore the request to the Minister to lay out for us the ways in which the Government will continue to foster cross-party collaboration and listening, move towards a positive consensus and work to draw Parliament and the country back together.

17:07

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the right reverend Prelate for a challenging and interesting speech. If I remember rightly, the words that TS Eliot used were:

“The last temptation is the greatest treason:

To do the right deed for the wrong reason”.

A number of things have happened since our last debate, and my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford was right to refer to that. As far as the last 24 hours are concerned, two very significant things have happened. First, we have had the publication of a document entitled Implications for Business and Trade of a No Deal Exit on 29 March 2019. Most of your Lordships will have read it. It is brief and to the point, and it is sombre and very worrying. It records, for instance, that we have done a deal with the Faroe Islands but that we still wait to do ones with Andorra and San Marino. It puts into perspective the real problems that still lie ahead.

The other thing that has happened in the last 24 hours is that one of our number has produced something which I am sure will be read far more widely than any of our speeches in this debate. I refer to my noble friend Lord Finkelstein, who is sitting in front of me. If any of your Lordships have not read his piece in today’s Times, I commend it to them most warmly. He illustrates the real problems that have been caused to our nation and to the Conservative Party in particular by the zealots of the ERG.

I want to reflect on perceptions. I was encouraged to do that by two things this morning. First, Carolyn Fairbairn, the director-general of the CBI, gave a very sober interview on the “Today” programme. She appealed to people in all parties to come together to put aside what she called “tribal politics”. Having listened to that programme, I heard a different version of that appeal, when I came in in a taxi. I always like to talk to taxi drivers, and this particular taxi driver was very upset about what is happening to our country. He said, “The trouble is that there are people in Parliament on the far right who don’t really mind if the ship goes down, so long as the captain is British”. I thought that was a very perceptive observation. He went on to say that he felt that the problem with the Prime Minister was that she was giving the impression, the perception—we all know how important perceptions are—that party unity was more important than national unity. I do not believe that the Prime Minister has that in mind for half a second. I believe that she is an intensely patriotic woman, who is indeed seeking to do good for the country. Nevertheless, that is the perception out there among many people, and it is crucial that she puts that right.

As my noble friend Lord Callanan knows, I hope very much that a deal can be agreed. I was a staunch, fervent remainer. As he knows, I accept the result of the referendum, with sadness and disappointment. I do not want a second referendum. I do want us to move on after a deal—as, I inferred, did the right reverend Prelate, my noble friend Lord Howell, and others. But we cannot be held to ransom by an extreme group within our party, which frankly does not put country before party.

[A noble Lord]

They have a different view of things.

[Lord Cormack]

They have a very different view, and it is one that is damaging to our nation. If we look at the paper produced by the Treasury yesterday, we cannot really deny it. What I would like, as I have mentioned in your Lordships’ House before, is for the Prime Minister to reach out to all parties. There is one particular and specific way in which she can do that: by having a free vote in the House of Commons, as the late Sir Edward Heath did when we entered the European Economic Community, as it was in those days. That enabled those on the Labour Benches, who were torn between party loyalty and national loyalty, to give the latter preference. It enabled the late Lord Jenkins of Hillhead—Roy Jenkins, as he then was—to lead a significant group of Labour Members into what I considered to be the right Lobby, and so to change the course of history, for nearly 50 years.

I believe that the Prime Minister would be doing a great national service if she took the Whips off, because it would be very difficult for Mr Corbyn to have the Whips on in those circumstances; and it would be very easy for those he attempted to whip to discount the whipping. The right reverend Prelate was right: we really do have to bring our country together. There will inevitably be a period of extension, whatever happens in the other place, to get all the necessary legislation through. There is nothing wrong with that.

I would make another appeal. I have made it in your Lordships’ House before; it fell on deaf ears, but that does not mean that I cannot make it again. In June 2016, after the referendum, I suggested that we should have a Joint Committee of both Houses, with all parties examining the pros and cons. It was sad that red lines were drawn so quickly. It was sad that a certain person was appointed Foreign Secretary so quickly. It was sad that that attempt to bring parliamentarians of both Houses and all parties together was neglected. In the transition period, concentrated and probably fairly brief as it will be, there is no reason why that should not happen and every possible reason why it should. If we are to bring our country together, if we are to heal bitterness and strife, we have to do that, and I very much hope that we will.

17:15

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my fellow Lincolnshireman, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. He is a man I have known for many years—decades, really—and I find the two proposals that he has just made rather alluring. They are very characteristic of his continual commitment to finding consensus in our national affairs wherever it is possible to do so. I also thought that his quotation from TS Eliot was the most apt literary quotation that I have heard in the course of these debates—indeed, in all these years that we have been discussing Brexit.

I begin by correcting the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, on a point of constitutional convention. He criticised the Labour Party for resiling from its commitments in the last Labour election manifesto. I have to tell him that we cannot have resiled from those commitments because they disappeared the day we were defeated in the general election. If a party wins an election, it has a contract with the electorate and must fulfil that contract—that is how our democracy works—but if a party is defeated, it has no such obligation, and not only is it free to find other policies if it wishes to do so but, indeed, it is encouraged to do so. Not only constitutional principle but common sense leads in that direction. If the noble Lord thinks about this for a moment, and I hope he might, he will realise that on his approach the Labour Party would still be committed to the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange, while he and his party would still be committed to opposing Catholic emancipation or the abolition of the Corn Laws, although maybe the noble Lord opposes those things retrospectively. The only reason things move on is that when you are defeated in an election your commitment at that election disappears and you have to think anew. That is a vital part of the process of progress and renewal in a democracy.

Anyone who has been involved in negotiations knows, or ought to know, that your greatest enemy is complacency, self-delusion and a tendency to underestimate the challenges and obstacles you face, to underestimate the strength of the bargaining power of the counterparty with which you are dealing and to overestimate your own. This Government have always believed that, in the immortal words of Mr Gove at the time of the referendum:

“The day after we vote to leave, we hold all the cards”.


They have proceeded on the basis that that was true. They have fundamentally and systematically under- estimated the bargaining strength of the people they were dealing with. They thought that because the EU sells more to us than we do to it, and the Germans sell more than anyone else, the Germans would be running the show and would more or less instruct the Commission to be gentle with us and make whatever concessions were necessary because that would be in the interests of their own firms. The idea that the EU would take a permanent stand on behalf of the Irish, who are rightly defending their right not to have their country divided in half by a hideous permanent border, will not have occurred to them. They will have said, “Oh no. There’s no way that the EU, with 500 million people, will allow a country of 2 million or 3 million to stand in its way”. They were completely wrong on all those points—disastrously wrong. What is more, they were wrong for the wrong reasons, coming back to the TS Eliot quotation given by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.

I am afraid the British have underestimated the Irish for 800 years. I am sorry that that dreadful tradition still continues in the Tory party of today. The Tory party has never understood the moral force or the genuine idealism behind the European Union, or its genuine commitment to the concept of solidarity. It does not understand those things at all. I suppose this is what Castlereagh called,

“a piece of sublime mysticism and nonsense”.

But it is not mysticism and nonsense; it is a fact that the Tory party should take into account. It will go on making this mistake. The continental countries will not abandon the Irish or ban the backstop. The sooner the Government realise that, the better.

The Government’s capacity for self-delusion does not end there. It goes right across the board and is an extremely worrying facet of the present Administration. It stretches into the economy. I do not want to be seen to be unduly critical of the noble Lord, Lord Bates, first, because I am very fond of him—in common with the rest of the House, I think—and secondly, because he is not in his place today. I regret that, but of course it is totally understandable and that is not a criticism of him either. Nevertheless, he is a government Minister and if he says something before the House, he is accountable for it and it is reasonable for us to continue to say what we need to say on the subject, whether the Minister is present at that moment or not.

I will quote what the noble Lord, Lord Bates, said last week in the debate we had on the same subject. We had been speaking about the economic cost of Brexit, a matter which has naturally come up this afternoon, and on which I want to say something else as well. The noble Lord said:

“What was not given was any potential up side to leaving the European Union”—


he was talking about an economic up side—

“and the ability to have our own trade deals and set our own economic and trade policy. That needs to be factored in, and we remain confident that we have a bright future outside the European Union”.—[Official Report, 20/2/19; col. 2280.]

The Government have now, at last, released their impact assessment of Brexit. It is frightening and appalling. As the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, must know, in the case of his part of the world, the north-east, it predicts that GDP will be 10.5% lower than it otherwise would be, as a result of Brexit. The average decrease throughout the country is between 6.3% and 9%. That is pretty horrific. If you say, “You have not taken the good things and the positive economic return into account,” I have to say: what is the positive economic return? No one has mentioned it. We have had these debates for months and years now, but I am yet to hear about it.

We are now told that we will have trade deals with a lot of countries around the world. However, the day we leave the European Union, we lose 40 trade deals, as we know. Dr Fox said, “Don’t worry, I’ll negotiate the 40 trade deals and have them ready for you by March or April 2019”. What has actually happened? We have five trade deals, I think. In aggregate, they represent about 2% of British exports. Even if he had got all 40 trade deals, it would not have made a penny’s contribution to offset the economic costs of Brexit. It would merely have meant that there would not have been any further costs from losing trade deals. I do not know whether he will get to 40; he is 12.5% of the way there. That is not particularly encouraging.

The big issue is whether we could ever have a trade deal with the United States, which represents 25% of our exports. Does any noble Lord in the House think that is a feasible possibility? That would mean we would have to accept from the United States beef impregnated with antibiotics—a serious and long-term threat to public health. We would have to accept our own beef producers being undercut by incredibly cruel methods of cultivation—such as zero grazing—in the United States. We would also have to accept chlorinated chicken, and so it goes on. Are we going to accept that? I do not think so.

