House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Edward Argar)
The hon. Lady has done so much on this issue and on campaigning for victims more widely. While a range of special measures already exist, we can and will do more. As she will recall, last September we published the victims strategy, which sets out the steps to support victims of crime further, including in court, and those steps have recently been added to with our commitments in the draft Domestic Abuse Bill.
Sarah Champion
I thank the Minister for his answer. Adult survivors of child sexual abuse often wait decades to see their abuser face justice. While survivors are often key witnesses, there is no statutory duty for them to get paid leave. I have met many survivors who have to take unpaid leave or holiday, but cases could unravel without their attendance. Once again, victims are being penalised for the abuse that they have suffered, so will the Minister review the matter and ensure that no victim experiences a financial loss for getting justice?
Edward Argar
I mentioned the hon. Lady’s work campaigning for victims, and she is particularly active in campaigning for the rights of those who have suffered child sexual abuse. She makes an interesting point, and I would be happy, as always, to meet her to go into it in more detail.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Victims want criminals to face the full justice of the law and to be sure that the punishment fits the crime. What are we doing to ensure that, once sentenced, criminals serve their time in jail in full?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Victims expect justice to be done, and when someone is convicted of a crime and sentenced, they expect them to serve that sentence. Of course, sentencing is a matter for the independent judiciary, and we have complete confidence in its approach.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Minister aware that it is not only victims who are affected, but everyone else? A member of my family has just done jury service, and she was amazed by the inefficiency and poor quality of management in the court process, which wastes the time of those on jury service and is wrong for victims. It is wrong for everyone, because it is a badly managed process. Let us get more money for the Ministry of Justice so that it can do things properly.
Edward Argar
The hon. Gentleman makes his point powerfully, as always. We have undertaken a number of reforms of the court system and the criminal justice process, and he will have seen in the victims strategy our clear commitment to improve each stage of the process for victims and witnesses. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), has been doing a lot of work to ensure that cases run more smoothly, with fewer adjournments, so that victims and witnesses know that when they come to court they have a high chance of actually being heard on the day on which they expect to be.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I welcomed the publication of the victims strategy back in September but, as my hon. Friend will know, giving evidence is one of the most stressful parts of seeking justice for any victim of crime. Will he reassure me that he will also be working with people such as police and crime commissioners to ensure that there is no patchwork quilt of support for victims across the country?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend is consistent in speaking up for victims’ rights, and I believe that his county’s police and crime commissioner has spoken about such rights more broadly. He is right that the victims strategy seeks to adopt an approach that will give a more consistent level of support across the country.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Ind)
I welcomed last week’s announcement of an end-to-end review of how rape and sexual violence cases are handled across the criminal justice system. Am I right in my understanding that the review will also consider the effect of rape myths on juries?
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady highlights an issue that the House has quite rightly debated on several occasions. I hope that all such relevant considerations will be examined in the end-to-end review.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
Back in October, I raised with the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), the case of a Nottinghamshire woman whose husband, despite being convicted of her attempted murder, is able to continue a cycle of abuse through the courts by claiming entitlement to their financial assets, including her home. The Minister offered to look into my suggestion of a change in the law that would ensure no financial entitlement to spousal assets following attempted murder, and to provide me with an update. Five months later, can we now have that update?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for once again highlighting an important and distressing situation. I am reassured that my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State continues to look carefully at the matter. I appreciate that the shadow Minister will want rapid progress, but it is important that we get this right, so my hon. and learned Friend is examining the issue and will report back in due course.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
We have been clear that probation needs to improve, and we have taken decisive action to end current community rehabilitation company contracts and develop more robust arrangements to protect the public and tackle reoffending. I am determined to learn lessons from the first generation of contracts in developing future arrangements. I believe that public, private and voluntary providers all have a role to play. We want to improve integration under new arrangements so that providers are able to work together effectively to protect the public and tackle reoffending.
Ellie Reeves
The recently published National Audit Office report on probation services highlighted not only the staggering additional costs of privatisation but the fact that CRCs are failing to provide even the most basic rehabilitation services. With nearly £0.5 billion-worth of bail-outs and only six out of 21 CRCs achieving significant reductions in reoffending, is it not now time to put probation back where it belongs, under public ownership and control?
Mr Gauke
The hon. Lady talks about costs and bail-outs. We have to remember that we are spending considerably less on CRCs than was anticipated when the contracts were entered into—some £700 million less—but it is right that we learn the lessons from the first generation of contracts. I am not satisfied with where we are, and the NAO has raised its concerns. We have also heard concerns from the inspectorate of probation, and we need to learn the lessons. It is important that this continues to be a mixed market. There is a place for the private sector and the voluntary sector, as well as for the public sector, in probation.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
As the Secretary of State knows, the Select Committee on Justice has looked into this area in some depth. Would he agree that the most important issue is not the ownership of the contracts or who provides this service but ensuring that there is no fragmentation of the service, which is a risk? There should be a proper join-up between leaving prison and going out into the world of freedom.
Mr Gauke
These are important points, and the debate can sometimes be a little simplistic, whether it is “public sector good, private sector bad” or vice versa. A lot of this is about integration and making services hang together. One of the things we did last year was to announce additional money for through-the-gate services, which is important, but a lesson from what has happened in the past is that we need to make sure the system hangs together more, which it has not been doing sufficiently.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Before wreaking havoc in the Department for Transport, the Secretary of State for Transport was busy wreaking havoc in our justice system. He unleashed a crisis in our prisons and then he privatised probation, leaving the public less safe and costing the public hundreds of millions more than necessary. The world’s media are treating the Transport Secretary as a laughing stock, but the joke is on us because this Government are set to repeat past errors by signing a new round of private probation contracts. When will the Justice Secretary do the decent thing and put an end to the failed experiment of a privatised probation system?
Mr Gauke
The hon. Gentleman takes a somewhat simplistic view. His approach appears to be that he wants all probation services to be nationalised and every offender intervention to be done by the public sector. I think there is an opportunity to make use of both the private sector and the voluntary sector. If he takes the approach he appears to advocate of closing off any activity performed by anybody other than the public sector, we will not get the best probation service we could have.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)
The hon. Lady and I have sat down and discussed this matter with the unions. We are determined to make sure that we have safe and appropriate ways to protect prison officers, which is why we have piloted PAVA at four sites, two of which I have now visited. We are currently completing an equalities assessment, and we should be in a position to begin the full roll-out in April.
Mary Glindon
I thank the Minister for that answer, which is good news. I hope he will keep in mind that a significant proportion of prisoners expressed the view that PAVA is necessary, so I hope he will give me a guarantee that he will stick to his word and that this vital protective equipment will be rolled out soon in the spring.
Rory Stewart
Absolutely. As the hon. Lady will bear in mind, we have to be thoughtful about how we use this spray. It is there to deal with issues of extreme violence. This type of pepper spray is a new measure, and we have to be particularly clear when we use it against people with protected characteristics, which is why we are conducting the assessment. I believe that once we have conducted it, this will mean less extreme violence in prisons.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
In the past 12 months, there were more than 10,000 assaults on staff in our prison service, which is more than one every hour and represents a 30% increase year on year. Clearly that is unacceptable, and it is having a deterrent effect on the recruitment of prison officers, who are so important in keeping prisoners and other staff safe. How is the Department doing on the recruitment of additional staff to make up for the 7,000 who have been lost?
Rory Stewart
The answer is that recruitment has gone quite well. We now have 4,700 additional officers; we have more than we have had at any time since March 2012, so we are at the highest level for seven years.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Taking into account the fact that prison officers are allowed to claim for compensation for only three attacks throughout their career, will the Minister outline his opinion on the abuse that prison officers are expected to take as part of their jobs, which would be unacceptable in any other job?
Rory Stewart
The important thing is to begin by paying a huge tribute to prison officers, who are doing an incredibly important job. They are probably one of the most important operational bits of any public service, and we owe them a huge duty of care. We have to make sure that the drugs and weapons do not get in. We have doubled the sentence for people assaulting prison officers, and I am happy to sit down with the hon. Gentleman to talk about this in more detail.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Edward Argar)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular meetings with Cabinet colleagues relating to the UK’s exit from the EU and issues such as our approach to human rights and the ECHR. The UK is committed to membership of the ECHR, as my right hon. Friend has previously set out, and we will remain a party to it after we have left the EU.
Gavin Newlands
In a letter written last year, the Minister implied that the Human Rights Act would come under threat post-Brexit. He said that
“our manifesto committed to not repealing or replacing the Human Rights Act while the process of Brexit is underway. It is right that we wait until the process of leaving the EU concludes before considering the matter further.”
So, for the avoidance of doubt, will he rule this out today?
Edward Argar
This country has a long tradition, which long predates the ECHR or the EU, of championing and setting the highest standards on human rights. The Human Rights Act 1998 reflects that and gives further effect to the ECHR in our domestic law, and we are not considering amending or repealing it.
Dr Whitford
Despite the Prime Minister’s previous wish for the UK to leave the ECHR, the Brexit White Paper committed to membership of the convention. However, the political declaration talks only of respecting the ECHR, so can the Minister explain the change of language and clarify whether the Government plan to repeal or protect the Human Rights Act after Brexit?
Edward Argar
I do not accept that our position on the ECHR is ambiguous. Both the political declaration and the White Paper make it clear that our future relationship with the EU should be underpinned by our shared values of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and this includes our ongoing commitment to the ECHR. As I have just made clear, the HRA gives further effect to the ECHR in our domestic law, and we are not considering amending or repealing it.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Human rights are, of course, not a reserved matter, and the Scottish Government have an advisory group on human rights in relation to devolved matters. Will the Minister commit to full consultation with the Scottish Government about his future plans for human rights protection across the United Kingdom?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady, as ever, for her question. We work closely with the Scottish Government. I am always willing to listen and speak to them, and I will continue to do so.
Joanna Cherry
The Scottish Government’s advisory group on human rights reported in detail on 10 December, setting out three guiding principles for Scotland’s approach to human rights:
“non-regression from the rights currently guaranteed by membership of the European Union; keeping pace with future rights developments within the European Union; and continuing to demonstrate leadership in human rights.”
Can the UK Government commit to each of those principles for the whole of the UK? If not, why not?
Edward Argar
The hon. and learned Lady will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Professor Miller chairs that advisory group. We debated this issue in Westminster Hall some weeks ago and I read his report with interest. We note with interest the measures being considered by the Scottish Government to enhance human rights in Scotland, and the principles and seven recommendations set out in that report. Of course, Scotland’s legal system is separate and distinct from that of England and Wales, but I am considering that report, and others, with great care.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)
Last night, the House unanimously passed legislation to further protect women and girls from the horrific crime of FGM, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Faversham and Kent served on the Bill Committee that was part of the passage of that legislation through the House. My hon. Friend asked particularly about improving prosecution rates, and I am pleased to tell her that each CPS area now has a lead FGM prosecutor. Those prosecutors will be working with their local police forces on arrangements for the investigation and prosecution of FGM offences.
Mr Speaker
The voice of Faversham and Mid Kent, rather than of Mid Faversham and Kent; I call Helen Whately.
Helen Whately
I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for her support for the FGM Bill that was passed last night and for her work in this policy area. As she knows, as many as 137,000 women and girls in the UK have suffered from FGM. I urge her to take further action to make sure that we end FGM in the UK.
Lucy Frazer
My hon. Friend is not only a constituency MP in Faversham and Kent but the Conservative party vice-chair for women. She makes a really important point about the number of women who have suffered from this crime in the UK, pointing out that 137,000 women living in the UK right now are suffering the consequences of FGM. Some of those women had the crime inflicted on them here, while others had it inflicted on them in other countries, so our response needs to be two-pronged. First, we need to ensure that we support other countries, which the Department for International Development is doing—it recently made the largest single donation of £50 million to help countries overseas. Secondly, we need to tackle it in this country. We are taking a cross-governmental view, with many Departments taking action, from the Department for Education to the Home Office to the Department of Health and Social Care, and of course my Department is enacting legislation.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
In general terms, when it comes to domestic abuse and so forth, cases take far too long. What is the Minister doing about that?
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the importance of all cases that come to court. Obviously, for those who have been the victim of horrific sexual crimes, including domestic violence, we are committed to ensuring that those crimes come to court and are dealt with swiftly. There are a number of ways to do that, including by using judicial resource. We recently saw a significant increase in the number of hours allocated to judicial sittings in the family court. Listing is a judicial matter, but in some courts those trials are fixed for particular days, whereas other cases float and and may come on that day or be adjourned to a later date.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)
We pay, both directly as the Ministry of Justice and indirectly through our suppliers, the national living wage in line with legislation.
Emma Hardy
I thank the Minister for his answer. I hope he is aware that I have previously raised in the House the problems relating to procurement and ensuring that every subcontractor adheres to the same rules as the people directly employed by the Department. Will the Minister ensure that subcontractors also pay all their staff the real living wage?
Rory Stewart
The point, which is an important one, is that we have to ensure that our subcontractors follow exactly the same rules as Ministry of Justice direct employees. We insist that the national living wage should be paid both to Ministry of Justice employees and to our subcontractors.
Grahame Morris
Cleaners and security staff at court buildings up and down the country are currently in dispute with outsourcers Mitie and G4S over poverty pay and draconian terms and conditions. The Minister can try to wash his hands of this mess and blame his predecessor’s appalling contracts—he is now wreaking havoc with the Brexit ferries—but when is he himself going to intervene to demand that, under new planned contracts, the hard-working staff who clean and protect his Department’s buildings are paid the real living wage and not exploited by their unscrupulous employers?
Rory Stewart
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to those staff—the people who maintain the courts and the people who provide the security—who do a very important job. We are absolutely clear that this is a Government policy across the board and that everybody, regardless of whether they are in the private sector or the public sector, is obliged to pay the national living wage.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)
Although our real-terms spending on the prison estate has increased, we continue to drive efficiencies through to make sure that we can put as much money as possible into keeping our prisons safe, decent and secure. The best way of driving down costs is through technology, particularly video conferencing, which reduces the costs involved in moving people to and from courts; facial recognition technology, which has begun to deal with queues in visitor areas; and kiosks, which are overcoming some of the challenges around logistics supply.
Mr Jayawardena
I thank the Minister for that considered answer, but may I ask him to assure me and the House that, in his efforts to reduce the cost of the estate on the taxpayer, he will not scrap short sentences, given that 4,300 knife-wielding criminals last year would have remained on our streets?
Rory Stewart
First, I make it absolutely clear that no decision on sentencing policy will be driven by anything other than public protection. That is the key in any sentencing decision. Secondly, I make it absolutely clear that we are fully behind the Home Secretary and the work that is being done on knife crime and we want to make sure that judges have the full powers at their disposal to deal with people who are wielding knives.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm to the House that he will not go cold on the Justice Secretary’s pledge to reduce short sentences? Short sentences and removing people from prison who will reoffend if they go to prison are the surest way to save money and to stop reoffending in the long term.
Rory Stewart
As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, this is something that we are continuing to look at very carefully and we are continuing to learn both from what has happened in Scotland and the evidence that suggests, on the basis of a study of 130 different characteristics in 300,000 separate offenders, that people are more likely to reoffend with a short custodial sentence and therefore that tens of thousands more crimes are committed every year by the wrong use of a custodial sentence.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
In seeking to reduce costs, will the Minister give a pledge not to cut corners? He is seeking to build a new prison in my constituency at Full Sutton, but the traffic assessment that has taken place is, I believe, deeply flawed. Will he look at that again? Even if it means extra cost, if he deems it is warranted, will he order a new traffic assessment please?
Rory Stewart
I absolutely undertake to look again at the traffic assessment and to sit down with my right hon. Friend to examine it in more detail together.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Previous cost cutting in the Prison Service such as reducing staff has proved to be a false economy. In Nottingham Prison, the prisons Minister has needed a surge of staff to try to stabilise what had become a very violent and dangerous prison. Can I have an assurance from him that, once things improve at Nottingham, those staff will not be withdrawn again?
Rory Stewart
Some of the staff at Nottingham, to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, have come from other establishments in other parts of the country, but when they return they will be replaced because we must ensure that Nottingham is fully staffed. That is essential particularly in order to continue with delivery of the key worker programmes so that each prison officer can be paired with six prisoners. That will be vital to getting violence under control in Nottingham.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
My Department continues to ensure that the necessary preparations are in place to mitigate potential impacts associated with leaving the EU wherever possible. For all scenarios, these preparations remain on track. In a no-deal scenario, we do not expect any immediate impacts on our departmental priorities, although there are risks in terms of pressures on the courts. We will react to longer-term impacts that are harder to predict, such as financial impacts, should they arise.
Stuart C. McDonald
In recent years, 15 German nationals have been extradited from Germany to the United Kingdom, including for some very serious offences, but last month that country made it clear that it will no longer extradite its citizens to the UK after Brexit. What other countries does the Secretary of State anticipate will take a similar approach, and what, if anything, can he do to respond to this massive Brexit headache?
Mr Gauke
In terms of the European arrest warrant, we have to accept that as a consequence of Brexit the current arrangements will no longer be available, but we will continue to work very closely with EU member states to ensure that we can address this matter as effectively as we can.
David Linden
Last week, I met the area commander in Glasgow East, and it was clear that the police are having to focus on Brexit preparations, yet that is not what people in my constituency actually want them to be focusing on—they want them to be focused on catching criminals in the street. If we do not have access to the European arrest warrant, it will not matter that all these contingency plans are in place. The only people who are going to benefit from that are those who seek to evade justice.
Mr Gauke
As I say, largely because of the constitutional issues with Germany, there are issues with the European arrest warrant; I absolutely accept that. We will take every measure that we can to ensure that authorities can co-operate. With regard to security issues, leaving the European Union with a deal is much better than leaving without a deal, and therefore the House should support the deal this evening.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Tories’ disastrous handling of Brexit poses a serious threat to our economy and to our rights, and a real threat to our justice and security too. Any loss of access to the European arrest warrant or to European criminal records databases would damage our justice system, yet we have nothing but warm words from the Government on future justice co-operation. I was recently in Brussels discussing this with European partners, and it is obvious that the Government have failed to give this matter the priority it so urgently deserves. So what guarantees can the Secretary of State give today that his Government’s approach to Brexit will not leave our citizens less safe and will not let criminals off the hook?
Mr Gauke
If the hon. Gentleman cares about criminal justice co-operation, as I am sure he does—I certainly do—then there is a course of action available to him later today to ensure that we can have further criminal justice co-operation, and that is voting for the Government’s deal.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)
In order to tackle violence in prisons, we first have to make sure that drugs and weapons are not getting into prisons. We need more prison officers, which is why we are pleased that we now have 4,700 more prison officers in place. We also need to invest much more in staff training and support. In the end, the key to reducing violence is good relationships between prison officers and prisoners.
James Cartlidge
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Clearly, preventing violence in prisons is a priority, so, to that end, will he update us on what plans he has to increase searches of cells and wings?
Rory Stewart
This is absolutely central. Getting on top of cell searching—making sure that we understand what is in a cell, what should not be in a cell, getting the mobile phones and getting the drugs—is vital to having the baseline for a safe prison, so we are investing in more dog teams, in more mobile phone detection equipment and in dedicated search teams across the estate.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
In the past eight years 7,000 prison officers have been lost. That means that there is still a deficit, on the Minister’s own figures, of 2,300, with attacks on officers going through the roof. At what point will the number of officers rise to the level where safety is assured?
Rory Stewart
We believe that the current number of 4,700 is the appropriate number that we require—in particular, because it allows us to deliver the key worker system. We continue to use operational support grade staff on perimeter security. We think this is the right balance.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
In order to better support our prison officers, I have suggested that anybody who is found guilty of assaulting a prison officer should lose their right to automatic early release from prison. Will the Minister take on board that suggestion?
Rory Stewart
We believe that the appropriate response to someone assaulting a prison officer is to work with the Crown Prosecution Service and the police to prosecute them. That is why we are pleased that we have doubled the maximum sentence for anyone assaulting a prison officer, and we are working much more closely to increase the number of prosecutions and the sentences for those who break the law against people we should protect.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I spent yesterday on D and F wings in HM Prison Swansea, and I was told time and again, including by the dedicated search team, that the prison desperately needs a body scanner to reduce the incidence of drugs arriving there. What are the Minister’s plans to roll out body scanners to the entire prison estate?
Rory Stewart
Body scanners can be very useful, particularly in local prisons where prisoners are coming in and out a great deal. They are very expensive bits of kit to not only install but manage, and they have medical implications; they can be used safely perhaps 50 times in a year. We are conducting a pilot with 14 X-ray scanners across the estate. Once we have looked at the evidence and convinced ourselves that that is the best way of doing it, we will move forward and prioritise local prisons in that roll-out.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Inexperienced prison officers, poor conditions and more time being spent in cells contribute to violence in prisons. What steps are being taken to address those factors?
Rory Stewart
In terms of inexperienced prison officers, it is about longer training courses and better mentoring on the wings, with band 4 officers in particular working day in, day out with new staff. In terms of time out of cells, this is why having 4,700 more staff is really important—it allows us to unlock people more and get back to a regime that allows people to get into education and work and protects the public.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The point that the Minister conveniently misses is that frontline prison officer resignations have more than tripled since 2010, and now one in three officers has less than two years’ experience, as the Minister fails to get a grip on a retention crisis caused by years of relentless cuts. Does he really think that this exodus of experienced staff will keep prisons safe, as assaults and violence rise to record levels?
Rory Stewart
There are two separate things here. The shadow Minister is correct that experienced staff are vital, but it is also worth bearing in mind that one reason why there are so many new staff is that we have recruited 4,700 additional officers; by definition, many of them will be new. Retention is vital. The development of the advanced prison officer grade, which allows experienced closed grade officers to move from band 3 to band 4, will be very important in stabilising prisons.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
Transforming Rehabilitation opened up probation to a diverse range of providers and extended support and supervision to an additional 40,000 offenders leaving prison. The National Probation Service is performing well in supervising higher-risk offenders, but we have been clear that the performance of community rehabilitation companies needs to improve. That is why we have taken action to end contracts early and conducted a public consultation on proposals to better integrate probation services. We are reflecting on the feedback received and lessons learned from current contracts as we develop future arrangements, and we will announce our plans in detail later this year.
Ian C. Lucas
My constituent Nicholas Churton was murdered by an offender who was on licence. Following his release from prison, an assessment was not carried out by the CRC, and the murderer committed two further offences before he went on to kill Mr Churton. All this information is in the public domain because I have put it there. I want there to be an independent inquiry into this case, to inform Justice Ministers, all of whom I respect, to ensure that the probation service is functioning and to prevent people from suffering in the way that my constituent’s family have because of the appalling current system.
Mr Gauke
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important matter. I would like to express my sympathies to his constituent’s family for what they have undergone. I know that the hon. Gentleman has met my hon. Friend the prisons Minister to discuss this, and they may meet again. These tragic cases are rare, but that does not in any way undermine how tragic they are. Because there is a greater workload, with a greater number of people dealt with by CRCs than before, we have seen some increase in the numbers, but the rate falls below 0.5%.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Last week, the prisons Minister offered to meet the family of Sam Cook, who was murdered by a convicted offender who was released on licence, in a similar case to the one we have just heard about from my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas). They would very much like to meet the Minister. Can the Secretary of State ask his officials to arrange that meeting as soon as possible? They want to speak to the Minister to make sure that no one has to experience what Sam Cook experienced and that the probation service is doing its job to protect the public from offenders who are released on licence and is supervising them properly.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)
I am very pleased to have an opportunity to highlight the important work that we are doing in the criminal justice system. Last year, we spent £882 million on criminal legal aid and this year we announced an investment of a further £23 million for criminal advocates. We are spending £1 billion to transform our Courts and Tribunals Service. However, improvements to the criminal justice system, as with the civil justice system, are not just about money and we are seeking to bring our justice system up to date, modernising it and making sure that people have swift and effective access to justice.
Tom Brake
The Loughborough University report “Priced out of Justice?” identified how many people were excluded from justice because of the means test. I welcome the review of the means test that the Government are conducting but, pending the outcome, would the Minister support calls from the Law Society for the means test threshold to be uprated now as part of the spring statement?
Lucy Frazer
As the right hon. Gentleman said, we have recently done a legal aid review. As part of that review, we were not obliged to look into thresholds because there were not very many changes to thresholds as part of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. However, we recognise the need to look at that because the figures have not been uprated for some time. We are undertaking that review and the timetable for that is set out in our legal support action plan.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
A recent report from Women’s Aid has set out that many women are now having to represent themselves because they do not meet the threshold for legal aid. But the report also says that the only savings the women have cannot be used because they have to be able to rehouse themselves. Can the Minister give some assurance that she is willing to look at improving the situation of these individuals, so that they do not have to represent themselves in court, which can have a hugely negative impact on the victim’s experience within the justice system?
Lucy Frazer
I am fully aware of the issues that these women face. I am very pleased to have held a number of roundtables, as part of our understanding for the review, with a number of vulnerable parties, including women. Women’s Aid was part of those roundtables, where we had an opportunity to hear from it directly. That is one of the reasons why we have specifically mentioned victims of domestic violence, and we will look at the thresholds in the legal aid review that we are conducting.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)
We are doing everything we can to protect prison officers. That is about perimeter security to make it more difficult to get the drugs and weapons into the prisons, making sure that prison officers have the protective equipment to protect themselves against attack, gathering the forensic evidence when an attack takes place, and prosecuting prisoners who attack prison officers. We have a huge duty and we will do everything we can to protect them.
David Morris
I thank my hon. Friend for that good answer. The hard-working staff at HMP Lancaster Farms are doing a very good job in this respect and I invite my hon. Friend to come to Lancaster Farms whenever he can.
Rory Stewart
Lancaster Farms is a cat C training prison. It is a challenging prison and we are very pleased with the recent inspection report that we have received from Peter Clarke. He is a tough critic, but he sees it as a decent and competent prison. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the governor, Derek Harrison, for the work that he does.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)
The hon. Lady raises an important and sensitive issue, but I would like to reassure her that our family law system is centred around the child and the welfare of the child. When judges make decisions about contact or care, the welfare of the child is always paramount, but we have been looking at various ways to strengthen our procedures and practice directions in relation to who gets notice of particular court applications. However, I remind the hon. Lady that the central principle is very important.
Judith Cummins
Following the recent high-profile case in Rotherham, has the Minister’s Department carried out a review of what went wrong? Is she considering a change in the law to ensure that such a case cannot happen again? If not, why not?
Lucy Frazer
I am aware of the case the hon. Lady refers to, and I am pleased to have met Sammy Woodhouse some time ago, along with other Members of Parliament, to discuss the issue. We are continuing to look at this issue, at the principles that underlie it and, as I mentioned, specifically at the practice directions and procedures around these cases.
Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)
I would like to assure the hon. Lady that any decision to close a court is not taken lightly, but in circumstances where 41% of our courts operated in 2016-17 at half their available capacity and where we are investing £1 billion in courts and bringing them up to date, the Ministry of Justice has to think carefully about where our court resources are most effectively and efficiently spent.
Thelma Walker
I thank the Minister for her response. However, the recent closure of courts in West Yorkshire is putting additional pressure on those that remain, causing backlogs and delays. The Hands off HRI campaign, which is fighting to save services at our local hospital, Huddersfield Royal Infirmary, is waiting for a consent order that is with Leeds Crown court. However, the backlog of several weeks means that the campaign is undergoing a lengthy period of uncertainty, as are those involved in many other cases. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that cuts to staffing and closures are not damaging my constituents’ access to justice?
Lucy Frazer
As I mentioned, when we undertake court closures—they are undertaken very carefully, and the Lord Chancellor does not undertake these decisions lightly—we look at court utilisation rates, and the courts that are closed are often those that are not performing in terms of capacity. On the case the hon. Lady refers to, I am happy to take it up with her and to look at any backlog or delay.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
The Government have been forced to announce a one-year delay to their £1 billion court reform programme. Many people are concerned that this programme is simply a smokescreen for sacking staff and closing courts. Will the Government take this opportunity to have a public debate about the issue and to allow Parliament to debate and scrutinise these changes?
Lucy Frazer
Our court reform programme is one of the most ambitious in the world. We recently held a seminar at which at least 20 other countries were represented. They talked about their reform programmes, and none of them was as ambitious as ours in streamlining, making more effective and modernising the court process. The delay in the programme is to ensure that we can efficiently and effectively manage the programme going forward.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)
We need to prevent these mobile phones from getting into prison. That is not always easy, because some of the new phones are almost just an inch in size. This work involves not just metal detectors, but X-ray scanners that can look inside bodies. If these phones get inside prisons, we need to identify them, we need to intercept the calls and block them, and we need to seize the phones.
Charlie Elphicke
I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that, where prisoners use mobile phones to send vile messages to the families of their victims, social media giants such as Snapchat must take responsibility and help the police to bring the culprits to justice?
Rory Stewart
First, using a mobile phone in a prison is an illegal act. It is a horrifying thing to harass victims using a phone from prison. It is entirely illegal, and we will be working with colleagues from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to draw the attention of these social media companies to the fact that illegal action is taking place through their systems.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
Technology can play an important role in supporting rehabilitation. The careful use of basic computers and telephones enables us to do that. New digital services are being built for prison officers as part of the offender management in custody programme.
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. There is huge potential in this area, but we are already taking steps through telehealth and virtual consultations. We have in-cell telephony, which can be used in these circumstances. Digital hub services also exist, and the prison virtual learning environment includes a health application, so we have a virtual campus that can help people to address addiction issues. I think that there is much more potential in this area in the future.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
Under this Government, the most serious offenders are more likely to go to prison and for longer, helping to protect the public and keep communities safe. Prison will be the right place for some offenders, but equally there is evidence that it does not work in rehabilitating others. I want to move the debate on from the old false choice between soft justice versus hard justice, and instead ensure we are focused on delivering smart justice. We need to think more imaginatively about different and more modern forms of punishment in the community.
Julian Knight
I support the broad thrust of ensuring that sentences work, particularly for female offenders. Does the Secretary of State agree that at the same time we should look at early release and whether it could be recalibrated to improve prison discipline?
Mr Gauke
Incentives in the prison system are important to achieving good behaviour. Early release does help offenders to successfully make the transition from custody to living crime-free lives in the community. An additional early release scheme for certain offenders, home detention curfew, further helps to manage that transition and reduce future offending.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman’s question has been grouped. His opportunity is here. His moment is now. Let us hear the sonorous tones of the hon. Gentleman.
John Lamont
I am very grateful, Mr Speaker.
I understand the UK Government are looking at the effectiveness of short-term custodial sentences to reduce reoffending. I invite Ministers to look at the experience in Scotland, where short-term sentences have already been abolished yet reoffending rates remain stubbornly high. I therefore urge Ministers to look more closely at whether rehabilitation programmes in prison are working effectively, even those for prisoners on short-term sentences.
Mr Gauke
In conjunction with reforming short sentences, it is important that we have confidence in the delivery of community orders. We have been clear that in England and Wales probation services need to improve—we have already discussed that—but the two have to run together: reform of short sentences and adequate community alternatives.
Andrea Jenkyns
What are the Government doing to ensure tougher sentences for those who are found guilty of violent crimes?
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Edward Argar)
The “Female Offender Strategy”, which we published last summer, sets out a raft of specific commitments underpinned by our vision to see fewer women coming into the criminal justice system, a greater proportion managed successfully in the community and better conditions for those in custody.
Edward Argar
Every death in prison is a tragedy, and we are committed to improving the safety and support available to all in our prisons. The rate of self-inflicted deaths in women’s prisons is lower than that seen in the male estate, but we recognise that the rate of self-harm is nearly five times the rate in the male estate. Therefore, we know that we need to do more. That is why we have set up a specialist safer custody team dedicated to the women’s estate and are rolling out revised and improved suicide and self-harm prevention training.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
Yesterday, the Government were pleased to give their support and time to the Children Act 1989 (Amendment) (Female Genital Mutilation) Bill, sponsored in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). The Bill, which seeks to make a small yet important change to the Children Act 1989, offers both a sensible simplification of the court process and a useful extension to the family courts’ powers to protect girls at risk of female genital mutilation. It will add to the measures that the Government have brought forward to tackle FGM issues.
Nigel Huddleston
Can my right hon. Friend provide an update on the Government’s consideration of giving children the right to have access to their grandparents in the event of family breakdown or divorce?
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Too many young lives are being lost to violent crime on our streets. Whatever the Prime Minister may say, substantial reductions in police numbers leave our communities less safe—so does shutting hundreds of youth centres and so, too, does the Ministry of Justice’s halving of funds for youth offending teams since 2010. Tens of millions of pounds that once went to protecting children in their communities have needlessly been taken away, so when will the Government stop trying to do justice on the cheap and instead properly fund youth offending teams?
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)
I absolutely confirm that. Britain has a very proud tradition in campaigning nationally and internationally against animal cruelty. The Government remain committed to increasing the maximum sentence for animal cruelty to five years.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (Ind)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)
As the hon. Gentleman will know, thresholds across the board, including in relation to criminal legal aid, are part of the legal aid review that we are now undertaking.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Lucy Frazer
My hon. Friend is right to highlight that we need to speed up the hearing times for people’s welfare claims. There are two aspects to that: the first is that we need to work with the Department for Work and Pensions, which we are doing, and I am doing with my counterpart in the DWP, to get decisions right first time; and the second is to speed up those hearings.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Rory Stewart
As the hon. Gentleman says, that is a fantastic organisation. We are, of course, conducting a very detailed consultation on the future of probation, but to reassure him, the principles behind Durham’s CRC and, in particular, the involvement of local authorities and of the voluntary sector and the close co-ordination with the National Probation Service are fundamental to our reforms.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Mr Gauke
Where an offender is assessed as presenting a risk of serious harm, they will receive a standard recall and may only be released into the community if they can be safely managed there. If there is not that risk, a proportionate response is sensible. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of probation has found that probation services, in the vast majority of cases, are making the right decisions.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Lucy Frazer
I have had a number of meetings with my counterpart in the DWP, and my officials discuss this issue with the DWP regularly. I and my counterpart in the DWP will undertake a joint meeting at an assessment centre to further consider these important issues and ensure that we get decisions right first time.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
There are 9,090 foreign national offenders in our prisons, including 760 from Albania. Why are those people not serving their sentence in prison in their own countries?
Rory Stewart
That is a very good challenge. My hon. Friend specifically raised Albania, with which we have a prison transfer agreement in place. I met the Albanian Minister of Justice two weeks ago. We need to ensure that more returns take place, but we are well ahead of Italy and Greece on returns to Albania.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend the Minister outline what plans he has to increase support for rape crisis centres?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Edward Argar)
I pay tribute to Fern Champion, who has been incredibly courageous in speaking out recently about this hugely important issue. We provide funding for 89 rape support centres. From April, we will increase funding by 10% for them all, with a 30% increase in London, and move to a three-year funding settlement.[Official Report, 21 March 2019, Vol. 656, c. 12MC.]
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Rory Stewart
It is absolutely true that we need to look not just at convicted prisoners but at people with suspended sentences. That is something we are looking at in reforming probation, and the pilots on homelessness will also seek to address it.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
Lucy Frazer
Law centres play an absolutely fundamental role. I recently visited Bromley by Bow Centre and Islington Law Centre. As part of our pilots, law centres will be able to bid for new ways to interact with their clients, and I hope they will take that opportunity.
Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Opinion
Tuesday 12th March 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Immigration (Armed Forces) Bill 2017-19 View all Immigration (Armed Forces) Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Attorney General (Mr Geoffrey Cox)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about my legal opinion on the joint instrument and unilateral declaration concerning the withdrawal agreement published last night.
Last week, I confirmed I would publish my
“legal opinion on any document that is produced and negotiated with the Union.”—[Official Report, 7 March 2019; Vol. 655, c. 1112.]
That has now been laid before the House. This statement summarises the instruments and my opinion of their legal effect.
Last night in Strasbourg, the Prime Minister secured legally binding changes that strengthen and improve the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. The Government laid three new documents reflecting those changes in the House: first, a joint legally binding instrument on the withdrawal agreement and the protocol on Northern Ireland; secondly, a unilateral declaration by the United Kingdom in relation to the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol; and thirdly, a joint statement to supplement the political declaration. The legal opinion I have provided to the House today focuses on the first two of those documents, which relate to the functioning of the backstop and the efforts of the parties that will be required to supersede it.
Let me say frankly what, in my opinion, these documents do not do. They are not about a situation where, despite the parties properly fulfilling the duties of good faith and best endeavours, they cannot reach an agreement on a future relationship. Such an event, in my opinion, is highly unlikely to occur, and it is in the interests of both the United Kingdom and the European Union to agree a future relationship as quickly as possible. Let me make it clear, however, that were such a situation to occur, the legal risk, as I set it out in my letter of 13 November, remains unchanged. The question for the House is whether in the light of these improvements, as a political judgment, it should now enter into those arrangements.
Let me move on to what the documents do achieve. As I set out in my opinion, the joint instrument puts the commitments in the letter from Presidents Tusk and Juncker of 14 January 2019 into a legally binding form, and provides, in addition, useful clarifications, amplifications of existing obligations, and some new obligations. The instrument confirms that the European Union cannot pursue an objective of trying to trap the UK in the backstop indefinitely. It makes explicit that that would constitute bad faith, which would be the basis of a formal dispute before an arbitration tribunal. That means, ultimately, that the protocol could be suspended if the European Union continued to breach its obligations.
The joint instrument also reflects the United Kingdom’s and the Union’s commitment to work to replace the backstop with alternative arrangements by December 2020, including as set out in the withdrawal agreement. Those commitments include establishing
“immediately following the ratification of the Withdrawal Agreement, a negotiating track for replacing the customs and regulatory alignment in goods elements of the protocol with alternative arrangements.”
If an agreement has not been concluded within one year of the UK’s withdrawal, efforts must be redoubled. [Laughter.]
The Attorney General
In my view, as a matter of law, the provisions relating to the timing of the efforts to be made in resolving withdrawal agreements make time of the essence in the negotiation of a subsequent agreement. A doctrine with which the lawyers in the House will be familiar is of legal relevance. In my opinion, the provisions of the joint instrument extend beyond mere interpretation of the withdrawal agreement, and represent materially new legal obligations and commitments which enhance its existing terms.
Let me now turn to the unilateral declaration. It records the United Kingdom’s position that, if it were not possible to conclude a subsequent agreement to replace the protocol because of a breach by the Union of its duty of good faith, it would be entitled to take measures to disapply the provisions of the protocol in accordance with the withdrawal agreement’s dispute resolution procedures and article 20, to which I have referred. There is no doubt, in my view, that the clarifications and amplified obligations contained in the joint statement and the unilateral declaration provide a substantive and binding reinforcement of the legal rights available to the UK in the event that the Union were to fail in its duties of good faith and best endeavours.
I have in this statement, and in the letter that I have published today, set out, frankly and candidly, my view of the legal effect of the new instruments that the Government have agreed with the Union. However, the matters of law affecting withdrawal can only inform what is essentially a political decision that each of us must make. This is a question not of the lawfulness of the Government’s action but of the prudence, as a matter of policy and political judgment, of entering into an international agreement on the terms proposed.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Attorney General for his statement and for advance sight of it.
The Attorney General made it clear in his original advice of 13 November on the backstop protocol that:
“In international law the Protocol would endure indefinitely until a superseding agreement took its place, in whole or in part”,
and he was right, because article 178 of the withdrawal agreement is clear that the remedy of suspension of obligations is only ever meant to be temporary to secure compliance to the agreement and not as a gateway to a full exit.
So people quite rightly ask now what has changed. In her Strasbourg statement the Prime Minister said the joint interpretative instrument makes three changes. She said, first, that the UK can challenge the EU in an arbitration panel if the EU is found in breach of good faith and suspend the backstop. But that was already in article 178 of the withdrawal agreement; it is not new. Secondly, the Prime Minister said there is a legal commitment that whatever replaces the backstop does not need to replicate it, but the January letter of Presidents Tusk and Juncker said:
“Any arrangements which supersede the Protocol are not required to replicate its provisions in any respect”;
it is not new. Thirdly, the Prime Minister said it entrenches in legally binding form the commitments made in the exchange of letters with Presidents Tusk and Juncker in January, but on 14 January the Prime Minister told this House:
“My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General has also written to me today confirming that in the light of the joint response from the Presidents of the European Council and the Commission, these conclusions ‘would have legal force in international law’.”—[Official Report, 14 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 824.]
That is not new either.
I am going to take the Attorney General at his word, because he said in his Mail on Sunday interview:
“I will not change my opinion unless I’m sure there is no legal risk of us being indefinitely detained in the backstop.”
I am going to be fair to the Attorney General: he has not changed his opinion. Let us read his advice to this House at paragraph 19:
“the legal risk remains unchanged that if through no such demonstrable failure of either party, but simply because of intractable differences, that situation does arise, the United Kingdom would have, at least while the fundamental circumstances remained the same, no internationally lawful means of exiting the Protocol’s arrangements, save by agreement.”
I say to the Attorney General that paragraphs 15 to 19 of his advice constitute seven sentences that destroy the Government’s strategy of recent weeks—that sink the Government’s case that they had any chance of securing a right, under international law, to unilaterally exit the protocol’s arrangements. We have gone from having “a nothing has changed” Prime Minister to having “a nothing has changed” Attorney General.
In fairness to the Attorney General it is not just his view: it is the view of a number of other respected lawyers, including Professor Philippe Sands, Professor Sir David Edward and the Government’s own former counter-terror watchdog, now Lord Anderson QC. The Attorney General knows that speaking about reasonable endeavours and bad faith is one thing, but he can confirm the reality, which is that the new documents do nothing about the situation when the talks with the EU are at a stalemate not because of bad faith, but simply because both sides cannot reach an agreement.
Proving bad faith is extraordinarily difficult, and the Attorney General points that out in paragraph 16 of his own advice. The strongest remedy in this withdrawal agreement, even with this document, remains a temporary suspension. Indeed, we need only look at his own legal advice to see that, at paragraph 9, which speaks of
“suspension of all or parts of the Protocol, including the backstop, until there is satisfactory compliance.”
Trade talks can break down for a variety of reasons. For two parties to act on the basis of their own interests is not bad faith, and the Attorney General knows it. In these circumstances, despite any assurances about the temporary nature of the backstop, the reality is that it can endure indefinitely. Ninety-two days after the Prime Minister abandoned the first meaningful vote, in this Attorney General’s view
“the legal risk remains unchanged”.
What the Attorney General was asked to do, and what the Prime Minister promised in this House on 29 January—to change the text of the withdrawal agreement—simply is not possible. He is a lawyer; he is not a magician. Does not this whole episode of recent weeks show that when national leadership is required, this Prime Minister, as always, puts party before country?
The Attorney General
The hon. Gentleman asks me about my opinion. He knows that my opinion is that there is no ultimate unilateral right out of this arrangement. The risk of that continues, but the question is whether it is a likelihood, politically. One thing that we did not hear from him is what the Labour party’s position is on the backstop. Does they accept the backstop? Do they think it is a good thing? If they think it is a good thing, why on earth are they criticising it? Or is this just the usual political opportunism that one expects to hear from the Front Bench of the Labour party?
The hon. Gentleman says to me that there is nothing new in this agreement, but that is not so, and some of the authorities that he has quoted are saying that this morning. There are material new obligations—for example, in relation to alternative arrangements. There is now a heavy emphasis upon a swift and expedited track to negotiate them, and it would be unconscionable if, having made that emphasis and having said that time was of the essence, the European Union simply refused to consider or adopt reasonable proposals relating to alternative arrangements. That is new. What this document does is address the risk that we could be kept in the backstop by the bad faith and deliberate manipulation of the Union. This makes significant reductions in that risk.
I say to the hon. Gentleman that it would be a good thing if we could hear from the Labour party just occasionally not only political shenanigans but some sincere engagement with the real issues that this withdrawal agreement now raises. The question now is: do we assume our responsibilities as a House and allow not only this country—yearning as it is for us to move on—but the entire continent of Europe to move on? To do that, the time has come now to vote for this deal.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend to his place. He has shown absolutely that he is what he should be: an independent adviser to the Government. I congratulate him on that, because that is exactly what he should be. Given the clarity of his advice, I want to ask him a particular question. As he will know, I and others have spent some time looking at and working on alternative arrangements. I would like to clarify exactly what force he thinks those would have. As he said just now, there would be an obligation for the European Union to “consider or adopt” such proposals if they were made in a reasonable way. How does that square with his paragraph 16, in which he says
“it would be highly unlikely that the United Kingdom could take advantage of the remedies available to it for such a breach under the Withdrawal Agreement”?
The Attorney General
My right hon. Friend has got paragraph 16 wrong, if I may respectfully say so. What it says was that I advised in the past that that was so. What I now consider, at paragraph 17, is:
“that the legally binding provisions of the Joint Instrument and the content of the Unilateral Declaration reduce the risk”
that we would be held involuntarily and by the bad faith. Why? Because these new provisions make it easier to facilitate an effective claim to the arbitrator that that conduct is being exhibited. Those are cumulative. If one looks at the agreement as a whole, one sees that the obligations on the Union are to treat with urgency the negotiation of alternative arrangements. There is a new obligation that has not existed before in any document that the Union has agreed to, which is that it must aim to do this within 12 months of our withdrawal. That is an important obligation, because it makes time of the essence. If that deadline is passed, as in any legal jurisprudence on such matters relating in a domestic context to breach of contract, for example, that means that the parties must demonstrate that they are intensifying their efforts. If they do not, they could be in breach of their best endeavours obligation.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I start by saying that I have respect and sympathy for the Attorney General. The role of the law officer is not easy, particularly when he or she is a party political appointment, but he must nevertheless from time to time burst his party’s political bubble in the interests of professional integrity and independence of advice. Make no mistake, that is what the Attorney General has done today.
Today, the emperor has no clothes; none at all—not even a codpiece. For all the yards of flannel in paragraphs 4 to 10 of the Attorney General’s legal opinion and in today’s statement, it is quite clear, as the shadow Attorney General said, from paragraph 19 of the legal opinion that the legal position previously outlined by the Attorney General remains the same. The measures therefore fall very short of what was demanded by the Brady amendment and very short of what was promised to those in the European Research Group, which I am sure will not have been lost upon them or their lawyers.
The withdrawal agreement has not been changed, and that the Attorney General should admit that that is so is not surprising given the weight of legal opinion about the measures overnight. Some Conservative Members will not take my legal opinion for it. I am unsure why, but perhaps they think that a lawyer who is a member of the SNP is not to be trusted. At all events, I am sure that they will put some weight on the opinion of my good friend Lord Anderson of Ipswich, the former Government independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. He provided a detailed opinion overnight—[Interruption.] I hear someone muttering from the Conservative Benches that he is being paid by the people’s vote campaign, but that person ought to be aware that it is the professional duty of any senior counsel to give an objective, dispassionate opinion. Perhaps the person muttering from a sedentary position should not transfer their own motives on to someone as honourable as Lord Anderson.
I will ask the Attorney General whether he agrees with me and with a number of Lord Anderson’s points. Lord Anderson says that the measures obtained by the Prime Minister
“do not allow the UK to terminate the backstop in the event that negotiations over its future relationship with the EU cannot be brought to a satisfactory conclusion”.
That is correct, and I am sure that the Attorney General will agree. Lord Anderson also says that the measures
“do not provide the UK with a right to terminate the backstop at a time of its choosing, or indeed at any time, without the agreement of the EU.”
Lord Anderson is right that there is no unilateral exit here. He then goes on to say:
“The furthest they go is to reiterate the possibility that the backstop might be suspended”—
not got out of, but suspended—
“in extreme circumstances of bad faith on the part of the EU which”
he says
“are highly unlikely to be demonstrated.
Lord Anderson also points out:
“This was already apparent from the Withdrawal Agreement, and had been acknowledged in the Attorney General’s previous legal advice.”
Does the Attorney General agree with all those points in Lord Anderson’s independent, impartial, objective opinion? Does he further agree that in fact nothing has changed and that the Prime Minister has yet again failed to deliver on what she has promised?
The Attorney General
What I hope will not be lost on my hon. and right hon. Friends is why the hon. and learned Lady is insisting and pressing upon them the facts and matters that she has just been drawing to their attention. It could be, I wonder, that there is some ulterior motive in her concern about the absence of a unilateral exit mechanism in all circumstances.
Turning to the opinion of Lord Anderson, who is always worthy of the most careful attention and the greatest of respect—as anybody of his distinction should be listened to—I take issue with some of his comments. For example—my opinion sets this out and other lawyers are commenting to that effect this morning—the hon. and learned Lady does no justice to the fact that these measures and improvements do facilitate, and mean that there is a reduction of risk in, our being able to prove and demonstrate bad faith or want of best endeavours. She says that we could not terminate, but there is in fact in my opinion a clear pathway to termination.
As the hon. and learned Lady knows, I wrote in my opinion that if in the circumstance that we got a declaration from the arbitral tribunal that there had been a lack of best endeavours, having regard to the accelerated pace of negotiation which this new agreement now imposes, we could then move to suspend our obligations, if we wished to do so, under the protocol. If that suspension was prolonged, we could invoke article 20 to argue that it was no longer necessary because the inaction of the European Union demonstrated that it must think that it was no longer necessary, and that could lead to termination. It is therefore not entirely true to say that there is no way in which the provisions could be terminated. I say to the hon. and learned Lady that suspension, in these circumstances, is as effective as termination, because the only way in which the EU could restore the position would be for it to come back to the negotiating table with genuinely new proposals.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his statement. I have no reason to disagree with his conclusion in paragraph 19 of his opinion, and I commend him for standing up for his office and speaking truth to power. However, I have one query about paragraph 7 of his advice, in which he describes the joint instrument as representing
“materially new legal obligations and commitments”.
He will of course be familiar with article 31, paragraph 2 of the Vienna convention, which says that such an instrument can have legal force and be binding only in the sense that the parties cannot later alter or deny what they have agreed and that it is not a treaty in itself. In those circumstances, is it not the case that the breaching of the best endeavours obligation in itself makes no difference? The only difference is if there is bad faith, and that in fact was contained in the original agreement that we signed.
The Attorney General
I do not agree with my right hon. and learned Friend, although I listen most carefully to him, as ever. The best endeavours duty was in the withdrawal agreement originally, but what this does is to firm and strengthen the context in which an allegation of best endeavours or bad faith would be made, because it sets an accelerated pace and commits—I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend has looked or will look at this—the EU to specific operational commitments about how to deliver that obligation. Those are new agreements, and they are couched in the language of agreement. He knows, as a very distinguished lawyer, that one cannot always trust the label; one has to look at the substance.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Can the Attorney General confirm that in order to get to the point at which the UK might be able to suspend the Northern Ireland protocol, it would have to, first, persuade the arbitration panel to agree with its case and, secondly, accept that any issue of EU law arising from the case that the UK had argued would have to be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union and that any ruling of the CJEU on that matter would be binding on the panel, the EU and, most importantly for this discussion, the UK?
The Attorney General
Of course I can confirm all those things, which are self-evident in the agreement. May I just point out to the right hon. Gentleman that although I am sure it is a clever forensic point, the circumstance in which a point of European Union law would arise in connection with the best endeavours and bad faith clauses is difficult to envisage? The reality is that it is a straightforward question of fact: is the European Union moving with the urgency and pace, to the procedural timetables and according to the procedural steps that this agreement now enforces?
The right hon. Gentleman is an honest politician, and he cannot look these things in the face and say that they mean nothing. These are important amplifications and clarifications of the duty of best endeavours. I quite agree with him, as I very much doubt we would ever get to an arbitral tribunal, because what these duties, new clarifications and amplifications do is set the framework for people’s conduct within the negotiation. It is about the impact on their behaviour and conduct. Very rare is the case in which one would get to an arbitral tribunal. What matters is the framework of obligations and responsibilities, and those have materially tightened on the European Union.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his opinion, which is not only for the Government, I would stress, but for Parliament and for the voters. The substance of the backstop issue to which he has just referred is the legal, constitutional and, therefore, political status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, which cannot be put at risk.
My right hon. and learned Friend refers to a reduced risk of the UK being “indefinitely” detained in the protocol, but he adds that, ultimately, there is
“no internationally lawful means of exiting”
unless both the EU and the UK agree. Does he therefore appreciate, on his own terms, that this fundamental legal impediment trumps political considerations and that, therefore, there would be insufficient protection for Northern Ireland to continue as part of the United Kingdom?
The Attorney General
I do not agree. My hon. Friend knows we have a difference of opinion, and I hope that he will move towards my position. I still hope that might be so, and I say that because one has to look at the mutual incentives and disincentives for both parties to stay in the arrangement. I made this point in December and, for the reasons I advanced in December and in my November opinion, the incentives or disincentives for the European Union are as profound, if not greater, to get us out of the backstop than to keep us in it. That is what I firmly believe. He may disagree, but that is what I believe.
That is why I have taken the political judgment that this withdrawal agreement needs to be supported but, in saying that, these improvements do make a difference. In the last line of my advice, I say there can be no lawful exit unless there is a fundamental change of circumstance. It is extremely important to remember that there is always a right to terminate a treaty unilaterally if circumstances fundamentally change. There is no question but that we have a right to exit if those circumstances apply.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
Those of us who remember some infamously politicised legal opinions, as with the Iraq war, will want to acknowledge the Attorney General’s total integrity and independence, but can he explain to a non-lawyer how respect for the international rule of law is enhanced by a unilateral declaration to break it?
The Attorney General
The right hon. Gentleman seeks to give with one hand and take with the other. With the greatest of diffidence and respect, he is not quite right. The unilateral declaration is not incompatible with international law. It reserves the United Kingdom’s right to take all measures available to it in circumstances where the talks have broken down as a result of a breach of article 5, which is the good faith duty. It reinforces and further stresses the United Kingdom’s right to take measures to withdraw from the arrangements if there is a breach of good faith.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend notes in his opinion that the unilateral declaration is not an agreed document. Can he say whether efforts were made to obtain the agreement of the European Union to that declaration? If so, why was such agreement withheld?
The Attorney General
No unilateral declaration is worth the paper it is written on if it is objected to. My understanding is that it is not objected to and that it will be deposited alongside the withdrawal agreement and, therefore, will carry legal weight under article 31 of the Vienna convention.
Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I join others in commending the Attorney General, and I pay tribute to him for his dealings with us and for holding entirely to his word in delivering a totally objective and fair legal analysis and opinion on whatever came back. I pay tribute to him publicly, in addition to what I have said to him privately in that regard.
In relation to reducing the risk of being held in the backstop by the EU acting in bad faith or for want of best endeavours, does the Attorney General agree with paragraph 29 of his previous advice that all the EU
“would have to do to show good faith would be to consider the UK’s proposals, even if they ultimately rejected them. This could go on repeatedly without such conduct giving rise to bad faith or failure”?
If it is not a question of bad faith, and if it is just a question of the two sides not being able to reach agreement, he says in paragraph 19 of today’s legal opinion that the “legal risk remains unchanged”.
We already know what the Irish Government and others see as the ultimate destination for Northern Ireland—the backstop is the bottom line. From what the Attorney General is saying today, provided there is no bad faith, the fact is that Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom could be trapped if the EU does not agree with the United Kingdom to a superseding agreement.
The Attorney General
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question, which I will deal with point by point. First, my opinion has changed in connection to this country’s ability to prove bad faith if it occurred. There is now a new contextual framework for judging whether the other party is using best endeavours or good faith.
Time has been made of the essence in specific connection to negotiating alternative arrangements. A specific work track and a specific timetable are set out, and it would be unconscionable, as I say in my opinion—I forget the paragraph, but the right hon. Gentleman will have it—if having said to this country that it will set up a specific, discrete work track on alternative arrangements, which are defined in this new document as meaning facilitative techniques, technologies and customs procedures, and if having set up a timeline for negotiating those alternative arrangements by saying “12 months, or we must intensify our efforts,” it never agreed to use a single one, and if it refused every proposal reasonably adjusted to its core interests. That would be extraordinary.
I say in my written opinion, and I stand by it, that it would be a potential breach of best endeavours and good faith. Best endeavours are now defined in this joint instrument as requiring the EU to consider adverse interests and matters that are adverse to its interests. Even if these facilitative technological and customs measures were adverse to the EU’s interests, the duty still requires it to consider them. Therefore if there were a pattern of refusal, a systematic refusal, to consider these alternative arrangements, we would have a case before the arbitration panel, and it would be a potentially serious breach of good faith.
I say to the right hon. Gentleman with all candour that I believe that, and he knows I would not say it if I did not mean it. It is there in my written opinion, and I urge him to consider it.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that although any practical lawyer will know that legal risks can seldom be totally eliminated from any agreement of any kind, what the parties must look at is the practical risk of something occurring? Does he not agree that what has been achieved markedly diminishes the practical risk, which is the key consideration we need to bear in mind when looking at the broader context of what is at stake here?
The Attorney General
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend; the legal ingredient in any political question must be subordinate, and particularly in connection with this political question. The fact is that there are always legal risks of various kinds. We walk among legal risks all the time—some of us more than others, perhaps—but we do not determine our behaviour by them. We take practical judgments every minute of the day, every day of the week about whether the legal risks we are engaged in are ones that are worth taking. I say to my hon. Friends, as I say to all hon. Members, that we must come to a decision on this question today. I urge the House to consider carefully this: there is no real legal basis to be seriously troubled that the European Union will never reach agreement with us. If it occurs through bad faith, we have further improvements in the deal now. But just because we cannot reach agreement, when the alternative arrangements are now cemented into this deal in a manner they have not been before? I think not, in all candour.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
In layman’s and laywoman’s terms, nothing has changed but something has been added: a year to get the timescale right, and if the Government cannot do that, they are going to try really hard for the next year. It is not possible to unilaterally stop a hard border, but it is possible for the Attorney General single-handedly to admit that all he has done today is amplify, not amend, the original deal that Parliament voted down. To say anything else really is a matter of bad faith.
The Attorney General
I know that the hon. Lady knows that I have not attempted to say something—[Interruption.] Of course there has been no amending of the treaty, but there has been a supplementary agreement that amplifies, extends and deepens the obligations within it.
The Attorney General
The hon. Lady can shake her head, but she has to look at the wording—at the text. If I have got something wrong, she will no doubt tell me, but the fact is that there are materially new obligations here in relation to the pace and timetable, and in relation to binding legal commitments on alternative arrangements. These set the context against which and within which the duties in respect of bad faith and best endeavours will be measured. That is a significant difference to the deal.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Paragraph 23 of the political declaration makes it clear that we would
“build and improve on the single customs territory provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement”.
We know what the EU understands that to mean. In good faith and with best endeavours, it understands it to mean a customs union, as Dan Hannan MEP reminded us earlier. So is it not the case that if we negotiate under this agreement, we will either find ourselves trapped indefinitely in the backstop, because the EU is acting “in good faith”, or have to agree a customs union, contrary to our manifesto?
The Attorney General
I simply say to my hon. Friend that I really do not believe so. Why not? Because the commitments now cemented on alternative arrangements, which require a separate negotiating track, with a timetable to negotiate them, are now built in so that, as I have said in my written opinion, it would be extraordinary if the EU declined to adopt any such measures. It would be extraordinary, so I do not accept that the backstop is the base for any future arrangement. Let me give another reason why it is not. Built into the political declaration is an independent free trade policy, and we cannot have an independent free trade policy and have a customs union. Also built into it is no free movement. Does the Labour party support free movement now? It speaks with all sorts of voices. But the political declaration says there is none, and we cannot belong to the single market without free movement. So I say to my hon. Friend that I understand where these fears come from, but we must be bold and courageous, and we must move forward, for the sake of our country.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Ind)
I, too, commend the Attorney General for his work and his efforts. I believe he has acted in all good faith. I also pay tribute to the Prime Minister, because there is no doubt that she has done her best to try to solve this problem and come back with something, but she simply has not been able to, as many of us had predicted. I am an old criminal barrister—[Interruption.] Who said, “Lock her up?” In all seriousness, criminal barristers tend to speak in plain, simple language, because we address juries. Does the Attorney General agree with this simple assessment of the joint instrument, which I have read: it does not change the withdrawal agreement, and it offers no new treaty or obligations at a treaty level? Will he also confirm that this is the end of the road—there are now no more negotiations with the EU, despite all his best efforts and those of the Government?
The Attorney General
I do not agree with the right hon. Lady. This instrument will be deposited with the withdrawal agreement, and it contains material new obligations, which are couched in the language of agreement. That represents an agreement between the parties not only about the interpretation, but about specific operational commitments. This has a standing equal to the withdrawal agreement, including in its material commitments, particularly those relating to obligations of an operational character. So I do not agree with her; what she says is not right. We have to look at the substance, not the label.
The right hon. Lady asks whether negotiations are at an end. Yes, they are at an end. This is the moment of decision. We now have to take the fork in the road, and we are going to have to assume our responsibilities for it.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his work, and on the splendid candour of his statement and comments this morning. I also congratulate the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union on getting alternative arrangements and an implementation date into the text. If, however, despite the very best endeavours in negotiations and the very best of faith, agreement is not reached in time for the end of December 2020, what can an independent, sovereign UK do? If a decision is made at the political level that the game is not worth the candle, can the UK walk away?
The Attorney General
As my right hon. Friend knows, if the parties, using best endeavours, in complete sincerity with co-operation and good faith, are simply unable to agree anything, not even a few alternative arrangements or a partial agreement—the subsequent agreement referred to in the protocol can of course be a stand-alone agreement—the UK has no unilateral exit right to leave, unless there were a fundamental change of circumstance under article 62 of the Vienna convention on the law of treaties. My right hon Friend knows that, but the question is: is it likely? What this deal has now done is place the burden on the EU to negotiate those alternative arrangements, as a result of his work, in part. I say to him that he should trust in himself, trust in the British people and trust in our ability to deliver a good deal. We can use the new contexts in this agreement, and I believe we will secure a good deal for the Northern Irish border.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Attorney General for his candour and for sticking to his integrity in the advice he has provided, which very much lines up with Lord Anderson’s advice that the backstop may accordingly “endure indefinitely”. Lord Anderson also says that the interpretive declaration is not a
“clearly worded, legally binding, ‘treaty-level’ clause which unambiguously”
overrides the text. The Attorney General has said repeatedly throughout this process that this is about politics, not law, so will he tell us whether at any point over the weekend he offered the Prime Minister preliminary advice that she would not be getting the advice she wanted for the politics of today?
The Attorney General
The hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that I am afraid I am not permitted by the Law Officers’ convention to say whether I gave advice or what advice that would be.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
Does the Attorney General agree that in law and in life, it is very rare for any lawyer to give a 100% guarantee on how watertight a particular agreement might be, notwithstanding the fact that that lawyer may well have great confidence in that agreement?
The Attorney General
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on that. With the law, we are not able to put something into a test tube, hold it over a Bunsen burner and, if it turns green, get the answer. The law is a question of judgment, and it is always blended with political considerations or, in a commercial context, with commercial considerations. The preponderance of the two form a single judgment. It is my judgment, as my hon. Friend knows, that this risk is a calculated one, but one that we can now take. I firmly believe that these new improvements make that risk more acceptable and easier for the House to take.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
May I press the Attorney General on the status of the joint instrument? Last night, the Minister for the Cabinet Office claimed that
“the joint instrument has equal status in law to the withdrawal agreement itself”—[Official Report, 11 March 2019; Vol. 656, c. 132.]
and that they both have
“the status of treaties under international law”.—[Official Report, 11 March 2019; Vol. 656, c. 135.]
However, legal advice that I have seen says:
“The Joint Instrument is not incorporated into the Withdrawal Agreement, it is not a Protocol to the Withdrawal Agreement and it is not a treaty in its own right.”
Will the Attorney General clarify whether the Minister for the Cabinet Office inadvertently misled the House last night?
The Attorney General
I would need to see the hon. Lady’s quotation in detail. The position is that if you agree and put your name to a joint instrument of this kind, you are bound by it. You are bound by it as to its interpretation and, if it expresses agreement to specific operational commitments, as this one does, you are bound by it on those, because it is an agreement that you will then carry out those specific commitments. It is an agreement, so we should not get hung up on labels. The question is: what is its substance? It is binding.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that article 31 of the Vienna convention makes it perfectly clear that this protocol does have legal force, is binding and is of equal status to the treaty? Does he also agree that substantial, legally binding changes have been delivered, and that it is wrong to read just one paragraph of his legal advice—one has to read each paragraph of it? When it comes to paragraph 17 of his advice, my right hon. and learned Friend makes it clear that this is a substantial change in the level of risk.
The Attorney General
I think I had better just say that I agree with that one.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Attorney General’s argument seems to hinge on this matter of “highly unlikely”. I do not know whether this is his reading of recent history, but it seems to me that everything that I thought was highly unlikely five, six or seven years ago has now come to pass. Should we not be worrying about what may be likely over the next few years? After all, many of the Governments in Europe may change and the European Commission President will certainly change, so the highly unlikely may indeed come to pass. I have a sneaking memory of a conversation that the Attorney General and I had once in the Lobby, around three years ago. I asked him, “Wouldn’t it be a good idea if you should become Attorney General?”, and he said, “Oh no, that’s highly unlikely.” [Laughter.]
The Attorney General
And so it was under that particular Prime Minister! I was telling the hon. Gentleman the complete truth, as I am telling him it now. I have forgotten what the other question was—that was a betrayal of robing room talk. I am so taken aback by that question that I think I had better sit down.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend has pointed out that much of what is being said is political as well as legal. Will he therefore set out for the House what penalties might fall upon this country if a future Parliament, which obviously cannot be bound, were to decide to resile from the commitments under the backstop?
The Attorney General
Well, my hon. Friend will know that as an Attorney General I simply could not give countenance to the idea that this country would break its international legal obligations. As I have pointed out to the House, there is a right for the United Kingdom to terminate this agreement. If fundamental circumstances change, in the view of the United Kingdom, it would attempt to resolve the matter within the joint committee and it would attempt to resolve it politically, but if, ultimately, with the sovereign right of this House and of the British Government at the time, the United Kingdom took the view that those fundamental circumstances had indeed changed, it would have an undoubted legal right to withdrawal from any treaty.
Let us be clear about these kinds of absolute interpretations of black-letter text. A sovereign state has the right to withdraw if a treaty is no longer compatible with its fundamental interests or, to put it a different way, if fundamental circumstances have changed. I would say that apart from that, of course this country could resile from its commitments, but it would be unwise and it would not be in the tradition of this country to do so. In those circumstances, it is perfectly true that the only remedies the Union would have would be to take countermeasures, and no doubt it would pollute the atmosphere for fruitful relationships between us, which is precisely why this country will never do it, and neither would the European Union.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
I am not a lawyer, and neither are millions of people watching today. I obviously defer to the Attorney General’s advice, but will he tell people why the United Kingdom, a sovereign country, would think of signing up to anything—we signed up to the European Union and at least there was a way out of it through article 50, although it has taken a long time—that does not allow us simply to say, “This is not working, we are not going to sign up to this and we are leaving”?
The Attorney General
We have made a solemn pledge to the people of both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland that the border will be guaranteed never to be a hard border. That required the United Kingdom to say that in all normal circumstances we will not depart from that pledge. I repeat the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg): in the case of a fundamental change of circumstance, which is ultimately the sovereign right of this House and the Government to determine, the United Kingdom could withdraw, pursuant to customary international law. So it is not true to say that there is not ultimately the right of this House and the Government of the country at the time to exercise their discretion to do so in those circumstances. But in every other circumstance, we have said to the people of Northern Ireland, “We will ensure that your lives will be able to continue as they do now at the border.” I say that that act was worthy of this House, worthy of the Government and worthy of the British people, and it is one that is worthy of support.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend has just said to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) that the United Kingdom would never do that, so why did he raise the possibility of our withdrawing from a treaty under the Vienna convention in the first place?
The Attorney General
No, no, no. What I said to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) was that we would not do it in breach of the law. We are permitted, in a case of fundamental change of circumstances, to withdraw by the law. If such a change of circumstance came about—either because of some fundamental political change in Northern Ireland or some fundamental change of circumstance going to the essential basis of the agreement—then we would have the right to withdraw. But in all normal, envisageable and predictable circumstances, particularly while we are negotiating a subsequent agreement to the pace and accelerated timetable that this instrument now requires, we would not do so and it would be wrong to do so—wrong because it would be a breach of our obligations and wrong because this is a law-abiding country.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
The Attorney General said that it is highly unlikely that through the best endeavours they cannot reach an agreement. For the past four months, the Government have been in Brussels trying to replace the backstop with alternative measures and they have come back empty-handed. The negotiations have not delivered, despite the best endeavours. Is it not the case that the very situation that he describes in two years’ time as being highly unlikely is the situation we are in right now?
The Attorney General
No, no, no. We have not been attempting to secure alternative arrangements now. We have been putting forward the fact that, in the future, all those alternative arrangements are likely to exist, so the European Union has responded by saying, “We will set up a new, special negotiating track, we will negotiate with an increased urgency and to a new timetable and we will implement these”—they have defined them—“customs procedures and technologies and so on.” So it is not right to say that the same situation arises now. These systems will be developed over time and that is the purpose of the working group that the Union has agreed to set up with this country.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I thank the Attorney General for being so patient when I have been working on this unilateral declaration for the past two months and I thank him for including it in the final agreement, but may I ask him a detailed question because the devil is in the detail? There is no doubt, having worked with academic opinion, that a unilateral declaration is absolutely binding as long as it is deposited at the time the treaty is ratified. The unilateral declaration makes it clear that there is nothing to stop the UK leaving the backstop if talks break down, but it has to be a unilateral, conditional, interpretative declaration; that is what international law states. We are signing and agreeing to this withdrawal agreement only on condition—that is why the word “conditional” is important—that, if the talks break down, we can exit. So can the Attorney General now use the word “conditional” to reassure the House?
The Attorney General
First, may I say to my right hon. Friend that I am extremely grateful for the dialogue that we have had and he was, in no small part, the author of the seeds of this idea. Much of the material that he and other distinguished lawyers have been able to contribute has led to the proposal that we have now adopted. But I say to him that the unilateral declaration in this case does not need to say “conditional” because it is not objected to by the Union and, if it is not objected to, and the withdrawal agreement is ratified by the Union, it becomes binding.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I hope that the Attorney General can respond to me today without any reference to either his underwear or his genitalia. Last week, he said that we seek
“legally-binding changes to the backstop which ensure that it cannot be indefinite”.
Today, he says that the legal risk remains unchanged. All he is able to offer us is a new work schedule—a sort of glorified to do list. If, as he keeps saying, time is of the essence, has not the Prime Minister wasted the last two months?
The Attorney General
I will try to obey the hon. Lady’s strictures about comments that I have made before. May I say to her that that is not quite right? I have said that the legal risk is reduced. The legal risk of being held in the backstop by bad faith or by want of best endeavours has reduced. It has reduced because of significant improvements which, as I have said, set the context and benchmark for the enforceability of those important duties. But it is absolutely true, as she rightly says, that the risk of remaining in the backstop absent any fundamental change of circumstance, if no bad faith or if no want of best endeavours is present, remains the same.
Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
I, too, am not a lawyer, but the Attorney General is doing a very good job of clarifying to me and to the House the important improvements that the negotiating team has brought. A lawyer I know characterised paragraph 19 of his letter as
“a minimal legal risk unlikely to be crystallised”.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with that opinion?
The Attorney General
Yes, I do. Given what is at stake for the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, for the credit and faith of the European Union, which will be on the line, and for our ability to measure its performance against the detailed timetables and procedures that are now in place, I simply do not believe that we will be unable to reach any agreement with them. I repeat: it is perfectly possible to approach this in stages—to agree several agreements. We will be able to agree something over the next two or three years and the first priority, which is set out in this instrument, is the subsequent agreement replacing the backstop.
Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Ind)
My preference would be an arrangement that does not necessitate a backstop. For all the words that the Attorney General has used, is it not the case that none of these things—the joint instrument, the unilateral declaration and the change to the declaration—facilitates an unconditional unilateral withdrawal by the UK from the backstop? More than that, for all the words that he has used, we will still end up paying a divorce bill of more than £50 billion, in part in return for a political declaration that has no legal force whatever. That is the key point.
The Attorney General
The hon. Gentleman is not right about that. Under article 184 of the withdrawal agreement, there is a legal duty on the Union and the UK to negotiate a deal that is in line, and according to, the political declaration. He asks, is there any unconditional right to withdraw? With respect, I have answered that question. The only circumstance in which there would be an unconditional right to withdraw is if there were a fundamental change of circumstances pursuant to customary international law.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I commend my right hon. and learned Friend for the way he is pursuing the remit of his office. He is, of course, right that there is a political dimension to the decision that we will all have to make this evening, but may I ask him this question? He has confirmed today that, if there were a fundamental change of circumstances, this country would have the right to walk away from the agreement, but can he also confirm that, if that were to happen and we did walk away, we could take Northern Ireland with us as a member of the United Kingdom, thereby extracting it from the customs union within the EU?
The Attorney General
Let me make it clear: the United Kingdom is the United Kingdom, it includes Northern Ireland and there is no circumstance in which the Government of this country, and certainly not a Conservative Government, will ever leave Northern Ireland behind, subject to the obligations under the Belfast agreement. That has been proposed, as my hon. Friend knows. It has been proposed that we should have a termination right for GB only and the Prime Minister explained why that was unacceptable.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Attorney General says that the joint instrument and the content of the unilateral declaration relating to the withdrawal agreement
“reduce the risk that the United Kingdom could be indefinitely and involuntarily”
held in the backstop in the event of bad faith, but surely that was only ever a very limited risk. Is it not true that the far greater risk of being held in the backstop indefinitely is not as a result of the failure of either party to act in good faith, but because of intractable differences? In such circumstances, is it not right that the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland should have the confidence that measures that they can trust will be in place to prevent a hard border, and that the backstop would be exited upon a new agreement being reached? Does not that make perfect sense?
The Attorney General
It does make perfect sense. I have to say that I would have preferred to have seen a right of termination, mitigated and graduated, fairly balancing and apportioning risk, and only useable in a last resort, but the Union was not willing to agree to such a reasonable—and what I considered to be moderate—proposal. I agree with the hon. Lady, which is why I voted for the deal. It is sensible that that assurance can be given, and that is why the British Government have given it. I would say, though, that best endeavours is not—particularly now, with the context heightened and the benchmarks tightened—a meaningless duty, because best endeavours requires that a party should consider proposals that are contrary to its interests, and it may have to accept them. A party cannot go on refusing something that requires a reasonable adjustment in its position.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Good faith; best endeavours; trust. May I tell my right hon. and learned Friend that they have run out? Many in this country do not trust the EU, and I am sad to say that many in this country do not trust many MPs in this place to deliver what the vote told this country to do. Surely the only option now is to get a clean break, leave on 29 March and get our country back.
The Attorney General
I understand my hon. Friend’s frustrations, but I do not agree with his language. I have found those with whom we are doing business in the European Union to be perfectly reasonable and rational people, and I have no complaint about the manner in which negotiations have been conducted—they have always been conducted with cordiality and civility on both sides—so I do not believe that we cannot trust them to reach a deal, because it is in the interests of the Union itself.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Had the Attorney General been instructed to demonstrate that it is possible to walk away from the backstop by clients at his usual, generous commercial rates, would he have advised them to save their money?
The Attorney General
I am not convinced that I fully understood the question, perhaps because I did it too much justice and thought it might be a sensible one. The truth is that I doubt I agree with it.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
May I place on the record at the outset that, whatever one may think of the issues at stake, the integrity and honesty of the Attorney General are absolutely above question? I commend him for his approach. Much of this agreement requires consideration of the concept of bad faith, so will he please outline what circumstances would constitute bad faith and how the UK might prove them, bearing in mind that, as he will know, international arbitrators are loth to find that a sovereign state such as the UK or a respected body such as the EU have acted in bad faith? Is it not the case that, were the EU to continue to propose ideas that were in good faith but unacceptable to the UK, such as a customs union, these proposals would not assist us?
The Attorney General
No, I do not agree. The position is more nuanced than that. The pattern of refusing to accept reasonable proposals such as alternative arrangements that could not be said to compromise fundamental interests at the border would be raised immediately—a prima facie question. A pattern of consistent refusal would raise a prima facie question over the best endeavours and good faith clause. As my hon. Friend will have seen, some of these provisions are already in the joint instrument, including systematic conduct, declining to consider, declining to be flexible and declining to consider adverse interests. These best endeavours duties are real duties that are contained in commercial contracts all the time. They are litigated and brought to court, as he will know. We must not allow our fears to run away with us. We need to trust ourselves. We can make the leverage of the backstop as powerful an argument for them not to remain in it as it is for us.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Ind)
Does not all this hand-wringing over the backstop reflect the hubris of those who thought they could reconcile the irreconcilable—the alchemists who believed that they could conjure up this pretence of Brexit at the same time as a frictionless, open Irish border? Have we not finally reached the end of the road for the spinners, peddlers and blaggers in the leave campaign who stooped to lying about this being the easiest thing in the world?
The Attorney General
Of course, claims are made on both sides of the argument in any election or battle before the electorate. I remember some pretty exaggerated ones being made on the hon. Gentleman’s side of the argument, to be frank. If there is a serious point lying beneath that stream of adjectives, I would have to say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman in one respect: the enemy of the interests of this country is dangerous oversimplification of the complexity of the problems that we face. If that is the point that resides beneath his question, I would agree. We cannot underestimate the complexity of separating ourselves from 45 years of organic, legal and other integration with the European Union, but this withdrawal agreement does not underestimate that; it addresses the issues at a complex level, secures rights, and fairly apportions the dues and obligations. It is a deal that we need in order to achieve the first stage of that separation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry to disappoint remaining colleagues, and I am extremely grateful to the Attorney General and all who have participated in these exchanges, but we must now move on. Some dozens of colleagues wish to speak in the main debate and I have to make a judgment about the importance of now proceeding.
Bill Presented
Immigration (Armed Forces) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Edward Davey, supported by Jamie Stone, presented a Bill to remove financial requirements and fees for applications for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom from foreign or Commonwealth members of the armed forces on discharge and their families; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 March and to be printed (Bill 356).
Election Expenses (Authorisation of Free or Discounted Support)
Tuesday 12th March 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Election Expenses (Authorisation of Free or Discounted Support) Bill 2017-19 View all Election Expenses (Authorisation of Free or Discounted Support) Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Representation of the People Act 1983 to provide that election expenses relating to property, goods, services or facilities provided free of charge or at a discount are incurred only if authorised by the candidate or the candidate’s election agent; and for connected purposes.
Legislation should be like a big red bus. There should be no ambiguity about what it is, what it looks like and what it does. More importantly, there should be a full awareness of the consequences of stepping out in front of it. One such collection of legislation that currently fails the red bus test has to be election law, notably some of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1983.
The legislation, under decades of interpretation going back to 1868, meant that the agent and candidate were the gatekeepers of election expenditure. The potential for a criminal record, custodial sentence and bar from public office makes this an equitable settlement. This was recognised under section 90ZA in the Representation of the People Act, subsection (4) of which states:
“For the purposes of this Part of this Act, election expenses are incurred by or on behalf of a candidate at an election if they are incurred…by the candidate or his election agent, or…by any person authorised by the candidate or his election agent to incur expenses.”
All clear thus far. However, I wish to amend section 90C, which was inserted as part of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
With the continued mudslinging from all sides regarding the spending surrounding the EU referendum, I feel that red bus clarity would appear to be equally lacking in the PPERA—but that must remain a debate for another day. Section 90C introduced the wholly reasonable concept of accounting properly for goods, services and facilities provided either at a discount or free—for instance, a friendly printer, in lieu of a cash donation, providing below market rate or free printing. Section 90C ensured that the proper cost and corresponding donation for the discount were properly accounted for.
There was a long-established understanding of the section that the fundamental concept of proper agent or candidate authorisation still needed to apply under the authorising provision for election expenses under section 90ZA. I quote from the relevant subsection:
“property, goods, services or facilities is or are provided for the use or benefit of the candidate free of charge or at a discount of more than 10 per cent. of the commercial rate for the use of the property or for the provision of the goods, services or facilities, and
(b) the property, goods, services or facilities is or are made use of by or on behalf of the candidate in circumstances such that, if any expenses were to be (or are) actually incurred by or on behalf of the candidate in respect of that use, they would be (or are) election expenses incurred by or on behalf of the candidate.”
Paragraph (b) is of most interest, as it uses the word “incurred”, which mirrors entirely the word—and, one must presume, the intent—under section 90ZA.
As part of preliminary questions to be answered prior to my criminal trial, I took the question of the proper construction of section 90C to the Appeal Court after an initial interpretation of the position by the trial judge. The Lord Chief Justice at the Appeal Court agreed with the long-understood position that I have outlined—that for section 90C to apply, proper approval of such expenditure by the agent or candidate must be there under section 90ZA. So normality seemed to have returned—but the story did not end there. The Crown Prosecution Service, with the Electoral Commission attaching itself as an interested party, appealed the Appeal Court decision to the Supreme Court. That judgment was given on 25 July 2018. It overturned the Appeal Court decision and the long-held interpretation used by all agents, candidates and political parties.
In summary, the Supreme Court, whose judgment has to stand as the definitive interpretation of section 90C, directs that election-related expenses expended without the authorisation of an agent or candidate can none the less be deemed election expenses. With the Electoral Commission attaching itself as an interested party to the Supreme Court hearing, one must assume that this “no need for authorisation” interpretation was always its interpretation of election law. If that were the case, why did it not say so in its guidance for all candidates and agents for the 2015 general election?
With my prosecution looming into view by the time of the snap 2017 general election and with interpretation of section 90C at the heart of it, one might have expected the Electoral Commission, which claims that the Supreme Court interpretation was always its view, to have updated its guidance accordingly. It did not do so for 2017. Even after the Supreme Court judgment of July 2018, one might have expected the new interpretation, which the Electoral Commission claims, again, to have supported throughout, to have found its way into the new guidance for local elections for 2019, published just two months ago. It did not.
In response to my Adjournment debate of 11 February and in advance of this ten-minute rule Bill today, the commission finally published guidance with examples on the vexed question of notional spending—an undated document that accompanied a letter to me of 8 March. This new guidance suggests that unauthorised expenditure becomes an election expense for reporting if there has been active engagement in the spending activity so that the “made use of” threshold is reached. It cannot be right that somebody’s liberty, reputation and livelihood can be at stake based on three words and a potential prosecutor’s interpretation of a candidate’s knowledge or otherwise of an activity that was not authorised.
The commission offers six examples in its new guidance, which, I am sorry to say, falls very short of helping. Example 5 suggests that a national party battle bus carrying the party leader would not be a candidate spend if the candidate refused to engage with the party leader and refused to meet them. If the party leader says nothing more than “Vote Conservative” or “Vote Labour”, for instance, this would be national party spend under the PPERA, but if the party leader mentions the candidate’s name while in the constituency, the leader might be committing a section 75 offence—and do not forget that that is an imprisonable offence. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister might want to listen to that.
At example 6, if the local candidate agrees to join the party leader battle bus event and their name is mentioned, the commission suggests that an amount of notional spend must then be reported in the candidate spending return. Might that spending apportionment assessment be per word, or time-based—and, realistically, could the candidate have any control over what a party leader might say? Can anybody really imagine the implications for a candidate’s—potentially a new candidate’s—standing within their party of a refusal to engage with a party leader visiting their constituency? I am afraid that these examples highlight very clearly how removed from reality the commission is.
The Electoral Commission will suggest that any change to section 90C might lead to mischief if refusal to authorise would permit or encourage election-related spending to fall outside of account. There is already extensive sanction within section 75 of the RPA 1983 that would discourage such activity, as the person spending would face criminal prosecution and would be highly unlikely to play a part in such a planned deception. So the commission’s fears are unfounded. This Bill would make minor changes to section 90C to take away the ambiguity of the July 2018 Supreme Court judgment. The Lord Justices’ judgment has to be the right one. The Court’s status as the highest court means that it must be given the wording of the law as it stands. The question this House must now consider was whether the words previously agreed during the passage of the RPA 1983 represent the intention of Parliament and its drafters. I say that they do not.
Do Members in this place ever leave a lasting legacy by their activities here? The reason I promote this Bill is to protect current colleagues across this House, colleagues yet to come and councillors yet to face election. The desire to offer oneself for public service should not come with a threat to one’s liberty, reputation and career. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Craig Mackinlay, Paul Farrelly, Alex Chalk, Sir Peter Bottomley, Mr Mark Harper, Frank Field, Gareth Johnson, Mr Jonathan Lord, Jim Shannon, Anna Soubry and Bob Stewart present the Bill.
Craig Mackinlay accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 March and to be printed (Bill 357).
Business of the House (Today)
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I notice that this motion is debatable until any hour, subject to a business of the House motion at 7 o’clock. I can assure the House that it is not my intention to speak at that length, but this is very important. We are discussing this afternoon a motion that could determine the nation’s future for a generation or more, and we are expected to do it in just under five hours. I accept that every moment I speak reduces that time, but it is none the less relevant to do so.
This matter is of overwhelming importance to our future. It will determine the basis of our relationship with the European Union, and it may potentially have an effect on the whole basis of the United Kingdom. It seems to me that five hours is not only not enough, but it is not wise. The whole process with which today’s motion has been brought forth is not wise. There is an element of bounce and of theatre. We heard yesterday that a plane was waiting in the airport, fuelled for the Prime Minister. That is very dramatic and exciting, but it is not necessarily right for good government.
What we want is the ability to discuss things judiciously and debate them thoroughly, and squeezing a quart into a pint pot is fundamentally unwise. It also does not help the Government to achieve what they wish to achieve, which is a majority in the vote at the end of today’s proceedings, because if people feel that they have been bounced, hurried and harried, their natural instinct is not necessarily to cave in, but to stiffen their resolve and see how the cards fall.
The Government would be wise, even at this late stage, to allow an extra day for the debate, to ensure that Members are not limited to three-minute time limits at the end of the day but can discuss this matter as fully as it deserves and—dare I say?—as the nation expects, because the nation expects us to consider its future carefully. Although I will not seek to divide the House, I think that this allocation of time motion is misguided, and more time should be provided for debating something of such fundamental importance.
Mr Speaker
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I note what he says about having no intention to divide the House. At least as importantly, I note, for the benefit of the House, that no amendment to the motion has been tabled, including by the hon. Gentleman.
Question put and agreed to.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 242 / Noes: 391 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Speaker
I can inform the House that I have not selected any of the amendments.
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
I beg to—[Interruption.] You may say that, but you should hear Jean-Claude Juncker’s voice as a result of our conversation. I beg to move,
That this House approves for the purposes of section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 the following documents laid before the House on Monday 11 March 2019:
(1) the negotiated withdrawal agreement titled ‘Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community’;
(2) the framework for the future relationship titled ‘Political Declaration setting out the framework for the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom’;
(3) the legally binding joint instrument titled ‘Instrument relating to the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community’, which reduces the risk the UK could be deliberately held in the Northern Ireland backstop indefinitely and commits the UK and the EU to work to replace the backstop with alternative arrangements by December 2020;
(4) the unilateral declaration by the UK titled ‘Declaration by Her Majesty’s Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning the Northern Ireland Protocol’, setting out the sovereign action the UK would take to provide assurance that the backstop would only be applied temporarily; and
(5) the supplement to the framework for the future relationship titled ‘Joint Statement supplementing the Political Declaration setting out the framework for the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’, setting out commitments by the UK and the EU to expedite the negotiation and bringing into force of their future relationship.
It has been eight weeks since this House held the meaningful vote on the Brexit deal. On that day, Parliament sent a message: the deal needed to change. In response, the Government have worked hard to secure an improved deal that responds to the concerns of this House. I took the concerns of this House about the backstop to the EU and sat down with President Juncker and President Tusk. I spoke to every single EU leader, some on multiple occasions, to make clear to them what needed to change. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union worked tirelessly with his opposite number, Michel Barnier. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General engaged in detailed legal discussion with his counterparts in the European Commission. The result of this work is the improved Brexit deal that is before the House today. I will go on to explain in detail what has improved about the deal since January and why I believe it deserves the support of every Member this evening.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)
Is not one of the problems the House faced in the previous session with the Attorney General that we were seeking legal answers to what are essentially political questions, and the political question we now face is that if we do not pass this motion, we stand to lose Brexit in its entirety?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. A lot of focus has been put on legal changes, and I will come on to the fact that there are legally binding changes as a result of the discussions since the House’s vote on 29 January, but he is absolutely correct—the danger for those of us who want to keep faith with the British public and deliver on their vote for Brexit is that if this deal is not passed tonight, Brexit could be lost.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
My right hon. Friend may have slightly lost her voice, but is it not true that were we to have a second referendum, 17.5 million people would have lost their voice?
The Prime Minister
Yes. My hon. Friend will not be surprised, given what he has heard me say from this Dispatch Box, that I entirely agree with him. I believe it is absolutely imperative that this House meets the decision taken by the British people in June 2016, that we deliver on the referendum and that we deliver Brexit for the British people. As I say, there is a danger that with a failure to agree a deal we could end up in a situation where we have no Brexit at all.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Ind)
Jean-Claude Juncker was very clear in his press conference yesterday, sitting beside the Prime Minister, that this is the end of the road for negotiation—there is no further negotiation from here. Do the Government completely accept that, and therefore what happens if the motion is defeated tonight?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; that is what Jean-Claude Juncker said in his press conference. It is what he had made clear to me and to Ministers. It is what other leaders have made clear as well. Tonight, Members of this House face a very clear choice: vote for and support this deal, in which case we leave the European Union with a deal—I will go on to explain why I think it is a good deal—or risk no deal or no Brexit. These are the options.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
If Members will bear with me, I will take a further couple of interventions and then try to make some progress, as I am only two pages into my speech.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The Prime Minister will know that I did not support the withdrawal agreement at the last vote, and today I will support it unenthusiastically—forgive me, Prime Minister—because I completely agree with her that there is a danger that Brexit will be lost. There do not appear to be the votes in this House for no deal, but there certainly seem to be the votes for an extension of article 50. Neither of those options would deliver Brexit; they would frustrate and delay it and possibly stop it altogether. The main reason I am supporting the Government tonight is that there has been a definitive, material legal change on the backstop, which is that if the European Union acts in bad faith, the UK can permanently or temporarily remove itself.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will come on to address that point a little later in my speech, but it is very clear. We have already had a vote in this House that said no to no deal, and those who want genuinely to deliver Brexit need to recognise that if this deal does not go through tonight, the House risks no Brexit at all.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
The Prime Minister should spell it out to the House that if we do not agree a deal tonight, all the arguments that we have heard, including the Attorney General’s advice on the backstop, become academic. We will not even enter into the implementation period and begin work on the alternative arrangements to deal with the backstop if we do not get a deal. We have to get a deal to go into the implementation period and discuss alternative arrangements until Christmas next year before we even contemplate a backstop. Will she confirm that we need a deal tonight?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady. She has set it out very clearly for the House, and I am sure every Member of this House will have heard what she has said about that.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister
No, I said I would make further progress.