The European Union had discussions with the United States on these features, which broke down, and discussions on the investment guarantee, which might also be a problem. Does any noble Lord believe that the United States would sign a free trade agreement with us, leaving aside agricultural products? No one who knows the United States could possibly believe that for a moment. The enormous influence of the farm states in the Senate is one of the first things that hits you about Congress. It has been the case for a long time. So it is out of the question. We are not going to do it—it is not going to happen. It is fairyland, dreamland.

What about China? Now we are moving a long way down the scale, because we are talking about people who receive a much smaller proportion of our exports, although that proportion could increase rapidly over time. But who, of those who know China, is not aware of the Chinese sensitivity to unequal treaties? Who could imagine suggesting to Mr Xi Jinping an unequal treaty under which we have free trade with China but place quotas on the import of Chinese steel? Do you suppose that any British Government could abolish those quotas and see the end of the steel industry in south Wales and elsewhere? Of course, the Government are committed to not abolishing those steel quotas. So, is there a realistic possibility of a free trade deal with China? No, there is not.

What about India? We know, from the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, during previous discussions on these matters, that Mr Modi—and India generally—has a tradition of not signing free trade agreements with developed countries, which is unlikely to change. Mr Modi has said that the one thing he really wants is more visas. Since a major factor in the result of the referendum was probably immigration, how are we going to turn around and say that now, as a result of that referendum, we are going to give many more visas to India on special terms? That is not likely to happen.

This is rubbish. That is the point: this is total rubbish. We are buying hot air. There is nothing in it at all. There are no countervailing economic benefits from Brexit, no economic gains or economic revenues. Not one has been mentioned in the months of discussion here, and not one exists. None exists outside the fantasies of the Government. It is a very serious matter. I do not know whether the Government have deceived themselves, but they must not be allowed to deceive the British people. Above all, the Government must not be allowed to deceive the British people and, as a result, lead them into a situation in which 10% of their wealth will be destroyed.

17:28

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I confess that I do so with a certain amount of envy, because I wish I had the same capacity to speak for 10 minutes without notes and avoid repetition, hesitation or anything of that kind, and to speak, as always, entirely relevantly to the issues that we are discussing.

One of the consequences of this debate is that it has forced me to ask myself if I am a tribalist. I do not think I am, but I certainly believe that the best interests of the people of the United Kingdom rest with remaining in the European Union, and none of the arguments I have heard, right back to the beginning of the campaign for what we may in time come to call the first referendum, has caused me to change my mind in that regard. I make this admission at the outset, so that it is clear precisely which direction I am coming from.

I was interested in the references to the ides of March and Lars Porsena of Clusium. My recollection is that Lars Porsena was not present when Julius Caesar was assassinated, but he was present when Horatius held the bridge. If 14 and 15 March are now so closely allied, I would, if I were the Prime Minister, stay pretty close to my close protection unit—certainly on 15 March.

I go back to the Statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister and repeated here. I have swithered between considering its terms in some respects naive and considering them disingenuous; I am not quite sure which. The Statement, however, assumes that there will be success in obtaining binding legal changes to the agreement that contains the backstop. There is no evidence to justify that. Why should the European Union make any such concession? Noble Lords should ask themselves what would happen if the position were different. Suppose that the European Union had put the backstop in the agreement and that we had agreed to it, and then the EU had come along and said, “Well, actually we want to change the agreement”. What would we be saying here? We would be saying “Pacta sunt servanda”—this is a day for Latin and for a classical education—or, in other words, “You have entered into the agreement and you are bound by it”. It is therefore hardly surprising that there is no rush to offer the changes that the Prime Minister appears to think she is capable of getting.

If the conversations with Mr Tusk to which the Prime Minister referred in the Statement were as constructive as she claimed—if there had been a miraculous breakthrough—we would have heard about it. Being of such significance, it would have been leaked within 10 minutes of the end of the meeting. Exactly the same treatment would be given to the information that the Attorney-General had engineered some legal triumph in Brussels. The truth is that no progress has been reported because there is no progress to report.

I have some sympathy for the Prime Minister, to the extent that, rather like a yacht in heavy weather, she finds herself tacking to one side then the other. According to today’s newspapers, the remainers and soft Brexiteers in the Cabinet were favoured yesterday. As if to balance that, however, the Prime Minister expressly refuses to depart from maintaining the apocalyptic possibility of no deal. She does that because she wants to offer some balance to the fundamentalists. I have not yet read the article by the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, but I shall do so as soon as I am released from my obligations in your Lordships’ House.

The most significant thing that has happened is the publication of the document entitled Implications for Business and Trade. I suggest to the Minister, who referred to the document that was sent to every household in the country, that we send a copy of this document to every household and see what their responses are to the proposal that we should leave no deal on the table.

If this were the United States Congress, I would read the whole document into the record. That, I fear, would make unnecessary demands on the patience of your Lordships. I refer, however, to paragraph 12—to which reference has already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack—which explains how little has been achieved in relation to these so-called trade deals. Furthermore, Article XIV of GATT—to which the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred—is eloquently set out in paragraph 14. Later, in paragraph 17, it is stated that:

“Evidence suggests that individual citizens are also not preparing for the effects that they would feel in a no deal scenario”.


Paragraph 18 goes on to say:

“Government judges that the reason for this lack of action is often because a no deal scenario is not seen as a sufficiently credible outcome to take action or outlay expenditure”.


If the public do not think it is a sufficiently credible outcome, why on earth is the Prime Minister determined to stick to it? If ever there were an opportunity to go with public opinion, it is surely there.

The other point I wish to make is that we talk here about Northern Ireland and about the backstop. Noble Lords will see, at paragraph 37, dealing with the question of Northern Ireland:

“Northern Ireland is particularly vulnerable given its high proportion of, and reliance upon, SMEs (75% of all private sector employment) and the number of businesses who trade directly with Ireland (Northern Ireland’s largest international export market)”.


It would be something of an irony, would it not, if Ireland, about which there has been so much discussion in the course of these many debates, were to be the part of the United Kingdom that suffered worst as a result of a no-deal option?

My last reference repeats a question asked of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. Paragraph 50 consists of three and a half lines under the heading, “British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies”:

“The UK Government continues to work closely with British Overseas Territories, Crown Dependencies, and Gibraltar to prepare for all outcomes, including a no deal scenario. Overseas Territories are likely to experience effects to those parts of their economies with close ties with the EU”.


What are we doing for Gibraltar? What is in the plan for Gibraltar, which is, in many respects, at the mercy of Spain if the United Kingdom withdraws from the European Union? I have not heard any detail about that. If these issues are of such importance to the Government, then surely the Government should have been up front and clear as to precisely what they were offering, and should have considered whether compensation or something else of that kind might be required.

The truth is that anyone who has read that document could no longer, either in conscience or common sense, believe that to leave no deal on the table as some kind of bargaining counter makes any sense whatever. My noble friend Lord Newby beat me to the draw in quoting the noble Lord whose designation is Parkhead. Those who know football in Glasgow will anticipate that at some stage we will get a noble Lord of Ibrox, but perhaps that is a little too frivolous for the occasion. How could anyone who has read that document still hold the notion of a no-deal exit?

On occasion I have accused the Prime Minister of incompetence, and now I fear I accuse her of a lack of responsibility. It is not responsible to take this country down to the wire. If we consider that there have been two and a half years, are we not entitled to ask why that time has been so badly spent that these are still live issues within a few days of the statutory requirement that we leave the European Union? I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who mentioned the fact that the Prime Minister has managed, whether inadvertently or otherwise, to give the perception that she put the interests of her party above those of the national interest. It is irresponsible of her not to seek to remove that perception at the earliest opportunity.

My last point is, I suppose, rather more personal than I would normally make. I have said already that I do not believe I am a tribalist, but I believe in the European Union and I am afraid to say that nothing that has happened in recent times has caused me to alter that belief. I am told that leaving is a result of the decision of the British public in a referendum, but in the late 1980s and early 1990s—the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, will recall this—the question of capital punishment was a live issue in the Commons. On two occasions, we had votes on whether capital punishment should be restored. I am in no doubt that, had there been a referendum at that time on capital punishment, it would have been carried overwhelmingly in favour. But on both those occasions I voted against capital punishment. I did so because I had successfully prosecuted in capital murder cases where the accused would have been hanged; equally, I had unsuccessfully defended in such cases. I therefore believed that capital punishment was wrong. I believed it was not in the best interests of society or the United Kingdom.

I freely accept that leaving the European Union is of a different order. It is not a precise parallel—parallels are rarely precise—but I have the same strength of feeling that the best interests of this country do not lie in being outside the European Union, and I have the political consequences in mind as much as the economic ones. If I may coin the phrase, “It’s not just the economy, stupid”. We face challenges from Moscow, Beijing and—yes—to some extent, Washington. It is far better to meet these challenges as part of a 28-member Union, which is unique and whose contribution to economic and political stability in Europe has been overwhelming. Why should we give that up?

17:41

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, it is a very great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. Neither he nor I is a tribalist; we have in fact worked together over many years, often in agreement, starting with our joint opposition to the second Iraq war. We are entirely in agreement with the debates on Brexit. It is also a great pleasure to follow two of my neighbours—my noble friend Lord Cormack and my former honourable friend Lord Davies of Stamford. They and I represented Conservative constituencies for many years. We know that there is a serious distinction between the admirable views of the association and the views of the ordinary Conservative voter. They are not the same, and I very much fear that the members of the ERG do not understand that basic fact.

I have expressed my views on a number of occasions, though not recently in formal debate. Therefore, I will confine myself to making three substantive points. First, we should acknowledge that no deal that can be negotiated is better for the United Kingdom than staying in the European Union on existing terms. Because of the negotiating skills of successive Prime Ministers, Britain has achieved the substantial advantage of membership while securing the rebate and also opting out of many policies of which we disapproved. That is a hugely advantageous position. The Prime Minister should have the honesty and the courage to state what probably the majority of Parliament believes—that Brexit is a very serious error. It is a policy which, on its merits, should not be pursued.

I say this not as a Europhile. I am perhaps not as enthusiastic about the European Union as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. All my instincts are in fact the other way. As a Minister in the Home Office, the DTI, the Foreign Office with my noble friend Lord Garel-Jones, and in agriculture, I attended many euro councils. From that experience, I can identify many defects within the European Union. I do not think that it respects democratic values; I do not believe in ever greater integration. Managing BSE was a profoundly disagreeable experience. However, I am firmly and absolutely convinced that our national interests are best served by remaining within the European Union. Should we leave on any of the terms that are conceivably negotiable, our economic, political, cultural and strategic interests will suffer grave and long-lasting damage—we will enter a period of progressive and relative decline.

When I was in the DTI, I was frequently involved in discussions on inward investment—for example, with the Japanese. In our discussions, we always emphasised that Britain was the gateway to Europe; if you close that gateway, or obstruct the passage, potential overseas investors will simply look elsewhere. In 1962, Dean Acheson said that Britain had lost an empire and had failed to find a role in the world. At that time he was right but, subsequently, we have developed an important role as a leading nation within the European Union—a role which has reinforced, not diminished, our influence on the world stage. We are about to throw all of that away.

I turn to the question of delay. Unless Brexit is delayed, we are due to leave on 29 March. Here, I may have a declarable interest. My family and I have long-standing plans to go abroad on 31 March—that may have been an extremely unwise decision. It is essential that the deadline be extended and it is clear that our European partners would welcome this. There are, of course, short-term reasons for seeking an extension. As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, rightly said, the legislative programme is not, and will not, be ready in time. The problems with the backstop have not been resolved—matters spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford. However, in arguing that we need more time, I am talking about a much longer extension than is generally suggested, particularly by the Prime Minister. I entirely agree with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, on this point.

My reasons for asking for a very long extension relate to the holding of a further referendum. I think that it is increasingly obvious that a further referendum is probably the only acceptable way forward—I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Garel-Jones on this point—but one difficulty lies in determining the question to be put to the electorate. In determining that question, we in fact identify the proper way forward. Clearly, one question should be: should the United Kingdom remain in the European Union on existing terms? That is an essential question, but what about the other questions? I am very cautious about putting the option of leaving the European Union without a deal to the electorate—there is not likely to be a parliamentary majority for such a policy. To impose an obligation on Parliament for which there is no supportive majority is to invite a constitutional crisis of a devastating kind. The question that has to be determined is: what are the other questions? It has to be the negotiated deal, but here lies the problem: what deal?

The deal presently negotiated by the Prime Minister is an interim and transitional deal; it does not and cannot reflect the ultimate arrangements between the European Union and the United Kingdom. It is therefore a very unsatisfactory subject for a referendum. I also acknowledge the arguments of those who say, “Another referendum? How many more?” So if there is to be a further referendum, it should not be on the present and transitional deal but on the final deal, yet to be negotiated, and that may be many years distant.

If that proposition is accepted, much else falls into place. The deadline must be extended well beyond 29 March. Article 50 must be revoked—we are still in time to do that. Then, as full and remaining members of the European Union, we should embark on orderly negotiations to leave the European Union. Once those have crystallised into a concluded agreement, regulating the ultimate arrangements between ourselves and the European Union, that agreement could be put to the country in the further referendum—unless, of course, the electorate is prepared to leave the question to Parliament, which within our constitutional practices would be wholly proper.

I am conscious that what I have suggested will be very unpopular in some quarters. But none of the alternatives are attractive. We are facing the worst peacetime crisis for over 100 years—certainly since the failure of the Home Rule legislation, perhaps before. Now is the time to put what we deem to be the national interest before any party consideration. That is what our predecessors did in May 1940. The Prime Minister fell and a national Government was formed. If the Prime Minister is seen to put nation before party, she may fail, and she may fall. But she will have earned great respect, and history will then judge her generously.

17:52

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, in my family, before any departure we have a tradition of doing what we call a “last-minute nervous”—an 11th-hour check that in our preparations to leave, nothing has been overlooked or left behind. In thinking about whether to take part today, I found myself doing that same nervous check: asking whether there could be any issue that we have not properly considered in our take-note debates thus far. Over seven days, according to Hansard, noble Lords have collectively contributed some 280,000 words. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is surely right when he suggests there can be nothing we have overlooked. But in searching those 280,000 words, I was astonished to find just 80 covering the specific effects of Brexit on women. It is 99 years, almost to the day, since the first woman spoke for the first time in Parliament and yet over seven days of transcripts, the word “women” appears only 13 times. So I rise again, not wishing to test your Lordships’ patience, but duty-bound to put on the record the potential impact of exiting the EU on women in the UK.

Since joining the EU, as noble Lords will know, there have been substantial gains for gender equality and women’s rights in the UK. Equality between men and women was one of the EU’s founding values, with the principle of equal pay included in the 1957 treaty of Rome. Over the past 45 years, women in the UK have won the right to equal pay, including for work of equal value. We have seen progressive reforms related to part-time workers—the majority of whom are women—parental leave and the gender pay gap. There is now uncapped compensation in discrimination claims and increased protection for pregnant women at work. We have not only seen enhanced employment rights for women; protection for women escaping domestic violence has been strengthened, with European protection orders guaranteeing victims similar protection in all EU member states.

It would not be right to claim that all these advances are solely because of our EU membership; nor would it be right to assume that, on leaving the EU, all this would fall away. Indeed, much of the EU’s equality legislation is already incorporated into domestic law by the Equality Act 2010. Nevertheless, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has raised concerns about the effects of Brexit on women. In doing so, it echoed concerns expressed by the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee in February 2017. Its report concluded that transposing EU law was not enough and that,

“the Government needs to take active steps to embed equality into domestic law and policy”.

In response, the Government said that they,

“share the goal of ensuring there is no erosion of equalities rights and protections at the point of leaving the EU”.

But confidence in that commitment has been undermined by the absence of any references to women in the main body of the withdrawal agreement and by the potential for Henry VIII powers to lead to reductions in protections in future. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, noted in this House in March last year,

“the very last thing we should refer to Henry VIII clauses is women’s rights”.—[Official Report, 8/3/18; col. 1227.]

Perhaps the biggest threat to women is dependent on what happens to our economy if—and after—we leave the EU. Any negative impacts of an orderly Brexit, or, in the worst case, of leaving without a deal, will hit women—specifically, the most vulnerable women in our society—hardest. Reductions in public spending have a higher impact on women, as the primary users of public services. Cuts in public sector employment or pay disproportionately affect women because of their greater concentration in this sector. Strains on social care increase pressures on women because they are more likely to care for elderly or disabled family members.

In reviewing the research, it becomes clear that it is not just in the area of hard law that the UK’s equality architecture has been shaped by our relationship with the EU. Equally important is so-called soft law—non-binding measures that serve as tools for promoting gender equality. For example, including gender equality in the evaluation criteria for European research or social funds has created financial incentives for countries to think about gender issues when otherwise they might not have done so. European social funds have played a key role in developing an infrastructure of voluntary organisations providing support to vulnerable women in the UK. Funding streams, such as the Daphne fund, enable research and support aimed at tackling violence against girls and women in the UK. I understand that the Government have committed to honouring this funding until 2020, but it is not clear how these vital services will be supported from this point on.

Membership of the EU has also meant that the UK’s progress on gender equality has been regularly evaluated through the OMC—the open method of co-ordination. The OMC is informed by the systematic collection and analysis of data on, for example, employment and social conditions for women, or underrepresentation of women in political or economic decision-making, or in research and innovation. These international datasets have enabled comparative research on gender issues that provides a valuable evidence base. Of course, this research is EU-funded. Exiting the OMC—if we leave the EU—could mean that the cycle of scrutiny through evaluation, benchmarking and good practice exchange is replaced by a more insular approach to policy design. The challenges to collaborative research in a post-Brexit environment could exacerbate this, with academics and policymakers finding it harder to work across borders and to access shared funding pots.

The Government’s stated commitment to preserving rights and protections for women is, of course, welcome, as were the reassurances of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in response to questions from the noble Baronesses, Lady Crawley and Lady Gale, in January and March last year. But in the UK’s journey towards gender equality, our membership of the EU has given us something more than just hard and soft laws. Representation at EU level of marginal groups such as women—I find it hard to consider a group that makes up 51% of the country as marginal, but nevertheless—makes them less vulnerable to the ideological preferences of the domestic Government of the day, whatever colour that Government may be. Choosing to pool sovereignty in key areas such as gender equality has enabled the development of initiatives that promote the interests of marginal groups in the national context. I do not see this as giving up control; I see it as providing valuable checks and balances to ensure that certain interests in national policy-making can never be privileged, either consciously or unconsciously, if they have a negative effect on women and their rights.

If nothing else, today I have at least succeeded in adding 1,300 words to the existing 80 on the potential impact of Brexit on women. Your Lordships will note that, throughout, I have not said “will”, I have said “could”. I ask not just the Minister but the formidable women who make up the ministerial team alongside him to play their part in ensuring that “could” is never allowed to become “will”.

Whatever happens next, women’s rights as set out in equality, employment and human rights legislation must be protected. Funding must be made available to maintain vital women’s services, especially for the most vulnerable. The Government must ensure that any economic impact of Brexit does not fall disproportionately on women. This Government and the next must commit to keeping pace with going beyond future EU directives on gender equality. Deal or no deal, leave or remain, we cannot allow ourselves to resile from the steps we have taken over the past 45 years to advance gender equality and enhance the lives of women across the UK.

18:01

[Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. I congratulate her on finding a relatively unexplored but vital angle on the issue. Although she said “could”, not “will” many times, I note that she also said “must” many times, and I hope that the Minister will take account of that.