First, I want to remind the House of the core elements of the deal on which these improvements build. The full reciprocal protection of the rights of EU citizens in the United Kingdom and of UK citizens elsewhere in the EU—delivered by the deal. The implementation period, which the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) has just referred to, to give everyone, especially businesses, the time to adjust and to eliminate a cliff edge when we leave—that implementation period is delivered by the deal. The full control over taxpayers’ money that comes from ending vast annual membership payments to the EU—delivered by the deal. The end of free movement and its replacement with a skills-based immigration system—delivered by the deal. The end of European Court of Justice jurisdiction in the UK, the end of the common agricultural policy for farmers, the end of the common fisheries policy for our coastal communities—all of these are delivered by the deal.
The Prime Minister
Yes, in a moment.
The closest possible economic relationship with our nearest neighbours outside the single market and the customs union, with our businesses able to trade freely and without any tariffs, quotas or rules of origin checks; protection for the just-in-time supply chains that provide the livelihoods of millions of families; the ability to strike our own free trade deals around the world—all delivered by the deal. The closest security partnership between the EU and any third country, so our police and security services can keep on keeping us safe in a world that contains many dangers—delivered by the deal.
By doing all of these things, the deal says and does something even more profound: it sends a message to the whole world about the sort of country the United Kingdom will be in the years and decades ahead. To our friends and allies who have long looked up to us as a beacon of pragmatism and decency, and to those who do not share our values and whose interests diverge from ours, it says this: the UK is a country that honours the democratic decisions taken by our people in referendums and in elections.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
Before the Prime Minister continues with this Britannic hyperbole, can she tell me what changes to the agreement have come about that were sought by the devolved Governments in Scotland and in Wales, or were there none at all?
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the devolved Government in Scotland want to ensure that we stay in the European Union. That is not a position that was taken by the British people, and I believe, as I have just said, that we should honour democratic decisions taken by the people.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
As the Prime Minister will recall, I voted against the withdrawal agreement in January, but I am very pleased that she and the Attorney General have been able to achieve the concessions to the withdrawal agreement. What my constituents and my businesses want is certainty, and they want the certainty that the Prime Minister will not give in to the Scottish National party’s demand for a second referendum. Does she agree that this deal gives the country the certainty that my businesses and constituents need?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that certainty. As I say, I believe that we should be delivering on the vote of the British people in 2016, but I also believe it is important that we give businesses, as my hon. Friend has said, certainty for their future. There is only one certainty if we do not pass this vote tonight, and that is that uncertainty will continue for our citizens and for our businesses.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
May I ask a question of the Prime Minister about the unilateral declaration? I thank her for listening, as I have been trying to make this case for the past two months. There was a question I put to the Attorney General that I think has now been answered. Am I right in saying that the unilateral declaration states that there is nothing to stop the United Kingdom leaving the backstop if talks break down? It is a very clear unilateral statement: if talks break down, am I right in saying that the EU has to prove good faith? It is a unilateral declaration, and we do not have to use the word “conditional” because the EU has not objected, and if we lay this declaration at the time of ratification, it is binding on the EU.
The Prime Minister
One of the key elements in relation to what my hon. Friend has said is that this unilateral declaration has not been objected to by the European Union. That is what ensures its legal status and its legal basis. As he says, what we say in there is that, in the circumstances in which it is not possible to agree or arrange the future relationship with the European Union,
“the United Kingdom records its understanding that nothing in the Withdrawal Agreement would prevent it from instigating measures that could ultimately lead to disapplication of obligations”
in relation to the protocol.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
I will make further progress before I give way again.
We are a country where passionately held views do not stop us making compromises to achieve progress. We are a country that values both our national sovereignty and the unbreakable bonds of a shared history and an interdependent future that connect us to our friends and neighbours. A bad deal would be even worse than no deal, but best of all is a good deal, and this is a good deal.
Members acknowledged many of the benefits delivered by the deal, but none the less rejected it in January, so let me now set out what we have added to the deal on the table since the last vote. On the rights of EU citizens, we have waived the application fee, so that now there is no financial barrier for any EU nationals who wish to stay. As I have said before, they are our friends, our neighbours and our colleagues. They have added much to our country, and we want them to stay.
On the rights of workers and on environmental protections, assurances about the Government’s firm intentions were not enough, so we have committed to protecting those rights and standards in law. If the EU expands workers’ rights, we will debate those measures here in this Parliament, and this House will vote on whether we want to follow suit. This Parliament has already set world-leading standards, and after we leave the EU, we will continue to do so.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I hope that the right hon. Lady’s voice lasts to the end of her speech. The Democratic Unionist party has just announced that it is not supporting her deal, and her own European Research Group has announced that it is not happy with the deal. Does she not now think that she should have reached out across parties from the beginning to seek a proper consensus across this country to give us a chance of moving forwards? Will she now admit that her strategy has comprehensively failed?
The Prime Minister
There have been alternative approaches that have been proposed to the deal that is on the table. Some were proposed the other week by the Leader of the Opposition, and that was comprehensively rejected by this House. We have continued to work with Members across this House and we continue to work with Members across this Chamber to understand the issues that need to be addressed, and what we have done on workers’ rights is one example of exactly that work.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
I am going to make some progress.
I know that, for many Members on this side of the House and also for the DUP, the biggest concern is about a more difficult issue that defies simple solution—the Northern Ireland backstop. It is a complex issue that reflects the complex history of these islands, and the long and difficult road that successive generations of British and Irish people have walked down to reach the peace and stability we have known for the last 20 years.
I have talked in detail about the backstop many times in speeches and statements in this House and in Northern Ireland. I have explained why an insurance policy to guarantee no hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland is necessary. I know that there are a number of concerns about how it might operate—none greater than the fear that the EU might seek to trap us in it indefinitely.
Along with the Attorney General and the Brexit Secretary, I fought hard and explored every idea and avenue to address these concerns, including a time limit, a unilateral exit mechanism or the replacement of the backstop with alternative arrangements. However, the House knows how complex negotiations work and, ultimately, we have to practise the art of the possible, and I am certain that we have secured the very best changes that were available. As the hon. Member for North Down made clear earlier, it has been absolutely clear that this is the deal.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Prime Minister for giving way, and she knows why I will not be voting for the deal tonight—because it will make my constituents poorer and less safe. However, on the specific issue of the legal advice from the Attorney General on the complex issue of the Northern Ireland backstop, could she confirm whether she was given preliminary advice on Saturday or Sunday that he was unlikely to be able to change his advice in the way she perhaps wished him to?
The Prime Minister
Obviously, the Attorney General has been involved in the discussions that we have been having with the European Union, but at the end of the day it is up to him to make his legal opinion and to give his legal advice to this House, which is exactly what he has done.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. As she has just said, this is the deal. Is it not the case that if Parliament votes against this deal and then, in the forthcoming days, votes for an extension, that would not only be incredibly bad for businesses, which desperately want an end to this uncertainty, but risk putting the ball in the EU’s court in determining the terms of that extension?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. First, all that that would do is extend the uncertainty. Secondly, it is not a guarantee that any extension would be agreed by the European Union or that it would agree an extension in the terms in which the United Kingdom asked for it. An extension has to be agreed by all of the parties, and that includes the 27 members of the European Union.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
I thank the Prime Minister for giving way, and I will give her a moment to get another cough sweet from the Chancellor. It is clear—we can see this from the Conservative Benches—that the Prime Minister is going to lose tonight, and to lose badly, which will drag this place, and jobs and businesses, over the edge, with the threat of a no deal. Is not the responsible thing to do now to seek an extension so that we can have some kind of way out of this calamity?
The Prime Minister
The way out of the situation we are in is to have faith with the British people and to vote for the deal this evening, which gives them what they voted for in the referendum.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for giving way. As she knows, many of us would have preferred a circumstance where we could unilaterally have withdrawn from this agreement, and that does not apply after what the Attorney General said earlier. That means that we are going into a circumstance where there will be a deal of trust over how we resolve the backstop and, in particular, over whether the alternative arrangements prove acceptable to the European Union and the Republic of Ireland. Some of those alternative arrangements have previously been rejected by the Union and the Republic of Ireland. Has the Prime Minister detected any change in mood on the part of the Union and the Republic with respect to a constructive outcome to dealing with the Northern Ireland border?
The Prime Minister
Yes. What has been obvious is a change in willingness from the European Union to be actively working on those alternative arrangements. As my right hon. Friend has heard me say before, it was not possible to complete that work, with the timetable we currently have, pre 29 March. But the firm commitments that have been given in the documents we have negotiated now with the European Union show that willingness on its side to be actively working with us to find those alternative arrangements and to define them in a way that means that the backstop can indeed be replaced.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
No, I am going to make some progress.
There are three elements to the improved deal on the backstop, and I want to go through all of those. The first is a joint instrument—not a further exchange of letters, but something with comparable legal weight to the withdrawal agreement. It provides a new, concrete, legally binding commitment that the EU cannot act with the intent of applying the backstop indefinitely. Doing so would breach the EU’s obligations under the withdrawal agreement and could be challenged through arbitration. Were the EU to be found in breach, the UK could ultimately choose to suspend the backstop altogether, with that suspension lasting unless and until the EU came into compliance with international law. In these circumstances, we could also take proportionate measures to suspend the payments of the financial settlement.
Just as important, the joint instrument gives a legal commitment that whatever replaces the backstop does not need to replicate it, providing it meets the underlying objectives of no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. She is talking about the EU and suspending. She talked earlier about bad faith and about the UK being a beacon across the world, and she said that it sticks to its deals. However, does she remember—they will particularly want her to remember this point in Europe—who it was who, when 28 countries went to Salzburg in November and struck a deal, later ratted on the deal, leaving the 27 high and dry? Was it her Government?
The Prime Minister
First, the hon. Gentleman’s history is a little wrong. Actually, the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration on the future framework were not agreed in Salzburg; they were agreed later last year, in November, in Brussels. Secondly, he asks, who was it who went back on the deal? Was it the Government? No, the Government voted for the deal. He voted against it. So, on that point, if he wants to look for an example of bad faith—look in the mirror!
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Prime Minister for giving way. She referred a moment ago to the possibility of the UK suspending the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol. In his legal advice, which was published today, the Attorney General talks also about measures to disapply the provisions of the protocol. Can she tell the House whether suspension, which has to be temporary under the withdrawal agreement, and disapplication are one and the same thing, or are they different?
The Prime Minister
No, they are not one and the same thing. Also, if we look at the arrangements in the withdrawal agreement, as supported by the new instruments that we have negotiated, it is the case that if suspension takes place over a period of time, such that it is then obvious that the arrangements were no longer necessary, they would not have been in place and everything would have been operating without them, then a termination of those arrangements is possible within the arrangements here.
Some colleagues were concerned that the political declaration says that the future relationship will build and improve on these arrangements. We now have a binding commitment that whatever replaces the backstop does not have to replicate them. The instrument also contains commitments on how the UK and the EU intend to deliver the alternative arrangements. Immediately after the ratification of the withdrawal agreement, we will establish a specific negotiating track on alternative arrangements to agree them before the end of December 2020.
The instrument also entrenches in legally binding form the commitments made in January’s exchange of letters between Presidents Tusk and Juncker and myself. These include the specific meaning of best endeavours, the need for negotiations to be taken forward urgently, the ability to provisionally apply any agreement, which reduces the risk of us ever going into the backstop, and a confirmation of the assurances made to the people of Northern Ireland.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I am grateful to the Prime Minister for giving way. I was puzzled by her claim that the joint instrument is of comparable legal weight to the withdrawal agreement. I am sure she will be aware that, as a matter of international law, the withdrawal agreement is a treaty. The joint instrument is not a treaty; it is merely what is known as a document of reference, which can be used to interpret the withdrawal agreement. Would the Prime Minister therefore care to rephrase her assertion that the joint instrument is of comparable legal weight to the withdrawal agreement, because that is simply wrong as a matter of law?
The Prime Minister
Obviously, the withdrawal agreement is an international treaty. This is a joint instrument, which sits alongside that international treaty and which does have the same standing, in that, in any consideration that is given to any aspect of that withdrawal agreement, this will be part of that consideration, so the effect is the same, as I indicated earlier.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Ind)
It does need to be said that most of us, when we are unwell, can take to our beds. It is absolutely noticed by everybody in this House that this Prime Minister simply battles on, and that is appreciated. Having said that, I fear that this agreement is too little, too late. The Prime Minister talked about compromise. Would she agree and confirm that, two years ago, I and others who sit behind her told her that there was a majority—a compromise— across this House for the single market and the customs union that would deliver on the referendum, secure the problem with the border and do the right thing for business? Would she confirm that she rejected all of that and that the difficulty has been her inability to move away from her red lines?
The Prime Minister
The point is that we have to look at what it was that the British people were voting for when they voted in the referendum in 2016. We also have to look at the general election manifesto that the right hon. Lady and I both stood on, which was very clear in relation to those matters and to the customs union and the single market. We have put forward proposals that enjoy some of the benefits of a customs union, such as no tariffs and no rules of origin checks, but in a way that delivers an independent trade policy. That is what people want to see and that is what we will be delivering.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
I will just make a little more progress before I take any more interventions. I have been quite generous already.
I want to say a word about Gibraltar. The documents confirm the understanding reached between the UK and the EU on the interpretation of article 184 of the withdrawal agreement as regards the territorial scope of the future relationship. We will always stand behind British sovereignty for Gibraltar, and the UK Government negotiate for the whole UK family, including Gibraltar.
The second element we have negotiated is a UK-EU joint statement in relation to the political declaration.
The Prime Minister
I will give way in a few moments. I will just make a little more progress.
The second element, the statement in relation to the political declaration, sets out a number of commitments to enhance and speed up the process of negotiating and bringing into force the future relationship. There is a new commitment that the negotiating track on alternative arrangements will consider not only existing facilitations and technologies, but also those emerging.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for giving way on that point. She said earlier that she thought there had been a change in attitude on looking at different ways to deal with the Northern Ireland-Irish border. Does she agree with me that if the Irish Taoiseach did what the previous Irish Taoiseach did, which was to allow the civil servants to meet with our civil servants, and there really was good will and intention, the Taoiseach would now say that their civil servants should start that process now and not wait until we have gone much further along the line?
The Prime Minister
We are happy at any stage to sit down with the Irish Government and talk to them about the arrangements that could be in place in relation to the Northern Ireland border with Ireland.
Mike Gapes
On Gibraltar, can the Prime Minister confirm that well over 90% of the people of Gibraltar voted to remain in the European Union, and that if her deal goes down tonight it will be essential that Gibraltar continues to have as close a relationship as possible with the European Union single market?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right about the vote. Significantly, the last time the people of Gibraltar were asked whether they wanted to continue their relationship with the United Kingdom they were very clear, overwhelmingly, that that was what they wanted. That is why we are clear that we negotiate on behalf of our whole UK family. The deal on the table tonight, the deal that Members will be voting for, delivers the close relationship for the future that the hon. Gentleman has been talking about. It delivers on the result of the referendum, but it also recognises the importance of a close relationship for us for the future with the European Union.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
I am going to make further progress.
Thirdly, alongside the joint instrument on the withdrawal agreement, the United Kingdom Government will make a unilateral declaration relating to the temporary nature of the backstop. Such declarations are commonly used by states alongside the ratification of treaties. The declaration clarifies what the UK could do if it was not possible to conclude an agreement that superseded the protocol because the EU had acted contrary to its obligations. In those circumstances, the UK’s understanding is that nothing in the withdrawal agreement would prevent us from instigating measures that could ultimately lead to the disapplication of our obligations under the protocol. Were we to take such measures, the UK would remain in full compliance with its obligations under the Belfast-Good Friday agreement and to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I am very grateful to the Prime Minister for giving way. I really do want to know why she has consistently sought to get a deal that satisfies hardliners on her own side, rather than reaching out across the Chamber to get an agreement that would be a softer Brexit, but which would protect the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland more than her current deal does.
The Prime Minister
First of all, if as the hon. Lady thought I was placating everybody on my side of the House, I do not think the deal would have been rejected in the first place, so I think she is rather wrong on that. Secondly, I did reach out to the Labour party Front Bench. I had a meeting with the Leader of the Opposition and there was one meeting between the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). We offered other meetings and voice came there back none.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
I will make some further progress.
There are considerable improvements on the deal the House considered eight weeks ago. In particular, there were three key issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady). On the question of giving legal status to the assurances on the backstop, the joint instrument is a legally binding text at the same level as the withdrawal agreement, namely a treaty-level instrument. On alternative arrangements, we have an agreement that they will replace the backstop. This commitment is in the legal instrument, not just the political declaration. On the question of an end date, the core concern of colleagues was that we should not be trapped indefinitely in the backstop. The Attorney General has today changed his legal analysis to note that this risk has been reduced and that if the EU were to act in bad faith, short of its best endeavours, the backstop could be suspended or even terminated, and that this is a materially new legal commitment.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Prime Minister’s whole strategy this week depends on the expectation that MPs will have changed their minds in a matter of weeks between votes. At the same time, she will not allow for the fact that the public might have changed their minds in the space of many years—three years, now. Will she accept that the best chance she has of getting her deal through Parliament would be to make it subject to a confirmatory vote of the public?
The Prime Minister
As I have said on many occasions before, and as I indicated earlier in my speech, I profoundly believe that when the Parliament of this country says to the British people that the choice as to whether to remain or to leave the European Union is theirs, and when the Government—
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady says that they have changed their mind. There is no actual evidence that the British people have changed their minds. And where would it end? We could have another referendum with a different result, then everybody would say, “Well, let’s have a third one.” Or we could have another referendum with the same result, and the hon. Lady would probably still stand up and say she wanted a third referendum to try to overturn the decision.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
The simple fact is that people in my constituency and others who voted leave did so with the promise and expectation of something better. Does she not agree that the choice we are facing this evening is to vote for a deal that she knows, I know, this House knows, and, I suspect, the majority of the people in the country know—whether on economic co-operation or security co-operation—leaves our country demonstrably worse off? Why on earth is she asking us to countenance that?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman talks about those in his constituency who voted leave. What is absolutely clear from the analysis that the Government published is that if we are going to honour the result of the referendum—I believe we should, and I am sure his leave voters want us to do that—the best deal to deliver for the British people in honouring that referendum is the deal that the Government put forward back in the summer. The deal here tonight is the deal that actually gets us to the point of negotiating that future relationship in the interests of the constituents of everybody across this House.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
I am going to make some more progress.
I know that some right hon. and hon. Members will still have concerns about the backstop, but real progress has been made. All of us should put out of our minds the idea that going round this again will get us any further forward. Responsible politics is about pragmatism, about balancing risk and reward. So Members across the House should ask themselves whether they want to make the perfect the enemy of the good.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Most of us in this place commend my right hon. Friend and her team for their stamina in these negotiations. We accept that there is a political dimension, but will she clarify one point for those of us who are concerned about the indefinite nature of the backstop? That is that in future, this country could unilaterally decide to walk away from the agreement if there was a fundamental change in circumstances, and we could do that as a United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, even if that meant Northern Ireland leaving the customs union within the EU.
The Prime Minister
I think this was a point that the Attorney General responded to in his statement earlier. Of course, it is open to any sovereign Government to take a decision to disapply something it has entered into. That would have consequences, and I think I am right in saying that my right hon. and learned Friend indicated that that was not a route that he could recommend that Ministers take, but of course my hon. Friend is right that it is always open to a sovereign Government to act in that way.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister confirm the element of risk in going into the backstop when this country was told that this would be the easiest trade deal in history?
The Prime Minister
Of course, any negotiation of this sort between different parties does take time. Trade deals take time—often a shorter time than many people think—and we have yet to negotiate the trade deal for the future, which we will be doing when we get this withdrawal agreement deal through.
The Prime Minister
I am going to continue, because I want to make a very specific point about Northern Ireland, given its unique position and the fact that it will be the only part of the UK to share a border with the EU. I want to set out further commitments today on protections for Northern Ireland and its integral place in the United Kingdom.
First, the Government will legislate to give a restored Northern Ireland Assembly a vote on a cross-community basis on whether the backstop should be brought into force if there are delays in the trade talks. If Stormont does not support that, Ministers will be bound to seek an approach that would achieve cross-community support. That could, for example, be an extension of the implementation period. It has previously been the case that the understanding was that the choice would be between the backstop and the implementation period. The introduction of alternative arrangements, of course, brings another element into that, but there is that key commitment in relation to the Northern Ireland Assembly. If Stormont were to support an implementation period as the alternative, Ministers would be bound to seek an extension of the implementation period, assuming that that had achieved cross-community support.
Secondly, we will maintain the same regulatory standards across the United Kingdom for as long as the backstop is in force. This is a commitment that we have already made, but I can now tell the House that we will legislate to make this legally binding.
Thirdly, the Government will legislate to prohibit any expansion of north-south co-operation through the withdrawal agreement. That will remain a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly in line with the Belfast agreement. At every stage of these negotiations, my determination has been to deliver a deal that works for every part of the United Kingdom, and that includes Northern Ireland.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has talked a lot about concerns around the backstop, but for many hon. Members, the biggest concern is that her withdrawal agreement provides no legal certainty about any of the fundamental questions on our future relationship with the EU. As a result, we will be back here time and time again, and far from providing certainty for the future, her blindfold Brexit is the most uncertain future of all for our country.
The Prime Minister
There is a very simple and basic point that the hon. Lady seems to have forgotten: it is not possible for the European Union to negotiate and sign the legal text of that future trade relationship with the United Kingdom while we are a member of the European Union. We cannot do that until we have left the European Union, so if she wants us to get on to negotiating the future relationship, she should vote for the deal tonight. Let us get on to that next stage.
Important though the backstop is, it was not the only concern that hon. Members had. Another was in regard to the political declaration, because, as the hon. Lady hinted at her in question, it provides for a spectrum of possible outcomes. Members asked how they could be confident about what sort of future relationship the Government would negotiate.
The Prime Minister
Can I just continue to make my point?
I am sure we can all learn lessons from how we approached this first phase of the negotiations as we move on to the second. For my part, I have no doubt that the Government do need to build a strong consensus in the House before we go on to negotiate the future relationship, not least to ensure that the process of ratification is smoother than that for the withdrawal agreement. That is why we have committed to giving a much stronger and clearer role for this House and for the other place during the next phase. It is not just about a consensus in Parliament, either; businesses, trade unions and civil society must all play a much bigger part, contributing their expertise in a collective, national effort to secure the very best future relationship with the EU. That new approach—
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
Would hon. Members just wait for a second? That new approach will start with the withdrawal agreement Bill. If the deal passes tonight, notice of presentation will be given tomorrow and the Bill will be introduced on Thursday. As we discuss that Bill, we can debate how exactly we will ensure that this Parliament has the full say that it deserves.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for giving way. Given that the clock is ticking, millions of people working in businesses up and down this country want the most certain outcome, and voting for this deal today is the best way of delivering that. Voting the deal down will lead to more uncertainty. None of us knows where we are going to end up, so I, for one, will be supporting the Government and the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. He has made a very important point. The only certain thing about rejecting this deal tonight is that it increases uncertainty. Businesses and individuals want certainty.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, and I feel for her with the throat condition she has at the moment, I really do. Having said that, she referred to the fact that the backstop is very important. We all know that, and rightly so. The question, however, is also about the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, which is to come. First, we have not seen a draft of it, and I hope that we can get that very soon, as my European Scrutiny Committee has just said in its report. Secondly, it is quite clear in the withdrawal agreement that we will not be discharging what she said herself at Lancaster House. We will not truly leave the European Union unless we regain control of our own laws. Under article 4, it is clear that that is not the case. What is her answer to that point?
The Prime Minister
First of all, I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend is keen to see the withdrawal agreement Bill. That Bill, of course, as I have said, will be presented to the House this week, if my hon. Friend and others vote for this deal tonight to get it through. I also say to him that yes, there are provisions in relation to the role of the European Court of Justice during the period of our winding down and winding our way out of the European Union, and that covers the implementation period. But what is absolutely clear is that once we are beyond that point, there is no jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice other than for a limited period of years in relation to citizens’ rights. There is no jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in this country.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
My right hon. Friend just said that, if she manages to get her withdrawal agreement approved by this House, she does not want the next stage of serious negotiations about our long-term future to proceed in the same way and that she will give a greater role to Parliament. I strongly endorse that. We cannot have another arrangement where she reaches a perfectly satisfactory agreement on the three points that she had and then we descend into parliamentary farce as different people argue about what changes they like. Is not the best way of proceeding, if she gets her withdrawal agreement through, to have some indicative votes in the House of Commons before the serious negotiations start, so that the Government can go into those negotiations knowing what a broad mass of Parliament is likely to support and to back if she can achieve it?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that point. Actually, I think that there a number of ways in which we can ascertain what the views of the House would be prior to entering into the next stage of negotiations. Obviously, we have been looking at the details of that and will want to be consulting and talking across the House in relation to that matter, but, as he rightly indicated, the first step in order to get to that stage is to pass the deal tonight.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
I really am going to try to make a little more progress. I have been extremely generous with interventions. Not everybody in this House is as generous as I am when it comes to interventions. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
I set out to the House two weeks ago the specifics of what will happen if the deal is rejected tonight. We will first return tomorrow to consider whether the House supports leaving the European Union on 29 March without a withdrawal agreement and a framework for a future relationship. If the House votes against no deal, it will vote on whether to seek an extension of article 50.
I sincerely hope that the House does not put itself in that invidious position. We can avoid it by supporting what I profoundly believe is a good deal, and a substantially better deal than we had eight weeks ago, but if it comes to it, the choices will be bleak. In the long term, we could ultimately make a success of no deal, but there would be significant economic shock in the short term. Be in no doubt about the impact that would have on businesses and families. We would lose the security co-operation that helps to keep us safe from crime, terrorism and other threats, and we would risk weakening support for our Union.
I note that the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) tabled an amendment seeking a second Scottish independence referendum. Polling shows that support for both Scottish independence and a united Ireland would be higher if we left without a deal, while, in the absence of institutions in Northern Ireland, a no deal would create a substantial problem of governance there.
Should the House reject leaving on 29 March without a deal and then support the Government’s seeking an extension to article 50, our problems would not be solved. An extension without a plan would prolong the uncertainty, threatening jobs and investment, yet, even as it did so, it would not change the debate or the questions that need to be settled. It would merely pass control to the European Union. They would decide how long an extension to offer, meaning we may not get what we ask for. They could even impose conditions on an extension. That could mean moving to a Brexit that does not meet the expectations of those who voted to leave, or even moving to a second referendum, with all the damage that would do to trust in our democracy. Equally, there is a risk that, having voted for an extension, the House still would not be able to agree a way forward and we would end up leaving without a deal.
The Prime Minister
Just one moment, and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
If any of those things were to happen, it would be no good blaming the European Union. Responsibility would lie with this House for our failure to come together in the national interest to deliver on the vote of the British people.
Peter Kyle
I am extremely grateful to the Prime Minister for giving way. The first of her Brexit Secretaries is in his place. Time after time, he stood at that Dispatch Box and promised the House that we would get the exact same benefits after we leave as we currently enjoy with the EU. Does she not accept that raising expectations that high set them at a level that she has absolutely failed to meet? That has damaged trust in her Brexit and caused the situation we are in now. We have to find another way forward.
The Prime Minister
In the proposals the Government themselves put forward, we have set out a way of ensuring that we maintain a very close economic partnership and a close security partnership with the European Union in the future, but that we also have the benefit of acting as an independent country, of being a sovereign state and of having our own trade deals with other countries around the world.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to potentially legislating for the political declaration, but doing so in the withdrawal agreement Bill only once we have voted to endorse the political declaration may be slightly convoluted, so may I suggest a third option? If the deal is not passed this evening, the Prime Minister could independently legislate for the political declaration now, setting out in statute what the end point will be and what role Parliament will have before we are asked to vote again on a further deal. That would give people like me the confidence to understand that, by voting for the withdrawal agreement, we would have certainty about the political declaration and where we are going.
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his proposal. One of the issues is that there are elements of the political declaration that remain to be negotiated and on which there is not the certainty that I think he is searching for with his proposal, but I certainly give him credit for inventiveness and for thinking carefully about these issues.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
I give way one final time, to the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake).
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister, who is being very generous. Does she agree, however, that whatever happens today—whether her withdrawal agreement is passed or not—we will have to have an extension to article 50, because there is not time to complete the business we will need to complete before 29 March?
The Prime Minister
I say to the right hon. Gentleman: let us get the deal agreed tonight, and then the usual channels will work to see what is necessary in relation to getting legislation through the House.
Mr Speaker, it was not this House that—
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Will the Prime Minister give way?
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) is a cheeky chappie, chortling and chuckling away from a sedentary position, but it has been made perfectly clear that the Prime Minister is not giving way.
The Prime Minister
Thank you, Mr Speaker, but I will take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
Alan Brown
I thank the Prime Minister for being so generous with her time. When it comes to the backstop, is it not the case that the new arrangements come nowhere close to the Brady amendment; the Malthouse compromise has been consigned to history—it is a phrase we no longer hear—paragraph 19 of the legal advice says the legal risks remain the same in terms of our being stuck in the backstop; and, given that she has admitted that no technology exists to provide a solution for the Northern Ireland border, Stormont could keep the UK in the implementation period for a long time, until that technological alternative exists?
The Prime Minister
I lost count, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that I think he is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
On the Prime Minister’s point about any conditions the EU might attach to a request for extension of the article 50 process, does she agree that there is a set of obligations in the withdrawal agreement that the EU will want to talk about whether we seek an extension to the process or we are in a no-deal scenario? As much as we might want to wish them away, voting down the deal tonight would not make those obligations disappear.
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for pointing that out. He is absolutely right. Voting against the deal would not mean that those obligations disappear, which is another reason why I believe it is very important for Members of this House to go through the Lobby in favour of the motion tonight.
It was not this House that decided it was time for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union; it was the British people. It falls to us to implement their decision—their desire for change and their demand for a better, more open, more successful future for our country. Today is the day that we can begin to build that future. This is the moment and this is the time—time for us to come together, back this motion and get the deal done. Only then can we get on with what we came here to do—what we were sent here to do.
Each and every one of us came into politics because we have sincerely held views about how to build a better Britain. Some have spent their political careers campaigning against the European Union and in favour of restoring sovereignty to this Parliament. For others, membership of the EU is one of the foundations of their vision of the UK’s place in the world. But we also came here to serve. We cannot serve our country by overturning a democratic decision of the British people, we cannot serve by prolonging a debate the British people now wish to see settled, and we cannot serve by refusing to compromise—by reinforcing instead of healing the painful divisions we see within our society and across our country.
The British people have been clear: they want us to implement the decision that they made nearly three years ago. So let us show what the House can achieve when we come together. Let us demonstrate what politics is for. Let us prove, beyond all doubt, that we believe democracy comes before party, faction, or personal ambition. The time has come to deliver on the instruction that we were given. The time has come to back this deal. I commend the motion to the House.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
After three months of running down the clock, the Prime Minister has, despite very extensive delays, achieved not a single change to the withdrawal agreement: not one single word has changed. In terms of the substance, literally nothing has changed.
On 29 January, the Prime Minister backed an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), which called for the backstop
“to be replaced with alternative arrangements”.
On 12 February, the Prime Minister said that the Government were seeking three potential changes to the backstop:
“a legally binding time limit… a legally binding unilateral exit clause”,
or
“the ideas put forward by the Alternative Arrangements Working Group”.—[Official Report, 12 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 731.]
There is no unilateral exit mechanism, there is no time limit, and there are no alternative arrangements.
So let us be clear: the withdrawal agreement is unchanged, the political declaration is unchanged, the joint statement is a legal interpretation of what is in the withdrawal agreement, and the unilateral statement is the UK Government trying to fool their own Back Benchers, because the European Union has not even signed up to it.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that millions of citizens out there are looking to his party—cross-party—to deliver the certainty that they are crying out for? Can he not compromise, as many colleagues have done, to deliver the result of the referendum?
Jeremy Corbyn
The Labour party has put forward very clear proposals. I shall come to them later in the speech, but, for the avoidance of doubt, they are about a customs union, access to the market, and the protection of rights. We have put those proposals forward, and we continue to put them forward. What the British people are not looking forward to is either the chaos of leaving with no agreement or the problems that are involved in this agreement, which will therefore be strongly opposed by Members tonight.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman has just said that the Labour party put forward a set of proposals as an alternative to the deal that the Government have negotiated. When the deal that the Government negotiated was rejected overwhelmingly by the House, the right hon. Gentleman said that we should listen. We have listened. The other week, his proposals were rejected overwhelmingly by the House. Why is he not listening?
Jeremy Corbyn
I spend a great deal of time listening to people: people working on the shop floor in factories, people in small businesses, people who are worried about the future of their families. They want some degree of certainty. The Prime Minister’s deal does not offer that degree of certainty at all, as she knows very well. Our proposals are a basis for agreement, and a basis for negotiation.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman voted for an EU referendum, against his party whip at the time, and he voted for article 50. Why is he now so intent on frustrating Brexit and the will of the people?
Jeremy Corbyn
I am not quite sure what that intervention adds to the debate. There was a referendum in 1975; yes, I voted in that referendum. There was another referendum in 2016; yes, I voted in that referendum as well, and I campaigned to remain in and reform the European Union.
The Government are having real problems, because they are trying to fool the people into believing that, somehow or other, the deal offered by the Prime Minister is the only one that is available. It is not, as they well know.
Let us look closely at the Government’s own motion. It is a case study in weasel words and obfuscation. It states that
“the legally binding joint instrument... reduces the risk the UK could be deliberately held in the Northern Ireland backstop indefinitely”.
There are two key words there, First, the joint instrument only “reduces” the risk rather than eliminating it, so it has completely failed to achieve its goal. I have an ally in believing that to be the case—no less a person than the Attorney General, who told the press at the weekend:
“I will not change my opinion unless we have a text that shows the risk has been eliminated.”
And indeed, his legal opinion today states that
“the legal risk remains unchanged”.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful point about the absurdity of the idea that there could be a unilateral exist from the backstop. That would destroy the very function of the backstop. Has not the Prime Minister committed a major strategic blunder for our country by pandering to the European Research Group instead of reaching across the House to build consensus?
Jeremy Corbyn
Indeed. The ERG seems to be slightly missing today, but I am overcome by the excitement and enthusiasm among all the Members sitting behind the Prime Minister.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not currently giving way. [Interruption.] I do not require any affirmation or contradiction from the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare). He has got to learn the ways of Parliament.
Jeremy Corbyn
Secondly, the motion uses the word “deliberately”. The risk of our being held in the backstop indefinitely has not been reduced; all that has been reduced is the risk that we could be deliberately held in the backstop indefinitely.
The Prime Minister has herself said on numerous occasions that the backstop is painful for both the UK and the European Union, and is something that neither side wishes to see applied. There has been no indication from the Prime Minister that there was ever a risk of our being deliberately held in the backstop in the first place.
Jeremy Corbyn
I am going to make some progress, if I may.
Yet in her statement last night, the Prime Minister said that the joint instrument guaranteed that the EU could not act with the intent of applying the backstop indefinitely. The EU has never expressed that intent, and the Prime Minister has never accused them of having it. The Prime Minister has constructed one enormous great big gigantic attractive paper tiger, and then slain it. However, the substance already existed through article 178(5) of the withdrawal agreement, agreed in November. Truly, nothing has changed.
The Prime Minister also claims that the joint instrument entrenches the January exchange of letters in legally binding form. On 14 January, from the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister told the House that those letters had “legal standing”, and would have
“legal force in international law".—[Official Report, 14 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 833.]
We are back with smoke and mirrors—the illusion of change, when the reality is that nothing has changed. It is all is spin and no substance from the Prime Minister.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
The right hon. Gentleman adumbrates perfectly the miasma of chaos that is eating away at this place, but does he not agree that, given the chaos that is about to hit the people of Scotland—who voted overwhelmingly to stay in the European Union—should they request an order under section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 to hold a referendum on Scotland’s independence, it would be undemocratic in the extreme for the Government to refuse it?
Jeremy Corbyn
That intervention has no relevance to the debate that we are having today. This debate is about the Government’s proposals in relation to leaving the European Union.
The statement in the Attorney General’s legal advice still holds. He said that the backstop would endure indefinitely until a superseding agreement took its place. That was the case in January, and it is the case today. I reiterate the view of the Attorney General: despite the theatre of the Prime Minister’s late-night declaration in Strasbourg, nothing has changed.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the critical issue here is that the Conservative party cannot countenance a trading arrangement that puts both Northern Ireland and Ireland and the European Union in the same trading arrangements, so whether it is today or next week or the end of this month or May or at any time, that party opposite cannot bring forward a Brexit that people can agree on?
Jeremy Corbyn
It is clear that this Government delayed the vote from 11 December, then were found in contempt of Parliament for refusing to release legal information, then broke the record for losing a vote in Parliament, and now have come back to the scene of previous disasters with exactly the same proposal, and I earnestly hope the House tonight rejects the agreement that the Prime Minister has brought to us.
The Prime Minister has also attempted to convince Labour Members of this House about an equally empty promise on workers’ rights. She said last week in her speech in Grimsby that being aligned with the European Union on workers’ rights would mean that if it lowered its standards, we would have to lower ours. It is simply not true. European Union standards are a floor, not a ceiling: if the EU chose—I hope it never would—to reduce those minimum standards, that would not compel the UK to lower its standards. It is important to clarify that point because I am sure the Prime Minister had no intention of misleading anyone when she made it. However, being aligned to those standards means that if the minimum improved the UK would be compelled to improve, and indeed I would want us to go much further than the EU on many workers’ rights.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend and I share concerns about how we protect workers’ rights as we move forward and leave the EU, which I know he respects because he respects the outcome of the referendum of 2017— [Interruption.] The general election of 2017, but also the referendum of 2016: two public votes that came to the same outcome. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that when we voted on the deal in January we did not have an assurance that, in moving forward, we would have the opportunity in this House in the future, by law, to ensure that if the EU raised standards in health and safety and employment rights, an amendable motion would be brought to this House under which we could vote to support that increase, and not only that but go further than the EU? That is different from what we had in January, isn’t it?
Jeremy Corbyn
Having a vote in Parliament on a potential improvement of rights is obviously a chance we would have to improve those rights, but it is not legally binding so as to defend those rights or to ensure there is dynamic alignment, not only on rights at work but also, very importantly, on environmental protections and consumer standards. So we are very clear that there must be dynamic alignment, and the EU basis is a floor from which I personally would want us to go much higher. A Labour Government would obviously go much further in all those areas.
This was a bad deal in December when Labour decided to vote against it, it was a bad deal in January when it was rejected by the largest margin in parliamentary history, and it is the same bad deal now. We will be voting against this deal tonight for the reasons we set out when replying to the debate in December. It is a bad deal that will damage our economy, undermine our industries, irreparably harm our manufacturing sector, risk our national health service, damage our public services and harm our living standards, because it opens up the possibility of a race to the bottom—a bonfire of rights and protections. It provides no certainty on trade and customs arrangements in the future and risks people’s living standards.
Mark Pritchard
The Leader of the Opposition and I get on personally—we have a Shropshire bond, as he knows—but may I just say to him that I think he is making a very unconvincing case, perhaps because for most of his political life, which I respect, he was a Brexiteer, and in his heart of hearts he is still a Brexiteer, but he has mostly a remain party behind him? Is this not the worst example today of pure politics—the pursuit of power and putting his party’s interests and, dare I say it, possibly his self-interests ahead of the national interest?
Jeremy Corbyn
Oh dear, this will be so disappointing to the people of Shropshire, it really will; I can’t believe he just said that.
What we put forward in the referendum campaign was a principle of remain in the European Union and reform. The result did not go that way; it went the other way. We have spoken up for the people of this country, who are frightened of job losses and frightened of the future for their industries and their communities. That is why we put forward what I believe to be a credible, sensible series of alternatives.
For the very reasons we set out in our letter to the Prime Minister of 6 February we believe there should be a permanent and comprehensive UK-EU customs union, close alignment with the single market, and, as I explained to my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), dynamic alignment on rights and protections, as well as clear commitments on participation in EU agencies and funding programmes and, finally, unambiguous agreements on the detail of future security arrangements. That is because we want a Brexit that protects jobs, the economy and our industries, and those industries are suffering—no doubt about it. Growth is slowing, manufacturing is now mired in recession, investment is drying up, jobs are going, and thousands of workers fear for their future. The stress facing workers—EU nationals in the UK and indeed British nationals in Europe—is real; I met a group in Spain a couple of weeks ago who told me of their concerns, and they were pleased that we supported what is known as the Costa amendment.
We are deciding the future of our country. Each Member has to answer whether they believe this deal is good for their constituents. If this deal narrowly scrapes through tonight—I don’t think it will—we believe the option should be to go back to the people for a confirmatory vote on it. But we do not believe it should go through.
While there have been no calculations of the economic impact of the actual deal in front of us—something that should shame this Government—there is an estimate of the Chequers deal, which included a promise of “frictionless trade”, which the Prime Minister failed to deliver. But still, even with that more favourable outcome, the Government estimate that their own deal would make our economy and the people of this country worse off.
The documents in front of us offer no clarity.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that people who voted leave in Swansea and elsewhere voted for more money, for more jobs, for more trade and for more control, and they are getting none of them, and they will not even get any guarantees on environmental protections? So how can we vote in good faith on behalf of leavers for this shoddy deal?
Jeremy Corbyn
However people voted in the referendum, they want some certainty of their future: they want some certainty of their jobs, they want some certainty surrounding their trade.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I rather agree with him on the broad principles he sets out for our final aspirations and long-term goals, and indeed I voted with him in this House the last time he put the principles forward, but earlier he was giving his reasons for voting against the withdrawal agreement tonight, yet actually none of the things he mentioned had anything to do with the withdrawal agreement. Can he explain what his objection is to the deal we have on citizens’ rights, what his objection is to the agreement on the money we owe, and what on earth is his objection to the Irish backstop that leads him to put the whole thing in peril if he actually does carry out his threat to vote against it tonight?
Jeremy Corbyn
I was grateful for the support of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the last Division that we had on this subject. Indeed, we had a very pleasant chat during that vote. I was pointing out that the Prime Minister had set herself a series of objectives and that she had not met any of them. She has brought back exactly the same deal and expects us to vote on it again. I hope that the House rejects it.
Mrs Helen Grant
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he has refused to accept repeated offers of meetings with the Prime Minister at such a vital time?
Jeremy Corbyn
I met the Prime Minister in December to discuss the arrangements by which we would have debates on this whole process, and we absolutely agreed that the vote would take place on 11 December. It did not take place, because the Government decided to delay it, which made the situation worse. So we did have a meeting, and I presented the Prime Minister with a copy of my letter along with our proposals. Members of my team have also had meetings with their opposite numbers, so there have been meetings. The reality is that the Prime Minister is stuck in a groove and believes that only her deal is the thing that should be voted on. She was not listening to what we were saying or to what was included in our letter. That is really the problem.
The documents in front of us offer no clarity and no certainty. The political declaration says clearly that this could lead to a spectrum of possible outcomes. The 26 pages of waffle in the political declaration are a direct result of two things: the Prime Minister’s self-imposed, utterly inflexible and contradictory red lines, and the Government’s utter failure to negotiate properly, to engage with Members of this House or to listen to unions and businesses.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to the contribution from the Father of the House, may I ask my right hon. Friend to clarify the view expressed in the joint statement that there is an important link between the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, because although they are of a different nature, they are part of the same negotiated package? Does he agree that there are significant objections, particularly on this side of the House, to the political declaration as well?
Jeremy Corbyn
Indeed, and of course the political declaration is not a legally binding document. It is a declaration, and no more than that. I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about much of it, and about the changes that need to be made to it. This is another reason why we should be rejecting the Prime Minister’s motion this evening. It is simply not good enough to vote for a blindfold Brexit, so we will vote against this deal tonight and I urge all Members to do so.
We only have this vote tonight—just as we only had the same vote on the same deal in January—because Labour Members demanded from the very beginning that Parliament should have a meaningful vote. I want to pay tribute to our shadow Brexit team, our shadow International Trade team, our shadow Attorney General and our shadow Solicitor General, who have done so much to ensure that Parliament has proper scrutiny over this process. The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill started out with Henry VIII powers that would have ridden roughshod over Parliament and over our ability to hold the Executive to account. It was the actions of our Front Bench, our teams and our Back Benchers that forced the situation so that we could have a meaningful vote in Parliament; otherwise, this would not have happened. The right to that scrutiny, to hold the Government to account and to ensure the interests of our constituents is absolutely vital. It is something that I have exercised to the full in my time in this House.
I believe that there is a majority in this House for the sort of sensible, credible and negotiable deal that Labour has set out, and I look forward to Parliament taking back control so that we can succeed where this Government have so blatantly failed. There are people all around this country at the moment who are very concerned about their future, their communities and their jobs. EU nationals are concerned about their very right to remain in this country, as is the case for British nationals living across the European Union. Parliament owes it to all of them to get some degree of certainty by rejecting the Prime Minister’s proposal and bringing forward what we believe to be a credible set of alternatives. Parliament should do its job today and say no to the Prime Minister.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I referred just now, when I was talking to the Prime Minister, to the issue of control over laws. We have been through the backstop in detail today with the Attorney General, and the legal issues group that I have been convening has come up with some clear answers to that question. The backstop is unacceptable in its present form, and we are profoundly determined to vote against this withdrawal agreement for that reason alone.
I want to say one simple thing. People need to take into account exactly what uncertainty and real problems will come for workers as well as for businesses in the course of the next few years if this transitional period goes through. I speak as the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee when I say that there are 200-plus uncleared documents that are deemed not to be in the national interest, and that there will be more in the pipeline, including proposals relating to turning unanimity on tax policy into majority voting, as well as the financial transaction tax.
I strongly urge Members to bear in mind what the Prime Minister so rightly said about this issue at Lancaster House. She knows well enough how much effort I put into ensuring that the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill was drafted as it was, and that, in addition, it was enacted and got Royal Assent on 26 June. At that point, we were completely and totally at one. After that, in the run-up to Chequers and the withdrawal agreement, the first question I put to her was on 9 July, when I asked her how she could reconcile the Chequers proposals with the repeal of the 1972 Act under section 1 of the legislation that had been passed only 10 days before. I am absolutely convinced that that was an accurate assessment of the position.
A further point relates to the manner in which legislation comes through our Committee. Under the 1971 White Paper we were told that we would have a veto, yet it has been whittled away to extinction. The net result is that everything is now more or less done by consensus and/or by qualified majority vote. The European Scrutiny Committee analysis produced a few days ago suggests that the transition period could last until after the next general election—that is, to 1 January 2023—with an extension of the period under article 132 of the withdrawal agreement being highly probable. The worst possible situation is that we would end up being at the mercy of our competitors during that time. They would have no interest in giving us any of the benefits that might come out of the legislative pipeline when they themselves were making the laws and we were receiving them in the most humiliating circumstances in the history of our Parliament.
Never before in our entire history have we been legislated for by other member states. Indeed, it would be worse than that, because it would be done by a number of countries that would have no interest other than to put us at the mercy of our competitors. That would be absolutely catastrophic, and it is a fundamental reason why I am voting against this withdrawal agreement tonight.
When we had a similar situation with the ports regulation, the workers made their views plain by voting against it. The 47 ports employers and all the trade unions were against it, but it went through anyway. That will be the pattern, believe me. I have been on the European Scrutiny Committee for 34 years, and I have seen it. We have never turned down a proposal from the European Union over the entirety of those 34 years. It just does not happen.
Under article 4 of the withdrawal agreement, we are tying ourselves into the assumption that that is what is going to happen. Furthermore, the withdrawal and implementation Bill, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said will be introduced in a couple of days if the withdrawal agreement tragically goes through tonight, will mean that that primary obligation will be in primary legislation. That is what the Bill will say. It will also undermine the repeal of the 1972 Act and enable the Court of Justice of the European Union to disapply Acts of Parliament under article 4. I trust that people understand that when the Court has the right, by Act of Parliament, to disapply inconsistent Acts of Parliament, that will put even the repeal of the 1972 Act under section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in grave jeopardy, as the European Scrutiny Committee’s report showed just the other day.
I have other concerns about state aid, whereby we will be unable under the backstop arrangements and the withdrawal agreement to incentivise our industries, enterprise zones, freeports and so on. That will lead to a severe denial of this country’s right to determine its own tax policy. Furthermore, the European Commission will be enabled under the withdrawal agreement and the backstop to continue to supervise the Competition and Markets Authority and, as I said, to affect the manner in which we can legislate.
For all those reasons, it is imperative that we do not allow the withdrawal agreement to go through. It undermines the referendum, and it is in denial of the Conservative party’s manifesto commitments and of this House’s right to legislate in line with the wishes of our constituents in general elections. The pragmatism to which my right hon. Friend refers is washed away by the question of principle that I have just mentioned. The truth is that we must vote against the withdrawal agreement, because it will affect defence, agriculture, fisheries and every single area relating to the entire range of EU treaties and laws. That is what will happen if we push the withdrawal agreement through tonight. We will be at the mercy of our competitors for several years—[Interruption.] I see my right hon. Friend shaking her head, but she knows perfectly well that what I am saying is true. It is clear that we will not be in control of our laws for a period of time.
On that note, I am prepared to say that I will vote against the withdrawal agreement, and I hope that many other Members will do likewise.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I wish the Prime Minister well, and I hope she recovers her voice in a speedy manner.
When standing for election for the Highlands and Islands in the European elections, Winifred Ewing said the following:
“This vast area—the largest seat in Europe—really must have a Scottish voice to speak up for it, with no priorities like the London parties and no diktats from London, just simply to speak up for the vast area and all the industries, all of which are under threat”.
Madame Ecosse—our trailblazer for Scotland’s voice being heard in Europe—strengthened our cultural ties and our communities’ opportunities by fighting for a strong voice for Scotland in the European Union. Winnie Ewing used her voice in Europe to attract funding to the highlands and islands that benefited local transport hubs and infrastructure. Winnie also chaired the European Parliament Committee on Culture and Education when the Erasmus programme was established in the late 1980s, which is why Scotland cherishes the opportunities that it brings to our students and to our country. To stand here today, with only 17 days to go until we exit the EU, and know that Scotland’s historical place in Europe is under threat is devastating.
“United in diversity” is the motto of the European Union, and it first came into use in 2000. It signifies how independent states came together in common endeavour to work for peace and prosperity. The beauty of the European project is that it has allowed us to work together while being enriched by the continent’s many different cultures, traditions and languages. We have been enriched by cultural diversity while the single market has granted economic opportunities to our citizens. We have only gained, not lost. In Europe, we learn from each other. Just last month, the Irish Seanad debated following in Scotland’s footsteps by introducing the baby box, which is a progressive policy that is benefiting the lives of citizens in Scotland. That is what the European Union has always been about: partnership to improve the lives of our nations and advance the opportunities for our citizens and our communities. Standing together, we have worked to protect our values of human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and human rights. Our shared endeavour has been to build a society in which inclusion, tolerance, justice, solidarity and non-discrimination prevail.
Lady Hermon
I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman’s wonderfully poetic prose, but will he look at the wider country of the United Kingdom and explain to this House, before we vote tonight, the consequences of leaving the EU without a deal, particularly for Northern Ireland? The Leader of the Opposition could not take an intervention from me, and we need to spell out the consequences for the people of Northern Ireland, the majority of whom are not represented by the DUP.
The DUP has 10 duly elected Members, but it does not speak for the majority of people in Northern Ireland. Many businesses, many farmers, many fishermen, many people and many community leaders support the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal. What does the right hon. Gentleman think of the consequences not just for Scotland but for Northern Ireland? I respect his views on Scotland, but I need him to spell out the SNP’s thinking on the consequences for Northern Ireland of remaining within the United Kingdom, which I want it to do. I do not want dissident republican violence back on the border.
Ian Blackford
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I must say that the UK is not a country but a state—some would say it is some state. Scotland is a country, and we wish to have our rights as EU citizens protected.
I hope this House overwhelmingly rejects the Prime Minister’s deal tonight, but tomorrow we must take our responsibilities and vote down no deal, which would be catastrophic. The Prime Minister could have done that months ago, and it is regrettable that we have had to wait until just over two weeks before we are supposed to leave before we can vote down no deal.
Ian Blackford
No, I must make some progress.
Once again, we listen to Conservative voices argue that we must leave our European destiny behind. I cannot countenance why we would leave behind those shared values and common endeavours. Our countries have come out of conflict and war and have come together. Our communities have thrived in times of peace. Collaboration and co-operation with our neighbours is delivering a new world of opportunity for all our citizens.
Despite the theatre of this place, where we poke and jar at each other, in truth today is painful, and I am deeply sad that we have reached this point of complete crisis. In homes across the United Kingdom our families, friends and communities are watching. In Amsterdam, Brussels, Berlin, Madrid, Dublin and Paris—I could go on—our friends and neighbours are watching. What must they be thinking? The historic achievement of the European project is unravelling, and for what? To replace partnership and stability with isolation and chaos.
Let us not beat about the bush: this battle began in the Tory party, and there it should have stayed. Euro- scepticism festered and consumed Tory Members and their party for decades until David Cameron rolled the dice, and where is he now? After he opened the box and spilled the Tory war on to the streets across the country, he abdicated all responsibility. The historical internal Conservative divisions have now divided the United Kingdom, and today Members must decide whether they will also abdicate responsibility and roll the dice, or whether they will act in the interests of their constituents by stopping the greatest act of self-harm to our economy.
We on the SNP Benches know our responsibilities, and we will not follow those who started the fire into the flames.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
The hon. Gentleman shouldn’t be like that—I haven’t even said anything yet!
Will my right hon. Friend go back slightly and reflect, as I have, on the fact that it is five years this year—last month, in fact—since 100 people were gunned down by the then Yanukovych Government of Ukraine because they wished to join the European Union? He reflects on what people must think across the continent, and I can tell him that they are aghast at the way in which the previous speaker talks down the European Union, as the truth is that many aspire to join it because of the very advantages of economic prosperity and peace that my right hon. Friend outlines.
Ian Blackford
My hon. Friend is correct about that. I have some difficulty in reconciling myself with what we are doing. I had the opportunity to work in the continent of Europe, as did my son, and we are taking that automatic right away from my grandchildren. If the Prime Minister gets her way, in just over a couple of weeks that right that we all have to live, work and get an education in 28 EU states will be reduced to applying in only one. Why are we doing that? Simply because of the Eurosceptics in the Tory party, who have driven us to that position. What a disgrace that the opportunities that many people have benefited from are being taken away.
People may not see it on a camera, but while I am saying this the Prime Minister is sitting there laughing. She is laughing while those opportunities are being stolen—that is what is happening—from our future generations. It is an absolute disgrace that the Prime Minister would behave in the way she is. I will give her the opportunity to stand up and perhaps argue why it is right that our young people should be denied those opportunities and that we should act in a way that is taking away—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. The Prime Minister is perfectly capable of defending herself, but I must say that there has not been anything remotely unseemly or untoward, still less unparliamentary, about the Prime Minister’s behaviour, today or indeed on any other day. She is sitting, listening, with a smile on her face, which seems a perfectly reasonable thing to do. The right hon. Gentleman is an old hand and he is whipping it up. I do not knock him, but I say to others: calm. No excessive gesticulation. A man as cerebral as you, Mr Kwarteng, does not need to point in an aggressive manner. You are a cerebral denizen of the House, remember that.
Ian Blackford
Thank you, Mr Speaker. These are serious matters and they deserve to be taken seriously. I am not arguing for one moment that the Prime Minister is behaving in a way that is unparliamentary—I would not seek to do so—but I do say that it is undignified to see the Prime Minister laughing when I am talking about the rights that will be taken away from our young people. That, Mr Speaker, is unforgivable.
Ian Blackford
No.
After a late night in Strasbourg and with some careful packaging today, the Prime Minister thinks she can fool us the way she has fooled those on her own Benches. We will not be fooled—nothing has changed. The Attorney General’s legal advice is crystal clear: the Prime Minister has failed to secure a time limit or unilateral exit mechanism from the backstop. The changes secured by the Prime Minister will apply in the highly unlikely situation where the EU has acted in bad faith. That confirms that the Prime Minister’s strategy has been recklessly to run down the clock, attempting to blackmail Parliament to choose either her non-starter deal or a no-deal. This deal is not a new deal; it is the same deal, and it is the same bad deal for Scotland.
The events of the past 24 hours change nothing for Scotland. This is the same deal, the same Prime Minister and the same Tory party treating Scotland with contempt. It is the same disastrous deal that ignores the people of Scotland’s overwhelming vote for remain, and it will cost jobs and hit living standards. Does the Prime Minister have no respect for the Scottish Government, for the Scottish Parliament, for the people of Scotland? That fact is that today, for the Prime Minister, this is about her future and her party’s future—nothing more. This UK Government do not care about Scotland’s future, as they press forward with this Brexit bombshell, inflicting unprecedented socioeconomic and political harm. The supposed concessions are merely a fig leaf for a problem that the UK has created for itself. That fig leaf cannot disguise the fact that it was a bad deal in December and a bad deal in January, and it is still a bad deal today. This chaotic attempt to placate the extreme Tory Brexiteers serves only to prolong the chaos and uncertainty.
Stephen Kerr
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Why does he choose to ignore the votes of 1 million Scots who voted to leave? Why does he choose to ignore the voices of the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, the Scotch Whisky Association, Diageo and a number of other business and trade groups that are saying to all Scottish Members of Parliament that they should support the Prime Minister’s deal to deliver an orderly Brexit?
Ian Blackford
I knew that, if I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, he would embarrass himself, and that is exactly what he has done. The reality is that Scotland voted by 62% to 38% to remain. So-called Scottish Conservative Members of Parliament should be standing up for their constituents in Scotland—
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Kerr, I thought you would have satisfied yourself with your contribution, of considerable eloquence and passion, made on your feet. You mustn’t now holler from your seat. I advise you to imitate the parliamentary Buddha, the Father of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who is repose personified.
Ian Blackford
Thank you, Mr Speaker. We are used to Scottish Conservatives shouting from the sidelines.
This is a blindfold Brexit that will take Scotland out of the single market, which is eight times the size of the UK, and leave people at the mercy of the Tories as they continue to tear themselves apart. This is a rotten deal that will lead our economy down the path of destruction without adequate protections. We know that the Brexit uncertainty is already damaging our economy to the tune of £600 per household per year. The economists have been crystal clear that the Prime Minister’s deal—this deal—is set to hit GDP, the public finances and living standards, and the Government have simply done nothing about it. Well, except for the Chancellor. He did at least have a moment of weakness and tell the truth on BBC Radio 4, when he admitted that this deal would make our economy smaller and that “in pure economic terms” there would be a loss. Like the SNP, even the Chancellor accepted the benefits of remaining in the European Union when he said that
“clearly remaining in the European Union would be a better outcome for the economy”.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Would my right hon. Friend, like me, reflect on history? It was not the European Union, or what came before it, that destroyed the great shipyards on the Clyde. It was not the European Union, or what came before it, that destroyed the coalmining industry in Scotland. As a matter of fact, we clung to the lifeboat of what was then the European Union throughout what we call the Westminster bypass. Tearing us out of the European Union replays history, to the impoverishment of our country, led by the Tory party.
Ian Blackford
My hon. Friend is correct. We can all remember that, pre-2014, when we held our referendum in Scotland, we were promised that a bonanza of orders would come to the shipyards on the Clyde, and we know exactly what happened to that.
Let me come back to the Chancellor. Here he is, ready to trot in behind the Prime Minister to deliver a blindfold Brexit that will send our economy into an unmitigated disaster. It is a shameful act of cowardice from the Chancellor, putting his party before people.
Instead of coming clean with Parliament and with the public, the Prime Minister asks us to vote blindly for this deal today. Despite numerous attempts to ascertain whether the Government have even conducted an economic analysis of the Prime Minister’s deal, they have still not published any analysis. What is the Prime Minister hiding? It is the height of irresponsibility for the Prime Minister to bring her deal to Parliament without providing the analysis of its impact. We know that her deal will cost jobs.
It is ludicrous for MPs to be asked to vote on a deal while completely blind to its economic consequences. Will the Prime Minister not end the shroud of secrecy and come clean with MPs and the whole of the United Kingdom? Analysis published on the London School of Economics website estimates that
“the Brexit deal could reduce UK GDP per capita by between 1.9% and 5.5% in ten years’ time, compared to remaining in the EU.”
The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has warned:
“If the Government’s proposed Brexit deal is implemented, then GDP in the longer term will be around 4% lower than it would have been had the UK stayed in the EU.”
That is the reality. Will Members on opposite Benches vote for a deal without knowing the consequences? Will they sleepwalk into disaster? I appeal to Members: do not do this as the consequences are too grave. What is coming down the line after today is unknown, but what is known points to chaos.
Even in the political declaration, the UK Government confirmed their intention to end free movement of people, which is vital to meet Scotland’s needs for workers in sectors such as health and social care. I met a young trainee vet in Portree in the Isle of Skye a week past Saturday. She is a young woman from Spain who wants to remain in Scotland, but when she qualifies as a vet, she will not meet the earnings threshold that would guarantee her the right to live in Scotland. Prime Minister, that is what leaving the EU is doing. It is denying opportunities to young people who want to make a contribution to our economy. It is shameful to see the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) shaking his head, because we will lose those opportunities to benefit our economy, and we will lose the social benefits that come from that in Scotland.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
We often talk, and rightly so, about the impact of the salary threshold, but will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that there is a significant community of people across the UK who have retired to this country from the European Union? As a constituent from Italy said to me at the weekend, if the place gets too expensive, she will just go back to the beach.
Ian Blackford
That is absolutely right. I simply say to the Government that they need to reflect on this. There are an estimated 235,000 EU citizens living in Scotland alongside an estimated 142,000 other international migrants. Together they represent 7% of our population and they are welcome. Scottish Government analysis suggests that, without migration, Scotland’s population will decrease by 10,800 by 2040.
This deal will cause untold damage not just for the current generation, but for the next. This deal will make our people poorer, our businesses weaker and our economy smaller. We cannot let that happen. What is democracy if citizens cannot be allowed to change their minds? Members can sneer and jeer from the sidelines, as they have, but beneath their outward aggression, there is, I am sure, their conscience. If Members look to that they will know that no one can act in good conscience against the facts.
Members across the House know that Brexit is bad for Britain. It is bad for families, bad for business, bad for the economy, bad for co-operation and trade and bad for growth. I am in no doubt that the Scottish Tories are well aware of the consequences as they have been well outlined by academics, economists and many others. Brexit is bad for Scotland. Last week, I visited Edinburgh University. Some 26% of its academic community are from the EU. The vice-principal told me that mobility is the key and that the academic community is already expressing concern. The university has still been able to recruit, but the pool of candidates is becoming shallower because, quite simply, people do not want to come to Brexit Britain. That is the reality, Prime Minister, and it is this Government who are responsible for that.
The Prime Minister is playing a game of smoke and mirrors to save her own skin— not the future interests of people across the United Kingdom. She has renegotiated nothing. She promised legal changes to the withdrawal agreement. Nothing even close to that has been achieved. Let me remind the House. On 29 January, the Prime Minister was unequivocal:
“What I am talking about is not a further exchange of letters but a significant and legally binding change to the withdrawal agreement. Negotiating such a change will not be easy. It will involve reopening the withdrawal agreement—a move for which I know there is limited appetite among our European partners.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2019; Vol. 653, c. 678.]
But the EU27 have refused to reopen the withdrawal agreement. The fact remains that the EU27 have not reached any agreement with the UK in negotiations on changes to the backstop or the withdrawal agreement. The window dressing on the backstop is simply to allow members of the ERG to slide their support behind the Prime Minister and save the blushes of their extreme Brexiteers, but we now know from what has been in the media that even that has not worked.
The Irish Times journalist, Fintan O’Toole, noted last night the ridiculousness of the Government’s actions, when he tweeted:
“Very hard to see what’s really new in all of this. It’s the Withdrawal Agreement served with a side order of ‘this doesn’t mean what it doesn’t mean anyway’.”
Jo Maugham QC also commented in reference to the Prime Minister:
“Not only did she fail to get any changes to the Withdrawal Agreement. But she was also made publicly to agree that there are no changes to the Withdrawal Agreement.”
And a key player in the negotiations, the Irish Taoiseach Leo Varadkar, has noted that the extra layers are complementary to the deal, not a rewrite. Nothing has been changed except the fact that the DUP has been bought a new comfort blanket. Well, the SNP—unlike the DUP—cannot be bought.
The Prime Minister is so desperate that it is clear that she will go to any lengths to undermine the will of the House, which has already voted against this deal. Last week, we saw the Conservative Government offer bribe after bribe to Labour MPs. On Monday 4 March, the Government announced a £1.6 billion Brexit cities fund. The Government have still not confirmed whether any of this will come to Scotland, and I do not hear Scottish Conservative MPs standing up for Scotland on that. On Wednesday 6 March, the Government announced plans to give MPs the right to decide whether to enforce future EU changes on workplace rights and standards after the UK has left the EU. But Frances O’Grady of the TUC dismissed this, saying that the proposals
“come nowhere close to ensuring existing rights are protected. And they won’t stop workers’ rights in the UK from falling behind those in the rest of Europe.
Since January, we have seen the UK Government buying fridges in bulk to stockpile drugs, practising traffic jams on airfields and awarding ferry contracts to companies with no ferries. Let me remind the House that the Prime Minister lost the first meaningful vote by 432 to 202. This is the same deal. Nothing has changed. But this is not a binary choice before us; it is not a deal or no deal. There is still a way to protect our citizens.
I appeal to Members, particularly Scottish MPs, to stand with the SNP; reject the Government’s negotiated withdrawal agreement for the future relationship with the EU; recognise the resolutions of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly of 5 March to oppose the UK Government’s exit deal; say that a no-deal outcome to the current negotiations on EU withdrawal would be completely unacceptable on 29 March or at any other time; acknowledge the endorsement of this House of the claim of right for Scotland on 4 July 2018, recognising the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to our needs; recognise that Scotland should not be forced to leave the EU against its will; and ensure that this place, this Prime Minister and this shoddy Tory Government understand that the best future for Scotland lies in becoming, like so many of our neighbours, a full, equal, sovereign, independent member state of the European Union.
The Prime Minister has no mandate from Scotland for her deal. On 15 January, 83% of Scottish MPs voted against it. The Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly have voted on a historic joint motion, rejecting the Prime Minister’s deal and rejecting no deal. I remind the House and the Scottish Tories nestling on the Government Benches that 62% of the Scottish voters and every local authority in Scotland voted to remain in June 2016. Scotland’s decision must be respected. I appeal to Members to stand up for the interests of their constituents, and I appeal to Scottish MPs to do the right thing by standing up and fighting for Scotland. Scotland did not vote to leave and we will not be dragged out of the European Union against our will. We will not remain strapped to the sinking ship.
The First Minister has sought compromise at every opportunity. We in the SNP, in government in Edinburgh and here in the Commons, have sought every opportunity to compromise, but we have been dismissed by this Tory Government. Scotland has been treated with contempt—ignored, sidelined and often silenced. The Tories think they can do whatever they want to Scotland, but we will have the chance to vote on independence—to make Scotland a destination in Europe. Our First Minister has been clear. So I say to Members: stand with us. I say to the Prime Minister: give it up; extend article 50 and bring forward a second EU referendum. Her Government have utterly failed to negotiate a deal fit for the country. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: he almost got off the fence; is it not time he got off it properly? We have reached this critical point and still the Labour party is unwilling to act, rather than blow hot smoke. May I remind him that there is still a live motion of no confidence in this Government that has not yet been signed by the Labour Front Bench? We have the opportunity to end this madness and go back to the people. It is long past time that the Leader of the Opposition had some courage. What is he waiting for, or what is he running scared off?
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Ind)
This House needs to find a way of compromising to get out of the fix that we are in. I understand that this is a difficult question, but I am going to ask it anyway because I appreciate that the SNP does not like the Prime Minister’s deal, and many of us, for various reasons, do not either. If we were to make it subject to a people’s vote, I suspect that that would get this Parliament, this House and this Prime Minister out of the hole. Would the SNP consider it as a way out of this impasse for the benefit of our country?
Ian Blackford
I thank the hon. Lady for that question. Let me say enthusiastically that the Scottish National party supports a people’s vote, on the basis of the facts that we now know. As we know that there is no such thing as a good Brexit, and that it is going to cost jobs, the right thing to do is to present the facts to the people of the United Kingdom. I implore the House to get behind the people’s vote.
We have an opportunity here today to do the right thing. The people we represent have given us their trust to do what is right for them, for their families and for their communities. Vote Leave was a farce. It pumped lies into the campaign. It sold the public a pup. People must have the right to change their minds, and we must have the courage, as political leaders, to give people the right to change their minds. While the world looks on in wonder at what on earth the UK is about to do, I ask that every Member recalls how much we stand to lose.
Let me say that we on these Benches will not allow our nation to be dragged out of Europe into the abyss. Scotland has a bright future, and that future is as an independent European nation. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), the ex-Brexit Secretary, noted at the weekend:
“There is no…treaty in the world…where a sovereign nation…can only leave when the other side says so. So that’s the key point, the ability to get out when we need to.”
The people of Scotland are sovereign under the terms of our constitutional framework, and they too should have the ability to get out of this mess—and, my goodness, we need to. So I ask Members to support the SNP. When we decide to call for action to have a referendum in Scotland, this House should respect that. We will not go down with the sinking ship. As Winnie Ewing famously said:
“Stop the world, Scotland wants to get on.”
I say to the people of Scotland: if we cannot save the United Kingdom from itself, now is the time to save Scotland—an independent Scotland at the heart of Europe.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. An eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches now applies, though I fear that it will soon have to be reduced—but we shall see.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
It is customary to say that it is a pleasure to follow the previous speaker. However, there is an enormous sense of déjà vu about today’s debate. Many of the same faces who have been debating Brexit and our withdrawal from the EU are here in the Chamber today as they have been for the past three years, and, in some cases, before then. What we have just heard from the leader of the SNP is a speech on why Brexit is a bad idea. That is a perfectly honourable position to hold, except for the fact that we had that debate three years ago, and it was lost in terms of wanting to remain. That is the problem with this whole debate and what has become of UK politics since 2016.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) was quite right: 1 million people in Scotland voted to leave the European Union. Yes, more people voted to remain, but that is the whole problem with this debate—rather than anybody trying to solve this for the 100%, it has been about the percentage that people in this House identify with. That is why we have ended up in this situation.
Nicky Morgan
I am not going to give way.
There are five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. I firmly believe that the country has, by and large, reached acceptance. Many Members of this House have reached acceptance of the referendum result, but some clearly have not, as we hear time and again. It is time to move on. It is time to draw the withdrawal phase of this EU exit to a conclusion. There are many other political issues that the country desperately needs us to be talking about and focusing on, and yet here we are, time and again debating the same issues. As the Brady amendment showed at the end of January, the issue is around the backstop, but we are all debating and falling out over a backstop that is an insurance policy that everybody hopes is never needed, to solve a problem—a hard border on the island of Ireland—that nobody wants to see.
For me, there are a number of tests of whether this withdrawal agreement should be approved tonight. I have set those tests out in a letter that I will send to my constituents shortly. Does the withdrawal agreement, if passed, lead to greater certainty? I believe the answer is yes. It will at least enable businesses and individuals in our constituencies to plan ahead, certainly with regard to the transition period. Does it deliver on the exit from the EU that the majority of the United Kingdom voted for in 2016? The answer is yes. It gets us closer to leaving the European Union. There are Members on both sides of the House who have campaigned for that for years, and yet they say they will not vote for the deal this evening.
Does the withdrawal agreement enable the governing party to carry on governing after 29 March and pass legislation? Yes, it does. If a stable majority were to pass the withdrawal agreement, would that mean we could pass the withdrawal implementation Bill and all the other legislation? And that is my problem with the challenge laid down by Opposition Members about why the Government do not make an appeal to them. Although I think a compromise and a consensus could be found in the House on a so-called softer Brexit, it will not lead to anything like a stable majority for future legislation. I have heard nothing that promises that from those on the Opposition Benches.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
If alternative arrangements for the backstop have not been found by December 2020, we will have a Hotel California Brexit where we will have checked out but not be leaving. There is a real danger that passing the withdrawal agreement tonight is just for short-term gain, with pain down the road. Does the right hon. Lady agree?
Nicky Morgan
I do not agree. I think there will be a gain. The Treasury Committee has been quite clear that we do not think there is a deal dividend, as the Chancellor has described it, but I think there would be a benefit in terms of stability for businesses and individuals in this country.
Changes have been secured to the withdrawal agreement that was considered in this House in the middle of January. I have been very happy to be part of the alternative arrangements working group, and I thank the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union for his engagement. I started this process as something of a sceptic, but believing that compromise had to be found to make this work. There are alternative arrangements, on the basis of existing customs checks and processes, that can be put in place to ensure that there is no hard border on the island of Ireland.
Nicky Morgan
The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If he has explored the detail, perhaps he will cover that in his remarks, but it is perfectly possible.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
As Chair of the Treasury Committee, has my right hon. Friend seen any alternative proposals from Opposition parties that show a better economic result for the UK outside the European Union, whether in a customs union or the EEA, than the Prime Minister’s deal?
Nicky Morgan
One of the difficulties has been actually modelling any of the scenarios and having anything like proper confidence in the figures. What the impact would be on our economy depends on exactly what arrangements are arrived at, including whether we end up in the EEA or in a customs union. As I say, I do not think we need to be in a customs union because there are alternative ways of solving the issue with the border. That is why I would ask hon. Members on this side of the House to vote for the agreement tonight—to give those arrangements a chance to be negotiated and to take root.
There is no doubt that there is a danger in all of this—I say this as Chair of the Treasury Committee and as a former Treasury Minister—of thinking only about the numbers. The economy is of course incredibly important in securing the livelihoods and successful prospects of our constituents, but there are other issues, and the issue of sovereignty, independence and confidence in our democracy should not be underestimated.
I really fear that if this House does not approve the agreement tonight—Members who say, “Oh, I can’t support it for this reason or that reason”, are being very clever with the words and the way they are interpreting the legal advice—the damage done to trust in our democracy and in the power of an individual’s vote will be immense. As somebody who has been subject to abuse and threats because people feel threatened, I say to those who have not yet experienced it that I suspect it will be unleashed on all of us, and I do not see why we would want to put the country through that.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I pay great tribute to my right hon. Friend who, as somebody who voted remain, now wants to go forward constructively with a deal. As somebody who voted for leave and voted against the deal before, I am minded to weigh in behind this, because we have got to stop the uncertainty and the conspiracy of chaos that is, I am afraid, promulgated by those on the Opposition Benches below the Gangway who have just rerun and rerun the referendum Bill debate from four years ago and have only offered alternatives that are basically, “Computer says no”. The country is fed up with it, and we need at long last to weigh in behind something with which we can move forward.
Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is being incredibly generous in giving way. She makes a very powerful point about accountability to the democratic will of the people. If, in delivering on the democratic will of the people, we end up as rule-takers of rules over which we have no say, can she explain to the House in what way we are actually delivering on that will?
Nicky Morgan
I think my hon. Friend is anticipating the phase 2 negotiations about the form of the future relationship. The difficulty with that is that, unless we pass this withdrawal agreement today or in the next couple of weeks, we are not going to get on to debating phase 2. If my hon. Friend wants to have that debate, he needs to vote for the agreement tonight and then make sure that we are going to move on to phase 2.
I will be brief because I know that many other right hon. and hon. Members want to speak in this debate. I have said before that it is very easy to remain in our entrenched positions and to keep saying the same things over and over again. However, I challenge hon. Members on both sides of the House to think about whether now is the time—and we have heard that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) could vote for the agreement tonight—to say that we will change our positions.
Actions and votes have consequences, and if this withdrawal agreement is not passed this evening, we may move on tomorrow to a debate about no deal and we may then move on to a debate about the extension of article 50. There will be those in this House who want to have those debates, either because they think no deal is a good thing, or because they think they can take it off the table and potentially put the option of remaining on the table.
A short extension of article 50 would be worse than useless, creating more uncertainty and instability in this country, so I urge right hon. and hon. Members, particularly on these Benches, who have said so far today that they have made up their mind or that they might vote against the agreement, “Please think again”, because the beneficial consequences of passing this withdrawal agreement tonight will be enormous, and I think the public will thank us for it.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), although I have drawn a different conclusion about the choice we have to make this evening.
I am tempted to say, “Here we go again.” After the flurry of activity and effort—I pay tribute to Ministers who have been working hard over the past couple of months—some people may have had their minds changed by the documents produced last night, but it seems that many others have not.
The one thing I want to say on the documents is this: the withdrawal agreement remains in place, the backstop remains in place, there is no unilateral exit mechanism for the United Kingdom and there is no time limit. While it may be possible to suspend the backstop, in order to do that the United Kingdom has to persuade the arbitration panel that we have a case. If the arbitration panel is then to turn suspension into disapplication, we have to persuade it that the reason for the problem is that there is a lack of good faith on the part of the European Union.
It is pretty safe to say that the EU would say, “No, it’s not a lack of good faith; we just don’t think your alternative arrangements work. We think they would undermine the integrity of the single market and the customs union.” The moment it says that, that engages questions of the application of EU law, at which point the panel has to refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union, whose judgment on these questions will be binding on everyone, including the United Kingdom.
Frankly, proving bad faith, in my view as a non-lawyer, is going to be pretty darn difficult, so we are left with paragraph 19 of the Attorney General’s letter to the Prime Minister today, which says that if we cannot reach agreement because of intractable differences,
“no internationally lawful means of exiting the Protocol’s arrangements”
will exist.
If the deal is defeated tonight, tomorrow will be another day. I have little doubt that the House of Commons will vote against leaving the European Union with no deal—we can debate all those matters tomorrow. I still do not know how the Prime Minister is going to vote. Can I just offer her some advice? She used to say that no deal is better than a bad deal, but she now argues that her deal is in fact a good deal. Well, if it is in fact a good deal, it cannot be a bad deal, so, by definition, no deal is now worse than her deal. Therefore, if logic means anything, the Prime Minister ought to come through the Lobby with me and many others tomorrow to vote against no deal. No deal would be the worst possible outcome for the country.
If leaving with no deal is defeated, we will come on to the question of an extension, which will be the subject of Thursday’s debate. However, we have to use an extension for a purpose—that is very clear. For me, the purpose must be, first, to see whether it is possible for the House of Commons to reach agreement on an alternative way of leaving the European Union. Is there support for a customs union? Is there support for a Norway-style arrangement?
Lady Hermon
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have enormous regard for him, so I just ask him to confirm whether the Labour party actually supports the backstop. He will know why the Government have argued, and been consistent on the need, for the backstop: to protect the peace process and to protect Northern Ireland and, indeed, the United Kingdom from the consequences of a hard border. Will he therefore confirm that progress has been made? The Prime Minister has been able to get agreement that alternative arrangements will be fast-tracked—my words, not hers—before the end of the transition period.
Hilary Benn
I am happy to confirm that I have heard my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) say that he does not have a problem with the backstop. I do not have a problem with the backstop, because it is an essential insurance policy to protect the integrity of the Good Friday agreement and trade across that border. All that I would say about the alternative arrangements is that all those provisions are already in the withdrawal agreement that the Prime Minister signed up to in November. All that we have had added today is interpretation of what already existed—
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen Barclay)
indicated dissent.
Hilary Benn
The Secretary of State is shaking his head, but I take a different view from him as to whether this is in fact a significant or substantial change.
If we are able to reach agreement on an alternative way forward, the second choice the House of Commons will have to make is whether we should go back to the British people to ask them, “Is that what you wanted?”—especially if we did end up approving something like Norway and the customs union. We could argue that that is rather different from what was argued for by the leave campaign during the original referendum. I suppose the central question on that choice, a point which has been made by others today, is whether the electorate have the right to change their mind and, in the same breath, the right not to change their mind. It would be the people’s choice.
The final point I want to make, because time is short, is to say this about sovereignty, which is really at the heart of the referendum, of the decision we have to make as a House of Commons, and of the choice that we as Members wrestle with in trying to decide how to cast our vote. Last week, I met a group of parliamentarians from North Macedonia. We talked about our troubles to do with EU membership. They said to me, “75% of the people of North Macedonia are really keen to join the European Union and NATO.” I asked them why. They replied with three words: stability, opportunity, progress. Whatever else can be said in this debate, Mr Speaker, you cannot apply those words to our country in its current condition.
The Prime Minister, in opening her speech today, said that the deal says something about our country and what it has delivered. I would say to her that it certainly does say something, because her deal has delivered instability, it will entrench a loss of opportunity and it is not progress. It is going backwards. There is further proof of that today. What has Nissan announced? That production of the Infiniti car in Sunderland will end. The long, slow decline of British car manufacturing, which was once the jewel in our manufacturing industry, has, I am very sorry to say, well and truly begun.
This goes to the heart of the mess that we are in, which is not the backstop—we have spent hours on the backstop—but the fact that, after two-and-a-half years of internal argument during which the Government have refused to make choices, the political declaration is so vague that we have no idea where we are going. The Prime Minister also said on the political declaration that we should look at all the things her deal has delivered. I simply say to her: no, it has not. It is not legally binding and there is no certainty. A new Prime Minister could come along in a month, a year or two years and say, “Forget all that. I am now taking the country in a different direction.” That is the reason I will not vote for this deal tonight.
The Prime Minister ended her speech by saying let us demonstrate what politics is for. I would simply say to her that whatever it is for, it is not this agreement.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
It is painful for me to find myself in a position where I cannot agree with my own Front Bench and with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on approving this agreement and supporting the Government tonight, but I cannot. I just want to briefly explain why.
We find ourselves in a very unusual circumstance. Unless a country is defeated in war and the Parliament has to meet so that MPs have to surrender provinces that are being annexed by a neighbouring power, it is very unusual for Members of Parliament to be asked, on a fundamental issue, to vote against their own opinion. Yet the evidence has been overwhelming, in the past two and a half years since the Brexit referendum took place, that there is a very substantial majority in this House who consider that there is no form of Brexit that is better than remaining in the European Union. That includes many colleagues on this side of the House who have, for reasons of judgment or loyalty—it does not really matter which—decided that they will support the Government this evening. I talk to them and they tell me that they accept that that is the case.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister makes a powerful case when she says that this is necessary because of the decision in the referendum in 2016. She tells us that if we were not to do it, it would diminish faith in the democratic process. I am certainly mindful, as I am the recipient of many emails from angry people, that there are many people who voted in that referendum who did not otherwise normally participate in the electoral processes of this country at all—probably about 10% of the electorate. So one has to recognise their strength of feeling.
If I felt that, by voting for and supporting a deal and a future that I think is going to be completely third rate compared with remaining in the European Union, we could bring closure to this debate because there was some unanimity of purpose—either across the House or even within my party, of which I have been a member now for about 43 years—I would have to seriously consider doing it, despite my own strong judgment that we are about to make a serious and historic mistake.
The problem, however, is that that is simply not the case. There is no unanimity. Take one example from today. In my view, the backstop is a red herring. The point is: what are we going to do with Brexit when we have it? Do we intend to stay aligned roughly within the sort of European regulatory and tariff framework, or do we intend, as some of my right hon. and hon. Friends wish, to strike out for broad horizons? If we do, it does not matter if we do not have the backstop, because actually, the Good Friday agreement precludes us from doing that for Northern Ireland, unless we intend to carve it out and leave it effectively in a European economic area. Such is the price of folly in having allowed a referendum to take place where those advocating leave dealt with it in purely abstract terms. No one—I plead guilty to this as well—was willing to think through, even when we prepared and passed the European Union Referendum Bill, the consequences of what a vote to leave would actually mean and how we could possibly implement it.
Far from bringing closure, we will simply initiate yet another round of very sterile debate against a background where our economy will be damaged, our national security will be impaired and we will find ourselves consistently at a disadvantage. I realise that some of my hon. Friends do not agree with that. They see a bright future ahead if they can just carry out their plans, but I do not see those plans coming to fruition. Indeed, I do not even see at the moment how the withdrawal agreement Bill that will have to follow this approval is likely to get through the House when some of my colleagues, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), start to look at the details. So, with reluctance and sadness, I cannot allow this further ratchet in the destruction of our country to take place.
We are also failing to assess the realities of devolution and the fact that with four nations making up the United Kingdom, there are now four identities that we have essentially disrespected. Even if we were entitled to—[Interruption.] Yes, we have. We have essentially disrespected them in terms of working out the consequences of what the referendum was likely to do. As a Unionist, I worry about the future of my country, because I see the Union as fundamental to our prosperity and collective existence.
I am afraid that I cannot vote for the deal, and we will have to take the consequences of the further difficulties that will follow. I do not look on those with any sense of cheerfulness at all, but I would be utterly, utterly going against my instincts and my judgments if I were to facilitate a process of further self-mutilation for our country, which is what I believe we are currently embarked upon. We should pause, reflect, and above all, I repeat it again—
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Conor Burns
My right hon. and learned Friend speaks of consequences. He also speaks of those who had hitherto not participated in our democratic process but who participated in the referendum. What does he think the consequences will be outside this House if it tells those people that their voice did not matter and that we will not deliver what they voted for?
Mr Grieve
I think that we have a duty to say to them that it is perfectly apparent that what we are going to get bears no relation to what was being debated in 2016. I further think that the proper thing to do is to go back to them, point that out honestly, and say that if they wish to leave on these terms, we will, of course, implement it—but that means consulting them. I worry that we appear to be obsessed with avoiding the electorate at every conceivable turn now, because we are fearful that they might come up with an answer that we do not like. Of course it might be to leave. If that is the case, I will keep quiet about the matter forever more, but there is a compelling—[Interruption.] Oh yes I would. If I may say so, I have better things to do. But they may say that they have changed their mind. In a democracy, people are entitled to change their mind. To deny them that choice when we are faced with the current crisis is, in my view, an unacceptable way to proceed. Until we start seeing sense on this, I cannot support the Government.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a privilege to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). I very much agree with what he had to say. Like him, we have no objections to the Irish backstop. It is one of the redeeming features of the Government’s agreement—their having foolishly and unnecessarily drawn red lines around the customs union and the single market, it was an inevitable and necessary measure to protect Ireland from a new, disruptive frontier. Our concern is much more fundamental—the fact that Brexit, as currently devised, will make this country poorer, weaker and less secure.
We have all heard a lot of general rhetoric about this issue, so I want to home in one particular aspect of the economics of it—the nature of the single market and how it originated. Thirty-five years ago, there was an insight in this country around the Prime Minister of the time, Mrs Thatcher. I do not know whether it was her or her advisers who saw that the future of business and trade rested on two s’s—standards and services—and that the traditional preoccupation with tariffs and quotas was of course very relevant, particularly for agriculture and manufacturing, but the future lay in another area.
For three decades, successive Governments—Conservative, coalition and Labour—have beavered away trying to create this structure of a single market, recognising the importance of those key drivers. That has been done on two levels. It was attempted at a global level through the World Trade Organisation, which is often called in aid by Government Members. That achieved virtually nothing, because the World Trade Organisation is essentially a weak organisation that brings together countries with massively divergent standards. It was also pursued through the European Union, with very great success.
One of the central problems of Brexit is that it potentially unravels much of the regulatory framework that has been put in place over those three decades. I have a very simple example, which gives us an indication of what is coming down the track. It actually relates to one of the Government’s success stories. The Government have been trying to roll over the 30 or 40 association agreements we have with the European Union. It would be disastrous if they were not rolled over. Quite a few important countries, including Japan and Korea, are making it very clear that they are not willing to get a move on, as the Foreign Secretary instructed them to, but one of the countries that did is Switzerland.
Switzerland is an interesting case. It is a British success story, with rapid growth in exports of 40% over five years. Britain has a big trade surplus with Switzerland. That is all under the existing arrangements. The Secretary of State for International Trade presented the roll-over agreement as a great success, and indeed it was. It is one of the few things that has actually worked for the Government in this area. But when some of the trade federations affected by the agreement started unpicking it, they noticed that it is not the same agreement that the European Union had.
Central to the European Union agreement was that it brought together about 19 key technical standards across the European Union and Switzerland, which enabled European countries to trade on a common basis. In the revised agreement, there are only five such standards. The companies in the UK that will have to deal with Switzerland in the future will do so at a competitive disadvantage. I have no way of knowing how important that is or how many jobs are at stake, but that small experience will be reproduced on a massive scale as Brexit proceeds, and we should take note of it.
James Cartlidge
The right hon. Gentleman raises a very good point about Switzerland, but surely the most important point about the Swiss is that they are one of the only examples of a country that has maintained very strong links with the European economy but has been able to go out and get very good trade deals, which have significantly boosted its export penetration around the world. We could achieve that, too.
Sir Vince Cable
I do not think that Switzerland is a very encouraging example when it comes to external trade deals. Its trade deal with China consisted of opening up the Swiss market to everything and getting virtually nothing in return. Actually, that illustrates a much wider point: one of the things that we sacrifice with Brexit is bargaining. The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) has now disappeared from the Chamber, but he pointed out a week or so ago—and he is a hardline Brexiteer—that our bargaining power with the United States over food standards is massively weaker than it would be if we continued to be a member of the European Union, and very poor standards will be inflicted on us. That is the kind of debate that we ought to be having, but we are not.
All the costs associated with the unravelling of the single market will be compounded by the loss of the customs union—I know that the Labour party has given that priority, and it is important, but it is not as important as the single market—and also by uncertainty. Had the Government done what they promised to do, which was to have a clear picture of the endgame before they completed Brexit, all that uncertainty would have gone. British firms with a time horizon of more than two years will now be afflicted by massive uncertainty about whether to invest in this country, and many of them will not do so. The future is wholly uncertain.
The combination of those factors has major economic consequences. I have taught economics for many years and worked in it for many years, and I know that it is not a precise science. However, one of the most fundamental principles of economics, going back to Adam Smith—and, indeed, before—is that if you put up barriers to trade, you make yourself poorer. That will now be compounded many times over.
In addition to all the economic costs, there is the unravelling of the collaborative arrangements. One of the best institutions in my constituency is an organisation called the National Physical Laboratory, which is a centre for key metrology standards. Alan Turing did much of his professional work for it, and I attended and spoke at its annual dinner a few days ago. The people who work there are absolutely horrified at the breaking up of their scientific network, and their inability now to attract European staff. That is being replicated in campuses, universities and scientific institutes across the country.
The European Investment Bank has hardly been discussed here. Crossrail, which has been one of the big innovations in London in recent years, was substantially financed by it, but it is now being dismantled. Those are some examples of the damage that has been done, and that is why the Government must go back to the public and put the deal to them. If they cannot get their deal through Parliament, they must give the people the final say.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
I shall keep my speech short to allow other Members to speak.
Here we go again. It is groundhog day. We are faced with the same bad deal for our country’s future. In February, we provided the Prime Minister with guidance on what was needed to gain the support of the House. The Malthouse compromise was just that—a compromise to find the middle ground and secure a deal. I respect the Prime Minister’s attempts to improve the deal, but it has been a failure, and since the EU is refusing to improve it, we need to just leave. We need to leave the European Union on 29 March and deliver on the referendum promise.