It is also a pleasure to speak in this debate, for it is not like other debates on Article 50. For more than two years, we have been told repeatedly that the UK is leaving the EU on 29 March 2019. In the other place, the honourable Member for Wellingborough, who keeps tabs on this sort of thing, calculates that the Prime Minister has issued this declaration 108 times. My noble friend must have come quite close to that total. I was going to ask him if, just this once, he could bring himself to utter the words, “The UK may not be leaving the EU on 29 March 2019”, but I sympathise with his Brexit throat issue, so I wonder whether my noble and learned friend Lord Keen might utter that sentence for the general delectation of the House.

There is, however, no reason for sanguinity. Despite what was said yesterday, the possibility of leaving the EU without a deal remains real—merely potentially postponed. If anyone really believes that leaving without a deal would not be a disaster for our country, they need only to read the document produced yesterday by the Government—not, one might think, a bad day to bury bad news—which has been mentioned several times in the House already. The grim forecasts for the economy in there are eye-popping. It could shrink by 9% on average and 10.5% in the north-east. Between the first quarter of 2008 and that almighty financial crash and the second quarter of 2009, the economy shrank by just 6%. Just think of the many years of austerity it took to finish that. We are talking about a much worse situation and potentially walking right into it of our own volition.

The costs of a no-deal Brexit are literally horrendous. HMRC estimates that the burden on business from customs declarations alone, based on 2016 UK-EU trade in goods, could be around £13 billion a year. I am really sorry that my noble friend Lord Lilley is not in his place to put that £13 billion in context with the £10 billion—it is not really £10 billion—that he feels we might be saving. According to HMRC, that is without,

“accounting for any behavioural change”,

which is HMRC-speak for companies just stopping exporting because it is too much trouble.

Business is simply not ready for no deal. Only 40,000 of the 240,000 businesses that currently export to the EU have even applied for the necessary licences. Apparently HMRC is capable of issuing them at the rate of 11,000 a day, so there is no way they are all going to get their licences for 29 March—and probably not for two months later. Can the Minister tell the House whether he thinks all this trouble is truly worth while. The Government tell us there will need to be import tariffs; of course there will. The document tells us:

“Further details will be announced in due course”.


I wonder whether the Minister could tell us in due course when that might be. The boats are already having to get loaded up with the items to be exported. Indeed, some of those boats have already set off.

We know trade deals have not been signed. The no-deal briefing tells us that certain deals will categorically not be in place for exit day. For some reason, the ones it singles out are,

“Andorra, Japan, Turkey, and San Marino”,

as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, remarked. Quite why Japan and San Marino are viewed in the same way by our Government I cannot imagine. I ask the Minister whether, when these trade deals are put in place, Parliament will have a proper opportunity to scrutinise them. Not all of us may be as terrified of chlorinated chicken as some, but we ought to be able to have parliamentary scrutiny of the trade deals to which we are thinking of signing up.

It is already clear that shop prices are going up, but figures from the ONS only today show that last year the poorest 20% in this country saw their real incomes fall by 1.6%. They are already finding life a real struggle, and as shop prices go up they will find it harder and harder.

As my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, said, this is not just about the economy. There is far more at stake, and many of us believe that the UK is better off from every point of view—not just financial but in terms of culture and security—as part of the EU. That is why I listened with interest to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and took note of the four elements he saw as the temptations—but I am afraid I cannot agree with him in his call for compromise. I find it absolutely appalling to be asked to take our country into a situation that I believe will make us worse off in every way. I will not refer to Churchill but to GK Chesterton, who said that compromise used to mean that half a loaf was better than no bread. Among modern statesmen, it really seems to me that half a loaf is better than a whole loaf. I want the country to have the whole loaf.

18:09

[Lord Lipsey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have not addressed this House on Brexit since 31 January 2018, and I doubt whether many other noble Lords who have spoken tonight can say the same. This has partly been a matter of ill health but also, when I look back, I have found that I have nothing to say that I did not say the last time I spoke. I am not as passionately against leaving the EU on the right terms as most noble Lords who have spoken this evening, as the arguments are reasonably finely balanced, but I am totally against leaving without a further referendum. I do not see how a referendum in which the choice was between what exists and a blank piece of paper can bind a future Parliament. If there is a new referendum, it will be between what exists and a deal, whatever that may be. That seems to be a real choice, and it is cracking on immoral to deny that second choice.

My Trappist silence over this last year has not, I am afraid, set an example to the House. I see my great friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is laughing—her speech today was her 178th contribution in the course of these debates. I single her out because of the magnificence of the speeches she has given. A veritable Niagara of words has spilled out of this House, all of them eloquent, and most of which I agree with. However, I hate to be Eeyore-ish, but what effect have these words had on policy? None; sweet FA; less than Jacob Rees-Mogg has when he passes wind. There is a good reason for this. We as a House have taken the view, I believe rightly, that the will of the elected House must prevail. We have watched in horror, spoken in shock and awe of events down the Corridor, but we have mostly done so feeling that we are powerless to change the course of what is going on. That explains why I am breaking my Trappist silence this evening.

Over the last few months—certainly the last few weeks—the old argument that the non-elected House must give way to the elected House is no longer centre stage. We are now seeing something quite different, which is a battle between the Executive and Parliament. We have had the unedifying situation where the Prime Minister, no less, has decided to ignore the votes cast down there—huge votes against her deal. She goes round, gives it a little dust off, and thinks, “Next time, I’ll try again”. This is no way to run a country, and no way to treat Parliament.

I welcome Mrs May’s forced retreat yesterday. Nothing concentrates the mind like the imminent prospect of defeat, but even after she made these commitments yesterday, there were people in the Commons saying, “We can’t trust her on this. She has wriggled for so long, she’s ignored the Commons for so long; we can’t trust her to observe these”, and they were looking for statutory protections to prevent her doing it. I do not want to go down that road, or for us to be in a situation where we have to intervene. The true power of your Lordships’ House is not what we do; it is what we stop Governments doing because they are fearful of what we could do. We are here, to coin a phrase, as a backstop, and it is fear of the backstop that stops things happening.

I hope a way through can be found from here that avoids constitutional controversy. In noting the right reverend Prelate’s words, and without stirring things up, I would be willing, as a compromise, to allow Mrs May’s deal to go through, provided that she agreed that it would then be put to the people in a referendum, but there are other ways of solving it.

In a nutshell, my point is this. If there is a clash between an unelected House and an elected House, the elected House wins every time. We, as noble Lords, support that. But if the clash is between Parliament and the Executive—Henry VIII re-run, as it were—there is only one right course for us to take: we have to be unequivocally on the side of Parliament, wherever that may lead us.

18:15

[The Duke of Wellington (Con)]

My Lords, as before, I declare my European and agricultural interests as detailed in the register. I also declare, as I have done before, that if I were a Member of the other place, I would vote for the Prime Minister’s deal, either in its current form or with any amendments she may be able to achieve in the coming days. In this sense, I disagree with those noble Lords who have referred to the inadequacy of the proposed deal. We must keep reminding ourselves that it is only a mechanism to get to a transition period and to the serious negotiation about the future relationship.

This debate is really to take note of the Prime Minister’s Statement yesterday, and it would surely be churlish of us not to welcome that Statement. It changes matters considerably.

In passing, I say this. I am sorry the right reverend Prelate is not in his place. He advised us to resist some temptations to which politicians are so often prone. I very much admired what he said.

The sad truth is that our political system has failed badly in the two and a half years since the referendum. In July 2016, no one could have predicted or imagined that, with only five weeks to go before we leave the EU, the Government of the day have so far been unable to negotiate withdrawal terms that have the support of the House of Commons. Even yesterday, the Prime Minister again delayed a second meaningful vote. But at least she now accepts that the House of Commons must be allowed a vote to block a departure without a deal and to require the Government to seek an extension to Article 50—so obvious to so many Members of this House. This recognition of the seriousness of the situation is to be supported, but how sad that it did not happen weeks or even months ago.

Yesterday evening, the Government published a document on the implications of a no-deal exit, as a number of noble Lords have referred to. Within it, there is much information, most of it not new. It repeats what farmers and businesses have been saying for months:

“For example, the EU would introduce tariffs of around 70% on beef and 45% on lamb exports, and 10% on finished automotive vehicles”.


How serious is that? Surely, only the ultras now deny these predictions. I am quite sure that a majority of both Houses of Parliament agrees that we cannot possibly leave without a deal, that we must have a transition period and that, at this stage, we must also seek to extend Article 50. I still do not support another referendum but it looks as if the tactics of the hard Brexiteers are, in fact, making a referendum more likely. I realise, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, just said, that our power in this House to influence these matters is limited but I am sure that we are right to articulate that the mood of the country is not for a no-deal departure. Promoting that concept can only perpetuate the political gridlock from which the escape route may, in the end, become a second referendum.

I think that the wish of the public now is for an orderly withdrawal—a transition period for the multitude of adjustments we have to make and then a long-term trading agreement without tariffs and non-tariff barriers. We must, surely, end up with a close relationship with our nearest neighbours and largest trading partners. We must co-operate on security, on research, in academia and in so many other ways. In the end, in one form or another, we must support the Government’s deal. We undoubtedly need more time. We cannot leave with no deal. I salute the Prime Minister’s eventual recognition of the situation and I hope the House of Commons will, in the next two weeks or before, take the necessary decisions to get us out of this low place of political stagnation.

18:22

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Duke. He and I were twinned together in proposing an amendment to the EU withdrawal Act on the question of the “tablets of Moses” status of 29 March 2019. I do not expect that the noble and learned Lord who will wind up or his colleague on the Front Bench will admit that they would be in a much more comfortable position today if they had accepted that amendment, but that is a fact and I think it will be borne out within a few weeks.

There has been some shift this week in the course of action to which the Government once appeared to be committed—leaving the EU on 29 March with or without a deal and at any cost. This involved three reckless gambles, not one of which, let alone all three, is likely to be pulled off. Gamble number one is that the EU will blink and concede the changes to the Irish backstop in the withdrawal treaty called for in the Brady amendment which the Government supported and which, I remind noble Lords, involves the “replacement” of the treaty backstop. That is not going to happen, however many lashings of reassurance or clarification are ladled over the treaty, nor will a time limit to the backstop be conceded, nor will an open-sesame key to a unilateral UK exit from it be conceded.

Gamble number two is that the majority of 230 who voted in the Commons in January against the Prime Minister’s November deal—described, I may say, at that time, as the best deal conceivable—will be reversed, transformed by the philosopher’s stone of running down the clock into a vote in favour. That, too, seems unlikely to happen.

Gamble number three is that there is still enough parliamentary time before 29 March either to pass through all the stages and changes in domestic law that will be needed to ratify the deal, if it is approved by the Commons or, alternatively, to prepare the statute book for leaving without a deal. That clearly is simply no longer credible.

This House, on three occasions and with substantial majorities, voted against all three of those gambles, but the Government do not seem to pay much attention to that. They appear to be either unaware of it or impervious to it, and I have never heard a government spokesman actually mention those votes, which is rather sad. However, we do not need to repeat them today: we have said it; it is all in Hansard; it is on the record.

Meanwhile, unlikely as it is that the UK will in fact leave the European Union without a deal either on 29 March or on 30 June, the Government continue to divert billions of tax revenues to the fruitless task of lending credibility to that disastrous option. If press reports of the tariff schedules that we would apply in such an eventuality are to be believed, and they looked pretty convincing to me when I read them this morning, the Government are now also in the process of trying to boost the credibility of leaving without a deal, grievously damaging the jewel in the Brexit crown—an independent trade policy—because they are going to reveal that we, the UK, neither need nor desire to keep the large majority of our present trade protection. What an unrequited gift to those third countries with which we hope to negotiate. Why on earth should they make concessions to us in order to achieve access to our market, which we wish to give them anyway? That is another of the appalling errors that are made as the Government zig-zag around.

I ask the noble and learned Lord just one precise question. It seems that the Government wish to maintain the protection for beef, sheepmeat and dairy products, which we will then apply to trade from our EU partners. Where will those tariffs on EU exports of beef, sheepmeat and dairy products be levied on trade within the island of Ireland? Presumably it will be done on the border but I would like to hear the noble and learned Lord answer that.

It is surely time for all those three gambles to be taken off the table, and the sooner the Government do that, the better, both for them and for the country. Alas, the message from the Government—we have heard it again today from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan—is, as it was the last time we debated it and as it was the time before, “Jam yesterday, jam tomorrow and never jam today”. That message will not suffice next month and it should not even do so today.

18:28

[Baroness Altmann]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. It seems that we are participating in yet another act of that long-running theatrical exercise that has been going on in Parliament for quite some time. Perhaps we could call it “The Brexit Chronicles”. We are not sure yet whether it is a farce, a tragedy, a comedy or some combination of all three—indeed, one could suggest that it encompasses many more aspects of theatre. However, as has been directed by the last act of our play, we are led to believe that somehow the Prime Minister will go back to the EU and get 27 countries to reconsider the withdrawal agreement that she herself agreed, with concessions made on all sides, and tell them to tear up the backstop, which the EU considers essential to protect its external border and one of its smaller nations. The fact that our own Government are willing to play fast and loose with the Irish border is indeed shameful, but that is how it appears.

My noble friend Lord Cormack referred to the excellent article by our noble friend Lord Finkelstein. It seems that the ERG has roundly rejected the only agreement on offer for the orderly—if only for the short term—Brexit that apparently it has always wanted. It has now bullied the Prime Minister into disgracefully refusing to take no deal off the table. The Orwellian arguments being used to keep threatening no deal are almost beyond belief. Indeed, the nationalist obsessions behind these arguments reflect Orwell’s words:

“Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception”.


The self-deception is on quite an exceptional scale.

I will quote from an article today by my right honourable friend David Davis, who writes that the announcement yesterday,

“sends the wrong message to the EU”.

He says that,

“ruling out No Deal, or extending Article 50 … may harm our negotiating position … because it takes away our leverage in negotiations and is against our national interest”.

So no deal is somehow in our national interest. In any case, the EU has said that the negotiations are over. Even the Prime Minister, in her Statement yesterday, of which we are taking note now, says that these are discussions, not negotiations. As other noble Lords have said, the EU will not reopen the withdrawal agreement. Yet the ERG says that we must not abandon this no-deal charade. That is either dishonest or delusional. I fear that it is the latter, especially as, in the same article, Mr Davis says:

“Above all we all want an orderly exit from the European Union”,


and that:

“Conservatism is based on pragmatism and realism”.


He says also that:

“The public has always been ahead of and more relaxed on No Deal than politicians. They are right to be”.


Somehow, therefore, no deal represents an orderly exit from the EU and is the pragmatic and realistic choice. Words almost fail me.

In previous acts of our play we have been told that the purpose of no deal is a necessary fiction of some kind, whose purpose is to threaten or bully the EU into capitulating on the backstop. That is playing Russian roulette with several chambers of the gun loaded. This no-deal threat is not like a normal deal, where you walk away and go back to your village if the other side does not agree to your terms. If we leave with no deal, we will have set fire to many of the homes in our village. It is not like, as some suggest, having an independent nuclear deterrent. We hope never to have to use it. Others also would assume that we will not actually use it, but our enemies cannot be 100% sure. This no-deal threat is not like that. It is about as realistic as threatening to use our nuclear arsenal when the missiles are primarily trained directly on ourselves, or as—as the leader of the Opposition suggested—having our nuclear submarines sailing around without any missiles on them. No deal would be an unmitigated disaster for many parts of our country—not, perhaps, for the individuals who are promoting this idea, but certainly for many innocent people around the nation.

Many noble Lords have referred to the Government’s paper from yesterday. Indeed, my noble friend Baroness Wheatcroft has pointed to one thing that stood out particularly to me, which was the HMRC estimate that the administrative burden on our country’s businesses just from customs declarations on UK-EU goods trade could be around £13 billion a year. I looked up the receipts that the Government get from corporation tax in this country. For the year 2015-16, which is the year to which the £13 billion refers, corporation tax receipts were £43.7 billion. So the impact of a no-deal Brexit, just from customs declarations, would be the equivalent of a 30% increase in corporation tax on British business. Having trumpeted the reduction of corporation tax and tried to attract businesses to the UK, making us the best place to set up a business, the Conservative Party is suddenly suggesting that we contemplate slapping an increase of this nature on our companies, just for a business to be able to carry on doing what it has already been doing freely for years.

The Government have created risk and uncertainty for some of the UK’s largest manufacturing sectors, including automobiles, food and drink, and chemicals. Let us take a couple of examples. Chemical firms with integrated supply chains, whose products cross borders many times, would have to register with the European Chemicals Agency. Currently that is automatic via the EU, but businesses would have to register for 12,000 different registrations if there were no deal and they still wanted to sell into the EU. They would also have to transfer their existing registration to an EU-based entity. Each of those registrations costs £1,500 plus the associated administrative expenses.

For food, the impact of leaving with no deal would be particularly grave. The country is not even remotely ready for a no-deal Brexit. In fact it is probably the small and mundane procedural issues that will cause some of the worst problems. For example, Defra has suddenly realised that we do not have enough pallets to be able to cope with the consequences of no deal. Most pallets that are used by British exporters do not conform to the third-country rules that the EU requires for trade because we have a much more relaxed set of regulations as a member. The UK will apparently not have enough EU-approved pallets for the exports that we require if we leave with no deal in March. Those UK companies that miss out will have to wait for new pallets, which can take weeks to be ready.

Another example is that labels that food and drink companies put on their products will become illegal from 29 March if we leave with no deal. It can take months for new labels to be produced. Any UK company without a presence in the EU would have to take down its websites with a .eu suffix. Here is an example that I find particularly interesting: March/April is a particularly bad time to leave without a deal because it is the very time when we are most reliant on importing fresh fruit and vegetables from the EU. Some 90% of lettuces come from the EU at that time. By May or June there is less reliance on the EU so that would actually be a better time to leave without a deal. That might also help to avoid the worst initial disruption to food supplies, as well as giving more time to prepare for no deal.

This is where I see the situation very differently from my noble friend Lord Howell. I am deeply concerned about how the final act of this Westminster Brexit chronicle may unfold. I am concerned that the possibility of no deal may actually have risen. This could indeed be the final denouement of the saga that we are engaged in. Everyone knows that we are not ready to leave in March with no deal. An extension has to be requested. If it is agreed, the Prime Minister insists that it must be a one-off, it must be short and it must not last beyond June. There will be no renegotiation of the withdrawal agreement, so it is entirely possible that a short delay would be designed just to give us more time to prepare for no deal. In the meantime we will keep threatening no deal and hope that the EU will surrender to our wishes, but if, as most of us in today’s debate agree, the EU will not give us anything better than the withdrawal agreement apart from some slight changes to the political declaration and reassurances on the backstop, what next? We will face the choice between vassalage and suicide. Neither represents the freedom and control that people who voted to leave voted for. The ERG would, it appears, choose the suicidal route, perhaps believing that the gun is not really loaded, or that some deus ex machina will rescue us. Other Members of your Lordships’ House—I entirely understand this—would choose vassalage, at least in the short term, and then hope that the political declaration will deliver some decent terms for us.

However, I believe that Parliament would be betraying our democracy and our country if we refuse to go back to the people and check before taking any of these courses, to make sure that this is what they will support, given that the circumstances are so different from those that people were presented with when they voted in either 2016 or 2017. It is time to respect the British people. We have respected those votes. It is now time to respect the people by asking again for confirmation of whether they wish us to proceed in this way before the final curtain comes down.

18:41

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a very great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, who, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, has shown great courage and consistency on this, the greatest question of our times. I think the House owes them a tribute for that.