After weeks of negotiations, all that we have is an agreement that has not changed the working of the backstop, but simply supplements it. These changes only limit the risks posed by the backstop; they do not remove those risks entirely. As a sovereign country, we need the ability to leave the backstop unilaterally. We should not have to ask the EU for permission to forge our own future. The agreement is not about taking back control of our own destiny; it is about surrendering control. As the Attorney General has said,
“the legal risk remains unchanged”,
and if the legal risk remains unchanged, the bad deal remains unchanged.
So what next? Where do we go from here? It may seem strange to some, but I propose that we keep our promises and leave the European Union without a bad deal. According to Hansard, the Prime Minister has said more than 120 times that the UK should leave the EU on 29 March. When today’s vote is defeated, the best option left for the UK is to go to WTO rules, just as the Prime Minister has indicated previously.
This deal remains a bad deal for the reasons that I have mentioned, but let us not forget the other issues. If this deal were to pass in its current form, we would still be subject to decisions from the ECJ—decisions that would directly impact on our laws and subsequently our sovereignty. Additionally, we must still pay the European Union the £39 billion just for the right to leave; no, that is not good enough. The Prime Minister has been right all along that no deal is better than a bad deal, and if this place considers her deal to be a bad deal today then we need to leave without a deal.
We need to invest the £39 billion in our own country.
Andrea Jenkyns
I will carry on, thank you.
We need to invest in skills and the new cutting-edge industries of tomorrow. We need to reinvigorate our fishing industries and allow our hard-working fishermen to keep their catch. We need to invest in education and the next generation, invest in policing so that we have safer communities, and invest in our businesses to help them during the transition. It is time we had confidence in our people and in our country and invested in its future, and it is time to deliver what the British people voted for.
Trust takes years to build, seconds to break, and forever to repair. Let us stick to our word: let us keep our promises and deliver on the referendum result. Let us build faith, not tear it down. Let us look beyond the borders of the EU and trade globally. And let us finally take back control.
This withdrawal agreement sets the blueprint for our country’s final deal with the EU. We have given far too many concessions, and it is time to stand up and say “No more.” We must deliver what we promised, and this evening I will be voting against this withdrawal agreement. We need to send a strong message to the EU that Britain deserves better.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns). We do not agree on Brexit, but tonight we will certainly be in the same Lobby voting against this deal—although of course for different reasons, but on this we are absolutely agreed. It is not a deal; it is a withdrawal agreement. It does not provide the certainty and does not deliver the deal that the hon. Lady and unfortunately many others in the leave campaign promised to the Great British people back in 2016 when we had the European referendum.
But the reason why I will not be voting for this deal is not just because of a blindfold Brexit, which is effectively what this is about—the fact that we do not have the certainty that British business is absolutely demanding. What we do know, however, is that the deal as it stands in the political declaration would make my constituents, and indeed all the constituents of every right hon. and hon. Member, less well off, and I did not come into this place to vote for something in the full knowledge that it would make people less well off. [Interruption.] I would be very grateful if the heckling from a Bench near me turned into an intervention, which I would happily take.
Gareth Snell
As the right hon. Lady is talking about voting to make constituents poorer, she may want to remember her time on the Government Benches as a Tory MP, when my constituents suffered at the hands of decisions she supported.
Anna Soubry
Well, that was a really helpful and relevant intervention, wasn’t it? Of course, it is absolute tosh. The most important—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman’s heckling is very tedious and could end up with me thwacking him with my Order Paper.
Let us address the real issues that face this House tonight. Let us look at the failings of the withdrawal agreement, and let us look now at a way out of it, as it seems likely that yet again this agreement will fail to pass in this House.
The Independent Group tabled an amendment; I am sorry it was not selected, Mr Speaker, but of course I understand why. However, at least it set out a timetable and provided a coherent alternative, and I believe that is what the people of this country are now crying out for. They want clarity, they want certainty, and they want a way forward.
I also believe that the only way out of this mess is to take the matter back to the British people, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) as ever beautifully and eloquently explained in the arguments he advanced. Now we know what Brexit is like, it is perfectly right and acceptable that it should be able to go back to the British people. People are entitled to change their mind, and of course the young people who would bear the heaviest burden of Brexit are entitled, I would argue, to have a say.
What I say to former colleagues on the Government Benches is this: they will be voting—those of them who are doing so—for a withdrawal agreement in absolute knowledge and certainty of the following. As outlined by this Brexit Government—because that is what they are, a Brexit Government—who have done the assessments into all the various ways of delivering Brexit, whatever way we do it will leave this country less prosperous and our constituents less well off. Being a Brexit Government, and the party of Brexit, will not be a badge of honour to be worn next to the blue rosette; it will end up being a badge of shame.
At some stage, people are going to have to make good the huge deficit that will exist. I shall give the House an example. Almost every Saturday, I am proud to go out with the Nottingham people’s vote campaigners, mainly in Nottingham but also in other parts of the county. I recently met a woman who explained why she had voted for Brexit. I understood her complaint about a system that she thought was not working for her when it came to housing. She thought it was the fault of immigrants. I explained that her complaint was nothing to do with immigration, and that immigrants had benefited our country in many ways over many centuries. Nevertheless, in her mind she somehow thought that Brexit was going to make good the problems in her life. If we do leave the European Union—God forbid that we should leave without a deal, the most irresponsible of all the options; the Business Secretary was right to say that it would be “ruinous”—how is that woman going to see her life transformed? She will not be better off economically. How is she going to benefit from the sovereignty that is suddenly going to be recaptured by our country? How is her life going to be improved? And who is going to make good the deficit and disappointment that she will undoubtedly face?
I think that is why so many right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches, especially on the Back Benches, have come round to the view that the only way through this mess is to take it back with honesty and conviction to the people. I pay tribute to Labour Members such as those in Sunderland and the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) who represent leave constituencies but who have had the courage go out and speak to the people they represent, in all weathers, to make their case and to lead them, and to convince them that the best way through this mess is now to go back to the people.
People understand that they were lied to. They were tricked and conned by the leaders of leave, some of whom sit in this place. Those leaders will not lose their jobs. They will not find themselves worse off. They will not bear the burden. The people who will bear the burden are the people in this country who voted leave, and especially those who work in the manufacturing sector. They will see their jobs put at risk. They will see the future of their children and grandchildren blighted. It is the leaders of leave who should take responsibility, yet almost every one of them has walked away from their ministerial position while still scooping up all the benefits that they get outside this House through the articles they write, through their inherited wealth and through their gold-plated pensions. They will never be held responsible, but it should be to their eternal shame that they have caused such damage and deep divisions in this country. They should speak to people, just as I speak to my own constituents whose skin is brown and who find themselves being told to go home and being spat at and abused. That did not happen before this appalling referendum.
When we talk about Brexit, the one thing we now need to do is find a way to heal these terrible divisions. Somebody needs to address that, but it will not be done through more dishonesty. We will do it with honesty and with courage. We must say to the British people, “We have made a mistake. Let us bring this back to you so that you can make good the harm that we have done.”
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
It is always a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). We do not agree.
The element that has not been mentioned at any time so far in this debate is the 17.4 million people who followed a very clear direction. The right hon. Lady and I were part of a party that made this promise in 2015: “If you vote for a Conservative Government, we will give you an in/out referendum. It will be a one-off, with no holds barred. You will decide.” The subsequent European Union Referendum Bill was passed by a very large majority in this House, making it absolutely clear that we the MPs were going to give the people the right to decide. We said, “You will decide, and we will implement whatever you decide.” The 17.4 million people ignored the ludicrous “Project Fear” and the £9 million leaflet dumped in every household that bombarded them with propaganda. They ignored all that. They wanted to “take back control”.
I was in Whitchurch, the town where I was born, and clearly remember people coming off a building site late in the evening saying, “It’s about them. It’s about them, isn’t it?” I said, “What are you talking about?” and they said, “We can get rid of you, Mr Paterson. We can vote you out, but we cannot get rid of them.” They knew exactly what they were voting for. They were voting for the right to remove their rulers. Those who pass bad laws, levy taxes and spend their money badly here can be removed at a general election. That is what this is about.
We see time and again that we are up against a constitutional conundrum. We have had referendums on the European Community, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and the alternative vote and, conveniently, the people obediently and politely delivered the result that the establishment wanted each time. This time, however, to the horror of the political establishment represented across all the Benches here, the commercial establishment, including the Confederation of British Industry, and the media establishment, the people have gone against their will. We have a real constitutional conundrum. Everyone in this House must recognise that they have to deliver what the people voted for. I look at the shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. If he wants to get into power, he must recognise that, of the first 100 marginal seats that Labour has to win, 78 of them are for leave—73 of them strongly for leave. Labour Members had better recognise that they are in this as much as those on the Government Benches.
I am in the ERG. We are called extremists. I have been called a member of Momentum by the Father of the House, who is sadly not in his seat. We were called ultras, I think, on the “Today” programme. However, we are actually loyal Conservatives, because our Prime Minister interpreted the leave vote to mean that we should leave the single market, the customs union and the remit of the European Court of Justice. Sadly, this evening’s proposal does not deliver that.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
I am enjoying my right hon. Friend’s speech. Does he agree that it is odd to be called an extremist or a traitor—sometimes by Ministers—for wanting to do no more than implement the manifesto upon which we were all elected?
Mr Paterson
It is utterly bizarre that Cabinet Ministers have written articles in the popular prints attacking Government policy and the manifesto on which they were elected. There is an issue of reputation and integrity here, and those of us who will regretfully be voting against the Government tonight will be representing the 17.4 million. This argument is not going away. It cannot be put back in the bottle and stuck in the fridge if this agreement goes through.
This is a bad agreement. Laws will be cooked up by 27 nations, and we will not be present. When I was Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I worked closely with the EU on common agricultural policy reform. We worked closely with allies, whether Germany, Hungary, Italy or whatever, but this time laws will be imposed on us, and if we do not impose those laws to the satisfaction of the European Commission, we can get taken to the ECJ and fined. If the deal goes through and if I come to this House in a year’s time to discuss an issue of great concern to my constituency, such as agriculture or food, and to complain about a law, the Minister will have every right to say, “The right hon. Gentleman voted for that. What is he complaining about?”
Lady Hermon
The right hon. Gentleman is a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, so will he explain to the many businesses, the farmers, the fishermen, the community leaders and the people of Northern Ireland who support the Prime Minister’s deal why their views do not count?
Mr Paterson
Their views do count. I remember going to an Ulster Farmers Union debate at Balmoral Park during the referendum campaign and leave won that debate. There are varied views in Northern Ireland, as we know from the DUP. The hon. Lady does not have an exclusive right on this. There is a clear role for Members to represent the leave view because this argument will not go away. It would be highly unsatisfactory for this deal to go through. Laws would be imposed on us by 27 nations, and we would not be involved. We would be paying £39 billion for the privilege of having the right to talk about the next phase, which is £64 million per constituency. There is not a single Member listening to this debate who could not spend that money well. It is purely an entry ticket to allow us the right to talk about a trade deal.
The hon. Lady comes from Northern Ireland, and it is extraordinary that we have allowed a section of the UK to be hived off into a new entity called “UK(NI).” The most fundamental principle of the Belfast agreement, as she well knows, is the principle of consent. We have huge admiration for the noble Lord Trimble, one of the co-architects who received the Nobel prize for the extraordinary achievement of getting Unionists to vote for the Belfast agreement, which was very much based on trust that the principle of consent would be respected and that the status of Northern Ireland could never be changed without the consent of the people. At the stroke of a pen, something called “UK(NI)” will be created, which is a clear breach of the Belfast agreement and of the Acts of Union of 1801.
We are promised the right to do trade deals. I was at the Office of the United States Trade Representative in Washington twice in the autumn, and the USTR is clear that we will not be allowed to do trade deals so long as we do not control our tariff regime or our regulatory regime. Under this proposal, we will not have control of either.
There are huge advantages to trading with the outside world. I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable), because the European Union itself says that 90% of world growth will be outside the European Union. We have drawn down from 61% of our trade being with the EU to about 45%, and we are heading to 35%. The future is phenomenal, and it is about trading with the growing economies outside the European Union—we also have the best possible relations with countries inside the European Union—and we can do it by triggering article 24 of the general agreement on tariffs and trade and showing a serious intent to do a free trade deal down the road. If there is a proper exchange of documentation, paragraph 5(c) of article 24 would give us a “reasonable length of time”—that could be up to 10 years—to negotiate.
All the “Project Fear” spookery about tariffs is for the birds. We can go ahead on the basis of article 24. Outside this place, people come up to me time and again to say, “We want to see the vote delivered. Why don’t you just get on with it?” It is now for the Government to deliver rapidly and make sure that we leave on 29 March by using article 24.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
For the sake of courtesy, I will say it is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), although much of what he said sounded aspirational rather than substantial.
Here we are, another fortnight later and another grand finale vote on the Government’s withdrawal agreement, this time with the addition of last-minute semantically creative but significance-light legal documents. We are just 17 days away from the toxic shock of no deal, an outcome that would unconscionably harm the Welsh economy, yet the British Government continue to gamble with the livelihoods of the people of Wales. No one in Wales voted for food and medicine shortages, no one voted to destroy Welsh agriculture and, of course, no one voted to make themselves poorer.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The UK is currently deciding whether it wants to damage its own economy by 6% or by 8%—by 6% under the Prime Minister’s deal, or by 8% under no deal. What the UK really needs to do is get its head around revoking article 50, which is the only sovereign decision it has left to take, otherwise there will be trouble in 17 days’ time.
Liz Saville Roberts
We have heard so much aspiration from Conservative Members, who preach to us that a no deal would be beneficial, and now we are coming down to the pragmatics, which all involve article 50, whoever actually brings it about—we will argue for our own approach. If the people of Wales ever needed proof that Westminster fails us, is deaf to our needs and is broken, it is this: while businesses and workers are anxious about their future, there are people here who talk blithely about unleashing the chaos of a no deal on their constituents.
As my Plaid Cymru colleagues and I have said time and again, this withdrawal agreement will be damaging. Plaid Cymru will never support a withdrawal agreement that takes Wales out of the single market and customs union, harming Welsh businesses and workers, as it would do. We will not support any attempt to remove the right of Welsh people to live, work and study in other European countries, as my daughter has done in Paris. In our heart of hearts we know this. Conservative Members and Labour Members all know that we are denying people and we are tying ourselves in knots as to how we justify that. As harmful as the Prime Minister’s deal would be for Wales, leaving without a deal is a worst-case scenario. We cannot countenance it as an option. Indeed, let us remind ourselves that it has already been overwhelmingly rejected by this House, as well as by the National Assembly for Wales.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
I do not doubt for a moment the hon. Lady’s sincerity in wanting to avoid no deal, but does she not, like me, see the irony in the fact that she will be joined in the Lobby by people who want to achieve precisely that? If she genuinely wants to avoid that, is not the safe, moderate and proportionate step to vote for this deal?
Liz Saville Roberts
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I ask him: does he not see the deceit of presenting the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement as a better result than no deal, given that it will come with the uncertainty of being out of the single market and customs union, damaging the Welsh economy? The no-deal scenario is worse. Many of us can now talk about Brexit almost on auto-pilot, but it is deceitful to tell people who no longer want to discuss this that the Prime Minister’s deal will take Brexit off the table. It is deceitful, it is harmful and it is not the best for Wales’s economy or for many of our economies.
The substance of this debate has never made sense to me. It has centred on a fabricated theoretical concern about a hypothetical backstop never intended to be used. For the extreme right-wing of the Conservative party to be peddling myths about fantastical problems the backstop might, in some blue moon, cause is one thing, but for the official Opposition to be embroiled in the minutiae of that same debate and to be using the same arguments as the Democratic Unionist party is another; it is an unnecessary distraction and a confusion.
What farmers, factory workers and families in Wales need is clarity. For all the withdrawal agreement’s misgivings, what the backstop does offer is, for once, some degree of clarity—it is an insurance policy, after all. But everything else about the withdrawal agreement is a mirage of clarity. Adopt it and the clarity of the political declaration disappears over the horizon as a mirage. The best way to achieve clarity is, of course, to extend article 50, but an extension of three, six or even nine months will do nothing to dissipate the fog of uncertainty. Article 50 must be extended until the end of the transition period, negating the need for this deceitful withdrawal agreement and for any British backstop. A 21-month extension would keep the UK in the EU until the end of the EU’s multi-annual financial framework, give this Government time properly to agree the final relationship with the EU and, crucially, allow time to put this to the people through a referendum.
I have been struck by the irony of people talking about concerns for democracy and about it being an affront to democracy that we would ask for another referendum. The Government took the country to a general election only 25 months after the 2015 general election. It is now 32 months and more since the referendum. Democracy is a resort it suited the Government to use in that short period, so I ask: why is it not suitable to use it now? The people’s vote must of course include an option to remain an EU member state, a position that polls show is supported by more than half the people of Wales—if only it were honest-heartedly supported by the Labour party, too. If we take the scales from our eyes, we will see that the concentration of wealth in London and south-east England got us into this Brexit mess and the concentration of power is trapping us in it. As far as I can see, giving people a final say on our future is the only remaining answer. Democracy is not a one-off event. Nor is it the privilege of only one generation. Democracy, through a people’s vote referendum, will be our salvation.
Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)
In the brief time I have available, I do not wish to re-litigate the 2016 referendum. I take the view that whatever their reasons, people knew why they voted the way they did and that those reasons should be accepted. But there is a difference between where we all were during the referendum campaign and where we are now: today, we all now know what is negotiable. I certainly did not know what was negotiable in 2016, and none of our manifestos talked about the issue of Northern Ireland, which has dominated the negotiations so much. Given that we now know what is negotiable, what is the way forward?
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is quite right that during the referendum campaign the issue of the Northern Ireland border was raised only in so far as the movement of people was concerned, and that issue was dealt with by the common travel area. Is that not an indication that the problems along the Northern Ireland border and the terms of the withdrawal agreement have been manufactured for an unnecessary reason, which is that the EU is using the Northern Ireland border as a way to keep the United Kingdom in both the customs union and the single market?
Mr Gyimah
I shall come to my comments on the backstop in a moment, but it is definitely clear that although our manifestos committed us to a certain course of action, as all manifestos do, we did not fully appreciate the details of the negotiation in which we were going to be involved.
Mr Gyimah
Let me just develop this point.
Ordinarily, a manifesto promise is taken through this House, with a Green Paper, a White Paper, First Reading and so on. The manifesto commitment is calibrated and then eventually delivered. The negotiation has been the process through which we have been going with our manifesto commitment.
I could vote for this deal if there was a vision for the future of this country at the heart of it. I could vote for this deal if there was a sense of where we were going at the heart of it. I could vote for this deal if, as many expected, it would improve on the current deal. Reading the newspapers at the moment, I find it depressing how many commentators are saying to us, “The grim reality is that MPs must hold their nose and vote for this.” Someone said today that this is a “grotesquely flawed” deal, but MPs should still vote for it. We are being encouraged to recommend for our constituents something that we blatantly know is not really in the country’s interest. One thing that leavers and remainers all agree on is that had the deal before us been put to us and there had not been a referendum, none of us would recommend it to our constituents as the right path for the future of our country.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Ind)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that had our constituents seen the reality of the actual Brexit deal, they too would have rejected it, and that they should have the opportunity to have the final say and a right to vote, not just MPs?
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady makes a powerful point, to which I shall return in a second.
We have this misleading cliché today that we just have to get on with it, as though the result is somehow immaterial so long as we do. That gives me cause for extreme concern about supporting the deal. Let me make two principal points. First, as far as I can understand it, the backstop is there to try to solve an impossible problem: we want to take control of our borders but we want the other side to have an open border. The back- stop exists now because after months and years of negotiation, we have not found a solution to that problem. If those who, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), say that alternative arrangements could solve the problem genuinely believe that such arrangements could, they need not fear the backstop.
The truth is that dealing with these alternative arrangements on their own will not address the need for the backstop. The side deal that the Prime Minister has come back with improves things to some extent, but the EU has no need to act in bad faith because it knows that, between now and 2020, we will keep going round the same loop, trying to find alternative arrangements. If we are not careful, we may still end up in that backstop, which is why there is such serious concern.
My second point is on the political declaration.
Mr Gyimah
I would like to develop this point.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough said that there is no point in discussing the political declaration. She said that all we need to do is vote for the withdrawal agreement, and discussions on the political declaration will come later. We in this House must get real about what the meaningful vote and the withdrawal agreement mean two to three steps down the line.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful point. It is easy to forget that when the Prime Minister set out in her Lancaster House speech the many tests and criteria that she felt we needed for a successful Brexit, one of them was to have a future partnership agreed over the course of the two-year article 50 period. As he will know, that was the first time that she mentioned the phrase “No deal is better than a bad deal”, but no deal in that context reflected the future partnership agreement, not just the withdrawal agreement.
Mr Gyimah
I thank my right hon. Friend for that point. I am running out of time, so I will have to move on very quickly.
The issue with the political declaration is that, after 29 March, we have no idea what happens. We have no strategy and no plan. What the Prime Minister has said is that she will consult this House on a mandate for negotiation, but if her red lines still exist, how will this House agree on a mandate for negotiation as far as the political declaration and our future are concerned? I cannot see how that is possible given that, today, we know that there is no majority for any of those options in this House.
We know that there are some in this House who would rather that we diverge as far from the EU as we can and go cap in hand to an America First President for that free trade deal. Is there a majority for that in this House? We are setting sail, or we are being encouraged to set sail, with no idea about the future. By August, we will have to decide what our negotiating position is for the 21-month period, because another clock starts ticking after 29 March. The longer that we take to work out our negotiating position, the more we eat into our own negotiating time. Very quickly, this House will have to decide whether it wants to get closer to the EU, whether it wants to diverge a bit more, or whether it wants to be somewhere in the middle. Whenever anyone asks this question, they are told, “You are trying to frustrate Brexit.” The truth is that leaving somewhere and going somewhere are not the same thing. We can all leave this Chamber, and two of us could go in completely different directions. We need to understand where we are going, which is why, for me, extending article 50, pausing and reflecting and working that out, is important.
The scene that we have seen over the past few months of Brexit Ministers having to buy a frequent pass on the Eurostar to go to Brussels to secure a concession will be played out time and time again, because we will have left with our hands tied behind our back and everything we want will come at a price. How would we have taken control on behalf of our constituents if that is what happens?
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah). He made a thoughtful, fluent and principled speech and I commend him for doing so.
Back in January when we were debating this matter, I said that the Government had no majority, no authority, and no longer served any useful purpose. If that was debatable in January, it is now an absolute certainty. I am afraid that the debate we are having only reflects the mess that the Government have got themselves into on this issue.
I want to be brief so I will not repeat a lot of the things that have already been said. I just want to make a couple of remarks about where the public are at and where they were at the beginning of this process, which leads on to the debate about whether a consensus is possible. I do not mean this in any critical way, but the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) called for consensus, the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) called for consensus, and—in a slightly different way—the hon. Member for East Surrey just made a plea for a kind of consensus. The difficulty is that they all mean something entirely different. The right hon. Member for Loughborough means a consensus around the Prime Minister’s deal, the hon. Member for East Surrey wants a pause so that we can think about whether other options could be considered, and the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood basically wants us to come out without a deal. In each case, there is no possible basis for consensus.
When we started this process, I noticed that there were three different strands of opinion in my constituency, and Knowsley is not unique in that. The first strand was made up of people who voted to leave and wanted to leave on any basis it was possible to achieve, including without any kind of a deal. Secondly, there were those who agreed more with me than with anybody else, who felt that we had made a historic mistake in voting to leave in the referendum and were looking for a way to reverse that process. Finally, there was a group of people in the middle who simply wanted to get on with it, although they were not specific about what it was they wanted to get on with, other than the fact that they wanted to leave the European Union—and the Prime Minister has built her entire negotiating strategy around that one group.
The difficulty is that that one group, which is also reflected in this House, cannot definitely be said to be on one side or the other when it comes to any specific deal. Yes, these people want to leave, but they do not necessarily want to leave on any terms put in front of them, and they certainly do not want to be part of a deal that makes them, their families and their communities worse off. The problem is that any solution has to involve a strategy that brings at least two of those three groups along with it, but I am afraid to say that what the Prime Minister is offering at the moment does not bring any one of those groups along fully, as we will see reflected in the Division Lobby tonight.
It would be reasonable to challenge me on what I think should happen. All I can say is that at the beginning of this process, after we triggered article 50, I would have voted for a deal that I thought would not do too much damage to my constituents; that is where I started from. Frankly, I am now at the point where I will vote, if I get the opportunity over the coming days, for no deal because I think that it would be disastrous for my constituency and our country. [Hon. Members: “Against no deal.”] Sorry, I will vote against no deal; that was a Freudian slip. I will also vote for a second referendum if the opportunity arises, and I will certainly vote for the extension of article 50. We have to get somewhere with this. If we do not, the only option left will be to say to the people, “Is this what you really want?” And we are rapidly reaching a point where that is probably the only option left.
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth). I have known him for many years and I do not doubt his sincerity in this matter at all. I myself had sincerely hoped that the Government would be able to make the wholly modest changes that this House urged them to make, and that there would be no risk that this country would find itself trapped in the backstop or that we would lose our democratic right to make laws for this country and pass them to a foreign entity for all time, as we are in danger of doing.
But whatever the Government tried to do, they have not, I am afraid, succeeded. Though I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Attorney General on their efforts, the result is that, like Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, they have sewed an apron of fig leaves that does nothing to conceal the embarrassment and indignity of the UK. As the Attorney General confirmed in his admirably honest advice, the backstop does not just divide our country in fundamental ways—it ties our hands for the future and sets us on a path to a subordinate relationship with the EU that is still, despite what we were told yesterday, clearly based on the customs union and on large parts of the single market.
Lady Hermon
I am very grateful indeed to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene, because it gives me an opportunity to remind him of the many opportunities that he took during the EU referendum campaign to assert that this country was going to take back control of its borders. May I just ask him whether he has ever visited South Armagh or Crossmaglen? How, with the greatest respect, does he think he is going to take back control of the border without the backstop arrangement?
Boris Johnson
I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I have certainly visited the places that she mentions—indeed, at the times of the troubles—and I can say that nobody wants those types of border controls to come back, least of all the Governments in Dublin or in London, or indeed those in Brussels; and, by the way, nobody thinks it necessary, under any circumstances, for hard border controls to return in Northern Ireland. But what I think her constituents will want is for this country to have the unilateral right of exit from the backstop, and that is not what the British people are getting out of this deal.
Boris Johnson
If the hon. Lady will allow me, I will make some progress.
I want to stress this point. I really cannot accept the repeated assertion by the Attorney General in his very powerful speech this afternoon that there is a minimal legal risk of us being trapped in the prison of the backstop, because it is now more than a year since I stood in Downing Street—in No. 10—and was told that there was a minimal legal risk that we would even have to enter the backstop. That is not a view that I believe could now be plausibly defended by the Government.
Alex Chalk
Of course there is a risk with the backstop —it would be infantile to suggest that there is not—but does my right hon. Friend not agree that there is also a very great, if not much larger, risk in respect of a no-deal outcome? Would he at least recognise that point?
Boris Johnson
I will come to that, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for conceding that it was always infantile to pretend that there was no risk of getting into the backstop, because that was, for a long time, the contention of those who proposed that the backstop should be instituted.
I am afraid that this deal has now reached the end of the road. If it is rejected tonight, I hope that it will be put to bed and we can all face up to the reality of the position and the opportunity that we have. What we need to do then—now—is to behave not timorously but as a great country does. We have broadly two options. We can either decide, if the EU is unwilling to accept the minor changes that we propose, that we will leave without a deal—yes, I accept that that is, in the short term, the more difficult road, but in the end it is the only safe route out of this and the only safe path to self-respect—or we can decide to take a route that will end in humiliation by accepting arrangements with the EU that seem to limit disruption in the short term but will leave us as an EU protectorate with many important rules set elsewhere.
Members have asked, “What’s the worst that could happen?” I will give two examples, but there is any number of rules and regulations. The financial services industry would be subject to laws set by its leading competitors, which is emphatically not what the City wants. The Commission has already made it clear that it wants to use the passerelle clause of the existing treaty to bring in qualified majority voting on taxation. We would be subject to that, under a qualified majority vote in which this country would not participate. I urge Members to think hard and to see that that predicament would be democratically intolerable. We would have to tell our constituents that they had no power or influence in setting some of the rules that govern our country.
James Cartlidge
I have huge respect for my right hon. Friend, but he said that there were two choices. In terms of WTO rules, which he has advocated, there are two choices; that is correct. We can either have tariffs that hit our consumers, or we have no tariffs on imports, which would leave our exporters and industry at a terrible disadvantage. Which of those two options would he go for?
Boris Johnson
In any circumstances, we would have the freedom to decide what our tariffs were going to be, and under this—[Interruption.] Under this deal, we would lose the power to decide what tariffs we levied on the perimeter of the UK.
The most powerful argument that has been made this afternoon is the threat that some Members are apparently ready to hijack the long-standing rules of the House in order to take our constitution hostage, with Parliament to direct the Executive in international relations. That upends hundreds of years of constitutional practice and makes a nonsense of relations between Parliament and the Government. I believe it would lead to an even greater gap between people and this place. Let us abandon that project of dismantling our constitution in the name of making this country an effective colony of the EU.
Instead, we should take what now seems to be the more difficult route but is, in the end, the only one that preserves our self-respect, which is to leave as we are required by law on 29 March and to become once again an independent country able to make our own choices. I am not in favour of crashing out, as many call it. The Malthouse compromise indicates the way forward—the UK observes single market rules and customs duties and restrains our right to compete for a period of three years while we negotiate a free trade deal. I believe the EU would be open to that.
As we come to the final stages, it is vital that we retain our freedom of manoeuvre and do not rule out no deal. A delay will achieve nothing except to compound the uncertainty for business. Now is the time to behave as what we are—the fifth biggest economy in the world, the second biggest military power in NATO and, by many counts, the most influential cultural and intellectual force in Europe—and not to accept what I believe would be a humiliation and the subordination of our democracy.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), although I am puzzled as to why all the wonderful ideas he has about Britain’s glorious future outwith the European Union were not put into play in the two years he spent as one of the most senior people in the Cabinet. One thing that he and I agree on is that this is a rotten deal, although the reasons we will vote against it are very different.
I make no apology for voting against this deal— 62% of people living in Scotland voted against leaving the European Union, and 72% of my constituents in Edinburgh South West voted against leaving the European Union. Quite frankly, if I were to vote for this deal, I would probably be strung up from the nearest lamppost as soon as I got home, because my constituents feel extremely strongly about this. They do not want to be taken out of the European Union, and they are very angry about being taken out of the European Union against their will.
Many of my constituents work in the second biggest financial sector in the United Kingdom. Many of my constituents work in two of the best universities in Scotland—Edinburgh Napier University and Heriot-Watt University—and many work in businesses that are already opening offices abroad. I am aware of at least one significant business in my constituency that is moving out of Edinburgh and the UK completely as a result of Brexit.
I make no apology for voting against the deal because I know—not because it is my opinion, but because the evidence I have heard over the last two years in the Exiting the European Union Committee tells me so—that this deal will make Scotland poorer and that it will make Scotland a less safe place to live. I know that this deal will remove Scotland from a single market of 500 million people and attempt to keep us, in some sort of hostage-like situation, in an internal market of only 60 million, in which we really do not have a proper say in the rules and regulations.
Joanna Cherry
No, I will not, thank you.
I know that this deal will place Scotland at a potentially serious competitive disadvantage compared with Northern Ireland. I know that this deal and the ending of free movement, combined with this Government’s hostile environment, will mean a fall in the working and tax-paying population of my country, which will adversely affect my country’s future and my country’s economy.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Does my hon. and learned Friend share my surprise, frankly, that the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) has been to Crossmaglen, and does she share my concerns, as someone whose mother-in-law is from the fair town of Crossmaglen, that any threat to the backstop is indeed a threat to peace?
Joanna Cherry
Yes. I have been to Crossmaglen. My mother went to school in Carrickmacross, and when I was a wee girl, she taught me the poem:
“From Carrickmacross to Crossmaglen,
There are more rogues than honest men.”
I am not suggesting that that is the case any longer, and I am not suggesting that that is because the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip visited. Joking aside, however, as somebody with an Irish mother and a family who still live in the Republic, albeit very close to the border, and who run businesses close to the border, I am acutely aware of the threat that this deal—this Brexit—poses to the peace process and the threat it poses to the economy on the island of Ireland, so I do not say that I do not understand why the backstop is there.
I said earlier today what I feel about the measly assurances the Prime Minister spent two months getting from Brussels. I know there are many people in this Chamber who have very good reason to be concerned that there should be a backstop if the deal goes ahead. However, I still make no apology for voting against this deal, because voting against this deal does not mean no deal; it gives us the opportunity to do what we should have done all along when we realised what a disaster this was, which was to hold a second referendum given that the people across the United Kingdom know the reality of Brexit—not the promises made by the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, which are unable to be fulfilled, but the reality of Brexit. I believe that if people see the reality of Brexit and the reality of remain, they will choose remain.
I am also voting against this deal because I know that, if this deal goes through, what will happen is that we will simply move into another lengthy period of even more difficult negotiations, with no guarantee whatsoever that any trade deal will be reached at the end of the negotiations. Even if there is, I know from the evidence that any trade deal reached will not be advantageous to my country.
The Prime Minister has said:
“I have been clear throughout the process that my aim is to bring the country back together.”— [Official Report, 26 February 2019; Vol. 655, c. 167.]
I simply do not accept that. This process has not been about the national interest; it has been about keeping the Conservative and Unionist party together and keeping the Prime Minister in power for as long as possible.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
There is much that the hon. and learned Lady is saying about this deal that I agree with, but I think she slightly over-eggs the point when it comes to the issue of Scotland and what Scotland wanted. She said that 62% of Scottish people voted against, but that is not in fact true. The turnout in Scotland was lower than that of any English region, and in actual fact only 41% of people voting in Scotland voted to remain, which was largely because the SNP made so little effort to get people to go and vote.
Mr Speaker
Order. This is a most extraordinary state of affairs. The hon. and learned Lady is seeking to rebut an intervention, but, Ms Gibson, you are literally yelling from beyond the Bar in a most eccentric fashion. Calm yourself and recover your composure.
Joanna Cherry
I am not going to waste what little time I have dignifying that intervention with a reply, other than simply to say that it shows the great ignorance of many members of the Labour party about the situation in Scotland, and why Labour is nose-diving into third position in Scotland, having once been in the lead.
To return to my point: when the Prime Minister says her aim is to bring the country back together, I do wonder which country she is talking about. The United Kingdom is a union of three nations—Scotland, England and Wales—and the Province of Northern Ireland. It is not one nation; it is a union of three nations and one province. Yet, the Prime Minister has taken no steps whatever—
Joanna Cherry
I am not going to take any more interventions, because I do not have much time left, and I will not get any more time for them.
The Prime Minister has taken no steps whatever to try to bring Scotland into the tent in her discussions on Brexit. Instead, she has repeatedly disrespected the will of the Scottish people, as expressed through their Parliament —most recently last week when, together with the Welsh Senedd, it overwhelmingly rejected this deal.
The Prime Minister likes to sit laughing, rolling her eyes, pulling faces and encouraging others to do so when my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) speaks, but she needs to remember that he speaks as the leader of the biggest party in Scotland—the party in this House that has more seats there than all the other parties put together. However, most importantly, when he speaks, he is articulating the majority view in Scotland, which is clear opposition to this deal and a desire to remain. [Interruption.] People can chunter away from a sedentary position as much as they like, but that is the reality.
The other reality is that, two years ago, in March 2017, by a majority of 69 to 59, the Scottish Parliament voted to hold another independence referendum in the event that Scotland was taken out of the EU against her will. I have no doubt that that will happen, and I have no doubt that this time we will win, because now people know the truth: they know that Scotland is not an equal partner in the UK, they know that Scotland is not treated with respect in the UK and they know that this deal is rotten.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), my colleague on the Brexit Committee. She and I agree on some things; we disagree profoundly on others.
I will be brief. I rise to say that I will be supporting the deal this evening. I supported the deal the last time we voted on it, and I supported it for a number of reasons. Parts of it represented compromises for me and did not reflect fully what I would have wanted at this stage of the Brexit process. However, overall, it represented a reasonable, pragmatic approach to the article 50 process.
The other reason I supported the deal last time was that I supported the original backstop. I did not support the subsequent vote on the so-called Brady amendment—I did not support the strategy of trying to knock the backstop out of the withdrawal agreement. I actually think that the backstop is there for good and right reasons, which reflect noble purposes. I am sorry, but colleagues on whichever side of the House who say that Brexit has nothing whatever to do with the Good Friday agreement and the peace process in Northern Ireland display an ignorance about what has been achieved in Northern Ireland in the last 20 years. Peace in Northern Ireland is simply the biggest achievement of our politics in the United Kingdom in the last 50 years, and it should be incumbent on all of us to defend it. I am afraid that, back in 2016, the way in which Brexit would affect Northern Ireland and the difficult, complicated border issue there was an afterthought; we did not invest enough time in thinking that through and coming up with a solution. The backstop is there for a very good reason.
I never accepted the narrative that has grown in recent months on the Government side of the House and among some on the Opposition Benches that the backstop is some kind of entrapment mechanism. I regard that as a conspiracy theory. I tested this view with Ministers in Europe when I visited with the Exiting the European Union Committee, as well as on individual visits. I talked to independent trade and legal experts here in the UK who also reject the conspiracy theory that the backstop has been cooked up as an entrapment mechanism between a tricky Irish Government and a malevolent EU Commission to somehow lock the UK long term into an arrangement that we do not want.
Lady Hermon
I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for taking an intervention. Will he take a moment to reflect on the advice given by the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, who has asked for over 300 additional police officers? Quite rightly, the Government have acceded to his request. He has also taken off the market three unused border police stations that were up for sale, because he knows the dangers of a hard border in the event that we leave without a deal. Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on that warning?
Stephen Crabb
I agree 100% with the hon. Lady. The Select Committee took evidence from the PSNI and visited the communities affected. Anyone who tries to belittle or downplay these issues has, I am afraid, a completely wrong reading of the very serious and sensitive issues we are discussing.
The proper way of seeing the backstop is as a concession. The backstop in the withdrawal agreement reflected an ask that we made. It did not reflect the original form of the backstop. We wanted it to be a UK-wide backstop, rather than Northern Ireland-specific. We were granted that, and that is how people view it on the other side of the channel: they see it as a concession that they made to us. In effect, it was an achievement of our diplomacy and our negotiating that the final version of the backstop reflected something that we asked for. Rather than being defended as the fruit of our efforts, however, it has been trashed with the conspiracy theory that it was some kind of entrapment mechanism. There are two golden rules when one is a Minister: do not trash your civil servants, and do not trash your own achievements and homework. It does feel that we have rather done that to the withdrawal agreement we negotiated.
I say to my colleagues who have still not been convinced to support the deal that all of us on the Government Benches shared in the joint responsibility of triggering article 50 to begin the process that would lead to a negotiated outcome. What did we think was going to emerge from that process? An agreement that looks very much like the one that is in front of us. It would not have mattered who else was in Downing Street. With the greatest respect, whether it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) or any Opposition Member, it would not have changed the fundamental shape and form of the withdrawal agreement that emerged at the other end of the article 50 process. It is not the personality in Downing Street—whether they are a true believer or not—that has shaped this withdrawal agreement. The withdrawal agreement has been shaped by our red lines, but also by a number of fixed variables that we cannot escape from when discussing Brexit.
The Northern Irish border is one of those fixed variables. Another is the hard choices and compromises that need to be made on trade: the level of market access and whether we have pure frictionless trade, balanced against the extent of the obligations we are willing to take on. One of the failings on our side, collectively, since the referendum is that we have not properly explained to the British public some of those choices and compromises, so there is still fantasy swirling around that Brexit can deliver all the benefits and none of the obligations. But the fantasy is not on offer. What is on offer is just a set of very difficult and unattractive choices. I genuinely believe that the deal in front of us represents the very best of those choices. There are strengths and merit to the deal in front of us. I encourage and implore my colleagues, on the Government Benches and on the Opposition Benches, who genuinely believe in delivering a responsible Brexit to support the deal.
Richard Graham
My right hon. Friend is making a series of very good points. The former head of the Legal Services Commission said that the new arrangements give us a legal way of ensuring that we are not locked into a customs union indefinitely if we do not want to be, because the unilateral declaration allows us to suspend obligations. Does he not agree that it cannot be right that both my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip and the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) believe that turning down the deal is a good idea—one because they want no deal and the other because they do not want any Brexit? Surely both of them cannot be right.
Stephen Crabb
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The fact is that being in the backstop is not a happy or comfortable arrangement either for the EU side or for our side. It is not the long-term objective of the negotiators on the EU side—I genuinely believe that. Again, I return to what I described as the conspiracy theory of entrapment—that somehow we are being lured into an arrangement that we will never be able to get out of. This is just one more stage in a very long process to come.
I recall one particular leaflet that was delivered to every household during the referendum campaign. One of the warnings in it, among some of what many of my colleagues would regard as scaremongering, was a prescient one of the potential of 10 years or more of negotiation and wrangling over what Britain’s future relationship would be with the EU. It feels very much as though here we are in year three, and we are still in the baby steps of quite a long process. If colleagues of mine want to see quicker, more purposeful progress, they will support the deal this evening.
Finally, I do a lot of mountain climbing in Scotland and in Wales. Every year, people set off on a sunny day up mountains wearing a pair of trainers, armed with a slice of Kendal mint cake, thinking that they are going to get to the summit. They get up there, the weather is not as good as they wanted, they do not have a map and they are not equipped properly. They might argue among themselves about what the right direction is, and eventually they need rescuing off the mountain. It feels a bit like that is perhaps where we are heading, but mountain rescue is not going to come for us. The solution to get off the mountain is in our hands, and that solution is to pass the deal tonight.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I declare straight away that I have never climbed mountains—there is time for me yet to get into it—but it is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb). Time is short, so I will try to be brief and will not take any interventions, because many hon. Members are yet to speak and it would be unfair, in such an important debate, for Members to be reduced to a time limit of two to three minutes—so, my apologies.
I echo many of the serious concerns that Opposition Members have raised about the Prime Minister’s deal or no deal, and the hugely negative impact that those scenarios will have on our communities, where a Tory Brexit will be devastating. The Prime Minister’s legal guarantee changes nothing. While we have heard lots of debate and emphasis on that today, quite rightly, I wish to concentrate my contribution on the human impact that is at play.
I will start by looking at my home town and constituency of Bradford, and the destruction that ideological Tory policies and the Government’s austerity cuts have brought upon our communities in Bradford in the last decade. We see rampant poverty gripping the city, with more than half the children living in my constituency in poverty according to the End Child Poverty campaign, and with not a week going by that I do not have a worried parent in my constituency advice surgery telling me how they are struggling even to clothe or feed their children because of the desperate poverty that they live in. We see poor educational attainment, with far too many children leaving school without enough GCSEs and far too many unable to go university. We see abysmally low wages, with people in Bradford paid less than the national average, or even the regional average.
We see insecure jobs and more and more people forced to take on zero-hours contract roles that do not pay the bills and do not offer the protection that they need. We see cuts to local government funding that have crushed advice centres, libraries, community halls and other services that people rely on and that are vital to the fabric of community life. We see an underfunded NHS, with our hospitals creaking as they are forced to do more with less, and staff underappreciated and underpaid. We see uncertain futures, with no hope of tomorrow being better than today and no bright future for our children.
Do I think that the Prime Minister’s deal or no deal is the right choice and that it will offer people in Bradford a better future? Not at all, because let me be clear: it is the Prime Minister and this Tory Government who have left us in such a state, because it is their austerity that is driving Bradford into the ground, not the EU. We were promised by the leave campaign that everything would be fantastic—that there would be millions more for the NHS, that the economy would be fine and that wages would be higher—but the stark reality is that those promises have failed to materialise and that a Tory Brexit will only devastate our communities further.
A Tory Brexit will help the Government to strip away workers’ rights—rights we have fought hard for and depend upon—and allow them to continue their relentless pursuit of deregulation to make it easier for people to lose their jobs, their holidays and their representation. It will grind down our economy in Bradford and Yorkshire, which exported £9.7 billion of goods—goods that create thousands of jobs but depend on free and unhindered access to the continent—to the EU in 2017. It will hit wages and the pockets of working people as the economy shrinks, jobs are lost and even food prices rise. It will allow the Government to continue their ideological austerity drive, with money set aside for the regions by the EU not coming back to the north but being spent in the south and the Tory shires. Ultimately, it will worsen poverty, as rights are watered down, jobs are lost, wages shrink and austerity continues.
People in Bradford have suffered for years under this Tory Government, who have enacted ideologically driven policies and forced poverty on our communities, so why should they trust a Tory Brexit? A Tory Brexit is not the answer for people in Bradford, and nor is a Tory Government, full stop. I cannot support an outcome that would leave people in Bradford worse off. I cannot allow our communities to be dragged further into the spiral of deprivation, social injustice and poverty.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I will support the deal tonight, as I did before. I welcome the further agreement that was struck in Strasbourg in relation to the backstop. We now have far greater legal certainty about our ability to exit it.
The focus of this debate, and of most of the debate in the past 24 hours and previously, has been the legalities of the backstop and of our exiting it. Ultimately, we should care about the real-world risk of being trapped in the backstop, but that has been discussed very little. What are the actual chances that we will be trapped in the backstop, not from a legal point of view but from a political point of view? Is it likely that we will find ourselves in that position? I think it is perfectly possible to argue that it is highly unlikely.
First, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) that our being in the backstop would not benefit the EU at all. The EU would not want us to remain in the backstop because, for instance, while we were in it, we would have many of the benefits of the single market without paying into the EU. The idea that the EU wishes to trap us in the backstop is simply a wrong analysis.
Secondly, we would have several hurdles to jump before we ever got into the backstop. We would only start to consider it as a possibility if a trade deal were not ready. We now have further legal certainty about the efforts to ensure that the trade deal will be ready. It would only start to become a possibility if the implementation period were not extended. That is an alternative. It would only start to become a possibility if alternative arrangements were not completed. Again, we now have more certainty about the preparations for those alternative arrangements. We should stop talking about the backstop as though we are certain to get into it and certain to be trapped.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making such a powerful case. Is this not about degrees of risk? We should weigh the minuscule risk, as I see it, of being trapped in the backstop against the far greater risk of not agreeing this deal, which would throw into jeopardy all the good things it should bring this country.
Nick Herbert
My hon. Friend quite brilliantly anticipates my very next sentence. Ultimately, we have a political judgment to make, not a legal judgment. Is the theoretical, highly unlikely possibility that we will be trapped in the backstop really enough to risk Brexit altogether?
Let me say first of all that anyone who is clinging to the hope that no deal could still happen, and is intending to vote against this deal to achieve it—it appeared to me that my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) was thinking of doing that—should forget it, because it is clear that the House will not allow no deal. Whether one supports that move or not, it is about to be taken off the table as an option. We therefore face the clear and present danger that, if this deal does not go through, Brexit will be diluted, seriously delayed, or ditched altogether. That may be what Labour Members want—there is a whole cadre of them who want a second referendum, and others who want to cause difficulty for the Government—but one thing is clear: on these Benches, you cannot talk about gaining control and taking back control, only immediately to cede control to the House of Commons and lose any further control we have to shape the kind of Brexit that we would like. If Conservative Members do not like the deal as it is currently constituted, let them spend the next few months discussing, and then voting on, and then being outvoted on, whether they want a Norway arrangement in which we would become a rule taker, or whether they want a permanent customs union rather than the temporary one for which the backstop provides. That is what Labour Members want, and that is what the House of Commons will give us, whether my hon. Friends like it or not. That is the downside. That is the risk that they are now running: Brexit diluted, seriously delayed, or ditched altogether.
The choice is clear. We can have damaging uncertainty as a result of further delay, anger in the country that we have not implemented the decision that the country took, and the risk—of which my hon. Friends should be perfectly well aware—that the impasse will lead to a general election. Conversely, there is a huge upside to getting this deal through. We avert the risk of no deal, although I think that that is about to be averted altogether. We leave, as promised, on 29 March or shortly after. Business confidence and investment return—and we know that businesses are sitting on cash at present—because we have an implementation period and certainty for those businesses. Resources are released for public services. If the deal does not go through tonight, the Chancellor will have to make it clear tomorrow that he must hold on to cash in the event of uncertainty and of no deal becoming a possibility. If the deal goes through, that cash could be released for public services, which every Member in the House would like to happen.
There are Members who voted to trigger article 50 and who voted for the referendum. Although they did that within the last two years, they are determined to oppose this deal because, in reality, they have reached a position in which they want to oppose or dilute Brexit.
Let me say to my hon. Friends that this not a moment to choose ideological purity above pragmatism. This is a pragmatic deal, which recognises that while 17.4 million people—the majority—did vote to leave the European Union, 16.1 million voted to remain, and we have to compromise. It will be a compromise not with the European Union, but with the country: a sensible compromise which recognises that in leaving we must carry the public with us, and carry business confidence with us.
I say to Members that they have a second chance now to support this deal, and if they really want to deliver Brexit, they should do so.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)
Public dissatisfaction with this place has never been greater. It is true that, when the country is so divided on Brexit, it was always going to be the toughest of challenges to earn public confidence and respect, but the failure of leadership in both the major political parties, coupled with the rigid ideological dogma of some Members, has made the situation far worse than it needed to be. Party and dogma have sadly been put ahead of country.
I have been consistent throughout. I believe that the result of the referendum has to be respected. A belief in the central importance of democracy and the dire consequences for progressive politics if we were to ignore or attempt to subvert the result mean that we must leave. Holding a second referendum would, irrespective of its result, fuel a dangerous right-wing populism in our politics that would be likely to lead to long-term right-wing Governments in this country. However, the basis on which we leave and engage with the EU in future is all-important. It will shape our destiny for a generation. It must protect our economy, the standard of living of our constituents and our security. We also have a solemn duty to preserve the United Kingdom, which should only ever change through explicit public consent, and to protect the peace in Northern Ireland, which remains fragile—we should never forget that.
The deal we are being asked to support tonight was overwhelmingly rejected back in January largely, but not exclusively, because of the Northern Ireland backstop. The Brady amendment passed by this House gave the Government a clear instruction that the backstop must be replaced in the withdrawal agreement by alternative arrangements; this has not happened. Some propose a time limit; this has not happened. Others wanted us to be able to unilaterally leave the backstop if negotiations fail; again, this has not happened. So none of the conditions laid down by the vast majority of the original deal’s opponents has been met, and this has been starkly underlined by the Attorney General’s legal advice of this morning.
As I have said, I believe we do have a duty to implement the referendum result and leave the EU, and I will only support a minimum extension to article 50 which would ensure that we were not obliged to participate in European elections. Therefore, I will be willing to consider supporting this agreement, for all its perfections, if only the Government were willing to be clear about their aspirations for our future relationship. For the sake of trade, jobs and living standards, that has to include a customs arrangement of some kind with the EU. That could, but need not, be membership of the customs union itself. Not only is that the best way of securing economic stability, but it would guarantee that the backstop is consigned to the dustbin of history. The best means of achieving this is Common Market 2.0, with the UK moving into the EFTA pillar of the EEA and joining a comprehensive arrangement with the EU, maintaining a common external tariff with frictionless trade and no hard border in Ireland. We would seek to maintain the closest possible economic relationship with the EU without the political integration which the majority in this country opposed very clearly in the referendum.
The time has come to put this, along with other potential solutions, to the House so we can indicate where a majority can be secured. We know what the majority are against; the time has come for the majority in this place, free from the constraints of party Whips, to make it clear what they are for. That would truly be acting in the national interest.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis).
Throughout the negotiation process I have always believed that the result of the referendum must be delivered. It is simply not enough to say that we respect the result of the people’s vote on 23 June 2016 and then ignore it. In that referendum the British people instructed the Government to leave the European Union, and the agreement that the Prime Minister has negotiated implements that vote effectively, ending the free movement of people, stopping the vast annual payments from the UK to the EU, and freeing the UK from the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy.
I personally voted to remain, and have always been conscious of the fact that a majority of my constituents—57.3%—voted to remain, while recognising and remembering that over 40%, a significant minority, voted to leave. One of the problems with the entire withdrawal process is that without compromising no side—whether leave or remain, for no deal or for a second referendum—would have been entirely and perfectly happy with terms of the deal whatever agreement the Prime Minister had brought back from Brussels. However, the referendum presented voters with an unambiguous choice to remain in the EU or to leave, and the consequences of either decision were conveyed to the electorate extensively.
We rightly place our focus on a strong economy, but the vote was not just about economics. The referendum result brought to the surface of political debate people’s sense of identity as well as their concerns about immigration, free trade and the EU’s democratic deficit. However, events over the past few months have shown that the political discourse is frozen, and that is what we need to deal with. Many of us have been waiting for that decisive moment when we can have clarity on the future direction of travel. In my view, this withdrawal agreement provides the clarity that we need to move to the next stage of the negotiations—the implementation period—and to lay the foundations for a comprehensive free trade agreement with our European partners. The implementation period will provide Governments, businesses and people on both sides of the channel with the time to put in place the new infrastructure that will be integral to the arrangements that the Prime Minister has recently secured.
I am one of the 27. No, not the EU27, but the 27 Members of Parliament representing Greater Manchester constituencies. I am therefore particularly interested in gaining the certainty that we need and in continuing the growth of our northern economy. There is nothing that businesses fear more than uncertainty. They need to know the direction of economic travel so that they can plan for future investments. That is hugely important for my constituency, for Greater Manchester and for the economy of the north of England.
The Government’s commitment to the northern powerhouse is translating into record levels of investment across the region and, most importantly, into jobs. Greater Manchester’s local industrial strategy reinforces the region’s ambition to establish the country’s first Tech Nation hub, and a report from Ernst & Young reveals that Manchester has been ranked as the best performing city outside London for attracting foreign direct investment projects, with a 17% increase in projects since 2017. The digital sector is the leading sector influencing those figures. Many companies are now comparing Manchester to California’s silicon valley, because of the huge expansion of Manchester’s tech hub. Further evidence of the city’s confidence in this sector is Amazon’s decision to open a new office in the centre of Manchester, creating 600 digital jobs.
However, we can continue this success only by laying the foundations for an orderly, smooth Brexit. This agreement provides the basis on which we can leave while giving people and businesses the certainty that they need. I understand that some people in Cheadle and elsewhere in the north, as well as some colleagues here in the House, want to reject this deal in the hope that that will force either a no-deal Brexit or a second referendum leading to the UK remaining in the EU. Both cannot be winners, however; both cannot be right at the same time. For any hon. Member who genuinely does not wish to stop Brexit, this is the best and only deal. The EU has made it clear that it will not change the terms of the agreement. Whatever our views on the nature of the future relationship, that relationship can be negotiated only when a withdrawal agreement has been passed. This is the only withdrawal agreement. If we do not agree to this motion today, we risk having no Brexit at all. I am backing this agreement to take us out of the European Union into a more global future, and I am anticipating a positive, optimistic future for our country.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson). We might go through different Division Lobbies tonight, but I share her priority for safeguarding our constituents’ jobs and livelihoods. That is what is driving my decision to vote against the motion tonight, and I want to set out three reasons why I will be doing that. First, for many of us on the Opposition Benches, the package that the Prime Minister has brought back from Strasbourg at the eleventh hour totally misses the point. Our concerns about her deal have nothing to do with the Northern Irish backstop. In these debates about exiting the European Union, right hon. and hon. Members have expressed concerns about the economy and trade three times more often than concerns about the backstop.
This last-minute deal, which really has not changed much, is just the latest chapter in the Tory party’s Brexit divisions and melodrama. When the Prime Minister says that she is listening to Parliament, she is actually listening to hard-line Tory Brexiteers and her confidence and supply partners, the DUP. When she says that she is acting in the national interest, she is actually putting her party’s interests above the prosperity of our constituents. She encourages us to come together, but she has done little to reach out across the House to appeal to Labour Members and other Opposition MPs. When it comes to the deal tonight, this is the first time that I can remember in British history that a PM and Chancellor have recommended a course of action that, according to their own economic analysis, will make people worse off and our economy smaller. The people did not vote in the 2016 referendum to be poorer, and I cannot in all conscience vote for a deal that makes my constituents poorer and the country less safe.
Secondly, as the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) said in his eloquent contribution, the Government have not levelled with people about the trade-offs and hard choices that should be made on Brexit. For example, Brexiteers claimed that trade deals with the US, India, Japan, Australia and New Zealand will boost our prosperity, but there is not a shred of evidence that those trade deals—even if agreed quickly and in our favour, on which the International Trade Secretary is not exactly doing a great job—would result in more jobs and investment than we would lose if we loosen our ties with the EU, which is our most important market and the destination of most of our exports. That is why it was so foolish of the Prime Minister to make leaving the customs union and the single market her red lines from the word go. If only she had dropped those red lines, she may have managed to build true cross-party consensus for an alternative deal.
The irony of today’s debate is that it is all about reassuring hard-line Brexiteers that the UK will be able to pull out of the backstop, which is in essence about the UK leaving the customs union. However, just-in-time manufacturers in the food, automotive and aerospace industries, which employ tens of thousands of people across the country and thousands in my constituency, have stressed time and again the importance of frictionless trade and the customs union with the EU and of avoiding no deal. Supermarkets have warned that a no-deal scenario and any delays at the border would put food prices up, and the car and aerospace industries have warned that delays at the border will destroy just-in time manufacturing. Indeed, because of the threat of no deal we have seen companies big and small already taking decisions to put investments on hold. We have had bad news from Nissan in Sunderland and terrible news about Honda, and BMW has said that no deal would lead it to shift production elsewhere. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said, the car industry should be the jewel in the crown of our economy, but the Government’s irresponsible actions are putting that at risk.
Thirdly, I am not prepared to vote for a blindfold Brexit. The political declaration is vague and non-binding. We were told by Tory Brexiteers a couple of years ago that the trade agreement with the EU would be the “easiest in human history” but as Ivan Rogers, the UK’s former permanent representative to the EU, so eloquently put it only the other day:
“We cannot live in glorious isolation. Talk to the Swiss and to the Norwegians—they live in a permanent state of negotiation with the EU.”
To those who say that we should vote for the deal tonight so that we can get things over and done with and move on because people are fed up, I say that boredom is not a good reason for taking an important decision about the future of our country. The negotiations will go for years and years and years.
I hope that the deal is defeated tonight, and I hope that we then vote against no deal tomorrow. It would be the height of irresponsibility. We have heard the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) and the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) actually recommending a no-deal Brexit, which would be catastrophic for jobs, livelihoods and the wider economy, but do not take that from me; take it from Jaguar Land Rover and from businesses up and down the country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. On account of the demand and the time constraints, a five-minute limit will now apply, but I say to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) that it is not obligatory to take the full five minutes.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
It is a great privilege to be called to speak in this debate. If I had my speech written on a piece of paper, I would now metaphorically tear it up.
I will simply respond to the quite extraordinary comment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), of whom I am a great admirer. He was a very good Mayor of London. However, we have to appreciate that he is the primary spokesman and advocate for the idea that basically we should now leave on WTO terms, and many thousands of people in my party look to him and admire him for that and think he is right, yet I asked him the most basic question about the WTO today and he got it wrong. In my view, he did not understand it.
My point is that when it comes to WTO tariffs, if we go to a WTO no deal, which many Conservative Members who vote against this deal tonight will want, we have to understand there are only two choices. We are not taking back control of other countries, only this one, so we cannot affect the tariffs levied on our exports; we can only control the tariffs on our imports. It is the devil and the deep blue sea. We can either have a policy of WTO most favoured nation tariffs on imports, which could mean inflation of up to 20% on many foodstuffs and other consumer goods, or we can take the approach I understand we will be announcing tomorrow if this deal is defeated, which is to have nil tariffs on most imports. That is described as unilateral free trade but, in my view, it is not unilateral free trade but the unconditional surrender of British industry and British farming.
I want to talk about British farming, because I understand that, within the schedule we are poised to announce tomorrow if we lose this vote, arable farming—wheat—will be set with a nil import tariff. That is not a minor detail in South Suffolk, because there are currently no shipments of wheat booked out of the port of Ipswich after 29 March. That is not “Project Fear” but absolute reality, because the WTO tariff on wheat is €95, or £80, a tonne. The max to be had for milling wheat is £180 a tonne. Nobody is going to buy that. Even if we get quota, it is €12 a tonne, but we will not get it because under the WTO—guess what?—although we may come to deal with the EU on quota, New Zealand, our other friends in the Commonwealth, Australia and the United States are protesting against it in the WTO. People have to understand that the WTO ain’t no panacea.
But there is a way we can influence the tariffs on our exports, which will otherwise be very high, and it is old-fashioned: we make a deal with other countries, because we cannot directly control them. We do not have sovereignty over their tariffs, so we make a deal. Under the deal before the House, the good news is that we will continue tariff-free and quota-free trade with our largest market. Let us be honest, some of my colleagues will vote against the deal because they are getting the same emails I do, which say, “Go for WTO. Go for no deal.” They have to understand that that means that we, as Conservatives, would be saying that within a matter days the desirable outcome is the return of tariffs—and all the red tape that comes with tariffs—and non-tariff barriers across the whole of British industry. Do we think that is a good idea, as the party of enterprise? It is madness, and it will be damaging and destructive.
Here is the good news. People talk about why we voted for Brexit and all the issues around sovereignty, and I profoundly believe, because I am by nature an optimist, that if we get a sensible deal—if this vote passes —we will be successful, and I will briefly explain why. We may be the fifth largest economy, but we are 22nd or 24th in GDP per head according to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. We are low ranking because we do not have the sort of sustainable growth in exports that gives the higher GDP per head that our competitors enjoy.
If we take a sensible deal that secures our industrial base so that we have some industry to make those trade deals, then and only then, once we have sorted out the border, can we start making those trade deals. We will become more export-oriented and, if we control immigration sensibly, including from outside the EU, we will eventually see higher GDP per head. To really get that, we need the investment to come with it. That needs certainty, which means voting for this deal, being confident and being optimistic about the negotiations that follow on the FTA. It means backing Britain and saying, “Do you know what? We can do this. We are confident. We don’t fear the backstop. It is a risk, but we don’t fear it. We are confident.”
I believe that if we pass the vote tonight, we will be a very successful country.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Ind)
I salute the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) for having the guts to speak truth to those in his own party who have got wrapped up in this idea that the WTO and no deal is somehow a great future. He is absolutely right to point out what he did, although I would opt for a different outcome, which is to give the people the chance to stay in the EU. The whole Brexit process has shown the worst of our politics, right from the beginning, with the Vote Leave campaign and its hubristic claims on the side of the red bus, and then tumbling into a series of errors of judgment by the Prime Minister, when she decided to trigger article 50, and accepted the frame that she would do the divorce terms only and kick into the long grass the future relationship between the EU and the UK. It has been a catastrophic negotiating failure right from the beginning. Then of course we had the Prime Minister’s stubborn resistance to move at all on the single market or customs union; there was no sense of reading the room and trying to gauge a solution as we go forward.
So we find ourselves with this deal today, but I have to say that it is not all about the backstop; some of us believe passionately that the Good Friday agreement should be defended and it should not just be left to other leaders across the EU27 to make that case. There are problems with this deal: parting with £50 billion of taxpayers’ money in exchange for no certainty on the future of what will come next; and the £40 billion a year in lost public service revenues that we are going to see for our schools, hospitals and other public services because of the austerity that will be created by that Brexit deal. We have the spring statement from the Chancellor tomorrow, when this will be the elephant in the room. The Chancellor will not talk about the Brexit effect on the public finances and the shadow Chancellor probably will not either—it will all be ignored.
There is a better plan, which is simply for Parliament to grow up, get a grip and decide on what terms of Brexit should be offered to the public in a public vote. We should of course extend article 50 at the European summit on 21 March to facilitate the time and allow us to go back to the public. That was precisely the amendment that the independent group tabled for today, and I hope that at some point this week we will be able to vote on this question of a public vote. After all, a people’s vote was the policy of the Labour party at its conference.
Has there ever been a time in our politics when we have been worse served by the leaderships of our main political parties? I commend those Back Benchers, some with very different views from mine, who have tried their best to navigate towards a solution. Many hon. and learned Members have put their backs into finding a solution, but they have found that the intransigence and tribalism of party politics has stubbornly stood in their way. We know that the Prime Minister is a prisoner of the ERG right wing on her side, but my patience with what was and has been going on in the Labour party has ended. I could no longer stay in the Labour party, standing by with its leadership enabling a Brexit that I know will hurt the livelihoods and jobs of our constituents. I say to my friends—
Mr Leslie
I did not vote to trigger article 50, but the point about hon. Members who are heckling me is that they do not like to hear that a massive betrayal is going on in the Labour party right now. The conference policy that was passed was to support a public vote, and nobody can explain to me why the Labour party has not got to the stage of supporting a public vote by now. All my hon. Friends in the Labour party know that by now we should have reached the stage of a public vote. So I appeal to Members across the House: now is the time to make a decision, to stand up for our constituents and do the right thing, for their livelihoods and jobs. We must support, this week, a public vote to put this issue back to the public, so that they can decide.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The time limit will now be reduced to four minutes, but I say to the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), to whose eloquence we are accustomed, that it is not obligatory for him to absorb his full time.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I voted Brexit, and so did my constituency, by 62% to 38%. It always seemed to many of us that our job was to try to deliver the decision of the people, but we were aware that unfortunately we were in a minority in Parliament and might have to compromise. It became clear to many of us months ago that the EU was unwilling to unpick the agreement. It also become abundantly clear that we could not get the deal through Parliament. So, what was the way forward? It seemed to me that there was some sort of logical way forward, because the two parties themselves had agreed that the backstop should only be temporary. If the backstop proved not to be temporary, could we not, under the Vienna convention or international law, unilaterally escape from it?
I took legal advice—I am grateful to Professor Peter Willetts, the emeritus professor of global politics at City, University of London—and eventually suggested to the Government that they use the device of a conditional unilateral declaration. It was met with some scepticism at first, but the campaign continued, and I am delighted that the Government have now issued a unilateral declaration.
The shadow Brexit Secretary and the Leader of the Opposition made it clear today that they believe the unilateral declaration is not watertight because the EU has not signed up to it. That is simply not true under international law. We are perfectly entitled under international law to interpret the treaty in the way that the parties appear to want to interpret it, which is that the backstop should be temporary. Once one of these conditional interpretative declarations—that is the term of art used—is issued, it can cease to have effect only if the other party to the treaty refuses to ratify that treaty. Not only has the EU not refused to ratify the treaty, but it has not objected to our declaration.
Our declaration makes it absolutely abundantly clear that there is nothing to stop us exiting the backstop if discussions break down. We do not have to prove a lack of good faith by the EU; we have simply stated in our unilateral declaration that there is nothing to stop us exiting the backstop if discussions break down. In paragraph 14 of the Attorney General’s report, he says that this is
“a substantive and binding reinforcement”
of our rights.
Now, of course there is a risk, but life is full of risks, and against the minimal risk of our being trapped in the backstop, which I believe to be minimal because we have issued the unilateral declaration and because of the stated desire of the parties, there is a much greater risk for us Brexiteers that tomorrow Parliament will block no deal, and that the next day Parliament will vote to extend article 50. For those of us who believe in Brexit and in delivering the will of the people, that is a far greater risk than the fairly small risk of our being trapped in the backstop forever. I appeal to my fellow Brexiteers: you may not like the deal, and it is not perfect, but it delivers Brexit. Let’s go for it.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I wish to address my remarks to what should perhaps happen after tonight’s vote, because it looks as though all the drama of recent days has not persuaded a majority in this House to support the Government tonight. That has happened because they were on too flimsy a ground. The attempt to dress up some bad faith provisions as almost a whole new treaty was never going to work for two reasons. In part, it was because the vast majority of it was already in the withdrawal agreement. There is already an arbitration process and already provisions to suspend temporarily things that that arbitration process judged, so none of that is new. The grounds are so narrow. This happens only if there is a proven accusation of bad faith, as distinct from a political disagreement, and only then if one party—the European Union—acts in defiance of a ruling of the arbitration process. That is highly unlikely to say the least. Otherwise, if there is no agreement on the future relationship reached by the end of the transition period, the backstop kicks in.
For us, it has never been about the backstop, because we understand that this is a necessary consequence of a commitment that the UK Government have made to having no hard border, and we should value that commitment and we should value the Good Friday agreement. For all the energy in the discussions with the European Union since November, those discussions have been about the wrong question. The question should have been about not the backstop, but the future of our relationship with the European Union.
Our main objections to this agreement are that it leaves this country less empowered than we are at the moment, that it leaves us poorer than we would be otherwise, and, most of all, that there is no clarity on the future. The Prime Minister said so today. What is the answer to the car industry or the aerospace industry that says, “What does the future hold for us?” What is the answer to a young person who says, “What will happen to my rights in the future?” The Prime Minister told us today, after three years, that the answer is that there will be a spectrum of different outcomes. That is the answer: a spectrum of different outcomes. That is not good enough.
We have heard plenty about elites and the people in this debate, but there is nothing more elitist than driving through a withdrawal agreement while deliberately keeping from the people the true nature of the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom after that happens, and that is precisely the strategy of the Government. Let me say to Ministers that if they lose the vote tonight and we are in the position of looking at an extension of article 50, let us not have a sterile debate about whether that is for one month, two months or a particular number of weeks. Let it be for a purpose. Let us recast this process so that we can level with the public about the choices that Brexit entails. Let us lay them out, all their pros and cons. We know the pros and cons of remaining; it is time that the choices and the trade-offs of leaving are laid out before the public. That is the opportunity of extending article 50, not simply another few weeks of the same parliamentary merry-go-round.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I think it is probably an understatement to say that we are not where we want to be today, and that we are not where we should be. I do not believe that the 17.4 million people who voted to leave the EU expected that, just 17 days before our scheduled leave date, the question of whether we are going to leave on 29 March would still be in the balance.
This House voted to trigger article 50, which gave a two-year notice period for us to leave, and it passed the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, which had the date when we leave in it. It is a failure of our politics and of leadership that we are in this position today where the choice before us tonight is, as far as I am concerned, an impossible choice: a choice between the deal, which is not a deal and does not deliver on our promises to the people of this country, and voting down a deal and risking all sorts of alternatives from those who want to thwart and delay Brexit and prevent it from ever happening.
It will only be when the history books of this period are written and the real truth comes out that we will fully appreciate what happened. All the people who have sought to undermine the Prime Minister in her negotiations, and the hindrance that that has caused, are directly responsible for why we are here today. There are also those who have maintained that no deal should be taken off the table, which has completely undermined our negotiating position, and those who have supported a second referendum, which has sent a message to the EU, saying, “If you give the UK a terrible deal, it will vote it down in another referendum and decide to stay in the EU.” The truth will come out one day, and then we will know exactly what has gone on to undermine these negotiations, but we are where we are tonight.
Here we are, 20 minutes before the vote, and I still do not know how to vote; I am still in a quandary. The choices before us tonight are between two wrongs—two things that I do not want to happen. It is an impossible choice. I will make a decision and vote tonight, but it is a choice that I do not want to make. One option—if you will excuse my language, Mr Speaker—is a turd of a deal, which has now been taken away and polished so that it is a polished turd, but it might be the best turd that we have before us. The alternative would be to stop Brexit all together, as some propose, and the risk of that happening is very real. That would be a complete denial of the people. When this House voted for a referendum, we put the decision in the hands of the people. We said, “You will make this decision and we will implement it.” The fact that we are where we are today is a failure of our politics, and every one of us needs to take responsibility for the British public’s view of this place today.
As I am faced with this impossible choice tonight, I just trust that we will deliver on the referendum and keep our word to the British people, and that—one way or another—we will leave at the end of this month.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), but may I give him a little piece of advice and suggest that he votes against the deal?
We have listened to the debate over the past few months, and can extract many anomalies that go to the heart of the constitutional problem we find ourselves with today. There is a real risk that this Parliament is becoming a hollow Parliament—a Parliament that the Executive hold so low that they will not dare open negotiations with it, and whose votes the Executive choose to follow or choose not to follow. It is a Parliament that some right hon. and hon. Members have, in the very recent past, suggested be adjourned until after Brexit, and one to which the Executive will not grant Opposition days for fear of being forced to follow the will of the people’s elected representatives. It is a Parliament that the people look at and, like so many generations before, are starting to despair at. But I warn the Executive that this Parliament will bite back.
There is no majority for this identical deal, there is no majority for no deal and there is no majority to authorise this Executive to throw us over an economic cliff, to damage our culture, our communities and our future generations, and to lose respect for this country around the world and the respect that this country has for itself. If those who lead cannot act in the best interests of our country on the evidence that lies before us—not some historical prejudice—they should not be surprised if this Chamber bites back.
So here we are, finding ourselves with a meaningful vote in March. The right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) mentioned the people’s vote, and said that it would risk breaking democracy and our politics. But it is interesting that we do not hear about the fraud, the investment and the attempts to buy votes in the original referendum. Why is that not damaging our democracy and our politics? It begs the question: what intellectual humility is needed to say that what the Government are doing is wrong, and to look at the facts that influence current thinking? I hope that it is not history, because history will judge this folly severely.
My predecessor had the pleasure of sitting in the Chamber for six hours to speak and vote when we went into the forerunner of the European Union—the organisation that we watched being created after world war two not for trade, but to keep the peace. Today we have heard from hon. Members about the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which is about not trade, but keeping the peace. It is about keeping communities living, working and enjoying each other’s pleasure.
I will vote against the deal tonight not because of the Good Friday agreement, and not because of what was said about the economics during the referendum—that we were all going to be so much better off—but because of the young people in East Lothian whose futures are being damaged by this decision. There are people who say that there are hard Brexiteers and hard remainers, and that the reality lies somewhere in the middle. Well, tonight I declare my interest as a hard remainer, because that is where I think the future of East Lothian, the future of Scotland and the future of the United Kingdom is best suited.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
This has been a very important debate, and tonight’s vote will be one of the most significant votes this House will ever take. I want to thank all those who have spoken in the debate today, and indeed all those who have spoken in the debates on previous occasions. As we go to vote, I also want to put on record my thanks to the civil service and the UK negotiating team. They are dedicated, committed, and have worked tirelessly for the past two years. They deserve our thanks. Too often, they have received wholly unwonted criticism with no right of reply. The verdict that this House delivers on the deal is a verdict not on their efforts but on the mistakes made and political decisions taken by the Government, so I record my thanks—our thanks—to them for the work that they have done.
The mood in the debate today has been lively at times, but also sombre. Members have clearly been contemplating what is likely to happen tonight. The theme has been clear, and has focused on what the Prime Minister said she could deliver—namely, legally binding changes to the backstop. As has been said many times in the debate, on 12 February the Prime Minister outlined her three options for achieving those legally binding changes to the backstop: either a legally binding time limit, a legally binding unilateral exit clause, or the ideas put forward by the alternative arrangements working group. Those commitments—those promises—have been repeated many times by the Prime Minister and by other Cabinet Ministers, so much so that for many Members of this House, not least Conservative Members, this has become a matter of trust. These were promises made by the Prime Minister to them, to Parliament, and to the country.
I have repeatedly raised the question of expectations—the concern that the Prime Minister was raising expectations that she could not fulfil. When I said that last week and the week before, Conservative Members challenged me, saying that I was not optimistic enough when I said that I did not think there were going to be legally binding changes. It is now obvious that the expectations, having been raised, have not been fulfilled and the promises have not been kept.
Among the problems for the Prime Minister and the Government has been that they have been living day to day, week to week—avoiding defeat today by promising something tomorrow. That was what happened on 10 December when the vote was pulled—the Government avoiding defeat by promising assurances on the backstop. It is what happened on 29 January when the Government voted for the so-called Brady amendment requiring that the backstop be replaced. It happened on 12 February when that promise was made about legally binding changes; and it happened two weeks ago when, facing possible defeat on a crucial motion, the promise was made that we would have the meaningful vote today, a vote on no deal tomorrow, and a vote on extension the day after. They were all promises made to avoid defeat today—promises for tomorrow. But as tonight’s vote is likely to show, today has caught up with tomorrow. There can be no more buying time.
I appreciate that in the last 24 hours, the Prime Minister has valiantly tried to argue that she has delivered on her promises and that there are significant changes, but that claim has been tested in argument in this House. There was always a temporary right to suspend the backstop under the withdrawal Act if the arbitration panel found a breach of good faith. That is not new—it has been there since 25 November. There was always a commitment that the backstop would not have to be replicated. That has been there since 14 January in the letter from Presidents Tusk and Juncker.
The announcement that the letter is legally binding was made last night, but the Prime Minister made it clear that the letter had legal force on 14 January, for the first vote. “Legal force” and “legally binding” are the only difference; it is dancing on the head of a pin. That claim has been tested in this debate, and the Attorney General delivered his opinion earlier, with the key conclusion in paragraph 19 of his advice being that there is “no internationally lawful means” of exiting the backstop, “save by agreement.” He could not have been clearer. The Attorney General made much play of the difference between political and legal issues, but the problem for the Prime Minister is that she promised legal changes.
The Father of the House challenged the Leader of the Opposition on the question of the backstop, and rightly so. I make it clear: we have always accepted the need for a backstop. Nobody likes the backstop, but it is inevitable. However, as the letter from President Tusk and President Juncker makes clear, the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration
“are part of the same negotiated package.”
Mr Kenneth Clarke
What I put to the Leader of the Opposition was that the only things we are settling today with this vote are the deal we have on citizens’ rights, the money we owe and the Irish backstop. Those are the only things that will be resolved if we pass this withdrawal agreement today. I still cannot understand what the Labour party’s objection is to any of those three.
Keir Starmer
I engaged with that point, because it is important. I have dealt with it a number of times from the Dispatch Box. I have made it clear on a number of occasions that the Labour party recognises the need for the backstop. The problem is in the heart of the letter from President Tusk and President Juncker, where they say:
“the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration…are part of the same negotiated package.”
Anybody who has read the legislation that we are voting under tonight will appreciate that the Government cannot move forward unless both the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration together are voted on tonight. It is a cheap point to simply say, “Well, since you accept that there is a backstop, you should vote for this tonight.” I will not accept it.
It is not just about the technical fact that the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration have to be voted through together. It is also about the fact that what happens today, given the promises, is as much about trust as it is about substance. I have never doubted the difficulty of the Prime Minister’s task or the way that she has gone about it. She has been right to refuse to listen to those who are casual and complacent about the need to avoid a hard border in Northern Ireland. But the reality is that the deal the Prime Minister has put before this House is deeply flawed. The future relationship document is flimsy and vague. It is an options paper. It is the blindest of Brexits.
I heard what the Prime Minister said today—she has said it before—about not being able to negotiate a trade agreement with the EU until we have left, and that is right. But she and I know what she promised: a comprehensive and detailed political declaration, ready to be implemented. That is why it was called an implementation period, not a transition period. That commitment to a detailed political declaration was made at the Dispatch Box by Brexit Secretaries on a number of occasions. This deal is not that; it is an abject failure. It does not protect jobs, living standards or rights. It will not deliver frictionless trade. The deal has already been rejected once by this House. It has been rejected by the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. It is opposed by the TUC and the entire trade union movement. Every Opposition party in this House, and I suspect a good many Conservative Members, will oppose it tonight. This is a sorry outcome after two years of negotiations.
Keir Starmer
I will not give way, because I have just looked at the clock.
Mr Speaker, I want to end with this. I have been in the role of shadow Brexit Secretary for two and a half years; it often feels longer. Many predictions were possible back then, but I could not possibly have foreseen the scale of the calamity now upon us. The truth is that the Prime Minister has spent 24 months negotiating the deal, but the deal arrived at is a desperate attempt to keep her divided party together. It has failed even in that endeavour, and I believe it will be rejected by this House. This is a difficult moment for this House and for the country. We in this House should take no joy in the events that have unfolded. After tonight, the House will need to come together and find a way out of the mess that the Prime Minister and this Government have created.
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen Barclay)
The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) began his remarks by paying tribute to the officials across Whitehall who have put so much work into the negotiations on which we will vote tonight. On behalf of the Government, I join him in paying tribute to them for that work.
Eight weeks ago, Parliament made it clear that, despite the benefits delivered by the deal, the deal must change. The Government have listened to the concerns of the House, and they have done that. They return to present a revised package, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General and I are putting to the House, that signals a moment in time when we can move forward and when the country can move forward. It delivers the certainty our businesses need, the guarantees our citizens seek and the protections requested across the House on workers’ rights and environmental standards. On Gibraltar, as the Chief Minister himself has said on many occasions, the Prime Minister has been absolutely clear that we stand behind British sovereignty for Gibraltar and that will never change. Above all, a vote for the deal tonight will deliver a wider global message that, when this country votes, respecting strongly held differences of opinion, its Parliament acts on that public vote.
In recent weeks, the Prime Minister and senior members of the Government have engaged widely: from trade unionists such as Len McCluskey to businesses, EU leaders, many colleagues across the House and even—on one occasion, when he finally got round to it—the Leader of the Opposition. Tonight, the Government present a package of measures that will extinguish the risk of no deal and remove the democratic threat posed by no Brexit. The fear of being trapped in the backstop and of the EU using its leverage in negotiations have been repeatedly raised in previous debates. I do not believe that the EU ever intended to approach our future relationship in bad faith. Indeed, it is a slight irony that those who say they are European suggest that the backstop and the EU acting in bad faith is a concern of theirs. It is certainly not my experience of dealing with them. We share values and we want to trade together, but we have to address that risk.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way on the point about our being stuck in the backstop. Further to my question earlier, I understand that the Attorney General has been able to extend his advice on how article 62 of the Vienna convention could be used. Would my right hon. Friend be able to confirm that?
Stephen Barclay
I am very happy to address the point that my hon. Friend has raised. Before I do, I was going to come on to the wider point that the Attorney General made clear in his comments this evening— that the documents laid before the House reduce the risk on which he previously gave advice to the House on 13 November.
However, I think the issue to which my hon. Friend alludes is the exceptional circumstances that might change the basis on which the UK might enter into an agreement. For the clarity of the House, if the United Kingdom took the reasonable view, on clear evidence, that the objectives of the protocol were no longer being proportionately served by its provisions because, for example, it was no longer protecting the 1998 agreement in all its dimensions, the UK would first, obviously, attempt to resolve the issue in the Joint Committee and within the negotiations.
However, as the Attorney General said in the House today, it could respectfully be argued, if the facts clearly warranted it, that there had been an unforeseen and fundamental change of circumstances affecting the essential basis of the treaty on which the United Kingdom’s consent had been given. As my hon. Friend will know, article 62 of the Vienna convention on the law of treaties, which is reflective of the customary international law, permits the termination of a treaty in such circumstances. It would, in the Government’s view, be clear in those exceptional circumstances that international law provides the United Kingdom with a right to terminate the withdrawal agreement. In the unlikely event that that were to happen, the United Kingdom would no doubt offer to continue to observe the unexhausted obligations in connection, for example, with citizens’ rights. I hope that addresses the concern that was raised.
Joanna Cherry
Is the Attorney General going to issue an addendum to the statement and the opinion he has already given, or is this just the right hon. Gentleman’s view on the matter?
Stephen Barclay
First, I have set out at the Dispatch Box the position on behalf of the Government and given that clarity ahead of the vote. What was clear in response to the Attorney General’s statement earlier today is that he has been assiduous in his duties to this House. He has provided his legal advice, both on 13 November and today, and I am sure he will continue to be a servant of the House and to act in that way.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The House must calm itself. It is up to the right hon. Gentleman to decide whether, and if so to whom, he wishes to give way. It is a matter for the right hon. Gentleman.
Stephen Barclay
Of course I will reflect the will of the House and give way, but what is interesting is that what we see on the Opposition Benches is a desire not to get into the substance but just to play politics with what is one of the most crucial decisions in our country’s history.
Mr Grieve
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I just want to understand the implications of article 62, because it seems that what he is actually saying is that that would be a ground for voiding the entire treaty. That is a rather different thing from being able to pull out of the backstop. Doubtless, some Members of this House would be only too delighted to see the entire treaty voided, but it is a rather apocalyptic scenario, or have I misunderstood something?
Stephen Barclay
Rather like economists, lawyers can always find issues on which to disagree. As I said, the issue here is that we are dealing with unlikely circumstances. What came through in the Attorney General’s statement is the fact that, ultimately, this is a political judgment, not a legal judgment. It is for Members of this House to assess the political risk. Indeed, as the Attorney General himself said—
Joanna Cherry
Is the Attorney General going to add to the opinion he has already given? What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is really—
Mr Speaker
Order. The Secretary of State has already explained that he is speaking for the Government. Colleagues must make their own assessment. There is no time to delay.
Stephen Barclay
Given that I have but one minute left, let me say that what came through in the statement this morning is, if I can quote the Attorney General, that legal advice
“can only inform…a political decision”.
Tonight, the House faces a political decision. We have a strong message from our business community that wants certainty. We have a message from our citizens who want to know their rights are protected. We are a country that stands by its legal obligations, which is why we will settle the financial settlement. But the reality is that we face a fork in the road. It is time to choose. It is time to support this deal. It is time for our country to move forward. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr Speaker
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Lobby.
The Prime Minister
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I profoundly regret the decision that this House has taken tonight. I continue to believe that by far the best outcome is that the United Kingdom leaves the European Union in an orderly fashion with a deal, and that the deal we have negotiated is the best, and indeed the only, deal available, but I would like to set out briefly how the Government mean to proceed.
Two weeks ago I made a series of commitments from this Dispatch Box regarding the steps we would take in the event that this House rejected the deal on offer. I stand by those commitments in full. Therefore tonight we will table a motion for debate tomorrow to test whether the House supports leaving the European Union without a deal on 29 March. The Leader of the House will shortly make an emergency business statement confirming the change to tomorrow’s business.
This is an issue of grave importance for the future of our country. Just like in the referendum, there are strongly held and equally legitimate views on both sides. For that reason I can confirm that this will be a free vote on this side of the House.
I have personally struggled with this choice, as I am sure many other hon. Members will. I am passionate about delivering the result of the referendum, but I equally passionately believe that the best way to do that is to leave in an orderly way with a deal, and I still believe that there is a majority in the House for that course of action.
I am conscious also of my duties as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of the potential damage to the Union that leaving without a deal could do when one part of our country is without devolved governance. I can therefore confirm that the motion will read:
“That this House declines to approve leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework on the Future Relationship on 29 March 2019; and notes that leaving without a deal remains the default in UK and EU law unless this House and the EU ratify an agreement.”
I will return to the House to open the debate tomorrow and to take interventions from hon. Members. To ensure that the House is fully informed in making this historic decision, the Government will tomorrow publish information on essential policies that would need to be put in place if we were to leave without a deal. These will cover our approach to tariffs and the Northern Ireland border, among other matters.
If the House votes to leave without a deal on 29 March, it will be the policy of the Government to implement that decision. If the House declines to approve leaving without a deal on 29 March, the Government will, following that vote, bring forward a motion on Thursday on whether Parliament wants to seek an extension to article 50. If the House votes for an extension, the Government will seek to agree that extension with the EU and bring forward the necessary legislation to change the exit date, commensurate with that extension.
But let me be clear: voting against leaving without a deal and for an extension does not solve the problems that we face. The EU will want to know what use we mean to make of such an extension, and this House will have to answer that question. Does it wish to revoke article 50? Does it want to hold a second referendum? Or does it want to leave with a deal, but not this deal? These are unenviable choices, but thanks to the decision that the House has made this evening, they are choices that must now be faced.
Jeremy Corbyn
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Government have been defeated again by an enormous majority, and they must now accept that their deal, the proposal that the Prime Minister has put forward, is clearly dead and does not have the support of the House. Quite clearly, no deal must be taken off the table—we have said that before and we will say it again—but this does mean that the House has to come together with a proposal that could be negotiated. The Labour party has put forward that proposal, and we will do so again, because the Prime Minister carries on threatening us all with the danger of no deal, knowing full well the damage that it would do to the British economy. This party will again put forward our proposals on a negotiated customs union, access to the market and the protection of rights. We believe that there may well be a majority for them, but there will also be the potential to negotiate on them. The Prime Minister has run down the clock, but the clock has run out on her. Maybe, instead, it is time we had a general election so that the people can choose who their Government should be.
Ian Blackford
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a humiliating defeat for the Government this evening, and this deal should not come back again in any way, shape or form. People will once again be looking at this Parliament and this Government in despair. The next few days will provide the opportunity finally to take some essential steps. Tomorrow, we have the opportunity to vote to block any attempt to leave the EU without a deal, and the Prime Minister must act—as the Prime Minister, not as the Tory party leader—to bring her party into line to prevent the UK from being dragged off a cliff by voting against a no-deal Brexit.
It is the duty of the Prime Minster, and of the Government, to act in all our national interests, and that means ruling out no deal. Then, we in the Scottish National party will be prepared to engage in discussion with the Government on securing an extension to article 50 that is long enough to enable this issue to be put back to the people. This afternoon, the First Minister of Scotland told the Prime Minister that in the event that the deal was voted down again, we would engage constructively on sensible proposals. Those proposals must include another EU referendum. Mr Speaker, can you advise me on what options are open to the House to bring such proposals forward swiftly in the interests of time? We have a responsibility to end the uncertainty for all our constituents and all our businesses.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which I think was probably directed at a wider audience. In so far as he asks me for advice, I think that these matters can be explored in debate almost imminently. The Prime Minister kindly announced what is to follow, and that will be elaborated upon by the Leader of the House in the supplementary or emergency business statement. The right hon. Gentleman is well familiar with the opportunities that are available to him in the Table Office, and I have every expectation that colleagues who want to air propositions in the coming days will have the opportunity to do so. I do not think that it is necessary for me to say anything further than that, but that seems to be manifest. Let us leave it there for now.
Mr Speaker
I will come to the right hon. Lady, who may well have important matters to broach not far distant from what the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) has just raised, but let us take the point of order from the leader of the Liberal Democrats.
Sir Vince Cable
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. With your vast knowledge of parliamentary precedent and history, can you identify a single case, say since the American war of independence, in which a Prime Minister has twice been defeated—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Government Back-Benchers very unkindly spoiled the right hon. Gentleman’s punchline, as a consequence of which I did not hear it.
Sir Vince Cable
I asked for precedent for where a Prime Minister had survived—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Ellis, calm yourself. I want to hear what the leader of the Liberal Democrats has to say.
Sir Vince Cable
I asked for precedent of a Prime Minister surviving two humiliating defeats, but being unwilling to change policy. Since we on the Liberal Democrat Benches are willing to offer an olive branch to embrace policies that she has so far rejected, will she accept the offer of friendship to do so?