It is now three months since the Prime Minister reached her withdrawal agreement in Brussels, but we do not seem much further forward. There are very few good options before us. I understand the speech of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, in which he said that we have to vote for this agreement because at least it avoids the calamity of no deal and gives us a transition period in which we can sort out all the problems. I have to say that my main objection to the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement and political declaration is that, despite her constant mantra that the only way to end uncertainty is by voting for her deal, all the deal does is guarantee years and years of uncertainty. We had Ivan Rogers at our Select Committee last week. He thought it would be another five years, if not longer, before we reached what he would call an equilibrium position.

For all the extravagant talk offered by Ministers two years ago, at the start of this process—they said that we would know exactly where we were and that we would have a trade deal by now—none of the key questions about the future relationship between Britain and the European Union has been resolved. In economics, what trade-offs have been faced up to between sovereignty and market access? I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, who first asked about that in the House. What decisions have the Government taken? None. On security, are we determined to align ourselves with the structures of European co-operation, at the same time accepting the legal obligations essential to making those work? On foreign policy and defence, will we stick together with the European partners whose values and interests in this troubled world we most share, or will we drag ourselves off into the foggy mists of some mid-Atlantic anglosphere? The Government have not resolved any of these crucial questions and that is why this deal deserves to fail. All it offers is uncertainty, drift, division and strife for years to come.

There have, however, been a couple of interesting developments in the last week or so. As other noble Lords have pointed out, the first is the Government’s willingness to contemplate some kind of extension of Article 50, at least in theory. In my view, a short extension is not much use, unless the House of Commons has passed the withdrawal agreement and we need that time to carry through the necessary legislation with proper parliamentary scrutiny. In those circumstances, it would be essential, but it is not going to create the conditions in which we can tweak Mrs May’s agreement even more. I do not think Brussels will be prepared to listen again.

The most serious failing of the Prime Minister on this matter is that she appears to have ruled out any possibility of a fundamental rethink of her negotiating position. Although Monsieur Barnier and the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, have said that they would be very interested in further discussing membership of a customs union, single market alignment and all the rest—in fact, they responded rather positively to the letter that the Labour leader sent to the Prime Minister—the Prime Minister has decided this is impossible, so we are not going to get a new approach from her. I think some time ago she decided that her historical role was not that of Robert Peel, but that her main mission in life was to keep the Conservative Party together and in some sort of order. Therefore, I do not think the short extension will do much good. It could be regarded by Brussels simply as giving time for more effective preparation for the consequences of no deal and completing necessary mitigating actions.

The second interesting development is Labour’s commitment to a referendum. I do not often say nice things about my leader, Jeremy Corbyn, but on this occasion I congratulate him on having the good sense to move in this direction. But the whole question of the referendum is not a simple one. Once one has said that one is in favour of a referendum, what would the question on the ballot paper be? I have very clear views. It would be intolerable if the choice offered to the public was between no deal and remain, because no deal is a complete fantasy. At our committee, Ivan Rogers said that if there was no deal, within a week British officials would be on their way to Brussels to negotiate solutions to all the problems we have heard it would create; problems of costs, bureaucracy at the border, EU trade deals we are part of, all sorts of sectoral issues which have been raised in the various SIs that have come before this House. Brussels would say, “Yes, we might discuss this with you, but first you must commit to the £39 billion in the withdrawal agreement that you say you reject and are walking away from”. There is therefore no such thing as no deal: it is a fantasy. I hope that if we do have a referendum and the Bill comes to this House, this House has the courage to say that a no-deal option is not a credible option for us to put to the people.

My final point is that if we are to have a referendum we should not rush into it: we should not try to do it within three months, by the end of June. There is real merit in the idea that is emerging on the continent of a very lengthy Article 50 extension, and we should think about that very carefully. Brussels will not want to deal with Britain during the rest of 2019. It has many other more important things on its plate, including the European Parliament elections, the establishment of a new Commission, and decisions on who the officeholders will be. There will be nobody in Brussels to have a discussion with for most of the remainder of this year. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan—an experienced former MEP—knows that is likely to be the case.

This provides us with an opportunity to try to create a more open and civilised debate than we have had in the past two years about the big questions around what kind of relationship we want with the European Union—questions that have not been properly addressed at all since the referendum, and were certainly not addressed during it. Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, for whom I have great respect, has suggested some ways in which this might be done. I do not know the details of that but I think that this is an opportunity to try to reset the whole Brexit debate, in order to reach a conclusion that is truly in the national interest.

18:52

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I feel rather lonely in this debate. I think that I am fairly well known for being a passionate leaver—a beast in the Brexit herd. Right now, I feel like an isolated wildebeest surrounded by a pride of noble lions, possibly about to be torn limb from limb.

We in Parliament need to lift our heads and see that the mood in the country is one of wanting to get this over the line. People want Parliament to deliver on what 17.4 million voted for, and are profoundly disappointed by the continuous party politicking and thwarting of our departure. It would reflect well on both Houses—and especially on this one, where courtesy is the currency—if the polarising language and behaviour were softened. Currently, anyone who dares to suggest that leaving on WTO terms would not be terminal for our future prosperity is treated with deeply discourteous contempt. Yet that represents a position held by many outside this House, who resent the vitriol that is, by extension, also being poured on them.

If the Prime Minister, who is being attacked from all positions, can be magnanimous, then so can we. Yesterday she acknowledged that:

“For some honourable and right honourable Members, taking the United Kingdom out of the European Union is the culmination of a long and sincerely fought campaign. For others, leaving the EU goes against much that they have stood for and fought for with equal sincerity for just as long. But Parliament gave the choice to the people”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/2/19; col. 168.]


Yesterday in the other place she also made it clear that there is not just real determination in both the EU and UK Government camps to enable us to leave with a deal, but also tangible work to operationalise the concept of alternative arrangements for the border in Ireland. This would not be taken seriously by both sides if it were really the unicorn some scornfully dismiss it as. Scornful dismissal ignores the fact that MPs coalesced around this as an acceptable plan that would avoid an indefinite Northern Ireland backstop. It also suggests a desire to block Brexit at all costs, as does the push for a second referendum.

Some say we have to give people another vote because no one in the country voted leave in order to be poorer and less secure, or to have fewer choices in the supermarket. I do not know how this can be said with such certainty, especially when there is hard evidence of what people did vote for. Lord Ashcroft’s polling on referendum day, which was in the same ballpark as findings from YouGov and the British Election Study, found that nearly half of leave voters, 49%, said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was, “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One-third said the main reason was that leaving, “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.” Just over one in eight said that remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead”. Only 6% said their main reason was that, “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it”. Yet when the Prime Minister’s Statement was repeated in this House yesterday, in the exchanges that followed much was said about trade and economics, as was said today—

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

The noble Lord has just read out a long list of the motivations of those who voted leave in June 2016, with percentages for those who were moved by those considerations. Will he say which one the Prime Minister’s deal fulfils?

[Lord Farmer]

Will the noble Lord repeat the question?

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

After he has read out the list of motivations of those who voted to leave, will he say which one, if any—I do not believe there are any—the Prime Minister’s deal actually fulfils?

[Lord Farmer]

The issue is sovereignty, which, as I said, was not mentioned yesterday and I do not think it has been mentioned today.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

It has.

[Lord Farmer]

That was the main issue, according to the polling, behind people voting to leave. It was not about trade and the economy, where the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it. When the Prime Minister’s Statement was repeated in the House yesterday, much was said in the exchanges that followed about trade and economics, but no one mentioned the fundamental importance of sovereignty to those who voted leave. Our silence in this area makes us seem very out of touch, so I shall take a little time to spell out why so many wanted to leave the European form of federal government—not, I might add, to leave the continent of Europe itself. I have not heard anyone express an interest in pulling up the drawbridge or stopping the flows of trade which so many forms of business value greatly.

Many noble Lords, perhaps particularly those on the Benches opposite, will be familiar with the erstwhile Viscount Stansgate, Mr Tony Benn, and his five questions for people of power. I must admit, I never thought I would be quoting this particular political giant, but he makes a powerful point. His five questions were,

“what power do you have; where did you get it; in whose interests do you exercise it; to whom are you accountable; and, how can we get rid of you?”.

They will also be aware of his maxim:

“Anyone who cannot answer the last of those questions does not live in a democratic system”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/11/98; col. 685.]


We cannot get rid of President Juncker, President Tusk, Monsieur Barnier, Herr Selmayr or the European Commission. But, according to the House of Commons Library, the democratic deficit of the European Union is much wider and deeper than this. Its main characteristics are:

“The increased use of qualified majority voting … for the adoption of legislation in the Council; limiting Member States’ powers by removing their veto in the Council of Ministers; expanding the policy areas in which the EU has a role, sometimes excluding any action by Member States (EU ‘exclusive competence’); an increase in executive power and a decrease in national parliamentary control with deeper EU”,


regulation.

[Lord Liddle]

First, is the noble Lord aware that the only areas in which the EU has exclusive competence are trade and competition? Secondly, is he aware that the European Parliament has the power to dismiss the European Commission, which it has in fact done, in a way that I am not aware that our Houses of Parliament have done in recent times?

[Lord Farmer]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I am quoting from the House of Commons Library information on democratic deficit. It goes on to say—

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is he by any chance aware that the biggest extension of qualified majority voting was conducted under Baroness Thatcher, with a view to establishing the single market? Why does he think it terribly undemocratic that decisions can be taken by a majority, when he has just told us that because 17 million people voted to leave we have to agree with them?

[Lord Farmer]

I believe that the system until now has been that each country has a veto, and, as I say, the qualified majority voting would now override that veto. I will carry on about the democratic deficit. The Library document goes on:

“The EU’s executive, the Commission, is unelected; the EP is too weak compared with the Council and Commission”,


and elections to it are not really European elections. Electorates vote on the basis of their support for domestic parties, and turnout is low. It has fallen by 30% since the first elections in 1979. The European Union,

“is too distant from voters”,

and,

“adopts policies that are not supported by a majority of EU citizens; the Court of Justice makes law rather than interpreting it; there is a lack of transparency in the Council’s adoption of legislation and in certain appointments (e.g. EU Commissioners); EU law has primacy over national law and constitutions”.