Mr Speaker
I think that remains to be seen. As to the matter of precedents, it is usually unwise to assert that there is none for a particular circumstance unless one is absolutely certain, because most things have happened at one time or another—quite probably in my lifetime and certainly in that of the right hon. Gentleman. [Laughter.]
Yvette Cooper
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Businesses, public services and families urgently need some clarification about what will happen in just over two weeks’ time. The reason we provided for the votes over the next couple of days was to ensure that there could be a clear vote in this House on no deal and a clear vote in this House on extending article 50. The Prime Minister’s proposed motion for tomorrow sounded unclear to me. Can you therefore confirm that that motion will be laid with sufficient time for MPs to table amendments, if necessary, to ensure that the vote can be clear-cut and that there can be no misunderstanding or misinterpretation? Will you also confirm that if tomorrow’s vote is passed, the vote on extending article 50 will go ahead on Thursday and that there will be no new proposal to wait for the Government to attempt to put their deal back a third time, given how comprehensively it was defeated tonight?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her point of order, and I will bring forward what I would have said after the business statement by the Leader of the House and say it now instead in light of that concern. To be fair, I thought the Prime Minister’s commitment about what will take place tomorrow and Thursday was clear. The detail of the motion is another matter, but the chronology of events was all very clear.
Let me just say this: I hope it will be helpful to the House if I indicate, as I did in respect of today’s proceedings when I addressed the House last night, an advisory cut-off time of 10.30 am on Wednesday for manuscript amendments to tomorrow’s motion. My strong expectation, and I think I heard it, is that the motion for tomorrow, in accordance with normal practice, will be tabled tonight before the close of business, and there should be an opportunity for manuscript amendments up to 10.30 am tomorrow.
Amendments that reach the Table Office before the rise of the House tonight will appear on the Order Paper in the usual way, as those that were tabled before the close of business last night appeared on the Order Paper today in the usual way. The Table Office, which by the way we thank for its prodigious endeavours at this difficult time, will arrange the publication and distribution of a consolidated amendment list as soon as possible after 10.30 am on Wednesday, including all the manuscript amendments. I will announce my selection of amendments in the usual way at the beginning of the debate.
I hope that is helpful both to the right hon. Lady and, for that matter, to all colleagues.
Mr Speaker
These are important matters and, although the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) is a self-effacing fellow, he is an important man.
Hilary Benn
On a point of order, Mr Speaker, further to your announcement about manuscript amendments to the motion we will debate tomorrow. Depending on the outcome of that vote, we will, as the Prime Minister has just made clear, come to a motion on Thursday about seeking an extension to article 50. Could you please clarify—depending on what time that motion is tabled tomorrow, which clearly cannot be until we have voted to reject leaving with no deal—what arrangements you intend to apply for Thursday to allow for manuscript amendments in the way you have just set out for Wednesday?
Mr Speaker
The hours will be different, because we start earlier on a Thursday, but I will apply the same logic and, I hope, sense of reasonableness and desire to accommodate colleagues. I have not yet come to a particular view about the precise deadline for Thursday, but it is something I am happy to discuss privately with the right hon. Gentleman and other colleagues if they so wish. I will have the same consideration in mind. The House’s interest must be served, and I should seek to facilitate what Members want. I hope that is helpful.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As Chair of the International Trade Committee, it is clear to me that Brexit now seems to be a busted flush, but it leaves us all in a very serious situation. The one option that the Prime Minister did not mention, but she mentioned it in private before, is that surely the Government must now move quickly to revoke article 50, as it is only 17 days away, or face self-inflicted economic damage and calamity to all our traders and businesses. Surely the way to leave with a deal is to maintain the deal that the UK currently has and revoke article 50. Can we see that before the House as an option for MPs to vote on in the 17 days of seriousness we now have before us?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman chairs an important Select Committee in this place, the International Trade Committee. His brow was furrowed, he had a look of great seriousness and I thought he was going to make a purely procedural point. It is partly a procedural point but, if I may say so, it is also a political point, to which the answer is that there will be an opportunity for an amendment to be tabled to any motion on the prospective extension of article 50. The opportunity is there for colleagues, and, if an amendment is tabled and garners significant support, that will be a factor in the mind of the Chair in deciding whether to select it. It is open to him to table such an amendment, and I have a feeling he will go beetling around the House in hot pursuit of colleagues who share his views on this matter.
Liz Saville Roberts
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I note that the Prime Minister listed revocation, a different deal or a people’s vote. I seek your advice on how this House will ascertain those choices.
Mr Speaker
Forgive me, but I think the hon. Lady has foxed me. I apologise to her, because I am sure her point was an extremely good and clear one, but it was not clear to me immediately. Would she just put that question to me again, because I am not quite sure what she is seeking?
Liz Saville Roberts
We have been presented with three options by the Prime Minister: revocation, a different deal, or a people’s vote. What I seek is clarity on how this House, which is being seen outside to be very good at disagreeing, will actually arrive at agreement on one of these points.
Mr Speaker
The answer is that there are terms of debate for tomorrow and for Thursday, but that is not necessarily the end of the debate. In fact, I think I can say with almost complete certainty that it will not be the end of the debates on these matters. I see the Chancellor chuckling, I think in agreement with that proposition. It will be the end of Thursday’s debates and no more than that. So the answer to the hon. Lady’s question is that if Members wish to test the will of the House on a variety of different options, there will be such an opportunity. This point has been flagged up by the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and others. If it is the will of colleagues that there should be such a series of votes, I think it almost certain that that opportunity will arise in the coming days or weeks.
If there are no further points of order, we can now conveniently come to the business statement by the Leader of the House.
Business of the House
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
Mr Speaker, with the leave of the House and further to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s announcement, I should like to make a short business statement regarding the business for tomorrow and the remainder of this week:
Wednesday 13 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his spring statement, followed by a debate on a motion relating to the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union without a withdrawal agreement and a framework for the future relationship.
Thursday 14 March—Debate on a motion relating to the NICE appraisal process for treatments for rare diseases. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 15 March—Private Members’ Bills.
I will make a short business statement on Wednesday should it be necessary, and I shall make a further business statement in the usual way on Thursday.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for that, but I am astonished at this business statement. We still have no idea on this, despite the Prime Minister setting out the next steps. We have had a vote and, as the Prime Minister herself said, we are now into an emergency business statement. This is callous and it is incompetence from the Government, and it is a discourtesy to the House and to the country.
Mr Speaker
I think what the Leader of the House is saying is that there would be a further business statement tomorrow—presumably she means after tomorrow’s debate and vote. Those points have been put on the record and I note what the shadow Leader of the House has said. I am happy to hear other points of order at this stage.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could the Leader of the House tell us whether there will be protected time for the debate tomorrow, given that there will be an important statement first?
Mr Speaker
Forgive me, but I want to facilitate the House. Let us continue the exchanges on the business statement, as the hon. Gentleman’s inquiry is really for the benefit of the Leader of the House, to which she can respond.
Andrea Leadsom
The motion will be brought forward in the usual way and it will be for the House to agree.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for that very brief business statement. There was no question whatsoever that the Government could possibly renege on the Prime Minister’s commitment to have these consecutive votes, so we very much welcome that. I was a bit more concerned about what the Prime Minister said about the motion tomorrow, as I detected that there seemed to be that little bit of wriggle room, whereby the Government would still hope to proceed with a no-deal Brexit in the event of this House voting to stop it. I need to hear from the Leader of the House tonight that the Government will bring forward legislation, in good time, for no deal to be taken off the table and that there will be no question but that if this is what the House decides, this is what the House will get. Too often we have had these debates and these votes, only for this Government to casually ignore them. They have said that tomorrow there will be a free vote, and I hope that that will be extended to the vote on article 50.
We need to have protected time so that this can be properly considered by the House, with no question of the two votes being bundled into one, as was rumoured today. So can we have these rock-solid commitments, because today this has been an absolute disaster? The chaotic cluelessness of this Government’s Brexit has been played out to the very end of these proceedings. We now need to get through the next 17 days with as much order and as much respect given to this House as possible, and that means respecting decisions. Will the Leader of the House do that in the next two days?
Andrea Leadsom
What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is really just to repeat what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, which is that if the House votes to leave without a deal on 29 March, it will be the policy of the Government to implement that decision. If the House declines to approve leaving without a deal on 29 March, the Government will, following that vote, bring forward a motion on Thursday on whether Parliament wants to seek an extension to article 50.
Mr Speaker
If it is helpful, I can inform the House that I understand that the Government’s motion for tomorrow’s debate has now been tabled. Colleagues who are thinking of tabling amendments, or who simply want to study the motion in the Table Office, have the opportunity to do so if they wish.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
For the benefit of everyone in the Chamber, it really would be extremely helpful if the Leader of the House would confirm whether protected time will be available for the debate tomorrow. We do not want it to be scrunched into a very short period of time. There may be urgent questions and statements and we may be left with perhaps a matter of minutes. We do not want a repeat of last night, when the Minister for the Cabinet Office came to make a key statement at 10 o’clock at night, and then to be left with very little time to assess the implications before the following morning. May we have a guarantee that protected time will be available? It is not an unreasonable demand.
Andrea Leadsom
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, a motion of this House is amendable. It is for the House to agree the timetable for tomorrow’s discussion.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Given that a meaningful vote has been defeated tonight, will the Leader of the House confirm that that means that the Government will table a motion under section 13(4) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act? When will that motion be tabled? Will she confirm that it will be tabled next week and before the European Council?
Andrea Leadsom
The Government will ensure that their commitments under section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the order of 4 December are met.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Leader of the House has chosen to give an emergency business statement merely about tomorrow’s business, when we know that there are sequential changes to Thursday’s business as well. She has not made it quite clear to the House—I hope she will be able to do so this evening—that should we vote to take no deal off the agenda in the vote on the motion tomorrow, there will be a change to the legislation, which is obviously not superseded by a motion passed by the House. We would have to change the legislation that contains the 29 March leaving date. Will she take this opportunity to reassure us all by getting to the Dispatch Box and telling us that if we vote to take no deal off the table tomorrow, she will immediately facilitate a change to legislation to ensure that that happens?
Andrea Leadsom
What I can say to the hon. Lady is that if the House declines to approve leaving without a deal on 29 March, the Government will, following that vote, bring forward a motion on Thursday on whether Parliament wants to seek an extension to article 50.
Mr Speaker
I appreciate that that is not the answer the hon. Lady wants, but it is the answer she is getting tonight. I understand entirely where she is coming from, but these matters can all be explored in the days ahead, and I am absolutely certain that they will be.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I guess that if the Government have tabled the main motion, they have also tabled the Business of the House motion governing tomorrow, so I do not understand why the Leader of the House cannot just tell us what time the votes will be tomorrow. It would be for the convenience of Members who have families and so on to know, because we are substantially changing the business for one of the most important matters affecting the House. Will it be at 7 o’clock tomorrow evening? Will it be 5 o’clock or 7 o’clock on Thursday?
Mr Speaker
As I understand it at the moment, the Business of the House motion, I think, is proposing a 7 o’clock finish. A 7 o’clock finish is proposed, though, as the Leader of the House says, that is an amendable proposition. If colleagues want to propose amendments to that, they can.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Surely if the House votes against no deal tomorrow and for an extension, the simple and straightforward way for the Government to facilitate this under the EU (Withdrawal) Act is to bring forward a statutory instrument, which is something that they could do in 24 hours.
Andrea Leadsom
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, I think, two weeks ago now, if the House votes for an extension, she will seek to agree that extension approved by the House with the EU and will bring forward the necessary legislation to change the exit date commensurate with that extension. But as she also said this evening, it is not within her gift, or within this Government’s gift, to insist on an extension. That will be a matter for agreement with the European Union and potentially subject to conditions imposed by it, but it would come back to this House, finally, to Parliament, and would need to be approved by Parliament.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Given that we are just over a fortnight away from Brexit day and the Prime Minister’s deal has again been resoundingly rejected by this House, it is absolutely necessary that the spring statement tomorrow is upgraded to an emergency Budget. Will the Leader of the House ensure that that happens?
Andrea Leadsom
I have already announced the business for tomorrow and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will continue as planned with his spring statement.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
If no deal is passed tomorrow and we have a Government motion on extension to article 50 on Thursday, will the Government motion include anything about the length of time that the Government expect that extension to article 50 to be?
Andrea Leadsom
I do not want to get into hypotheticals. At the moment, we have set out the debate for tomorrow, and the Prime Minister has been clear that should the House decline to leave the European Union without a withdrawal agreement and political declaration, then we will table a further motion that invites the House to consider if it wants to extend article 50. That will be an amendable motion, so it will be for the House to agree the length of such an extension, but that would be tabled only tomorrow should that be necessary.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
This evening’s defeat was entirely foreseeable and foreseen and yet in spite of that the Leader of the House is standing at the Dispatch Box and will not tell us what the limits are on the timing of the debate tomorrow. She still will not tell us what the proposed wording for a motion on Thursday would be or the conditions for the debate. I am afraid that it is no good talking about hypotheticals because this is the story of Brexit all along: poor planning, poor preparation and treating Parliament with contempt. The Leader of the House owes it to every Member of the House, so that we can consider these things properly, to stand up and tell us what the motion will be on Thursday so that people can think about amendments they want to table. That is within her gift. She is right that it is the House that decides, but the Government must come up with the proposition, and there is no reason why she should not offer that proposition now.
Andrea Leadsom
May I say to the hon. Gentleman that I always treat the House with the utmost respect? I have tried very hard to explain these propositions for tomorrow, and if tomorrow the House declines to leave the European Union without the withdrawal agreement and future declaration then and only then will we table a motion for the following day whereby the House can consider whether it wants to extend article 50. These are sequential. These are not a package that the House is voting on together. I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the motion for tomorrow has been tabled and that the Business of the House motion proposes that votes take place at 7 pm, but it is a fact—and it is not in any sense controversial to say this—that these matters must be agreed by the House. These motions are amendable, and therefore can be amended and voted on by Members.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Following the points made by the hon. Members for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), the Leader of the House knows, I know and the dogs in the street know that there is no majority in this House to leave the European Union without a deal. That is what is going to happen tomorrow, so even if she cannot give us the full motion, is there is a reason why she cannot at least tell the House what the extension on offer from the Government will be? Surely she can see that that is in her gift, and that it does not look good that she is keeping it to herself and not being open with the House this evening. Giving the House this information would also help the substance of tomorrow’s debate, depending on exactly which way the Government want it to go. Why can she not be open, up front and honest at the Dispatch Box, and tell us what the extension on offer might be?
Andrea Leadsom
I am always up front, honest and open with the House. Should the House decline to leave the European Union without a future declaration and withdrawal agreement, then and only then will I come forward with a motion for the following day, which will be amendable; it will be for the House to determine what the proposed extension period should be. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) is genuinely indignant or flummoxed. I hope that he is neither, although he certainly seems to be the former. To be fair, the Leader of the House has repeatedly said—[Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman should not chunter and witter away to no obvious benefit or purpose from a sedentary position when I am trying to assist him. The Leader of the House has repeatedly said that the Government would table a motion for Thursday, and that it would be amendable. As I indicated some several minutes ago in response to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) who inquired about my thinking in respect of amendments on Thursday, I would apply the same logic as I shall apply to tomorrow’s deliberations. There will be ample opportunity for Members to table amendments with what are, in effect, their own propositions and ideas for an extension, so I assure the hon. Member for Glasgow South that he will not be disadvantaged.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if we get to Thursday and this House is asked to apply to the European Union for an agreement on extending article 50, the extension has to be in agreement with the European Union and we cannot make the decision unilaterally?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The date of our exit is set out in law and further legislation would be required to change it. The consent of the House would be required for any extension, including for the length of that extension. Very importantly, the consent of the remaining 27 EU member states would also be required.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
The Leader of the House said in answer to an earlier question that she always seeks to assist the House. It is difficult with all the drama going on in the Government at present, but I wonder if she recalls that she is the champion of the Back Benchers in this place within Government. Will she use her best endeavours to ensure that, no matter what chaos is going on within the Government at present, they bear in mind that hon. Members need to understand and see the nature of the motions that are being promised as soon as possible in order to facilitate the will of the House in deciding the way forward?
Andrea Leadsom
I take the hon. Lady’s suggestion in the spirit in which she intended it. I take my responsibilities as Parliament’s voice in Government very seriously, and I will most certainly take her suggestions back to the business managers.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
We are in this mess for a variety of reasons, but chiefly because the Government had no coherent plans when they triggered article 50, and because the Prime Minister, in a blinkered way, carried on at full steam with her red lines, thinking that she could run down the clock. So here we are—the clock has nearly run down, Parliament has rejected the deal yet again and tomorrow there will be a motion with which the Government are again trying to say, “But remember, the clock is still ticking and the default is to leave on 29 March.” Following on from earlier points, when are the Government going to start thinking strategically, being open with the House, letting us see the plans and looking ahead, instead of continuing to run down the clock one day at a time?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman will know that there has been a steady desire on the part of the Government to seek agreement to the withdrawal agreement and future political declaration and to seek legally binding changes that would enable parliamentarians to support it. The Prime Minister indicated her extreme sadness at the fact that the House has declined to support the deal. She set out two weeks ago the next steps should that be the case. So we are following the process that the Prime Minister set out a couple of weeks ago. It is still our intention, if at all possible, to leave the European Union on 29 March with a good deal.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Government lay out on Thursday, alongside the motion, their considerations on what will no doubt be a proposed period of extension, which could obviously be amended? Through the work of the Public Accounts Committee, we see the real challenges of being prepared to leave, even with a deal, by 29 March. Even a short extension would give little comfort to people out there. So will the Leader of the House give us, either now or then, an indication of the length of time that the Government would be proposing on Thursday for an extension to article 50?
Andrea Leadsom
The Government will always endeavour to table motions swiftly so that parliamentarians have sight of them. As I have said to a number of hon. Members, the motion tomorrow is about whether the House wishes to leave without a withdrawal agreement and political declaration on 29 March. Tomorrow evening, should the House decline to leave without a deal, I will then table a motion that sets out the Government’s proposal, but, as I have said, it will be amendable, so it will be for all Members to consider whether they prefer a different sort of extension. But very importantly, again, it will then be for the EU unanimously to agree to that extension proposal. To be very clear about that, there may well be conditions imposed that this House would not wish to accept, and we all need to be open-eyed about that fact.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Forgive me if I stress this point again, but this is of course a Government who have been found in contempt of Parliament, and when the Leader of the House is not fully clear on what the consequence of voting for no deal tomorrow is, it is worth pushing. Why will she not confirm to us that the Government will bring legislation, secondary or primary, to this House straight after no deal being voted down to ensure that the default is no longer leaving the European Union if no deal is achieved? That is all she needs to do. Why cannot she offer to come to the House with what the Government are proposing on Thursday? We understand how the system works, we understand that things are amendable, and we understand that it has all got to be agreed by the European Union—all we asking for is the Government’s proposal. If they are unable to provide proposals, maybe they are unfit to be in government.
Andrea Leadsom
As I have now said a number of times, we have come forward with the proposal that the Prime Minister set out two weeks ago that in the event that the meaningful vote is declined today, we will set out tomorrow a motion enabling the House to decline to leave the European Union without a deal and without a future political declaration, and should the House decline to leave the EU without a deal, then on the following day we will bring forward a motion asking the House whether it wishes to have a short extension. That is the process that the Prime Minister set out, and that is what we will be doing.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
If, on Thursday, the House were to determine an extension past 26 May, then, according to the letters exchanged between Mr Juncker and Michel Barnier, there would have to be participation in European elections, which I for one would not support. If the House were to choose that, would a funding contingency be put in place, since there would be a large cost to the public purse for elections that I do not think we should be participating in?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. As the Prime Minister has said on numerous occasions, the only way to truly take no deal off the table is to agree a deal or to revoke article 50. The House has consistently rejected the former, and the latter would overturn the result of the referendum. However, if the House votes for an extension, the Prime Minister will seek to agree the extension that the House has requested with the European Union, and she will then bring forward the necessary legislation to change the exit date, commensurate with that extension. But the hon. Gentleman is exactly right; that may have significant costs associated with it and conditions put upon it by other members of the European Union. These are all imponderables as we stand here today.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The Government have just taken another pasting on their deal, and instead of coming forward with proposals for how to mitigate the risks we face, the Leader of the House is ramping up the jeopardy by saying that if the House accepts tomorrow that no deal is the way forward, that will become Government policy, when the reverse should be the case as well—if the House votes against no deal, the Government should introduce legislation to ensure that that is ruled out. Why has she steadfastly refused to make that the Government’s position tonight?
Andrea Leadsom
If the hon. Gentleman thinks about it logically, he will see that the only way to take no deal off the table is either to revoke article 50 or to agree a deal that changes the outcome. The Prime Minister has set out that we will come back to the House to see whether the House wants to extend article 50. It is not our policy to revoke article 50.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I spent some time in the No Lobby tonight, which was even busier than usual. You will recall, Mr Speaker, that you had to ask the Serjeant at Arms to check the Lobby during the Division. The place was packed. Given that we will have another vote of significance tomorrow, and a vast majority of Members will probably vote to take no deal off the table, has the Leader of the House had any thoughts about introducing electronic voting and dragging us into the 21st century tomorrow night?
Mr Speaker
It is a tad ambitious for the hon. Gentleman to expect the Leader of the House to facilitate that tomorrow, but he never loses an opportunity. I understand his enthusiasm on that matter, which I rather share, but it is a matter of hot dispute within the House. The Leader of the House can respond if she wants, but she is not under any obligation to do so.
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making me think of every Thursday morning. He raises that issue with me frequently, and I have always said that if the Procedure Committee wants to come forward with an appraisal of electronic voting, with huge support from around the House, I will always be delighted to consider it.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During our earlier exchange, you asked whether I was indignant or flummoxed. The phrase I would prefer to use is that I am bent out of shape with what has gone on here this evening. My question to the Leader of the House was nothing to do with procedure, which you tried to help me with. My question was whether there is anything to prevent her from telling the House what extension the Government have on offer in advance of publication of the motion, which you tell us is amendable, and rightly so. You know, I know, she knows and we all know that no deal will be ruled out substantially tomorrow night, and this motion will have to come forward.
The Leader of the House is probably sat there with this information in her substantial notes. I do not think she is that much out of the loop in the Government just yet; she will know what the extension might be. How can Members find that out, so that we are best prepared and furnished for tomorrow and Thursday’s debates? How can we prevent a situation where we are running around with amendments to a Government motion scribbled on napkins to hand in to you by half-past 10 o’clock or whatever time it might be on Thursday morning, and ensure that the Government are open with us?
Mr Speaker
That is a point of order for the Chair. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman—I hope this can be dealt with in a genial spirit—he is not one who suffers from a concern that, having made a point once, it would be excessive to repeat it. On the contrary, he is an experienced campaigner. I was taught by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) 30 years ago that quantity, persistence and, above all, repetition are as important as the quality of your arguments. Your arguments have to pass muster, but it is a great mistake to think you can just make a point once, persuade someone that you are right and he or she is wrong, and that is the end of it. In fact, you have to keep going over and over again.
The hon. Gentleman made his point in the form of an inquiry once, was not satisfied with the perfectly procedurally legitimate reply that he got from the Leader of the House and therefore waited several minutes before repeating, in a slightly fuller and extremely eloquent form, his own preoccupation. He has done that, but to be fair, I do not think he is going to get any further answer tonight. The Leader of the House has said what she said, and I think we will have to leave it there for tonight, but do I expect the hon. Gentleman to be in his place tomorrow, eager to favour the House with his views and leaping to his feet with alacrity? That is as predictable as the passage of the seasons.
Mr Speaker
Oh, very well. I will indulge the hon. Gentleman very briefly. [Interruption.] “No”, says one of his party colleagues, but I will indulge him.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am most flattered by all of that, but it does not actually answer my question, which was to you this time. Is there anything to prevent the Leader of the House, in advance of the motion being published, from telling us what its contents might be?
Mr Speaker
Quite possibly, there is the fact that the right hon. Lady does not wish, at this stage, to do so. I can think of another reason, which is that the precise terms of the motion for Thursday, particularly as it is contingent on what happens tomorrow, will not yet have been crafted. The Leader of the House does not need my help, but I am saving her the hassle of getting up at the Dispatch Box.
Mr Speaker
I was genuinely trying to be helpful. It seems to me entirely reasonable not to have the wording yet, but there we go. Anyway, the right hon. Lady says she is grateful, and I will take her at her word.
Pete Wishart
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House has continually and consistently said that the default position with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is to leave with no deal. That is the position, and I think everybody in the House agrees with that. If there is a vote tomorrow and the House votes overwhelmingly to take no deal off the table, the way to overturn that is for legislation to be introduced. Am I right in my understanding that legislation will be required in order to overturn the requirements of the withdrawal Act, and is there any indication that that legislation will be forthcoming if the House votes to take no deal off the table?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is getting into hypotheticals, which were deprecated—or, at any rate, resisted—by the Leader of the House. The answer is that I do not dissent from what the hon. Gentleman says about the legal position, but we are not at that point yet, and therefore I am reluctant to introduce new words into this exchange that are not required at this time. I am not disagreeing with him and I entirely understand the logic of what he is saying, but we are not at that point yet. The hon. Gentleman will be in his place on subsequent days, and I am sure he will give full voice to his conviction on this matter. I dare say others will, too, on either side of that argument.
I think it would be seemly if we now drew points of order to a close.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Mr Speaker
We come now to a series of motions and I suggest, as there is slight uncertainty about exactly what may or may not be objected to, that I should take them separately.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Wildlife)
That the draft Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 28 January, be approved.—(Michelle Donelan.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Employment Tribunals
That the draft Employment Rights (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019, which was laid before this House on 17 December 2018, be approved.—(Michelle Donelan.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Terms and Conditions of Employment
That the draft Agency Workers (Amendment) Regulations 2019, which was laid before this House on 17 December 2018, be approved.—(Michelle Donelan.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Employment Agencies
That the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 28 January, be approved.—(Michelle Donelan.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Financial Services and Markets)
That the draft Mortgage Credit (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 19 December 2018, be approved.—(Michelle Donelan.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Financial Services and Markets)
That the draft Financial Services (Distance Marketing) (Amendment and Savings Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 28 January, be approved.—(Michelle Donelan.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Road Traffic)
That the draft Licensing of Operators and International Road Haulage (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 6 February, be approved.—(Michelle Donelan.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Immigration)
That the draft Immigration (European Economic Area Nationals) (EU Exit) Order 2019, which was laid before this House on 11 February, be approved.—(Michelle Donelan.)
The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 13 March (Standing Order No. 41A).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Financial Services)
That the draft Investment Exchanges, Clearing Houses and Central Securities Depositories (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 17 January, be approved.—(Michelle Donelan.)
Question agreed to.
Petitions
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
I would like to declare my membership of the Hair Council and that I am a salon owner and a state-registered senior barber.
The Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964 established a voluntary statutory UK register for qualified hairdressers, which is maintained by the Hair Council and was set up in 1964 under the Act. The necessity of amending the Act to make registration mandatory has been addressed several times in the House since that time. However, the need for regulation to become a requirement has never been as crucial as it is now. Regulation for the barber and beauty industries is equally essential and of the upmost importance. I therefore rise to present this petition of residents of the UK.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that based upon recent research from industry, stakeholders and the general public, (upwards of 84% average of all respondents), there is a strong need and desire to amend this Act of Parliament from voluntary to that of mandatory; further that currently the hair, barber and beauty industries are completely unregulated which the public and industry find totally unacceptable and not in line with protecting the public from untrained and unqualified practitioners, including cases of poor health, safety and hygiene standards; further that with the current modern day slavery issues together with the use of precursor chemicals used in the making of incendiary devices, by giving industry the tools to self-regulate, we can make a huge contribution to challenging and stamping out these illegal and dangerous practices.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to amend this Act of Parliament to that of ‘Mandatory’ whilst including Beauty into the body of the ‘Act’, thus allowing industry to self-regulate with the remit to raise the standards of quality and training within the industry, whilst also raising the perception of the industry with the general public and protecting them from any form of malpractice; the petitioners further request that the Hair and Barber Council be consulted when amending this Act.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002432]
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
We now come to the important business of the day. I rise to present a petition about the Greater Manchester spatial framework and, in particular, the Romiley green belt. Since the framework’s publication in 2016, I have consistently urged that the overall number of houses needs to be reduced, that where houses are to be built, we should follow a robust brownfield-first strategy, and that local green-belt land, which is highly valued by local people, should be protected.
One such site, which is of particular concern in my constituency, is Hyde Bank Meadows in Romiley. It comprises a well-used community sports facility, a popular green space, a nature reserve, orchards and allotments. The loss of this green space would be damaging to the local environment, the community and the health and wellbeing of local people.
I have worked closely with the Friends of Tangshutt group over recent weeks, and I am especially grateful to Chantal Johnson for her help in collecting the signatures for this petition, which has been signed by 692 local residents.
The petition:
Declares that the revised Greater Manchester Spatial Framework should avoid the residential development of 250 units on the greenbelt at the site of Hyde Bank Meadows in Romiley; notes that the proposed site contains well-used community facilities of Tangshutt fields including, playing fields, three football pitches, a children’s play area, and outdoor gym; further notes the proposed site is adjacent to Tangshutt Meadow, popular green space, a nature reserve, community orchards and allotments, which are all hugely valued by local people; further declares concern about insufficient road access and increasing traffic levels, endangering child safety by blocking a section the ‘Safe Route School’, loss of sports and exercise facilities for both individuals and teams, and loss of community event space which unites two areas of existing housing; further declares such a loss of this green space would be damaging to the local environment, the community, and the health and well being of local people; and further notes the petitioners oppose plans for a new residential development on Hyde Park Meadows as set out in the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework-Revised Draft (2019).
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, the Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government not to support plans of this development.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002437]
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I rise to present a petition signed by hundreds of my constituents, called “Stop Wexit”, which I entirely support. Wexit stands for “Stop Wellingborough driving test centre closing”. The proposal is to close the driving test centre in Wellingborough, which would mean that my constituents would have to drive to Kettering and Northampton. They tried that once before and it was a disaster. It will be another disaster if they are allowed to get away with it. The petition is led by Chris Howard.
The petition states:
The Humble Petition of the residents of Wellingborough, Northamptonshire and the surrounding areas,
Sheweth,
That the petitioners believe that the closure of the Wellingborough Driving Test Centre should be refused on the grounds of the loss of local access to driving tests, the increase in congestion and emissions in and around Northampton and Kettering, increased lead times for test dates and the increased costs to learner drivers and parents.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Secretary of State for Transport and the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and refuse to grant the closure of the Wellingborough Driving Test Centre.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
[P002436]
Mr Bone
My second petition is signed by thousands of my constituents. The lead petitioner is Mr Roger Barnes, from the organisation Cluck Off. I fully support the petition. You may remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we had this petition before. Unfortunately, the developer has come back again. He has not learnt his lesson and he needs to learn it tonight.
The petition states:
The Humble Petition of residents of Rushden, Northamptonshire and the surrounding area,
Sheweth,
That the Petitioners believe that the proposed Bedfordia Farms planning application for a high intensity chicken farm be refused on the grounds of increased pollution, foul odour, effect on local house prices, increased traffic volume; and further that similar farms have a poor record on animal welfare.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Communities and Local Government, Northamptonshire County Council and East Northamptonshire Council to take in account the concerns of petitioners and refuse to grant the planning application for a high intensity chicken farm to Bedfordia Farms.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
[P002087]
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to ask your opinion and to try to get some advice about what recourse a Member of this House might have if another Member has deliberately or inadvertently misrepresented them on social media. Earlier today, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) posted that I called Scotland “a principality”. That simply is not true. At the time, I was chuntering about Wales and its constitutional status—which was a subject in a Westminster Hall debate a number of weeks ago—but I was certainly not referring to Scotland in the debate. Constitutional matters are ones that we on the Government side of the House regularly disagree with the Scottish National party about, and I think there is enough for us to disagree about on facts and substantive debates. I was not allowed to speak in the previous debate and I was not allowed to intervene, so I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, about the recourse that can be had and about how to make sure that the record is clear that I did not say that about Scotland. Actually, we should focus on facts and substance in our debate, where the Conservative party and the SNP have plenty to disagree about.
Gavin Newlands
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me advance notice of his point of order. I have come to expect some strange remarks from him, but even I was surprised at what I heard in the Chamber earlier on. I did see my colleagues who were also irked and many of them confirmed that they also had heard “Scotland”, but I hear what he says. I do wish that he would be as rigorous in representing his Ochil and South Perthshire constituents’ remain vote as he is in defending his running down of Scotland in this Chamber. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The hon. Gentlemen concerned will appreciate that this is not a matter for the Chair, except in so far as the veracity and truthfulness of anything that is said and reported in this Chamber is a matter of concern for everyone in the Chamber and for the Chair. If there has been a misunderstanding about what one hon. Member has been reported as saying, which has been repeated—but, I take it, without malice—by another hon. Member, I am pleased that there has been an opportunity through points of order to clear up the misunderstanding. I am quite certain that nobody who is reasonably well educated in any way whatsoever would refer to Scotland as “a principality”.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Just to bring the House back together in a spirit of unity, on behalf of SNP Members, can I wish the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) all the very best? I know that this is on Twitter and that was the subject of the point of order earlier, but the hon. Gentleman has had to return home because his wife has gone into labour. He was unable to make tonight’s vote, but I am sure that all of us in the House would wish him and his family all the best for the next 24 hours or so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Once again, it is always very pleasant when we have a point of order that is not a point of order but which is a point that the entire Chamber is very happy to note. We all look forward to good news coming from Moray in the very near future. I am sure that the lady in question will wish it to be sooner rather than later, and we all send our congratulations.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today, a number of visitors came to see me with different constituency issues, health issues and things that I hoped to help them with. They made me aware that the security today had only one line open and not two. I said, “Is that because the other line was broken?” They said, “No, it is not. It is because they did not have enough security staff there to facilitate both security lines.” The result of all that was that a large number of people were in the queue outside; it was unbelievably long and there was heavy rain, as you, I and everybody in the Chamber knows. Were you aware of that situation, Madam Deputy Speaker? If so, I seek your guidance on how we can ensure that it does not happen tomorrow. The weather hopefully will not be the same tomorrow, but let us hope that it does not happen.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. It is very serious. I have noted the point and I will make sure that it is duly passed on to those who are concerned with it, but as a matter of principle, it is better not to discuss the intricacies of security matters on the Floor of the House. I thank the hon. Gentleman.
Community Hospitals
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I was pleased to note that on announcing his long-term plan for the NHS, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said he is a strong supporter of community hospitals, so I am today asking if Health Ministers will kindly look into how some of the additional resources announced with the long-term plan can be earmarked for the community care provided by community hospitals, such as the much loved Congleton War Memorial Hospital in my constituency.
Congleton Hospital needs sufficient resources to ensure that it can continue to provide the all-round services it has already provided for several generations of my constituents for generations to come. The hospital is much valued locally, providing a range of services, such as the minor injuries unit, which saves residents travelling some distance to hospitals further afield with A&E facilities. Minor injuries such as burns, cuts, splinters and sprains can be treated quickly and efficiently at Congleton. As one person, who sustained a hand injury, told me:
“I popped down to Congleton Hospital, the wound was treated straight away and I was back at work within the hour.”
That person would have lost at least half a day’s work travelling for treatment elsewhere.
In recent winters, the minor injuries unit has, on occasion, been closed temporarily by East Cheshire NHS Trust, with staff redeployed to Macclesfield’s A&E. Then, in September 2018, the trust stated that it expected closures to be in place throughout weekends and bank holidays, plus ad hoc weekdays, throughout this winter. As a result, the minor injuries unit is currently scheduled to open only between 9 am and 5 pm from Monday to Friday, but with additional ad hoc closures within these hours. It was not open, for example, when I visited last Friday afternoon.
It is therefore not surprising that some people in need of urgent treatment decide not to risk calling at a unit that may be closed unpredictably, with user numbers no doubt affected accordingly. It is also understandable that these closures are causing grave concern among local people. On their behalf, I am calling on Ministers to ensure, please, that resources are put in place so that valuable community hospital facilities such as Congleton Hospital’s minor injuries unit are not only stabilised but strengthened.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this issue to the Chamber. I spoke to her beforehand to ask what her thoughts were on this issue and how I might helpfully intervene. I spoke to the Minister, too. In the past few weeks, the national and provincial press have highlighted a number of incidents in hospitals. They report NHS staff referring to “war zone” conditions in A&Es. The community hospitals the hon. Lady refers to are vital for the treatment of patients, but it is also good for the mental health of NHS staff to have hospitals where they can do their job—their duty—without facing any injury or threat to their life.
Fiona Bruce
The hon. Gentleman is right, as he so often is. Where they are properly resourced, minor injuries units can help relieve A&E facilities and enable them to treat more serious injuries more efficiently.
More broadly, the wide range of local healthcare services at Congleton Hospital includes a 28-bed in-patient intermediate care ward called the Aston unit, which is particularly appreciated by local families visiting patients. As the hospital’s website states, that unit helps those who no longer need the more acute wards of Macclesfield District General Hospital, relieves services there and allows people to
“recover in a homely and relaxed environment”
in Congleton. The website adds that the hospital
“has a very ‘family’ feel about it.”
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Lady is making a wonderful point about the value of community hospitals. In north Staffordshire, Bradwell Hospital, Haywood Hospital and Leek Hospital all provide excellent care, but my clinical commissioning group is consulting on closing those hospitals and reducing bed spaces. Does she agree that closing community hospitals is detrimental to the overall impact of our health economy? Exactly as she says, such hospitals free up more expensive acute beds in the big hospitals and allow people who are medically fit for discharge but are not ready to go home to get the care they need.
Fiona Bruce
I am sure the Minister will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. Indeed, that is why I entitled the debate “Community Hospitals” rather than simply “Congleton Community Hospital”.
As I have said, the hospital at Congleton has a family feel. I can testify to that following my most recent visit, just last week. I met kindly nursing staff who were clearly dedicated and committed to serving the community in and around Congleton, and who were proud to tell me that they had, through sound management, recently achieved an increase in the number of in-patients treated. About 350 are currently cared for each year in the Aston unit.
In addition to the minor injuries unit and in-patient care facilities, the hospital provides out-patient clinics, with approximately 9,000 out-patient attendances each year in a wide range of specialties. For instance, there are about 1,600 appointments a year for adult audiology treatment and about 1,000 for general surgery, and a similar number of gynaecology treatments. There are also about 2,000 trauma and orthopaedic appointments. Other services include blood tests, occupational therapy, a physiotherapy gym, district nursing, dementia services, and a highly popular GP out-of-hours service.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
In my constituency, Burnham On Sea War Memorial Hospital, West Mendip Community Hospital and Shepton Mallet Community Hospital do so much of the great work that my hon. Friend is describing. Does she agree that in areas where the main hospitals are somewhat distant—in my case, Bristol, Yeovil, Taunton or Bath—community hospitals are vital in filling that gap, and it is essential for them to remain a core part of our future NHS?
Fiona Bruce
My hon. Friend has made one of my points for me. None of the major hospitals in east Cheshire lie within my constituency, although it is reasonably large, so my constituents must travel some distance to use their services.
I have mentioned the four-hour GP appointments on Saturdays and Sundays. They are always full, and are meeting a very clear local need. The convenience of such services cannot be overstated. During my visit, an elderly gentleman, clearly frail, arrived asking for directions to the X-ray department. I watched as he was directed to it immediately. He was seen, and he departed. All that happened within what seemed to me to be about three minutes flat.
The value of such local services for a population like mine, which contains a higher than average number of older residents, cannot be overstated. They are particularly appreciated by those who are less mobile owing to age or infirmity, or for whom a lack of convenient public transport facilities would make travel to the larger hospitals outside my constituency very difficult, if not impossible. Moreover, 9,000 fewer out-patient appointments across east Cheshire must reduce congestion.
The trust informs me that the Congleton Hospital site also has space for use by other NHS organisations, including providers of mental health and health visiting services. As local health partners and providers increasingly work together in support of their local communities’ health and wellbeing, Congleton Hospital, located as it is almost in the centre of the town, is ideally placed to become an even more strategic community health hub for additional services.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech on behalf of community hospitals. South Bristol Community Hospital was opened only in 2012, after 60 years of campaigning by local people. As three providers run different services in it and as it is a LIFT building, no one is really responsible for making it work. Does the hon. Lady agree that the health service must bear in mind that such hospitals are developed and fundamentally loved by their communities, and that those communities should have the ultimate say in what goes into them?
Fiona Bruce
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Indeed, members of the community in Congleton are speaking out about the importance to them of their community hospital. I shall say more about that shortly.
On behalf of my constituents, I am pressing Ministers to consider resourcing Congleton Hospital as a community hub going forward. It has a very special place in local people’s hearts, as I have said, not least because of the manner in which it was funded many decades ago by local people’s contributions from wage packet deductions. It was founded in 1924 by public subscription as a memorial to those locally who gave their lives in the first world war, hence its full name: Congleton War Memorial Hospital. I spoke at greater length about this here in this place in 2014, when I raised concerns about the future sustainability of the hospital, so this is by no means a new issue. Indeed, in 1962 when there was a suggestion that the hospital be closed, it resulted in a mass meeting in the town hall with an overflow of some 2,000 residents, presided over by the then mayor leading to a petition of 24,000 signatures. Plans were quickly dropped. More recently, the £20 billion additional funding announced by the Prime Minister for investment in the NHS surely offers an opportunity for the future of the hospital to be secured, or even augmented as a community hub for the long term.
I have been in continuing dialogue for some months now with—and have met, together with local councillors—John Wilbraham, chief executive of the local NHS trust responsible for the management of the hospital, the East Cheshire NHS Trust. I am grateful to Mr Wilbraham for that open dialogue. We spoke again recently when he confirmed that, in his words, the sustainability of the site is on the agenda for the transformation programme to be discussed by the trust shortly. So also on the agenda is the future of the minor injuries unit, which is, as I have mentioned, causing particular concern to residents, as the trust is aware from recent public demonstrations which involved people from right across the community and political divides, including me and Congleton town mayor Suzie Akers Smith, who was in full mayoral regalia and chain.
I am grateful that Mr. Wilbraham has agreed to meet a cross-party group in the town shortly to discuss the hospital’s future further and look forward to that meeting. In the meantime, for the record I note that in his most recent letter to me of late December 2018 he confirmed, and I welcome this, that
“the Trust has no plans to change the service provision at the Congleton Hospital site and this remains the case. I continue to discuss with health and social care partners about the service offer from the hospital site and I understand the desire of you and the local population to maintain the facility. We await the publication of the NHS 10-Year Plan in early 2019 which provides the basis for the local health partners, including the town’s GPs, to set out its plans for the next 5-10 years. I am certain this will provide the opportunity to be clear on future service provision across the local health economy including Congleton.”
I am optimistic that both Mr. Wilbraham, as its chief executive, and the trust itself have listening ears. We need only witness the furore that arose in Congleton three years ago when there was a suggestion that car-parking charges be introduced at the hospital. The trust clearly registered the indignation of local residents, not least through a petition I presented here in Parliament at that time. That they could be asked to pay to park at their own hospital—a hospital they and their forebears had paid for by both wage packet deduction and subsequent fundraising and donations over the decades—aroused considerable consternation. The trust subsequently discounted the suggestion of car park charges outright; it listened to local people’s concerns.
I was pleased to note the chief executive’s reconfirmation of this in his most recent letter to me, with the words:
“I note the suggestion of car parking charges being introduced to supplement the income for the hospital site but this is not something the Board will be considering.”
Now that the 10-year plan has been published, and in the light of the Secretary of State’s indication of his support for community hospitals, I am today asking the Minister what more can be done to ensure that vital services provided by community hospitals in the heart of our local communities, like Congleton, are not swallowed up by larger hospitals at a distance. What the Congleton community seeks is reassurance that the future of Congleton hospital is put on a firm, clear and sustainable footing going forward, so that the periodic recurring concerns over the years about its future can be fully and finally put to rest.
The Minister for Care (Caroline Dinenage)
I would like to start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for bringing forward this incredibly important matter for debate, and for articulating so beautifully the great value of the Congleton War Memorial Hospital to her constituency. I would also like to reiterate the important role that community hospitals play in local areas. She could not have articulated those great values more beautifully this evening.
Community hospitals provide vital in-patient care for people who need it most. As a whole, patients should be supported to recover in the most appropriate setting, which is quite often back in the heart of their local community and closer to home. However, community hospitals do far more than just provide hospital beds. They also offer a range of out-patient services that provide much-needed support to patients, including physical therapy, lab tests, X-rays and counselling. They can also contain minor injuries units, which, as we have heard, can have people in and out and back to work or back home much more quickly. They also offer a welcome local alternative to the big emergency facilities at an acute hospital that is many miles away. To its credit, Congleton Hospital already does all this for its local community and for local people. It is these services, this outreach and these minor injuries units that place these institutions firmly at the heart of their local communities.
The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that patients have access to care that is as close as possible to where they live. This is very evident in the NHS long-term plan, which focuses on shifting to a new way of delivering care, with services in the community at the very forefront of planning. Community hospitals represent much more than just medical services. Many, such as Congleton Hospital and my own, the Gosport War Memorial Hospital, were originally built through the donations of local people to address local need many decades ago. It is this history, along with the important services that they provide, that make community hospitals the object of affection and appreciation in local communities. It is therefore important that any planning decisions about these much-loved institutions must be taken locally, and with enormous care and the utmost sensitivity. Fundamentally, this is about developing sustainable health and care services in the community. We care deeply about ensuring that residents in all areas can access excellent health and care services, both now and in the future.
James Heappey
Our social media timelines are busy enough at the moment, so in order to avoid attracting the ire of a quarter of my constituents, I must remedy the fact that I neglected to mention the brilliant Weston-super-Mare General Hospital in my intervention. I am putting it on the record now.
Caroline Dinenage
I am glad that my hon. Friend said that, because if he had not, I would have been forced to do so. We should all celebrate the hospital provision in Weston-super-Mare and the great work that is being done there.
We care deeply about ensuring that residents in all local areas can access excellent health and care services, both now and well into the future, and that is why the NHS is this Government’s No. 1 spending priority. The NHS budget will increase by £33.9 billion in cash terms by 2023-24, which is the single biggest cash increase in the NHS’s history. We have set out the what, and we now have to set out the how, which is why we are focusing on successfully implementing the NHS long-term plan. The NHS will develop a clear implementation framework, setting out how the long-term plan’s commitments will be delivered by local systems. This will be shared shortly, and it is being led by NHS England.
My hon. Friend asked whether some of the additional resources from the NHS funding settlement could be earmarked for community care so that valuable community resources such as Congleton Hospital can continue to deliver their vital services. I can confirm that we have prioritised investment in primary and community healthcare through the long-term plan, in which we have committed at least an extra £4.5 billion a year to primary medical and community health services. That additional money will fund expanded community multi-disciplinary teams and will help to ensure that, within five years, all parts of the country will have improved community health response services that can be delivered by flexible teams working across primary care and local hospitals, and developed to meet local needs.
Gareth Snell
I fear that the Minister may have been about to answer my question, so I apologise if she was. I welcome the suggestion that community care should be the focus of part of the new investment that is coming into the NHS. Where CCGs take a decision to reduce the number of community facilities in their area, what recourse will the public have to say, “The Minister said this, but your actions are different”? In places such as Stoke-on-Trent, what the Government are outlining is not what our CCG is doing.
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly strong point. I often stand at the Dispatch Box—usually during Adjournment debates—having listened to hon. Members talk about CCG decisions that they feel may not be in the best interests of their local area, but it is up to local areas to decide. The whole point of devolving money and decision making down to CCGs is that we trust them to be able to make the best decisions in the best interests of local communities to deliver services that best meet needs and priorities. If the hon. Gentleman feels that that is not happening and if he has had the opportunity to discuss that with his CCG, it could be a good idea to take the matter up with NHS England.
CCG funding allocations are decided by an independent committee, which advises NHS England on how to target health funding in line with a funding allocation formula. This objective method of allocation supports equal opportunity of access and reduces health inequalities. That way, the decision of where taxpayers’ money goes is decided in an independent and impartial manner.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton will be aware, it is down to the CCG—in this case Eastern Cheshire CCG—to decide how it spends its allocation and to determine which services are the right ones for the local community it serves. One would hope that CCGs have the necessary clinical knowledge and local expertise to make informed decisions on how to spend taxpayers’ money. To support the long-term planning of services, NHS England has already informed all CCGs about how much funding they can expect to receive between 2019-20 and 2023-24. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that Eastern Cheshire CCG’s funding will increase from £270.2 million to £311.6 million over that period—a substantial increase. I hope that she will agree that that information gives CCGs the stability to plan appropriately and establish their services for the long term.
Karin Smyth
I do not disagree with much of the thrust of what the Minister is saying, because CCGs—I used to work for one—do spend taxpayers’ money. She will often have heard hon. Members say that there is no link between the accountability for that money, the work that we do as Members of Parliament and the decisions that are made by CCGs. The new NHS plan looks like it may want to do something about that, but will the Government send a message to NHS England and the CCGs that local democratic accountability must somehow start to be built into the CCG decision-making process?
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, and it is one with which I have a certain sympathy. When NHS England comes up with the implementation plan for the long-term plan, I hope it will include suggestions as to how such issues might be addressed.
It is important to remember that the NHS is close to all our hearts. Fundamentally, it belongs to the people of this country. It is founded on a common set of principles and values that bind together the communities and people it serves. For that reason, it is welcome to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton talk so highly of the open and honest relationship between her local NHS and the residents of Congleton. The examples she gave of the decision-making process for introducing car parking charges highlights how local people in Congleton are being listened to and, if I might say so, it says a lot for the people of Congleton. It takes a lot for the people of Congleton to demonstrate, but this shows that they do so effectively when they decide to take such action.
I commend my hon. Friend for the role she has played in the work to protect her local hospital and for all her activities in that direction. I also commend her for her ongoing efforts in forging constructive relationships, which are so important. These open conversations between health systems and the people they serve will, ultimately, allow us to continue building a sustainable future for the NHS.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. Since the referendum decision to leave the EU, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has undertaken a significant amount of work on withdrawal agreements, preparing for a range of potential outcomes, including a no-deal scenario. This statutory instrument has a single, yet crucial, objective to continue to protect consumers and give businesses the clarity that is needed to operate under a no-deal scenario. It will ensure that in the event of no deal, the UK continues to have a robust and highly effective product safety and legal metrology regime.
The UK product safety and legal metrology regime is among the strongest in the world. The toys our children play with, the electrical items in our homes and the petrol pumps on our garage forecourts all rely on the legal framework carried by that legislative regime, and it is vital that post exit we retain such a robust system. This SI will not change the system or approach, which I know are supported by business and enforcement authorities.
The changes made by this instrument to 38 product safety and metrology laws will ensure that the UK’s product safety and legal metrology framework will remain as it is—as followed by the UK as an EU member state—but that it is converted into a UK regime. The changes include: retaining the requirement for conformity assessments to ensure products meet the essential requirements set out in the legislation; retaining the need for assessment by a third-party organisation to confirm that a product can be placed on the market, where it is currently required; retaining the standard systems to give rise to presumptions of conformity with the legislative requirements; and ensuring UK market surveillance systems will continue to work, to limit the number of unsafe and non-compliant goods available to UK consumers and businesses.
Without this no-deal SI, we risk disruption and confusion for businesses and enforcing authorities, limiting our ability to remove a wide range of unsafe or non-compliant everyday and high-risk products from the market, as there will be uncertainty about the extent, impact and application of the existing legislation.
Before I set out the key provisions in more detail, I will explain the approach we have taken and highlight what we have done to make an unusually large SI easier to navigate. We are laying a number of separate product regulations before the House together, because there are many cross-cutting issues that are the same for the majority of products featured. They have similar definitions, obligations and requirements needing similar fixes, and it made sense to group them together into one SI. For example, many of the product areas require third-party conformity assessment bodies to assess the products against the legislative requirements and some require the manufacturer to self-certify and mark the product, as confirmation that the product complies with the requirements. This similarity across the SI makes it easier to use for businesses that have to comply with the legislation and for the enforcement authorities, such as trading standards, which advise and enforce across the wide product safety system.
Another reason for the size of the instrument is the lengthy technical schedules that are included. These are widely used by industry. Including them together removes the effort for business and stakeholders in having to cross-reference separate EU directives and allows them to understand the requirements of UK law, given that they are all set out in one place alongside the related product schedule. Incorporating those annexes accounts for a third of the SI.
Throughout November, after the publication of the technical notices, the draft SI was shared with several stakeholders for information, via a series of reading rooms. The purpose of this exercise was to inform and update stakeholders on our plans for the product safety and legal metrology framework after exit. Stakeholders told us that this was a worthwhile exercise, reassuring them about our approach, which they supported. Furthermore, this engagement has meant that we have been able to understand the main requirements and concerns of businesses, industry experts and enforcement agencies, which were also able to give their feedback on some specifics about the draft SI, and which we welcomed, allowing us to make drafting amendments as appropriate.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I am interested to hear the Minister refer to stakeholders and these reading rooms. It is all very well referring to business, but there are other interests—what about consumers? Were there any consumer organisations at these reading rooms? We do not have a number for how many stakeholders in each area were actually consulted.
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, and I can answer her questions. We consulted with more than 6,000 business, which are quite important in this legislation as they have to understand and implement it, and are ultimately responsible for placing safe products in the marketplace. It was therefore vital that we could confirm that with stakeholders. I can reassure the hon. Lady that organisations such as Which? were invited to our reading rooms and fed into the process, and that consumer groups were given the same amount of access to the draft SI.
I appreciate that there are concerns about the impact of such a significant instrument on business. Despite being de minimis, we have completed and published a full impact assessment given the importance of this SI and in the interests of transparency. During development of it, we have been mindful of the impact on business of the changes to processes as a result of the UK’s exit from the EU. Where possible, we have made specific arrangements, including an 18-month transitional period for importers regarding labelling and a 90-day transition period for notifying a new UK database of cosmetic ingredients. Businesses have welcomed that.
Having touched on process, I move on to addressing some more detailed points about the substance of the regulations, given the issues that cut across many of the individual schedules. The regulations provide for continued recognition of goods assessed against EU regulatory requirements, including continued acceptance of products lawfully carrying the CE marking and of product certifications carried out by EU recognised bodies. This means that products that meet EU requirements in these areas can still be placed on the UK market after exit. In the event the UK leaves the EU without a deal, this is intended to be for a time-limited period and will help minimise disruption to the public and business in the event of no deal. At the same time, the regulations establish an equivalent UK framework to ensure that the legislation functions domestically once we leave.
I will now turn in more detail towards some of the further elements of the framework, including the new UKCA marking and the establishment of UK approved bodies.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
On the point about CE marking, I knocked a door in my local area at the weekend, in Livingston, and was met with a chap who worked for a mechanical engineering company. He was particularly concerned about this and asked how, despite the fact that the UK may want to have its own regulations, we will keep up with the EU and what impact that will have on businesses. Can the Minister tell us about what impact assessment she has done on that?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, particularly regarding CE marks, which I shall go on to discuss. I want to reassure her that part of developing this UK framework and having it all in the one place is to ensure that, in a no-deal scenario, we can improve and keep in step with any improvements in regulations. In fact, when scientific evidence suggests that we can make a change, powers that previously referred to the European Commission are given to the Secretary of State. In some respects, the SI gives us more flexibility to make those changes.
From my past knowledge, I can tell the Committee that we were part of the formulation of some of the regulations, particularly as regards some the areas covered and some of the technical and particular product requirements, when they were considered by the European Union. I am therefore confident that, with our focus on product safety and the development of requirements, that we in the UK will continue to operate as we always have done in this area.
The UKCA marking will cover most goods subjected to CE marking. Whereas the CE marking indicates compliance with EU rules, the UKCA marking will indicate compliance with UK rules. Products lawfully made and assessed against EU regulatory requirements, including those with CE markings affixed, will continue to be accepted on the UK market. The vast majority of businesses will therefore be able to continue applying the CE marking as they do now, and they will not need to use the new UKCA marking.
It is legally necessary to create the new UK marking as part of a domestic legal framework so that products can still be assessed by UK-based conformity assessment bodies, which will no longer be recognised as meeting the requirements of the EU legislation in a no-deal scenario, meaning that manufacturers using them will no longer be able to affix a CE marking to products.
There is a requirement that some of the products covered by the legislation should be assessed by third-party organisations, called conformity assessment bodies, before the product can be placed on the market. For most of the products within the scope of this legislation, the conformity assessment bodies are usually called “a notified body”, and they play a valuable role in ensuring products available to businesses and the public are safe, and are produced according to a legal framework.
The EU has made it clear that in the event of a no-deal exit, it would no longer recognise work carried out by UK-notified bodies to assess products for sale on the EU27 market. That is why we are putting in place a UK framework that will allow UK bodies to continue to assess products. This benefits not only the bodies themselves but also their customers, who might not be seeking to export to the EU and would prefer to continue to have their products assessed by a body established in the UK. Therefore, for areas within the scope of the legislation, UK-based notified bodies will automatically be given new status as UK-approved bodies. Products successfully assessed by these bodies will then be marked with the UKCA marking before being placed on the UK market.
A further common element of the product legislation covered by this SI is the use of authorised representatives, commonly known as ARs. These are natural or legal persons established in the European economic area who can be appointed by a manufacturer of a product to carry out certain tasks on their behalf. The regulations provide for the ongoing recognition of existing ARs in the EEA, however any new AR appointed after exit day will need to be based in the UK.
For cosmetic products, a different approach is being taken because of the risk they pose to human health. Responsible persons playing a key role in ensuring the safety of cosmetic products on the market will be required to be based in the UK rather than the EEA from the point of exit.
To conclude, the regulations establish a domestic product safety framework in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal. They are making only the changes to the framework that are needed to ensure the UK’s product safety and metrology system functions effectively and to the same high standard after exit; otherwise they maintain and secure the current system in domestic legislation. As hon. Members will recognise, it is essential that the UK has a functioning product safety framework in place in the event of a no-deal to prevent a flood of unsafe and non-compliant products into the UK market. I urge the Committee to approve the regulations.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Gray. We are 17 days from our departure from the European Union. It is perhaps no wonder that statutory instruments are being rushed through Parliament. Once again, the Minister and I are here to discuss a statutory instrument that makes provision for the regulatory framework after Brexit in the event that we crash out without a deal. On each such occasion, my Labour Front-Bench colleagues and I have spelled out our objections to the Government’s approach to secondary legislation. The volume and flow of EU exit secondary legislation is deeply concerning in respect of accountability and scrutiny.
The Government have assured the Opposition that no policy decisions are being taken. However, establishing a regulatory framework inevitably involves matters of judgment and raises questions about resourcing and capacity. Secondary legislation ought to be used for technical, non-partisan, non-controversial changes because of the limited accountability it allows. Instead, the Government continue to push through contentious legislation with high policy content via this vehicle. As legislators, we have to get it right. These regulations could represent real and substantive changes to the statute book and, as such, they need proper, in-depth scrutiny. In that light, the Opposition would like to put on the record our deepest concern that the process for considering these regulations is not as accessible and transparent as it should be.
Today, we are focusing on the SI on product safety and metrology, which has been called a “beast of an SI”, to quote a story in The Times on 12 February. It is 636 pages long, weighs 2.5 kilos and puts together 11 issues that would usually be in separate documents to be sifted through. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was damning about the length and scope of the SI and the Government’s approach to bringing it to Parliament. It notes that
“the exceptional size and complexity of the instrument inhibit effective parliamentary scrutiny of the proposals (both by this Sub-Committee and by the House in debate), carry a considerable risk that the whole instrument may have to be withdrawn if a single serious drafting error has been made (as happened in this case), and reduce the accessibility of the legislation. We find that the Department may have chosen the approach for its own convenience, rather than in the interest of Parliament or those affected by the proposals”.
I appreciate the Minister’s attempts in the last few days to bring forward more information to help us scrutinise the draft regulations, but those attempts cannot justify the size and scope of this secondary legislation. It risks setting a precedent, and risks the democratic scrutiny that is vital to bringing about new legislation. In light of this, will the Minister make a commitment that this does not set a precedent for bundling significant changes into one SI in the future?
The statutory instrument relates to a no-deal scenario under which the UK leaves the EU without a deal. Despite the Prime Minister’s claims in October 2017 that leaving the EU would not negatively impact consumer protections, the Government’s own no-deal analysis wholly contradicts that. There is serious concern and uncertainty about the impact of a no-deal scenario on consumer protection, as it may essentially water down 40-plus years of progress in this area. Major consumer groups such as Which? have come out strongly against a no-deal Brexit, arguing that it could be catastrophic for consumer protections, many of which are intrinsically linked with the EU.
The SI attempts to transfer the rights and regulations from EU law into UK law, and in the process to iron out some of the deficiencies that would arise as a result of the UK leaving the EU. Under a no-deal scenario, this is a necessary piece of legislation to ensure that we continue to enjoy important consumer protections. I do not dispute that. However, further scrutiny reveals a few problems. First, the SI proposes that following our departure the UK will no longer be able to use the CE mark to identify safe products. That will be replaced in the UK with a new “UK conformity assessed” marking—the UKCA. The Government have said that they will continue to accept the CE mark until further notice. Will the Minister outline what assessment her Department has made of the timeframe for doing that?
Furthermore, the CE mark is a trusted and established mark that gives consumers the confidence to purchase products. That is a basis of a healthy economy: one where consumers have trust that the products they buy are safe. It will take significant work to bring the UKCA to the same level of credibility. What resources are there and what actions are the Government taking to ensure that people are aware of the new UKCA marking?
Furthermore, what discussions have the Government had with the European Commission about it accepting the UKCA mark in a no-deal Brexit, given that if it does not, there will be no incentive for foreign manufacturers to have their products certified in the UK? Rather, they will get their CE marking, assured that it will be accepted in the UK. What assessment have the Government undertaken of the EU not recognising the UKCA marking, and the impact this will have on consumer confidence and business activity in the UK?
Another point of contention is market surveillance following the UK leaving the EU. The UK will lose access to RAPEX, the EU’s rapid alert system, and the information and communication system on market surveillance, and replace them with a UK-based database on market surveillance to help us remove unsafe goods. Information sharing is a vital element of our continued good consumer protection. The RAPEX system is a good example of UK co-operation. This SI and the Government’s failure to secure a commitment on RAPEX risk losing the vital information sharing that has been critical to the safety of products across the EU.
We know that the increased transfer of responsibilities to UK authorities will increase the workload of the extremely overstretched trading standards bodies, which have suffered cuts of 40% since 2010. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of a no-deal Brexit on local trading standards and their workload? Furthermore, what discussions has the Minister had about securing further resources for trading standards bodies and other enforcement bodies, so that consumers are reassured they will be safe in the event of no deal? I have consistently asked the Minister that question. Has she taken steps to make such assessments? It is vital that we are aware of the cost to local enforcement bodies so that we can plan ahead.
The explanatory memorandum outlines that an impact assessment was made and an informal consultation was undertaken with cross-representation of stakeholders, including trade associations and other industry representatives. It is suggested that there is no significant impact on business and other organisations. On the same page, it contradicts itself by suggesting that familiarisation costs will impact around 241,000 businesses to the tune of some £19.6 million and a further £1.2 million for cosmetic products specifically. In addition to the costs a no-deal Brexit would have for business, even the familiarisation costs are not insignificant, particularly for small businesses with very tight margins.
Furthermore, I am sceptical about the calculations. It is suggested, for example, that the assessment of the impact is based on a corporate manager or director taking three hours to familiarise themselves with the new legislation. I simply suggest to the Minister that it may take far longer than three hours for a manager to read and digest all the information in the 600-plus pages and share it with staff across the organisation. If the regulations pass today, what plans does the Minister have to bring the details of the SI to the public and particularly to the businesses it affects in bite-sized and understandable language to make it easier for businesses to familiarise themselves with it?
I have spoken to many consumer bodies that have been seriously concerned about the lack of engagement from the top levels of Government during the Brexit negotiations. Consumers are at the heart of our economy, yet there has been little interaction with consumer groups throughout the Brexit process. It is an indictment of the way in which the Prime Minister has overseen the negotiations. It is suggested that there was an informal consultation with groups. Will the Minister provide a list of all the organisations that took part in the consultation process and the nature of those meetings?
I conclude by making it clear that I am deeply concerned about the length and breadth of the SI. While I do not dispute the need for it in a no-deal scenario, the Opposition will vote against it on the basis of the process by which the Government have sought to take it through Parliament.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I am grateful to the Front-Bench spokespersons for setting out the case. It certainly is a mammoth tome, and I am glad that I got it this year and not last year when I was waiting for a hernia operation. Humping it around Parliament was a fair job. I emphasise the point made by the Opposition spokesperson that it will take considerably longer than three hours to go through and digest it, even with an informed summary.
While I have some sympathy for rolling different measures together to make things simpler for the future, I noticed in the impact assessment that the principal reason for doing this was for
“effective use of Ministerial and Parliamentary time.”
Bearing in mind that this is a no-deal provision, we could have made much better use of our time by simply ruling out no deal in the first place, had we had the sense to do that. However, we are where we are.
I find myself concerned about a number of points, many of which have been mentioned already. I worry about things such as the loss of access to cross-border regulators such as the European consumer centres, which affect customers and not only businesses. Coming on to the businesses, which is the main issue, points have been made about the simple cost to them of doing this: 241,000 businesses, many of which will be very concerned, spending around £19.6 million—I fear that is a conservative estimate—is too much and we should not be forcing that on people during such a hard-pressed and stressful period as the Brexit process.
Of course, all of this could have been avoided by remaining in the single market and customs union, and avoiding having dual sets of standards. I worry about dual standards, from both a business and a consumer point of view, so I too will not be supporting the regulations today.
Maria Eagle
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank both Front Benchers for the way in which they set out the points they made, and the SNP spokesman for his contribution.
I am deeply concerned about this SI. Apart from the fact that it is as thick as a brick and weighs probably more than that, I find it difficult to conceive that anybody who might be affected by it could understand the meaning of it by reading it. It simply is not possible.
Let me give the Minister an example of what I mean: if we turn to schedule 26, which is on page 318 and is something I have picked out at random, it sets out the amendments to the Non-automatic Weighing Instruments Regulations 2016. The schedule goes on to set out what the amendments to those regulations are, but needless to say, the regulations that are being amended are in a different document that, by the way, is not in the room. If I wanted to assure myself that the measures in the SI were doing what they purported to do, it would be difficult for me to do so, because I do not even have the document that is being amended present in the Committee Room.
I know we now have the wonders of the internet, but when I was a Minister it was the practice always to have present in the Committee Room all those documents—primary legislation and statutory instruments—that were being amended, so that if somebody sitting in the Committee wished to consider whether a particular clause was doing what the Minister, in all good faith, said it was doing, they could check that. It is impossible today for us to do that.
It is impossible—and it will be impossible should this instrument pass—for anybody picking it up and reading it to understand, without having a whole library of legislation, what on earth the provisions are doing and whether what they purport to do is what they do do, or whether, because the civil service is so hard-pressed these days from having to produce these documents, there has been some technical error in the drafting. That is a problem that I have referred to in other SI Committees. Not having the documents that are being amended in the room is a problem.
I turn now to the fact that this is the Tyrannosaurus rex of SIs, or the Giganotosaurus—one of those enormous dinosaurs that got really, really large—and the impact assessment tells me in annex A that 38 pieces of legislation are subject to amendment by this SI. Some of them are extremely important bits of legislation in terms of public and consumer safety. They are also extremely varied, from the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 through to specific regulations such as those on toy safety, the making available on the market and supervision of transfers of explosives, aerosol dispensers, gas appliances, cosmetics and cosmetic products, intoxicating liquor, consumer protection more generally, weights and measures, and all kinds of things. I could read out all 38 pieces of legislation, but that would detain the Committee for too long. However, that is an illustration of the problem.
Hannah Bardell
The hon. Lady is making a powerful and appropriate point. Those 38 measures include ones on offshore installations: the Offshore Installations (Safety Case) Regulations 2005 and the Offshore Installations (Offshore Safety Directive) (Safety Case etc.) Regulations 2015. What business do those have being in a document with cosmetics? That is not to diminish the importance of regulations about cosmetics, but those on offshore installations are vital and should have had specific time dedicated to them. Is not the reality that we are in such a rush and a dash to do something that might never even need to be used that such things are being rushed through without proper scrutiny?
Maria Eagle
I cannot but agree with the hon. Lady. The scope and range of the legislation subject to amendment by this one SI are extensive and startling. Many of those pieces of legislation do not have obvious connections to others being amended by the same instrument.
I must agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough about the assessment of the costs of implementation. I bear in mind the fact that the Minister has said, in total good faith I am sure, that the aim of the draft regulations is to keep things as they are in the envisaged circumstances of no deal. I do not suggest for a minute that there is any bad faith in any of this, but it is impossible for us to consider properly whether what the Minister seeks to ensure happens will actually happen. The extent and size of the regulations, and the way in which the legislation is written, with the powers that Ministers have given themselves to change legislation, is impossible to scrutinise properly.
In answer to my intervention, the Minister told us about stakeholder reading rooms and the 6,000 businesses involved. That sounds like a lot until one turns to page 21 of the impact assessment: the number of manufacturing industries covered by specific product safety regulations amounts to 24,255. Just over the page, in table A1.2, we see that other manufacturing industries producing consumer products amount to 38,614. The wholesale industries affected consist of some thousands more and the retail industries affected consist of very many thousands more businesses.
I also note that paragraph 87, on page 17 of the impact assessment, states:
“Based on data from the ONS…around 95% of manufacturing businesses and over 96% of distributors in the industries affected by the SI are small or micro businesses.”
Those are exactly the kinds of businesses that simply do not have the time or capacity—if they are to stay in business—to buy this statutory instrument; to look in it to cross-reference it to the EU directives, other statutory instruments and primary legislation that it amends; to understand and interpret the legal language, of which there is a lot; and therefore to understand what their obligations are.
I, too, will vote against the draft regulations because they are too large a piece of legislation, with too wide a scope to enable those of us scrutinising it in Committee the appropriate opportunity to do so properly. Not only that, but even after the SI passes, it will be almost impossible for anybody who is bound by an element of it to pick it up and understand what on earth it is that they are bound by.
The Minister says that the SI is not intended to make any changes, but changes may have been made, even inadvertently, through the language it uses. We have been unable to check that; I certainly could not check that in Committee today, in respect of even one of the pieces of legislation it amends, never mind 38 of them. It is an exceedingly bad way of making law, it is to be deplored, and I will not be supporting it.
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank Committee members for their contributions. I will correct a statement I made to the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood. I said that over 6,000 businesses had been part of the consultation, but the number was 4,000—I knew that, but I was thinking about a figure for something else. I apologise.
The reason the SI is 600 pages long is purely to allow us to bring changes across a number of pieces of product safety together into one bundle, to make it easy for businesses, trade associations, enforcers and consumers to go to one place to find all the legislation that affects similar and cross-cutting issues, in a no-deal scenario. There is absolutely no intention to use this process as an opportunity to reduce transparency or the amount of scrutiny that SIs receive.
The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood is quite right that the intention of the SI is absolutely not to change policy; it is about making the statute book function from day one, were we to leave the European Union without a deal. As a Minister responsible for this area, and having spent my whole life prior to entering the House working with products, whether in the European Union or the UK, I would not want my legacy to be to have done something detrimental to consumers or businesses in a no-deal situation.
Maria Eagle
The Minister is being generous in giving way. I accept that the regulations are all in one place, but does she accept my point that if a fictional local businessman from a microbusiness were to come along and think, “Well, I need to check what I am doing if there is no deal,” he would be unable to understand what on earth this meant. It refers to documents that are not attached to it. Anyone would need to have the House of Commons Library available in order to get all the documents together to cross-reference them and understand what on earth any of it means
Kelly Tolhurst
I understand the hon. Lady’s concerns, but the majority of the changes in this SI are fixes. I take her point; she is an experienced parliamentarian who has been a Minister in the past. I understand that I am doing things in a way that are not really up to the standard that she would have expected from me. However, on the issue of establishing a framework, businesses are keen to have all the information in one place, where it is simple to access. I know from my previously work that having to keep up to date with EU regulation, which changes every other week, can sometimes be a challenge. The beauty of this arrangement is that it is a UK framework. It does not make a policy change; it concerns a functioning statute book after exit.
We have consulted businesses and trade associations because, in the event of no deal, they are fundamentally responsible for product safety. We have engaged with business. I do not know whether members of the Committee have been lobbied directly by firms, but I have had MPs ask me when the mega-bundle is going through and the SI coming to the House, because they want assurances on EU exit, particularly on conformity. I know that what I am saying might not alleviate some of the Opposition’s concerns, but I want to make it clear that these provisions are about making the process easier for enforcers and businesses, so that we are able to maintain the high standards that we currently have in the UK.
I mentioned that there are no significant changes to elements of product safety. The measures are about fixes and making the process workable. Many of the businesses that will be interested in the SI, or need to understand its content, will not need to refer to all 600 pages. They obviously include the 38 different sets of regulations that cover different areas. We have put the schedules in with those 38 areas, alongside the changes, so that people can turn to the specific areas in the UK framework that interest them.
As for business impact, there will of course be an impact on business when moving to any new framework. In the event of a no-deal scenario, businesses or individuals may have to familiarise themselves with particular changes. To be frank, it is quite within the competence of organisations that are already adhering to the existing legislation to understand where the small changes have been made.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough asked how we will assess the timeframe in which we will continue to maintain or accept the CE mark for products placed on the UK market. The timeframe is yet to be decided. It will be discussed in conjunction with businesses and interested parties. The focus is on making this an easy transition for businesses in the UK and for the flow of products. The intention is to have a UK mark so that UK manufacturers, when they have to place a product on the UK market, can establish that they are certified in the UK and meet the necessary requirements.
In a no-deal scenario, however, any UK business wanting to place a product on the EU market would still have to comply with certain regulations there. Currently, the EU has said that it will not recognise or accept the UKCA mark. Quite rightly, the EU has the CE mark to indicate conformity. Any acceptance of a UKCA mark would be part of further trade negotiations, into which the Government may or may not enter, regarding acceptance of our product standards in future. That would be usual in any trade deal as a third country, when operating not just with the EU but with any other country in the world.
The shadow Minister rightly pointed out the concerns about access to European databases. I must give her some comfort that we will still have public access to the RAPEX database, and we are already developing the three databases to do that. Market surveillance is carried out in a number of different ways, and is not reliant just on those databases; it also comes from border and customers, and we hold our own data. I am confident that we will be able to continue carrying out the same level of market surveillance, and it is in the UK’s interests to ensure that unsafe products that should not be here are not placed on the market.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough asked whether I could give her details of the meeting on the consultation that was carried out. I would be happy to write to her about that. With regard to trading standards enforcement, we have had the debate about trading standards enforcement many times in the House in recent weeks. Although the shadow Minister is right to challenge me, I hope that she accepts that trading standards enforcement is a particular interest of mine as a Minister. I would therefore like to give the Committee some comfort by pointing out that the Office for Product Safety and Standards has trained over 600 local trading standards professionals in 200 local authority areas, and at no cost to the local authorities. They will ensure that we are preparing our enforcers in the event of no deal, and for the wider aspect of when we do leave the European Union.
With regard to planning and the future direction of the Office for Product Safety and Standards—as well as what we are doing on data and increasing surveillance—we are bringing in more investment: the £12 million is focussed directly on the Office for Product Safety and Standards and the work going on with the border project. I know that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough has looked into this in great detail.
On the impact on business, labelling is a key concern. That is one reason why we have given organisations 18 months to comply. As a Minister, I have taken an interest in the matter, as Committee members would hope and expect, and have challenged officials in many of these areas, including by asking them how we could do things better or give businesses more opportunities. We have struck the right balance there. It is feasible for even a small business to be able to comply with what we have been able to do, including by familiarising themselves with the legislation.
Again, I thank Committee members for their contributions and I understand their concerns. I reiterate that this is about ensuring that we are in the right place if we leave the European Union without a deal on day one. The regulations are essential to ensuring that people across the UK continue to have confidence in the safety of the products they buy and use every day. If this legislation is not in place, the UK’s product safety regime simply would not work if the UK leaves without a deal agreed by both sides.
Without regulation, unsafe products could more easily be placed on the market, with no effective mechanism for removal, with the result that the British public would have less protection from unsafe and non-compliant products than they do today. The UK product safety and metrology regime is currently among the strongest in the world, and it is vital to ensure that we continue to have an effective product safety and metrology legal framework post exit. Without this, we risk disruption and confusion for businesses and enforcement authorities. Most significantly, we would limit our ability to remove unsafe or non-compliant products from the market. I am disappointed that the Opposition will be voting against the SI today. Many stakeholders out there will be looking for the Committee to approve the SI so they can have assurances on the requirement if we leave the European Union without a deal.
Question put.
Draft Veterinary Medicines and Animals and Animal Products (Examination of Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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 Veterinary Medicines and Animals and Animal Products (Examination of Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
It is an honour to serve when you are in the Chair, Mrs Ryan. Veterinary medicines are tightly regulated, both here in the UK 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 existing Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013 set out the requirements for 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, providing 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. Those regulations adopt the level of permissible residues set by the EU, and prohibit the use of certain substances as growth promoters. As residue 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 understand the need for safe and effective veterinary medicines. This instrument addresses operability issues in our veterinary medicines legislation to ensure that such legislation continues to operate effectively when we leave the EU. The instrument will make sure that the legal framework continues to provide an effective regime for the regulation of veterinary medicines through which we can safeguard the wellbeing of our animals, and does not diminish the high standards of the established veterinary medicines and residues surveillance regimes. Notwithstanding the concerns raised by both the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the House of Lords and the European Statutory Instruments Committee in the House of Commons, I emphasise that the amendments in this instrument are to ensure operability, and are very technical in nature. The high safety standards that are in place will continue, and will not be watered down.
The current UK legislation is designed to work in the context of EU membership, and therefore some existing elements will not work sensibly in a national context. Part 3 of the instrument amends the existing national legislation; for example, the mutual recognition provisions for medicine approvals between member states are no longer relevant. Similarly, as approvals of generic marketing authorisations rely on sharing of information between member states, they cannot continue to operate in the same way. Minor corrections are also made to the text to address references concerning EU membership that are no longer accurate or appropriate.
This instrument introduces one change that is necessary as a consequence of leaving the EU. It relates to the location of holders of marketing authorisations for veterinary medicines. Marketing authorisation holders must be established in the UK. As set out in the explanatory memorandum, that may result in a small increase in costs for those marketing authorisation holders currently based outside the UK, in the order of £100 initially and £40 annually. That cost increase is necessary to make sure that there are appropriate regulatory controls to ensure full compliance with UK law and standards, and that all marketing authorisation holders are treated equally.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Minister refers to UK law, but as I understand it there is going to be separate legislation for Wales and Scotland, because this is a devolved matter. I do not quite understand how those two things match.
David Rutley
The arrangements that I am talking about are UK-wide; we are bringing what currently sits in EU law into, and across, the UK. If the hon. Gentleman wants further clarification, I can seek some inspiration, but it is a UK-wide statutory instrument.
In line with the Government’s better regulation principles, a formal impact assessment has not been carried out because the costs involved are small. The impact on businesses has been assessed as well below the threshold requiring an impact assessment. It is vital that marketing authorisation holders can be held accountable for their products, and this regulation provides for that.
Part 4 of the instrument sets out the necessary amendments to retained EU regulations that become UK law as provided by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It is linked to another instrument: the Food and Drink, Veterinary Medicines and Residues (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which transfers the power to set maximum residue limits to the UK from the European Commission, and is yet to be debated in this House.
European regulation 470/2009 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. Without these amendments, the UK would be unable to regulate the marketing and use of veterinary medicines effectively. That would have negative impacts on businesses and our ability to protect human and animal health and the environment.
Although a formal public consultation has not been carried out, and has not been required under existing guidelines, the Government have proactively engaged with the animal health industry to discuss how we ensure that the regulatory regime continues to function effectively after exit day. Lord Gardiner of Kimble has 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. The industry has welcomed our proactive and continued engagement with it. We have worked closely with the devolved Administrations on this instrument, and where it relates to devolved matters they have given their consent.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I would like to ask about the different standards in different UK devolved areas and when it comes to trading with other countries. Is there not a risk that we will have different standards as time goes on? We therefore need co-operation to ensure that we can continue to trade effectively.
David Rutley
Well, we will be leaving the EU, so we need our own mechanisms in place to validate veterinary medicines. That is primarily what we are talking about here. We are bringing back to the UK powers by which medicines are authorised. We will carry on doing that. As it happens, most authorisations already take place in the UK. Unlike for some medicines used for humans, veterinary medicine authorisations often take place in the national states themselves. It will be important to maintain high standards. The hon. Lady and I have exchanged views on that matter in other situations, and I know that she will continue to hold me and the Government to account on these matters. The steps that we are taking in this legislation will bring across powers that are currently in the EU so that we can do what currently takes place. The only thing that is different is the market authorisations. We are requiring those entities to have a market presence in the UK, but at a very low cost. That is the approach we felt was most appropriate to get the balance right.
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 medicines and relevant food products on the market, ensuring that UK businesses and individuals continue to have access to a range of veterinary medicines. This instrument will help to maintain the established veterinary medicines and residues surveillance regimes, and will ensure that an effective regulatory framework for veterinary medicines is in place. This instrument does no more than is appropriate to remedy deficiencies in law arising from leaving the EU. For the reasons I have set out, I commend this statutory instrument to the Committee.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan.
This legislation is very important for the protection of human health and the environment, and for maintaining important safeguards to ensure food safety and the health and welfare of farmed livestock, pets and animals used in sport and recreation. Misuse and overuse of veterinary medicines can lead to long-lasting damage to health and the environment. We know, for example, that the overuse of antibiotics in animals is contributing to the public health crisis that we see in antimicrobial resistance. The leakage of powerful growth and other hormones into our water supply is also of concern.
It is very important that there is no loss of collaboration and exchange of knowledge and expertise as we leave the EU. What guarantees can the Minister give that we will continue to have access to the best and latest scientific advice in this field? The Opposition take all of these matters extremely seriously and intend to do everything we can to maintain and enhance our country’s record of high standards and scientific excellence as we prepare to leave the EU.
I do not plan to detain the Committee long or to press the measure to a vote. The SI has already been subject to considerable scrutiny, having been recommended for upgrade by the scrutiny Committees and debated in the House of Lords. The Minister in the House of Lords was clear that the SI would not lead to any reduction in safety standards, which was a key concern raised by the scrutiny Committees. He also confirmed that nothing in the SI would enable the USA, for example, to start exporting hormone-injected beef to the UK. Will the Minister also provide a straightforward assurance for the record that there is nothing here that would allow the import of meat or dairy products treated with excessive antibiotics?
I welcome the clear, definitive statement in the explanatory memorandum that says:
“This instrument retains the current standards for veterinary medicines.”
It also says:
“No substantive policy changes are being introduced by this instrument. The policy objective is to maintain existing laws.”
Although there is no complete impact assessment, the explanatory memorandum at least provides much more information about the impacts and costs than many of the other DEFRA SIs we have seen. Why has it not been possible for the Department to provide, right across all of DEFRA’s EU exit legislation, consistently worded clear assurance and impact information to Parliament?
Veterinary medicines are already costly items. Will the Minister set out the Department’s estimate of the cumulative impact on the veterinary medicines sector of all the legislative changes that are being made to prepare for our EU exit? How much of the increased cost to pharmaceutical companies does he expect to be passed on to vets, farmers and, ultimately, the consumers of meat, eggs and dairy products?
The statutory instrument would require 90 companies, which hold marketing authorisations, to establish a UK base. Does the Minister share concerns that that could mean that some companies will exit the UK market, potentially leading to gaps in supply or increased cost? The National Office of Animal Health, to which the Minister referred earlier, has said that the Veterinary Medicines Directorate’s proposed extension of the parallel import scheme, to enable products to be sourced in any country, is inconsistent with the approach for human medicines. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency further states that the human
“parallel import regime will remain limited to EU and EEA countries”
in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
NOAH also asks the Veterinary Medicines Directorate to consider adopting the same approach as the MHRA if there is a no-deal Brexit and, in the longer term, abolish the scheme, as it undermines the marketplace for companies holding UK marketing authorisations. What assessment has the Department made of the risks to UK business? Will the Minister consider NOAH’s request in this instance?
Last week we heard a lot about the arrangements for the priority transport of human medicines across the channel in the event of no deal. Will the Minister set out the practical arrangements to ensure that there is no interruption in the supply of vital veterinary medicine if there is no deal? Will there be capacity in the contracts to ensure that medicines for animals as well as humans can receive priority shipping?
Research published by NOAH in October found that nearly two thirds—62%—of UK pet owners are concerned that the supply of pet medicines could be interrupted in a no-deal Brexit. There were problems in December with the supply of the veterinary anaesthetic isoflurane, with some vets postponing pet operations. What advice can the Minister give to animal owners who are concerned that veterinary procedures or operations may be delayed or cancelled due to a lack of supplies in a no-deal Brexit?
I hope that the Minister will respond seriously to the matters I have raised. I confirm that Opposition Members will not vote against the draft instrument.
David Rutley
I thank the hon. Member for Workington for her contribution, which as usual was thoughtful and thorough. I will respond to some of the points she made. It is obviously vital that we continue to access science. The good news is that the Veterinary Medicines Directorate is regarded as an EU leader in veterinary medicines assessment and has considerable expertise already. We will make sure that it continues to meet that high standard—regardless of what we decide in Parliament today, or over the next few days—so that we have access to the very best.
It is also important to recognise antimicrobial resistance, which the hon. Lady rightly highlighted. As she knows, because we have talked about this in other debates, there will have been an overall reduction in antibiotics sales of 25% between 2016 and 2020, owing to the implementation of livestock-specific targets, which is good. New objectives will be defined by 2021, to sustain longer-term progress. Good progress is being made there.
The hon. Lady asked some challenging questions about the effect of all the legislative changes. I have to say that I do not have the answers to all of them.
Sue Hayman
Is the Minister prepared to write to me, to reassure me on certain issues I have raised? I am happy to receive that information in writing if he does not have it now.
David Rutley
I will do my very best to give the best possible estimates in answer to those questions. I was going to say that a lot of different factors need to be brought into play here. It is not just about the legislation but about market risk and people’s appetite for the changes that are going on and for the things that we will vote on in just a few hours’ time.
However, I assure the hon. Lady that I have been working closely with the Department for Transport and other Government Departments to ensure the continued supply of vet meds, which will be vital not only for pet owners but for agriculture as well. In the prioritisation that has taken place, medicines for human consumption stand out as key, but right next to that is veterinary medicines. They have a strong place in our priorities, and the Government have been working to ensure their continued supply, which I hope reassures the hon. Lady and many others. Again, we will have to wait and see what the House decides today, which will have quite an influence on what goes on.
I hope I have dealt with most of the issues that the hon. Lady raised. With her permission, I will come back to her on the wider concerns and with an estimate of the wider costs. I hope that Committee members now more fully understand the need for the draft regulations and the need to maintain the operability and consistency of our legislation after leaving the EU. For the reasons I have set out, I once again commend the draft instrument to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Food and Feed Imports (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Draft Official Controls for Feed, Food and Animal Health and Welfare (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Brine)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Food and Feed Imports (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Official Controls for Feed, Food and Animal Health and Welfare (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Steve Brine
It is good to see you in the Chair again, Ms McDonagh. This makes it two in a row; you obviously enjoyed last week, so welcome back.
There are only two statutory instruments before the Committee today. The Government are committed to ensuring, as I have said before, that our world-class—as they certainly are—enforcement agencies and regulators can continue protecting the UK’s public health and biosecurity when we leave the European Union. That includes ensuring that imported food and feed that pose a risk to human or animal health continue to undergo border checks and controls. The measures will ensure that bodies such as the Food Standards Agency, for which I am responsible, and the Animal and Plant Health Agency, which is a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs agency, are suitably empowered to continue working to ensure that the law is followed across the food chain.
Although the Government’s priority is to secure a deal—and I believe that there may have been some developments in that respect overnight—to ensure an orderly departure from the European Union, the role of any responsible Government involves preparing for all possible outcomes. To continue protecting consumers, our food and feed safety legislation, including that relating to imported food and feed, must be able to function effectively in the event that no withdrawal agreement is in place. That will also ensure that there is minimal disruption at UK sea ports and airports. It is for those reasons that the SIs have been made under the powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which, I reiterate, is a housekeeping Act that allows us to transpose European Union legislation and regulation on to the UK statute book.
As to the purpose of the instruments, official controls verify business compliance with food and feed law across the agri-food chain. In the United Kingdom, responsibility for delivering official controls is divided between central competent authorities, such as the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland north of the border, and local authorities.
The draft Official Controls for Feed, Food and Animal Health and Welfare (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 are designed to ensure that the official controls system delivered by the authorities operates at a high standard of integrity, impartiality and proficiency. They are quite general and set the rules of the game on how we will operate in that space. Similarly, the draft Food and Feed Imports (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 will ensure the continuation of existing controls at the UK border, to ensure that imported food and feed of non-animal origin remains safe. DEFRA handles products of animal origin.
Thangam Debbonaire
With the permission of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West, I will mention that it has occurred to me that the Minister has now made three references to borders. He also referred to progress last night on the deal. Has he had time to digest the changes announced last night and to consider whether there will be any implications on the border on the island of Ireland for the movement of food?
Steve Brine
I heard the statement in the House last night and I have read a little bit of it this morning, but I wanted to give every attention to the Committee, as the Opposition Whip will understand. I shall listen closely to the advice of the Attorney General, which I believe is imminent, and to any statements made in the House today.
The imports that I was referring to can contain contaminants, such as salmonella in sesame seeds and pesticide residues in peppers—and in lemons, believe it or not. Imports of those goods from specified countries are currently controlled by Commission regulation 669/2009. Notification about those products must be given in advance of their arrival and they must be subject to official controls ranging from documentary checks to identity and physical examinations, including sampling. To give another example, if I may, Commission regulation 884/2014 lays down controls governing the import of nuts, nut products and some spices from listed countries. Examples of listed countries could be India—I cannot read my own writing—Indonesia or Ethiopia. There is a full list. It is important that these controls and the others listed in the instruments function properly once we leave the EU.
Fundamentally, the amendments specified in these instruments address technical deficiencies in key pieces of European legislation with application to the entire UK and three pieces of domestic legislation that apply in England only. The amendments have been bundled together because they all address law designed to ensure the effectiveness and standards of our official controls system, including for food and feed imports.
Hon. Members will notice that the instruments concern the protection not just of public health, but of animal health and welfare. In particular, the draft Official Controls for Feed, Food and Animal Health and Welfare (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 have been jointly prepared by officials from the Food Standards Agency and DEFRA. However, it was agreed that ultimate responsibility for the instruments would lie with the FSA.
The instruments are intended solely to address inoperabilities in domestic legislation and retained EU law. However, as a result of the way the law is constructed, that results in some changes to the way our legal framework for official controls would work. As some of the amendments address retained EU law, it was necessary to remove references to EU terminology, such as “member states”—that is perfectly logical—and to systems such as the European reference laboratories network. Ultimately, UK competent authorities will no longer participate in European programmes regarding official controls, such as the European Commission’s international audit body, SANTE. That fact is addressed by the amendments and DEFRA is preparing a domestic audit body of its own.
Furthermore, the powers that are currently provided to the European Commission to make legislation are either repatriated to the appropriate UK authority, amended to become administrative functions or removed altogether as a result of their inapplicability—[Interruption.] Yes, exactly—inapplicability. It is my age. I was going to say “as a result of their inapplicability in a UK-only context”. We will edit that bit out. Powers have been transferred strictly where necessary for the UK to maintain a controls system responsive to emerging risks to public health and animal health and welfare.
That is particularly the case in the area of import controls. Although the existing rules governing official controls do not create detailed rules for the performance of controls on imported food and feed, they do set standards and powers for competent authorities controlling trade in such goods. In practice, in the short term this will only mean an increase in the need for more controls on high-risk food and feed, such as the sesame seeds contaminated with salmonella that I referred to earlier, entering the UK from third countries via the European Union. EU regulation 669/2009, which I mentioned, contains the list of those countries, and I can give some examples if hon. Members are interested.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
I want to pose a question about the principles for goods that have been placed on our market before departure day and the same goods returning post departure day. Where in the two statutory instruments that are before us is the confirmation that the essential make-up has to stay the same to be recognised post departure, and how will we ensure that that takes place as we remove ourselves from the European Union structures?
Steve Brine
I can expand on this in my response, but the point is that all we are doing here is transposing the very strict and world-class enforcement rules that operate at the moment for us as a member state. Anything that is within the chain at that time will be exactly in line with everything we have signed up to as a member state. Because we are talking about complete convergence in the immediate future after exit, I have no concern about that. I have asked officials about it.
Any checking to ensure that there is no divergence will be the responsibility of the agencies I have listed— the Food Standards Agency, Food Standards Scotland and local authorities. The regulations do not make any changes to that, and anything that came on to the market—whether into this country, into this country to go into the European Union, or into the European Union to enter this country—would be subject to all the same rules that it currently is. I think hon. Members should have confidence, as I do, that this is a continuation or a bridge between our membership and, hopefully, our transition period.
I will touch on the impact on local and public authorities, which I know there was some interest in last week. As the primary purpose of the existing legislation is to ensure the effective enforcement of food and feed law by competent authorities in EU member states, the amendments will be of interest to public bodies responsible for delivering those controls in the UK, such as local authorities and port health authorities. As I mentioned, there will be some impact on the way that certain high-risk food and feed is controlled when entering the UK as a result of our leaving the European Union. However, for authorities delivering official controls in the UK, the primary impact of the instruments will be familiarisation costs.
With regard to the point that the hon. Member for East Lothian alluded to, it is not foreseen that the day-to-day delivery of official controls, which are performed predominantly by local authorities, will be otherwise impacted by these changes. The UK will maintain its world-class operational standards in this area, regardless of the way in which we leave the EU. I have been crystal clear on that for all the SIs I have dealt with in this space, such as when I spoke to the EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee in the Lords last week.
Public authorities will be impacted by the effects of leaving the framework for the performance of official controls created by this legislation. For example, we will no longer be legally bound to provide administrative assistance to other European countries upon request. That does not mean that co-operation with other countries’ enforcement agencies will cease—I stress that important point. We are developing new ways of working with our international delivery partners to ensure that we can continue to tackle complex international food safety incidents once we leave the European Union. It is important to note that the European Food Safety Authority grew out of the Food Standards Agency; in many ways, we were the rock upon which the EU built its church, not the other way around. Despite all the legal changes that will take place when we leave the European Union, the relationship changes will be minimal or non-existent, and our relationships are absolutely first class. I stress that point regularly, such as when I spoke to the FSA chair last week.
On the impact on industry, businesses will be interested in the amendments to the rules concerning charging for official controls. Official controls legislation creates minimum charges for the performance of official controls on the domestic production and import of certain imported food and feed. Amendments in this area centre on the use of Her Majesty’s Treasury and the Department for Exiting the European Union’s recommended conversion rate for references to euros in retained EU law. In practice, that will have minimal impact on businesses: the Food Standards Agency has a methodology for calculating the charges levied on businesses slaughtering and cutting meat that is not affected by the changes to the minimum rate set out in this legislation. Equally, DEFRA’s approach to controls on imports of EU-derived products of animal origin means that no new chargeable import controls are projected. As with public authorities, there may be one-off familiarisation costs. All told, we do not anticipate a great financial or administrative impact on businesses as a result of the technical nature of the amendments.
Food and feed safety, as well as animal health and welfare, are devolved policy areas. As such, the instruments have been drafted to reflect the distribution of responsibility for delivery of official controls in the UK. In some instances, that means powers flowing back from Brussels to the appropriate UK authorities, which include Ministers in Scotland and Wales and the relevant Departments in Northern Ireland. The devolved Administrations have provided their consent to these instruments, and officials from all parts of the UK have been working together well and constructively in this field. I place on record my thanks to them.
As with previous SIs, we have respected the full flow-through of powers; in fact, if the devolved Governments decide that they want to diverge in their treatment of high-risk imports, they will have increased devolved powers with which to do so. I would not expect too much divergence to take place within the UK, because with all the disruption that leaving the EU will inevitably bring, given the 40-odd years of culture involved, the last thing we want to do is create disruption and internal market issues within the UK. That would not be in the interests of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland any more than it would be in England’s interests.
The amendments only go as far as necessary to ensure that we have a fully functioning UK statute book; indeed, the legislation only allows us to go as far as necessary to ensure that our statute book equips our authorities with the necessary powers to continue to protect public and animal health after exit day. The successful resolution of the instruments is necessary to ensure that we can maintain the high standard of food and feed safety, biosecurity and consumer protection that is offered by this country’s excellent enforcement agencies and competent authorities. I place on the record my thanks for the hard work that those organisations have done and will do in preparation for exit day. I urge hon. Members to agree to the amendments that are proposed in the instruments, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms McDonagh, on this bright windy morning. I thank the Minister for bringing the two statutory instruments to the House today and for ably summarising them.
We are all aware that today is a very important day for our country. We are only 17 days from Brexit, yet MPs are just, tonight, getting the latest meaningful vote on the Prime Minister’s latest deal. I expect that not much, or perhaps not enough, will have changed; as the Minister said, we are waiting on the Attorney General’s judgment. This is all very concerning for millions of people up and down the country—concerns I know the Minister shares.
In the event of a no-deal Brexit—we might know in the next few days if that is what will happen—we need to be prepared, but as I have said throughout our consideration of these SIs, I regret that the Government have waited so long to prepare for no deal, given that it was the fallout position for if we did not get a deal. Regardless of how much scrutiny we give the legislation this morning, it is being rushed through. As legislators, we need two things: information and the time to process and scrutinise that information. Unfortunately, the Government have failed to provide MPs with either. I regret the way in which the Government have processed the legislation, but here we are.
Moving on to the SIs, food and feed law serves to protect public health, as well as animal health and welfare. I appreciate that that is a difficult balancing act, particularly in light of growing public concerns about where our food comes from. What conversations has the Minister been having with his colleagues in DEFRA about animal health and welfare, and its impact on our food?
In addition to ensuring human and animal health, the Government must provide continuity for business operators and trade. The Minister touched on that. Is he confident that the SIs will ensure that continuity? What conversations has his Department had with business operators and trade? Similarly, what conversations has his Department had with the scrutinising bodies that will take over the responsibilities of the EU bodies? Will the Minister please confirm which bodies will be doing that? Is he confident that they have adequate time and resources to provide a check and balance on food standards once we leave the EU?
The explanatory memorandum says that staff will need to familiarise themselves with the amendments. Is the Minister confident that the staff referred to in the memorandum have had all the information they require to do that?
Martin Whitfield
Originally, there was a reading time of less than 30 minutes, but following the consultation it was extended to not more than an hour. That has underpinned the financial implications of the statutory instruments. Does my hon. Friend agree that there seems to be an arbitrary take on the time it will take local authority officials and businesses to read the paperwork? When we have looked at it, it has certainly taken more than an hour to read, process and understand—if one is able to download it.
Mrs Hodgson
I agree with my hon. Friend. We debated that very point in some of last week’s Delegated Legislation Committees. I thought that perhaps I was a slow reader, as it took me considerably longer than 60 minutes not just to read it, but to try to understand and digest it. I recall the Minister saying last week that that time was just a guide, but I am sure he will address that point directly.
With that in mind, is the Department offering any support to scrutinising bodies to ensure that queries can be answered quickly and effectively? In the event of a no-deal Brexit, which none of us wants, there will be lots of new changes, so I hope that scrutinising bodies will be properly equipped to ensure that nothing is slipped through—chlorinated chicken, for example—that could cause harm later on. We need experts on the ground who are able to scrutinise and safeguard public health in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
Both statutory instruments cause fragmentation across the nations. Can the Minister tell the Committee when legislation will be made by the devolved Administrations? Has he had discussions with the devolved Administrations about these changes? Colleagues from all regions will be rightly concerned about the disparity that might be caused by the SIs.
The draft Food and Feed Imports (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 include an amendment to the Plastic Kitchenware (Conditions on Imports from China) (England) Regulations 2011. I am sure that there is plastic kitchenware from China in my kitchen and in all our kitchens. It would be difficult for there not to be, considering how much China produces. However, this seems entirely isolated from the rest of the measures in the SI. Will the Minister tell the Committee why those changes are being made in this SI? Is there something about Chinese plastic kitchenware that we need to watch out for? I certainly do not eat it.
The draft food and feed imports regulations state that functions currently undertaken by the European Commission on food controls will be the responsibility of the Secretary of State. Can the Minister provide information on how decisions on food controls will be made and managed? Who will advise the Secretary of State on those decisions? Imported food can be susceptible to known or emerging risks linked to specific food or feed of animal and non-animal origin. It is therefore important for human health and consumer trust that we get this right. Equally, consumer trust and consciousness mean that we cannot see a reduction in animal ethics.
I hope that the Minister can allay some of those concerns today, and I look forward to his response.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McDonagh. I find it hard to contain my excitement at another piece of secondary legislation necessitated by Brexit. The sheer delight of unnecessary legislation is unbounded sometimes.
Reading the explanatory notes for the regulations, we come across familiar lines—pieces of text that are familiar from other forays into this Brexit chaos. For example:
“The existing EU law is being retained in UK law after EU Exit. This instrument amends the legislation so that references to other EU Member States, the European Commission and associated elements are removed or replaced by appropriate wording.”
We are taking back control to replace with appropriate wording—a brave and decisive move. This legislation already exists, but here we are having to gather to pass it again with minor changes. That is some way to run this United Kingdom.
This legislation is very important, however. Most of the animal feed used in the UK is imported from the EU or under EU trade agreements, and any disruption to the supply will cause major problems for farmers and food production and for distribution across these islands. The same goes for fertilisers, forage seed, herbicides and pesticides. Without the EU supply lines, we are in trouble. If we do not have security of supply of these products, farmers might be growing a darned sight less than they have been used to. But it is a good fortnight until B-day, so this is not last minute or anything.
Another problem that farmers will face is that the trucks that bring these products to their farms and take away the farm’s output are more often than not driven by a non-UK EU citizen. They tend not to make £30,000 a year, so we will need a whole lot of replacements that we do not have. However, that is a headache for another day, isn’t it?
I am pleased to see that there is some indication in the regulations that the Government will respect that the devolved Administrations have different arrangements and their own positions. I hope that that is a sign of things to come, because that should be the attitude across the whole of Government and Parliament. In the middle of this epic bourach, it is one tiny glimmer of hope. Apart from anything else, it will make it easier when we come to the independence negotiations in a wee while.
I cannot say that I am entirely supportive of the statutory instruments, since they would never have been needed if there were no Brexit, but I accept that they will pass today and might be a useful part of the regulatory framework to keep the show on the road for a little while. Whether the physical manifestation of incoming supplies matches the regulatory framework, coming as they do on imaginary ferries, remains to be seen.
Steve Brine
Well, where to start? Let me start with the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, who speaks for the SNP. I thank her for her comments and note her points about full flowing and passing competences to the devolved Administrations. We have always said that that would be the case where it was the right and sensible thing to do, and I am true to my word in these instruments.
I do not know where to start. I do not think the hon. Lady asked many questions. There was a referendum and we tend to respect the result of referendums in the UK. If the SNP can find me a referendum it does respect the result of, I am all ears. Yes, we are leaving and that has an implication for statute and regulation. We are therefore transposing these regulations under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 on to the UK statute book to make sure that food and feed are safe for our constituents and for human and animal health. That is the responsible thing for any Government to do. I do not apologise in any way, shape or form for doing that. It is absolutely the right thing to do.
I turn to the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West, who started where she usually starts. Will enough have changed overnight when we hear the Attorney General’s advice? For me, yes, but it was enough for me in January. If she wants to avoid any change or disruption, she knows what she has to do today. I look forward to having a chat with her in the Aye Lobby. She will be very welcome there and will be among friends—I have a funny feeling that quite few of her hon. Friends will be there too.
I will write to the hon. Lady with more detail in response to her question about the important issue of Chinese plastic. It is dealt with in the draft food and feed imports regulations because they are the most relevant place to do so. Only the terminology is corrected—there is no legal change. I do not think that there is any substantive change to the issues around Chinese plastic. However, it is always useful to be updated on what is in the hon. Lady’s kitchen.
The hon. Lady asked which bodies will perform the risk assessments. Risk assessment will be performed by the FSA and Food Standards Scotland, which are independent scientific risk assessors. Risk management decisions, which are different, will be taken by Ministers based on public advice from the FSA. The hon. Lady asked who will advise the Secretary of State and, therefore, me. Ultimately, risk management decisions in this space come to me, or to whoever holds this brief. The advice comes from the Food Standards Agency in England and from Food Standards Scotland to Scottish Ministers. In fact, to digress, I am meeting my opposite number, the Scottish Minister, on Friday because I want to talk to him about child obesity and dental issues—I give the Committee that exclusive.
The hon. Lady asked about continuity for business and what conversations have been had on that. I covered a fair bit of that in my speech. Businesses have been fully involved in the consultation process. We ran a six-week consultation, which is longer than for some other SIs. The responses were generally content. There was some concern about the timing and making sure that everything is in place by exit day. If the Committee agrees to the regulations today, it will be.
The hon. Member for East Lothian asked a question that the shadow Minister would have raised if he had not about the arbitrary assessment of the prep time, which is one hour. I responded to the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West on this point last week. The law does not change. From a cold start, downloading and reading the regulations would take more than 30 minutes or even more than an hour—there is no question about that. However, for someone who works in this space and is up to speed, as these organisations and public authorities already are, familiarisation will be minimal. Business is familiar with them already.
The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West asked whether I am confident, and whether the Department and its agencies are offering support to those organisations. I am absolutely confident, and I am sure that we are providing enough support.
The hon. Lady also asked about the resources going into the Food Standards Agency. The Food Standards Agency has increased its resources, thanks to support from Her Majesty’s Treasury. It has increased the number of scientific advisers and it has set up the new advisory body, which will advise it on many of these issues. I think that the FSA is well resourced. The chair of the FSA, Heather Hancock, who gave evidence to the Lords Committee with me last week, is a very competent person, and she is not shy in coming forwards when she feels that she needs more resources from the UK Government. She has argued effectively for that, and has received the response that I think she wanted.
The hon. Lady asked about conversations with colleagues in DEFRA. I said at the start of this Committee that this area is covered by the Department of Health and Social Care and DEFRA. That split has to be there, because I am interested in human health and DEFRA is interested in animal health, but of course there will be cross-over. I work closely with DEFRA colleagues in the House and I work closely with DEFRA officials, as do my officials who are here from the Foods Standards Agency, as is necessary on these SIs. That will continue as we leave the EU. The Department of Health and Social Care and DEFRA own these SIs in many ways, but contact between policy and legal officials at the FSA and DEFRA are strong, and will remain so.
The hon. Lady asked about discussions with the devolved Administrations. As I mentioned, they have consented to the SIs. I place on the record my thanks to them for that. I look forward to talking to my opposite number in Scotland about them when I see him on Friday. I mentioned the fragmentation across the nations, not in my speech, but in my ad-lib remarks, when I said that, with all the changes that there will be as a result of our exit from the European Union, the last thing our United Kingdom needs is disruption within the internal market of the UK right now.
It is absolutely right that we transmit those powers from the European Commission through England and to the devolved Administrations. They absolutely have the right, through consultation and democratic engagement with the Scottish Parliament, for instance, to diverge, if that is what they want to do. That would be done in consultation with the UK Government, as is right.
We are, whether everybody likes it or not, one United Kingdom. When we leave the European Union, we will leave as one United Kingdom, with one united, world-class, world-leading food and feed safety environment. That is what these instruments seek to achieve and I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Food and Feed Imports (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Draft Official Controls for Feed, Food and Animal Health and Welfare (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Official Controls for Feed, Food and Animal Health and Welfare (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(Steve Brine.)
Draft Uncertificated Securities (Amendment and EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Uncertificated Securities (Amendment and EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
It is a pleasure to serve once again under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma.
The Treasury is laying this statutory instrument under both the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the European Communities Act 1972. The Treasury has been undertaking a programme of legislation to ensure 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. This draft SI is part of that programme. It has been debated by the House of Lords and was approved on 25 February. The SI also uses the powers in section 2(2) of the European Communities Act to amend UK law as necessary to ensure that the directly applicable EU central securities depository regulation, or CSDR, operates effectively in the UK.
The draft regulations amend the Uncertificated Securities Regulations 2001, or USRs, which concern the registering and transfer of securities such as bonds or shares electronically on computer-based systems. Certain requirements within the USRs are also subject to the CSDR, which creates a common authorisation, supervision and regulatory framework for central security depositaries, or CSDs, across the EU. The SI makes the necessary changes to UK legislation to ensure that the EU regime operates effectively in the UK. The instrument also contains provisions to address deficiencies in UK law and retained EU law that arise due to the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
The changes to the USRs that implement CSDR will come into effect on the day after the draft regulations are made in Parliament in any scenario. However, the changes made under the EU (Withdrawal) Act to fix deficiencies in the legislation arising as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU will only come into effect on exit day in the event that the UK leaves without a deal or an implementation period.
First, the draft regulations make amendments to ensure that the USRs align with both the EU regulation and the UK implementing legislation concerning the CSDR. That includes authorisation and recognition of CSDs and article 49 of the CSDR. Article 49 allows issuers the right to issue securities into a CSD in any European economic area member state. Accordingly, amendments have been made to ensure that no provisions in the USRs are incompatible with that right. By removing the duplication between CSDR and USR requirements for operators of relevant systems, the instrument provides clarity to the industry in the area. Further, USR operators now gain operator status by virtue of gaining authorised CSD, EEA CSD or third-country CSD status for CSDR purposes, not via the USR recognition regime, which will be revoked by this SI.
Secondly, the SI will provide transitional provisions for UK operators of systems that were approved under the USRs before 30 March 2017, when the period for CSDs to apply for authorisation or recognition under the CSDR began. That transitional power ensures that operators can continue to operate under the previous USR regime, pending their authorisation or recognition as a CSD under the EU CSDR regime. The SI also inserts a provision into the UK’s Central Securities Depositories Regulations 2014 that grants the Bank of England the power to charge fees to third-country CSDs. That is considered necessary in relation to its new role in recognising third-country CSDs following exit day. That role was granted by the Central Securities Depositories (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which have been agreed by this House.
Finally, the draft regulations amend article 15 of the EU short selling regulation to change its scope from the EU to the UK. The change ensures legal certainty on the scope of that provision after exit day. To maximise transparency, the Treasury has worked closely on the instrument with the Financial Conduct Authority, the Bank of England and industry. The Treasury consulted on changes to the uncertificated securities regulations as part of implementing the CSDR in 2015, and undertook an informal consultation with industry in October 2018. The current form of the instrument, which includes EU exit changes, was laid on 17 January 2019.
Provisions relating to the consultation are dealt with in parts 1 to 4. Part 5 of the instrument deals with the EU exit changes.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
On the consultation that the Treasury has undertaken, I note that the instrument provides for a requirement for a statutory review within five years. Does the Minister have a position on how soon it may be necessary to review the instrument?
Mr Jayawardena
What discussions have there been between the FCA, the Treasury and the Bank to determine the level of the fees the Bank can charge other than to meet the expenses incurred?
John Glen
I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that the Bank of England routinely issues fees under many financial services regulations. This power is consistent with that general responsibility and will be exercised in consultation with those subject to the fee, as in all the other areas of regulation the Bank engages with.
Regulators and industry have welcomed the Government’s approach to the SI. The Government believe that the proposed legislation is necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of UK financial markets if the UK leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period. Relevant parts of the SI are also needed in any scenario to ensure the effective functioning of the CSDR. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Sharma. 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 that we crash out without a deal. On each of those occasions, the Minister has heard the objections that my Front-Bench colleagues and I have spelled out about the Government’s approach to transposing this amount of legislation through the secondary legislative process.
I thank the Minister for his explanation of the regulations. The Opposition are satisfied that parts 1 to 4 are essentially straightforward transpositions of the EU regulations into UK law. Central securities depositories form an important part of our financial market infrastructure, and it is important that their regulation continues to be robust and consistent. Post-trade market systems have been subject to significant reform after the financial crisis and it is important that those changes are not mitigated or unpicked in any way.
I would, however, like the Minister to provide additional clarity on part 5, which begins on page 7. As the explanatory memorandum stipulates—this was the subject of the exchange between the Minister and the hon. Member for North East Hampshire—the instrument allows the Bank of England to charge fees to some central securities depositories located in third countries. I ask the Minister for a little more explanation about whether that is a typical function of the Bank’s activities.
The explanatory memorandum also states that the Bank can charge fees to cover expenses that it or the FCA incur. Can the Minister clarify why the Bank would pick up fees on behalf of the FCA and the nature of that arrangement? Why would the FCA not collect its own fees? Once again, the concern is that this appears to be a material change to the relationship between significant institutions and we should be clear if that is what we are doing during the transposition.
Furthermore, as was announced on 1 March, the European Securities and Markets Authority will recognise the UK CSD in the event of a no-deal Brexit, but can the Minister say if there has been any clarity on whether the fee arrangement would be reciprocal? Would central banks in the EEA reserve the right to change the UK CSD fees and, if so, what assessment of the potential impact of that has been carried out? Those two points of clarity are all I want to raise with the Minister.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Sharma. I very much agree with what has been said by the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. I do not want to delay us from all the exciting statements still struggling on in the Chamber, but I want to raise a couple of points.
The Minister will not be surprised to hear me say again that this is not what Scotland voted for and not what Scotland’s financial sector needs. Our interests are not best served by being taken out of the EU single market and customs union. The deal we have as a member state is particularly good for financial services. Nothing that the Prime Minister can negotiate will come anywhere near what we have at the moment. Nevertheless, we need to ensure that what comes into place does not undermine all the progress made since the financial crash. We cannot allow Brexit to be an excuse for any kind of backsliding on that regulation and on the progress made. I would like assurances from the Minister that none of the provisions in the SI would allow those kinds of things to happen.
I understand that a few concerns were raised in the Lords about the SI and the landscape in which it would sit. It has been raised before in Committee that we have all these financial services SIs coming through but no comprehensive picture of what the full jigsaw will look like when it is put together, or even if the pieces of the puzzle fit neatly. It would be good to hear a bit more from the Minister about the Government’s intentions. We have so much coming through at the moment that we need some clarity to ensure that nothing falls through the gaps, be it for purposes that are innocent or otherwise. We need to ensure that the system does not allow anything like that to happen.
In the Lords, Baroness Bowles said that
“by the time we have ploughed through all 60 statutory instruments that we are told we have to deal with, and then whatever other number we may get regarding corrections and re-workings—some of which are coming along now—FSMA will be even more incomprehensible on the legislation website, and so too will be any sensible comparison of how EU legislation has been retained with regard to the EU originals… It is actually quite a mockery to make a fuss about the accessibility and clarity of wording in individual documents while it remains impossible to find out their cumulative effect.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 February 2019; Vol. 796, c. 33.]
We need to get to that cumulative effect.
The hon. Member for North East Hampshire made an interesting point about the fees and the powers going to the Bank of England. I have raised the issue of fees before, and it would be good to get more clarity on the scale, size, scope and application of the fees and how they would work. It seems that here and in all our other financial services SIs it is the Bank of England, the FCA and other bodies that are getting powers, not Parliament, which, as I am sure he would agree, is barely taking back control. I am sure that is not his intention with Brexit.
Alison Thewliss
The hon. Gentleman is nodding his head.
Are there any resource implications, as indicated by the fees, for the Bank of England or the FCA, that would have to be recouped through the fees? How many more people would be needed to process these types of uncertificated securities? Do the Government have any idea how many people and what processes they might need? Is there a cost they would affix to that which we could see and understand?
The Minister mentioned the consultation process. It would be interesting to know what changed with that process. Can he give any narrative on where he started out and where he ended up, and were any substantial changes made as a result? I continue to be concerned that there is not enough ability for people to engage and for organisations and those concerned about uncertificated securities to come and give their views and seek changes. The biggest problem with the SI and the way the process works is that we cannot amend it—we accept it or reject it, but we cannot amend it. It is difficult to see where corrections might come from and what tracking there is of that.
John Glen
I thank the hon. Members for Stalybridge and Hyde and for Glasgow Central for their observations, and I welcome their broad agreement with the main elements of the SI. Both made significant observations on the fees. Why does this SI contain a provision on the Bank of England fees? As a result of the UK leaving the EU and the changes made by the Central Securities Depositories (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, the Bank of England will have the power to recognise third-country CSDs. On why the Bank of England collects fees for the FCA, this SI concerns the Bank of England fees only. The assessment of other countries charging fees is a decision for other jurisdictions, so I do not have any clear observations on that.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central asked how the SI had changed since the 2015 consultation draft. A central aim of this instrument is to implement the right, under article 49 of the EU CSD regulation 2014, for issuers of securities to use a CSD established in any EU member state. The 2015 consultation draft instrument contemplated that the uncertificated securities regulations might be extended to apply to securities governed by a foreign law.
Following industry feedback, the Treasury changed its approach so the uncertificated securities regulations would not be extended to foreign law-governed securities where article 49 is used. In order to avoid duplication and to provide legal certainty, the 2015 consultation draft instrument removed provisions from the existing uncertificated securities regulations, which are now governed by the EU central securities depositories regulation 2014. This element has not changed.
The hon. Lady asked about the regulators’ resourcing and the impact of taking on provisions of this SI. We are confident that the regulators are making adequate preparations and are effectively allocating resources ahead of the end of March. They have considerable experience and technical expertise. We have participated in a large number of groups with them and I am confident they are well resourced and ready for all outcomes.
I acknowledge the broader points made by all three Members about the Bank of England’s fee-raising powers. I will evaluate thoroughly what has been said, and where I can bring greater clarity following discussion with officials, I will write to the Committee if that is appropriate.
The Government believe that the proposed legislation is necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of financial markets in the UK if it leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period. Relevant parts of this SI are also needed in any scenario to ensure the effective functioning of the CSDR. I hope my comments clarify matters sufficiently and that the Committee will be able to support these regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Detergents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Draft Detergents (Safeguarding) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Detergents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Detergents (Safeguarding) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Dr Coffey
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. The first statutory instrument relates to reserved matters. The second SI relates to devolved matters, and the devolved Administrations have consented to that SI. Devolved Administrations have also been involved in the preparation for and discussions about the first SI.
This is one of a number of affirmative SIs 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 that controls the placing on the market of detergents and that would otherwise be left inoperable so that, following our exit from the EU, the law will continue to function as it does today.
As the Committee will see, these SIs make many adjustments, but I can assure the Committee that they represent no change of policy and will not have any impact on businesses or the public.
The territorial extent of this provision is the United Kingdom, and the provision applies to all of the United Kingdom. Health and Safety Executive officials engaged with representatives of the main trade association with an interest in detergents and cleaning products, and no particular concerns were expressed at that time in relation to detergents.
The EU regulation on detergents establishes common rules to enable detergents and surfactants to be sold and used across the EU. Technical changes are made in these instruments to ensure the continuation of standards and requirements in relation to the placing on the market of detergents and to provide clarity for manufacturers.
Regulation 1 of the first SI makes introductory provision, including for the commencement date. In part 2, regulation 2 amends the domestic Detergents Regulations 2010, which provide for enforcement of the EU detergents regulation and related penalties. The amendments make corrections to the domestic regulations to reflect the fact that they will now be cross-referring to retained EU law, rather than a directly applicable EU regulation.
Part 3 of this SI amends EU detergents regulation EC 648/2004. Regulation 3 of the SI defines terms used throughout the instrument. Regulations 5 and 6 remove references to the free movement of detergents in the EU internal market and to the Union customs territory in articles 1 and 2. Regulation 7 refers to changes to article 3 that cross-refer to a number of other pieces of EU legislation, some of which are out of date and are updated through this instrument. Provision about manufacturers of detergents being established within the Community is omitted. After exit, a manufacturer established in the UK will no longer be an operator established in the EU, and as a consequence it would not be appropriate to have that as a requirement.
Regulations 8 and 9 amend articles 5 and 6 on the derogation provision. If a surfactant passes the primary biodegradability test but fails the ultimate biodegradability test, the manufacturer can apply for derogation, which the Commission has a power to consider granting for a product in line with certain criteria. That function is to be transferred to the Secretary of State.
Regulation 10 amends article 7, transferring functions of the Commission. The Secretary of State will have power to determine disputes about testing methods for a product, taking expert advice as appropriate. Provision is included for the manufacturer to appeal that decision by the Secretary of State to a domestic court.
Regulation 11 amends article 8 about the duties of the member states to notify to the Commission the list of approved laboratories that are authorised to carry out the tests required by the regulation. Provision is made so that tests required by the regulation may be carried out by approved laboratories, and there is a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish that list. In practice, the HSE will publish the list, as it undertakes the regulatory work under an agency agreement with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Regulation 12 amends article 9 on the information to be provided by manufacturers. Paragraph 3 of article 9 requires that manufacturers placing detergent products on the market shall make available an ingredient datasheet, and provides that member states may request that such a datasheet be made available to a specific public body to which the member state has assigned the task of providing the information to medical personnel. The article is amended to refer specifically to the National Poisons Information Service or any other such body that the Secretary of State or the devolved Administrations may assign for that purpose. The NPIS already undertakes that role across the United Kingdom.
Regulation 13 amends article 10, on control measures, to ensure the compliance of detergents with the provisions of the regulation. The Secretary of State must make a decision as to whether a test concerned produced a false positive result. Advice to the Secretary of State will be provided by HSE, which is already well established in this area. An appeal provision for the manufacturer is provided. Regulation 14 amends article 11, on labelling, to provide that the information specified in this article must be in English. Regulation 15 omits article 12, which is no longer appropriate as it is an EU institutional working procedure.
The power of the Commission under article 13 to adapt the annexes to the regulation in line with scientific and technical progress is transferred to the Secretary of State by regulation 16. The Secretary of State will be able to do so by making a statutory instrument. Regulation 17 omits article 13(1), on the power of the Commission to adopt delegated Acts, and article 14, which contains provision about the free movement of detergents within the European Union. Regulation 18 omits article 16, on the Commission’s reporting assessments of the regulation to the European Parliament and Council. That refers to reports that the Commission had to have completed by 2014 and 2016. Regulation 19 omits article 17(4), which provides for repeal by member states of transposing measures for superseded directives on detergents. In effect, this is a legal tiding up exercise for what will be retained EU law.
Regulation 20 omits article 18, which requires member states to prescribe penalties for infringements of the regulation. Enforcement mechanisms for the UK were set out in the Detergents Regulations 2005. Regulation 21 inserts a new article 18A into the retained EU version of the regulation on appeals. With regard to determinations on testing, provision is included for the manufacturer to appeal that decision by the Secretary of State to a domestic court. Regulation 22 amends article 19, which is a standard provision about entry into force of the regulation.
Regulations 23 to 29 amend annexes 1 to 8 to the regulation. The annexes to the regulation contain technical detail, such as the required detail of the labelling and ingredient datasheet, as set out in annexe 7, and labelling provisions for consumer automatic dishwasher detergents, as set out in annexe 7B. The annexes contain references to various technical standards and other pieces of EU legislation and are being amended to make them operable, such as by removing references to member states. Out-of-date references have also been updated.
The draft Detergents (Safeguarding) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 have been tabled on behalf of the four Administrations. The safeguard clause was introduced for member states to take provisional measures in relation to those detergents which, while fully compliant with the EU regulation, were deemed to pose a risk to the safety of humans, animals or the environment. Currently, member states intending to use the safeguard clause must immediately inform the Commission, documenting their reasons. The safeguard clause in article 15 of the detergents regulation is amended by the draft instrument, otherwise it would be an inoperable part of retained EU law because, as it stands, it refers to member states and the European Commission. It is amended to reflect arrangements in domestic law.
Regulation 1 of the draft instrument makes introductory provision. Regulation 2 provides a definition of terms used throughout the draft instrument. Regulation 3 amends article 15 of the detergents regulation. The Secretary of State and the devolved Administrations will have the full powers currently held by the European Commission and member states to initiate safeguarding action across the UK in relation to detergents. The Secretary of State and the devolved Administrations—where the matter is devolved—will be able to take urgent, temporary restrictive action in relation to products through this amended safeguard clause.
The draft instruments address technical deficiencies, do not introduce new policy and preserve the current regime, therefore providing legal clarity, certainty and continuity to businesses and the public. I commend them to the Committee.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. These draft instruments are largely non-contentious, and it would be easy to rush them through with very little scrutiny. However, there is a danger, even with SIs as straightforward- looking as these, that the changes proposed will in fact fail to enshrine the same protections in UK law as currently exist in EU law. The fact that we are addressing so many SIs over such a short period of time makes that possibility of failure all the greater.
Protecting our human health and our natural environment from inappropriate and dangerous detergents is absolutely crucial. The existing EU regulations are detailed and fairly restrictive. If it operates properly, the draft Detergents Amendment (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 should ensure that all the protection we currently enjoy from the EU will continue under UK law. The Opposition would certainly support that. I would like an assurance from the Minister that the UK Government have no intention of relaxing any of the regulations at any stage in the foreseeable future.
As EU members, we could rely on all future UK Governments being bound by the regulations, which are clearly in the best interests of the whole of Europe, with a degree of certainty that may not be quite so great if the decision is simply down to one country’s Government. Leaving the EU also makes it far more difficult for the UK to persuade other European countries to adopt higher standards if that becomes our position.
The corollary to the environmental and health protection is the provision of equal standards across the EU that enable detergents and surfactants to be produced and traded across the EU. To maintain the economies of scale necessary to enable detergents to be manufactured in the UK at a competitive price, most manufacturers will need to continue to meet the requirements of the EU market. In that regard, I am concerned about the passing of the power to make derogations in the UK to the Secretary of State, albeit that it will be administered by the Health and Safety Executive in practice. Will the Minister assure me that derogations of that sort will not have the potential to undermine the UK’s ability to produce and export detergents to the EU market?
We would also like to know whether the Minister believes that any changes in the regulation of detergents in the EU in future should be mirrored by similar changes in UK regulations. If not, what impact does she believe any future divergence will have on the ability of the UK to manufacture and trade detergents?
The power to make derogations, and the need to make amendments in future, will take expertise and diligence. Does the Minister believe that the HSE will receive additional resources to take on that additional workload post Brexit? Given that the HSE’s remit is to protect human health rather than to protect the environment per se, what scrutiny will there be of the effects of any future changes or derogations on the health of the natural environment?
The safeguarding SI is simple, straightforward and wholly sensible, and we support it. I am not aware of any element in the SIs with which we would disagree, but we will abstain due to our concerns about the limited means of scrutiny offered by the timeframe within which they are being presented, and the lack of any possible in-depth examination of the implications.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. It is worth noting that the regulatory powers will be devolved to the relevant Administrations, so they will be going in their own direction, particularly in the areas of the environment and public health. We need to uphold these things in Scotland as much as possible.
The Environmental Audit Committee went on a visit to Washington. We were told by every agency bar one that we need to preserve REACH at all costs and that the regulations need to be tightened as much as possible. We subsequently heard that something like 100,000 companies had re-registered in Ireland because of Brexit complications. Can the Minister give us reassurance that she has had visitations from the chemicals industry about REACH and that she has provided it with assurances that standards will be maintained?
Dr Coffey
In response to the hon. Member for Falkirk, I have not had direct representations from the detergents industry specifically, but as I shared with the Committee, HSE has had those discussions and seems content—this is about business continuity.
I assure the hon. Member for Ipswich that we will not relax environmental standards. There is no need to do so. I am not aware that the derogation is being used in this country, and I think it is probably only rarely used across the European Union. I do not anticipate a sudden flurry of applications given that, as he said, many manufacturers will want to ensure that their products can be sold as widely as possible.
Discussions are happening on future divergence and mirroring EU laws. In essence, as has been said, particularly in respect of the withdrawal agreement, Parliament will have to make those choices. It is not the case that measures will go through automatically—I anticipate that we will vote on those matters. What does future divergence mean? I will not rule out future divergence—that is a decision for future Parliaments—but I anticipate that most businesses whose main market is other parts of the European Union will follow the market, as long as a product is acceptable in this country. They will always have to comply with the rules of the European Union if that is the market in which they wish to sell.
On HSE and additional requirements, HSE already does the work and we believe that any additional work will be minimal. In effect, this is the day job—HSE already undertakes those obligations on our behalf as an agency contracted into the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
I have covered the questions asked by the hon. Gentlemen, and therefore believe we can agree the SIs.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Detergents (Safeguarding) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Detergents (Safeguarding) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)
Draft Services of Lawyers and Lawyer’s Practice (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Services of Lawyers and Lawyer’s Practice (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. The draft regulations, which form part of the Government’s preparations for the possibility of the UK leaving the EU without a deal, relate to legal services in the context of our relationship with Switzerland. I will not detain the Committee long, but I will set out, first, the current framework; secondly, what we propose in relation to legal services in the EU in a no-deal scenario; and, thirdly, what we therefore propose in relation to legal services in Switzerland in a no-deal scenario.
As an EU member state, the UK is required to implement two European directives on legal services: the lawyers’ services directive and the lawyers’ establishment directive, both of which extend to Switzerland as a result of the free movement of persons agreement between the EU and Switzerland.
As part of our no-deal planning, the Government laid before Parliament a statutory instrument to amend the domestic legislation that implements the two EU directives. It will revoke the relevant provisions in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal. The draft regulations will ensure that deficiencies in retained EU law are remedied in a way that reflects the agreements that we have reached with Switzerland, retaining some provisions for Swiss lawyers in line with the UK-Switzerland citizens’ rights agreement.
The draft regulations will grandfather UK and Swiss lawyers’ recognition and establishment rights under the citizens’ rights agreement, provided that they have transferred to the host state title before exit day. They will protect the rights of UK or Swiss lawyers who are established, registered and providing services under their home title; as long as they remain registered, they will be able to continue to provide services, as they do at the moment. The regulations will provide a transition period of four years for lawyers to register or transfer under these arrangements. Finally, they will allow lawyers and law firms to continue to provide up to 90 days of temporary services in a year for at least five years, where this is under a contract agreed and started before exit. Swiss lawyers will also be able to apply, within four years of exit day, to join a profession in English and Wales or Northern Ireland on the basis of three years’ qualifying experience as a registered European lawyer, in addition to the routes available to foreign lawyers. Switzerland has introduced its own legislation on the matter.
I said that I would be brief. I hope that the Committee agrees that the draft regulations will allow us to ensure that retained EU law functions effectively, provide continuity for Swiss lawyers with interests in the UK under our reciprocal agreement, and ensure an orderly exit from the EU.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson.
The Opposition will not seek to divide the Committee on the draft regulations. I agree with everything that the Minister said about the impact of the treaty and how the agreement will work. I just want to add one thing: as I am sure the Minister is aware, the new agreement does not make any provision to allow United Kingdom law firms to operate in Switzerland under their current structures. Some law firms will therefore face challenges and will have to amend their corporate structure. We hope that the Ministry of Justice and other Departments will work through the issues that arise from the future trade agreement with Switzerland in relation to law firms.
Lucy Frazer
I thank the hon. Lady for indicating that she would not divide the Committee, which is a very constructive way forward. As I mentioned, Switzerland is introducing its own legislation on the matter.
I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Justice
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rory Stewart
As right hon. and hon. Members will have seen in the media, the inspectors highlighted cases in which sex offenders were placed in hotel accommodation. The first thing I want to say is that this is something we will work very hard to avoid in future, and I will explain how we will do that shortly. This is a very small number of cases. Every year, over 10,000 people are released from prison under that form of supervision, and of those only 54—sometimes it is 55 or 56—will end up in some type of emergency accommodation. Of those individuals, only a very few—perhaps half a dozen—will end up in hotel accommodation.
[Official Report, 24 January 2019, Vol. 653, c. 370.]
Letter of correction from the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice:
Errors have been identified in the statement I made to the House.
The correct wording should have been:
Rory Stewart
As right hon. and hon. Members will have seen in the media, the inspectors highlighted cases in which sex offenders were placed in hotel accommodation. The first thing I want to say is that this is something we will work very hard to avoid in future, and I will explain how we will do that shortly. This is a very small number of cases. So far in 2018-19, over 10,000 people have been released from prison under that form of supervision and 49 offenders have been placed temporarily in some type of emergency hotel or B&B accommodation. Of those individuals, around half were sex offenders.
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Harriett Baldwin
As colleagues have noted, since 2014 the UK Government have committed over a quarter of a billion pounds-worth of humanitarian support to Iraq, including to the Kurdistan region. That money has provided vital food, shelter, medicines and clean water to millions of people. In addition, we have committed over £110 million to Iraq since 2015 to help to stabilise the liberated areas and to enable internally displaced persons to return to repaired homes, with rebuilt water supplies and restored electricity networks.
[Official Report, 6 March 2019, Vol. 655, c. 458WH.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Africa.
An error has been identified in my response to the debate.
The correct response should have been:
Harriett Baldwin
As colleagues have noted, since 2014 the UK Government have committed over a quarter of a billion pounds-worth of humanitarian support to Iraq, including to the Kurdistan region. That money has provided vital food, shelter, medicines and clean water to millions of people. In addition, we have committed over £103 million to Iraq since 2015 to help to stabilise the liberated areas and to enable internally displaced persons to return to repaired homes, with rebuilt water supplies and restored electricity networks.
Petitions
Levels of pay in Further Education
The delivery of Brexit
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Fire Safety and Sprinkler Systems
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered fire safety and sprinkler systems.
It is a pleasure to see you presiding this morning, Mr Gray. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for providing time for the debate, which the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) and I requested on behalf on the all-party parliamentary fire safety rescue group. It is good to see a number of members of the group present to support the debate. I am also grateful to various organisations for their briefings, including the Library, the London Fire Brigade, the Fire Brigades Union, the National Fire Chiefs Council, the Fire Protection Association, the Business Sprinkler Alliance, the Association of British Insurers, the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
This is the first dedicated debate on this subject since 2014, when the first ever Fire Sprinkler Week took place. Several colleagues who were present at that debate are here again today. Although this is the first dedicated fire sprinkler debate since then, sprinklers have been mentioned many times in other debates over the intervening years, not least because of the Grenfell tragedy. The all-party group has been campaigning strongly on various matters, especially since the 2013 coroner’s report on the Lakanal House fire. The four key issues are: a full review of approved document B to update building regulations and fire guidance, which is well overdue; an assessment of the progress made in deploying fire sprinklers in Scotland and Wales, which is clearly affording better protection to homes and businesses in those countries, leaving England behind; a reversal of Government guidance on fire sprinklers in new build schools; and a requirement to install fire sprinklers in all domestic dwellings, especially new high-rise buildings, and the retrofitting of them in all high-rise buildings, especially post Grenfell. I will look at the first three briefly before focusing on the last item.
The Government are hiding behind the various inquiries after Grenfell: the public inquiry, the Dame Judith Hackitt review and the police criminal investigation. There is almost a standard response: “Let’s not anticipate their conclusions.” I say almost, because the Government did not wait to pronounce on cladding. They recognised that there was urgency and made a decision, which was a good job. That means that we do not have to wait for everything. On approved document B, the all-party parliamentary group was told in 2011 that the review would be completed and published by 2016-17. Not only was that not the case, it had not started properly, and Dame Judith is now overseeing a lot of that work.
In Scotland and Wales, better protection is now required for commercial coverage, and in Wales for domestic dwellings. On schools, last Friday the Government launched a call for evidence on “Building Bulletin 100: Design for fire safety in schools”. In 2007, the Labour Government issued revised guidance that encouraged new schools to be covered by fire sprinklers, but the coalition reversed that guidance. Whereas previously the number of new schools that were being sprinklered rose to 70%, after the coalition’s reversal that figure dropped back to 30%.
However, the main issue—the issue that I want to focus on, that is uppermost in the minds of the public, and on which the Government can take action—is the retrofitting of fire sprinklers in high-rise buildings and sprinklers in all homes. It has been well documented that sprinklers were considered for the Grenfell refurbishment at a cost of around £200,000 from an overall budget of nearly £10 million, but were not fitted. What a mistake. Had Grenfell been a new building, it would have been a requirement. If the Government think that sprinklers are needed for new buildings, why not for those already built, where the majority of people living in high-rise buildings actually reside?
Turning to the points raised by those who supplied briefings, the London Fire Brigade said that sprinklers save lives; they are not a “nice to have” or a luxury. The London Fire Commissioner, Dany Cotton, has said repeatedly that they are a “no-brainer”. They are highly effective in detecting fires, suppressing fires rapidly and raising the alarm. Sprinklers are not expensive; if included at the design stage, they can cost as little as 1% of the total build. There is also overwhelming public support for sprinklers. It is deeply concerning that in recent years, on the two occasions when the Government have reviewed sprinklers, protection has moved in the wrong direction: first, in 2013 through section 20 of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939, and secondly in 2016—resulting in less coverage, not more.
The Royal Institute of British Architects calls for a requirement for sprinklers systems in all new and converted residential buildings, as is already required in Wales, and in all existing residential buildings above 18 metres. It states that the urgency for change in building regulations is simply not as evident in England as in our neighbouring countries.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that, given the urgency, the retrofitting of sprinklers should be a priority for the Government, and that they should not wait for any outcomes of reviews? There is overwhelming evidence that we need to act now.
Jim Fitzpatrick
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, for whom I have some affection, having been an operational firefighter in Battersea for 13 years. I will come back to her point later, because it is central to the issue that I am raising.
The ABI states that in the UK no one has ever died from a fire in a fully sprinklered building. It recommends that sprinkler systems be fitted by qualified engineers, using accredited systems and equipment, to a recognised standard. The ABI has also commented on sprinklers in warehouses, care homes, schools and high-rise buildings.
The National Fire Chiefs Council wants sprinklers to become a requirement in all new high-rise residential structures above 18 metres, and wants student accommodation to be included. It says that where high-rise residential buildings exceed 30 metres, there should be a requirement to retrofit sprinklers when those buildings are scheduled to be refurbished—and should be retrofitted regardless of future refurbishment plans where such buildings are served by a single staircase.
Back in 2014, we debunked the myths about fire sprinklers as depicted in TV adverts, drama productions and movies. The issue of cost has also been successfully challenged; the cost has been shown to be much less than was claimed by opponents. The tragedy of Grenfell is screaming out for Government action. To delay further is an abdication of responsibility at best, and criminally irresponsible at worst.
In 2014, the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler), who is now the Housing Minister, said:
“I am proud to be an ambassador for the Derbyshire fire and rescue service…I am delighted to tell everybody in today’s debate that my local council, South Derbyshire…will be building new council housing because of the changes to housing funding, and because of that, it will be installing sprinklers in all the new council houses and council properties that it builds in future.”—[Official Report, 6 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 181WH.]
If it is good enough for South Derbyshire, why not for the rest of England? In the same debate, the then Fire Minister, the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), proudly claimed that fire deaths were continuing to fall. Sadly, that is not the case now.
The Government, local authorities and housing associations that rent in the public sector should, as a matter of urgency, agree to install sprinklers as soon as possible in all their housing stock. All private rented accommodation should start planning to fit sprinklers in all new builds and during all refurbishments. Without sprinklers, some 300 people will die and thousands will be traumatised each year in domestic fires. Although most casualties occur in ones, twos or family groups, there is no guarantee that there will not be another Grenfell. The long period of fewer fires and fewer deaths has plateaued over the last five years, with cuts the most likely explanation.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. He mentioned the Housing Minister, the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler). The chief fire officer for Derbyshire is the lead officer for the National Fire Chiefs Council, which proposed unanimously that fire sprinklers be fitted urgently, without us awaiting the full completion of the consultation on approved document B. If all our fire officers are saying that, should the Government not go ahead?
Jim Fitzpatrick
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, which I shall come back to in a moment.
Things that the Government can do to check the plateauing of deaths in fires include stopping any further cuts to the fire service, funding it appropriately, restoring the guidance on sprinklers in new schools, accelerating the review of approved document B and publishing it as soon as possible. However, the most urgent focus should be on fire sprinklers in homes, especially in high-rise buildings.
In one of my first meetings as fire Minister in 2005 or 2006, a senior civil servant advised me, “There’s room for a brave decision here, Minister.” I said that I recognised that as a line from “Yes, Minister” and told them to go away and bring back something else. Minister, there is room here not only for a brave decision, for a common-sense, pragmatic decision and for the right decision, but—most importantly—for a decision that saves lives.
The majority of people who die in fires are the old, the young, the poor, the sick or the vulnerable. Sprinklers are needed to improve fire safety in the UK’s buildings. The NFCC, the ABI, the FPA, the London Fire Brigade, the FBU, RIBA, RICS and the public all support them. The Government need a win, and this is an opportunity.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. A glance round the Chamber shows that plenty of hon. Members wish to speak. I do not really believe in time limits, but if colleagues could honourably restrict themselves to four or five minutes each, it would be a courtesy.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
As always, Mr Gray, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I declare an interest as a former firefighter, a former member of the FBU—I think technically I might still be one—and a former fire Minister when responsibility for fire was first brought into the Home Office.
Not all of what we ask today is in the Minister’s gift. Personally, I think that the fire Minister should have much more control over building regulations. When the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and I were firemen many years ago, most fire prevention work was done in-house in the fire service; I remember quite junior officers going away for up to two years to become fire prevention officers. Long before the terrible Grenfell disaster, we spent years and years, under numerous Governments, discussing whether we should have sprinklers in the home. As the hon. Gentleman says, the people who die in fires tend to be the most vulnerable. That is a national catastrophe.
Sprinklers have changed enormously over the years, from the drenching sprinklers that swamped everything to get the fire out and destroyed nearly everything apart from people’s lives, to the very fine particulate sprinklers that we have now, which create more of a mist. The need to protect environments as well as lives is much more obvious now, and the new sprinklers do that.
I support all the calls being made. I do not think that we need to wait for this or that report, because it is blatantly obvious, as old-fashioned common sense tells us, that there is a strong correlation between sprinklers and lives saved. As we have heard, where sprinklers have been installed, no lives have been lost. I do not want to say too much about Grenfell, but there is a strong possibility that the fire started inside the building and then spread to the outside and the cladding. A sprinkler system is inside, not outside. Quite simply, if the fire had never got to the cladding in the first place, the situation would almost certainly have been very different.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir Mike Penning
May I make a tiny bit of progress first, because of the time constraints that we are quite rightly under? It is fantastic to see so many colleagues here.
It is obvious common sense to have sprinklers in all new housing. Interestingly enough, they not only save lives but make insurance premiums go down. As with other types of insurance, such as telematics in car insurance, we have driven the industry to say, “If you install this, things could be better and your premiums could be lower.” Sprinklers also matter to developers choosing to buy properties in a certain area. Surely they must be the way forward. I will come on to social housing in a second, but let me first give way to my hon. Friend.
Kevin Hollinrake
I support the point made by my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) about the need for sprinklers. My right hon. Friend mentions the spread of fire. Does he recognise that the Grenfell tragedy could have been averted if the spread of fire by combustible cladding outside the building had been prevented? At current rates of progress, it will take five years to remediate all the private sector buildings in the UK. [Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head, but that is the current rate of progress. Where ownership or responsibility is unclear, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government should step in and provide a fund to allow remediation work to take place more quickly?
Sir Mike Penning
I am sure that the Minister will respond to my hon. Friend’s point. Obviously we would like to see people sleeping in homes that are safe, and the faster that happens, the better. I am sure that the Minister feels exactly the same.
If the Government do not take action on sprinklers, they are really saying that property is more important than people’s lives. They may say that the costs are high or that the developers do not want sprinkler systems, but actually we have found that installing them in all new builds and major refurbishments would cost less than 1% of the build cost—not the retail value, the build cost. I cannot understand anyone in the 21st century arguing against installing sprinklers in all new properties. The insurers insist on it in most commercial and retail properties, and surely lives are more important.
As an ex-fireman and ex-Minister, I know the advice that the Minister has been getting, but he needs to turn round and say, “I am afraid that some of that advice is tosh.” The cost implications are there. New build could start tomorrow and refurbishment costs can be met. Now that we are building more social housing than ever—in my constituency we are building like wildfire, because we need more council houses—surely the Local Government Association could bring councils together to say that sprinklers should be installed.
I will not go into carbon monoxide and smoke detectors, but the successes in that area have caused a sudden drop in fatalities. We need to do more work on carbon monoxide, but this debate is about sprinklers. Sprinklers need to be in everybody’s homes as soon as possible.
Emma Dent Coad (Kensington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), the secretary of the all-party fire safety rescue group, on initiating and leading this extremely important debate in the light of the atrocity at Grenfell Tower nearly two years ago. I also thank the group’s chair, the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), for his leadership over the past 20 years. I was delighted to be appointed as a vice-chair last year.
I am here to make a difference. First, I will challenge the resistance shown by the Government and their advisers towards the overwhelming and compelling evidence of the benefits of fire sprinklers to property and life. Their protection extends to the firefighters and other first responders to whom so many of my community owe their lives. Those who risk their lives every day to save ours also need protection.
As one of a package of fire safety measures, sprinklers work where other measures have failed. Where installed in flats, they have controlled or extinguished 100% of fires, according to research carried out by the National Fire Chiefs Council in May 2017, a month before the fire. The Building Research Establishment’s 2012 cost-benefit analysis confirmed that sprinklers are cost-effective in most blocks of purpose-built flats and in larger blocks of converted flats. Why have the Government not implemented that seven-year-old independent report? The public inquiry is reviewing what Ministers have failed to implement since the study in 2012, the coroner’s rule 43 letter in 2013 after the Lakanal House inquest, and the NFCC research. On behalf of a bereaved community, I ask the Minister to encourage the Secretary of State to push ahead with the building regulations review and, please, to act on the findings now.
Hon. Members will be aware that, following the atrocity at Grenfell, a full technical review has been instigated of approved document B, with a call for evidence. The NFCC has responded and set out its advice. I hope that hon. Members agree that it is well placed and qualified to determine the requirements and that we should support its position. All the chief fire officers in the country are saying with one voice that that regulation needs to be improved, so I hope that the Government will listen to them, rather than waiting for the result of the review, and that hon. Members will support this interim measure to speed up the process and take action to protect lives against fire.
A change to guidance alone will not address this matter, as demonstrated by the approach to schools, which has guidance in the form of Building Bulletin 100. That document defines the expectation for automatic fire sprinklers in schools as a property protection, and saw the inclusion of sprinklers in 70% of new schools over three years, between 2007 and 2010, but that has since fallen to an alarmingly low level. The London Fire Brigade commissioner has said that it relates to very few schools now—only four of the 84 schools it has attended have had sprinklers.
The Hackitt report defines high-rise residential buildings in need of sprinklers as those of 30 metres, or 10 storeys. The most recent London Councils position is to support sprinklers in buildings of 18 metres, or six storeys—not just for new build, but also for retrofitting in existing buildings. It has asked that the work for council-owned buildings is funded by the Government in full. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Chartered Institute of Building have jointly called on the Government to require the installation of sprinklers in all new and converted residential buildings of 11 metres, or four storeys. RIBA has expressed its concern to me about the very high-rise buildings that currently have planning permission but are yet unbuilt, and what rules will apply to them.
Different rules govern fire safety in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but fire does not respect political or geographical boundaries. Councils, developers and social and private landlords need clarity from the Government and are demanding action now, without further confusion or delay. As one of the Grenfell survivors, who predicted the fire, has said, without action now, “Grenfell 2 is in the post”. The Government must not let that nightmare prediction come true, and must listen to the experts—the National Fire Chiefs Council, the Building Research Establishment, London Councils, RICS, RIBA, CIOB—and legislate now, to save lives.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) on securing the debate. He has been a magnificent voice leading on fire safety issues in Parliament. If his voice had been listened to over the years, we would not be in the powerless state that we are at the moment.
I congratulate and thank all the members of the all-party parliamentary fire safety and rescue group. It is a wonderful group and we speak with one voice: we want sprinklers to be installed on a mandatory basis in certain buildings. If we had been listened to at the outset, there would not have been the Lakanal disaster and there would not have been the Grenfell disaster. I am in absolute despair: Ministers come and go, and yet the advice remains constant from officials and others. That advice is absolutely wrong. It has cost lives.
The debate is pertinent because changes to building regulations approved document B guidance are currently being considered following the Grenfell Tower disaster. That was nearly two years ago, but I am sure it only seems like yesterday to the hon. Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad).
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I endorse everything that the hon. Gentleman says about the work of the APPG. Is the difference between us and the Government not that we have been willing to listen to expert opinion, and to take that into account when deciding the appropriate way forward? Surely, this is the time to listen to expert opinion.
Sir David Amess
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We have the privilege of not just one, not just two, but three former fire Ministers here today. It is about time that the present Government listened to their expertise on the subject. I cannot think of any meeting where the APPG has not had an item on the agenda about automatic fire sprinkler protection.
We should never have got to the position of the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy, especially after the warnings and recommendations of the coroner at the Lakanal House fire inquest in 2013, and the rule 43 letter to the Secretary of State. We have all the correspondence about what the APPG was trying to do at the time.
All Governments of all colours have failed us. On 4 July 2017, the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), said that
“we may have to confront an awkward truth. That over many years and perhaps against the backdrop of, as data shows, a reduced risk in terms of fire, in terms of number of incidents and deaths, that maybe as a system some complacency has crept in.”
Well, I think that is what Dame Judith Hackitt feels about the situation, and we will just have to see how that pans out. Claims of complacency could never be aimed at the APPG.
In 2012, the Building Research Establishment updated its 2006 research into the cost-benefit analysis of installing residential fire sprinklers and concluded that sprinklers are cost-effective for most blocks of purpose-built flats, all residential care homes, including those with single bedrooms, and traditional bedsit-type houses in multiple occupation, where there are at least six bedsit units per building and the costs are shared. The APPG has consistently asked why the Government have not reflected those changes in its guidance in approved document B. The intransigence is absolutely unacceptable.
I say again: the advice has been totally wrong. The APPG, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the London Fire Brigade, the Fire Protection Association, the National Fire Chiefs Council, the Fire Sector Federation, the Association of British Insurers and many others cannot all be wrong on this issue, but the advisers are still giving the wrong advice.
In March 2013, the Southwark coroner issued a rule 43 letter to the Secretary of State for the then Department of Communities and Local Government following the Lakanal House inquest, which stated:
“Evidence adduced at the inquests indicated that retro fitting of sprinkler systems in high rise residential buildings might now be possible at lower cost than had previously been thought to have been the case, and with modest disruption to residents. It is recommended that your Department encourage providers of housing in high rise residential buildings containing multiple domestic premises to consider the retro fitting of sprinkler systems.”
The response from DCLG was lamentable. It said that
“any fire safety measures which might need to be implemented or installed in any particular building will need to be determined primarily by a careful assessment of the life-risk to the residents and others in the building.”
We know that. The word used in the letter is “encourage”.
At the Lakanal House coroner’s inquests in March 2013, the London Fire Brigade commissioner was asked by the barrister assisting the coroner whether, if sprinklers had been installed, the lives would have been saved. The commissioner replied with an unequivocal yes. That is what happened at the inquiry. What happened at Grenfell is an absolute disgrace.
The National Fire Chiefs Council commissioned a research study by Optimal Research collecting data on five years of real fires that had occurred in the UK where sprinklers had been installed. Its findings, published last year, showed that, on 99.5% of occasions in all buildings and in 100% of occasions in flats, fires were avoided when sprinklers were installed. Sprinklers are not a panacea; they are only one of a package of measures. I am sure the Minister may make some remarks along those lines, but sprinklers can be used to make properties safe from fire.
Let me close by giving an estimated progress report on the retrofitting of automatic fire sprinkler protection in residential tower blocks. I am advised by organisations that manufacture automatic fire sprinkler systems that an estimated 1,000 towers have commenced or committed to installing sprinklers in existing tower blocks as a consequence of the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy. Already, Wales and Scotland are much further ahead in regulating for automatic fire sprinklers in their built environment. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister, who is a good and wise man: this nonsense can no longer go on and we will not accept it. We want action on this, and we want sprinklers to be installed retrospectively, particularly in all new school buildings.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I will try to keep my remarks brief, as there is a lot of pressure on time. I am delighted to participate in the debate. I congratulate the hon. Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and for Southend West (Sir David Amess) on bringing the debate forward. The Grenfell tragedy has brought the whole issue of fire safety sharply into focus and forced us all to re-examine and re-evaluate building regulations to ensure that they are fit for purpose and properly adhered to.
Building regulations are devolved, and the Scottish Government have responded extensively. The Scottish Housing Minister, Kevin Stewart MSP, has announced that amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 are being brought forward. In addition to other fire safety measures, regulations will ensure that sprinkler installation is mandatory in flatted accommodations, large multi-occupancy dwellings and places that deliver care. We must do all we can on fire safety; there is no room for complacency in any part of the United Kingdom. We must make the improvements necessary and monitor them to ensure they are fit for purpose.
The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, among others, made an impassioned case for sprinklers. The case was very well made. We know there is a correlation between sprinklers and reducing fatalities in fires. The fire at Grenfell taught us all a lot in many different ways, both about fire safety and about the kind of society we are trying to build. Most importantly, every single person is entitled—as a right—to the same high levels of fire safety protection. Homes, schools and hospitals must all be as resilient to fire as we can possibly make them. In Scotland, we have had the tragedy of the fire at the Glasgow School of Art—twice—which is still being investigated. There may be a public inquiry into it, so I limit my comments on that.
As we have heard, sprinklers are not expensive and are not an added extra. They are essential for building safety and public safety. We must all be vigilant on this issue. In the face of such a tragedy as Grenfell, we should all be humble and see what lessons can be learnt for the future, so that a tragedy on that scale is never allowed to happen again. I urge the Minister to heed the conclusion of the National Fire Chiefs Council:
“Standards in England must be enhanced and brought in line with national policy in Scotland and Wales with regard to water suppression systems.”
I take no pleasure in saying that. I believe that all people, right across the United Kingdom, are equally entitled to the highest safety standards. Today we have seen impatience in the Chamber at the lack of action. I look forward to hearing the Minister say that he will listen to the national fire chiefs and Members in this Chamber, and that all necessary improvements, especially sprinklers, will be implemented as soon as possible, so that the highest safety standards are reached and maintained for the future.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) on securing this debate. He is a champion for addressing fire safety issues. With his lifetime of experience in this field, we should all listen very carefully to what he says. However, we should not be having this debate. Action to address the issues that we are raising should have been taken a very long time ago. A failure to do this has meant that lives have been lost and firefighters have been asked to take unnecessary risks.
On 14 July 2010, Wessex Foods—a large food processing factory on the south Lowestoft industrial estate—burnt down. No one was hurt, but 150 people lost their jobs. Nearby businesses were disrupted for days and weeks. Residents were evacuated from their homes and there were significant environmental impacts, such as the odour from rotting meat and 50 million litres of water being used to tackle the fire. It took 10 days to extinguish the fire, during which time almost every firefighter in Suffolk attended the scene. If sprinklers had been fitted at Wessex Foods, the firefighters from the nearby Stradbroke Road station would have been back there within an hour.
I first took part in a fire sprinklers debate in early 2011. My ask at the time was very simple: the overwhelming evidence and support for the widespread use of sprinklers should be taken into account in the review on part B of the building regulations, which was due to start in 2013. It is completely wrong that the review is taking place only now. The time for talking has gone, and we need action.
Back in 2012, the various property and professional bodies were not all fully engaged. They are now, and they speak with one voice. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, of which I used to be a member, the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Chartered Institute of Building are all calling for building regulations to be harmonised across the four home nations; for sprinklers to be installed in all new and converted residential buildings, hotels, hospitals, student accommodation, schools and care homes of 11 metres or above in height; and for retrofitting to existing buildings when refurbishment occurs as
“a ‘consequential improvement’ where a building is subject to ‘material alterations’”.
The insurance industry is also calling for action, proposing that sprinklers should be compulsory in warehouses under 2,000 square metres and in new build schools and care homes.
We have kicked this particular can down the road for too long, with devastating consequences. We now need action, and I urge the Minister to acknowledge this and to provide a suitable roadmap in his summing up.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I will keep my remarks brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick)—as has just been said, he speaks with enormous authority on this matter and the Government should listen.
Like many of our cities, Sheffield has seen a huge growth in high-rise developments in recent years. They are largely privately owned developments, and many are for students. I am grateful that my hon. Friend highlighted the need to include purpose-built student accommodation in the requirements for sprinklers. Many of the developments are for other purposes—mainly for rent, although some are for owner-occupation. There are complex ownership arrangements between developers and the owners of the freehold, and there are complex leasehold and management agreements. The people who live in them look to the local authority to guarantee their safety, and it is a responsibility that Sheffield City Council is keen to respond to. It acted unilaterally, without financial support, to retrofit sprinklers in its own properties after the Grenfell disaster, and it wants to go further on private sector properties.
When the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government wrote to local authority chief executives in March 2018 to say it was
“vitally important that we identify any remaining private high rise blocks with potentially unsafe ACM cladding”
and to offer funding, the council was quick to respond. It put together a plan to compile a comprehensive register of all high-rise accommodation, set out ownership and management details, provide information on construction and materials used, and undertake a risk assessment and outline what was needed to make the property safe, including sprinkler systems. It would have cost just £740,000 over two years, but the Government offered just 5% of that cost from the money that had been set aside. Recognising that councils have faced disproportionate cuts—Sheffield has lost around 60% of its funding from central Government—does the Minister think that providing only 5% support for that work was adequate?
Sprinklers are key to saving lives when fires start, but we need to remove the risk of them starting in the first place. The Minister will be aware of the formation of the UK Cladding Action Group to voice the concerns of people who own flats in tower blocks with ACM cladding. It was reported in the last couple of days that only 10 of the 173 private buildings that were discovered to have combustible cladding have been fixed—this point was raised by the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) a moment ago. The barrier to action appears to be disputes over the funding and responsibility for the work.
Among the blocks affected is Metis Tower in my constituency. Residents there face a bleak future. One of those who contacted me, William Martin, summed up his situation in a plea to the Secretary of State:
“I’m a first time buyer stuck with a property covered in failed cladding. The freeholder is denying responsibility and the developers have ceased trading. I’m currently living out a nightmare and facing financial ruin. I and many others desperately need your help.”
A company called HomeGround represents the freeholder, Adriatic, and says that it is not the landlord and is therefore not responsible. It points fingers at the property management company, Fairways, which says that it is awaiting legal clarification on who is responsible. The suggestion is that the responsibility for the re-cladding will fall on those who own the flats, who face individual bills of upwards of £20,000 each. That is a disgrace—the residents cannot afford those sums. William says that he cannot get rid of the property or move on when he wants to, and that frankly, he feels trapped in a prison. That is not acceptable. If someone buys a dishwasher that is found to be faulty because of a fire risk, we put safety first: the product is recalled and the manufacturer takes responsibility. If that is good enough for domestic products, why is it not good enough for the homes that house them?
I recognise that some developers and freeholders accept responsibility, but others do not. The Government must act. We need first to make the building safe, and we need to make sure that the individual residents who own the flats do not foot the bill. The Government should hold the developers and freeholders to account. If the law is not currently up to the task, we need to change it. I hope that the Minister will outline what action the Government will take in that respect.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) for securing this important debate. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), I declare an interest: I was a member of the Fire Brigades Union for 31 years and I think I am a fully paid-up out-of-trade member as I speak.
Experience over decades has shown that sprinkler systems, whether stand-alone or as part of other fire protection measures, are designed to contain or extinguish fire, and are certainly adept at reducing the spread of fire, if not altogether preventing it. They are a valuable asset for buildings with high occupancy numbers and potentially protracted evacuation times. Those of us who have experience as emergency responders know that despite exit signage, calculations of flow rates, widths of exit routes and so on, public behaviour in an emergency situation is often unpredictable. Sprinklers are also a life-saving asset in domestic dwellings.
A properly installed, acceptance-tested and maintained sprinkler system affords reliable protection for occupiers and, equally importantly, firefighters, in the unfortunate event of a fire breaking out, and brings reassurance to the insurers of the buildings and individuals. The difficulty in bringing the public and developers on board is the mistaken perception that sprinkler systems drive up prices to a horrendous level. That is not the case; it is a myth. Such installations account for a small percentage increase in the cost of a property—estimated at around 1%—but what is the price of life? Surely, lives are priceless.
There is also wariness about accidental water damage should the system fail and inappropriately discharge, but that is a very rare occurrence. A popular misconception is that all sprinkler heads in a building could suddenly activate rather than it being generally limited to the compartment of origin. In many instances, a single sprinkler head activates—perhaps with a neighbouring one—and the damage is minimal. We should bear in mind that fire water run-off from firefighters’ hoses—as my colleagues who worked in the fire service will know—has the potential to inflict much greater water damage, and has done so in the past.
Reliable and responsive installations are now seen as preferable to, or at least complementary to, large-scale offensive firefighting in buildings where, because of changes in construction methods and increased use of artificial materials, generated heat levels are absolutely unbelievable because of the additional fire loading, which is much greater than in my days of firefighting. A sprinkler system potentially reduces the heat release rate and the danger of flashover, to which all firefighters are vulnerable when they enter an ignited building. Sprinkler systems also prolong air quality by slowing down the accumulation of smoke—smoke alone can be the killer, not necessarily the fire itself. All that is particularly important given that the compartment of origin is frequently and sadly the locus where fire fatalities are found.
The future lies with investment in research and development so that fire engineering prevails as the first line of defence against fire to save life, with operational firefighting the last resort. There are many examples at home and abroad of sprinkler systems saving lives. In 2011, a building in Dubai became the world’s tallest residential building, and was referred to, oddly enough, as the Torch. It hit the headlines again in 2015 when a fire broke out and took hold on the 50th floor of the 79-floor structure. What an impossible task for the firefighters to deal with—it was quite unbelievable. The safe evacuation of that massive residential structure was down to passive and active measures, including the successful operation of a sprinkler system, which allowed containment of the fire and the safe evacuation of individuals.
Nearer to home, in Wales, the Building Regulations &c. (Amendment No. 3) and Domestic Fire Safety (Wales) Regulations 2013 introduced a requirement to fit automatic fire suppression systems in residences before first occupation. The regulations covered care homes and rooms used for certain residential purposes and dwellings. In Scotland, sprinkler systems are already mandatory in certain circumstances and will be extended to new flats in 2019. That is the welcome result of the work of a Scottish ministerial working group, which was set up after the Grenfell tragedy. Regrettably, England appears to be falling behind its neighbours
Most studies over the years have concluded that sprinklers lead to a much lower or zero death rate, particularly in residential buildings, and I urge the Minister to consider any measures that would reinforce such a reduction and support enhanced life safety. Sprinklers are a natural progressive partner to detection. We have seen the success of smoke detectors. As has been said, it is simply common sense that the natural progression is with sprinklers.
The need for sprinklers is not a whim; it an evidence-based common-sense approach. Let us act now to further reduce the risk of fire deaths and to secure a safer operational environment for our firefighters. Every fire authority has a responsibility and a duty of care for those people and we can make their high-risk job that bit safer. I ask the Minister to act now, in the light of the clear need for sprinklers, to drive that forward, for the safety of individuals and of firefighters, and to secure properties and allow businesses to avoid being badly impacted by the ravages of fire.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) on securing a Westminster Hall debate on the critical issue of fire safety and sprinkler systems. He has shown that he is at the forefront of the pursuit of the matter. I do not say this to give him a big head, but the honest truth is that his expertise and knowledge have allowed him to express the key points that he feels need to be addressed. We are fortunate to have the opportunity to back him and further reinforce those points.
We do not have the legislation that I would like in Northern Ireland. We are similar to England in that respect. How I envy the regulations that were introduced in Scotland in 2006, and in Wales in 2016. I often say that Scotland very often leads the way in many things, and it has certainly led the way on this issue, for which we must give credit where it is due—Scotland deserves that. Unfortunately we have a difference of opinion when it comes to the referendum, but that is by the bye. None the less, I recognise good when I see it.
The key in safety is whether something will save lives. Will sprinklers save lives? Yes, they will. Should they be in every apartment block? Yes, they should, but they are not, and they should never be viewed as a “nice to have” or a luxury.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
There has been a lot of discussion on that point today; some have mentioned that this debate has been going on since 2011. If there are to be new regulations and procedures, surely the role of this House is to fast-track any legislation, so that we will not be sat here in the same circumstances in another two or three years.
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He reinforces a point made by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, who said very clearly that we do not want to be sat here in a few years’ time having the same discussions, not having moved forward. As always, we look to the Minister and hope for positivity in his response.
Sprinklers are not the panacea for fire safety, but the evidence base tells us that they can have an impact on fires as part of fire safety measures. They are part of the compendium of fire safety measures that we need. They protect the environment from large emissions, smoke and volumes of contaminated water. I am not the only one who watches many films on TV—others have mentioned this—but in films where an actor appears after the sprinkler system has been on, it looks as though he has dipped himself in a pool of water, and all the stock is ruined. The fact is, however, that sprinkler systems today are not like that. They use 90% less water than hoses, thereby reducing and preventing costly water damage. Sprinkler systems are therefore constructive and positive, and can do their job well. Sprinklers are not expensive if they are included at the design stage, costing as little as 1% of the total build. That is the time to put such systems in—not later on, but at the very beginning. According to the latest poll, the general public want them in their buildings, so we have to respond to what we are being told.
Where are we now? Self-regulation is the norm, but is clearly not working. The fire brigade has asked Government to step up and step in. Also, we cannot ignore the campaign of the National Fire Chiefs Council, which is asking for a new UK-wide regulatory system for sprinkler systems, which are essential. We should consider the know-how of the fire personnel whom we rely on to put fires out. The fact that this is their campaign and their initiative underlines its importance.
Housing developers are consistently ignoring expert advice on sprinklers, every year, including in large projects. In 2016, in the last survey of new or refurbished buildings, only two out of the 15 blocks checked had sprinklers fitted. Again, that underlines important shortfalls. The advice given to developers is apparently disregarded, so regulations need to be brought in and enforced, as my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse and others have emphasised. That is where councils and local authorities can fulfil an important role quickly.
In a briefing I received, an example was given of a balcony fire. It took hold of not just one apartment block, but five, in a very short time. This illustrates the importance of sprinklers: within the 19 minutes between the call and the fire engines arriving, the fire had been controlled by the newly installed sprinkler system. I thank the Lord for that; it illustrates what sprinklers can do in the right place—they did the fire brigade’s work. That is what they were tasked to do, and it went well.
What do we need? We need sprinklers to be fitted into all residential care homes and sheltered accommodation, and existing homes should be refurbished to include them. Often such flats or apartments house people with mobility or health issues, who could suffer fatal or life-changing injuries. That also applies to schools, because the safety of our children is important. We need stringent controls. A change to our rules and regulations is needed for hotels, student accommodation, warehouses, historical buildings and deep-base complexes. The debate has given us a chance to air the issues, and I am happy to be part of that. I look to the Minister for his response.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and to follow so many Members who are experts in this field. In particular, I thank the all-party group, which I have been a member of for some years. I have learned an extraordinary amount, especially from the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). I will do my best to follow those contributions.
As we have heard, there is a great deal of consensus not just in this Chamber but among experts with an interest in this field—the insurance industry, fire safety professionals, including the London Fire Brigade, local government in London and England, architects and surveyors. We have also heard about the good practice in the devolved Administrations, which are substantially ahead of England. This very much seems to be an English problem now.
The first point is that, as many Members have indicated, sprinkler systems work. According to the London Councils briefing for today,
“automatic fire suppression systems…operate on 94 per cent of occasions and when they do operate they extinguish or contain the fire on 99 per cent of occasions. They reduce fire injuries and fire damage by 80 per cent. They also reduce the environmental impact and the economic cost of fire.”
Also, as has been said, no one has ever died from a fire in a fully sprinklered building.
The relatively minimal cost—1% of build costs—of installing sprinklers has also been mentioned. In addition, as the London Fire Brigade reminds us, sprinkler systems on average use 90% less water than hoses, and can prevent costly water damage. Introducing such systems seems to be a bit of a no-brainer.
I can think of two examples from my constituency. In 2012, opposite the BBC Television Centre, we had a major fire in the Dairy Crest warehouse, which had a huge amount of combustible material in it—explosive material, too. It needed 15 fire engines and 75 firefighters. I think about the unnecessary risk to the lives of firefighters on such occasions. In 2016, a year before the Grenfell Tower fire, there was a major fire in Shepherd’s Court, overlooking Shepherd’s Bush Green. There were fortunately no casualties, but there was a full evacuation of the building. Six flats were substantially damaged by fire, but I think another 20 were substantially damaged by water. The consequence of fires, even when successfully extinguished without injury, is often huge costs and disruption to people’s lives over many years.
All that indicates the way in which we ought to be moving, and where we hope to see the Minister moving us. However, I have one other point to make, which is also made by London Councils:
“While…sprinkler systems are very important, it is important to point out that they are not a substitute for a holistic, whole buildings, risk-based approach to fire safety.”
The Royal Institute of British Architects makes four recommendations on where it thinks fire safety should be going. They will not be a panacea and cover everything, but looking at those four areas will go far towards reducing risk. No. 1 on the list is sprinklers:
“a requirement for sprinklers/automatic fire suppression systems in all new and converted residential buildings…and in all existing residential buildings above 18m from ground level”,
as already required in Wales.
The other three recommendations are equally or more important. One is alternative means of escape. Buildings, including in my constituency, are still given planning consent although they have only a single means of escape—blocks that in effect replicate Grenfell Tower: 20-storey blocks of flats with a single means of escape—and that is purely for commercial reasons. It should not be tolerated.
The third recommendation is for centrally addressable fire alarms. That deals with the stay-put policy and what happens when it fails. Is there a fail-safe method of warning people when a building needs to be evacuated?
The fourth recommendation, which will come as no surprise to the Minister, is an extended ban on the use of combustible cladding. That is not the main topic today, but it is one that we return to time and again, because the Government’s measures are wholly inadequate. We have taken a long time to deal just with the issue of aluminium composite material cladding, and the Government are only now getting on to other forms of cladding, often more combustible than ACM, that are estimated to be on more than 340 high-rise buildings out there. Even the ban on use for new build or refurbishment projects is inadequate. It does not cover hotels, office buildings or lower-rise buildings used by vulnerable people, such as hospitals and care homes. Until we have a comprehensive approach not only to fire safety generally but to the removal and installation of cladding systems—not just cladding, but cladding and installation together—we are not seriously tackling the problem, or seriously dealing with the legacy of Grenfell.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Gray.
I thank all hon. Members who have spoken today. It is good to see such comprehensive agreement in a Westminster Hall debate that action must be taken, and on what that action must be. I was struck in particular by the comments of the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) who talked about “unacceptable” intransigence, “lamentable” action and all Governments failing in this respect. I urge the Minister to listen carefully to what everyone said this morning. It is absolutely clear that there is no difference of opinion among people whose differences of opinion are usually vast. Everyone has agreed on the action that needs to be taken. I will not diverge from that.
I pay tribute to the people affected by Grenfell; their strong reaction inspires us all to do more and to do better. The hon. Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad) spoke movingly on behalf of her constituents and urged the Minister to act on the evidence. We need to keep up the pressure and momentum. If we let people down, more people will die or be injured as a result of further fires.
The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), a former Minister no less, has great expertise on this matter and is diligent in ensuring that the House never forgets the risks of fire. I have never been a firefighter like some Members in the debate, but I served as a councillor for a while, with the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant), on the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service board. In June 2007, it did a demo of how sprinklers could stop fires. I was struck by the damage of a burnt-out husk of a room, compared with the minimal damage from sprinklers.
The myths about the cost and how the systems work continue, but the evidence is that they cause far less damage and harm than a fire burning an entire house, room or building. We must take heed of the changing development of sprinkler systems, as the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) mentioned. They have developed over the years. They are not the same systems as once existed but are very sophisticated. There is no barrier other than willpower to get them into buildings as soon as possible.
The Scottish building regulations are robust; the Scottish Government took prompt action following the Grenfell tragedy to improve existing legislation. The ministerial working group on building and fire safety did not hang around; it got on with the job, looked comprehensively at everything and came forward very quickly with minimum standards for smoke alarms across all kinds of property.
The minimum requirements will be that at least one smoke alarm will be installed in the room most frequently used, such as the living room; at least one smoke alarm will be in every circulation space on each storey, such as hallways and landings; at least one heat alarm will be installed in every kitchen; and all alarms should be ceiling mounted and interlinked. That is a huge difference, and it will apply to all properties from 2021, including in the private rented sector and new build homes. It is important that that change is comprehensive, because if we leave one housing sector behind, that is where the risk will remain. Often, that means people in poorer accommodation, who cannot access their rights and are most at risk of dying in fires.
Our response has been far more extensive than what has taken place in England. We will make sprinkler installation mandatory in flatted accommodation, larger multi-occupancy dwellings and places that deliver care. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) mentioned that we need to look at single means of escape. We are looking at measures to improve evacuation procedures, including the requirement for sound alerts, two escape stairways in all new high-rise residential buildings, and creating specific fire safety guidance for the people in dwellings, because people need to know that the flat they live in now might be different from the flat they used to live in. They need to know how to react.
Building owners and developers will be required to prepare and maintain a compliance plan for transparency about the building’s inspection regime, to both residents and regulators. That will help to maintain monitoring. As Members have said, we do not want to slip into complacency. Once a building is built, that is not the end of the story. People will live in that building for many years to come, and they need to know how best to prepare themselves.
Sir Mike Penning
The hon. Lady’s point is massively important. It is not just about the cost of installation; there may be a sprinkler system in a brand-new, modern house, but that has to be maintained and checked, like any gas product or anything else. Insurance companies will be important, because most insurance policies these days include pipe work and other things, so the cost should not be prohibitive, but people—and local authorities—will worry about the ongoing cost of having a sprinkler system in their property when they have to pay for it. However, the savings will be as great as the cost.
Alison Thewliss
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman; I was coming to the point about insurance premiums. People’s insurance premiums can be reduced if they have a burglar alarm fitted, and we need the same incentives for sprinklers. That needs to be a part of the environment, as it is for retail and commercial properties.
There is an important point about the cost of sprinkler systems. The Scottish Housing Minister, Kevin Stewart, has called for VAT to be removed from cladding. We need to look at removing VAT for sprinkler systems, too. That would be a significant saving to help people to install these items. There would be significant savings for property owners and housing associations—the full gamut of people involved in the property sector. A 20% reduction in the cost of installing something is pretty significant, and it could allow programmes to go forward more quickly than otherwise. I urge the Minister to speak to the Chancellor to see what can be done, certainly ahead of the Budget later this year, as we are probably too late for the statement later this week. That would be a real win for this Government to incentivise people to take action on cladding and sprinkler systems.
The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock spoke powerfully about firefighter safety. That has been missing from this debate. When firefighters go into those situations, they need to be kept safe. Nobody wants firefighters to lose their lives. I was interested in what the hon. Gentleman said about engineering out issues and ensuring that when new buildings are constructed, their fire safety is part of the plans from day one.
As part of my work in the all-party parliamentary group on working at height, I was having a conversation about materials used in buildings that may test well in isolation, but when put in a building become more dangerous. I urge the Minister to consider doing more to ensure that materials are testing in situ, to avoid the situation of Grenfell, where the whole of the cladding on the outside of the building went up. Testing in situ and the appreciation of the impact on materials when used in a building must be taken into account.
There are significant differences in how Scotland has defined “high rise”. The hon. Member for Kensington mentioned that it is 18 metres in England, and 11 metres in Scotland. Far more buildings will be caught by the regulations at 11 metres. Regardless of what we regard as high rise, it is important that people in bigger buildings can get out safely should there be a fire. There is a lot of student accommodation in my constituency—I was glad that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) mentioned that issue. Students can be more vulnerable, living away from home for the first time, in accommodation that is new to them. Having sprinkler systems would be most useful.
A couple of hon. Members mentioned water damage as a result of fires being extinguished. That has been a significant issue in my constituency lately, because the O2 ABC was damaged hugely by the water from the fire being put out at the Glasgow School of Art. That water was not from the mains but from the Clyde, and had been pumped uphill to put the fire out. Extinguishing fires can cause significant damage to buildings, which in many cases could be prevented by comprehensive sprinkler systems. I urge the Minister to look at how sprinklers can be sensitively retrofitted in historic buildings. They are significant—we are in one now. We need to ensure that all buildings where the public go are well protected from fire.
There has been comprehensive agreement today. There are good examples from Scotland and Wales of how action can be taken swiftly. We should act without any further delay, before any more incidents occur and there is any further loss of life. The Minister knows what he needs to do; I very much ask him to get on and do it.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) on securing this debate. Given that the call for evidence on approved document B of the building regulations ends on Friday, this debate is exceptionally timely, and I hope that the Minister has listened carefully to the wise words of the secretary of the all-party fire safety rescue group. Hon. Members are clearly as one on the need for change, and that case has been made conclusively this morning.
The need for urgency percolated through everybody’s speeches. The hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) said that this “nonsense” must not go on, and the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) asked whether property is more important than people’s lives. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad) said that Grenfell 2 is “in the post”, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) said that we should consider the cost and that this issue is a “no-brainer”. The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) said that we have kicked the can down the road for too long. We heard sensible arguments from all those who contributed this morning, including on the important need to protect firefighters as well as residents, and the fact that modern sprinkler systems can be installed at less cost and with less damage if they need to be used.
In 2019, we find ourselves in the sorry position of knowing that our fire safety and sprinkler regulations are woefully inadequate, and almost two years on from the Grenfell Tower fire, we are still waiting for the Government to act. Seventy-two people died in the Grenfell fire, and that fire and its aftermath exposed a litany of fire safety failures across thousands of buildings. Hundreds of blocks are draped in flammable Grenfell-style ACM cladding, and many more are covered in other types of flammable material that is as yet untested. There are tens of thousands of faulty fire doors, and a huge discrepancy in the provision of sprinklers. We also know that warnings came years earlier. The coroner’s investigation into the Lakanal House fire recommended in 2013 that sprinklers be retrofitted in social housing, and similar calls were made by members of the all- party fire safety rescue group in the same year. In 2016, a building regulations review was promised by the Government but never delivered. The London Fire Brigade stated:
“It is deeply concerning that on the two occasions in recent years when the Government has looked at reviewing sprinklers legislation or guidance it has been in the wrong direction—seeking to weaken rather than strengthen it.”
As has been said many times this morning, no one has died in a fire where a sprinkler system was installed, yet in England sprinklers are a legal requirement only in new residential blocks that are more than 30 metres tall.
Labour party research found that more than 96% of tall council tower blocks in London do not have sprinklers—a huge number. Although 3% of those blocks are now looking to install sprinklers, the vast majority have no plans to do so because they do not have funding. Installing sprinklers at Grenfell would have cost a few hundred thousand pounds. Croydon’s fully retrofitted stock post-Grenfell cost £10 million, and Birmingham has projected a cost of approximately £30 million to retrofit more than 200 blocks. Despite repeated calls from local authorities and the Prime Minister’s promise that the Government will do “whatever it takes” to keep our people safe, no funding has been provided by central Government for sprinklers. We do not pretend that these changes come without cost—of course they have a cost, but what is the price of safety? As we have heard, the rules in Scotland and Wales are more comprehensive, and a multitude of experts have called on the Government to reduce the height requirement for sprinklers, and to extend that requirement to other buildings.
The problem goes wider. Over new year, the Shurgard fire exposed our backward laws and regulations on fire safety across the board. Shurgard operates in Belgium, France, Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands, where sprinklers would have been required by law in a warehouse the size of the one in Croydon. In this country, however, there are no such requirements, and the property of nearly 2,000 people got burned.
I do not need to list the individuals and organisations calling for change. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith listed RIBA’s excellent four pillars for reform, including a requirement for sprinklers and automatic fire suppression systems in all existing residential buildings above 18 metres. In addition to the questions raised today, will the Minister listen to RIBA and implement its sensible set of policies? Will the Government extend their ban on flammable cladding to schools, hospitals and care homes, and introduce a requirement for sprinklers in schools and hospitals? Will they consider a fire safety fund that is available to help council and housing association landlords with the costs of retrofitting sprinklers and other urgent remedial work? Two years on from the Grenfell fire, will the Government understand the need for urgent action, get a grip on the situation and act, so that we can hold our heads up high and say that we have done what we could to stop such a tragedy happening again? There has been much talk in other places of the “Malthouse compromise”. If the Minister were to act today to prevent future deaths, we would call it anything he wanted, and we would thank him for it.
The Minister for Housing (Kit Malthouse)
It is a great pleasure to appear before you once again, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) on securing this debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), and other Members, on the formidable platoon of people who they marshal on this issue on a regular basis. As our call for evidence on the technical review of building regulations fire safety guidance is closing, I welcome this opportunity to respond to the debate.
I hope hon. Members recognise that ensuring that people are and feel safe in their homes is a priority for the Government, and that includes all parts of the Government, both elected and non-elected. Notwithstanding remarks by a number of Members about the official advice that Ministers receive, I hope people recognise that officials in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are as dedicated to the cause of fire safety as everyone else, and that their views and the advice they give are drawn from as wide a range of experts in the field as possible. As the former member of the London Assembly responsible for the constituency that contains Grenfell Tower, it is of particular importance to me that we reach a resolution on this issue quickly.
Before coming to sprinklers, I wish to update hon. Members about wider work that is under way on fire safety. In the immediate aftermath of the terrible Grenfell fire we acted quickly to establish the building safety programme, which worked tirelessly to identify and remediate buildings with unsafe cladding. Thanks to the testing and hard work of local authorities, we are confident that we have identified all social housing with unsafe ACM cladding systems in England, and we have made good progress in making those buildings permanently safe. Of the 158 social sector buildings, 125 have either started or completed remediation, and plans and commitments are in place to remediate the remaining 33 buildings. To help ensure swift progress, we have made £400 million available to social sector landlords to fund that remediation. I regret, however, that remediation in the private sector has been more challenging, with negotiations in some instances disappointingly slow.