Unsurprisingly, the latest Eurobarometer survey shows that among the EU 28 countries only 42% tend to trust the EU versus 48% who do not, and the UK lags very far behind—53% of those in the UK do not tend to trust the EU versus 31% who do. This, like so many other things, could be blamed on Brexit, but even back in spring 2015 the United Kingdom had one of the lowest trust ratings of the EU’s institutions across the 28 nations. Only 27% tended to trust the European Commission, compared with the EU 28 average of 40%, and only 29% tended to trust the European Parliament, compared with the EU average of 43%.

National leaders are also painfully aware that the EU is in urgent need of reform. According to Tim Shipman’s book about the road to Brexit, All Out War, Merkel was consulted before David Cameron gave his Bloomberg speech pledging an in/out referendum in the Conservative 2015 election manifesto and she,

“urged him to ‘couch the speech in an argument about Europe having to change’”.

He fell in with this, taking,

“Merkel’s advice on how to pitch his call for reform”,

in that speech, by saying:

“I am not a British isolationist. I don’t just want a better deal for Britain, I want a better deal for Europe too”.


That completely sums up my own position.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, we have to lift our heads and see beyond the current entrenched positions. The painful reality and process of Brexit will or should exert enormous moral pressure on the European Union to reform so that continental citizens are better served—otherwise, we could be the first of many to leave. This is another reason why holding a second referendum would be so damaging. Instead of sending the message that democracy and sovereignty matter, and sowing unchokeable seeds of reform, we would instead be saying that they have to be traded off so that we can stay in thrall to a status quo that really serves only the elites who prop it up. In our own and countless other electorates, there would forever be that recognition that democracy ain’t what it seems to be.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords—

[Lord Farmer]

Noble Lords will be pleased to know that I am finishing my speech. As a metals trader for more than half a century—I shall change tone here—I want to finish by saying something about trade. In the financial markets, there is a fear of global stagnation. I read this afternoon about the American factory output being disappointing again. While this has very little to do with our leaving the EU, Brexit could be a can opener for new trade initiatives. By breathing life into a world somewhat obsessed by tariffs, it will potentially end up boosting the global economy by breaking up the rather sedentary three big blocs of the US, China and the EU. The world needs competition to be encouraged and Britain could be an agent for that. So instead of a harbinger of doom, Brexit could be a force for reform, both economically and politically, but we have to get on with delivering it. It is, after all, the will of the people.

19:07

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, as the last speaker before the winding up speeches, I should have liked to offer your Lordships a peroration, but could not hope to equal the force or the humanity of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, who have spoken so eloquently, and with whom I agree so completely that the vote to leave the EU was a historic and very sad mistake, significantly compounded by decisions made since.

To go to the other extreme, I offer instead a short endnote—a little dry, perhaps, but I hope of a nature to pique the professional interest of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and to coax a response out of him when he closes this debate. The three-month extension to be debated on 14 March, if previous votes so require, would fall well short of the minimum 22 weeks that the UCL Constitution Unit and others have suggested would be necessary for a referendum. In practice, and allowing for the time necessary to give effect to the result, this would require an extension at least until the end of the year or, if the advice of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is followed, deep into the middle of the next decade. The Prime Minister was at pains yesterday to resist the possibility of a long extension on the basis that an initial extension beyond the end of June would require the UK to take part in the European Parliament elections, and that a supplementary extension, entered into after the end of June, would be “extremely difficult” if we had not taken part in them.

I invite the Minister to agree with me that when there is a will, there is a way. Does he agree that this country could take part in the European Parliament elections if we are still a member state at that point? Indeed, that is expressly contemplated by the Council decision of 2018 that establishes the composition of the Parliament, and the Electoral Commission has already set aside a budget for it. Yes, some might find an election in those circumstances a little odd. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, right at the start of this debate, described it as indefensible, but it is democratic. Why should it be any more odd or less defensible than continuing to participate in the other institutions of the European Union—the Council, the Commission and the court—as we shall do for as long we are a member, as provided for in the treaties?

Then the legal service of the European Parliament, in an opinion of 7 September 2017 that received some publicity at the time, confirmed that the European Parliament would be validly constituted, and its legislation valid, even in the event of a failure by the UK to organise elections. That is unsurprising, one might think, since if laws were not valid in those circumstances, any member state could hold the whole EU legislative process hostage by refusing to hold elections. Does the Minister agree with that opinion?

I do not underestimate the difficulties that would have to be surmounted before any further referendum could be held, not least the definition of the franchise, the choice of the question or questions, and the measures that would be needed to prevent the serious malpractice, or worse, that attended the last one. We will know in a couple of weeks whether there is the necessary public or political will to start down that road. But I suggest that the time needed for a referendum will not be denied to us by the electoral law of the EU, and I ask the Minister to confirm that narrow but important point.

19:10

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, we have had an unhappy almost three years of the Tory Government supposedly taking back control, restoring parliamentary sovereignty, launching global Britain and respecting the will of the people. They have not achieved any of those things. “What control?”, you might well ask. The Prime Minister is in fact simply muddling through. She trots out the same tired old mantras and slogans which have been emptied of any meaning. There is a leadership vacuum, her Cabinet is totally divided, and her authority and that of her Government have thoroughly dissipated. The whole Tory outfit is dysfunctional.

Incredibly, they want to inflict that dysfunction on the country, continuing to hold, over 66 million people, the threat of a chaotic, catastrophic no deal which would slash GDP, public spending, jobs and security, while creating new red tape, costing businesses £13 billion, and big new hassles for individuals wanting to travel, which are spelled out in some detail in yesterday’s document. There are not enough adjectives, or at least not enough polite ones, to do justice to the lack of responsibility of the Government.

One commentator wrote this week that it was Nick Timothy who,

“persuaded the prime minister to trigger Article 50 so quickly and drew the red lines that defined the UK’s Brexit negotiating position, with his boss apparently unaware of the consequences of being so disastrously boxed in”.

That rings absolutely true, and as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, alternatives such as the EEA were simply not explored. Has the Prime Minister been admirably determined, ignorantly stubborn or too vain to consult, listen and change course? I tend to the latter conclusion.

Some voters seem to think that no deal means that we stay as we are, in the EU, which seems to account for the high score that no deal gets in polls. But one other factor must be the sheer incredulity that any Government would inflict, or contemplate inflicting, such appalling destruction on their own citizens, let alone a Tory Government who have always asserted their claim to economic competence—I think that was the point made by Nick Boles MP in the Evening Standard the other day.

As for restoring parliamentary sovereignty, we have had three years of Theresa May’s Government trying to boss Parliament around, denying its proper constitutional role, and wasting taxpayers’ money fighting court cases, before kicking and screaming as they had to concede some power over the triggering of Article 50 and the withdrawal process. Even now they are resisting proper parliamentary involvement in trade negotiations. As the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, pointed out, the European Parliament has shown more muscle towards its Executive—the European Commission—than the House of Commons has shown towards its Executive.

A lot of this is the consequence of the excessive power that our defective first past the post voting system gives a British Prime Minister, and whatever happens with Brexit, it will have woken up a lot of people to the fact that the cause of political and constitutional reform is not some dry arcane fancy but a crying need to reflect a diverse population and liberate it from elective dictatorship.

It is now time for Parliament to take control, as I hope it has been doing. The Prime Minister cannot be trusted to put the interests of the country before her own and those of her party. There is a real sense that MPs are finally getting their act together in refusing to let this Government—or indeed the Official Opposition—drive us over a cliff. The Prime Minister has been forced, more or less, to take no deal off the table and to open the prospect of an extension to Article 50, which President Tusk rightly described at the weekend as a “rational solution”. Meanwhile, the leader of the Opposition has been forced, more or less, to concede that a people’s vote is the best way to resolve the impasse.

I very much welcome the prospect that MPs will vote on 14 March to seek an extension. That would be a fitting birthday present for me. As President Macron has said, there needs to be a real purpose to an extension, not more delay and prevarication. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister continues to play tiresome games, such as yesterday when she promised legally binding changes to the backstop. We all know that this does not reflect reality, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem pointed out. The Brady amendment’s purpose of effectively removing the backstop is not going to happen. The Prime Minister insults not only our intelligence but her own, if she thinks we believe that it will.

Similarly, a game of smoke and mirrors is being played about the Government’s position on no deal. The Minister could not tell us how the Government would want their MPs to vote on 13 March, if one takes place. One journalist has—legitimately, in my view—called Mrs May a post-truth Prime Minister, because you never know what to trust in what she says.

Global Britain was always a farcical slogan. We have had more international influence as a leading member of the EU in recent decades than since the height of empire. All that Brexit has achieved is to leave us remarkably friendless. In the UN General Assembly decision to refer the question of sovereignty over Chagos to the International Court of Justice, our EU allies deserted us; whereas, pre-2016, one of the strengths we enjoyed was reliance on their support in multinational fora. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, that Brexit reduces our national sovereignty.

Global Britain seems, in fact, to consist of making gratuitous insults and silly gestures, by pretending to be more powerful than we are, at enormous cost to our economic well-being. In the last couple of weeks alone, members of the Government have, in various ways, upset Japan, China and Bangladesh. Post-Brexit Britain will not have any trade links at this rate. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, unilateral abolition of tariffs deprives us of trade negotiating leverage.

The UK spent decades building a strong relationship with Japan as its principal economic partner in Europe, in the expectation that we would be members of the European Union and offer stable policies, including, crucially, seamless access to the European market—the gateway to Europe, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, put it. It was on this basis that Mrs Thatcher wooed companies such as Honda, Nissan and Toyota. The Government have now comprehensively trashed that relationship with the third-biggest economy in the world, while the EU forges ahead with its new free trade agreement with Japan. Japan was very upset—and made its feelings known—to get a letter from Jeremy Hunt and Liam Fox that told it to get a move on with a UK-Japan trade deal—the one we will need if we crash out on 29 March.