Since Grenfell, we have worked intensively with local authorities to identify high-rise buildings with ACM cladding, and we have provided £1.3 million to assist them. Local authorities across England have assessed around 6,000 private sector high-rise buildings. They needed to take samples to test, and in some cases legal action was required to get owners to co-operate in that testing. We have taken strong action to give local authorities the support they need to enforce the removal and replacement of unsafe cladding. We have established a taskforce to oversee the remediation of private sector buildings, as well as a joint inspection team to support local authorities in pursuing enforcement action.
On 29 November, the Government went further and announced that we will back local authorities to take emergency action, including financial support, where building owners are not co-operating with remediation. As a result, we have made progress with commitments from owners to replace unsafe cladding. By the end of December 2018, 218 out of 266 privately owned buildings had either started, completed, or committed to remediation. Forty-eight private residential buildings remain where the owners are not currently co-operating, and that number has fallen from more than 200 buildings in June last year. We remain concerned about and engaged with leaseholders who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a difficult and stressful situation. I recently met the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse to discuss the New Providence Wharf development in his constituency.
Sir Mike Penning
I am really pleased, and I think all hon. Members and people around the country will be pleased about the progress made on private leasehold properties. However, no matter how hard we try, and however many threats we make, a small group will fall through the net, particularly where developers have gone into liquidation. That is exactly where the Government need to step in, sometimes with the help of insurance companies—for example, when the situation with mesothelioma was terrible and many people did not get the compensation they deserved, we stepped in and put a tariff on those insurers. All these properties will have been insured, and people should get the compensation they need.
Kit Malthouse
I recognise the point that my right hon. Friend makes; he is quite right. Of the remaining private sector buildings, there are some where there is a dispute about the extent or type of cladding—whether it is thin or decorative, and what percentage of the building it covers—but there are a small number where the situation that he raises will pertain, where for reasons of absence, insolvency or intransigence we may need to take more forceful action.
I have said that if local authorities assess that there is a category 1 hazard and a threat to life in a building, they have the power to enter that building, do the necessary work and we will support them financially in doing so. In the final analysis that can be the result, but we are considering what action we can take in the circumstances that my right hon. Friend raises. I would like to reassure everybody that the Secretary of State and I, as well as senior officials, are engaged in serious and intense discussions with building owners to try and resolve these situations.
Our timber fire doors testing programme is almost complete; there have been no failed tests to date. However, we had previous issues with glass-reinforced plastic composite fire doors and we stepped in quickly to ensure that defective products were removed. My Department has been working with industry to ensure that defective doors already in situ will be remediated. We have not stopped there. While the focus on aluminium composite material cladding following the Grenfell Tower fire was the right priority, we are now moving into a phase of testing a range of non-ACM cladding, such as zinc and high-pressure laminate cladding. Those tests are starting shortly.
We will take the advice of the independent expert advisory panel on these findings and take appropriate action. At this stage I am not able to say what that might entail. It could be further advice to owners, it could mean further testing or it could mean further remediation of residential high-rise buildings if necessary. I will ensure hon. Members are kept updated on this important area of work.
Alongside the focus on remediation, my Department is taking forward the recommendations in Dame Judith Hackitt’s report. We published our implementation plan in December, which set out the principles of our approach, and a more detailed consultation is expected later in the spring.
One priority, alongside the remediation work and the recommendations in Dame Judith’s report, has been to deal with immediate issues of concern. At the end of November we introduced new regulations implementing the ban on the use of combustible materials in the external walls of high-rise buildings. These regulations are now fully in force. In December we issued strengthened guidance on assessments in lieu of tests. We consulted last year on a clarified version of the building regulations fire safety guidance, approved document B. We received more than 1,300 comments on the draft, which we have been working through. We are working towards publishing the revised, clarified guidance later in the spring.
As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, we issued a call for evidence to inform our technical review of the fire safety guidance, which will close shortly. We have received 150 responses and I am grateful for the input of the all-party parliamentary group on fire safety to this work, which is shaping the debate. I cannot go into the full detail of what that call for evidence covered, because of time constraints, but it sets out a wide range of issues, across the full range of topics covered by approved document B, many of which have been mentioned by hon. Members today, although of course it was open to stakeholders to suggest other issues for consideration.
This debate has focused particularly on sprinkler systems. I understand the urgency and passion with which hon. Members have expressed themselves today and I share their desire for the Government to address the issue quickly. The call for evidence asked for data and views on sprinkler provision. Current building regulations guidance sets provisions for sprinklers in flats in blocks of flats over 30 metres tall. I know that there is intense debate about what should be considered to be the right height threshold; that debate is taking place in Scotland at the moment.
I am also conscious that the Scottish and Welsh Governments have recently taken action or are about to take action on this matter. These are obviously important considerations for the position in England. Members will understand that at this stage in what is essentially a legal process, I cannot make any firm commitments beyond reinforcing the point that we will consider the responses to the call for evidence carefully. We will set out our plans for how we propose to respond to the call for evidence as soon as we can. I recognise the need for speed.
Building regulations only apply when building work is under way. There is a separate question about whether sprinkler systems should be retrofitted to existing buildings, and, if so, how and whether this should be mandated. Retrofitting of sprinkler systems into existing tower blocks may not always be the answer to ensuring fire safety. Members may have seen that there was an enormous Ocado warehouse fire in my constituency a few weeks ago. I understand that the warehouse had an extensive fire suppression and sprinkler system, and it still went up in flames. Happily, there were no casualties but nevertheless it has left about 800 of my constituents worried about their future employment.
Decisions on whether to install a fire suppression system should be informed by a robust analysis of the specifics of a building, in consultation with the fire services. It was with this in mind that my Department offered local authorities a significant package of financial flexibilities through the housing revenue account, if they undertook analysis and decided that the installation of sprinklers was the right way forward. No local authorities have taken up the offer of these flexibilities to date, but I am willing to discuss the issue with any of them who may be considering taking up the offer made.
In the future we would expect the safety case approach for existing high-risk residential buildings, as recommended by Dame Judith Hackitt and which we will be implementing, to be the vehicle for building owners to consider what risk mitigation measures, including sprinkler systems, they need to consider and put in place. In doing so, if there is pressure from residents in any particular building to provide sprinklers, then I would expect local authorities and landlords to be alive to that and consider their options carefully.
I thank hon. Members for raising this important issue and for all their contributions. It is a timely debate, given the stage we are at in considering the review of approved document B, and I can assure the House that we will consider the issues raised today very carefully. I recognise the passion and commitment Members have for this cause, particularly those in the APPG. I also recognise the concern across the country among residents who live in high-rise buildings and feel insecure, whether that is because of the cladding or the general atmosphere around fire safety. It is critical for us as a Government to get this right, and I can reassure everybody that we will give it as much energy and urgency as we possibly can.
Jim Fitzpatrick
I am grateful for your excellent chairing this morning, Mr Gray. Movers of debates usually get about 30 seconds to respond to contributions and we have several minutes. I will not take all that time, as I can see the mover of the next debate and the Minister both in their places, and they would welcome a little extra time.
On the warehouse fire the Minister mentioned, I know he will look very carefully at the report. From my understanding, the sprinklers worked and did the job they were supposed to do, but the nature of the building, the density of the packing, the depth of the warehousing and the fact the robots were still working while firefighters were there complicated the matter out of all proportion. I do not see that as a failure of sprinkler systems, which are supposed to operate for up to 90 minutes anyway. The fire took hold long after the sprinklers were turned off. I know the Minister will look at that.
I am grateful to all colleagues who spoke in the debate—we have had 12 speeches and a couple of interventions—and to the Front Benchers for their responses. I am very grateful that the Minister did not say no. I know there were a lot of qualifications, but he did not say no. The matter is complex and the Minister is highly regarded. He is a key figure in London politics and he saved Brexit single-handedly, with the Malthouse compromise, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones). It may not have been his most popular move among a number of colleagues, but none the less he takes credit for that.
The Minister is also doing sterling work on leasehold reform. I am grateful for the meeting I had with him last Thursday on the particular block in my constituency and the developer who was being intransigent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) mentioned, we look forward to progress on cladding, remedial work, costs and protections for leaseholders in due course.
The Minister defended his civil servants, correctly. There is high regard for the civil servants in the Department and no criticism of them intended. They will give their advice on the basis of the evidence available. Support from all the key stakeholders and all the professional bodies mentioned by so many colleagues must have an impact on the advice that the civil servants give the Minister, and the Minister will weigh them up against all the factors that need to be taken into account. There has been support from across the Chamber, as well as from professionals and experts.
Most importantly, the public support the measures. The measures could be the life-saving part of the Minister’s legacy. He is in the very fortunate position to be the one to bring forward the conclusion. If he brings these measures forward, he will be applauded across the House and by the whole fire protection community. There will be hundreds of people whose lives will be saved by the measures he brings forward in due course. We look forward to him doing that as soon as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered fire safety and sprinkler systems.
Depersonalisation Disorder: NHS Treatment
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
In the 2017 Christmas Adjournment debate I spoke about depersonalisation disorder, or DPD. I told something of the story of my constituent Jane, and requested a meeting to discuss NHS treatment of DPD. Since then the Minister has kindly met with me, Jane and Dr Elaine Hunter, a leading DPD clinician. The meeting was very sympathetic and I thank the Minister for that. We agreed that we would follow it up with a short Westminster Hall debate, to speak publicly about why the issue is so important. I shall therefore take the opportunity to talk about depersonalisation and put a couple of what I hope are gentle asks on the table.
What is depersonalisation? DPD can be triggered by a traumatic experience, a panic attack, stress or, indeed, drug use. It is a fairly common psychological or mental process for dealing with trauma. It feels as if the mind is detaching from the body; those affected feel as if they are outside themselves. Everything feels rather unreal. I have certainly felt that way before, at a time of significant and severe stress. However, depersonalisation is an intensified version of the feeling, and it is not temporary. It sets in indefinitely. When people have DPD it will often be accompanied by the sensation of noticing themselves as if from the outside, as if they are a character on a screen—almost as a character in the play of their life. The feeling can be so strong that those who have DPD are less aware of their bodily sensations, such as their heartbeat.
DPD is different from a psychosis such as schizophrenia because people who have it are aware that the experience is subjective, and not something changing in the world around them. A common difficulty for those with DPD is putting the experience into words. Many use metaphors or similes, comparing their experience to watching a TV screen. They may use adjectives such as “fuzzy” or “blurry” to describe how they feel. The lack of awareness of the condition, combined with the difficulty in communicating the precise symptoms, is the reason why many are repeatedly misdiagnosed.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I was present on the previous occasion when the hon. Lady raised this subject. I was quite alarmed when I did some research on the disorder that she has described. I am sure that she knows the figures. According to studies in the United Kingdom and the United States, DPD affects some 2% of the population—1.3 million people in the United Kingdom and 6.4 million in the US. The hon. Lady is clearly raising awareness today, but is there a greater need to raise awareness among GPs, to make sure that they can make early diagnoses, and understand and respond to the condition?
Lyn Brown
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I want to talk later in my speech about how many people experience the condition, and about other conditions that similar numbers of people are diagnosed with but that are far more common and have more resources from the NHS. I will go on to argue that DPD is fairly significant, given the number of people affected, and that more resources and effort are needed to assist them.
Many sufferers, as I mentioned, are misdiagnosed— often for years on end. Often when someone with depersonalisation disorder is misdiagnosed they are given medication, which can either have little effect or be quite harmful. Naming the symptoms and people understanding what has happened to them can be an important experience. Understanding the condition and putting a name to what they have can make someone feel an awful lot better. My constituent Jane Charlton struggled terribly before she was diagnosed. She imagined that she might have a degenerative disease, or that she might be dying. Learning the name of the condition was a crucial step in understanding it, living with it and eventually learning ways of dealing with it.
The onset of DPD was triggered for Jane by cannabis use. She was just 18, on holiday with a boyfriend, and had smoked cannabis only once before. Her boyfriend prepared her some cannabis resin and mixed it into a yoghurt. Jane tried a little—no impact; so she tried a bit more. She describes what happened next:
“My perception drew back into my head, almost as though I was now looking at the world from the back of my own eye sockets. I perceived a delay between an external event, and my brain understanding or processing it. Suddenly there was a fracture between the world and me. While my body was still in the world, my mind had become a disengaged observer.”
As I said, in DPD the individual is aware that their perception has changed, so although the experience feels like a blurring or a distancing, for Jane it was terrifying:
“During that first episode…hours followed where I sought reassurance from those around me, wanting to touch and talk to them constantly. I wanted to check that I still existed. Eventually, exhausted, I slept, in the hope that it would pass overnight. It didn’t. The next morning, the shift in perception remained, and would in fact remain for every second of every day for the next three years.”
A temporary experience of depersonalisation can serve as a defence mechanism if there is a traumatic event. It allows separation from immediate reality, but if it spreads beyond that and becomes depersonalisation disorder, people such as Jane can become separated from other emotions as well:
“If I quieten my mind, I can almost taste the colour and richness of life as I knew it before...but I can barely remember what it feels like. These days I’m in a constant state of grief; I feel as if I’m grieving for my own death, even if I seem to be around to witness it.”
It is hard to imagine the impact that that would have on a young person’s life, for those of us who have not felt it. For three years, in Jane’s case, there was no diagnosis and no remedy. Even with the right diagnosis DPD is hard to treat. Jane has had four major episodes of depersonalisation disorder, despite all her hard work, often with experts in the field. Her current episode is ongoing, and entering its fifth year.
Another person who has depersonalisation is Joe Perkins. He runs a YouTube channel called the “DPD Diaries”, which is a wonderful accessible resource for learning about the condition. Joe told me he has had about 100 medical appointments over the past 10 years, but he can count on one hand the number of professionals who had actually heard of the condition. His diagnosis took 10 years. Sadly, that is a normal length of time in the NHS at the moment. He had 10 years living with DPD and not understanding that it was a recognised medical condition and he was not on his own. He explained his experience of the condition:
“The most difficult thing for me to deal with day to day is a complete lack of emotions. I experience neither happiness or sadness; life seems completely flat; and it’s very difficult to feel motivated for anything when everything feels meaningless. Having to explain to your partner that you’re unable to feel love for them is an incredibly difficult conversation to have—and one that naturally puts a huge strain on any relationship.”
I am sure we can all understand that.
Joe first started experiencing symptoms while he was studying for A-levels, when he was too young to be eligible for treatment at the Maudsley clinic, the only facility available in the UK. Fortunately, he has since started to receive treatment. The referral took a full year, and the waiting list is long, with numbers spiralling as awareness rightly grows.
The invisibility of DPD makes it all the more important that we speak about it in this place, and I am grateful to have had the opportunity today to do just that. Just a few facts will show that depersonalisation and derealisation—a closely related condition—are an urgent concern and need far better treatment under the NHS.
First, depersonalisation and derealisation have symptoms that many of us will find familiar; 75% of us will have experiences similar to depersonalisation at some point in our lives. Secondly, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, between 1% and 2.4% of people are likely to have these conditions—a similar level to bipolar disorder, which is far better understood and resourced, and which our GPs and experts are able to spot.
Thirdly, it is important to know that there is only one small clinic in the UK that specialises in treating the condition and, as I have said, it does not treat people under the age of 18, despite the fact that sufferers from depersonalisation disorder typically have their first experience of it in their adolescence. Finally, and rather damningly, the average diagnosis takes between eight and 12 years from the point of symptoms appearing. Those are the facts I have received.
I have talked about what DPD is, what it feels like, and the fact that it is very poorly known, which helps to explain the almost unbelievable figure of eight to 12 years to diagnosis. How debilitating DPD can be is the most important thing to understand, but the lack of provision is extremely important, too. We have a lot of work to do if we are to build the same scale and quality of NHS support for those with DPD as for those with depression or bipolar disorder.
I pay tribute to Jane for all the work she has done on this issue. She is a brave woman. She featured in an article in The Guardian in 2015, which reached a huge number of people. In 2017, she followed that up with an appearance on the Victoria Derbyshire programme. During the programme, several people called the show to say that Jane had helped them to recognise their own condition.
Jane continues to raise awareness through lobbying—she lobbied me—and runs a peer support group for people suffering from DPD, so they can experience solidarity and share experiences. She has also founded a charity called Unreal, to unify all the different bits of work being done. Jane has done all of that while holding down a full-time job and dealing with her own DPD. She has my absolute respect and gratitude for that. Jane’s work is really helping, but we need to go so much further to spread awareness not only among members of the public, but among NHS professionals.
As I said at the start, Jane, Dr Hunter and I have already met the Minister, and I am hopeful that she will be able to tell us more about what action is already being taken, but I would like to use this opportunity to put on record our four asks. All of them can be accomplished within the next few years, and none, we think, would require huge investment of resources.
First, on training, a 2017 edition of The BMJ published new guidance on the assessment and management of DPD. That was very welcome, but it has not led, and will not lead, to better and faster diagnosis and treatment in and of itself. My first ask is that the Minister write to the presidents of the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, to request that they bring this information to the attention of their members and ensure that training on DPD is made part of the core training for GPs and psychiatrists.
Secondly, I ask the Minister to push for the design and delivery of a programme of training in NHS mental health trusts around the country, not only to raise awareness, but to improve assessment and management of the disorder locally. That could include the appointment of a local depersonalisation disorder lead, who can thereafter provide guidance to local clinicians.
My third request is that those leads link together to improve access to treatment for those with the condition. I think the Minister would agree that it is not good enough to have just one small clinic at the Maudsley treating all those people across the country who have depersonalisation; we need better and more. Finally, given that expert support for young people experiencing DPD simply does not exist in the NHS, I ask her to ensure that there is specialist provision in child and adolescent mental health services, so that those under 18 can receive treatment when they need it.
Those simple steps could make a difference and bring down the average diagnosis time from an absurd and unacceptable eight to 12 years. They will help to ensure that no matter where someone lives, if they go to their GP, help will be available. So many people live in silence with this largely invisible condition. We have a long way to go to guarantee effective diagnosis and treatment for them on the NHS, but these four asks, if realised, would, I hope, start us down a good path.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. It is also a great pleasure to respond to the debate brought by the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown).
As the hon. Lady says, we have met to discuss this before, and I too extend my thanks to her constituent Jane, who has been incredibly courageous, despite living with a condition that is profoundly distressing for her to manage, in none the less using that in such a positive way. Frankly, the most important thing we can all do is to raise awareness of this disorder, and she is doing that beautifully and is incredibly articulate in how she does it. I pay absolute tribute to her; she has certainly put the disorder on my radar, so I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss it in the House and do our bit to raise awareness, because, as the hon. Lady has mentioned, eight to 12 years before getting a diagnosis is not good enough.
The reason people wait so long is that this is a disorder that is not understood, but it is also fair to say that many personality disorders are misunderstood. We tend to lump mental ill health and disorders together, but they require to be treated in very different ways. Often, when it comes to disorders, medication is not the best solution, so it is important that we get diagnosis right and the way we will do that is by raising awareness of what is, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, a very common condition. Many of us may have had out-of-body experiences when we are going through something unpleasant, because that is how the body naturally copes with trauma, but when people are going through sustained trauma, as many sufferers of DPD have, it becomes a way of dealing with life.
The worst thing, as the hon. Member for West Ham highlighted, is that that can often be brought on by drug use. I do not think we should be squeamish about mentioning that. We have a debate going on about drugs at the moment that is all about, “We have lost the war against drugs; it is all done through the lens of crime and disorder.” The reality is that the extent of cannabis use in this country is contributing to our mental health crisis—of that I have no doubt—and I do not think we should be squeamish about saying it, so I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to do exactly that.
We must ensure we do better. Last year, I had the great privilege of chairing the women’s mental health taskforce, and I saw that we are seeing a greater scale of mental ill health being experienced by women between the ages of 16 and 24. We put trauma at the root of much of that, and we have a strategy to roll out much more trauma-informed care across the NHS, which I hope will also extend to raising greater awareness of this disorder.
The hon. Lady’s point about making GPs and practitioners more aware of this disorder during their training is very good. We—collectively, as a system—need to think what more we can do to educate the whole NHS about the difference between severe mental ill health brought on by other conditions, things that are brought on by, for example, trauma, and the whole issue of disorders. We should not just medicalise treatment through prescribing drugs but should put together wraparound support and care, giving people the tools to manage what are often debilitating conditions.
As I said, I greatly enjoyed meeting Jane and the clinicians from the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust last year, where I was given a compelling presentation. We need to explore this condition more, so that we get this right. Its triggers are poorly understood but may be related to previous trauma, as we have heard.
The hon. Lady asked for more support through CAMHS. A lot of this trauma starts and is sustained in childhood. An important tool in spreading awareness of this disorder will be the new children’s mental health teams that will go out into schools. We are looking for mental health leads within schools to refer children that they sense are having difficulties, so that we can intervene early to support them. We know that the longer people live with this ongoing trauma, the harder it is for them to manage. Without going into individual cases, because it is very distressing for the people involved, I am certainly aware of cases of adults now living with this disorder having gone through sustained trauma in childhood. We clearly need to find a way of dealing with that.
We have come a long way in breaking down mental health stigma and raising awareness of different conditions, but I repeat that there is a real lack of awareness about disorders. We now talk broadly about bipolar disorder or borderline personality disorder, but do people really know what they mean? I do not think so. We need to spin our education around that. As the hon. Lady mentioned, at the moment only one clinic specialises in this disorder. Partly because of the lack of awareness, it is fair to say that the research evidence on what works to treat this disorder is still at a very early stage. Obviously, the NHS will support further investment in those treatments based on evidence. We lack National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines for the treatment of DPD. That must be on the do-to list.
Essential to that support will be finding out more about this disorder. This is a learning process for everyone, and people like Jane obviously contribute massively, but it is for clinicians and researchers to do their best and really get to grips with what will be required. I acknowledge the world-class work being undertaken at the Maudsley clinic, which is one of the leading research and clinical treatment units in the world for this condition. It has pioneered an incredible service, which Jane praised to the hilt for what it has done for her health. It really works to improve health outcomes for patients and is dedicated to expanding the understanding and treatment of depersonalisation through its research, which I encourage, because further research is vital to improving our understanding of the prevalence of this condition and its treatment.
The Maudsley clinic has successfully assessed more than 500 people since the inception of its service, which is amazing, but as 2% of people suffer from it, there is more to do. It also works closely with the research unit at King’s College London, which adds to that understanding. Clearly, waiting nine to 12 months for therapy after diagnosis is not good enough, so I am pleased to say that the Department held an initial roundtable meeting at the end of last year to hear about the work of the service provided by the trust and to discuss current research into those treatments and suggestions on NHS management of the condition. We look forward to taking that work forward. We also discussed options for next steps with the Maudsley clinic, including its applying for a development grant from the mental health policy research unit of the National Institute for Health Research.
I understand that the team at the specialised unit at the Maudsley clinic has faced challenges in acquiring such funding in the past. It is tricky: we need evidence to get the money for research, but money for research is needed to feed the evidence. I completely understand that. However, I say to the hon. Lady that the Department’s research team will discuss with the unit the most appropriate type of research funding for it to bid for. Clearly, we want to make sure that we make the most of its expertise and expand our understanding of this condition. I hope that that brings some reassurance. I look forward to seeing further developments in this space.
Lyn Brown
As always, I am delighted by what the Minister has offered us, especially on research, which is fantastic. I thank her for that. However, I would not be me if I did not press her on the three things on my list that she has not mentioned—writing to the presidents of the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, introducing a programme of training for mental health trusts and improving access to treatment for under-18s. I am happy for the Minister to write to me on those.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I would like to take that away and discuss with the NHS clinical lead how best to do those. I agree with the hon. Lady, but I will look at this in the broader context of disorders and really getting that understanding of severe mental health conditions and ongoing disorders, which need different tools. However, I will write to the hon. Lady, and I know that we will continue to have dialogue on this issue.
In conclusion, I readily acknowledge that there is still a lot of work to be done to support people with this disorder and to help them to make a full recovery with treatment and support. I assure the House that that is very much on my to-do list. I look forward to having further dialogue with the hon. Lady and Jane, who I wish every success in managing her condition. I hope I have provided sufficient reassurance that we are committed to doing what we can for these people.
Question put and agreed to.
Modern Farming and the Environment
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the interdependence of modern farming and the environment.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. This subject is close to my heart; and for clarity, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have interests in conventional and organic farming, as well as the agrifood industry.
It may be patently obvious that farming and the environment are interdependent, but a narrative exists that agriculture undermines the environment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State described farmers as
“the original friends of the earth”.
The essence of today’s debate is that, certainly in the UK, the environment, the countryside, has been shaped by farming and human beings. Even in Scotland, where 85% of the land is less favoured areas, almost every acre has been shaped by human intervention.
The National Farmers Union of Scotland is clear in its view. It says:
“Active agriculture is best placed to manage land for environmental benefit”
and the objectives of production of food. The NFU of England and Wales produced a paper entitled “United by our environment, our food, our future”. It makes it clear that food production is at the heart of land use and that public goods are directly affected by agriculture. The responsibility for those public goods lies disproportionately with agriculture, but most importantly, the sustainability of our environment has always been key to the future of farming, which we have been doing for generations.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
What more does my hon. Friend think that we and the Government can do to encourage the positive ecological effects of beekeeping? It seems to be incredibly important in plant pollination, among other things.
Colin Clark
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. We have to ensure that we have joined-up thinking in relation to beekeeping. There is an example from Scotland. Neonicotinoids have been banned, and the possible result is the use of other sprays. No less a supplier than one to Her Majesty the Queen at Balmoral considers that the flea beetle, which is now not controlled by neonicotinoids—that is a very difficult word to say—was potentially the reason for the destruction of an oilseed rape crop and therefore why he produced less honey. This is one of the questions that I want to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister: we must have joined-up thinking.
As custodians of the land, we see and manage the whole picture. That is really the point of policy as we go forward. Farmers and agriculture draw together the entire picture.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I meant to let my hon. Friend finish his point before I intervened, but I thank him very much for letting me in. I, too, draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. For me, the most important thing as we go into the future is that the food we grow not only will be top quality, but should be fed to people. I strongly support the Pasture-Fed Livestock Association, of which I am chairman, because we believe that grass should be consumed by animals. That does not work unless the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs changes the labelling so that people know that if it says “grass-fed” on the package, that means 100% grass-fed, so anything that my hon. Friend can do to support better labelling, better information for the public and therefore better support for our farmers would be most welcome.
Colin Clark
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, but I have to say, coming from north of the border, where it is slightly colder and we keep cattle inside for several months—I am a cattle finisher myself—that Scotland clearly produces the best beef in the world by some measure. Cattle inside my buildings were fed silage, which of course is grass as well as cereal, so I do not disagree with the point that my hon. Friend makes.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
This point is not allied to the last one, but the police have raised with me their concerns that the grubbing up of hedges and boundaries around farms has not only destroyed habitats, but made it very difficult for them to police the environmental aspects of agricultural establishments in particular, because there are just open fields that can have hare coursing and things like that conducted on them. Has my hon. Friend come across that?
Colin Clark
I recently met the chief of police in my area, and I have to say that rural crime is fought very much better, partly because of technology. There is a great deal of usage of text messages and WhatsApp, which enables us to keep in touch. I would say that, if anything, in the north-east of Scotland, every time that a white van drives mysteriously anywhere, NFU Scotland is immediately raising suspicions that the white van may be up to something. I therefore take my hon. Friend’s point on board.
Sustainable food production is underpinned by five key areas on which I think we can all agree: landscape, biodiversity, soil, water and air. Farmers, by design or results, pull all five together. Farmers, by the very nature of what we are doing, have shaped the landscape and have a responsibility. It is important that farmers engage with the general public, apart from allowing them access on to land, because they are of course the ultimate consumers of what we produce.
Farming is integral to protecting habitats and wildlife and key to protecting and rebuilding our biodiversity. We have heard reports recently that other parts of the world are having significant problems in that respect. British agriculture, the agriculture of the United Kingdom, is doing much to be careful of our biodiversity.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is one of the best qualified of our colleagues in this place to talk about this subject, given his expertise. Farming and crofting are crucial to the viability of my constituency of Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. My concern is that the next generation of crofters and farmers are not necessarily coming forward, as they are being discouraged from going into the business. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have to ensure a follow-on, with generation succeeding generation, to ensure continuity of life on the land?
Colin Clark
I absolutely agree. I am particularly conscious of the situation in the hon. Gentleman’s part of the country and the low-population areas represented by other hon. Members. It is important that we get a number of things right. First, we must give new entrants an opportunity to get into farming. We must ensure that tenure and ownership or tenancy of land is clear and clarified, so that people have the confidence to rent land and to rent land out, which as politicians we must get the policy right on. We must also recognise the financial burden of getting into agriculture. Let me say this to the Minister. As we go forward, we have to be very conscious of how we give new entrants a leg-up. The reality is that land no longer has any connection to the value of what it produces. We have to be very conscious of how we will give new entrants a leg-up and how Governments can play their part in that.
Soil is clearly the basis of farming.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
My hon. Friend has just made a point about new entrants. Does he agree with me, a fellow son of a fellow farmer, that it is just as important to encourage next-generation entrants into the business as it is to encourage totally new entrants? Sometimes it is assumed that the son or, indeed, the daughter of a farmer will just follow in their footsteps, but they also need that support.
Colin Clark
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Young as I look, it was not many years ago that I was one of the—[Interruption.] Is that going to be a point of order? I was one of the youngest people sitting round the ring at Thainstone mart, buying cattle; the average farmer was aged 60 to 65. Let me comment, in response to my hon. Friend’s point, that perhaps the common agricultural policy payment scheme has, if anything, stopped the intergenerational change, and now that we are able to design our own policy, I hope that, as I said to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), we can find a process to encourage new entrants. However, we cannot get past the fact that this industry is hugely capital-invested. We have to be realistic about what we are bringing new entrants in to do.
Since the war, there have been three generations on my farm in the north-east of Scotland. My grandfather was a doctor from Glasgow, but mysteriously decided to be a farmer. Apparently, land was cheap in the 1940s—there was a chap with a moustache who wanted to devalue most of the land in Europe. My grandfather bought a farm in the north-east and he will have started off the soil process of modern farming by putting on lime and draining the land. My father will have gone to the next stage by analysing the nutrient value of the crop and trying to do something about further drainage of the land and improving the soil. It is an ongoing process. Finally, I tried to introduce precision farming to reduce the compaction of soil.
It is important to recognise that farmers have made mistakes on land usage. My businesses previously were in East Anglia, where I saw monocultures. I recognise that monocultures do nothing for the soil. We have a relatively traditional approach in Scotland. Water will clearly become more of an issue, even in wet Aberdeenshire, where we already have nitrate-vulnerable zones. We must be conscious that the water is affected by everything that runs off our land.
On that point, having run businesses before, I was amazed to discover that as much as 75% of the nitrogen used on crops cannot be used by the crop. If cars leaked 75% of their fuel from the tank, we would try to redesign the system. Farmers are well aware that some of our farming practices can be improved. There are great opportunities in technology. Air is clearly a public good. Agriculture is said to produce 10% of gases emitted, but we have come a long way.
The NFU’s report showed that we increased economic growth in agriculture, while reducing the inputs, between 1990 and 2016. Farmers are taking action while output increases. This is an important point. Modern farming tries to produce as much as it can from an acre, in an efficient and sustainable way. Some 87% of farmers are recycling waste materials from their farms, 69% are improving fertiliser application accuracy, where, as I have said, an enormous amount can be done, 75% are improving energy efficiency, not to mention the amount of renewables, 38% are increasing their use of clover in grassland, 27% are improving nitrogen feed efficiency for livestock, and 27% are increasing the use of legumes in arable rotation. In all those figures there is still a great deal of room for improvement.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He is making a good point about the contribution that many British farmers are making to reducing their carbon footprint. Does he agree that there is an environmental argument for supporting British farmers, in order to reduce the food miles associated with importing a lot of food, and that, particularly in the post-Brexit landscape, supporting British agriculture to reduce our carbon footprint and ensure sustainability will mean reducing the food miles from imported food?
Colin Clark
It is also an issue of displacement. If we are too restrictive and prohibit too much in the UK, we may simply displace productivity to other regions, such as the Mediterranean, where water is obviously in short supply, and where aquifers may be used that cannot be resupplied, or—the classic example—the rain forest; we may import beef from there, because it is cheaper, but there is a huge environmental impact. When we make policy decisions, we have to be careful not to displace production from the UK, where we have high sensitivities, to other countries. Perhaps we need to find technological answers to that problem.
There are examples of piecemeal policy on renewable energy. The report from the National Farmers Union and NFU Scotland both commented on this. Take the issue of anaerobic digesters in the renewable heat incentive scheme. There are monocultures of maize in northern Europe, Germany, the Paris basin and, to some extent, parts of England. In creating a monoculture, we have to be very careful not to create a problem, whether that is soil erosion or potential for further flooding, for the sake of producing what is effectively very expensive energy. In the north-east, a 3,000-acre traditional rotation farm might these days just grow grass. Growing grass is less damaging than growing maize, but I am concerned that we are subsidising things that distract us from our primary aim, which is to produce food. We have to make sure that the policy is sustainable. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is looking at the fuels used in anaerobic digesters.
Also on the renewable heat incentive scheme, there is concern in Scotland—and, I am sure, England—that in the forestry industry, raw material is being cut down immaturely for use in RHI. We policy makers must not deal with one issue or priority without thinking about what could roll on from our actions.
Dr Poulter
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I expect he will come on to the fact that the common agricultural policy disproportionately rewards larger farmers and large landowners, at the expense of many smaller farmers in the UK. A consequence is that many smaller farmers are looking to diversify out of necessity, to maintain the profitability of their main farming business. As part of our green and environmentally friendly agenda, we should help farmers into suitable diversification into renewable energy where that can help the profitability of the farm.
Colin Clark
I would say there is an opportunity there. Smaller farms can come together to share machinery. There are also schemes for them to come together to share environmental and biodiversity priorities. There is an opportunity for smaller farms to interact. Scale is not everything. Clearly, sharing a combine over many thousands of acres will lower the cost of that equipment per acre. Aberdeenshire is not unusual in that respect. It is rural, but not all of it is arable. I would rather not suggest that this is all about farms becoming much bigger, and us ending up with a similar situation to East Anglia, which is a relatively large-scale operation. East Anglia is also a good example. In Cambridge and Suffolk, G. S. Shropshire & Sons Ltd are doing some brilliant things on biodiversity and having a more holistic approach to their farms, instead of simply using the land for the crop that they want, and not being concerned about the next stage.
If we are to preserve the environment, wildlife and habitats, we must consider the potential of the most productive land. In Scotland, under the CAP regulations, we have seen as much as 10% of very productive land being taken out of arable use, rather than other land that would be better suited for environmental schemes. We all remember set-aside, which, in the long term, created weed banks and other problems on farms. We have to consider how to make the most of the best land, and make it as productive as it can be, in a holistic and sustainable way.
I recently read about gene editing technology, which offers us an opportunity as we leave the EU. I hope the EU changes its mind about this technology. It could offer the answer with regard to drought resistance, plants capturing nitrogen, pest resistance and the reduction of pesticides. On animal diseases, too, there are opportunities and technologies that we should be looking at.
Last July, the European Court of Justice declared that gene editing crops had to jump the same bar as genetic modification, but it is significantly different technology. While I am not an expert on it, I would like us to explore it further. I am particularly conscious that we have some of the best research and scientists in the world, yet we are giving up an opportunity to look into a very interesting area that could have answers. According to scientists from the Sainsbury laboratory,
“This ruling closes the door to many beneficial genetic modifications such as breeding of disease-resistant plants”.
They added that it was
“A sad day for European plant science.”
While we do not want to drop our standards, there is genuine science that we should be exploring and looking at. Policy mistakes have been made in other parts of the country that I do not want to see here, so I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about gene editing.
Farming should be able to monetarise environmental benefits such as carbon sequestering. The Scottish NFU says that it is
“supportive of measures such as carbon accounting, which offer farmers the tools and recommendations to make efficiency improvements whilst also taking into account business operations.”
That is poignant, because if there is a zero-carbon target, we have to get much better at accounting for sequestering carbon on farms. We hear about industrial ways to capture carbon, but every day that we are in the countryside, we are standing on the biggest carbon bank that this country has. Particularly in northern Scotland and the central highlands, with regard to reinvigorating—
Colin Clark
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. There is an opportunity there. We should reverse the idea that we are going to grub up every inch and acre, but equally, we have to monetise that value. Again, we do not have a holistic approach to that.
The Department’s 2018 farm practices survey showed that 50% of farmers took action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Of those, 83% did it because they considered it good business practice; 68% did it through concern for the environment; and 53% did it to improve profitability. That is clearly an example of farming realising the monetary benefits.
Again, however, policies have unforeseen consequences. The EU considered banning glyphosate, which would limit minimal tillage and reduce the potential benefits from controlling greenhouse gases. Minimal tillage does not work everywhere, but it works in many parts of the country. Banning glyphosate would certainly mean that we would have to return to deep ploughing to bury slug eggs and weeds, so we would simply use another chemical. I was asked about bees. It was Mr McGregor from Blairgowrie—it is almost a made-up name—who recently said that his honey production was being limited by the flea beetle. We have to think about the consequences of our decisions.
I will move on; I realise that I am using up all the time, but I will soon finish. On policy to increase biodiversity, what we have done to date in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland is to be applauded. I highlight that shooting estates are an integral part of modern agriculture. The James Hutton Institute, along with Scotland’s Rural College, investigated the economic and social contribution of the moors in fragile landscapes in Scotland. Grouse moors support 2,500 jobs, of which the vast majority are local, and they increase wild bird numbers because vermin are controlled. In contrast, Scottish Labour wants to restrict shooting, but we have to be aware of its economic contribution. It may be a minority sport, but it is a countryside pursuit that is also making environmental headway.
We need a pragmatic approach. Many hon. Members will be aware that in the highlands, there is no longer a top predator of the red deer, so whether by Scottish Natural Heritage or the Red Deer Commission, the numbers have to be controlled for wholly laudable reasons—to protect our environment and to try to allow tree numbers to come back up. We hear in the press about rewilding parts of the country, but this is not Alaska or Siberia. With the greatest respect, if we put a predator such as a wolf back anywhere, it will eat the sheep, then the dogs, then whatever cannot run fast, then finally, perhaps, the red deer. We have to be realistic about that. Why anybody would go hill walking in the highlands if they thought a wolf was running around is beyond me.
I am keen to hear other hon. Members’ contributions; they must be wondering how long I will waffle on for. Farming policy can shape interdependence, so I have a few questions for the Minister that are all shaped towards improving the environment and modern farming playing its part. Should the Agriculture Bill recognise food and its production as a public good? Outwith the EU, how are we going to join up policy? Instead of Europe’s one-size-fits-all approach, can we come up with policies and frameworks for the whole United Kingdom that will protect the environment?
Raising productivity per acre in a sustainable way will raise output and food security, so will the Minister consider amendments to the Bill on that? Will he take into account the risk of displacement where domestic policy encourages imports and there are environmental impacts? Most of all—this is what I would really like—to protect the environment, modern farming needs a sustainable financial model; will he support a multi-annual settlement? We will do our part to convince the Treasury that that is the way forward. Modern farming has a clear interdependency with a healthy environment.
Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)
We have about half an hour for Back-Bench contributions. I will not impose a time limit, but please constrain yourselves to about five minutes.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as always, to see you in the Chair, Mr Evans. It is also a pleasure to be reunited with two former colleagues on the Environmental Audit Committee, the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) and the Minister, who have both gone on to other things. We also went into battle on many occasions during the Agriculture Bill Committee, although it is fair to say that we were not always on the same page about everything. Now the Minister has taken up his post, to which I welcome him, he may have to revisit some of his views, compared with the freedom he had as a Back Bencher.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on agroecology for sustainable food and farming, I support the idea of a whole-farm system based on nature-friendly farming. As a nation, we should do far more to make organic farming and agroecology mainstream, as they do in France. Organic farms have on average 50% more wildlife and 30% more species than conventional farms. We should also do more to support agroforestry; pasture-based livestock systems, which have already been mentioned; integrated pest management; and low-input mixed farming, as we look to restore ecosystem services and our long-term food security. At every opportunity, we should move away from unsustainable intensification and an over-reliance on agrochemicals.
Over the years, numerous studies have shown that farming in an environmentally beneficial way is not just good for nature, but better for business. In 2018, the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board found that introducing wildflower margins around the edges of fields increased bumblebee numbers in courgette fields and boosted yields by 39%. Due to the reduced input costs required from the farmer, that provided pollination services valued at £3,400 per hectare, so just because land is taken out of production, the farmer does not necessarily lose out. At the moment, under the common agricultural policy, there is a distorting incentive to farm absolutely every inch of the field, but we will hopefully move away from that under the new public-money-for-public-goods approach.
Despite a lot of professed support for more nature-friendly farming, the reality on the ground is different. Soil degradation in England and Wales costs £1.2 billion every year, with a staggering 2.2 million tonnes of soil lost annually. In the Agriculture Bill Committee, this Minister was sceptical about that and said that the soil on his farm had never been healthier, but the then Farming Minister, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), subscribed to the view that we need to do far more to support our soil. I suggested that we need a specific public good in the Bill, but the then Farming Minister said that that was already covered by the listed public goods. Whatever our views as to the wording required in the Bill, we all need to do far more to improve soil quality.
The decline in bees has been well documented over the years, but farmland birds are another indicator. Their numbers have declined by 56% in the past 46 years and 12% of British farmland species are now threatened with extinction.
The State of Nature report 2016 identified the intensification of agriculture as having, by a huge margin, the biggest negative impact on wildlife in the UK when compared with other sources of wildlife decline. As has been mentioned already, that has partly been driven by the CAP. I hope that we do not leave the EU, either today or towards the end of the process, but I would be glad to see the back of the CAP.
To reverse the decline of species and address the serious environmental challenges facing us, farmers must be incentivised to provide environmentally beneficial outcomes. That is why I have supported the introduction in the Agriculture Bill of the new environment land management scheme, based on the principle of delivering public goods, such as adaptation to climate change, improved water quality and public access, for which no functioning market exists. This approach is overwhelmingly supported by the public. A World Wide Fund for Nature/Populus poll found that 91% of those surveyed wanted the Government to pay farmers to protect nature.
However, as has already been mentioned, farmers need funding certainty if they are to go down that path. They need certainty beyond 2022 and I support the amendment that the Chair of the Environmental, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), has tabled to the Agriculture Bill—whenever that Bill reappears—because we need multi-annual funding to give farmers that certainty.
We also need a strong regulatory baseline for the farmed environment to thrive, which is something that we discussed in the Agriculture Bill Committee, and if we have those standards, they must be enforced by a new farm inspection regime.
The other issue that will have a massive impact on farming in a post-Brexit world is what trade deals we negotiate with other countries. Again, this issue has been discussed in a lot of detail in other forums, so I do not intend to dwell on it here. However, as I have said, the Chair of the EFRA Committee has tabled new clause 4 to the Agriculture Bill and I have tabled new clause 1, which is very similar; we are working together, on the same page, on this issue. We are at serious risk of exporting our environmental footprint abroad while sparking a race to the bottom in food production and safety to compete on price at home. There is no point in having all this talk about keeping our environmental standards and promoting nature-friendly farming in this country if we allow imports from other countries that are produced to much lower standards than our own produce. As Minette Batters, the National Farmers Union President, said a few weeks ago:
“Mr Gove has said that over his dead body would British standards be undermined. I don’t want it written in blood. I want it written in ink.”
We want it “in ink” in the Agriculture Bill and we want that Bill to come back sooner rather than later.
The final issue that I will mention is climate change. We have 12 years to avoid a catastrophic climate emergency, and we must openly discuss the impact of livestock on climate change and the environment more frequently in debates such as this one. It is now almost 13 years since the Food and Agriculture Organisation published its “Livestock’s Long Shadow” report, which stated that
“the livestock sector is a major stressor on many ecosystems and on the planet as whole. Globally it is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases and one of the leading causal factors in the loss of biodiversity, while in developed and emerging countries it is perhaps the leading source of water pollution.”
Nearly 10 years ago today—it was actually 25 March 2009—I stood here in Westminster Hall, having secured a debate on the environmental impact of the livestock sector. There was quite a good turnout, but everyone else who turned out was there basically to give me a hard time. I like to feel that I have been slightly vindicated since then, because there have been so many other highly authoritative reports—it is not just me who says they are highly authoritative; my opinion does not count for very much—that make exactly the same point, and I ask the Minister, “When will we listen on this and do something about it?”
In its 2018 progress report to Parliament, the Committee on Climate Change identified agriculture as one of the key priority areas for an emissions reduction programme over the next decade. Otherwise, we will not meet our fourth and fifth carbon budgets.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I know the hon. Lady is very passionate about this issue, and I believe that we are both on the soil inquiry that is being conducted by the Environmental Audit Committee. Does she agree that if only we could get our soils to the right level of health and standards, that would go a long way towards reaching all of our climate change targets, because soil holds so much carbon?
Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)
Before I call Kerry McCarthy again, I remind Members that I have said that speakers should take about five minutes each, and your speech has now lasted for eight minutes.
Kerry McCarthy
Sorry—I did not quite get that. And, yes, soil is absolutely brilliant for carbon sequestration.
I will just conclude, Mr Evans; I apologise, as I did not know that you had said Members should take five minutes. The signs that are being sent out by the Government at the moment are that they are trying to head in the right direction with the Agriculture Bill, but the need to act swiftly is imperative, and I would like to see more ambition.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) for securing this debate, and he is absolutely right that modern farming and the environment should be inextricably interlinked. Having been brought up on a farm, on which I also worked, and having studied the environment and worked on that, too, I have always thought that it is an absolute no-brainer that the two should just be part and parcel of one another, because, of course, without a sustainable and healthy environment we cannot produce healthy sustainable food.
That is more important than ever in the south-west—including in Taunton Deane, obviously—where we have so many farmers. Agriculture and the food industry collectively is our biggest industry, and it is beholden on us to ensure that this business and this industry can thrive, but it has to be sustainable. That point will be a key part of my speech today.
It is clear that although great work is being done by farmers and there are many great environmental schemes, for diverse reasons—not least the way that funding has been directed from the EU—we have reached a point where our environment, in the widest sense of the word, is under great pressure and much of it, sadly, has been severely degraded.
There are lots of modern techniques that we could use in agriculture and we must use them all; in fact, the agritech strategy encourages this approach. Whether it is drones, precision farming, field mapping, scanning, or thermal imaging, all of these things, along with breeding, must be utilised. However, sustainability must be at the root of all this.
Rural areas are the powerhouses for our urban areas, and we need to keep them stable and productive; they are the green lungs for our urban centres. So, they are even more important than we give them credit for at the moment, and that is not just about food production but about services being delivered. That is where we get to this new idea, which I am behind, and that is paying for the delivery of public goods and services, and our farmers are absolutely key to that.
It must be said that the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has already gone a very long way towards this aim. The Agriculture Bill is coming through, along with our 25-year environment plan, our Fisheries Bill and the Environment Bill. How exciting is that? It will be the first piece of new legislation on the environment for 20 years, and we have an enormous opportunity here to rethink completely our land use strategy.
Trust me, the farmers in Taunton Deane are all behind this plan. They want to do what they can and so indeed do the people of Taunton Deane, who come to see me in their droves, whether it is Taunton Green Parents, the Quakers, or the transition groups. They all say, “Please can you put sustainability at the heart of everything you do?”
I will touch on two main areas: one is biodiversity, which has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon. Biodiversity is crucial to agriculture and food production, but the statistics about it are stark and devastating: 54% of farmland birds have been in decline since 1970; only 2% of our ancient woodland is left; only 3% of our wonderful wildflower meadows remain; and three quarters of flying insects are in decline—insects are crucial to our food delivery.
May I just check the clock, Mr Evans? I started at 3.04 pm, did I not?
Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)
I make it that you have spoken for three and a half minutes, so could you conclude soon, please?
Rebecca Pow
Thank you so much, Mr Evans, because the clock in here is very confusing.
Biodiversity is at the root of everything we are now trying to do. Instead of just focusing on special areas—for example, those funded by our higher level studentship grants, which do great work—we need to raise the general standard of biodiversity across the board, and it is something that we need to introduce in our new legislation. For that, we need accurate monitoring and data, spatial plans and a statutory requirement to monitor what is being paid for. I would ask the Treasury, “Please, can we include the net gain principle in the Environment Bill?”
As many of my colleagues know, soil is one of my passions—strange, but true. A third of the world’s arable soils are degraded. Every minute, we wash away 30 football pitches’ worth of soil and send it down the water courses. In England and Wales, the loss of our soils is costing our economy £1.2 billion. That is unacceptable and we need to do something about it.
Soil delivers so many of our services: it cleans water; it holds water; it grows the food we need; and it holds carbon. That carbon-holding property is crucial and we could really tackle our climate change targets if we addressed soil.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point and I totally agree with her on soils. Does she not agree that the key is to raise organic matter? Raising it in soils means more carbon captured and also more water absorbed and held, which means sustainable crops in extreme weathers and huge benefits to our local environment.
Rebecca Pow
My hon. Friend makes the case clearly: it is so important.
I really believe that soil should be included in part 1 of the Agriculture Bill and should be paid for as a public good alongside land and water. That seems a complete no-brainer, given the importance of soil. It is surprising, too, that in the 25-year environment plan, soil is not one of the 15 headline indicators and is instead buried in the framework as a systems indicator. We should surely get it listed as a proper headline indicator. If we do not, we will miss a massive opportunity to get soil health right. Conservatives were going to create a better environment than we inherited, and this is one of the key ways in which we could do it. As we leave the EU, it is one of the ways in which we can really show leadership. The addition of soil would act as a powerful demonstrator because it is not an EU directive as water is. It would show that we are going our own way and creating our own much better and much more productive and sustainable environment where farming is the key driver.
Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)
I call Rebecca Pow—sorry, that was Rebecca Pow. [Laughter.] I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I can be many things, but I can never be Rebecca Pow—or Rebecca “Kerpow!”, as we call her.
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) on setting the scene. I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union and as a landowner as well. For the record, I understand the interdependence of modern farming and the environment. On our farm we have retained the hedgerows, created two ponds and planted 3,500 trees. We have seen the return of the yellowhammer, which was missing for many years on farmland where I and other farmers live. We have seen the return of birds of prey and hares as well. Lots of things have happened because of our commitment to our farm and diversity and the environment.
I hail from a rural constituency. In Strangford, the farming and food industry is a massive employer. Indeed, as the Countryside Alliance has said:
“The food and farming industry is nationally important, generating over £108 billion a year for the UK economy and underpinning our food security. It is particularly important for our most rural areas where farming is often central to the economic and social life of the community, as well as playing a vital role in conservation.”
Mr Carmichael
May I take the hon. Gentleman back to the point made by the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) about getting younger people back into the industry? I speak as the 53-year-old son of an 87-year-old farmer. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that I have never been tempted to enter the industry. If we can get this right, we can create opportunities right across our agricultural and rural communities, and get children into schools, keep post offices and shops open and keep public transport running in rural areas.
Jim Shannon
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Bringing all those things together is key for rural communities. We need to encourage young people. I will quickly speak about sons and daughters taking over farms. In my constituency we have been fortunate over the years that that has happened. Some sons and daughters do not want to take farms on, but the ones who have are still there, so we have seen a progression of farmers’ sons or daughters taking over. Farming communities are not employees of the land, but caretakers of the land for future generations. I read in Shooting Times magazine that the wildlife of today is not ours to dispose of as we want. We hold it in trust for those who come after. That is a fact. That is what we do, and the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
Unless we recognise the dual role of farmers as food producers and conservationists, we risk turning farmers into environmental contractors, which we do not want to do. We want them to have an incentive to continue farming. A farmer does not farm to become rich—that is the case in my neck of the woods, anyway. A farmer farms because it is in his blood and it is his calling. I recently highlighted an important point in my local press, and I want to make the point here before the debate ends. The latest figures show that some farmers, especially younger farmers in my constituency, have had very high levels of depression. Strangford has a large rural community and many farmers have handed over the reins of their farms to their sons and daughters, but there are levels of EU bureaucracy—I do not want to bring in the dreaded Brexit word again—and red tape that have almost strangled the farmers, and they are sick to the back teeth of it. They understand that regulations are necessary to bring food up to standard, but they do not need all of the extra paperwork that goes with it.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and I also express an interest as a landowner. He knows that the uptake in the agricultural colleges in Northern Ireland has increased. There is an enthusiasm for the land from our young people and they need help to drive it forward.
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have seen a great interest in farming in my community. The sons and daughters want to take the farms over and are doing so. I have written to the permanent secretary of DAERA—the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs—in Northern Ireland to express concern about the mental health of young farmers and the levels of stress and depression among them. We cannot ignore such big issues. We need to address them.
The hon. Member for Gordon referred to rewilding, but it is not suitable everywhere. It is not just about wolves and beavers and all the other wildlife; home-grown mink and foxes need to be controlled, although others might not agree with that. Farmers are not nature’s enemies; they are caretakers. That is the starting point. When we listen to the knowledge and expertise that has seen successful seasonal farming for thousands of years in the wonderful soil of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, that is the starting point. We must ensure that the current different payments for farmers in less favoured areas under the CAP regime continue, under the principle that upland farmers require greater financial support. The hon. Gentleman referred to that as well.
To conclude, nature has a wonderfully delicate balance set in place by God Almighty. It is up to us to retain that balance as best we can, and we can do that only by working together.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) for securing this excellent debate. It is also a great pleasure to have here our new Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), a good Yorkshire farmer. I also pay tribute to our previous Agriculture Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), for his five years’ great service to agriculture and the environment.
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate because British agriculture is a great success story, not only for production but for the environment, and we all need to work together for a great new policy. I look forward to working with our new Minister to deliver proper, good food production along with securing the environment. We have a poultry and pig industry that has reduced the amount of antibiotics used in production. We are doing great things for the environment. We have the potential for gene editing with crops in future. We also have the potential to go down the route of a blight-resistant potato. We have to use all the tools to make sure that we have a better environment, but also greater production.
The point has been made this afternoon that if we are not careful and do not produce food here under good environmental and welfare standards, we will import it from across the world under lower standards. In Brazil they are driving cattle towards the rainforest, which they are knocking down, and they are ploughing up the savannah to grow crops such as sugar beet and soya. In the end, that is where production will come from. We must link it all together.
A third of the forests are in our farms, with our copses. We have the Blackdown Hills, which I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow). Of course, they are even better when they get to the county of Devon. It is absolutely certain that we have got great farming, which is where so much of our wildlife and biodiversity is. We can do better, but we are doing extremely well. I know that I do not have to tell the Minister that the great landscape that we have across this country is not there because God provided it; it is there because it is farmed, looked after and managed. Therefore, we are the friends of the earth. Farmers do not have to prove that. We have to go out there and make sure we can produce good food.
Grassland holds carbon and we can capture more. My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) made the point that as we increase the amount of organic matter in the soil, it can hold more water, as well as carbon. We have an excellent story to tell. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) pointed out the amendments that have been tabled to the Agriculture Bill, on the long-term funding of agriculture and the environment, and on making sure that imported food meets our high standards. The Secretary of State wants higher welfare standards, which is great, but let us not import food that does not meet those standards. As to animal welfare, let us not export to conditions across the world that are nowhere near as good. We have every possibility of doing far greater work in the future, not only with gene editing but with smart spraying, robotic spraying and even electrocuting weeds. All sorts of improvements are possible to reduce the use of chemicals, and achieve good production. I want us to produce good food to high standards, with less chemicals, and I believe we can do it.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) for securing this important debate. Amazingly, agriculture occupies more than two thirds of the UK landmass, and more than 60% of farmland is permanent grassland and common rough grazing. Almost a third of the UK’s forests and woodlands are on farmland. Those trees provide shelter and shade for livestock and a habitat for wildlife, as do hedgerows and dry-stane dykes—or stone walls—which have been introduced and, it should be remembered, maintained by farmers.
It must be appreciated that not all wildlife is welcomed by the farming community, as some birds attack newborn lambs and some mammals, such as badgers, potentially carry diseases transmissible to cattle. The introduction of beavers would not necessarily be welcomed by all in agriculture. However, pollinators such as bees are to be encouraged, as they are crucial to a healthy environment. Insect pollination of UK crops is estimated to be worth around £600 million per annum. Farmers are the custodians of much of the natural environment, which most of us enjoy responsibly, in accordance with the countryside code, but there are some foolish and selfish members of the public who are still irresponsible in allowing unleashed dogs to chase or in some cases worry and attack sheep, in particular. Also, fly-tipping takes place on agricultural land. Both those types of behaviour are totally irresponsible and unacceptable.
Access to the natural environment has the potential to enhance our health and wellbeing, and so does the nutritious food that UK farmers produce for us on a daily basis. Management of soil is crucial to that food production, and I am pleased to say that the rich Ayrshire soil is renowned for producing the famous potatoes that we up north would call “Ayrshire tatties”. Local quality produce, with its traceability factor, is popular at the regular farmers markets. However, that has not always been the case. Scotland’s national bard, Robert Burns, who was a poet and a farmer and, I am sure, an environmentalist, wrote critically of the heavy clay soils at his father’s farm at Lochlie, and the soil of his own farm at Ellisland, as being simply worn out. Thankfully, science and research have assisted with soil improvements over the centuries. Farmers are more aware of the soil types of their acreages and how best to farm soil as a carbon storage area to mitigate climate change and lock in greenhouse gases. It is to be hoped that in doing so they will take account of the UK Government’s 2019 clean air strategy, as agriculture is responsible for about 10% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Farmers are undoubtedly innovative, and they are enthusiastically embracing the use of artificial intelligence, and diversifying. In East Ayrshire, an Ochiltree dairy farmer’s milking parlour epitomises the new approach, with its use of robotics and laser technology. I was pleased to note that animal welfare was at the top of the scale there, and at the forefront of the business plan. Educational visits by local school children to the farm are encouraged, to enhance their understanding of farming and the environment.
Under the Agriculture Bill, farmers will receive rewards proportionate to environmental benefits and the sustainability of food production. Collaborative working on projects will be encouraged where there is a common goal. I fully appreciate that agriculture is devolved and future policy in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Government. However, it benefits from UK-wide investment, and a large part of Scotland’s market for agriculture produce is the rest of the UK. Echoing the National Farmers Union, we need to ensure that our farmers are the first-choice suppliers in the UK and are competitive elsewhere. I ask the Minister, when he is promulgating policies, to continue to help farmers to achieve the dual aim of improving the environment and securing high-quality food production.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) on securing the debate and echo others in welcoming the Minister to his new post.
It is appropriate that we should be debating farming and the environment today, just 17 days away from our exit from not only the EU but the common agricultural policy. Our farmers—particularly those in my constituency—have always seen the CAP as a one-size-fits-none approach. Farmers are looking to the Government and the devolved Administrations to create a system more tailored to our sector and our environment. It is vital for the future of our agricultural sector that all levels of Government get the balance right between productive farming and enhancing the environment.
The Agriculture Bill is aimed at rewarding farmers for “public goods” such as good environmental stewardship, while encouraging them to continue growing high-quality produce in more innovative, efficient and sustainable ways. The omission of a schedule specifically for Scottish farmers from the Bill has left them—particularly the farmers in my constituency—in the dark. Therefore, I encourage the new Minister to make it a priority to work closely with Scottish Government Ministers to agree a way forward that respects devolution but also gives Scottish farmers the clarity and certainty they deserve about the future of their sector.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I am just checking whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Scottish Government recently announced that they would be introducing an agriculture Bill of their own.
David Duguid
I was aware of that, although I thank the hon. Lady for the intervention. However, what is not clear is when that process will completed; when will there be Royal Assent? The UK Bill, from which a Scottish schedule is absent, is going through Parliament as we speak, and is due for Report any time now.
Brexit will pave the way for new trade deals with economies around the world, but it is vital that our high standards should be preserved in those deals. Many farmers are concerned that a trade deal with the United States, for example, could mean pressure on us to drop our standards or possibly could price British farmers out of a lot of the market. It is not that farmers are against free trade or free trade deals—quite the opposite. However, those things should not come at the price of our environment, food standards and animal welfare, or the prosperity of our own agriculture sector. I am therefore pleased that the UK Government have been consistent in saying that our high standards will be preserved in our future trade deals. I hope that, as we enter the Brexit transition period, in which new trade deals will start to be negotiated, that commitment will be reflected in reality.
There need be no conflict between embracing innovation and technological development, and having high environmental, quality and welfare standards. An example is the ground-breaking work of the James Hutton Institute, based in Aberdeen and Dundee, which is one of the biggest research centres in the UK, and is the first research centre of its kind in Europe. It is fair to say that the agriculture sector will face a number of changes and challenges in future, and that many of those could have an effect on the environment. It is worth noting that not all those changes will be technological. Farms are businesses, and farmers are increasingly applying new management practices from other sectors to their approach to agriculture. However, technological developments in machinery, food processing, artificial intelligence and, yes, genetics promise to have a profound effect on the sector. It is important that we take a balanced approach to those developments. There is no reason why advances that improve productivity should necessarily run counter to sustaining our environment and other standards of quality and welfare. That is what farmers do, after all. As other hon. Members have said, farmers are the original friends of the earth.
My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) mentioned the draft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill. I am looking forward to the Bill, which I hope will reflect a balanced approach. Agriculture is vital to the economy and to rural life across the country. Food and drink remain our largest export to the world. It is my hope that the UK Government, the Scottish Government and the other devolved Administrations can work constructively to ensure that the sector can deal with the challenges and opportunities of the future in a way that maintains harmony with our natural environment.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
It is a great delight to serve under your chairship, Mr Evans. There may have been times in the past when farmers cared not a jot about the environment—I doubt it, but there is that possibility. A crofter or farmer who does not value and protect the land and environment would be devaluing their business, and good agricultural stewards are the guardians of future environmental protections.
Yesterday on Twitter I was interested to see Leigh Farm take issue with Chris Packham over his comments about farmers. She pointed to her pollen and nectar meadow as an example of good farming practice—something I certainly agree with—and she has previously offered photographs of her borage bee pasture, which seems to demonstrate a commitment to environmentally friendly farming practices on her Cornwall farm. She pointed to an article by another farmer that indicates the environmental benefits of flail cutting hedges—something of a surprise to me—although that practice is condemned by some environmentalists. My speech may have wandered a little, but it is important to bear in mind that none of us has all the facts, and experts may inhabit different sides of a debate. However, farmers are unlikely to wish wanton destruction on their land or ability to continue farming productively. There will always be rogues in every walk of life, but the nature of the agriculture industry makes it unlikely that a custodian of land would wish to see its destruction.
Agriculture provides us with public goods in the form of environmental protections and enhancement, by dint of farmers’ commitment to ensuring that their business prospers. We should support crofters and farmers as food producers and environmental guardians, and ensure that adequate financial assistance reaches the most marginal agricultural areas, rather than being siphoned off. Support for agriculture is support for communities that are often remote and do not have the same advantages that other communities enjoy. Take away that support and communities could struggle, wither, or even cease to be viable. They could suffer from depopulation, resulting in a loss of community services such as schools, post offices, shops and so on—I have seen that in areas of the highlands. Such problems are what less favoured area support under the common agricultural policy was designed to address, and it was frankly reprehensible for the Government to keep as convergence funding the £160 million that was supposed to go to farmers and crofters in Scotland. We still want that funding back, so perhaps the Minister will keep the issue in his new in-tray.
If we take away that funding—I know that some areas in Wales, England, and Northern Ireland face similar problems and have similar needs—we risk leaving land untended. Some may prefer such a rolling back of human intervention, but that ignores the fact that those lands have had human intervention for centuries, and are not in what might be considered their natural state. We also need that land to continue producing food—especially after Brexit does its damage—and the environment will benefit from that production. We are part of the environment; farming is part of the ecology of this planet. We are animals who have had a huge impact on the planet, but we are part of it and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Agriculture has changed and will continue to change, and in the main, today’s farmers are more environmentally aware than previous generations.
In Scotland, the Farm Advisory Service has been delivering the Farming for a Better Climate initiative, which helps farmers to optimise inputs on their farms, minimise emissions, lock in carbon, and get the best return for their investments in the most environmentally sustainable way possible. That is good news, and it has been a good project so far, but it is funded partly by the EU and partly by the Scottish Government, and since we have had no indication from the UK Government that they will keep their previous promises to match or exceed Scotland’s EU funding, its future is in doubt. I was also impressed by my introduction to the Soil Association in Scotland. Its programmes on mob grazing, and its “less toil, better soil” initiative, have had a tremendous impact. I thank it for enabling me to be part of such initiatives, especially on mob grazing, and to go out to farms and see it in action.
Such educational and enabling schemes seem a far better way to deliver environmental benefits than the vague and rather unusual public goods suggestion in the Agriculture Bill. Indeed, that strikes me as an idea that focuses public resources around harsh ideas of punishment and reward—the odd concept that deprivation of resources acts as an incentive to improve, or of us starving our way to perfection. There is no evidence to suggest that such a mindset creates true and lasting change in population behaviour, and scant evidence that it creates alternate behaviour in the short term. It could, however, create a thriving trade in ways around the system, or lead to ways to game the payments, resulting in large and already wealthy landowners sucking up more of the available public resources, while those who should get help fall foul of a system that was never designed to help them. Grouse moors and shooting estates will benefit at the expense of hill farmers and smallholders. I am not sure that I agree entirely with the comments by the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) about shooting estates, because many questions remain to be answered about their biodiversity benefits.
If we wish to marry agricultural production with environmental benefits, the community buy-outs of land in Scotland should provide some pointers. One or two schemes have not quite taken off, but those that have are carving tremendous new futures for their communities and visitors. Environmental sustainability is not just part of the plan; it is central to people’s ambitions and the futures they see for themselves.
Jim Shannon
I am sure that if I had not intervened, the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) would have done, because shooting contributes somewhere in the region of £20 million in Scotland. It reinvigorates the grouse moors and creates 2,500 jobs, and it boosts the economy, especially in rural areas where shooting is so important. The hon. Lady cannot ignore that.
Deidre Brock
I am aware of some of those figures, but there are still questions to be answered about many things to do with shooting estates; for example, I think the review that the Scottish Government are undertaking will include some interesting answers about the shooting of hares.
In conclusion, England is in need of serious land reform. It should take a long and hard look at what Scotland has done on land reform and community interest since devolution got under way 20 years ago. That started under the old Labour-Lib Dem Executive, and it is continuing under the new and vibrant Scottish SNP Government, who protect our environment as well as delivering community benefits.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) for securing this debate, and for the thorough way he presented his speech. It is good to have such expertise in the Chamber when discussing a sector as important as farming. I also welcome the new Minister to his place. The former Minister, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), was known to many of us, and his work commanded respect across the House. Indeed, since he left the Government, many of his statements have also commanded respect across the House, and I hope that that honesty will continue. There has been a trend of declaring interest in this debate, which I must also do. That is not because I have a farm tucked away, but because my wonderful baby sister is a rare breed sheep farmer in Cornwall. She does a fantastic job, and she has some chickens, too.
We have had an important debate so far, with good contributions from across the House. The Opposition Benches might not have quantity today, but we certainly have quality; I will come on shortly to the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) about agroecology.
Farming plays a vital role in promoting sustainability and nurturing biodiversity. It has shaped our landscapes through continual management, creating a patchwork of unique environments across the uplands and lowlands, and has adapted to the pressures of a growing population. We must ensure that we provide our farming communities with the resources they need to continue that stewardship of our agricultural land. Farmers must be well resourced, and incentivised to continue to fight climate change and to reduce the carbon emissions caused by their activities.
Almost every Member in this debate has said something about the new system that we will move to once we leave the European Union. Farmers are absolutely key to tackling climate change. We must welcome the work they have done across the country, but also re-commit to supporting them in continuing that work.
The National Trust, which is the largest private landowner in the UK, has called for the introduction of a new environmental land management system based on the principle of delivering public goods. Introducing such a system would help with heritage conservation, public access, adapting to climate change and improving water quality, but it must be supported by long-term funding based on an independent assessment of need, alongside the provision of good-quality advice for farmers, safeguards against the import of low-standard food—mentioned by a number of Members—a complementary approach to improving productivity and a strong regulatory baseline. The way that farmers manage their farms can have a positive or negative impact on the surrounding environment, and we need to support, especially through a decent financial and information support system, those who are taking extra steps to protect not only their local environment but the national one.
The National Farmers Union argues that if farmers are struggling financially, prioritising environmental objectives is nearly impossible. I would like to highlight the importance of linking the plans to reform agriculture with the existing challenges that farmers and land managers face. We all know stories of farmers struggling financially; we must ensure that the new regulatory environment supports farmers in both large and small landholdings, because we need farming to be sustainable, both environmentally and economically.
We cannot ignore the need to invest in new technologies and innovative infrastructure to provide farmers with efficient systems that work to reduce their carbon footprint. Many new innovative methods have been spoken about today; it is important that we take the public along with the farming community, especially when it comes to genetic engineering and technological interventions on our farming estates. It is important to have public confidence in new methods. Farmers should have access to the necessary data and information not only to link farming methods with the environment but to allow for continual exposure to the most up-to-date methods and environmental land management strategies, and partnership is key in that.
Encouraging farmers to engage in agri-environment schemes has to be done alongside a commitment to environmental targets. The Government have the responsibility to lay out those targets, especially in legislation such as the Agriculture Bill, which the Opposition believe is missing such commitments. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out when he expects the Bill to come back to this place. I know he is new in office, but I am sure that that was one of the briefings he would have been given.
For centuries, farmers and land managers have closely engaged with ecosystems, using the land and nature around them to build a home for their livestock and to create businesses. Farmers understand, more than most, the interdependent relationship between agriculture and the environment, not only because of their daily interactions with nature but because climate change has directly affected them, and will continue to do so.
With the necessary support systems, growing numbers of farmers would undoubtedly turn to agro-ecology. The Landworkers Alliance has spearheaded some great work on agroecology, making it a viable farming method for more people through initiatives such as the whole -farm agroecological scheme. There are key examples of the impressive nature of agroecology in its integrated production, which, on mixed farms, recycles biomass and reduces waste, using by-products from one process as inputs in others. Nutrient availability is optimised over time by generating fertility on the farm, instead of using artificial fertilisers. That theme of reducing the amount of fertiliser through the use of new methods has come up in a number of interventions. With the optimal use of sunlight, space, water and nutrients, and through synergistic interactions between biological components, fewer resources are lost. These practices conserve and encourage biodiversity in agricultural species and the wider environment, creating diverse ecosystems that are more resilient to climate change.
A great example of agroecology is agroforestry, which has not been mentioned as much as I expected. Agroforestry includes traditional practices that are easily recognised in British landscapes, such as hedgerows, as well as new innovative systems such as silvo-arable cropping, a method of growing alleys of productive trees through arable land. If more farmers were supported with accessible information, relevant data and long-term multi-year funding, more of them could adopt agro-ecological approaches. The benefits would not only directly benefit the farmers’ land; they would help to fight climate change. The Soil Association has said that integrating trees into farms on a significant scale could dramatically increase the amount of carbon sequestered on those farms, as compared with farms where there are monocultures of crops or pasture—a point made by the hon. Member for Gordon. The Committee on Climate Change has highlighted that converting just 0.6% of agricultural land to agroforestry could contribute significantly to our meeting the fifth carbon budget target by 2030.
Alongside carbon emissions, we need to deal with a big issue facing the agricultural industry: soil erosion. As mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East and my west country neighbour, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), soil erosion costs England and Wales £1.2 billion annually, a cost we cannot continue to afford. Trees integrated into arable settings have been proven to reduce soil erosion by up to 65%. Agriculture is unique when it comes to dealing with the challenges of improving air quality and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, because it can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in vegetation, generating low-carbon renewable energy. It also has a really important role in upstream flood prevention, as has been hinted at by Members.
This debate is so important because although the interdependence of the environment and farming is clear, unless the right structures, funding and support are provided for those working the land, we will not see the much-needed improvement to the environment that we all want. The environment must be at the heart of our future agriculture policy. Public subsidies have been used to fund destructive food and farming practices for too long. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East, I am no fan of the common agricultural policy, and we must take time to ensure that the systems we introduce do not replicate its problems or create new ones. The Opposition are pleased to see pesticide reduction, improving soil health, cutting climate change emissions and supporting wildlife on the Government’s to-do list, but to deliver those things in a way that reverses the current damage, we will need adequate funding and bold ambition, including clear targets. How does the Minister intend to do that, given the scale of subsidy-related cuts we are expecting after leaving the European Union?
We recognise the interdependence of modern farming and the environment, but a fresh approach to agriculture cannot work by itself. The Government must introduce appropriate provisions to protect against unfair buying practices and to promote fairness in the supply chain. The EU regulations that protect our environment must be maintained, and we should look to build on them. For the avoidance of doubt, I invite the Minister to confirm that it is his personal as well as his ministerial position that environmental protections must not be reduced after Brexit. Will he reconfirm that any new trade deals that undermine our green standards or animal welfare must be rejected? If they were not rejected, the Government would be turning their back on British farmers.
This is a really important debate, and Members from right across the House have raised appropriate and timely issues. With that, I will sit down so that the Minister can respond to those points.
Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)
I welcome the Minister to his new position and remind him to leave at least a minute for Mr Clark to wind up.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr Robert Goodwill)
Thank you very much, Mr Evans. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) for calling this important debate, and I recognise his work on the red meat levy on behalf of Scottish farmers. He began his speech by talking about “friends of the earth”, and I confess that, as is recorded in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I too am a friend of the earth. I had the pleasure of serving with my hon. Friend on the Agriculture Bill Committee, and he consistently championed the needs of Scottish farmers and the link between farming, food production and the environment.
I, too, would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice). Not only did he serve the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs so expertly for five years, but his vision has ensured that we are now taking up all the opportunities provided to us by leaving the inflexible common agricultural policy and the frustrating common fisheries policy. His will be a hard act to follow. It now falls to me to take the helm and guide the Bills underpinning our ambitious future policies through to Royal Assent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon talked about how we should get more new entrants into the industry. It is important that we get new young blood in, bringing with it innovation and energy. Sadly, I know from my own constituency that many farmers’ sons and daughters are not taking over family holdings, so we need to consider new ways of getting new entrants in. It was interesting to see on this week’s “Countryfile” new models of tenancies being tried out to get young people into the industry. The Agriculture Bill will certainly look for opportunities to bring new blood and diversity to the industry.
A number of Members referred to the concerns about the multi-annual settlements. Farming needs a sustainable financial model, and I am happy to agree with those who support the idea of a multi-annual settlement for the industry. It is a manifesto commitment that guarantees the same cash total until 2022—indeed, our farmers have more certainty than farmers in the EU. I welcome the efforts that have already been made by DEFRA, which is working closely with the Treasury on arrangements for future funding. We are committed to offering multi-annual contracts to farmers under the environmental land management scheme for the delivery of public goods.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon also mentioned gene editing. As somebody who studied for a degree in agriculture a whole generation ago, when gene editing and some of the more advanced methods of breeding crops were not known, I put on record that the Government disagree with the European Court of Justice’s ruling on gene editing. We argued that gene-edited organisms should not be subject to GM regulations if the changes to their DNA could have occurred naturally or through traditional breeding methods. That remains our view, but the Court has decided otherwise, and its judgment is binding on the UK. We will be considering our future approach to regulation in the context of negotiations about the UK’s future relationship with the EU.
We recognise the potential for advanced breeding techniques such as gene editing to make farming more productive and sustainable. We want to support innovation in that area, and ensure that any regulation is science-based and proportionate. We want the UK to be a leading player in developing the possible applications of new technologies, such as gene editing, building on the excellence of our science research base and our plant breeding sector. Ultimately, we want our farmers to have the best access to the tools available, so that they can remain competitive and boost productivity. The available evidence about the impact of current GM crops is variable, but it indicates that such crops have delivered both economic and environmental benefits. For example, a meta-analysis published in 2014 concluded that, on average, the adoption of GM crops has increased yields by 22%, increased profits by 68% and reduced pesticide use by 32%.
Deidre Brock
Is the Minister therefore confirming that he supports the introduction of GM crops in England? Can he clarify his personal views on GM crops?
Mr Goodwill
At the current time, as a member state of the European Union, we must comply with its legislation. However, whatever decisions we make in the future must be based on the best available scientific evidence.
[Sir Gary Streeter in the Chair]
My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon raised the question of whether food is a public good. Food is a commercial good, and the prime purpose of British agriculture is to produce good food, fibre and fuel. Recognising that those products are integral to UK agriculture should be front and centre in all our policies. He also mentioned the displacement of CO2. I have previously been involved with that topic as a Member of the European Parliament, when energy-intensive industries such as the metallurgical industry were being exported to countries with environmental standards that were not as good as ours.
I agreed with the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) more than I had thought I would when she got to her feet. Having served on the Environmental Audit Committee with her, I know that her views are to be taken seriously. Organic farming has a part to play. Under our new agricultural regime, we may look at how we can encourage farmers to innovate, and organic farming is one of those innovations. However, organic production should be demand-led, because we do not want to create surpluses of organic food that cause a collapse in the market and make the farms that produce such food un-economic.
The hon. Lady also talked about wildflower margins. As part of a mid-tier scheme on my farm, we are planting those margins, which are certainly a public good. The Government are in the process of designing an environmental land management system to ensure that farmers are rewarded for the environmental benefits they deliver, such as creating habitats for wildlife. Decisions about how public goods such as biodiversity, clean air and water are delivered will be in the hands of farmers and land managers, who may choose, for example, to lower their pesticide use through integrated pesticide management. We will pay for the public benefits that they deliver.
A number of Members, including the hon. Member for Bristol East, talked about improving soil. The question of how we increase the organic matter in soil is important. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon talked about minimum tillage, and the chemicals needed to ensure that we can engage in minimum tillage contribute to the amount of carbon we can store in our soils. Mixed farming, including livestock production, is particularly important, as manures are a vital source of plant nutrients and improve the structure and heart of our soils. That means keeping livestock, and ruminants in particular, as they are the only way in which we can utilise some of our upland soil and areas that are not suitable for intensive cereal or crop production as upland pastures.
My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) is a champion of farmers and the rural environment, and she is right that soil is a public good. Some 300 million tonnes of carbon are stored in our upland peat areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) chairs the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, to which I have given evidence before, but I look forward to appearing before him again. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) represents a great farming area. When I was studying agriculture at university, we went on a field trip to Ayrshire, and I am very jealous of its mild climate, brought to it by the gulf stream. It is clear that food production and the delivery of environmental objectives are not mutually exclusive; there is a synergism between those two goals, and we need to deliver them in parallel.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) asked whether the pursuit of trade deals around the world will jeopardise our high standards, as did the Labour Front-Bench representative, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). I am clear that we will not lower our standards. Indeed, our very high standards and high-quality produce give those countries with which we engage in trade deals a lot to worry about. We will have a great opportunity to market that produce around the world, as is already the case for good products such as Scotch whisky.
Neil Parish
I am delighted to hear the new Minister’s comments. Does he support the amendments to the Agriculture Bill that would maintain high standards for imported food, so that we do not import lower standard food through future trade deals?
Mr Goodwill
I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I will be looking at those amendments line by line—who knows, there may even be Government amendments tabled that will achieve many of those objectives. I was a member of that Bill Committee, so hon. Members can look at what I said at the time. I will aim to be consistent with what I said.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) talked about the intra-UK allocation of domestic support. On 16 October 2018, the Government announced a review of intra-UK allocation of domestic farm support funding that will run until the end of this Parliament, which will be in 2022—I hope. The review aims to ensure that all parts of the UK are treated fairly, and that individual circumstances are taken into account. Lord Bew will chair the review, supported by a panel drawn from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The review will look into intra-UK farm support allocations between 2020 and the end of this Parliament, in line with our manifesto commitment.
I thank the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport for welcoming me, and I welcome him in return. He actually talked a lot of sense—indeed, the points he made were an oasis of sanity within Labour policy. I am confident that we can work together constructively to deliver a successful Brexit. If he really wants to help me with this, the first thing he can do is join me in the Lobby tonight, to ensure that we deliver a successful Brexit. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned forestry, and I look forward to working with Sir William Worsley, who has been appointed as the Government’s forestry champion. He is one of my near neighbours in North Yorkshire, so I have visited him there and know that he has an amazing tale to tell.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon for securing the debate, and all those present for their contributions. The UK is a global leader in environmental management and scientific breakthroughs, including earth observations, sensors, big data, artificial intelligence and robotics. The agriculture sector can be transformed when we apply those strengths alongside our excellent reputation for producing food. The Government are committed to delivering a modern, tech-savvy and sustainable farming sector in England, with the protection of the environment at its core. The Agriculture Bill is paving the way for that shift, and I look forward to sharing further information and engaging with colleagues about our future policies in due course.
Colin Clark
This has been an excellent debate. I think we now have 18 or 20 proponents of agriculture and modern farming, and I expect all hon. Members present to jump up in the Chamber to defend modern farming at every opportunity. I thank the Minister for his reply and congratulate him on his position—I am delighted that we have a hands-on farmer in DEFRA. It is important that we think through the implications of policies announced by Ministers and Government, as we have seen in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the interdependence of modern farming and the environment.
Online Gambling Protection
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered online gambling protection.
I am very conscious that today there are distractions elsewhere in the House. This debate on online gambling was never going to pull hundreds of Members away from the business of how, when and indeed if we are to leave the European Union. However, that was never the point of it. Today is a chance to update the record on where we are on online gambling, to recognise the damage being done in some very sad cases, where lives have been ruined, and to offer thoughts and float ideas on what is ahead, as well as behind us, and on the trends and direction of what is happening.
Given that the statistics show that 430,000 adults have a serious gambling issue, with 2 million more in danger of addiction and 55,000 children between the age of 11 and 14 already addicted, and with all those figures rising fast, it must be clear to us all that, yes, Houston, we absolutely have a problem. At a time when many in the country believe that Parliament and the Government are all-consumed by Brexit, it is even more important to show that that is not so. We can, and must, address an issue that will become one of the great challenges of our generation: how do we deal with online gambling?
There was a time when I thought that online gambling was a modest offshoot of the traditional bookies on the side of Cheltenham race course and Gloucestershire point-to-points. I thought they were flutters by computer for the technically savvy, but it is not so. In fact, online gambling has a higher percentage of problem and at-risk gamblers than any other type. When people log on to online gambling, they meet a plethora of sporting opportunities on which to gamble. How many throw-ins will there be in the first 15 minutes of an under-15 Azerbaijani football game? Nothing is too obscure to have odds attached to it. Not a single sport—I did not check Mongolian archery, but I am sure that someone, somewhere can offer odds—is without a gambling moment. With some 3,000 websites competing, there are plenty of options.
The size of the sector and its business is enormous, with annual industry gross profits of some £14 billion and tax receipts of £3 billion, 100,000 employees and some £200 million of advertising revenues. Is it, therefore, a huge UK success story? Yes, but even more no, because the dark side is horrific and growing. When some of those brave enough to talk about what has happened in their family do so, we really have to wonder whether we are doing enough to prevent addiction and disaster. I will give just one example: Martin Jones in Swindon, who talked to me this morning, explaining the story of his son, Josh, who eventually committed suicide in 2015 after years of fighting addiction. It is a truly tragic story, and there can be no doubt that the system is failing individuals and therefore us all.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a strong point. Is it not the case that online gambling has a predominant effect on the young, and it is the young that we need to protect in this situation?
Richard Graham
I do not think it is exclusively an issue for the young, as the figures show, but what is true is that the figures for young gamblers are rising faster than for any others. If we are to address the problem, my hon. Friend is right that we need to tackle the youth issue.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a very fine line between online gambling and online gaming? Some games require a degree of gambling. I draw his attention to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s present investigation into the problems of addiction caused by online gaming, and the negative, in some cases devastating, effect that it can have on families.
Richard Graham
My hon. Friend is right. I welcome the report that the Committee is working on; it may show higher correlations between addiction to gaming and gambling than we previously knew, which would be extremely valuable.
What we are hearing is that Josh’s case is not a one-off; hundreds commit suicide every year as a result of gambling. We do not know exactly how many—it is somewhere between 250 and 650 a year. That is a margin of error about life and death that would be completely unacceptable in any other sector. The implication that we just do not know whether 400 people committed suicide as a result of a gambling addiction or for other reasons is truly shocking. Were it, say, the construction sector or the armed forces, there would be a public inquiry about dereliction of duty.
The first thing that we have to do is radically to improve our knowledge of the facts, and to improve the research and data that is collected. The Gambling Commission, the regulator, is working on a series of partnerships with the police, the NHS, GPs and so on to improve the situation. I am sure that the Minister, who I know is very concerned about this matter, will show support for all that work. However, serious money is needed to do it effectively, and the current £8 million a year or so given by the industry as a percentage of turnover is, given their £14 billion of profit, frankly peanuts. No wonder we know so little.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Two or three really important facts are only just becoming known. One is that the big gambling companies give inducements to those who have the highest level of losses because those people make them their profits. I understand that they also do their level best eventually to get rid of those who are not in debt, and do not lose so much. They do not want them on their sites; they want those who lose, whom they can condition to it.
On the all-party parliamentary group, we have also discovered that gagging orders are being put in place to stop employees talking about what is going on. Companies are not supposed to give inducements to people who are already addicted, but it happens. Does my hon. Friend accept that that is a real problem?
Richard Graham
My right hon. Friend, who has done a lot of work on this subject, not least through the Centre for Social Justice, is right to highlight some shocking practices that have undoubtedly happened. In my own constituency, a friend of mine who is a taxi driver ran up £650,000 of debt with one gambling firm. I hope that all taxi drivers in Gloucester are well remunerated, but frankly none of them can afford such vast amounts of money. Part of it came from inducements—indeed, there was a lot of wining and dining of such a profitable customer. That is one of the intrinsic slight conflicts of interest within the sector. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for mentioning that.
My first call today is for a serious contribution by the industry to fund vastly improved and independent research. Campaigners have been calling for it, the gambling review supported it and the industry expects it; William Hill has even called for it. I therefore ask the Minister when we can expect to see legislation in the shape of a statutory instrument to implement a levy of 1% of company gross profits as soon as possible.
It is not just research that will help us to prevent the rapid growth of what is fast becoming a social epidemic. As my hon. Friends have said, action is needed to protect the young. That means action on the astonishing amount of online gambling advertising on sports programmes. It is rampant. Fathers watching football or rugby at home and having a flutter with an accumulator on Raheem Sterling scoring a hat trick for Man City are unwittingly starting their children off with the idea that gambling is normal. We need to keep gambling adverts off TV sports programmes.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
The difference between gambling and gaming has already been mentioned. Gambling companies seem to be using loot boxes as a pernicious practice to target children who are gaming and get them into the habit of gambling. It normalises the process, effectively grooming children as their next market. We could legislate to close that practice down, as Belgium, the Isle of Man and other places have done.
Richard Graham
The hon. Gentleman makes good points. I believe that he is working closely on the issue with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) in the all-party group. As he points out, such practices are rampant all over the country.
Three big companies—bet365, William Hill and Ladbrokes—have already agreed in principle to a whistle-to-whistle ban during live sports before the watershed, and after it for games that start before 9 pm. That is encouraging, but I believe that we must go further. My second proposal is therefore to ban all gambling advertising during live sport as soon as possible. Perhaps the Minister will confirm the point, but I do not believe that such a ban would need legislation, so I make it an ask of the regulator. I hope that the Gambling Commission’s report, which is due at the end of the month, will include a clear recommendation for such a ban. It could then be implemented by the Advertising Standards Authority, perhaps with some encouragement from the Department.
I would like to go further still. I remember watching many John Player Sunday league games and Benson and Hedges knockout matches when I was a boy cricketer. It never occurred to me at the time that there was something odd about tobacco companies sponsoring sports games while encouraging spectators to smoke, but we later learned the high risk of smokers severely damaging their lives through lung cancer and creating a huge burden for the NHS. Gradually, we all came to understand that tobacco sponsorship of sports was odd and—more importantly—unacceptable, and it was banned in 2002.
The analogy is never identical, but it is relevant. Gambling is no more suitable a partner to sport than smoking, so my question to the House is how long the same journey will take us with gambling. How long will it be before we ban gambling advertising in sports altogether? If the research on the levy shows what I hope it will show, we have a real opportunity to do something about the problem. Thousands of lives are at risk, and we should move fast. I would like to see real consideration given, depending on the evidence, to banning gambling companies from sponsoring sports altogether.
That brings me to other measures to protect vulnerable gamblers—those who are most prone to addiction and least likely to be able to afford it. Like users of fixed-odds betting terminals, many online gamblers simply cannot afford their losses, as colleagues have said. Can we not build on Monzo and Barclaycard’s encouraging start of allowing gamblers to put blocks on their debit cards against payments to gambling companies? The regulator is working well on the issue with financial industry bodies and financial services, and the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute is also playing a part. I encourage those organisations and the Minister to take the policy forward and get all banks to offer it as soon as possible.
Gamblers know that self-exclusion can be got round easily enough—in many cases, a slightly different name will suffice, as one constituent showed me—and once a company has someone’s mobile number or email address, it pumps special offers at them day and night. My next ask is therefore that the Government endorse the Gambling Commission’s initiative to persuade banks and other credit card issuers to disallow gamblers from using their credit cards altogether. It has been put to me that banks would never directly loan money to a gambler, so why do they do so indirectly?
Using blocking technologies such as Gamban can also help. It could be made mandatory for all gambling companies to have such systems, approved by the commission and paid for by the companies themselves. Ultimately, however, I sense that it will be artificial intelligence that provides the real breakthrough in technology—through facial recognition, for example—that enables the sector and companies to block most efficiently and the regulator to do its protection work even more effectively.
That work needs to be part of a strategy that includes the NHS implementing as soon as possible the five pages on gambling in its 10-year review—an important start—and creating more gambling clinics. London and soon Leeds is a start, but it will not be enough on its own.
I hope that all hon. Members agree that there is much to do. I believe that the Gambling Commission’s report will be important; I encourage the Minister to give an oral statement as soon as the report is released, to highlight its recommendations and give the House a chance to debate the issues in more detail. In the meantime, I know that the Government are concerned about the issue and the Minister is committed to it, so I urge them to start the ball rolling as soon as possible with a statutory instrument to introduce a new 1% levy to fund research to give us the facts that we need to make the difficult decisions. I also urge them to move fast on the review’s recommendations, which I hope will include much of what I have suggested today.
Ultimately, online gambling protection is about saving lives. If we can do things that achieve that, our time in this House will have been well spent.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Mims Davies)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on securing this important debate.
We have to look at this in the round. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise his concerns, on behalf of his constituents and more broadly. We have to balance that with the fact that millions of people enjoy gambling responsibly. A day at the races—Cheltenham is on at the moment, as we know—an evening at the bingo or a regular bet on the football each week can be enjoyable, but we must balance that against the need to protect the most vulnerable people from gambling-related harm, wherever they gamble.
Hon. Members will be aware that online gambling is an area that I care deeply about and that I have already discussed with my hon. Friend. We have also met the all-party parliamentary group for gambling-related harm, alongside the Secretary of State; my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) brings to the debate his expertise on the group’s work and ongoing concerns.
It is absolutely right that we focus on ensuring that the regulatory framework for online gambling is robust. I am aware of concerns about the need to keep pace with technological advances, so I was particularly interested in the facial recognition idea that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester mentioned. I assure hon. Members that the Department will act where there is evidence of harm and will always keep the issues under review.
The Gambling Act 2005 provides the Gambling Commission with strong powers to ensure that all forms of gambling, including online gambling, are crime-free, fair and open and that they focus on protecting children and vulnerable people. Any operator that sells to customers in Great Britain must be licensed by the Gambling Commission and must comply with strict regulatory requirements. The commission has shown, rightly, that it will act where those rules are broken. For example, action against online casino operators resulted in penalty packages of almost £14 million last year.
The data held by online operators allows them to identify vulnerable customers and those at risk of harm. I note with caution the concerns raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green about companies looking for losers and focusing on gambling losses. I will absolutely take those concerns away and look at them.
My right hon. Friend also mentioned gagging orders. The Gambling Commission’s rules state that businesses should work with it to ensure that they are operating appropriately and should
“disclose anything which the Commission would reasonably expect to know.”
We want to help the regulator to take robust action to guard against any breaches of the rules, so if the all-party group’s work suggests that something is not being disclosed, or if hon. Members have anything to raise, I am keen to hear more. We want to see only responsible businesses in this sector. We want to ensure that people can have an open conversation about what responsible gambling looks like.
I was struck by Josh’s story, which was told by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester. There is real concern about suicides related to gambling. As my hon. Friend points out, the number of suicides cannot be ignored. The Responsible Gambling Strategy Board has published a report on measuring gambling-related harms to focus on the need to commission more research on the risk of suicide, so that we can identify harmful behaviours and so that people who enjoy a flutter or a bet can start to recognise such behaviours in those around them.
We need to remove the stigma around addiction to gambling. If someone feels like it is controlling them, the potential risk, the awareness of people around them and the opportunity to get support are really important. We need to take the stigma away and be able to work with partners. I must thank the Gambling with Lives charity, which has helped to identify the role of education in preventing harm. The Government’s review on gaming machines and social responsibility measures, which was published last May, set out a comprehensive package of measures to focus on safer and fairer gambling, and to ensure that this is paramount and at the heart of advertising and online operations.
We have heard about technological solutions. In December, Ministers at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and I brought together the technology and gambling industries to explore the use of further technology in preventing harm and stress the importance of learning together. More recently, the Secretary of State and I met major banks that are working on interventions this summer and into the autumn, in order to discuss how they can react in a way that challenger banks have been able to, by allowing customers to block gambling facilities. I want to emphasise that technological solutions to help to protect vulnerable people from gambling-related harm are absolutely vital, and we should seek every opportunity that we can.
An example of a technological solution is the online multi-operator self-exclusion scheme, GamStop, which ensures that people who take the difficult step to self-exclude are fully supported. For the first time, people who self-exclude online can sign up once to be excluded from all operators in the scheme. It currently extends to over 90% of the market, and over 60,000 people have used the service so far.
Last week I met gamban, which is based in Southampton—I will be popping down to its offices. Its new blocking software is freely available via GamCare and prevents devices from being able to access gambling websites. This is where innovation and direct experience is helping to drive player protections, which is vital. To support such initiatives, the Gambling Commission is consulting on stronger customer interaction requirements. I met GamCare yesterday and was delighted to hear about its initiatives with operators, including providing training to industry staff on player protection and the “safer gambling standard” quality mark. Let us get this moving—it is new and something that GamCare is moving towards.
For over 20 years, GamCare has been on the frontline of service provision, and it has reflected on the change over that time. It has a helpline, which is open between 8 am and midnight, seven days a week. It is a freephone number—if anyone is watching or reads this in Hansard, the number is 0808 8020 133. When I met GamCare yesterday, I was struck by its results on getting people out of crisis and to a place where gambling is not controlling them and they are able to sort matters out. Once people have contacted the charity—it does not appear on itemised bills—the first step is to talk things through and get some help.
GamCare is running programmes for schools that are aimed at 11 to 18-year-olds, and is looking to develop new packages for 18 to 24-year-olds. I urge all operators to work with GamCare on this, so that we can educate people on the risks, what is healthy, and when and how to find help when it is needed. I intend to use the opportunities across Departments to ensure that we give advice to parents, so that protecting children is co-ordinated—that work is going on with GambleAware, which brings me to advertising and the charity’s work.
A responsible message must now appear on all TV advertising for gambling companies for the duration of adverts. The Gambling Commission has introduced tougher sanctions for operators that break advertising rules. In addition, I am delighted to have worked with GambleAware to launch the industry-funded, multimillion-pound “Bet Regret” advertising campaign, which aims to help to start a conversation around risky betting behaviours and how to reduce them. In response to public concerns, the industry has announced the “whistle-to-whistle” ban on all TV betting adverts during pre-watershed live sport.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester on the relationship between sport and gambling—both particular sports and as a whole. I have already challenged gambling companies on this. Everything is on the table with regards to responsible businesses coming forward and doing the right thing; otherwise, it is absolutely right that we should act. There are positive signs that the industry is stepping up to the challenge that we have set, but there is scope to go further. I want to see the industry meet GambleAware’s donation target of £10 million by April this year. As I have said before, we want the voluntary system to work. If it does not, I do not rule out other ways of funding support, which could include a mandatory levy.
I am working closely with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care on the recently announced problem gambling clinic in Leeds. As we heard, the NHS long-term plan has a commitment to extend access to treatment. Public Health England has developed guidance for local authorities on gambling and is undertaking an evidence review. I have even spoken locally to my GP clusters about how, through social prescribing and local conversations, we can direct people to help. I have met the Minister for suicide prevention, who is clear that she will be working on gambling as a priority. Let me be clear on my position on the policy in this area: any life lost due to gambling is a tragedy, and we will work in every way that we need to in order to keep vulnerable people protected.
From May, the Gambling Commission will bring in further changes to operators in order to include age and identity verification to allow consumers to ensure that they do not partake if they get free-to-play demo games. These changes will also include further protections for children and vulnerable consumers and will help GamStop to be more effective. The Gambling Commission recently launched a call for evidence on gambling online with credit. The Secretary of State and I are very keen to look at this, and we have already raised it with banks. It will help to develop a comprehensive picture, including the prevalence of using credit cards for gambling, and the associated risks.
We are aware of immersive gaming, an issue that was raised with regards to “skins gambling” and loot boxes. The Gambling Commission has made it clear that unlicensed gambling with in-game items known as skins is illegal, and it will take tough action. It prosecuted operators in 2017, making it the first regulator in the world to take such action. Loot boxes currently do not fall under gambling law where in-game items are acquired and confined to use within the game and cannot be cashed out, but we will continue to look at that. I am aware that the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee is also looking at this area.
I thank hon. and right hon. Members for taking part in this debate and ensuring that the Government hears very loudly that gambling online should be fair and safe. It is something that we all take seriously. We have delivered some important changes to online gambling regulation and will continue to review the protections and take action where it is needed. My hon. Friends have spoken passionately on this issue, and it is clear that that is our aim. The Government intend to work with the industry to bring it to the table, and to work with colleagues to ensure that vulnerable players are protected.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
You do not get a comeback on a 30-minute debate, I am afraid.
Question put and agreed to.
Automatic Enrolment: Lower Earnings Limit
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the lower earnings limit for automatic enrolment.
I am very grateful to have been granted time for this debate, especially during a rather chaotic week. It serves as a reminder that although all eyes are on Brexit, a number of massively important issues still need to be dealt with; that is the day job for some. One of those problems is the low earnings limit for automatic enrolment.
I want to make it clear that we support automatic enrolment. It has had a lot of positive impacts, as I am pretty sure all hon. Members agree. An estimated 10 million workers have been enrolled in workplace pensions by more than 1.4 million employers. That is an estimated £18.4 billion a year extra in workplace pensions due to auto-enrolment. Opt-out rates have been lower than expected, and participation by eligible 22 to 29-year-olds has increased. There are obvious moves in the right direction but, as with most things relating to pensions, the devil is in the detail.
The first issue is the delay in scrapping the limit. I have a problem with the lower earnings limit, and I am glad that the UK Government agreed to scrap it eventually, but I cannot understand why it is taking so long. All we have been told is that no changes will take effect until the mid-2020s. TUC research shows that a delay of six years in scrapping the limit could cut a saver’s pension pot by £12,000. That is for workers with annual earnings of £10,000, and it includes missed contributions and investment growth on funds. An employee who earns £10,000 would get more than double the amount of employer pension contributions when the limit is scrapped. The UK figures show that that would mean an extra £2.6 billion a year going into workers’ pensions, including £1 billion more from employers. If we are serious about creating a culture that recognises our ageing population and the problems relating to pensions that are on the horizon, and if we want people to save persistently throughout their lives, the low earnings limit cannot continue. It does not make sense.
The positive impacts of auto-enrolment are evidence that it is working and that things are moving in the right direction. We should be trying to include everyone in auto-enrolment. Those who are paid the least are the very people we should be looking out for the most, because they are the most likely to slip through the cracks. Their pension pot, no matter how small it is, is probably the only useful capital they have in retirement. Will the Minister give a concrete guarantee, rather than a vague timescale, about when the limit will be scrapped?
The second issue is that those on the lowest incomes are the most likely to lose out as a result of an increase to the lower earnings limit. For the lowest earners, £6,136 is a large proportion of their earnings. If employers do not include that amount in people’s earnings when calculating pension contributions, pension savings will be affected considerably. Worryingly, the changes will predominantly affect women in multiple part-time jobs, as the rise means that less of a low earner’s salary attracts pension contributions. The TUC has rightly pointed out that there is no mechanism to include those working multiple jobs with earnings below £10,000 in auto-enrolment.
The Pensions Policy Institute calculated that if income from multiple jobs was taken into account, a further 80,000 people could be saving for retirement. That breaks down to 60,000 women and 20,000 men. Once again, the Government are not responding fast enough—or, arguably, at all in some cases—to women’s concerns about their pensions. That is a theme that I have seen since I was elected.
Those concerns have been raised previously. Baroness Drake put it perfectly when she said:
“we are designing a private pension system that does not work for women who work part-time.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 February 2014; Vol. 752, c. 201.]
I would argue that women do not have an adequate state pension to rely on at the moment. Ultimately, this increase is contradictory to the apparent aim of scrapping the limit altogether.
The third issue is that as the gap widens between the personal allowance and the lower earners limit, low earners are in a pension lottery through no choice of their own. The Treasury has said that the personal tax allowance will rise to £12,500. However, under the net pay method, pension contributions are deducted before tax is calculated, and savers’ tax relief is based directly on their marginal rate. That means that savers who earn less than the £12,500 tax threshold do not receive the 20% relief that they would through their employer if they were in a relief-at-source scheme. This issue affects more than 1 million people who earn more than the earnings trigger of £10,000, but less than the personal allowance of £12,500. As auto-enrolment brings in more lower-paid earners, the number caught in the net pay trap is likely to increase.
I am grateful for the fact that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has said that it recognises this issue and is looking at ways to resolve it. It has said that one of the possible routes is a digital answer. I only hope that it is within closer reach than the so-called digital answer to the Irish border question. It would be helpful if the Minister could update us and say what conversations he has had with colleagues in HMRC about potential fixes.
On top of that, there are rumours that the UK Government will reduce tax relief on pension contributions in the upcoming Budget. Will the Minister give us a concrete commitment that that will not happen under this Government? Has he sought confirmation from the Chancellor that the inconsistency between the net pay schemes and other schemes will be corrected before the spring statement?
I have made these comments in this Chamber and elsewhere quite a few times. Pensions are a mess just now, and anything we can do to get more people saving has to be seen as a positive. The evidence so far suggests that auto-enrolment is a positive, so I ask the Government to stop dragging their heels and get this in motion.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I am grateful to you for calling me to speak in this important debate, Sir Gary. I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) on securing it.
Since October 2012, the Government have placed new duties on employers to ensure that their workers are automatically enrolled and contributing to a workplace pension. The duties ensure access to workplace pensions for workers who were not previously in a workplace pension scheme, who earn more than £10,000 and are above 22 years old.
The automatic enrolment into workplace pension schemes has broadly been a success. Ten million workers have now been enrolled into workplace pension schemes by more than 1.4 million employers. That means that 84% of eligible employees were participating in workplace pension schemes as of 2017—a nearly 30% increase since 2012. An estimated additional £18.4 billion a year will now go into workplace pension schemes because of automatic enrolment. I am also pleased that 79% of young workers aged 22 to 29 were participating in workplace pension schemes as of 2017, alongside 84% of women. The increase in workplace pension scheme participation among private sector workers is also welcome. There has been a nearly 40% increase between 2012 and 2017.
Despite initial concerns, opt-out rates from automatic enrolment into workplace pension schemes stood at 9% in 2017. That is significantly lower than initial Department for Work and Pensions estimates of 25% and highlights that employers and workers recognise the benefits of participating in workplace pension schemes. The initial success does not mean that more progress cannot be made. An estimated 12 million people are still thought to be under-saving for their retirement. Workers who earn more than £10,000 per year are automatically enrolled but end up losing out because their contributions are calculated from the bottom of the qualifying earnings band. Non-eligible workers who earn £10,000 or less a year in each of their jobs do not qualify for automatic enrolment, even if their combined earnings exceed £10,000.
Some eligible workers who earn at or just below the lower earnings limit in each of their jobs are not necessarily entitled to an employer contribution, even if they opt into a workplace pension scheme. Those earning less than £10,000 are missing out.
Young workers—particularly those aged 18 to 21—do not benefit from automatic enrolment because the lower age limit is set at 22. Employers are not required to automatically enrol workers whose earnings are below £10,000. There are other issues around automatic enrolment of those with multiple jobs and fluctuating earnings, and of the self-employed. I can add zero-hour contracts to that, because they often mean earnings of less than £10,000.
Those issues must be addressed if we are to encourage greater participation in workplace pension schemes and greater savings for retirement. We need to look at solutions to those issues, such as lowering the age limit from 22 to 18, as well as automatically enrolling low-income workers by calculating pension contributions from the first pound earned, rather than using the current lower earnings limit.
It is vital that we get right the system of auto-enrolment of workers into workplace pension schemes in the light of the Government’s attacks on pensions over recent years. There have been increases to the state pension age; suggestions from the Chancellor that the state pension may no longer be ring-fenced from spending cuts after 2020; threats to benefits that our pensioners enjoy, such as the free TV licences for the over-75s; and the disgraceful treatment of the WASPI women, who I fully support in their fight for justice.
The policy of automatic enrolment for workplace pension schemes began under the last Labour Government, was implemented by the coalition Government and was supported by the SNP in its 2015 manifesto. We all want to ensure that workers can save for retirement, and that they have all necessary support to do so. That is why it is important not only that we commend the success of the scheme up to now, but that we make real progress on outstanding problems with automatic enrolment. I urge the Government to tackle those issues. Let us deliver for the working people on low pay in this country. Let us give them some dignity in retirement.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) on securing this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) for his contribution.
I am a firm believer in workers’ rights, but with Brexit on the horizon, it feels like even the most basic rights are no longer guaranteed or a priority. It speaks volumes that we are having this debate in this Chamber while the Brexit debate takes place in the main Chamber. It is important to recognise where the Government are taking positive action. Although it is not perfect, the attempt at auto-enrolment was one way for the Government to recognise the huge issues with the current pensions system. It has meant that eligible workers are automatically enrolled on a pension scheme, with the employer obliged to pay towards their employee’s pension.
In reality, however, it will allow pensions contributions to be paid at set limits and with set criteria, which the Government have set out in a phased timeline. The Government have made no firm commitments on when exactly the conclusion of that timeline will be, and in reality, it does not quite meet the mark of what is required for people to truly be able to plan for financial retirement.
If the Government were to scrap the lower earnings limit, as my hon. Friend outlined, that would allow pension contributions to be paid from the first pound of every worker’s salary. Currently, employers do not have to include the first £6,032 that an employee earns when calculating pension contributions, so if the Government removed the lower earnings limit, that would mean a significant increase to the employee’s pension pot.
As was outlined earlier, that would account for an extra £2.6 billion a year going into workers’ pensions, including £1 billion more from employers, according to the Government’s own figures. The Government released detailed plans to scrap the lower earnings limit in 2017, but have given only a vague commitment to take action on it in the mid-2020s. When does the Minister envisage that that will happen? 2023? 2024? 2025? 2027? Rather than the vague timescale that the Minister has set out previously, can he give a concrete guarantee about exactly when the lower earnings limit will be scrapped? To put that into perspective, research by the TUC outlines that a six-year delay could cut a saver’s pension pot by £12,000—based on the 2022 figure rather than the 2028 figure—which would make a sizeable difference to the affected individuals.
I will address some of the key flaws and primary concerns of the issue. The lower earnings limit trigger provides eligibility for the auto-enrolment programme. When it was introduced, it was set at £5,035 a year, and then increased to £7,457, which resulted in the exclusion of 600,000 workers, of whom 78% were women. After increases over the years, the earnings trigger was frozen at £10,000 in 2015-16 up to the current period of 2018-19. That resulted in the exclusion of an additional 40,000 workers, of whom 30,000 were women, notwithstanding the fact that increasing the lower earnings limit to £10,000 excluded 170,000 workers, of whom 120,000—69%—were women. I hope that that illustrates to the Minister, who I am sure already knows this, my key concerns—as spokesperson for women and equalities—about the problems this poses for women.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
A whole raft of evidence, relating particularly to young or middle-aged women, shows that the Government are not hitting the mark on these matters. The WASPI women issue has run for many years and, if we consider the last economic crisis, women took the brunt of it: £14 billion was taken from women, through various tax measures, to deal with the crisis. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is about time that something was done about that?
Angela Crawley
I wholeheartedly agree. The Government have been remiss in their responsibilities to address those epidemic concerns that have increased during their stewardship in government.
I will turn to the concerns that I have outlined, including those of women, low-paid workers and the WASPI women, on whom the Government have a shambolic record. Low-paid workers, including those who have multiple jobs that do not meet that threshold, are more often than not below the earnings threshold and do not therefore meet the criteria for auto-enrolment. There is no mechanism for auto-enrolment for the self-employed.
Another group of individuals has also been completely forgotten in this programme. There is a duty to enrol for those aged between 22 and the state pension age. Those in the six-year gap between the ages of 16 and 22 will therefore be adversely impacted by that decision. The Government acknowledged that problem, but addressed it by saying that many people in that age group tend to move jobs a lot, so it is not administratively worthwhile to account for them in the programme.
What do the Government say, however, to a young person who goes into a full-time permanent job at 16? Are they not entitled to pension contributions? The UK Government have said that they will lower the age to 18 by the mid-2020s. Can the Minister tell us exactly when that will happen?
The contribution is currently set at £6,032, going up to a threshold of £46,350. That has been on a phased increase since 2012. In reality, the minimum recommendation that is currently estimated for pension savings is 15% to 18%. If the Government were to remove the lower earnings limit, it would add £2.6 billion to the annual pensions pot. That would still account for only 8% of the estimated required pension savings. That means a shortfall of 12%, on average, for each individual of working age in the UK. The Government have to address that.
The Minister himself, however, has admitted that 8% is not a sufficient contribution for a long-term retirement, and the Government’s own figures suggest that approximately 12 million people are under-saving for retirement. I hate to take words out of the Minister’s mouth, but he will probably point to the pensions dashboard to support better planning for retirement. However, for women, low-paid workers, those in multiple low-paid jobs, those aged from 16 to 22 who are in full-time permanent employment, the self-employed, and those on zero-hours contracts who fall below that threshold, can the Government say that they are serving them? For society as a whole, does the existing lower earnings limit sufficiently
“support better planning for retirement”,
to use the Government’s own words? The Government record on WASPI women alone proves that, more often than not, the evidence is that in most instances the most vulnerable in society are an afterthought.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Lady’s flow—but I am also allowing her to take a sip of water. Of course I will cite the pensions dashboard, which I am sure that the SNP very much support and in reality will make a significant difference, but there is also the Single Financial Guidance Body, which was set up under legislation passed last year. It is there specifically to cater for the vulnerable and to assist those who require greater ongoing access to pension advice. I hope that she will accept that such matters, passed on a cross-party basis, are evidence of ongoing assistance to people she and I genuinely care about.
Angela Crawley
I thank the Minister for that intervention. He might well remember that the SNP supported the concept of a pensions dashboard, but the Government rejected a number of key amendments in which we argued for the protection of vulnerable individuals. We are singing from the same hymn sheet about our ambitions and aims, but the fact of the matter is that the Government have the responsibility to introduce the scrapping of the lower earnings limit and the introduction of auto-enrolment pensions contributions, at the very least for those aged 18 and over, and at present they have not made a commitment to do so. He must act on his own words.
Women are often the primary parents or carers for loved ones. They are often the ones who take career breaks and part-time or flexible work to fit in with their responsibilities. They also live longer and work more hours to make ends meet. They are the most likely to be impacted by this Government’s decisions and will bear the long-term impact of the changes. Why is the Minister delaying, and to what end? Is he hoping to kick the issue further down the road so that this Government do not have to deal with it, and a future Government will, or will he give a cast-iron commitment today that he will do something to address the issue on lower earnings limits and for each of the vulnerable groups that I have mentioned?
Ultimately, ensuring that every pound earned by every worker counts towards their pension should be an ambition that we all strive for. If the estimated savings of a pension ought to be 15% to 18%, the Government’s ambition to reach 8% already falls short. The whole low-paid workforce should predominantly be recognised for their hard-earned contributions. I hope that the Government will answer the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South and I have asked today, and that they will commit to deliver on this policy.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate with you in the Chair, Sir Gary.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) on securing this debate and once again leading the agenda in this place on pensions matters. Frankly, as the youngest Member of the Commons, she is an example and a role model to speak so well with authority and eruditeness on an issue that more young people should embrace and engage with. As I approach my 33rd birthday, I include myself and my peers in that youthful bracket—
Neil Gray
We are going for consensus in this debate, Minister, so we should continue on that ground.
The SNP supports and has always supported auto-enrolment but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South highlighted, we remain critical friends. Only last month, I raised the delay in scrapping the lower earnings limit threshold when the Minister brought the relevant statutory instrument to the Floor of the House. My hon. Friend mentioned a number of benefits if only the Government would scrap the threshold, and during the SI debate the Minister said that auto-enrolment was a success story. I agree, but we could make it so much more successful if we only got on with it.
I hope that we can build on what my hon. Friend rightly said in arguing for the lower earnings limit to be scrapped and that, in summing up, the Minister will provide us with a clear and concrete timetable for the UK Government to meet and achieve their policy promise. I would also appreciate him clarifying whether implementation of the commitment to scrap the lower earnings limit will require a submission to the comprehensive spending review and, if so, is that being prepared by his Department?
I am sorry that I do not have more contributions to the debate to sum up. It is obviously an important debate and I am sorry that no one other than the Minister—I look forward to hearing from him—and his Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark), managed to drag themselves away from the unfolding Brexit mess going on in the main Chamber.
I am grateful to those who have contributed to the debate, including my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney), for being present and for his speech. He also spoke in favour of the Government’s policy being implemented, and he rightly reiterated much of the information and statistics that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South provided to the House in her speech. He was also right to refer to the age restrictions; he mentioned the WASPI women, and I am sure he would agree that no one outside the WASPI campaign has done more to raise the profile of those women, argue their case, or represent them in this place than my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) made a powerful, fact-based speech. She was right to say that the delay in implementing the policy in full is preventing people from being able to plan adequately for their future. I know that is not the Minister’s intention, but he must acknowledge that the longer that the delay is allowed to continue, the more that will be the case. She was also right to ask whether a 16-year-old working the same full-time job as a 26-year-old colleague should continue to be discriminated against by not receiving pension contributions when their colleagues do.
In conclusion, I once again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South. She was right to say that things are moving in the right direction and that that is what we want to see, but we want greater and swifter action. The delay, the problems with making progress on realising the pensions dashboard, the WASPI women issues, and the lack of a concrete pensions policy all highlight, in our view, the need for an independent pensions commission. In summing up, on an otherwise troubling day for the Minister and his colleagues in Government, I hope that he will bring some joy and set out a clear, concrete timetable for scrapping the lower earnings limit. I look forward to hearing from him in that regard.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) for initiating the debate. I strongly agree with her that however central Brexit is to the future of our country, we run the risk of issues of immense importance and concern to the general public not being properly addressed here. I therefore commend her for bringing forward the debate.
The Minister will forgive me if I say what I have said on previous occasions: auto-enrolment is a testament to the previous Labour Government. I played a bit part in the process by chairing the policy commission that led to the appointment of Adair Turner. It was his genius and the team he brought together that ultimately produced the proposals for auto-enrolment. That was at a time when there were great strengths in the pensions system, such as many more defined-benefit schemes than, sadly, there are now. However, it was clear then, as it is now, that millions of people were simply not covered, or not covered adequately, by the existing pensions arrangements, so auto-enrolment was an important step in the right direction.
I welcome the fact that there has been continuity of policy. There is also cross-party consensus about the importance of auto-enrolment and of building on it at the next stages. There is no question but that a better pension landscape has been created; 10 million more workers are estimated to be newly saving, or saving more as a result of auto-enrolment into master trusts. That has led to an additional £17 billion and rising of pension savings put away, mostly by lower-income workers. We welcome the Government’s direction of travel, yet to be delivered on in practice, for those who are 18 and over; but I support the representations made that however welcome the direction of travel, it has to be acted on urgently at the next stages. I, too, look forward to the Minister’s response.
Although auto-enrolment is a landmark achievement, it is not a perfect system. Over and above the issue of the age threshold, there are other issues that crucially need addressing. First, the threshold for which workers are automatically enrolled is simply too high. In previous debates we have referred to the statistics, which speak for themselves. Department for Work and Pensions statistics show that 37% of female workers, 33% of workers with a disability and 28% of black and minority ethnic workers are not eligible for master trust saving through auto-enrolment.
Secondly, auto-enrolment does not cover the self-employed or workers in the gig economy. The Government are undertaking pilot projects, and we support that crucial initiative. Sadly, because of the nature of work as a whole, female workers, workers with disabilities, and black, Asian and minority ethnic workers are over-represented among low earners, the self-employed, those with multiple jobs and carers.
On the gig economy, we strongly believe in, have argued for and will continue to press for the redefinition of those employed as workers, to make them eligible for auto-enrolment. The problem is that self-employment and bogus self-employment are increasingly prominent in the modern economy. Figures released last year suggest that the number of self-employed workers in the UK rose by 23% between 2007 and 2017, from 3.8 million to 4.7 million. That represents a shift in the nature of the world of work and the way in which the British economy works. The self-employed represent about 15% of the workforce, and 91% of businesses say that they hire contractors. Of course, there are many people for whom self-employment is their employment of choice, and who welcome it, but too many are increasingly conscripted into self-employment against their will, with no alternative. That is why it is so important that we change the definition of employee.
To return to pensions, the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show that only 19% of the self-employed are saving into a personal pension. The Government need to address that as a matter of urgency. The pilot projects are a step in the right direction, but the sooner they are completed and action is taken, the better. It is wrong to combine decreased security in the world of work with decreased security in retirement as a consequence of bogus self-employment.
The Minister mentioned that more workers have access to a pension pot; that is welcome, but the public’s awareness of and knowledge about their pensions need to increase at the same time. He made reference to the Single Financial Guidance Body, established as a consequence of the Act of Parliament passed last year. That was an important step in the right direction. The SFGB is rightly tasked with ensuring that more of the public are properly educated about their financial issues, including their pensions. Crucially, the new body needs to be adequately resourced, but it is a strong step in the right direction. The almost parallel move towards a pensions dashboard is welcome, but urgent action must be taken to bring it into being, although the steps thus far are welcome.
The hon. Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire South, for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) and for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) spoke about the lower earnings figure; we first raised that important issue in Parliament back in 2014. We proposed lowering the automatic enrolment earnings trigger to the same limit as the threshold for paying national insurance—£5,773 at the time. That would have brought 1.5 million more workers into saving for their retirement. Two thirds of the extra savers would have been women; that would have gone a long way to tackling the 37% of women who are not automatically enrolled into saving.
Not bringing lower earning workers into auto-enrolment risks leaving a ticking time bomb for the state to deal with when those workers retire. Scrapping or lowering the lower earnings limit for auto-enrolment and reducing the minimum age to 18 will introduce many more savers into auto-enrolment, and will welcome workers into saving for their pension as soon as they start work. The earnings trigger and the lower limit are crucial issues, and we hope that the Government will act on them. We look forward to the Minister’s response.
In conclusion, a number of issues have arisen from this debate. Auto-enrolment is a strong step in the right direction, but we always ought to see such steps as the first, and not the last, word.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) on securing the debate. It is a fair and legitimate comment that some hon. Members are a little distracted by other matters taking place in the House of Commons, but I make the point that although we may have our differences on Brexit and all the difficult issues that are being debated in the main Chamber, the House is still debating and considering other matters, such as legislation on female genital mutilation, which was passed on a cross-party basis last night, and auto-enrolment, which is crucial to the long-term retirement future of all our constituents from all different backgrounds.
I genuinely welcome the debate. When I saw it on the Order Paper, I felt pleased to have the opportunity to debate auto-enrolment and to address this particular issue. The hon. Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire South and for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) have raised the issue in a series of parliamentary questions. I answered those questions at reasonable, but clearly not sufficient, length on 20 and 21 February, and I will attempt to address them in more detail today.
It is right to celebrate, as other hon. Members have done, the fact that in the constituency of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South, 6,000 men and women are benefiting from auto-enrolment. Thanks are due to the 1,130 employers that have genuinely stepped up to the plate and are in the position to make that contribution through their payroll deduction to employees up and down her constituency.
I should also say that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. Given that I have a little time, I make the point that in your Devon constituency, you have 6,000 employees who are benefiting on an ongoing basis, and 1,350 very good employers that should be thanked.
It is embarrassing how often I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), but he is right that this is a cross-party success story that, in my view, all political parties have got behind. I will turn to the points of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South in a second, but the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington is right to say that the process was started under a Labour Government with the Turner commission. It was then brought forward under the coalition, when my position was held by a Liberal Democrat, Steve Webb, late lamented of this House—although I think we took his seat, so he is not that lamented.
More particularly, I am the latest in a long line of pensions Ministers and Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions—including the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who is married to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington—who have brought forward these very positive changes. They were developed by the coalition Government, and we have expanded on them.
The key issue in relation to this is the automatic enrolment review of 2017, which, as Members can see, is not a small document. It addresses the issues and was independently commissioned by the Government. A number of experts took a great deal of evidence and addressed what should be done in considerable detail.
In answer to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South, the issue is not whether we will lower the earnings limit; we will do that. Nor is it whether we will lower the age limit from 22 to 18; we will do that. The question is when. I accept that there is a legitimate and real debate to be had in this House when legislation is brought forward as to when those changes should take place. I do not want anyone to be in any doubt: there is no question but that our policy, as set out in the 2017 review, made clear in the House previously and confirmed today, is to bring the age limit down from 22 to 18, and to bring the threshold down to the first pound earned.
I accept that there will be pressure today, as Members have made clear, to do this much sooner. I take the point that the SNP, individually as Members of Parliament and collectively through their shadow Minister, is urging the Government to act sooner. There is a serious point that the House needs to consider; we all celebrate the successes of auto-enrolment but it would be naive and wrong to say that it is an utterly done deal yet.
Neil Gray
We accept and are grateful for the Government’s continued commitment to scrapping the lower earnings limit and reducing the age limit. We welcome that commitment today. It is not just the SNP and the official Opposition who have been putting pressure on the Minister. The Minister has put pressure on himself, because he committed that this would be done by the mid-2020s. Is that still likely? If so, my previous question stands: where is the timetable for that to be achieved?
Guy Opperman
I will give a long answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I promise that I will answer it. Some 1.4 million employers have met their duties and are now offering members of staff a pension as a right. That is a significant change for those employers, and a significant burden for them. Raising the threshold, from 2% to start with, up to 5% last year and going up to 8% in April, is a significant burden. We are not talking about just the bigger employers, who can cope with it much better and have advanced payroll systems. Some of them have been paying over the odds from the word go and, to their great credit, some companies up and down the country immediately went to 5% or above. There are two key impacts that need to be assessed. We have only just got the information about the April 2018 increase and the opt-outs that took place then. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there was just under 1% opt-out out because of the increase to 5%.
One of my main jobs in this position, which, contrary to popular belief, I actually asked to do and enjoy doing, is to take the 1.4 million employers and the 10 million employees in this country up to 8% with the minimum number of opt-outs, and the minimum impact on the economic outlook of the country. The harsh reality is that there will be a significant change to the deductions made from individuals’ pay packets, but also to the burden on businesses, whether they are large FTSE 100 businesses or coffee shops or corner shops in our local communities. Dealing with how things go this April is one of the most important, if not the most important, job I have, given the massive impact of this on all our communities. We have only just raised the threshold to 5%. We have the most important rise—a double jump—this April. It would be wrong if the Secretary the State and I, and the wider Government, talked about changing the basis for auto-enrolment before assessing how the 8% rise had gone.
This is quite a complicated process; it will genuinely take the best part of 9 months to go through all the data and get a definitive understanding of where we are on the 8%. At best, I will not know the degree of opt-outs until Christmas. It seems utterly wrong for me to seek to change the nature of the legal basis until I have a real understanding of the impact of the 8% increase.
Mhairi Black
The Minister says that we have to wait for more evidence. As I said in my speech, the DWP assumed that roughly 25% of those eligible would opt out, and the 2017 average was 9%. The Minister has talked about getting updated figures, but the participation among 22 to 29-year-olds increased from 35% in 2012 to 79% in 2017. The evidence already suggests that we are heading in the right direction and that the changes are working. Further to that, the logic of the lower earnings limit being set was that some people will not earn enough to get value for money out of their pension towards the end. Would it not be an easier answer just to pay people more, and to introduce a real living wage?
Guy Opperman
We are getting slightly off topic, but I am very happy to make the point that in 2010, when the coalition came into government, the living wage—the minimum wage as it was then—was £5.80. It is now £8.21, going up to £9, as the hon. Lady will be aware. I am happy to have a discussion about the tax threshold, which means that individual members of our communities have a huge amount more in their pockets. The tax threshold was £6,500 in 2010. It is now going up to £12,500, which will make a massive difference to the individual take-home.
All those things are good things. There is also the benefit of free childcare. We have gone from having no free childcare available whatever, up to 15 and 30 hours. It depends on how one values childcare, but taking it even on a very low basis, individual low earners would have the benefit of 30 hours a week free childcare, in those circumstances where that applies. If they have 30 hours a week childcare, that is a benefit of £150 a week minimum. I have worked it out on a £5 basis, but other statistics could give the rate.
My point is that if one looks solely at individual earnings on a long-term basis, taken in isolation that is one thing, but we also have to look at the impact of the rise in wages. It may not be as high as the hon. Lady would like, but she is making my point, so I will stop being partisan and saying, “Aren’t we doing well on the living wage, the tax threshold and childcare?” Park that for a moment. Some of those matters are burdens on individual employers.
The harsh reality is that the corner shop in the hon. Lady’s Paisley constituency, or the coffee shop—forget about the big employer—is now paying a considerably larger wage bill, because the low earners who were previously on the minimum wage are now on the living wage. The larger employers are also potentially paying the apprenticeship levy, and in April will pay up to 3% on auto-enrolment. The engagement that took place in the 2017 review indicated that time should be allowed before we reassess the way ahead. I am absolutely sure that there should be consideration of that. I accept that there is pressure on that.
I will try to address the other couple of points that the hon. Lady made, before moving on to some of the other questions. She asked about the reduction of pensions tax relief and the difference between net pay and relief at source. It is entirely right to raise those matters; she will understand that they dealt with by the Chancellor and the Treasury.
The idea that I have full control over the spring statement or the Budget, as the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) suggested, is something that I think we all understand is not the case. I do not have advance sight of the spring statement, but if he wishes to push for my promotion, I would be very keen for that—not that I want to be promoted, because I actually enjoy this brief.
The reality of the situation is that there is clearly a difference between relief at source and the net pay arrangement. It is acknowledged; there is no question but that something must be done on an ongoing basis. HMRC and the Treasury are aware, and there is ongoing discussion with them on that particular point.
While I am dealing with the Treasury, the question was raised about where we are in relation to long-term tax relief on pensions. Again, that is a matter for the Chancellor, but although I accept that there was some discussion about it in some comments made before the last Budget, hon. Members will be aware that there was no fundamental change to the tax relief on pensions.
I have rather disregarded my speech, but I will go back to a couple of key points. First, hon. Members will be aware that we debated this matter briefly in January, and the House debated and then agreed that the lower and upper limits of the qualifying earnings should be aligned with the national insurance earning bands in 2019-20, at £6,136 and £50,000 respectively. Not only does that provide stability and harmonisation on an ongoing basis, but we maintained the earnings trigger at £10,000, meaning a real-terms decrease due to anticipated wage growth, which brought an additional 40,000 savers into automatic enrolment, three quarters of whom were women.
I will address a couple of the other points raised. The hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East, whose constituency I know very well, having ridden at the Overton point-to-point far too many times—not very well; I did not win there—will be pleased to know that there are 14,000 individual employees in her constituency who benefit from the automatic enrolment. She specifically raised the issue of somebody aged between 16 and 22 who was earning but not able to get access to a pension. It is not often known—I have the great delight of telling the House this and urge the hon. Lady to tell others—that that individual aged between 16 and 22 can opt into an automatic enrolment pension with their employer. They have the ability to do that. Similar comments apply to the self-employed; they can opt in and be addressed on an ongoing basis.
The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts called for a pensions commission. With respect, we had that: it was called the Cridland report, an independent pensions commission to which all political parties, including the SNP, along with trade unions and the Labour party, made submissions. Whether they agreed with it or not, it was definitely the case that they made submissions.
On the self-employed, the reality is that we are continuing to expand in a great deal of detail the trials that are going on. We are considering the Taylor review, and it is my strong view that we should expand that more. I am certainly pressing to ensure that the self-employed have greater access to a pension.
Angela Crawley
I thank the Minister for enlightening me on his experiences of his jockey career in my constituency; I am sure that will be a treat for my constituents to learn. Going back for a second to the point about 16 to 22-year-olds and the opt-in, ultimately there is an emphasis on young people opting into that process and no requirement for the employer to contribute to their contributions. Does he agree that even if the Government bring forward this change for 18-year-olds and make it mandatory for employers to contribute, “mid-2020s” is a vague definition? I would be keen to hear exactly how the Minister defines “mid-2020s”, and when 18-year-olds can be guaranteed to get the same matched back from their employers.
Guy Opperman
The hon. Lady will understand that there is a big lead-in time between the passing of a parliamentary Act—this applies particularly in pensions—and when that Act kicks in. The reality is that I cannot give a definitive date today, nor do I intend to do so. I do not believe it would be appropriate to do so. I am not just giving what some would describe as a politician’s answer; I am giving my strong belief, which is that, until we have got through the 8%, we should not make a decision, because the impact on employers and employees needs to be measured on an ongoing basis. There is no dispute between us in any part of the House, I believe, that this needs to be done; the only question is when that process should take place.
I am keen to try to address the points of the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney), who has 10,000 employees in his constituency who have had the benefit of auto-enrolment. He raised individual points in relation to the state pension. I make the point that the state pension is up more than £1,000 in real terms since 2010. There is no evidence for his assertion that the state pension could not be afforded post 2020 as per the Chancellor. That is simply not the case. It is most definitely not the indication from the Chancellor, and it is definitely not Government policy whatsoever. We have committed to the triple lock.
I am conscious that I need to wrap up very shortly. The reality is that, for women, pensions enrolment has gone from 40% to 80% by reason of auto-enrolment; enrolment in the private sector has risen from just over 40% up towards 80%; 22 to 29-year-olds have dramatically improved enrolment to above 75% from a very low base; and low earners from the £10,000 to £20,000 bracket have gone from 20% enrolment up to nearly 70%.
At the same stage, we are doing things such as the pensions dashboard, on which I hope to report back to the House within a matter of weeks. We are doing the Single Financial Guidance Body, which is now up and running, with the former chair of StepChange, Sir Hector Sants, in charge. We are also pioneering things like the midlife MOT, which has a public sector angle, with what we are doing at the Department for Work and Pensions, but is also private sector-led as well, to get a greater engagement. We are also doing simpler statements for those with private sector pensions. It is my intention that all private sector businesses that provide pensions will be giving a simple two-page statement to all their customers. Whether that is done on a voluntary basis or by statute is a matter to be decided.
It is definitely the case that we are, I believe, in glorious agreement about what the position is going forward. It is not the case that there is much dispute between us. I accept that this is something that we will have to return to in the future. For the moment, I cannot give the definitive date that the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East seeks, but I am very happy to continue the debate as we go forward.
Mhairi Black
Just very briefly, on the Minister’s end point there, it would be very useful if he could at least tell us whether the scrapping or lowering of the limit will be phased in, or whether it will be a blanket switch-over one night. Some detail on that would be much appreciated.
The thing that makes me quite uncomfortable in this speech and in this debate is that one of the key arguments here is that women will again bear the brunt of this. I am actually glad that we cannot get through any debate on pensions without someone mentioning WASPI, because, if anything, WASPI actually shows exactly the kind of reputation that the Government are gaining with regard to pensions. To see problems such as this being pointed out to the Government and there being no real answer as to how they are going to support women, who are yet again bearing the brunt of the worst that is happening, is quite depressing. I hope that is something that the Minister will reflect on.
I am grateful, finally, to my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) for pointing out that if people can work at the age of 16, they should be able to contribute to their own pension. I do not see why the age reduction should stop at 18. If people can start working at 16, they can start saving for a pension, especially if it is at the point where their employer does not actually have to contribute.
Again, I am grateful to everybody—all six of you—for attending the debate. This is a very important issue, and I hope that we have given the Minister food for thought.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the lower earnings limit for automatic enrolment.
Written Statements
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
ECOFIN 12 March 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)
A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) will be held in Brussels on 12 March 2019. The UK will be represented by Mark Bowman (Director General, International Finance, HM Treasury). The Council will discuss the following:
Early morning session
The Eurogroup President will brief the Council on the outcomes of the 11 March meeting of the Eurogroup, and the European Commission will provide an update on the current economic situation in the EU. Ministers will then discuss the location of the InvestEU Investment Committee secretariat.
Excise duties
The Council will be invited to agree a general approach on the directive on general arrangements for excise duty (recast), the regulation on administrative co-operation of the content of electronic registers, and the directive on the structures of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages.
Digital services tax
The Council will be invited to reach a political agreement on the EU-wide digital services tax proposal.
InvestEU
The Council will hold a follow-up policy debate on the location of the InvestEU Investment Committee secretariat.
Current financial services legislative proposals
The Romanian presidency will provide an update on current legislative proposals in the field of financial services.
European semester
Following a presentation by the Commission on its 2019 country reports, the Council will hold an exchange of views on the implementation of country-specific recommendations focusing on investment in member states.
EU list of non-co-operative jurisdictions for tax purposes
The Council will be invited to adopt Council conclusions revising the December 2017 EU list of non-co-operative jurisdictions for tax purposes.
Status of the implementation of financial services legislation
The Council will discuss the status of the implementation of financial services legislation.
Coalition for climate action
The Finnish Finance Minister will update the Council on plans to launch the coalition for climate action in the context of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund spring meetings in April.
[HCWS1403]
Armed Forces Pay Review Body: Reappointment
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
On 20 December 2018, I announced that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence had appointed Vice Admiral (Retired) Sir David Steel as the next ex-military member of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB). His appointment was due to commence on 1 March 2019 and run until 28 February 2022. However, Vice Admiral (Retired) Sir David Steel has subsequently been unable to take up this position. A further recruitment campaign will be launched in due course by Department officials.
To provide the AFRPB with important continuity during this interim period, I am pleased to announce that I have invited Rear Admiral (Retired) Jonathan Westbrook to continue to serve as a member of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body for a further 12 month term of office, commencing on 1 March 2019, and he has accepted. This extension has been conducted in accordance with the guidance of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
[HCWS1402]
New Model in Technology and Engineering
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the School System (Lord Agnew), has made the following written ministerial statement:
It is the normal practice when a Government Department proposes to make a gift of a value exceeding £300,000, for the Department concerned to present to the House of Commons a minute giving particulars of the gift and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from making the gift until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency.
The Department for Education intends to provide a 50-year lease of the former Robert Owen Academy site (Blackfriars Street, Hereford) to the New Model in Technology and Engineering (NMiTE). The lease is valued at £900,000 and will be subject to a premium of only £1,000. The sub-lease therefore represents a gift to NMiTE worth £899,000.
The NMiTE aims to secure university status and is supported by national and local government, the University of Warwick, and industry, to transform engineering education in Britain. They are in receipt of grant funding from the Department for Education to support their start-up and development. NMiTE will invest substantially in the site to bring it back into use and deliver specialist higher education.
We believe this lease represents good value, supporting the development of the new organisation aiming to secure university status and avoiding the vacant site holding costs that the Department for Education would otherwise have to bear.
The Treasury has approved the proposal in principle. If, during the period of 14 parliamentary sitting days beginning on the date on which this minute was laid, a Member signifies an objection by giving notice of a parliamentary question or a motion relating to the minute, or by otherwise raising the matter in the House, final approval of the gift will be withheld pending an examination of the objection.
[HCWS1404]
British Council: 2019 Tailored Review
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
I am announcing today the publication of the recent tailored review of the British Council, an arm’s-length body of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
The British Council was established in 1934 and awarded a Royal Charter in 1940. It builds relationships and understanding between the people of the UK and other countries, and makes a significant contribution to promoting the English language, education and British culture overseas. It is a key soft power lever.
As a non-departmental public body (NDPB) sponsored by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), the British Council is required to undergo a tailored review at least once in every Parliament. The principal aims of tailored reviews are to ensure public bodies remain fit for purpose, are well governed and properly accountable for what they do.
The full report can be read on gov.uk:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tailored-review-of-the-british-council.
This review involved consultation with a broad range of stakeholders across the UK and beyond, including British Council staff, the board of trustees, over 700 stakeholders and heads of mission. It provided an opportunity to better understand the British Council’s contribution to the core business of the FCO, HMG, and the interests of a wide range of stakeholders across the UK and overseas, as well as assessing the British Council’s performance, and readiness to respond and adapt to future challenges.
The review concluded that the British Council fulfils an important and unique role, remaining a world leader in its field. The British Council’s operating model is effective, however work is needed in order to strengthen evidence of this effectiveness, and how it provides value for money for the taxpayer. It also notes that more needs to be done to remain fit for purpose, including improving organisational effectiveness and increasing financial resilience. Overall, it made 29 recommendations including:
The FCO’s single departmental plan should include a high-level British Council objective;
The British Council should have clear criteria for deciding when it will develop its own products, and publicise this to the English language and education sectors;
The British Council should continue its current model of growing its commercial surplus to support cultural relations activities; and
The British Council’s activities should focus on its core strengths of promoting English language, education, and British culture.
The review has also recommended that the FCO and the British Council strengthen their strategic dialogue and co-ordination. The British Council should also strengthen its reporting of impact, while ensuring that it operates with the appropriate level of independence. A joint implementation plan is being developed by the FCO and British Council, with most of the recommendations expected to be implemented by mid-2020.
Copies of the review will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament. uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2019-03-12/HCWS1401/.
[HCWS1401]
Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Employment (Alok Sharma)
The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council will take place on 15 March 2019 in Brussels. I plan to represent the UK.
The Council will be invited to agree a partial general approach on a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council that continues the European globalisation adjustment fund (EGF).
Under the European semester agenda item, the Council will adopt the joint employment report for 2019, along with conclusions on the 2019 annual growth survey, and the Commission will present its country reports for 2019. The Romanian presidency has chosen the social dimension of Europe post 2020 as the theme for debate.
Under other business, the presidency will give updates on six current legislative proposals: a regulation establishing a European labour authority; revision of the regulations on the co-ordination of social security systems; revision of the directive on carcinogens and mutagens (third batch); and directives on work-life balance, on accessibility requirements for products and services and on transparent and predictable working conditions.
The presidency will also provide information on its recent conference on an EU framework on national strategies for Roma inclusion. The Commission will present information on the tripartite social summit which will take place on 20 March, and the Chairs of the Employment Committee and the Social Protection Committee will present the committees’ work programmes for 2019.
[HCWS1400]
Universal Credit: Managed Migration Pilot
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Amber Rudd)
Universal credit is a vital reform. It overhauls a legacy system which trapped people out of work. The next stage, managed migration, will move claimants of legacy benefits on to universal credit without a change of circumstances. As we have previously committed, the Department will pilot this approach, following the passing of an affirmative statutory instrument, from July 2019; starting with small numbers with no more than 10,000 claimants. This is expected to take around 12 months. We will report on our findings to Parliament and bring forward legislation for the wider roll out of managed migration. We will, as planned, complete full roll out of universal credit by the end of 2023.
I am updating Parliament to announce that we have selected Harrogate in North Yorkshire to be our initial site for the managed migration pilot.
Harrogate has a mix of benefit claimants with a varying range of needs, in both rural and urban areas. Harrogate has also had universal credit since 2016 which is earlier than many other places. In that respect it does very much reflect the situation we will face across the country as we begin the broader process of moving people from the old system to the new universal credit system. This means the lessons we learn here will be directly applicable to places that start moving claimants from the old system to the new system in 2020 and beyond who will have started with UC in 2017 and 2018.
We will take a careful approach to delivering managed migration. Claimants will be informed of their move in advance, receive full information and support from the Department to move, including through home visits where appropriate.
We do not intend to stop anyone’s benefit during the pilot. In the pilot phase, our intention is to learn how to effectively assist people on to universal credit and to develop processes to deliver that help. This is particularly important for vulnerable and hard-to-reach claimants, who the Department will help to move across to the new system.
Managed migration will open up the world of work for thousands and deliver financial support for those whose circumstances have not changed. The process will eventually provide over £3 billion total transitional protection for 1.1 million families. Transitional protection will be available and we will help people who need it access discretionary payments which could be used, for example, to pay the equivalent of the two-week run on. Eligible claimants who received the severe disability premium under the legacy system will receive transitional payments as a result of the regulations bringing them into effect.
The Department is working with stakeholders to develop our approach to managed migration, with support for the most vulnerable in at the forefront of our minds. We will continue to do this as we deliver.
[HCWS1399]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, I remind your Lordships that, if there is a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Aviation Safety (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
That the Grand Committee do consider the Aviation Safety (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, this draft instrument will be made using powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and will be needed if the UK leaves the European Union in March without a deal.
The draft instrument corrects five principal EU regulations related to aviation safety, together with a number of Commission implementing regulations made under them. The draft instrument also makes some corrections to domestic legislation which establishes offences and penalties relating to the EU legislation. The most important of these is EU Regulation 2018/1139 —more commonly known as the EASA basic regulation —which establishes a comprehensive regulatory framework for aviation safety in the EU. In particular, it provides for the continued establishment of the European Aviation Safety Agency and the adoption by the European Commission of implementing regulations on aviation safety. These implementing regulations also ensure the EU member states can meet their obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation—the Chicago convention.
The implementing regulations each deal with a specific aspect of aviation safety regulation, including: the design, construction, maintenance and operation of aircraft; the licensing of flight crew, maintenance engineers and air traffic controllers; the provision of air traffic management and air navigation services; the design and operation of aerodromes. The other principal regulations are: Regulation 3922/91, on technical harmonisation, which has largely been replaced by the EASA basic regulation—but provisions on flight and duty time limitations still apply to the crews of aeroplanes undertaking air taxi, emergency medical service and single pilot commercial air transport operations; Regulation 2111/2005, which establishes the list of air operators banned from operating to the EU on safety grounds; Regulation 996/2010, which sets requirements for the investigation of air accidents and incidents; and, finally, Regulation 376/2014, which establishes requirements for civil aviation occurrence reporting.
Many of the corrections we are considering today are to clarify that the retained legislation only applies to the UK. For example, references to “the territory to which the treaties apply” are replaced with “the UK”, and references to “the competent authority” are replaced with references to “the CAA”. Other amendments relate to the relationship between member states. For example, requirements on the mutual recognition of licences are deleted, as are requirements on co-operation and the sharing of information.
The draft instrument also reassigns functions that currently fall to EU bodies. The majority of regulatory functions required under the EU regulations are currently undertaken by the competent authorities of member states. These include: licensing pilots, air traffic controllers and maintenance engineers; and certifying the airworthiness of individual aircraft. However, EASA is responsible for a number of functions, including: preparing proposals for new technical requirements and for amendments to existing technical requirements; approving organisations that design aircraft and aircraft engines as well as certifying the design of aircraft and engines types. The CAA will take on these functions, with the exception of those related to management of the EU safety regulatory system, which will be corrected so as to no longer apply. While design certification has formally sat with EASA since 2008, it is not a capability that the CAA has totally relinquished, and we are confident that the CAA will be able both to meet the needs of industry and to fulfil the UK’s international obligation as the “state of design”. The CAA is implementing contingency plans to ensure that it will be able to undertake the new functions effectively from exit day in the event of no deal.
The European Commission also has a number of functions under the EU regulations. Most notably, it has the power to adopt regulations, to adopt or amend technical requirements, to impose operating bans on airlines which do not meet international safety standards and make limited specified amendments to the principal EU regulations. All of these legislative functions will be assigned to the Secretary of State.
The powers to amend the retained principal EU regulations are very limited and are designed to ensure that the regulatory system can adapt to technical developments and changes to the international standards adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organisation—ICAO. Most notably, the Secretary of State may amend the annexes to the retained principal EU regulations, particularly the ones to the EASA basic regulation. The annexes contain the high-level safety objectives which are implemented through the technical requirements. This power is exercised through regulations subject to the negative resolution procedure.
In addition, the draft instrument also revokes four implementing regulations that set out internal procedures for EASA and which will become redundant after exit day. None of the amendments in this instrument changes any of the technical requirements established by the retained EU regulations. All valid certificates, licences and approvals issued by EASA or by EU/EEA states prior to exit day will remain valid in the UK by virtue of the withdrawal Act. The draft instrument provides that such certificates shall be treated as if they were issued by the CAA. The instrument limits the validity of most such certificates to two years after exit day, after which time CAA-issued certificates will be required. However, certificates related to aircraft design will remain valid indefinitely. The CAA needs to issue the safety certificates to have full oversight of aviation safety in the UK in accordance with the UK’s obligations under the Chicago convention.
The best outcome is for the UK to leave the EU with a deal, and delivering a deal negotiated with the EU remains the Government’s top priority. However, we must make all reasonable plans to prepare for a no-deal scenario. This draft instrument ensures that, in the event of a no-deal exit, legislation on aviation safety continues to work effectively and that the aviation industry has clarity about the regulatory framework in which it would operate in a no-deal scenario. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing these regulations. It would be good if she could say something further as a result of the Boeing accident a couple of days ago, which brings aviation safety into focus.
I have a couple of questions, and I will use the Explanatory Memorandum as a reference because it is easier. My first question is on paragraph 7.2, “Corrections to domestic subordinate legislation”. She said that most aircraft types are subject to EU technical requirements and that will be changed from “EASA aircraft” and “non-EASA” aircraft to “Part-21” and “non-Part-21”. What is the point of this, and has anybody seriously tried to get associate membership of EASA? I know “European” is in the name, which probably means that it is anathema to some members of the Government, but it would be a lot easier. I will probably bring this up when we debate railways as well. EU technical requirements are well known and well respected. We will have CAA technical requirements if this SI goes through. What happens when they diverge? Is there any mechanism for our side to talk to the European side? It is pretty stupid to have technical requirements for aircraft in this country that will be different—even to a small degree—from those in the European Union. Of course, the same applies vice versa. We tend to think only about the problems in this country, but for our planes to be able to fly on the continent, presumably somebody has to confirm with EASA or the Commission that the technical requirements of our planes fit in with their specifications.
My second question relates to paragraph 7.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum concerning banned operators. Quite a few rather unpleasant cases over the years come to mind. The paragraph refers to the,
“list of aircraft subject to an operating ban in the Community”.
That means that there is a list, which is great, but what process will there be for the UK and the European Union to share that list? It would be pretty stupid to have two lists, and I hope that the Minister can give us some comfort that there will be a mechanism for sharing, as this is a very important issue.
My last question relates to paragraph 7.8, which refers to,
“powers provided for in Single European Sky”.
That is an ambition that has not quite been achieved, although it is some of the way there. Do I understand that it will now be dumped, that there will be a single European sky that does not include the UK and that we will have our own little sky? I look forward to the Minister’s responses.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her opening statement. The Ethiopian Airlines crash has been a salutary reminder of the fundamental importance of aviation safety. Sometimes we take it for granted, but it relies on a complex interlocking of the highest standards for design, manufacture and maintenance, stringent standards for the training of flight crew and air traffic controllers, and exacting standards for the design and operation of airports. As aircraft have become more complex—the crash two days ago illustrates this point extremely well—and the skies become more crowded, the importance of international co-operation on the specification and maintenance of these standards has never been greater.
Yet this SI is intended to withdraw us from EASA and hence from access, as of right, to much of that international co-operation. I was very pleased that the Minister confirmed yesterday that the Government want to remain a member of EASA. I have no doubt that the Minister wishes to do so, but it was good to have the reassurance that that was the Government’s position. However, in the present political chaos, we cannot rely on this SI being simply a paper exercise.
Last November, the Second Legislation Scrutiny Committee drew our attention to this SI. It drew attention to the impact on CAA resources and to whether the EU will reciprocate in the recognition of licences, certificates and approvals. The UK will continue to have the same technical requirements and standards on exit day but, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has just said, there are real questions over future changes and over whether and how we will keep in step with the EU. Next week, we will be looking at maritime SIs, and we are way behind in keeping up with the flow of maritime legislation. I have real concerns that in the aviation sector, where technology moves on really fast, we will not be on the ball in changing our standards as fast as the EU.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I make my usual statement that I deeply regret being here. I think the idea of leaving the European Union without an agreement is absurd. In many ways, this SI and the many SIs I have worked through illustrate just how bad a situation it will be, but assuming that we are leaving, or have to be ready to leave, the EU without an agreement, I have looked at this SI. Its thickness deterred me from reading it, so my comments are based on the Explanatory Memorandum. Having been in the industry, I look forward to the seminar that the Minister is no doubt about to give us on ICAO. She will no doubt explain how this statutory instrument answers many of the questions that have been asked. I am sympathetic to many of them.
I shall restrict myself to two issues. The first is the powers of the Secretary of State. I have dealt with an awful lot of these SIs, and they have the same general characteristic: the stuff that is handled by EU regulators gets handed to UK regulators, and the stuff that is handled by the Commission is transferred to the Treasury. As I understand it, the Treasury is a body in its own right that can make decisions as a body in its own right. In a sense, one would expect the Treasury to be equipped to make those sorts of decisions. Here, paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“Delegated powers in the Basic Regulation are transferred from the Commission”;
and it ends by introducing a role for Parliament:
“Regulations made by the Secretary of State would be subject to negative resolution procedure”.
Unfortunately, as you read the document, it implies that decisions will be made by the Secretary of State himself, as the natural person. Given recent history, I am not sure that Parliament should be that comfortable with the idea of giving decisions to this Secretary of State, as the natural person. I assume it will not work like that. I assume the department and the Secretary of State will set up systems to advise the Secretary of State to analyse the issue and make sure that when we come to examine the regulations—if we choose to, under the negative procedure—the decisions would be backed up by a proper decision-making system, which the Minister will be happy to present to us. I hope we have reassurance on that point. To some extent, that covers one of the points made earlier in this debate.
Reading through the Explanatory Memorandum, I also stumbled across paragraph 7.6, which says:
“Corrections made include … removing provisions dealing with the relationship with and cooperation between EU Member States”.
I know we have had two tragic events recently, but the tremendous improvements made over recent decades in civil aviation safety absolutely depend on worldwide, international co-operation. Therefore, I hope that that paragraph is a technicality and that it will not change the attitude of the British Government to continuing to pursue this strong co-operation through the international bodies. I ask the Minister: what procedures will be put in place and what agreements will be sought to continue to optimise safety through international co-operation?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their consideration of this draft instrument. Before I move on to the SI, I am very happy to give noble Lords an update following the tragic accident in Ethiopia. The UK CAA has been closely monitoring the situation, as has the department. It made an announcement just after lunchtime today that it does not currently have sufficient information from the flight data recorder, so as a precautionary measure, it has issued instructions to stop any commercial passenger flights with that aircraft for any operator arriving, departing or overflying UK airspace. The safety directive will be in place until further notice, and of course the CAA remains in close contact with EASA and industry regulators globally.
It might be helpful to start by reiterating our position on EASA. We seek continued UK participation in EASA. This will help to ensure high levels of safety, as well as facilitating trade between the UK and the EU. We have the second largest aerospace sector in the world and the largest aviation sector in Europe, so it is not in any of our interests not to participate. It is a critical industry and, of course, safety is critical. This SI is not intended to remove us from EASA; that is a consequence of a no-deal Brexit. We want to see continued participation, but it is not just up to us to decide that. We very much hope that the EU will want us to continue participating in EASA. As the noble Baroness said, we have been deeply involved throughout its history. We very much hope that the EU will agree to our continued participation. However, we need this SI to be in place to ensure that we have a contingency plan; that is what this SI gives us. We very much hope that we will agree a deal and see continued participation in EASA. If we are in a no-deal situation, we expect to move into conversations about our future air transport agreement very quickly, which will also cover safety issues.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who highlighted our response to the SLSC back in December, the mirror image of these regulations is the EU safety regulation. The EU is in the process of adopting the regulation on aviation safety. It will be voted on in the European Parliament tomorrow and at the Council next week. It has already been agreed at the Committee of Permanent Representatives and we expect no issues with its adoption. That EU regulation is ultimately designed to prevent disruption to the EU industry, but it will be beneficial to us as well. It has three strands. First, it will extend the validity of certificates issued by EASA to UK-based design organisations. That extension is initially set at nine months, but the Commission is empowered to extend it if it proves necessary. Secondly, it provides for the continued validity of authorised release certificates for products, parts and appliances, certificates of release to a service issued on completion of maintenance, and airworthiness review certificates issued prior to exit day by organisations approved by the CAA. Finally, it provides that examinations taken at CAA-approved training organisations prior to the entry into force of the regulation will remain valid. We think that the EU’s regulation, as ours, is a sensible contingency measure to have in place for a no-deal exit. It is not a permanent solution, and we very much hope that we agree a deal, and, if we do not, that we are able to negotiate further on safety regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised the issue of the banned airlines list. I agree that this is a very important list to have. On exit day, the UK list will be established and it will mirror the current EU banned list. The list will be published on the CAA’s website, and it will be updated to reflect the imposition of operating bans. Operating bans are imposed by the refusal or revocation on safety grounds of permission for an airline to operate to the UK or by the refusal or revocation of a third-country operator authorisation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, pointed out, unlike the EU list, the UK list is not contained in legislation because it does not itself impose the bans, but reflects bans that have been imposed by the exercise of statutory powers. We will, of course, aim to keep the UK list consistent with the EU list as far as possible, and the decision on any operating bans will always be based on advice from the CAA.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, before the vote we were discussing the banned airlines list. As I said, we will aim to keep the UK list consistent with the EU list, as far as possible. Those decisions on operating bans will be based on advice from the CAA. The method of enforcing that ban will be the same as it is today: the withdrawal of a permit or operating licence. There may be instances where the UK lists will need to deviate: if we have evidence that an airline does not meet international standards, we may want to prohibit it flying to the UK and add it to the UK list, even if the airline is still permitted to fly to the EU. We are working closely on implementing that list. There may be some resource implications, but we expect to be able to use existing resources within the CAA. As with all these things, we very much hope that we will be able to maintain close co-operation with the EU and maintain the same list.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised the issue of the single European sky. We have already discussed the statutory instrument on air traffic management, and we absolutely recognise the need for our air traffic arrangements to remain in line with the rest of Europe. Safe and efficient air traffic management is a priority for us, and we will continue to work with European partners on it.
The new delegated powers were raised by all noble Lords. As I said, the draft instrument gives us delegated powers to make regulations, subject to negative resolution parliamentary procedures. The powers relate to the amendment or adoption of detailed technical requirements, which need to be updated regularly to reflect technical developments, changes to international standards, recommendations arising from accident investigations and so on. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, pointed out, these changes come thick and fast. This reflects existing UK practice, where the technical requirements for aviation safety are contained in secondary legislation made using the negative resolution procedure and the fact that the EU requirements were adopted under Commission implementing regulations.
The draft instrument contains a power for the Secretary of State to amend the essential requirements contained in the annexes to the EASA basic regulation by making regulations subject to the negative power. These very limited powers are designed to ensure that the regulatory system can adapt to technical developments and changes to international standards adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organization to ensure a continued high level of safety. I understand the noble Baroness’s concern about consultation involving the CAA. We will of course always base these decisions on advice from the CAA, but the powers are very limited and relate only to adopting international standards, which we will continue to follow.
Lord Berkeley
On consultation, can the Minister assure me that there will no more use of non-disclosure agreements for this ongoing consultation? That is happening at the moment for whatever reason, but it does not need to be a precedent that carries on after Brexit.
Baroness Sugg
I agree with the noble Lord. We have used NDAs when commercial issues are at hand, for example on our US agreement. The aviation industry is not silent about Brexit. It has been very clear about its position. It is supportive of this draft instrument, but it is not supportive of no deal or leaving EASA; it is making that very clear and has done for quite some time. I genuinely do not feel that the industry has in any way been restricted by talking about its views on Brexit; it has been very vociferous on that point, and we are very aware of its views, which have influenced our position on EASA membership.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about the removal of provisions dealing with the relationship with and co-operation between member states. As I said previously, our future relationship with EASA is going to be a matter for negotiation. We have been clear on our position. We very much hope that the EU will welcome that. It has been quite frustrating because the CAA has not yet been able to have conversations with EASA because of the position we are in with the negotiations. We stand ready, but we have not been able to do that because a deal has not yet been agreed. We will continue to participate in ECAC and ICAO, as participation in both organisations does not depend on being an EU state. Even in a no-deal scenario, we recognise the importance of co-operation and collaboration with our European and international partners and will continue to do that.
I think I have answered all the questions—
Baroness Randerson
Can I take us back to the CAA’s 59 new employees? I am delighted to hear that progress has been made. However, it occurs to me—going back to what the noble Baroness said at the beginning of her response—that this SI is for a no-deal scenario, but the CAA has had to recruit for a no-deal scenario that might not happen. I am sure most of us very much hope that it will not happen. What will happen to these staff if there is a deal and good transition arrangements that allow us to continue as members of EASA and dovetailing in? I am not trying to have it both ways; I am not trying to say that they should not have been employed because they might not be needed. It just occurred to me that this is nugatory expenditure, but it might also have an impact on the permanence of people’s employment.
Baroness Sugg
The noble Baroness makes a very good point. These are difficult decisions. We need to make sure that we have contingency plans and the right people in the right place. On the cost of those people, the DfT gave the CAA £2.7 million from the Treasury to build up contingency. These costs have yet to be transferred to industry, at least. She is quite right that people are being affected. I cannot speak for the CAA and its human resources plan, but it is an excellent employer and I am sure that it will have a good plan. Regardless of whether we get a negotiated agreement, many other aspects will need to be discussed, such as our future relationship following the end of an implementation period. I very much hope that those people will be used and used well. However, I will take up that point with the CAA next time I speak to it.
As I said, we are working towards a negotiated agreement that is supported by Parliament, and we very much hope that that will happen. However, we need to ensure that we are prepared in the event of no deal, and this draft instrument is a key part of the preparations. Aviation safety is a priority for us and, as the noble Baroness said, that has been highlighted by the tragic events over the weekend.
Both the UK and the EU have set out their intentions on safety regulations to ensure that we have the plans we need in place and to ensure that we continue to have a high-level—a world-leading level—of aviation safety, irrespective of the outcome of the negotiations. I beg to move.
Aviation Noise (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
That the Grand Committee do consider the Aviation Noise (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, the draft regulations will be made under the powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and will be needed if the UK leaves the European Union in March without a deal.
The regulations make amendments to domestic legislation and a directly applicable EU regulation that relate to aviation noise certification and the process for when operating restrictions are considered at airports. The first of those is the Aeroplane Noise Regulations 1999, which were made to implement in UK law EU obligations relating to noise certification requirements in relation to propeller-driven and civil subsonic jet aeroplanes. The noise regulations prohibit certain aircraft taking off or landing in the United Kingdom without an in-force noise certificate issued by the UK, or a competent authority of the state of registry recognised by the UK.
The Air Navigation (Environmental Standards for Non-EASA Aircraft) Order 2008, also known as the environmental standards order, would also be amended by this SI. It sets out the environmental standards relating to noise and emissions of specific UK-registered aircraft that are not subject to the basic EASA regulation—Regulation EU 2018/1139—and regulation by the European Aviation Safety Agency. These regulations apply largely to light and microlight aircraft.
Thirdly, the regulations would amend Regulation 598/2014, commonly known as Regulation 598, which establishes the rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of operating restrictions at certain airports based on a balanced approach to noise management—an agreed International Civil Aviation Organisation principle since 2001.
Finally, the regulations would also amend the Airports (Noise-related Operating Restrictions) (England and Wales) Regulations 2018, otherwise known as the operating restrictions regulations, which appointed competent authorities for England and Wales for the purposes of Regulation 598. The withdrawal Act will retain Regulation 598 in its entirety in the event of no deal.
The draft instrument also makes the necessary changes to the noise regulations, the environmental standards order and the operating restrictions regulations to ensure that the legislative framework continues to function correctly after exit day. The noise regulations are being amended so that in the UK, the same noise certification requirements apply to aeroplanes registered in an EEA state as apply to other foreign-registered aeroplanes. In effect, this will end the automatic recognition of noise certificates granted in the EU and the EEA, ensuring that the same rules apply in relation to the recognition of noise certificates for all aircraft registered outside the UK. The requirements relating to certification of UK-registered aeroplanes are also being amended so that they apply only to use in the UK rather than in the EU and the EEA. The regulations apply to propeller-driven and civil subsonic jet aeroplanes, including light aircraft and commercial passenger aircraft.
The changes to the environmental standards order amend the terminology in that order so that it is aligned with changes made to aviation safety legislation on EU exit. For example, the instrument removes references to EASA. The amendments to Regulation 598 provide for functions conferred on member states under the regulation to be conferred instead directly on the Secretary of State and, where appropriate, on the Northern Ireland Department for Infrastructure or Scottish Ministers. This includes an obligation on competent authorities to inform the Commission and other member states when operating restrictions are planned to be imposed, and instead provide for a UK-based “relevant authority” to be notified in place of the Commission. It also places an obligation on the relevant authority, instead of the member state, to ensure a right of appeal.
The Commission’s power to adopt delegated acts providing for technical updates to the regulations to take account of changes to international rules is conferred instead as a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations subject to the negative resolution procedure.
The amendments to the operating restrictions regulations reflect an amendment to the title to Regulation 598 made by this instrument.
The best outcome is for the UK to leave the EU with a deal, but this instrument ensures that, in the event of no deal, there will be continuity of aircraft noise standards and certification. It ensures that the regulatory regime in place after exit continues to regulate properly noise certification standards for aircraft and that the framework for consideration of operating restrictions at UK airports operates effectively. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that introduction. I have two questions. The first relates to the noise regulations and the assessment of the aircraft. It is difficult to see how we can have two different bodies coming up with different solutions, so I suspect that it will not be easy to reach agreement on how much noise an aircraft makes in certain circumstances.
My biggest worry is over the appointment of what is called a “competent authority” in paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum. It seems to me that the word “independent” could be added to “competent”. If we look at issues on operating restrictions, in the debates over Heathrow Airport and its third or fourth runway—or whatever it is called today—for whatever reason the Government have come out very strongly in favour of it and there are now, I think, several judicial reviews to challenge them. I cannot see how the Government acting as a competent authority, however competent they might be, can be seen to be independent of their policy, particularly in relation to Heathrow, saying they want this and are going to bulldoze it through under whatever circumstances. There are serious issues here about independence. When it was the European authorities, there was clearly independence. Now there is not, and given the particular status of Heathrow—in my view, it should be changed, but that is a completely different issue—I cannot see how this can satisfy members of the public, especially those who live under the flight path, that the Government can set operating restrictions and at the same time demonstrate that they are completely independent of their views on developing an extended airport for London. I will be pleased to hear how the Minister thinks the Government can wriggle out of those two conflicting requirements.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, this SI concerns one of the most controversial and divisive aspects of aviation. I assure noble Lords that I have not been copying the homework of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, but I shall make much the same point. Heathrow protestors will be looking at this SI very carefully and with great concern. It relates to the mutual recognition of noise certificates across the EU and the end of that system as it applies to the UK. From exit day, aviation safety legislation in the UK will be independent of EASA. EU Regulation 598 requires member states to appoint a “competent authority” to ensure rules are followed. That includes a balanced approach to noise management, and noise problems are supposedly to be addressed in a cost-effective way.
The balanced approach to noise management includes reduction of noise at source, the use of land use planning and management, noise abatement and operational procedures and operating restrictions. In future, who applies these rather vague and subjective principles, which are counterbalanced by cost effectiveness? It will be the Secretary of State. I had imagined the same scenario as the noble Lord. Promises have been made on noise abatement in relation to Heathrow that many experts believe will be very difficult—indeed, impossible—to achieve. The Secretary of State is the champion of the scheme and in any decision is bound to come under pressure to agree that the rules have been applied effectively, because it is a subjective judgment. There will be no back-up from international standards applied across the EU. There will be no international case law on an EU basis. There will be no EU comparisons to be made. I predict that the Secretary of State would be likely to buckle under pressure to agree the scheme for Heathrow no matter what the objections on noise grounds might be, but whatever happens it will be a highly controversial and highly political decision as opposed to one that would, under EU rules and processes, be taken slightly more objectively.
This SI once again preserves existing standards, but there are no guarantees in it that more stringent standards will be applied as aviation technology and quieter planes develop. I am very concerned that there are no guarantees that we will keep up with EU improvements, because this Government’s record on the environment is, quite frankly, abysmal. This SI opens the door for heavily political decision-making and for stalling environmental standards.
On consultation, we once again have the magic words that “specific meetings and workshops” have been held and that “long-established stakeholder forums” have been consulted. There has been no public consultation on this, so there has been no opportunity for the community groups established around most airports—most airports try to work with their local communities—to be aware that this SI was being put forward and to look at the its disadvantages. It is not just community groups; I wonder how many local authorities that have an aviation noise issue in their midst are aware that this SI is coming forward. I doubt that they are.
I very much hope we will have some agreement with the EU that makes it possible to have a more transparent and more far-sighted approach to aviation noise in future, but as it stands I find this a really retrograde step.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I will not repeat at length the points made by my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. I broadly agree with them and will certainly be listening with care to the Minister’s response. I do, though, come back to the issue of the Secretary of State exercising his powers. We got a clear answer on the previous SI that, in exercising his powers under that statutory instrument, he would consult the CAA. We need something a good deal more complex for this issue because noise is quite different in character from safety. Realistically, a member of the public does not have a useful or valid opinion about airline safety issues, but on noise a member of the public is exactly who it is all about. The issue is about communities around airports.
There are two areas that I would like the Minister to expand on. First, from what parts of government will the Secretary of State receive advice in exercising his powers? Secondly, I would like an assurance on matter of consultation. As far as I can tell, the statutory instrument seeks as far as possible in this nightmare scenario to maintain the status quo, but any changes to these regulations that the Secretary of State makes—using, once again, the negative procedure—will affect the general public in all the communities around airports, and of course there are also the additional issues of practicality, cost and so on. This is a difficult and complex political subject, so we need assurances that at any time in the future when the Secretary of State uses his powers under this instrument, he will conduct a full consultation to get all proper inputs to the decision-making.
Baroness Sugg
I thank noble Lords for their consideration of this statutory instrument. The regulations do not set noise policy; noise standards for aircraft are set by ICAO and we will continue to follow them.
On the point about the competent authority, last year we laid regulations that appointed competent authorities in England and Wales. The implementation provides for the local planning authority to be the competent authority when an application for any change is brought under the Town and Country Planning Act, but it also allows the Secretary of State for English airports or Welsh Ministers for Welsh airports to be the competent authority for called-in applications. Therefore, that matter is slightly separate from this SI.
The noble Baroness mentioned the balanced approach. Regulation 598 requires the competent authorities to take account of the balanced approach, and that requirement is kept by this SI. It will ensure that the balanced approach consists of identifying noise problems at specific airports and giving consideration to various measures that might be available to reduce noise. That is being carried over in its entirety.
Expansion at Heathrow is conditional on a package of mitigations. The NPS makes clear that noise mitigation measures should be put in place to ensure that the impact is limited. Again, that is going through the planning process following the judicial review process. We of course recognise that aviation noise is a key concern for communities living near airports. I regularly meet community groups and MPs to discuss this. We have played a leading role at an international level in relation to noise standards, and we will continue to promote further improvements in this area.
This SI does not change noise policy; it is concerned only with corrections as a result of EU exit. It does not impose restrictions; it is just a framework. We are consulting more widely on our noise policy, which we set at a national level through the aviation Green Paper consultation which we published in December. In that, we set out a number of policies designed to reduce noise and its impact, and that is how we will set our noise policy in future.
On consultation, in 2017 we consulted on proposals for appointing competent authorities, and the Scottish Government conducted a consultation on their proposals earlier this year. However, we have not consulted communities on this. The changes in Regulation 598 will not have a direct impact on overflown communities. They will ensure that the correct procedure is followed when operating restrictions are considered or it is proposed that they be imposed, but they will not change things for communities per se. As I said, that is being dealt with through the aviation strategy consultation.
There is a delegated power which provides for the Secretary of State to make secondary legislation under the negative procedure. It is about providing technical updates to the regulations, but again that power is limited to such updates to the noise certification standards and methodology indicators relating to the assessment of noise impact at an airport. Again, those updates are limited within the regulations to account for changes to relevant international rules.
As with the previous SI that we discussed, we will continue to follow the international rules. We have been leading the way with our noise policy and are suggesting further measures to improve it through the consultation. We will publish our final aviation strategy later this year, which we hope will address the understandable concerns of communities around the airport. However, that noise policy is not directly relevant to the SI we are discussing, which simply ensures that in the event of a no-deal exit from the EU there will be continuity of aircraft noise standards and certification and of the process when operating restrictions are considered at airports.
Lord Berkeley
Perhaps I may press the Minister a little further on the competent authority. I think she said that the competent authority for Heathrow would be the Secretary of State, but I recall that over the past 30, 40 or 50 years, Ministers of different persuasions have had a major influence on what happens at Heathrow. It does not matter which party has been in power; a Minister either likes it or does not like it. There is a perception that these Ministers have encouraged studies, shall we say, or other independent work to support their particular opinion. I suppose that is part of the political process for Heathrow, but nobody will have any confidence if a Secretary of State is promoting very hard an expansion of Heathrow while being the competent authority in deciding whether the noise is too great or too little, or whatever. I appreciate that this SI—
Lord Berkeley
I was just concluding. I wanted to note that, as we all know, this SI will come into force only if there is a hard Brexit. However, it would be good to have the Minister’s assurance that, depending on the type of Brexit we have—if there is no Brexit, it will not matter, but it will matter if there is some type of Brexit—if and when she brings these regulations back again she will take into account the question raised by several noble Lords about the competent authority and independence when it comes to Heathrow and perhaps other airports as well.
Baroness Sugg
I understand the noble Lord’s point, but competent authorities will not be appointed by this SI. That was done last year following extensive consultation. As I said, that role was to follow the balanced approach of ICAO. Article 3 of Regulation 598/2014 requires competent authorities to be independent.
Of course, the Government and the Secretary of State are allowed a position on airport expansion. They are very clear on the benefits that expansion at Heathrow will bring. That will have an impact, which is why we set out lots of requirements in the national policy statement. The Secretary of State is not deciding on the planning process; that is being done through the independent planning process, as is right.
Under Regulation 598, the appeal route is broadly aligned with the planning process, so there may be scope to challenge any local planning authority’s decision related to operating restrictions. That is the appeal process under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. For all other cases, including where the Secretary of State was the decision-maker, judicial review would be the appropriate route for challenging that decision. There is independence there on the granting of planning permission and the appeal route.
As I said, I very much understand the impact aviation noise can have on communities. As Aviation Minister, I am alive to it, which is why we suggested many new noise policies in our consultation on the aviation strategy. This SI is purely about the regulatory framework and will ensure the continuity of aircraft noise standards and certification and the process for considering operating restrictions at airports in the event of no deal. Noise policy is covered extensively elsewhere.
Baroness Randerson
Will the Minister address the issue of the nature of the consultation? Did any of the meetings, workshops and long-established stakeholder forums include local authority representatives or representatives of community groups established across the country by airports?
Baroness Sugg
For this SI, they did not because the communities are not going to be affected by it. We consulted when we were appointing competent authorities because that will affect them. That was properly consulted on in 2017 ahead of those regulations coming into force. We did not consult on this SI because we do not believe that it is going to affect communities. It is purely about transferring the regulatory framework and not about the noise or competent authority policies. We are having a full consultation now on our aviation strategy after setting out some policy positions. We will certainly meet community groups; we are meeting community groups and will continue to meet them as the consultation evolves and the strategy develops.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, the Minister is right that there is no change in policy but, as I understand it, there is a change of the organisation or person who is the competent authority. It is now the Secretary of State and before it was somebody from one of the European organisations. There is a change and that introduces a conflict of interest.
Baroness Sugg
There is a change, but to the relevant authority not the competent authority. The competent authority is staying the same. Competent authorities were consulted on and set in the previous regulations. Under current EU law, they have an obligation to report operating restrictions to the Commission. Instead, under this SI they will have an obligation to report operating restrictions to the relevant authority. In some cases, that will be the Secretary of State, in others, it will be the Scottish Government. I do not believe there is a conflict of interests because the competent authority remains the same; it is purely who it reports to that will change. There are the same reporting obligations but just to a different person.
Aviation Statistics (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
That the Grand Committee do consider the Aviation Statistics (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, these draft regulations will be made under the powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the European Communities Act 1972. Unlike our two previous SIs, some provisions in this instrument will be needed if we leave without a deal, but specific provisions relating to an enforcement power are needed regardless of the outcome of EU exit negotiations.
The regulations amend EU Regulations 437/2003 and 1358/2003 and seek to maintain the status quo with regard to the provision of data by operators of airports served by commercial flights. This is achieved by making technical changes to ensure that retained legislation continues to function, including amending redundant references to the UK being a member state. A further part of this instrument, made under the European Communities Act 1972, also creates a mechanism to enforce the obligation on airports to provide data, because there is currently no penalty if an airport does not comply.
This SI was proposed as a negative instrument, but we have accepted the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s recommendations to re-lay it using the affirmative procedure, acknowledging its concerns around the potential impact of these changes on commercial airport operators. I thank that committee for its consideration of this SI.
This draft instrument amends two pieces of EU legislation. The first of those is EU Regulation 437/2003, referred to as the statistical returns regulation, which requires operators of airports served by commercial flights to provide their member state with specified statistical data. In its existing form, the regulation specifies information that must be compiled by the member state—a function completed by the Civil Aviation Authority. It also requires that the same information must be provided to the European Commission’s statistical office, Eurostat. It further sets in place standards that must be met during the compilation and submission process. Secondly, it amends EU Regulation 1358/2003, referred to as the implementing regulation, which requires that the process set out in the statistical returns regulation is applied to a set list of airports and updates the list of statistical information that said airports must supply. The list of airports is effectively comprised of all airports that see commercial air traffic. This list included 46 airports across the UK at the point of its last update by the EU.
The withdrawal Act will retain both these regulations in their entirety. The draft instrument we are considering makes the changes necessary so that they continue to function correctly. That is essential to ensure that the regulatory regime in place continues to allow statistics on the total volumes of passengers and freight using UK airports to be compiled. The gathering of such data and the publication of derived figures are activities that are important for the Government, the public and the sector itself to be able to monitor performance.
This draft instrument amends the statistical returns regulation to remove the duty on the UK to continue to transmit this data to Eurostat. The power to collect statistical data and the obligation on respondents to provide that data are to be retained, with responsibilities for these functions given to the CAA.
This instrument amends the implementing regulation to remove the specific list of airports covered. This list is in fact superfluous, as the existing implementing regulation also contains a mechanism that sets the burden of data collection at different levels dependent on the volume of traffic seen by an individual airport. The mechanism will remain in the retained EU regulations, so that what is expected of airports will stay the same as it is now. The data collection power provided is an important tool for accessing data due to the competitive and commercially sensitive nature of the sector. As such, it is important that this legislation continues to operate after the UK has left the EU.
During the preparation of this instrument, a review of the statistical returns regulation highlighted the requirement for an enforcement mechanism in this instrument to meet the UK’s responsibility as a member state. This is why the SLSC recommended this instrument be upgraded. This instrument therefore provides a mechanism whereby the CAA can enforce the obligation on airports to provide the data specified. In determining the penalty, enforcement mechanisms in similar pieces of legislation were considered so as to not go beyond prior precedent. Consequently, the department decided to match the enforcement powers that exist within the Airport Charges Regulations 2011, with a civil penalty of up to £5,000. This part of these regulations is required regardless of final decisions on the UK’s future relationship with the EU. As I say, it is there to meet our responsibility as a member state.
The best outcome for the UK is to leave the EU with a negotiated agreement, but this instrument ensures that, in the event of a no-deal exit from the EU, statistics on the total volumes of passengers and freight using UK airports can continue to be compiled and published. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I shall be quick. I note that in paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum, the Government think that,
“The gathering of such data … of derived figures are activities that are crucial for Government, the public and the sector itself to be able to monitor performance”.
However, paragraph 7.7 suggests it is no longer appropriate for any of these statistics to be given—they can be given to the Secretary of State, if he so directs—to anybody else in Europe. Why is that? Would we not want data from there? Would it not be helpful for our ongoing air services between the whole of the European Union and the UK if we exchanged this statistical data? Or will we put a ring around ourselves and pretend that Europe does not exist? Surely it would be useful—and the Government say it is useful. Why is no mention made of the CAA being able to share this information with the relevant European body?
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, airport operators currently provide their statistics to the CAA, which passes them on to Eurostat. This is to be replaced, according to this SI, with a system whereby airport operators give the information to the CAA, which then provides that data to the Secretary of State if directed—not by legal obligation but if directed.
There are four problems with the SI. First, statistics collected on a national basis are much less useful and meaningful than international statistics. As the noble Lord said, there is no guarantee that this information will be shared internationally.
Secondly, there is no obligation on the Secretary of State to even want to see the statistics. What will he do with them? There is no obligation on the Secretary of State to publish them. Therefore, one has obvious concerns about transparency. Statistics should be important for the Government; they are certainly important for the public and the industry itself to monitor performance. The CAA already collects this data, but it will be of much less use for comparative purposes as matters stand in the SI.
The third problem is the impact of changing rules on exactly how the data is expressed and collected. This is the kind of internal thing that happens in any organisation. If you change the order of the questions or one or two words in the questions, you impact the results. It does not matter that much if you are looking across the piece and everyone is obeying the same rules, but we will be collecting our data on a different basis. I more or less guarantee that, within a year or two, we will be told that our data is no longer comparable because of differences in collection procedure.
Finally, there is the new power of the CAA referred to in the SI to impose a £5,000 fine if an airport does not provide data. I am not entirely clear about this, and I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify. I believe that this is a new power; I am not sure that the CAA has it at the moment. If it does, what is the fine, because £5,000 seems derisory as a fine on a large organisation for failing to provide data? It would cost Heathrow Airport or Gatwick Airport a great deal more than £5,000 to collect the data, so there would be an incentive not to bother. Where does £5,000 come from? Has it been thought through as a penalty that should be paid by a large commercial organisation? It does not seem worth it.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the points made by my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, are exactly right. I look to the Minister to answer them. I can see why we would want to avoid an obligation, but I cannot for the life of me see why we would not want voluntarily to co-operate with Eurostat. This obviously is a wider question for government as a whole, but in an open society we have to believe that sharing information is a good thing, not a bad thing.
I formally object to the £5,000. It clearly is not within the spirit of the withdrawal Act and therefore the Minister has not prayed that Act in aid but has prayed in aid the draconian European Communities Act 1972. I was not here in 1972 and I have not recently brushed up on the detail, but that Act was created to implement European law. This is not creating European law; it is smuggling in a little correction. I am not going to cause a constitutional crisis by objecting to it, but the Government should not have done it.
Baroness Sugg
I thank noble Lords for their consideration of these draft regulations.
On the gathering of statistics, Eurostat oversees the European statistical system, which is comprised of EU member states and selected other countries which are not member states. Work is ongoing to determine our future relationship with the European statistical system; that is being led by the UK Statistics Authority and is subject to ongoing negotiations. Of course, sharing information brings many benefits. We will continue to participate in other statistical work in aviation through ICAO and, specifically, its aviation data programme. Although Eurostat publishes statistics based on the aviation data currently collected, this was always in duplication of the figures published by the CAA. We will continue to publish the statistics arising from the data collected and they will continue to be in the public domain. We expect to have a future relationship with Europe on data collection.
Air transport data collection is only one part of the transport data currently compiled. As I said, the Office for National Statistics has been carrying out a cross-government review on all of this. While other statistical collections were assessed as being able to continue on an existing basis, in the event of no deal we needed to bring forward the SI on this matter.
I understand the noble Baroness’s point about changing the categories and the way we collect this data. Of course, in order to make it as useful as possible, having as much consistency as possible with Europe and countries across the world is important. We do not plan to change any of the categories. We are carrying over into law what is there at the moment. Should things change in the future, whether at an international or a European level, it would of course make sense to ensure that we have continuity.
On the enforcement mechanism, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, was not here in 1972—and I was not born in 1972—but the European Communities Act 1972 gives us the power to implement EU obligations. This is the kind of thing that the ECA provision is intended for. It is a civil penalty rather than a fine, and the Airport Charges Regulations 2011, on which the enforcement scheme and the £5,000 amount were based, are made under Section 2 of the ECA to implement a directive. It was an oversight that we did not already have a mechanism to ensure that airports reported this data; other member states do. It is an obligation on us under these regulations and there are precedents around it. There is a penalty of up to £5,000 for airport users who do not notify airport operators of their forecasts in a timely manner, for example.