China is meant to be a big new trade opportunity, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, emphasised, even though EU membership should not have prevented us expanding trade with it. EU partners manage to have a bigger volume of trade with China—and, indeed, India—than we do, so EU membership is clearly not a constraint. Then along comes the Defence Secretary, Gavin Williamson, absurdly vowing to send our aircraft carrier to the South China Sea. There are real issues about Chinese encroachment there, but gunboat diplomacy is not going to solve them.

The latest example is Bangladesh. The Home Secretary decided to revoke Shamima Begum’s British citizenship on the assumption that she would be eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship, but apparently without consulting the Bangladeshi authorities about whether they wanted her as a citizen. They said that they did not, and the British Government thereby rendered her stateless and broke international law in enormously careless fashion. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, spoke knowledgeably and wisely about that.

Our relationship with our EU partners has hardly fared better. The disdainful way in which many Brexiters have treated the demands of the Good Friday agreement and the position of the Republic of Ireland has been a disgrace. Some of them have hurled absurd insults at Germany. We have given Spain licence to raise problems over Gibraltar and offended east European countries over the treatment of their citizens. Are we supposed to rely on President Trump—a protectionist keen to sell us chlorinated chicken and unreliable on the US NATO guarantee?

The extent of cross-party co-operation and the breaking down of tribal barriers that we have seen recently is very significant. We have seen the formation of the Independent Group, with defections from both the biggest political parties and the demonstration of muscle from some Ministers and shadow Ministers, all displaying that pluralist politics at last has a chance in this country. If this can happen under first past the post, imagine the possibilities for co-operation and common sense if we change the voting system.

To the Prime Minister, the will of the people worthy of respect has a very narrow definition, meaning only those who voted leave. It was amusing that yesterday, the Government stressed that the opinion of the ICJ on Chagos was non-binding, whereas they have treated the result of a non-binding referendum as holy writ. Those who voted remain have been shunned as citizens of nowhere: in effect, non-persons who can be ignored and belittled.

If the Prime Minister really wants to respect the will of the people, she must put her deal to a vote of the people, with an option to remain. That would show real leadership of a type that we have lacked. That is not to second-guess the 2016 referendum, as the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, claimed in opening. It would be the first opportunity to judge the real nature of Brexit. I am hopeful that such a vote will happen and I will win my £5 bet with the noble Lord.

19:21

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. I am particularly grateful to noble Lords who have said something new.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, began by referring to the Prime Minister leaving no-deal threats on the table or not taking such a deal off the table. Similar observations were made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, contented himself with alluding to a fantasy. Let us be clear. This may help some people’s conscience, but the Prime Minister did not put no deal on the table; nor did she threaten with regard to no deal. This Parliament put no deal front and centre of the issue. This Parliament passed the referendum Bill. I wonder how many people here voted against it. They passed the referendum Bill. Then this Parliament passed the Bill to allow the Article 50 notification to be served. I wonder how many people here voted against that. I see one or two.

[Lord Liddle]

I did.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

Well done, you are entitled to refer to a fantasy; others are not. The consequence of that was that we were leaving consequent on the application of Article 50, which required at the level of international law that a certain notice period should be given.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. He said that the Prime Minister was not responsible for putting no deal on the table. Did he read the Lancaster House speech, in which she said that no deal was better than a bad deal, and then repeated it several hundred times?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

The noble Lord’s observation is utterly irrelevant in this context. Let us be clear as to what the legislation provided. Ultimately, it provided that we would leave the EU on 29 March 2019. This Parliament determined that date—not the Prime Minister, not the Executive. Let us bear that in mind, shall we? It is in that context that you have to look at where we are going.

I come on to some of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I am a little concerned for him, because he appeared to proceed on the basis that purgatory has its limits. I am terribly sorry to inform him that, as and when he arrives in purgatory, he may find that it is actually indefinite. He had better proceed with a degree of care in that context. He made an allusion to Mr Corbyn as a “schoolboy”. I do not want to take the allusion too far, but I will refer to one well-known fictional schoolboy called William, who said you cannot have a referendum if you do not know the question. We all know that. The point is that Mr Corbyn may be in favour of a referendum, but we have no idea what question he might or might not have in mind. Other members of his party have advanced questions, of course, but Mr Corbyn himself has not told us what his question is or is going to be. It appears that it is hidden in his allotment at present.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I know Cabinet responsibility has gone a little awry on that side, but we actually still have it. We have made it clear—Keir Starmer, Emily Thornberry and I have made it clear—

[Lord Callanan]

What about Corbyn?

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

On his behalf. We do not wheel him out on every occasion to make these speeches. I can call him in, if you like. We are quite clear what the questions are. It depends what happens down there but, assuming a deal goes through, it would be the deal that goes through against remain.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

It is comforting to know that Mr Corbyn has friends. It is also comforting that they can speak for him when he does not speak for himself. It remains interesting that he has yet to express his view as to what the question would be. As I say, at the end of the day you cannot have a referendum without a question.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, also raised a question about the time for further legislation. Our position remains that, as with the secondary legislation programme, the Government are confident that primary legislation required for exit will be delivered. Business in both Houses is being scheduled accordingly to allow for that. I acknowledge that there will be a need to balance the requirement to pass vital legislation sent to us by the Commons with the need to ensure that this House has adequate time to scrutinise such legislation.

[Lord Newby]

I am very grateful to the Minister for clarifying that. Could he go further and answer my question about whether the Government intend to get through by 29 March the Agriculture Bill, the Fisheries Bill, the immigration Bill and the Trade Bill?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

As I indicated, all necessary legislation will be taken through in time for exit day, and that is our intention.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Keen of Elie]

Barking from a sedentary position does not advance matters. I wonder if it might just be noted that it is our intention to take through all necessary legislation required for exit day, and we will deliver the business as required in both Houses. That is what is planned.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

Will the Minister define what “necessary legislation” will be?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

Yes, of course. Necessary legislation is the legislation necessary to have in place for exit day. I hope that clarifies that point for the noble Lord.

I turn to some of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, who among other things asked us to contemplate the Swiss approach to free movement. It was a very interesting observation. I ask him to contemplate the Swiss referendum to end free movement and the threats then faced by Switzerland from the EU as a consequence of having had that referendum. It was not the Swiss approach to free movement that succeeded.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, because he is telling us a little Swiss story. Perhaps he would end by explaining how they had a second referendum.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I see no need to do that in the circumstances, but many would regard that as an outrage in the context of the democratic traditions of the cantons of Switzerland.

I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, is deeply attached to the idea of the EU and would not easily give it up. I think he may be an alumnus of the Glasgow Academy—its motto is “serva fidem”, or “keep the faith”. Certainly, he intends to do so, even in the face of the result of the referendum itself.

Turning to the observations of my noble friend Lord Hailsham, I regret to say that his proposition regarding the revocation of Article 50, for the purposes of contemplating a future and final referendum, is unworkable. The European Court of Justice made it clear in the Wightman decision that Article 50 could be revoked only in circumstances where the relevant member state intended to remain, without qualification, in the EU for the future, and could not be revoked in good faith for other purposes. Therefore, that proposal is not workable.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, observed that there might have been some deficit in the references to women’s rights and interests in our extensive debates on this matter. I will not challenge her on that, but I observe that the UK—not just the EU—has sought to lead the way in establishing clear, unequivocal grounds for gender equality and other equality issues. These are values we wish to see maintained after we leave the EU, and they are already enshrined in retained EU law, but we have that in mind.

My noble friend Lady Wheatcroft asked whether future trade deals would be scrutinised by Parliament. There are mechanisms already in place by which international treaties which the Executive propose to enter into may be the subject of scrutiny by Parliament, and they may be considered further in the context of Brexit. That remains the position.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in his sunny way, referred to leaving on 29 March as a reckless gamble. With respect, it is not, and I share the confidence expressed by my noble friend Lord Howell that the Prime Minister’s deal—the withdrawal agreement—will be approved by the House of Commons when it comes to a vote on 12 March or earlier. Sharing that confidence, I do not consider that we are indulging in what was termed a reckless gamble. He also raised the question of where tariffs on beef and other agricultural products will be levied in Ireland. The answer is that there are many schemes by which that can be dealt with, without the erection of a hard border. As he is aware, various parties are looking at various schemes at present in that context.

Regarding the commitment to a referendum by the Labour Party, the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, observed that it took us to the issue of what the question would be, one which he regards as extremely complex, requiring careful consideration, and which he does not appear to regard as having been resolved by Mr Corbyn’s fellow shadow Cabinet members. That will be an issue.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, asked a series of questions. First, I agree that a three-month extension would not be sufficient to arrange and carry out a second referendum. No one would take issue with that, but then we do not propose a second referendum. Secondly, could we take part in the EU elections if we had a post-June extension? No, because we have already repealed the relevant domestic legislation for the purposes of having that election. Thirdly, the noble Lord’s point that the EU Parliament could sit without the UK having had an election to the European Parliament is correct, because there are circumstances in which the Parliament will sit when one or more member states has declined to carry out the relevant electoral process. Clearly, as he indicated, the EU Parliament could not be held to ransom in those circumstances. The Parliament and its other institutions would continue to function, albeit without the direct representations of UK MEPs in such circumstances.

Finally, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate—

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem]

The noble and learned Lord went out of his way, I think, to say that there is no such thing as a no-deal exit. Am I correct?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I did not say that at all.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem]

He might care to have regard to the frontispiece of the document issued yesterday by the Government, which reads:

“Implications for Business and Trade of a No Deal Exit on 29 March 2019”.


Someone in the Government seems to think that there is such a thing as a no-deal exit.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

Nobody doubts that there could be a no-deal exit because that is what Parliament has provided for in the event that there is no withdrawal agreement. There is no question of that whatever. However, we remain confident that we will have a withdrawal agreement in place and, accordingly, will not have to face a no-deal Brexit.

[A noble Lord]

Is that it?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I commend the Motion to the House.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 7.36 pm.