I take the noble Baroness’s point that this is not an excessive amount for airports. Historically, airports have provided this data in a timely manner. It is in their own interests as well as everybody else’s. There has never been a serious case of non-response, and we do not expect there to be if we leave the European Union without a deal. It is an important tool for accessing data from across airports, so we are confident that airports will continue to comply. However, we now have the enforcement mechanism that we need on the obligations from EU law. That is why, in the event of an agreed deal, this part of the regulation will remain. Following the UK’s departure from the EU, we will need to maintain that enforcement mechanism.
In the event of no deal, this SI will also ensure that the UK’s legal framework for the collection of statistical data will continue to be fully functional and enforceable. The regulations ensure that the collection of this important data has a sound legal basis to continue, while removing the requirement on the UK to provide this data to the European Union, as we will no longer be a member state. However, as I said, we fully expect to work very closely with our European partners in the future, regardless of the outcome of the negotiations. I beg to move.
Law Enforcement and Security (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Law Enforcement and Security (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Relevant document: 17th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A)
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, 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 at the end of this month. As part of these preparations, the Government are bringing forward a programme of secondary legislation intended to ensure that there is an effectively functioning statute book on exit day. The 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, focusing in particular on deficiencies in security, law enforcement, criminal justice and some security-related regulatory systems.
By way of context, 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, like the European arrest warrant or Europol, will be familiar. We also participate in a number of security-related EU regulatory regimes relating to firearms, drug precursors and explosive precursors. Should the UK leave the EU without an agreement at the end of the 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. This decoupling would occur as a result of the UK having withdrawn from the European Union after the Article 50 notification not as a result of the provisions found in this instrument. It is important to be clear that the regulations play no part in bringing about the UK’s withdrawal from the EU; rather, the purpose of the instrument is to make amendments to the UK’s domestic statute book, including retained EU legislation, to reflect a new situation. The changes we are making in the instrument are the ones we cannot, or should not, avoid in the event of no deal. The regulations do not contain significant policy choices.
Against this backdrop, the regulations will do three main things. First, they will revoke or amend retained, directly applicable EU legislation and domestic legislation in the areas of security, law enforcement, criminal justice and some security-related regulatory systems. This will ensure that the statute book continues to function effectively in a no-deal scenario. It is important to emphasise that where the regulations revoke retained EU law or connected domestic law, this is not expected to have a practical real-world effect because the underlying EU instruments would cease to be available to the UK upon withdrawal from the EU in any event. For example, in a no-deal scenario, our membership of Europol will end on 29 March by virtue of the UK ceasing to be an EU member state rather than as a result of the retained Europol regulation being revoked by this instrument.
Secondly, where necessary, the instrument includes transitional or saving provisions to address live or in-flight cases—that is, provisions confirming how cases live on exit day should be dealt with or how data received before exit day should be treated. This will provide certainty for operational partners, such as the police and prosecutors, who currently operate the EU tools and measures and 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—the Council of Europe Convention on Extradition 1957—with EU member states.
For the most part, the regulations make the same sort of changes over and over again in a series of related areas: revoking in whole or in part legislation on our domestic statute book that would be redundant in the event of a no-deal exit; fixing deficiencies, such as making sure that definitions in our domestic law reflect our new status outside the EU; and making sure that there is clarity over what happens to cases and requests that were live or in train at the point of exit.
Overall, the making of this instrument will provide legal and operational certainty for the public sector, including our law enforcement and criminal justice partners across the UK, such as the National Crime Agency, our police and our prosecution services. While it remains the Government’s position that exiting with a deal is in the UK’s best interests, this instrument makes important changes to ensure readiness on exit day in a no-deal scenario.
Having provided an overview of what the instrument does, I should also be clear on what it does not set out to do. For the most part, this 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. These existing, alternative channels outside the EU are already in use between the UK and many other non-EU countries. Accordingly, they do not require domestic legislation to set them up, which is why those contingency arrangements are largely outside the scope of what these regulations set out to do. Even the Council of Europe convention on extradition, 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. The instrument re-categorises EU member states for the purposes of our own domestic law, in the form of the Extradition Act 2003, so that we can administer requests from EU member states under Part 2 of that Act rather than under Part 1, as at present.
Finally, I should make it clear to the Committee that the instrument comes 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 to the end of that implementation period. I commend the regulations to the Committee and I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I have to give the Committee apologies from my noble friend Lord Paddick, who is unwell. I am afraid that your Lordships have me whinging over this instead.
I was a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for some time and its staff always amazed and impressed me with their ability to grasp detail while not losing a grip of the bigger picture. Reading the committee’s report on this instrument, it seemed to be the verbal equivalent of throwing one’s hands up in despair. It drew it to the special attention of the House,
“on the ground that the explanatory material … provides insufficient information to gain a clear understanding about the instrument’s policy objective and intended implementation”.
When I got the draft instrument out on Sunday, to look at it in a rather casual way, I thought it was just me but apparently it is not.
The committee also has within its terms of reference reporting to the House when an instrument fails to fulfil its policy objective. It has made it quite clear that it has some difficulty in assessing that. Its report says that it found the impact assessment,
“to be of little practical use”,
and that,
“for the most part the impact is categorised as … ‘there could be some practical impacts arising if legislative deficiencies are not addressed through these Regulations’. No information is given about the frequency with which the provision is currently used, whether an alternative route to the information is available at a different cost, or what effect the loss of this intelligence or information will be. Neither the financial nor the societal cost is quantified”.
The committee went on:
“We … expect an EM to include some contextual explanation, preferably with estimated numbers or an indication of the degree of usage, illustrating how the system will operate differently after the legislative change has happened”.
The Minister may say that she has told us that there really will not be a change, but I think that the committee is commenting on getting from A to B. It continued:
“Without such information we cannot assess the significance of a policy change and, therefore, advise the House accordingly”.
If I caught it correctly, the Minister said that for the most part there is no policy change. She is nodding at that, and I suggest to the Committee that that rather makes my point for me.
Scrutiny is not a rubber-stamping exercise. Analysis is at its heart. We have already heard the term “real-world effects”, and on that point the committee said that statements made by the Government,
“raise concerns that cannot be assessed properly without appropriate information on the current scale of usage and how that might change as a result”.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, just what we will lose by not being part of all these EU measures emerges less from the fairly dry Explanatory Memorandum to the measure and more from the Government’s document of last November, Assessment of the Security Partnership. The introduction in paragraph 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum cites a lot of the issues, but the document of last November talked about how,
“the UK would rely on the 1957 Council of Europe Convention on Extradition. Without a surrender agreement as proposed in the Political Declaration”—
which itself begs the question of what such a surrender agreement would consist of—
“requests would be subject to a longer and more complex process, and extraditions would be more difficult”.
Although I have not seen any examples recently, we saw that difficulty in the extradition of a convicted person from Georgia. I do not know whether the Minister has any updates on how long that process will take, but it clearly takes a lot longer to extradite under the 1957 convention. To make the case for the UK’s need to stay in the European arrest warrant, or something very similar, the document of last November also cited how,
“ten years elapsed between the request to extradite Rachid Ramda, an individual accused of terrorism in France, and his eventual surrender in 2005”.
We could be talking about such extraditions taking anywhere between several months and a decade.
Indeed, one commentary raised the issue that,
“Extraditions under the Convention are not automatic and the state of bilateral relations can influence decisions. It takes 18 months on average to extradite a suspect under the Convention”—
in contrast to a few weeks under the European arrest warrant. Clearly, even just looking at extradition, the consequences of not having something similar to the European arrest warrant are severe.
It struck an odd note with me that the commentary in paragraph 2.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that is necessary,
“to revoke the relevant retained EU law to ensure that the domestic statute book operates effectively following the UK’s withdrawal”.
As my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, we know from senior police officers, including the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, that if we are not in the European Union, it is impossible for our systems to operate as effectively in terms of security and law enforcement co-operation across Europe. That includes all scenarios, not just no deal, although it applies particularly to a no-deal exit. It is odd to say that we need to do this so that our statute book operates effectively. I understand what that means, technically, but it is not the same as saying that our law enforcement system would operate effectively. We need to measure the impact of this decision. We need to know its effect on our effectiveness in fighting crime and bringing people to justice, and on our court systems and police—indeed, on our civil servants. Unlike the European arrest warrant, if you fall back on the 1957 convention civil servants and Ministers are involved.
On extradition, the aim is that the UK will have the correct legal underpinning to operate the 1957 convention. I think that is referred to somewhere as the housekeeping between Part 1 and Part 2 of the Extradition Act. I think that was in paragraph 12.5. At the briefing meeting that the Minister kindly put on a week or so ago, I tried to ask whether we have any knowledge of what our partners would need to do in terms of similar housekeeping and whether they are prepared to do it. Even if they still have the 1957 convention on their statute books—which they may well have for non-EU Council of Europe countries—they might have to make some domestic legislative changes, similar to ours under the Extradition Act, to make that work.
Then there is the fact that it is much more difficult to extradite under the 1957 convention, which is precisely why the EAW was brought in. Some countries, such as Germany, have constitutional bars on the extradition of their own nationals, which the EAW solved. Does the Minister have any information on whether Germany is prepared to extradite its nationals to the UK in the scope of the 1957 convention? Some countries operate political exemptions, which were abolished by the European arrest warrant for a common list of crimes. That makes extradition more difficult.
Then you have the legal uncertainty under human rights law. I do not want to get totally into the subject of human rights and our worries about the Government’s intentions in that respect, but they have said that they continue to keep in their sights what they call reform of human rights law. A state of legal uncertainty surrounds the continuity of human rights protection in this country—if the Human Rights Act were to be abolished, for instance, let alone if we withdrew from the European Convention on Human Rights. What impact will that have on the confidence of partners to extradite to us?
If one looks at the Norway and Iceland treaty with the EU—the aim of which is to have procedures similar to the European arrest warrant but with some differences—that took 13 years to negotiate and there have been problems amending the national laws of some EU countries and Iceland. As of last June, Ireland and Italy had still not ratified that treaty. It gives you an idea of the problems if you drop out of the European arrest warrant and rely on the 1957 convention. The Government are failing to give us any information about what they understand to be the willingness of partner countries to extradite to us.
I have a couple of other points. The Government say that we will retain some data protection rules under which data was originally received, such as SIS data. Are they sure that there is no contradiction between those rules and the Data Protection Act? The aim is to have no gap, but have the Government done a filter to check that there is not a contradiction in any case between the rules under which the data was received from EU partner countries and the Data Protection Act?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the report of Sub-Committee A of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. If I were the Minister, sitting here reading this report and having to address Members, I would be pretty unhappy that the Government put forward these regulations in such a way that the sub-committee’s report was so damning. Normally in these reports, one or two little lines are highlighted in black with a few concerns, but in this case they are all over the place.
The sub-committee’s comments highlight its concern about how this issue is presented to Members. The first says:
“These draft Regulations are drawn to the special attention of the House on the ground that the explanatory material laid in support provides insufficient information to gain a clear understanding about the instrument’s policy objective and intended implementation”.
It goes on:
“We were not persuaded that so wideranging an instrument, covering policy areas that are individually of significant concern to the House, can be justified. Effective scrutiny is inhibited by the wide range of issues included”.
Looking at the document, these issues are huge. I do not think that this is the way to present them to either House. I accept that the Government are up against it in terms of time—perhaps that is of their own making. However, we in this place and the other House have not exactly been busy; on many days, we have gone home quite early. On Thursdays now, we seem to be going home at 2 pm; we often used to sit until 7 pm. There has been plenty of time to discuss these things in more detail.
The list of concerns is unacceptable. The sub-committee, quite rightly, criticised the Government when they brought forward the regulations. I endorse its actions in pointing that out. It is not acceptable to bring them forward in this way. However, I accept that if we end up with no deal and crash out—I do not want to get into that situation—we must have functioning procedures in place. So, if the regulations are voted for on the Floor of the House, we will not oppose them.
We participate in several EU measures to enhance our security, law enforcement and judicial co-operation. They are vital in keeping us safe from people who do harm and commit criminal offences. We all support that. The Minister reminded us that the regulations seek to revoke or amend EU retained law that is directly applicable to our current domestic legislation. She said that the regulations would deal with live cases—as I think she referred to them—at the point of exit, and extradition.
Other noble Lords referred to the 1957 Council of Europe Convention on Extradition, which, according to the Explanatory Memorandum, would be used in lieu of the European arrest warrant. That is regrettable. The measures in the convention are far more limited than the European arrest warrant. Yes, the UK and the EU would allow extradition requests from other member states in lieu of the European arrest warrant, but Article 2(3) of the convention 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”.
It is clear that the situation will be worse. The only people who will benefit are criminals; nobody else will. This is the criminal’s friend. It is a ridiculous situation and it is not the right thing to do, so we need further comments from the Minister on it.
The Government have made the case for the importance of the European arrest warrant. They have explained that more than 1,400 individuals have been arrested on European arrest warrants issued by the other 27 member states and that, in the same period, EU member states have arrested 183 individuals and brought them to the UK. The warrant is an important tool and it is regrettable that we will end up less safe as a consequence of these actions.
The Minister spoke about the loss of access to databases. We will lose access to a number of databases as a consequence of this measure, so it would be useful to have some comments on that. We are told that the impact of a no-deal exit on security, law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation with member states is not in the scope of the regulations, but the Government need to set out their plans. People are concerned about where we are and the consequences; if they are concerned about anything to do with leaving the European Union, it is matters of security. We need to understand fully what is at risk. We will be outside the Schengen information system and Prüm. Again, that is very regrettable, so it would be useful if the Minister could comment on it. We must have effective systems in place to deal with these matters.
I would also welcome the Minister’s comments on Europol and Eurojust. I hope that she will not say, “We’re still working on that”. If I get that response, I will remind her that it has been nearly three years since the referendum and we need to know where we will be on these important matters.
We do not oppose the regulations. I accept that they are narrow, but they have not been presented to this House and the other House well. The Government need to do much more to reassure us that, whatever happens, we will keep people safe. I believe that some of the measures here will make them less safe going forward.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I shall start with the final point from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, which concerns one of our first considerations as we leave the European Union: keeping our people here safe. He hits the nail on the head. For that reason, I hope that down the other end they are voting for the Prime Minister’s deal.
We need to be clear about these instruments. Should the UK leave the EU without an agreement at the end of the month—the no-deal scenario—the UK’s access to these tools and measures would cease. We are absolutely clear about that. At the same time, the UK would cease to be bound by the security-related EU regulatory systems. This would occur as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU through the Article 50 notification, but not as a result of the provisions found in these instruments—I stress this yet again. It is important to be absolutely clear that the regulations play no part in bringing about the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. Rather the purpose of the instrument is to make amendments to the UK’s domestic statute book, including retained EU legislation, to reflect the new situation.
Baroness Ludford
Surely the difference that should be measured is between crashing out with no deal and the Government’s hopes for a security partnership, which are rather ambitious or, some might say, overambitious? The Government want something as similar as possible to what we have at the moment. That contrasts a great deal with simply cutting all our existing measures and systems.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Baroness makes a good argument, but it is not the basis of this statutory instrument. That is why I thought I would outline it. I do not disagree with her. I agree that we need to make sure that this country is kept as safe and secure as possible, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, says. However, that is not the argument we are having today; I need to make that clear upfront. We are at one on this. There is no way that we want to undermine safety.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. As they said, it highlighted the sheer range of subjects included in these regulations. The Government responded, setting out the reasoning behind our approach. The changes made by the regulations are in linked policy areas and cover three subject areas—this should start to make it clear why we have linked them all. The three areas are: security, law enforcement and judicial co-operation in criminal matters currently underpinned by EU legislation; security-related EU regulatory systems for which the Home Office is responsible; and domestic legislation affecting the police and the investigatory powers made deficient by EU exit.
In regard to security, law enforcement and judicial co-operation in criminal matters, the regulations address deficiencies in connection with EU measures with a justice and home affairs, or JHA, legal base. Reflecting their shared underlying legal base, these measures all relate in some way to law enforcement and security in their subject matter, and in many cases interact at an operational level. For example, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned, SIS II circulates European arrest warrant alerts. The regulatory regimes, while not having a JHA legal base, have a similar underlying purpose to prevent, detect and prosecute criminal activity and to maintain security. Given that these are linked policy areas and that the changes made are very similar across most parts of the instrument—we are making the same sorts of amendments over and over again—we considered that combining them in a single instrument would assist scrutiny by providing as complete a picture as possible in one place. We expect it to assist the eventual users of the legislation, which will include law enforcement partners and prosecutors around the UK and who will often be using combinations of the EU tools covered by these regulations.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
The Minister made the point that these measures have been put together to assist scrutiny. No doubt she believes that but the scrutiny people do not; they think the opposite. This is not the first time that we have had reports like this—although this may be one of the worst ones. When will the Government realise that Parliament does not like the way they are laying instruments in front of us, and that they should do it a different way? Some of the instruments I have seen coming forward are like encyclopaedias. There should be a policy decision because they are not being received very well. If the Government want to have proper scrutiny. we need to do it a different way.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I do not dispute what the noble Lord says. I am purely trying to explain the logic behind the way that it has been laid out.
The Government then published a second Explanatory Memorandum because of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee writing to the Home Office, commenting on the sheer length of the original Explanatory Memorandum. As the Policing Minister outlined in his response to that committee, the detailed information in the original Explanatory Memorandum was supplied in good faith—the committee recognised this in its report—to provide the committee and other users of the Explanatory Memorandum with a thorough explanation of each provision in the instrument. One can conclude that we could not do right for doing wrong. Some people thought that there was too much information, others not enough. In the event, we provided a more concise Explanatory Memorandum on 11 February.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the Minister—that is very helpful. I do not know what goes on in departments. Do I take it that Ministers sit round the table and say: “We got that one wrong. Both Houses are clearly very cross. When we have the next set of stuff, maybe we should try and do it a different way”? Does that ever take place? Can the Minister enlighten us?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I think the noble Lord would probably accept that in this instance the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee coming to us saying it was far too long and complex, then us trying to do a more concise version was a learning point for us. We accepted the committee’s point. In that sense, we try to learn as we go along. I certainly do not want to come to Committee too many times and having to take the rap for Explanatory Memorandums that are too long, too short or incomplete.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I have one final point. I will then leave it and move on. If we are to have more regulations, in the next few days or whenever, I hope the Government will take on point the concerns raised here and in the other place.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, it seems to me that there a number of stages to this. There is scrutiny and then, as the Minister says, making the final regulations accessible to practitioners. Those are not necessarily the same things and what one may also take away from this experience is the need—following the scrutiny to whatever extent it is successful—to produce final versions in each of the subject areas that can easily be used, without having to go through the awful trail that we are all familiar with.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That is a very good point, because if Parliament does not understand what the regulations mean then practitioners will be at a distinct disadvantage. I totally take the noble Baroness’s point.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said, the Home Affairs Select Committee and the House of Lords’ EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee have been particularly active in publishing reports in March, July and December last year. There was the EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee’s report on a UK-EU security treaty on 16 January, as well as its oral evidence session on security arrangements in the event of no deal on 27 February. I am pleased that both Houses of Parliament are looking at an issue that has been under-debated in both Houses. For me it is one of the most important aspects, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said, as we leave the European Union.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about the impact assessment being insufficient because it does not outline the impact of no deal. The impact assessment assesses the impact of legislating, as proposed in the regulations, compared with not doing so in a no-deal scenario. For the purposes of the impact assessment, the no-deal scenario is treated as a given since that is the scenario the regulations prepare for. We are not getting mixed up, but I think we are conflating no deal generally with the regulations.
Baroness Hamwee
I understand what the Minister is saying. Is that the explanation for us not being given the cost to the public purse, which, frankly, must be considerable, to which my noble friend Lady Ludford referred?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That is pretty much so, but I will get on to that later. The impacts of no deal as a whole are completely outside the scope of the regulations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that the regulations are indigestible. That is pretty much what the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said too, but we cannot avoid them in the event of no deal, given the importance of this area. As I said in my opening speech, most of the changes being made by the regulations are very similar—indeed, one might say repetitive—in most parts of the instrument.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made a very serious point about the Liberal Democrats intending to vote against the regulations. Obviously, it would be deeply regrettable, particularly in this area, to take that course of action. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, pointed that out. These regulations will provide legal and operational certainty for operational partners. Clearly, it is vital that they uphold the rule of law and protect the public. We should be doing everything we can to support their work and to manage the transition to a no-deal scenario. I hope that does not happen, but if it does that is exactly what the instrument will do. I must say to the noble Baroness that if the changes in these regulations in the extradition space are not made, it is not clear that new incoming extradition requests from EU member states could be lawfully processed, with potentially serious consequences for our extradition arrangements with EU partners.
The noble Baroness asked how many EU member states need to make legislative changes to operate the Council of Europe’s European Convention on Extradition with the UK. All EU member states operate the European Convention on Extradition with Council of Europe countries that are not EU member states. I will not speak on behalf of other member states as to their particular systems, but we anticipate operating the European Convention on Extradition with all EU member states. I think that answers the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about extradition. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked me about “almost” no policy changes; here there is a tiny tweak which I will now explain. In the case of extradition, the regulations help to support the implementation of the no-deal contingency arrangement. The regulations will ensure that we have the correct legal underpinning, as I have already said, to operate the no-deal contingency arrangement with EU member states. However, the legal underpinning for our contingency arrangements for March 2019—the end of this month—largely exists outside these regulations. To be clear, the convention is already in place, and it is in use by the UK with other countries. These regulations will recategorise EU member states for the purposes of the Extradition Act 2003 so that we can administer requests from them under Part 2 of the Act rather than under Part 1 as at present. That is the tweak. I hope the noble Baroness will agree that it is a small tweak.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked how much longer a Council of Europe case will take compared to a European arrest warrant case. We have absolutely accepted that, in the event of no deal and having to revert to Council of Europe conventions, it will take longer and cost more. The noble Baroness also made the point that it will not be as effective in the case of a no deal—she does not want Brexit at all, but that is by the by. The purpose of the regulations is to ensure that the statute book functions correctly and reflects the new situation should a no-deal scenario materialise. She very rightly asked about human rights. As the White Paper and the political declaration make clear, the UK is committed to membership of the ECHR, and we will remain party to it after we have left the EU. I also add that this country has some of the strongest human rights legislation in the whole world, and I remain confident that we will be world leaders in that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, very sensibly asked about data protection. The default position on data protection is that in a no-deal scenario we can continue to process data received from other member states before exit day, subject to compliance with the Data Protection Act 2018. One of the principles in that Act is that there should be compliance with the conditions under which personal data was first accessed, which in this case would imply the conditions—including those found in the measures themselves—under which the UK accessed the data while still a member state. However, to put the legal position beyond doubt and to reduce the risk of legal challenge, the approach taken in relevant areas of the regulations is to save the specific data protection measures. Saving those provisions helps to create legal certainty, including for operational partners.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, also talked about the cost per extradition going up, and asked why that is not in these regulations. We have gone over that ground—this is not about no deal generally, but about putting things on the statue book. We are absolutely not denying that the cost will go up and that the time will be longer. I hope that answers all noble Lords’ points.
Baroness Ludford
I do not deny that I have been somewhat distracted by events going on elsewhere—
Baroness Ludford
However, I do not think that the Minister answered my question about other countries.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I did. The noble Baroness was very involved in her phone. I do not say that as a criticism because I am dying to go on to mine but, if she likes, I will repeat it in a letter.
Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Supplementary Provision and Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the Grand Committee do consider the Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Supplementary Provision and Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2019.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, last year Parliament approved legislation to establish Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole—known as BCP—Council, Dorset Council, East Suffolk Council, and Somerset West and Taunton Council in place of the existing 13 councils in those areas. Today, we are considering the fourth statutory instrument consequential to that legislation to effect the practical success of those new councils. A draft of this order was laid before this House on 16 January. If approved and made, it will ensure that all the necessary technical arrangements are in place so that effective local government continues in those areas. We have worked closely on this instrument with all the councils concerned. Their officials have commented on drafts of it and have confirmed to us by email that it fully meets all the local requirements.
The order provides for the following. First, it would establish charter trustees for the unparished parts of the existing boroughs of Bournemouth, Poole and Taunton as the bodies in which the historic rights and privileges associated with those areas are to be vested. For each area, the charter trustees comprise the elected members for the wards of that area. For example, Bournemouth and Poole have the historical right to have mayors, and Poole has the right to a mayor and a sheriff. Likewise, Taunton has the right to a mayor for Taunton. All these rights will vest in the charter trustees for the area concerned. Historic regalia, such as maces, will also vest in the charter trustees.
Secondly, the order vests the market rights in Bournemouth and Poole to Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council, allowing the new council to continue to hold the rights to run charter markets. It also amends the statutory definition of the area of the ceremonial county of Dorset to be amended in the Lieutenancies Act 1997 and the Sheriffs Act 1887. The amendments simply reflect the names of the new authorities and their areas; they do not amend the boundaries.
The order makes provision to ensure that the local government pension fund maintained by Dorset County Council, along with all property rights and liabilities in respect of the fund, will vest in the new Dorset Council. This fund will be the pension fund for employees of that council and of the new Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council, as well as for employees of all other employers in the fund.
This instrument makes provisions to amend the Weymouth Port Health Authority Order 2017, so that references to the joint board made up of the abolished authorities of Weymouth and Portland Borough Council, Purbeck District Council and West Dorset District Council relate instead to Dorset Council, which will be the sole authority for the area after reorganisation. It also makes provisions for the existing social housing finance arrangements to continue for the new councils of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, East Suffolk, and Somerset West and Taunton.
Finally, I should mention that a further new council is being established on 1 April 2019—namely, the newly merged West Suffolk Council. This order makes no provision that council because no matters affecting it would require such provisions. We have nevertheless worked with officers in the predecessor councils of Forest Heath District Council and St Edmundsbury Borough Council, who have confirmed that no provisions for the new West Suffolk Council are required in this order.
These provisions are sensible and necessary consequential changes in the light of the establishment of the new councils Parliament has approved. They ensure a smooth transition to the new arrangements and continued effective local government in the areas. I commend the order to the Committee.
Lord Stunell (LD)
I am delighted to participate in what I am sure will be a short debate on this item. My delight is enhanced by the fact that it is the one piece of business we are considering this afternoon that has nothing whatever to do with Brexit. In fact, as a consequence of the evolution of local government in England, the larger part of it is directed from local areas and the changes in it are at their request—certainly with their active co-operation.
I am delighted that the Minister outlined some of the issues relating to mayors, sheriffs and lords-lieutenant and the role of charter trustees. At one time, I used to think of myself as something of an expert of those things; it is good to see that they have filtered through into this statutory instrument. There is always a huge amount of civic pride about and importance given to these ceremonial roles and tasks. I know that it is important to make sure that they are retained properly.
My only point of any consequence relates to the transfer of the housing debt. Clearly, there has been consultation with the relevant local authorities—and, no doubt, with the Treasury and everybody else who might want a finger in this particular pie. Housing debt for local authorities is a complex topic on which feelings can run high over whether one has got a good or a bad deal out of changes being made. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the agreement on the changes tabled today is fully consensual and that any difficulties that may have arisen during the course of these discussions have been satisfactorily resolved.
Without any detailed knowledge, I wonder whether that would be true in the case of the Somerset West district authority, which is a very small authority of limited means. On the same thread, the other side of this coin is no change being required on housing debt relating to the West Suffolk district councils coming together, presumably either because they do not have such debt or because there is some other factor that the Minister may be able to advise us on. If the Minister can satisfy the Committee on the question of housing debt figures, that would give us some extra comfort.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I also think this will be a relatively short debate. I have a couple of questions for the Minister. As we have heard, these changes are to local government areas in three parts of the country. The Minister made a point about charter trustees and talked about areas retaining their right to appoint a mayor. The councillors in that ward would then have to appoint a mayor. What happens at the next level? They also get a mayor. We are getting more mayors, who become chairs of councils. We are creating a lot of mayors here. I just want to point that out.
The point about housing debt was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. I look forward to the Minister’s response on that. On chartered markets, it is just a case of carrying forward people’s rights.
Generally speaking, I am not against the order as it stands. The only point I would make is a more general observation that I have made it before on other issues, such as local government income. We have a strange kind of patchwork developing all over England. I am not convinced that is necessarily the right way to go. Local government in Scotland and Wales is certainly much more straightforward. When we have all sorts of tiers of local government throughout England, I am not convinced that in the longer term it will make for good government. However, I am not against the order as it stands.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord Kennedy, for their helpful contributions. I very much agree about the importance of these statutory instruments on two grounds. As the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, said, it is rather marvellous to debate something that has no Brexit implications at all, which is good news in these very Brexity days in both Houses. It is also refreshing to have something which is all about the traditions of our local government in England, and the capture and retention of those historic traditions.
I was interested to find that Poole is one of only seven towns in the country to have sheriffs. These are quite separate from high sheriffs. One of the other seven is of course Nottingham—we all remember the sheriff of Nottingham—and another is Lichfield; the honourable Member for Lichfield talked about that in the House of Commons. It is great to see those historic roles retained. In the case of Poole, I understand that it retains the keys to a prison where there are no prisoners. I am not sure whether schools or possibly tourists are able to visit it but that is a great thing.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I have met many sheriffs of Nottingham in my time, as I used to work in the east Midlands. What is interesting is that the sheriff is a member of its council in Nottingham. The position is very famous, so everybody wants to meet the sheriff, but in civic terms it also has a deputy lord mayor and a lord mayor. When people move up others do not want to meet them so much; they want to meet the sheriff, who is a very important figure in the city.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank the noble Lord very much for that intervention. I hope people do not hiss when the sheriff walks into the room, because I am sure they are very different from the sheriff of Nottingham we all remember from legend.
That filtering through of civic pride to which the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, referred is extremely important. Let me try to pick up the two questions that were raised. First, on the transfer of housing debt, the order simply ensures that new councils are properly referenced for calculating their debt caps. I should say that all the provisions here are consensual, so all the councils concerned are happy with that provision. Secondly, the noble Lord sought specific information on West Suffolk. It has no housing revenue accounts, so there are no consequences there.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about the number of mayors. I think precisely the same number is retained, so there are no new mayors but no fewer mayors than there used to be. That is extremely valuable, too.
It is good to see cross-party consensus on this issue. It is typical of the way we operate on these issues, so with that I commend the order to the Committee.
International Accounting Standards and European Public Limited-Liability Company (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
That the Grand Committee do consider the International Accounting Standards and European Public Limited-Liability Company (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Relevant document: 17th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations, which were laid before the House on 31 January, aim to address failures of retained EU law to operate effectively in the field of accounts and reports of UK corporate bodies. They also address certain other deficiencies arising from the UK’s exit from the EU.
The international financial reporting standards, abbreviated to IFRS, are a set of international accounting standards used by multinational companies to produce their annual accounts. They are required or permitted in over 125 countries, including all EEA countries and 15 of the G20 countries.
EU Regulation 1606/2002, known as the IAS regulation, requires that all publicly traded companies in the EU use IFRS, as endorsed and adopted by the EU, when preparing their consolidated accounts. In the UK, the Companies Act 2006 also permits other UK companies to produce their accounts in accordance with these standards. In total, approximately 15,000 companies in the UK use IFRS.
Once the UK leaves the European Union, the EU framework for adopting IFRS will no longer apply. These regulations provide for the continued use of IFRS by implementing a national framework that provides continuity and clarity to UK business, and they aim to provide such continuity and clarity by bringing the European framework for adopting IFRS into UK law. This will ensure that UK-registered companies will not have to change their processes for preparing annual accounts.
The powers to endorse and adopt these international standards for use in the UK will be transferred to the Secretary of State. These transferred responsibilities will be bound by process and scrutiny. Furthermore, assessment criteria consistent with those in the European regulation will apply to all new endorsement decisions in the UK. They are that the standards provide a “true and fair” view of an undertaking’s financial position and that their adoption is conducive to the,
“long-term public good in the United Kingdom”.
The regulations also specify that, for all new endorsement decisions, the Secretary of State must consult stakeholders with an interest in the quality and availability of accounts, and that the final decisions will be published. The Secretary of State will be required to lay a report each year before Parliament detailing the carrying out of his responsibilities.
Further, the regulations provide for subdelegation of the endorsement and adoption powers to a designated UK body. A subsequent affirmative SI will transfer these powers to a new UK endorsement board. We currently expect this board to be hosted by a subsidiary of the Financial Reporting Council. As such, it will benefit from the FRC’s existing operational processes, such as HR and premises. The FRC’s role will be limited to monitoring governance and due process of the endorsement board. It will have no role in the process for adopting standards.
As the Committee will be aware, a comprehensive and detailed report of the independent review of the FRC, making 83 recommendations, was published in December. The Government welcome and share the review’s vision for a new regulator with a new mandate, new leadership and stronger statutory powers, and will take swift action to deliver that. The FRC’s role in relation to the endorsement board will be transferred to the new regulator once it is operational.
Throughout the development of these regulations, the Government worked closely with businesses and regulatory bodies. Informal consultations were carried out with companies, their advisors and investors. In addition, a dedicated stakeholder group also helped inform decisions about these regulations. Stakeholders were strongly in favour of both establishing a UK framework for the continued use of IFRS and the requirement for consultation before an international standard is adopted for use in the UK.
The regulations also make amendments relating to societas Europaea companies, or SEs: a Europe-specific type of public limited liability company that will not be able to register in the UK after EU exit. Regulation is already in place to convert automatically existing UK entities on exit day into a new corporate form—a UK societas—to ensure that they have a clear legal status. The amendments in the regulations relating to these entities do three things. First, they preserve a particular employee involvement provision to maintain employment rights wherever practicable. Secondly, they apply the Overseas Company Regulations 2009 to SEs registered in other member states. This will ensure that UK branches of entities registered in other member states are treated in the same way as UK branches of any other overseas company. Finally, they make a number of minor consequential amendments to other legislation, such as replacing references from SEs to UK societas to ensure that the UK has a functioning statute book on and after exit day.
A de minimis impact assessment of the regulations estimated low overall costs to business. The IFRS-related changes were estimated to have an equivalent annual net direct cost to business of £2.4 million per year. The estimated impact for the SE-related changes was £10,400 per year. Both figures are under the £5 million threshold necessary for a full impact assessment.
I commend these regulations to the Committee and ask the Committee to support and accept them. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating the Minister’s team—it is always said that the British Civil Service is the best in the world. They must have realised that their Minister might take a bit of incoming over the FRC tonight, as they produced this headline for the front page of the Financial Times: “FRC to make way for stronger accounts watchdog after a string of audit failures”. To get that on the front page of the FT just as we are to discuss the FRC as a possible delegated body is above and beyond the call of duty.
I need to declare some interests. I have served in the City for most of my life and remain a director of a number of limited companies, which are listed in the register of your Lordships’ House. I am also a member of Sub-Committee B of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which considered these regulations. I am coming back to have a second bite at the cherry, having had a go under the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham.
I will make a couple of points. It is easy—my noble friend, in his emollient style, flows so easily over the issues—to think that accounting standards are humdrum and commonplace. In fact, their exceptionally wide-ranging implications are felt in every part of our corporate system. They have an impact on directors and their boards and companies; if you serve as a company director, the two great things your lawyers and accountants always tell you about is trading while insolvent and maintaining capital. Failing to do that exposes you to some nasty and unpleasant risks and penalties—quite rightly. On the other side, they are for investors who need a clear basis on which to decide whether to invest their money in a particular venture.
Years ago, I was sitting where the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, is now sitting, leading the Opposition on what became the Companies Act 2006, to which my noble friend referred in his opening remarks. We spent quite a bit of time on the Section 393 “true and fair” view, which is a statutory requirement. If there is to be a clash between international standards and UK law, UK law must prevail because it is the law of this country. In those circumstances, how will we determine the final arbiter of what is true and fair?
I will give the Committee a brief example because although it may seem quite simple to decide what is true and fair, it is exceptionally difficult. Revenue and recognition have been a problem behind a number of companies recently—notably Carillion—where you have a long-term contract with an assured client, perhaps the Government. Let us say it is a 10-year contract. You will have to put in some additional work in year one to provide the systems that are going to last the 10 years. Boards and auditors will argue fiercely about how this should be done. Some people would say that to show that you would make a loss in the first year of a 10-year contract, when you will make additional profits in the next nine, is not a true and fair view from the investor’s point of view. A true and fair view can be conservative and restrictive, or neutral, or positive and expansive. Of course, in the case of Carillion, it was positive and expansive and they recognised too much revenue early on.
These concepts go to the heart of our corporate governance and systems—and the public trust in and have confidence in those systems—so these are not just economic decisions; they have big political implications. I would argue that while the Secretary of State may appropriately delegate some of the detailed powers, he or she needs to retain an overarching power to ensure that the system works properly. Noble Lords on the Committee will have seen the ABI briefing, which says:
“We disagree that the Secretary of State should delegate all his functions to the Endorsement Board. Firstly, we think it would be counterproductive and secondly, we think it inconsistent with the aims of the Withdrawal Act … We strongly urge that, in the House of Lords debate on this SI, assurances are sought from the responsible minister that the new SI will provide for active political oversight of the Endorsement Board by the Secretary of State”.
If these matters are to be delegated in their entirety, this country will lose part of its political influence in international negotiations surrounding changes in these worldwide standards. That will impede the UK Government in ensuring that future IFRS continue to reflect the interests of UK companies. That would be a strange decision for us to take in the light of us looking to hew a more independent line, post Brexit. I hope that my noble friend can reassure me and the Committee that there is a real understanding of the political implications that overarch the accounting technical implications of this statutory instrument. That is my first point.
My second point concerns the body to which any delegation may be made. I do not want to dance on the grave of the FRC, but some of the reports to which my noble friend referred in his opening remarks are absolutely devastating. The points include that the FRC,
“is not fit for purpose”,
and that it,
“has serious problems in how it recruits top staff”.
Another point states:
“A new body should have statutory funding and a clearer remit”.
Another states:
“The watchdog needs some new powers”.
One wants an assurance from the Minister that this unfortunate body, which has undergone regulatory capture in the views of many, will not have anything other than a passing interest in the establishment of the body that will enforce the regulations in the future.
It would be helpful if my noble friend could give the Committee more detail on how we will move forward. When his department wrote to the Select Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, on which I sit, it said:
“The Department is currently working with the FRC to build capacity to set up the new Endorsement Board (EB) in time for EU Exit”.
We must be quite well on in that process, since we are only 10 or so days away from it. The Committee was also told:
“In addition, stakeholder input helped us define the extent of the FRC’s role in relation to the new Endorsement Board”.
It is important that we get some clarity on where we are in that process. We really do not want stuff to be set in concrete at this point. We need to know how the FRC will slide away and how the new endorsement board will be set up in the next two or three weeks.
Inevitably, particularly tonight, our focus is on Brexit and associated issues. However, this statutory instrument and its successor, which will bring the endorsement board into being, will have serious long-term implications for our corporate governance, the way our companies operate and the confidence of investors in our corporate system—all of which have come into question in recent years over a series of failures and scandals. We need to learn from that and plot a better course for the future. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend how the Government anticipate that being done.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I have followed IFRS for some significant time, and it was part of my remit as chair of the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee of the European Parliament. I also declare an interest as a director of the London Stock Exchange plc. Not only does that entity use IFRS, it is also a benefit for international companies to be able to list and report in IFRS or other standards deemed equivalent to UK standards. Having said that, my experience with IFRS has taught me to be wary of its limitations.
This is a very important statutory instrument because it is about the accounting standards under which companies prepare their financial reports, and of course those financial reports are audited using those standards and form a key part of annual reports. IFRS therefore plays a key role in audit and the standard of audit, and it will not have escaped your Lordships’ attention that audit, audit regulators and auditors have been or are coming under scrutiny in inquiries by Kingman, the CMA, Brydon and the BEIS Select Committee.
One of the lesser realised things about IFRS is that it is meant only for group level consolidated accounts, its purpose being international comparability. It is only for group level consolidated accounts that there is an EU requirement. A recent article published on 8 February this year by Nick Anderson, a member of the International Accounting Standards Board, states:
“it is important to remember that IFRS Standards, if only because of their international nature, cannot reflect in detail specific requirements of the multitude of different capital maintenance regimes among the more than 140 jurisdictions that now require the use of our Standards”.
However the UK, under the FRC, has gone further and converted UK GAAP into IFRS-like rules. An interesting impact assessment from the FRC, published in March 2013, explains:
“The FRC is issuing FRSs 100 to 102 (the Standards) following extensive consultation to move current Financial Reporting Standards (current FRS) towards an IFRS-based framework”.
The rest of the impact assessment looks rather more like a business plan for the big four, and, of course, we know from the Kingman review that the FRC is a captured regulator that was designed to take account of the companies and professions that it regulated.
IFRS tends to flatter accounts—the accounts of stakeholders—because it allows the inclusion of unrealised profits. It is this expansion of the conceptual framework of IFRS into company-level accounts—which continue to be updated as IFRS is updated—that has distorted UK financial reporting and made it depart from company law, which requires a prudent approach not a neutral one, and is central to the ongoing inquiries concerning audit.
Why do the public think they have been let down by auditors and had no warning? Auditors have followed a righteous-by-process approach of “true and fair according to accounting standards”, which has always been the FRC’s touted recommendation. The FRC has always wanted to get rid of parts of company law that it does not like. It wrote to the DTI in 2005 saying, “In short”, the Accounting Standards Board,
“is firmly of the view that outmoded and costly company law rules must swiftly be brought up to date”.
Against that background, it has taken a fair bit of campaigning and interrogation to get fulsome recognition that the company law true and fair test is an overarching requirement. From watching the evidence heard in the BEIS Select Committee from auditors, the fact of separately complying with company law seemed lost on most of them, yet it is in the Companies Act.
So I am grateful for the clear statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in reply to my Written Question HL13690. I am sorry it is one of 96 such Questions in and around these kinds of issues, but it has done a lot of good so far. Anyway, the Answer states:
“The true and fair test in section 393 of the Companies Act is the overarching test that is applied to a company’s annual accounts. If a company produces accounts, in accordance with the legal requirements, which are inconsistent with the Companies Act requirement to give a true and fair view, then the directors must depart from the accounting standards to the extent necessary to give a true and fair view. Particulars of any such departure, the reasons for it and its effect must be given in a note to the accounts.
The IAS Regulation (EU Regulation No. 1606/2002) includes requirements to consider the accounting standards system as a whole. Article 3(2) of that Regulation provides that a new form of international accounting standard can only be adopted if it is not contrary to the principle that an undertaking’s accounts must give a true and fair view of the undertaking’s assets, liabilities, financial position and profit or loss. This requirement ensures that no new form of international accounting standard is adopted for use in the UK if the application of that standard would lead to companies in general contravening the true and fair test”.
As I said, I thank the noble Lord for the comprehensive reply.
This statutory instrument will replace the EU regulation, but two things are clear from the noble Lord’s reply: company law has an overarching true and fair test; and the true and fair principle applied in the endorsement process does not replace the company law test. Would the Minister confirm that I have stated that correctly and that the true and fair principle requirement in the UK endorsement process does not replace the Section 393 company law true and fair test? That is an essential statement in the context of how financial reporting and audit must be conducted for me to approve these regulations. It is a little pedantic, but some may say that this is a new law compared with the EU one that previously applied.
The second major part of this SI is about who we can trust to be in charge of IFRS standards, both in the UK and representing the UK in international discussions, because the instrument provides the Secretary of State the ability to delegate that decision-making and representation to a new body, named in the Explanatory Memorandum as an endorsement board to be hosted within the FRC.
I do not know when the SI was drafted, but perhaps it is unfortunate that it does not take account of the Kingman report into the FRC, which yesterday the Secretary of State confirmed would be followed. The search for the new chair and deputy has started as part of a process that has to lead to a change of culture, new terms of reference including the public interest, and the ending of self-regulation and cosy relationships with stakeholders consisting of the very companies, entities and professions to which regulation from the FRC applies.
The Explanatory Memorandum states that the endorsement board is being set up as a subsidiary body. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has already drawn attention to the fact that it appears that that process is well under way. In any event, it seems that the setting up of a new and independent regulator requiring legislation would also take a certain amount of time. However, Kingman also said that there should be various immediate changes. As well as a change to the FRC leadership, he specified improvements to the FRC’s internal systems and controls, including a centrally managed complaints procedure. I am not sure how that is going because I am still seeing reports of aggressive and threatening letters from solicitors being sent to complainants. That is not the culture or central procedure that I want to see.
Kingman also recommends applying the provisions of Managing Public Money and applying the Regulator’s Code, the Freedom of Information Act and the Public Contracts Regulations. There is little evidence that that has yet been done, and there is nothing much in this statutory instrument, other than FoI, to ensure that the body receiving delegated powers is compliant with the list of things that Kingman has recommended.
I will not repeat what Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s Sub-Committee B has said, other than to recognise that it has made the point that the Secretary of State will need to be confident that the FRC is in an appropriate condition to be able to host the new body properly. In paragraph 11 of Sub-Committee B’s report, there is an explanation of the work that BEIS is doing with the yet-to-be-reformed FRC to build capacity to set up the new endorsement board. The usual stakeholders have been consulted. It looks as though they are the same ones that it is recommended the FRC gets less attached to—businesses which are the bodies to be regulated and their advisers. At a guess, might that happen to include the big four? I am not quite sure what the robust transparency provisions that the stakeholders have helped with are. The paragraph states that the SI includes the “long term public good”, but that comes from the EU regulation, not stakeholders, and anyway it refers to the standards, not the endorsement body.
The unreformed FRC will be in an oversight position, but the policy intention—it is just an intention; it is not written in the legislation—is that the chair and board members will be operationally independent. What does that mean if there is oversight from somewhere else? What does it mean if there are HR processes, which I would take to mean recruitment of the people on the board? Where is the public input? Where does it charge the body rather than the standards with the public interest? When is the FRC applying the public interest recommendations from Kingman? Will delegation be deferred until then, and, in any event, has not the setting up of the endorsement board already been influenced in the old and suspect way? The whole project seems to have been rushed, premature and, I fear, unreformed.
Finally, why hand over important negotiations on UK requirements in IFRS to a regulator that has been so publicly criticised and, despite ongoing efforts, will have a long way to go to free itself from the cognitive capture that is so embedded throughout its organisation?
I understand the sensitivity that tweaking standards can tweak profits, and the UK way is not to have politicians doing standards, but there is the relatively unique circumstance in accounting standards that the profession dominates the standard-setting process. Bankers do not set banking standards and market participants do not set market operation conduct rules, so why should accountants set their own standards? At the very least, the Secretary of State needs to retain the ability to intervene.
In the EU, endorsement and representation power lies with the Commission, and the Parliament also has a veto. I do not see why in this instance, because there is this unusual circumstance of accountants setting their own standards, there should not be the intervention of some kind of Secretary of State and parliamentary procedure. Yet again, I find that Australia appears to be doing things better, because that is just what it has done. I would say that, if it is good enough for Australia, it is good enough for the UK.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a retired fellow of the ACCA. Although I have not practised as an accountant very much during my membership—very little, in fact—I retain an interest in the processes of accounting and the impact it has on business and the economy as a whole, which have been so well described by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. Both have contributed a great deal to the debate, which leaves a number of very uncomfortable questions for the Minister to try to respond to. I am afraid we will probably not get to the bottom of them today. They have set out an agenda, particularly the noble Baroness, for work that needs to happen over the next few months if we are to get the best out of the current changes.
I will put another review on the table as well, which we have not yet had an opportunity to discuss in our House. I hope there will be an opportunity to do so in the not too distant future. Very significant changes are being made through what appears to be a process of correspondence and speech-making between the new chair of the CMA and the department, under which what looks like a substantial shift of public policy on competition issues will be introduced to put consumer interests at the heart of much competition policy—a change which I would welcome.
This would be a significant change in the powers and abilities of the CMA to investigate and to seek out remedies where malfeasance has been found, and a completely different sense and sensibility relating to the work that has previously been done under the CMA on investigations more generally. I say that because it seems a rather important leg of the various bodies involved in a broader conception around how public trust is to be generated in economic operators. One could also add that a similar responsibility towards consumer interests and consumer focus is needed for the regulatory powers in financial services, for which the Minister will be aware we have been arguing for some time, if we are to get the best out of that system. That has been much discussed in the context of whether there should be a duty of care on financial organisations dealing with consumers, a matter to which we will no doubt return.
By way of introduction, I align myself with the two speeches that have already been made, and will ask three questions on the Explanatory Memorandum. I will preface those with the point made very strongly by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, but raised also by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that it is the cruellest of misfortunes for those who have been responsible for designing this new structure that they are trying to find analogues for the existing system in Europe, which has run and operated our overall structure for reporting on public accounts and public bodies, when the whole of that structure is being completely refigured through the FRC review and the consultation now going through. The question that concerns me most is about the structure being proposed. The Secretary of State takes on, broadly speaking, the responsibilities of the Commission, but the political control is reduced to a situation which we find more commonly in Britain than in other countries—about which the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, has been fairly critical—where the devolved responsibilities are to a body that is being created out of nothing and allocated to a body that is in transition and will not have proper supervisory powers. There is a real problem in this, particularly since, as we read in the recent consultation about the independent review of the FRC, about a third of the recommendations are in category three. As the Minister will know, this relates to reforms that will require primary legislation and have wider ramifications, and therefore require deeper consideration and wider consultation.
I do not understand how the Government think they can get away with a process changing the nature and function of an important construct that relates to a whole economic activity and the accounting process underpinning it in terms of public trust—and do so when they are signalling that they will not be in a position to do it until they get primary legislation ready, let alone through, at a time when it seems impossible to legislate on anything except Brexit. I will leave the Minister to respond to that if he can.
My questions in response to the points raised so far are relatively straightforward. First, in paragraph 7.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum, the policy intention is for the Secretary of State to delegate the function to an independent endorsement board when it is constituted satisfactorily in 2019. Am I right in assuming that this is what is referred to in the Chapter 1 recommendations on the need for a statutory authority, which will require primary legislation? If so, can we have more information about the timing? It does not seem likely that it will be finished this year, let alone in time to enforce the work. I would be grateful for a comment on that.
Secondly, paragraph 7.6 makes the point that the instrument enables the Secretary of State to revoke the delegation to the endorsement board if he or she wishes. Is that right? I do not regard that as good law. It is certainly not parliamentary language. Can we have some examples of the sort of issues that might be raised? The only example we have here is the endorsement board being deemed unsuccessful—but by whom and under what criteria? Do we have any principles under which that judgment can be made? If so, what are the processes under which it will happen?
Thirdly—I have already touched on this point—the principles of financial reporting are taken without question as providing a “true and fair” view of undertakings and a position “conducive” to the long-term public good. These are familiar words. They are contained in the IFRS and apply in the UK GAAP but they are not without some difficulty in terms of their overall understanding. They require judgment at the local level in terms of the individual accounts and in the round about whether the processes were correct. The instrument places an obligation on the Secretary of State to consult those with an interest in the quality and availability of accounts. In pursuit of my concern that the consumer and the broader public interest require a much broader cut through this, can the Minister confirm that the consultation process will include not just the Big Four and the accounting professions, and look genuinely at the wider stakeholder interests?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I thank all three noble Lords for their interventions, which were based on considerably more expertise than I have. I hope they will be tolerant of my response. If I fail to answer any questions I might have to write to them.
It might be helpful if I remind them of the purpose of these regulations. As usual they have the words “EU exit” in them. They are designed for a no-deal exit and ensure that the IFRS can continue to be endorsed and adopted for use by UK-registered companies after exit from the EU. They are laid using powers under the EU withdrawal Act 2018. It is again worth reminding noble Lords of the constraints within that Act and that the powers within it would not allow the Secretary of State to go wider into some of the other matters that are of concern to all three noble Lords. That is why, as I made clear earlier, that there will be a further SI later on.
We have been talking about Kingman who, as we know, published his report on 18 December. We also know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State issued his initial consultation on the recommendations on that only yesterday and that the closing date for responses is 11 June. No doubt all three noble Lords have copies of that. I think I saw a tweet from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, on it today, so I presume she has seen a copy. I regret that we are not in a position to debate it today, but there will be many other opportunities to debate it and to feed in responses in due course.
To some extent, that deals with the initial concern from the noble Baroness about whether the FRC is a suitable body to host the new endorsement board, in light of Sir John Kingman’s report and the response that will have to be made to that. As I said, there are the constraints of the EU withdrawal Act. My right honourable friend is trying to deal with the deficiencies so that we can get on with the eventualities, should there be a no-deal Brexit.
I shall say something about the consultation on the Kingman review. It is important and we are grateful for the very comprehensive review he gave. We think the recommendations are well-considered, far-reaching and transformational. As noble Lords know, the Government published our initial consultation on those recommendations, highlighting our approach in taking forward the review’s recommendations. The Government welcome and share the review’s vision for a new regulator with a new mandate, new leadership and stronger statutory powers and intend to move as fast as possible on this. I would say move swiftly, but the noble Lord will have to be tolerant because the process to implement reforms and overhaul the sector must be gone through. In the interim, until the new regulation is in place, the Government will work with the FRC to take forward 48 of the review’s recommendations, including addressing issues such as lack of transparency and shortcomings in the enforcement activities. Further detailed consultation on those measures will follow.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
One of the words that worries me is “hosting”; this relates to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. Are we just getting a defective organisation—Sir John Kingman’s review makes it clear that it is defective—to be the handmaiden or midwife of this new organisation? What does hosting mean? Does it mean that all the staff are the same? Will there be an independent unit within the FRC? This may be too detailed for this discussion and I would be perfectly happy if my noble friend wrote to us. However, for the reasons we have explained, and in order to have the public’s trust, it is important that it must be seen to be independent and not infected with the problems of the FRC.
Lord Henley
I take my noble friend’s point. In my opening remarks, I tried to make clear that the FRC would host it purely in terms of human resources and other such matters. It will be an independent body to which my right honourable friend can delegate powers. Some noble Lords—I think it was my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson—asked about this. My right honourable friend will retain overarching power to ensure that that endorsement function operates well. If he retains that overarching power, he can revoke designation and retain overall control.
The endorsement board will be required to report annually to the Secretary of State on carrying out its functions. Sitting with the FRC is a matter of convenience in terms of HR and such matters, but it does not mean that its staff has to come from there. If there is anything more I can say, it might be best if I wrote to my noble friend and copied the letter to other noble Lords. I want to make it clear that the board will be made up of independent members. Its chair will be independent and it will not be part of the FRC. Having used the word “hosting”, I am trying to think of some appropriate metaphor but I cannot offhand. I hope that my noble friend will understand what I am getting at.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
I have a couple of comments. The Minister referred to this being done under the withdrawal Act, and that is quite correct. There is no problem with the way in which Regulation 7 and things around it operate. That is a copy-and-paste job and exactly what the withdrawal Act provides for. I do not think that that Act requires there to be any delegation or sub-delegation. It enables such things to happen but does not require them. But it is in there and at this stage we are unlikely to resist the statutory instrument going through.
However, given everything that has been said, the next statutory instrument, which is also affirmative, will have to contain constraints and requirements ensuring proper, not-captured behaviour for there to be the confidence to allow it to go through. There is no problem with the Secretary of State doing an endorsement. There are people who can assist and advise, and the Secretary of State can perfectly well organise consultations and those kinds of things, so I would not consider delay of the next stage sacrosanct. Given the whole situation, the nature of this debate and the concerns from all who have spoken, I hope that that message about the next stage can be taken to the Secretary of State. I would be very unhappy about trying to pass something in the next month or so without there being many more safeguards.
Lord Henley
At this stage, all I can say is that I note what the noble Baroness has said. Regarding when the next SI will appear—whether it will be in the next month or so—I cannot say, but I will certainly keep her informed and let her know exactly what our thinking is.
House of Lords
Children: Oral Health
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Benjamin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to tackle the oral health problems of hard to reach children, especially those in deprived areas of the country, through the Starting Well Core scheme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford) (Con)
My Lords, Starting Well Core allows commissioners, where they identify local need, to establish schemes similar to the National Starting Well scheme, which runs in 13 high-need areas. Starting Well Core has a particular focus on children up to two years old; practices engage with a wide range of partners to promote the importance of early preventive care. Areas that have so far introduced the approach include London, the West Midlands, Shropshire and Staffordshire, Cheshire and Merseyside, and Greater Manchester.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, too many five to 10 year-olds in deprived areas undergo general anaesthetic in hospitals to have their decayed teeth removed. Starting Well Core is therefore a welcome first step towards ensuring that children are seen by a dentist, preventing them from developing decay at a young age. Unfortunately, this scheme contains no educational element, only posters and leaflets available at dental practices, seen by those already attending. There are no measures to get the hard-to-reach children through the dentist’s doors. How do the Government plan to encourage all carers to take their children to the dentist, even before their first birthday? Will they please introduce supervised tooth brushing in nurseries and primary schools to combat this epidemic?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Baroness asks some very important questions. I am pleased to say that 77% of five year-olds now have no visible decay, compared to 69% in 2008, which is a welcome reduction. We accept, however, that while these figures represent a significant improvement, there are unacceptable inequalities in children’s oral health. She is right that the Starting Well Core scheme is operating in areas of high need and the crucial issue is how children are sign-posted to these practices. Practices are using a mix of advertising, linking with other health professionals and actively engaging with local communities in schools and shopping centres and at local events. I hope that she is reassured by this answer.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, there are greater unmet oral health needs for people with learning disabilities. These are issues that start in childhood and continue into adulthood. Does the Minister agree that the educational methods proposed for children should be adjusted to be suitable for children with learning disabilities and extended into adult life, as suggested by the Faculty of Dental Surgery? I welcome the new government guidance that was published last week on the oral health needs of children and adults with learning disabilities.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Baroness makes a very important point about ensuring that dental care is available and accessible to all. Dental commissioning responsibilities are for NHS England, which is responsible for ensuring that dental services meet local needs and helping individuals who are unable to access a dentist. She has raised a very important point about access for those with learning disabilities and I shall ensure that this is raised within the department.
Lord Colwyn (Con)
My Lords, we will not reduce oral health inequalities if we do not ensure that every child is able to get their free NHS dental check-up. Dentists’ morale is so low that every week NHS dental practices are closing, leaving some patients facing a 90-mile round trip to find a dentist. A recent survey showed that three in five of all NHS dentists are planning to scale down or leave the NHS in the next five years. Government funding has fallen in real terms and we are waiting for the rollout of the new dental contract, work on which started eight years ago. Will my noble friend comment on these important changes? Programmes such as Starting Well Core will not able to help any children if there are no NHS dentists left to deliver them. I declare my usual interests, which include vice-presidency of the British Fluoridation Society.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank my noble friend for his question; he is of course very expert in this area. We want NHS dental services to be attractive for the profession and we remain committed to reforming the dental contract, which should help, but we recognise that there are a range of reasons for contracts being handed back, whether it is retirement, a decision to concentrate on private work or, in some cases, reorganisation of the companies providing the service. It is important that NHS England works with other local dentists to ensure that patients can continue to access dental care. There is a level of concern about recruitment and retention of dentists, and those difficulties need to be addressed by NHS England in its role as the commissioner. It is continuing to ensure that it works collaboratively with the profession and the department is keeping a close eye on this.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, tooth decay is a major source of health inequalities, as the noble Baroness has acknowledged, with 33% of the most deprived five year-olds having tooth decay, compared with 13.6% of the least deprived. In some parts of the country—the north-west, the West Midlands and Yorkshire—tooth decay rose for the first time in the last 10 years. How much investment will the Starting Well Core scheme have and for how long? When will we learn from the Government whether this has provided the right kind of remedial action for the most deprived children?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I shall write to her on the exact amount of investment, but there are some reassuring figures coming forward: 77% of all five year-olds now have no visible decay, compared to 69% in 2008; there has been a fall in the number of extractions per 100,000 finished consultant episodes for the first time in the last decade; and more children accessed dentistry over the last year. All this is reassuring and we are committed to improving access and equality of access to dental care—that is what the Children’s Oral Health Improvement Programme Board, led by PHE, is intended to do. It brings together 20 stakeholder organisations specifically focused on oral health. There is a significant amount of activity targeting exactly the issue the noble Baroness raises.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, children get tooth decay because they eat too much sugar and too many sweets. How far are the Government getting with the commitments they made in chapter 2 of the obesity plan to restrict advertising of high-sugar products on TV before the watershed, and price and location promotions in supermarkets?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Baroness is exactly right, in that improving children’s oral health is a wider picture: it is about not just access to dentistry but a preventive approach, which is a core government priority. This is exactly why we introduced the children’s obesity plan, one aspect of which is a consultation on advertising. Proposals on that will be brought forward shortly.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, what is the Government’s assessment of the number of children receiving dental care from Dentaid, a peripatetic charity that provides emergency care in third-world countries? Does she consider this an acceptable way of safeguarding children’s oral health, and what will she do about children’s lack of access to NHS dentists in many parts of the country?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I shall have to write to her about access via Dentaid, which I was not aware of; it is a very important point. We are committed to driving down inequality of access and are pleased that the number of young people accessing dentists has increased. One of the key measures in reducing inequality is the Starting Well Core programme, which has targeted areas of highest need, and its performance is encouraging. However, she is absolutely right: we must drive out inequality of access to children’s dentistry and the Government are committed to doing that.
Prisons: Rehabilitation
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pidding
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the case for ensuring that prisons are places of rehabilitation.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to ensuring that prisons are places of rehabilitation, which ultimately reduces reoffending. Evidence suggests that former prisoners who have undertaken learning in prison are materially less likely to reoffend. We are making ambitious reforms to the prison education system to ensure increased offender attendance, routine performance measures, and greater governor responsibility over the commissioning of education.
Baroness Pidding (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that response. When an offender is released from prison, they are much less likely to continue committing crime if they have a job, yet only 17% of ex-offenders are in work a year after coming out of prison. Education, training and work are essential to prisoners turning their lives around. What more can the Government do to support our prisons in delivering these vital skills and opportunities?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, we absolutely agree that education, training and work are central to prisoners turning their lives around and we believe it is right and sensible for ex-prisoner employment to come from a number of different sources. The corporate social responsibility agenda has an important place here. We have also launched the New Futures Network to engage and persuade employers to take on ex-prisoners and are developing a new policy of release on temporary licence to increase the opportunities available to prisoners to gain experience in the real workplace.
Lord Bird (CB)
My Lords, next week I am going to a wonderful literary festival in Erlestoke prison. It is a brilliant idea and, even though there are problems of money, it shows that, if you have leadership in prison among governors, you can turn things around. It is called Penned Up, it is next week and I would love all noble Lords to come.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I might prefer to be there next week—I might even be available. Be that as it may, the noble Lord makes an extremely good point. That is why, from 1 April, one change we are bringing in is the delegation of responsibility in these areas to individual governors so that they can take this sort of initiative forward for the benefit of all prisoners.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the drug problem—and prisoners going in and going on to drugs—is one of the most difficult that we have in prisons? Is not getting prisoners off drugs the best help we can give with rehabilitation? Does he know the organisation Narcotics Anonymous? Some of its members are ex-prisoners who have recovered from drug addiction and go—or endeavour to go—back to prisons to help prisoners get off drugs. Is he aware that many governors will not permit them to go in and do this voluntary work? Will he explore this and invite representatives of that organisation to discuss with him how, voluntarily and free of charge, they can help prisoners to get off drugs?
Lord Keen of Elie
The noble Lord makes a very good point: the scourge of drugs in prisons is one that we must meet if we are to improve conditions for all prisoners across the prison estate. It undermines other efforts made in regard to education and rehabilitation—there is no question whatever of that. I am not familiar with the work of the particular body that the noble Lord referred to, but I will make inquiries about what the position is with regard to its initiative. Ultimately, it will be for individual governors to determine how this matter is taken forward, but, as I indicated to the noble Lord, I will look into how we respond to those initiatives.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, given the recent publication by the Ministry of Justice of figures showing a record level of the incidence of self-harm by prisoners, a record level of prisoner-on-prisoner assaults and a 29% rise in assaults on prison staff, will the Minister acknowledge that we need not only a major reduction in the size of the prison population but increases per capita in resources on a scale not yet contemplated by Her Majesty’s Government? This would give rehabilitation the priority that many now see as an absolute imperative.
Lord Keen of Elie
The right reverend Prelate is quite right: safe and decent prisons are the foundation of any initiative that we wish to take in rehabilitation and the reduction of reoffending. There are very real challenges there, particularly in the context of prisoners who are inclined to violent behaviour. However, it has to be understood that we are dealing with a very difficult cohort of people and that control over that cohort can be demanding. We have increased the number of prison officers over the past two years by more than 4,700. It would be fair to say that more can always be done in the face of such challenges, but we are seeking to do what we feel is appropriate to improve matters and, as I said, we believe that the delegation of more direct responsibility to individual governors will also be a step in the right direction.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, the evidence that one can find shows that short-term prison sentences, rather than tough community sentences, lead to far more reoffending. Our prisons are overcrowded and prisoners are often moved from one prison to another, thereby breaking the training programmes that they may be engaging in. Meanwhile, the third sector is being locked out of the vast amounts of money that have been made available to it by the Government. Given these issues—I know that the Government are thinking about them—could the Minister tell us when the Government will bring forward the proposals on sentencing and reducing overcrowding in our prisons, so that we can have a new programme that will reduce reoffending and save the public some money?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right that sentencing policy clearly has an impact on the numbers in prison. He is also right that we are looking at short-term sentencing in that context. I cannot say by what date we will have concluded our consideration of the matter but, clearly, it is important. However, it is also important that we should give confidence to the judiciary and to the public in general about the effectiveness of non-custodial sentences, so this cannot be looked at in isolation. It is necessary to look at the wider picture to arrive at a workable solution.
Unpaid Internships
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to eradicate unpaid internships in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are working to stop illegal unpaid internships. The law is clear that anyone performing work for an employer must be paid. HM Revenue & Customs has written to almost 13,000 employers in industries which often offer internships to draw their attention to the national minimum wage rules and help them avoid being non-compliant.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, last year the Government spent £1.48 million on raising awareness of NMW legislation, and £25.3 million on enforcement. Can my noble friend therefore say what reduction there has been in unpaid internships, and how many prosecutions?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am not aware of any prosecutions, but I can confirm that we have spent considerable sums on enforcement in this area, as well as on other areas relating to the national minimum wage. As I made clear in my original Answer, it is important that we continue to try to enforce these matters but also to offer advice to employers to make sure that they are aware that it is illegal to offer internships that amount to work and not to pay for them.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, it is extremely important that legal careers be open to all talents and to students from all social backgrounds. Knowing that pupillages at the Bar are the gateway to the profession of barrister, are the Government satisfied with progress in ensuring that pupillages are now paid?
Lord Henley
My Lords, pupillages at the Bar have changed considerably since the noble Lord’s day and even since my day—which is also a very long time ago. In those days they were unpaid. I will take advice from my noble and learned friend sitting beside me, but I think the noble Lord will find that most pupils are paid now.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, in 2016 the Social Mobility Commission said that any work placements lasting more than four weeks should be classified as internships and that those doing them should receive at least the minimum wage. The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has progressed through the Lords unamended, so it is clearly the will of this House that it should pass. Will the Minister have a word with the usual channels in the Commons to get the Bill tabled there as soon as possible?
Lord Henley
My Lords, we will leave the last point to the authorities in another place. I appreciate that my noble friend’s Bill went through this House unamended. The Government set out their views on it. As they explained at that time, the problem with the four-week rule was that it might risk giving employers the impression that all shorter unpaid internships are legal. We want to make it clear that this is not the case. The length of the internship is not an indication as to whether it is or is not work. It is the nature of the internship that matters.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, unpaid internships are one of the factors contributing to the lack of socioeconomic diversity in the creative industries, many of which are clustered in London. The Sutton Trust estimates that it costs £1,019 a month to carry out an internship in London. This limits unpaid opportunities to people who can draw on the bank of mum and dad. Does the Minister agree that ending unpaid internships would level the playing field in the creative industries for people without the cushion of parental resource?
Lord Henley
The noble Baroness is right to draw attention to the creative industries as an area where unpaid internships are particularly prevalent. My honourable friend Kelly Tolhurst and colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will hold a round-table meeting shortly with representatives of employers in the creative sectors. This meeting will be used to underline our policy on eliminating unpaid internships to sector leaders and to encourage them to take practical measures to stop their use in this sector.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, on this side of the House our preference would be a ban on the use of illegal unpaid internships. The 2017 Taylor review said:
“The Government should ensure that exploitative unpaid internships, which damage social mobility in the UK, are stamped out”.
I will try a different tack. If the Government are not going to ban them completely, will they undertake an analysis of the social class and background of those who get internships? I am sure it will further highlight the inequality which leads to those who have both the opportunity, as well as the means, being able to work for nothing.
Lord Henley
I note that the noble Lord says that his policy is to legislate in this area. He quoted Matthew Taylor, who made it quite clear that:
“There have been calls for a separate ‘intern’ status in employment law but we believe this is unnecessary. We believe that the law is clear as it currently stands. If a person is obtaining something of value from an internship, they are most likely to be a worker and entitled to the National Minimum or Living Wage”.
We do not believe it is necessary to legislate. I will certainly look at whatever research we are doing in this area and let the noble Lord know.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, in any action my noble friend takes, will he bear in mind the impact on the charity and voluntary sector? A lot of charity and voluntary groups like to take on interns, and do so to the mutual benefit of both sides, but not all charities—especially smaller ones—can afford to pay.
Lord Henley
I note what my noble friend says and that he feels that charities might not be able to afford to pay, but if people are offering something that amounts to work, the simple fact is that the law says that they should be paid. That is where I stand.
Fracking: Planning Guidance
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take in response to the High Court ruling that their planning guidance on fracking is unlawful.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, the Government note the judgment and are considering their next steps.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to hear that. Is this not yet another case where the Government seem to be lacking basic procedural competence? More widely, it seems rather strange that the Government want widespread extraction of methane from rocks in this country at a time when the climate crisis affecting the world is getting worse. Perhaps more pertinently to the Conservative Party, do the Government really think it is politically sustainable for them to cover large areas of the English countryside, which are often Conservative strongholds, with hundreds and thousands of fracking wells?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, in case people are misled into thinking that there are hundreds of such wells at the moment, there are not. Once again, this was a policy introduced under the coalition Government. We believe that the technology is worth looking at, because methane presents a bridge between fossil fuels and renewables, and is the best of the hydrocarbons in terms of pollution. But we are committed to ensuring that it is also safe and environmentally sound and that there is a strong regulatory system.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. How does the Minister respond to the suggestion that the Government have behaved irresponsibly and recklessly in these matters and that the consultation was a complete farce?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am not sure whether that is an accusation made by the noble Lord or somebody else: I do not recognise it as being from a neutral source, I have to say. Consultations are ongoing. There is a consultation on permitted development and on nationally significant infrastructure projects, as well as on compulsory community pre-application. The judgment itself came less than a week ago and, as I said, we are considering our position and will respond.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend make good the commitment made by my right honourable friend Amber Rudd when she was Energy Secretary that there would be no fracking in or near, above or below, a national park?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I was a Minister in the department at the time, so I well recollect that and believe that it is still the current policy. That is important, but what is also clearly important is that we have safe, secure supplies of clean energy at affordable prices in this country. Those are the three guiding principles: they were then and they are now.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my interest in the register as I am also a vice-president of the LGA. I know that the Government find it difficult to change their mind on things such as this, but the High Court ruling is clear that fracking is not a low-carbon energy source. Why do the Government persist in giving subsidies to that source while cutting all subsidies to solar power, which is truly clean?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, what is important to grasp is that this has a lower carbon footprint than coal or liquefied natural gas. It enables us to transition to renewables. I will just let noble Lords know that there is no use of this commercially at the moment, but it is something that should be investigated, bearing in mind the need for security, safety and caution.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I am glad that the Minister mentioned the coalition, because, as the Government remind us, the energy world has moved on hugely since that time. The challenge now is the decarbonisation of heating and transport, so should we not forsake fracking at last, take the moral leadership on climate change back as a country and make sure that the world sees that climate change is an urgent problem and that this is part of the equation?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, broadening out the discussion, I welcome that. It is indeed the case that we need to address energy in relation to transport and the home. I believe that we have strong moral leadership on this, with our Climate Change Act and our records. That was true under the coalition and is true now.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the joy of fracking is that we can become self-sufficient in that type of energy, which means that we do not have to bring some 28% of our supplies by sea, as we do at the moment? Does he not agree that the risk there is that, unless we get more frigates, we will not be able to protect that supply in times of tension or war?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, as always the noble Lord makes a very powerful point about the Navy. He is absolutely right about domestic security, which also leads to security in relation to price, as it is much more likely to be consistent. We need diversity of supply, which is why we are looking to see if this can be delivered in a way that is environmentally sound and that transitions us to renewables, which of course is where ultimately we will need to be.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, given the reply the Minister has just given to the noble Baroness opposite and the contestability of mineral extraction in national parks, which has often been quite complex—for example, with the revival of defunct licences—can he reassure the House that, while he may believe that fracking will not be allowed in national parks, he will present to the House, in the Library, a determined statement of the actual situation?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am always grateful to the noble Baroness for bidding up my stock. I will certainly write a position paper on the current situation to the noble Baroness, copied to other noble Lords, and put a copy in the Library. I reassure noble Lords that the essence is to ensure that we have diversity, that it is environmentally sound and that there is a strong regulatory system. The noble Baroness will be aware that licences are needed for all of this, in addition to planning permission.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, given that the Government are committed to producing more energy at home, can they explain why they have removed the subsidies for micro hydropower? After all, the Industrial Revolution was driven by water power in the 18th century. In the last few years we have had one or two useful hydro schemes in Yorkshire, with small subsidies that have now been withdrawn. Could not harnessing the rivers across the north of England provide a useful additional source of natural power that would be much less damaging than fracking?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I refer the noble Lord to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about the changes in energy over time. Of course, we do not need to provide subsidies in many areas, and to do so where it is not needed would not make sense.
Intellectual Property (Copyright and Related Rights) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 19 December 2018, 28 and 31 January 2019 and 7 February 2019 be approved.
Relevant documents: 12th, 16th and 17th Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B). Considered in Grand Committee on 4 March.
General Food Law (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 31 January be approved.
Relevant document: 17th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B). Considered in Grand Committee on 6 March.
Business of the House
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, I thought it might be convenient for me to say a word about today’s business. We will repeat the Attorney-General’s Statement after the Report stage of the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill. We will then have two important Northern Ireland Bills to consider this afternoon. A small number of amendments have been tabled to the regional rates and energy Bill. While both Bills are urgent, as my noble friend the Leader of the House made clear last Thursday, we will ensure that proper time is made available for the consideration of any amendments. The usual channels have therefore agreed to make time available next Tuesday, 19 March, for the Committee stage of the regional rates and energy Bill and its remaining stages. The anticipation and adjustments Bill is a money Bill, so we intend to complete the remaining stages formally and without amendment, in the normal way, following Second Reading today.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Government Chief Whip for making a business announcement. Will he deal with a point that I put to a Minister the other day—who said that it was not for his pay grade but up to the Chief Whip? When does he expect this Session to end, the House to be prorogued and the Queen’s Speech to take place?
Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill
Tuesday 12th March 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Act 2019 View all Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 155-R-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF) - (8 Mar 2019)
16:01 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 262 / Noes: 226 - Amendment 1 agreed.
16:46 - Division on Amendment 5 - Ayes: 254 / Noes: 216 - Amendment 5 agreed.
Baroness Thornton
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 1 and speak to consequential Amendments 2, 12, 13, 14, 45, 46 and 47. The House will realise that these are the same amendments that we discussed in Committee. I am grateful for the support for them that I have received from across the House: from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee —who, we learned yesterday, cannot be with us today—and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly. I like to think that the reason for their support, and that of other noble Lords in Committee, is the amendments’ simplicity in revising the scope of the Bill to deal with the healthcare arrangements for the EU/EEA and not the whole world.
Like other noble Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the time and effort she and her team have put into discussing the Bill with noble Lords. We can see from today’s amendments that the Government have listened to concerns expressed during the Bill’s stages. That is to be welcomed. I am afraid, however, that on this issue—the scope of the Bill—we find ourselves some distance apart.
We need to remember that the DPRR Committee noted the Bill’s breathtaking scope and commented that the scope of the regulations could hardly be wider. The committee said that it was one thing to introduce skeletal legislation needed in the event of no EU withdrawal agreement, but that this Bill was as much to do with implementing future reciprocal healthcare arrangements with non-EU countries—indeed, that it went much further than merely giving effect to healthcare agreements and covered the provision of any healthcare by anyone anywhere in the world. It concluded that the powers of the Bill were inappropriately wide and had not been adequately justified by the department.
This view was expanded in many ways by the Constitution Committee, which said that while the exceptional circumstances of the UK’s departure from the European Union might justify legislation containing broader powers than would otherwise be constitutionally acceptable, this did not extend to giving effect to new policy unrelated to Brexit. It concluded that the Bill should be limited to future reciprocal healthcare arrangements with countries that participate in the existing European health insurance card scheme. We agree. These are the tests that need to be brought to bear on the Bill, as was so eloquently expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, in Committee.
During our discussions with the noble Baroness, it was suggested that it would be in some way inappropriate for this House to reduce the scope of the Bill. If the Constitution Committee and the DPRR Committee think that this revision is appropriate, we are bound to give the matter serious consideration. Surely it our job to offer the elected Chamber the opportunity to reconsider the breathtaking scope and powers of this Bill.
Then there are the issues of practicality and policy. On the practicality test, in this pre-Brexit period—and, my goodness, we are now at possibly the most exciting bit, with the discussions that are taking place in the Commons—surely it should be the Government’s priority to ensure that the millions of British citizens currently benefiting from reciprocal healthcare agreements with the EEA and Switzerland, by virtue of our membership of the European Union, continue to do so. The same should be true for European citizens in the UK. A significant proportion of the many UK citizens living in the EU are pensioners, and they will be personally liable for healthcare costs after exit day unless a new agreement with the EU, or new bilateral agreements with individual member states, are in place. It would cost the UK taxpayer more to treat British nationals who have to return home for healthcare.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her efforts to improve the Bill and her courtesy in accommodating my concerns, meeting me and discussing various amendments. I am particularly grateful to her—I emphasise this—for her amendment, which we will consider later, that delivers us from the tyrannous shackles of King Henry VIII. Perhaps this might be the start of a new understanding that the ghost of that monstrous ogre should no longer walk about the corridors of power in this country. Chance would be a fine thing but I commend a little touch of Blackwood to the House.
However, although the Bill has been significantly improved, it is still not good enough. We are faced with nine major regulatory powers, which are put before us as examples of regulations that the Bill might have in mind, or extend to. It works on the basis that we must—as we must—recognise the need of our citizens living in the EU to have their healthcare properly attended to. That puts great pressure on all of us. If it were not for that pressure, I would not accept that the scope of the Bill should be allowed to extend as far as the EU and Switzerland but I understand why it must be so. We are brought, in effect, to face up to the creation of unacceptable powers, and we have no choice, so far as the EU and Switzerland are concerned.
However, we have a choice in relation to international places other than those in the EU. There are many countries to which these powers could be extended, payments made and so on. Last time I said I was being modest. My real worry is about the creation of legislation for such places as Guadeloupe and the Galapagos; and these powers would extend to Venezuela, where the present Government may not be in power indefinitely. We therefore need to think carefully. Introducing out of the blue nine regulations, which are only examples of the powers that would be given to Ministers, goes too far. It is not the way in which we should legislate.
My objection to the Bill, and the reason why I support the amendment, is simple. We must not legislate in this way. We need time to think, reflect and ponder on what limitations and constraints should be put on the power of Ministers. We are therefore being asked to go too far under the pressure of events surrounding Brexit.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I have in my name Amendment 4, which has a great deal in common with the other amendments in the group. It is intended to achieve two objects, the second of which is to restrict the operation of the Bill to the EU, the EEA and Switzerland—as do other amendments of the group—by ensuring that the object of any regulations under the Bill would be limited to replicating existing arrangements. The first sentence of my amendment would delete subsections (2) to (4) and thereby drastically narrow the regulation-making power to replicating the reciprocal healthcare arrangements we have now. That part of my amendment fits more sensibly with the amendments in the second group, and I shall address it then. I will be brief in speaking about this group because I agree with every word that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said.
This House has shown conclusively that it supports ensuring that we can continue to provide EHIC cards to the 27 million British citizens who enjoy them and guarantee continuing healthcare to British pensioners living elsewhere in the EU along with the other arrangements for reciprocal healthcare that we enjoy as members of the European Union. Those arrangements are in place. They work extremely well in providing guaranteed healthcare across the countries that they cover. They enjoy very wide public support and are clear. Millions of our countrymen and countrywomen would be very unhappy to lose them as a result of Brexit, but there is absolutely no urgency for introducing legislation now for healthcare deals around the world.
Throughout the debates on this Bill, the Government have not come up with a single reason why we should not now pass this legislation limited to agreeing the continuation of our existing reciprocal healthcare arrangements while deferring legislation for new healthcare agreements with third countries to another time, and then considering the Secretary of State’s powers in the context of those arrangements in another Bill. Before we legislate for new international healthcare agreements, we should be able to consider in detail the criteria for making them, what should be their objects and limitations, what they should contain, who should be in charge of monitoring them and how we might seek to improve them. We should also have clear arrangements in place for their parliamentary scrutiny better than exists under the existing CRaG rules for consideration of treaties by the House of Commons.
It may be, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, that international healthcare agreements could be beneficial to Britain and British citizens, but they could also be detrimental, with unacceptable increases in pressure on the NHS and with the potential for healthcare agreements being offered without proper scrutiny in exchange for trade deals on terms that many would find offensive. All we are asking on this side of the House and, as we have heard, from some of the Cross-Benchers, is to give this Bill a fair wind and pass it quickly only to enable the reciprocal arrangements that we have to be continued but giving Parliament a chance to consider carefully the far wider and more difficult issues involved in agreeing new healthcare agreements across the world. This Bill does not do that.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Thornton who has done a splendid job in dealing with this Bill, in analysing it and bringing forward amendments for consideration by the House. According to the Delegated Powers Committee, this Bill has “a breath-taking scope”. I have not heard that said about any other Bill coming before the House. All the other Bills and statutory instruments that we have considered deal with providing exactly the same arrangements that we have at present in the event of no deal. They have been precautionary for that. This is the only one, as I understand it, and this is the only department that is trying to include something completely new, very wide and extensive, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and my noble friend Lady Thornton said.
If the Government want to do that, as my noble friend said, they can wait until the Queen’s Speech. We know that the Government Chief Whip does not know when that will be, but there has to be one eventually and that is the right time for us to consider it. We can then look at the proposals in detail and, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, examine them then. These additional powers are opposed by the trade unions, the BMA and a whole range of people. Indeed, I have not found anyone except Conservative Members and Ministers in favour of this wide extension, this “breath-taking scope”, of the Bill. I hope that the House today will support my noble friend’s amendment and reject the proposal put forward by Her Majesty’s Government.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I too support the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and my noble friend Lord Marks. I repeat the view that he and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, expressed: we should be producing only legislation resulting from the decision to leave the EU. I thank the Minister very much for meeting us and for the government amendments—particularly to those Henry VIII clauses, which have absolutely no part in modern legislation.
I agree with previous noble Lords, but any Bill dealing with healthcare agreements outside the EU is different. I would be happy to look at these issues in another Bill at another time. As has just been said, the expansion in scope of the Bill looks opportunistic and is completely inappropriate at the moment.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, I cannot agree with these amendments. As we pointed out during the progression of the Bill, we live in a global world, with more people travelling internationally for all kinds of reasons. There is obviously a huge demand for healthcare systems between countries, giving the traveller peace of mind that the foreign country they are in can respond to healthcare needs.
As was also mentioned, we already have simple reciprocal agreements with non-EU countries. The domestic implications are limited, and our current powers to charge domestic overseas visitors, and the regulations under such powers, provide for domestic implementation. Importantly—
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
No, let me finish. The Bill will not replace or limit the prerogative power to enter into international healthcare agreements. My understanding is that agreements will still be subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny.
It is surely right for us to take advantage of the Bill and look at the opportunities it can offer us. We are not trying to shoehorn something dastardly into it. It could offer all kinds of things. It seems to me that planning ahead is a refreshing thing to do. Many of the arguments raised have nothing to do with protecting or giving peace of mind to travellers. As a nurse, my main priority will always be those needing care. The Bill allows them reciprocal healthcare outside the EU and just that. Should there be a Division, I hope that noble Lords will keep in mind those people who, under the Bill, will be able to travel globally with renewed peace of mind about their healthcare.
Lord Ribeiro (Con)
My Lords, this is an enabling Bill and no more. In a letter to the chairman of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on 8 March, the Minister confirmed that these powers would be used only in the exceptional circumstances of EU exit. We will discover the outcome of that tonight.
In these circumstances, the regulations’ implementing powers would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The assurances and clear message from our debates in Committee—when the Minister was very clear, in answer to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, that reciprocal healthcare arrangements with the United States would present significant challenges because of the different payment systems and such an arrangement was unlikely—should surely be enough to satisfy those who believe that the Government still have a cunning plan to sell the NHS to Donald Trump and others.
As I said in Committee, I believe that the implementation of our international arrangements should be phased, giving priority to our overseas territories, as has been noted; our Commonwealth partners, of which Australia and New Zealand have already been mentioned; and our important international partners, perhaps excluding Venezuela and the Galapagos Islands from that list, as suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge.
Anything enabling this to happen should be considered seriously, given the risks of what I believe is likely to be a no-deal Brexit. I do not support these amendments and I hope that the Minister will be able to come up with suggestions for how this can be implemented to overcome some of the concerns expressed from the other side.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, both the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm of Owlpen, are missing the point of these amendments. While this is only an enabling Bill, it increases the scope of reciprocal health agreements with countries outside the EEA and Switzerland to include trade agreements. The noble Lords, Lord Lansley, and Lord O’Shaughnessy, at earlier stages of the Bill, raised exactly this point about setting up trade agreements. We are extremely concerned, for all the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton; this is the sort of large change that requires considerable consultation with the public prior to Green Papers, White Papers and bringing it through the House. We should not try to rush it through as one of the Brexit Bills, which it is, regardless of what happens over the next few days. This is one of the Bills that we were told must be passed by 29 March. Increasing the scope of the Bill means that we are moving into another area that the country, let alone this House, has not had a chance to consider.
I do not believe that reducing the scope would prevent some of the agreements already made; in fact, as the Minister has said when summing up previously, a number are already available. What it does is protect the NHS from being a bargaining tool, particularly—although not only—with the United States. Until the country has a chance to have that debate, it is important that we reduce the scope.
I endorse entirely the comments made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton, and Lady Jolly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Foulkes. Our task is solely to replicate the arrangements that may become out of date on 1 April; it is important that we remain focused on that.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I too find this amendment imperative. The Bill as it stands has some exciting prospects, which are worth looking at, but if we are to go down that road we must recognise that the implications are highly complex and potentially demanding economically. It is quite unthinkable that we should move along that road without primary legislation that has been properly considered by a wide cross-section of Britain, including the professions. It is extraordinary to bring in exciting, challenging ideas of this kind on the back of a Bill concerned with making sure that the excellent arrangements that exist within the European Union are protected.
The most imperative words that we have heard in the remarks so far—apart from the, as usual, exemplary speech by my noble friend Lady Thornton—came from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who, with all his experience, said that this is just wrong and that we cannot pass major legislation on this basis. That is exactly how I feel. To dilute our commitment to those in the European Union and, indeed, to people from the European Union living in this country—arrangements will be reciprocal—would be very unfortunate. I hope the House will warmly endorse the amendments.
Lord Wilson of Dinton (CB)
My Lords, I am glad to follow the last two speakers; they have eloquently made the case for supporting the noble Baroness’s amendment, as I do. This is not about supporting Brexit or wanting to remain; it is about the tension that exists between the Executive and Parliament, and the duty of this House, and of Parliament, to scrutinise the proposals of the Government to ensure that good government, as far as possible, is provided in this country.
I am very glad that the Minister has tabled the amendments that will follow later. However, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge: they are a step in the right direction, but that is not enough. The sweeping nature of the powers proposed in the Bill are in many ways offensive to the proper conduct of legislation. I accept that they are needed in the current situation in relation to the EU and Switzerland, but to go wider than that is wrong, I think. We have to insist on legislation being properly prepared, properly debated, properly scrutinised and properly consulted on. If, in the middle of the current turmoil, we let go of some basics of legislation, we will do ourselves harm and set a bad precedent. I shall support the noble Baroness’s amendments.
Lord O’Shaughnessy (Con)
My Lords, although I do not agree with it, a lot of scepticism about the scope of the Bill has been eloquently expressed at every stage of the debate on this group of amendments so far. However, I remind noble Lords of the human consequences of restricting the Bill in the way proposed by these amendments. I think we all agree in general on the benefits of reciprocal healthcare agreements—many noble Lords have paid testament to those—and we all want to see continuity of arrangements with the EEA and Switzerland. So far, so good. However, we have also debated and agreed in principle—in Committee, at Second Reading and in this group—on the desirability of having such arrangements with more countries. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, talked in Committee about the opportunities of travelling to the USA, which people with long-term conditions can no longer do because they are now uninsured.
Let us be very clear what is at stake. Accepting the amendments in this group would mean that we miss out on a golden opportunity to achieve a shared goal. What are the reasons for that? I do not agree with them, but very good reasons have been given about the kind of procedure and scrutiny that ought to be applied to the new reciprocal healthcare arrangements that we may strike with countries outside the EEA and Switzerland. This is not a disagreement about the principle of having such arrangements; it is a disagreement about the process of agreeing such arrangements. However, the consequence of these amendments is not to deal with these issues by changing procedure, scrutiny and process, but instead to strike them out on principle. That does not seem to me the right approach to very well substantiated and perfectly reasonable, but ultimately procedural, concerns. By changing the Bill in this way, we will lose the opportunity to deepen relationships with key partners such as New Zealand and Australia, as my noble friend Lord Ribeiro said. We will miss out on the opportunity to give people with long-term medical conditions the chance to travel outside the EEA to visit family or to work, and for young people to broaden their experiences. We will miss out on the opportunity to deepen—
Baroness Brinton
Please allow me to intervene; I am afraid I cannot stand up to do so.
Is the noble Lord suggesting that by passing the Bill, existing arrangements outside the EEA and Switzerland would become null and void?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I think the noble Baroness knows that that is not what I am saying. We will miss out on the opportunity to turn the fairly shallow arrangements that we have at present into the kind of deep arrangements that we enjoy with the EEA and Switzerland. We would also miss out on the opportunity to deepen relationships with EU accession countries and to provide reciprocal healthcare arrangements that would underpin any other international arrangements that we may want to strike in the future. All this would be lost if we were to accept these amendments.
There are other factors that we must also take into account. Amendment 9 provides greater opportunities for scrutiny and restrains the Government’s powers. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, spoke of the untrammelled ability to organise agreements with countries such as Venezuela and others, but there are natural limitations—not simply the scrutiny available through the processes my noble friend Lord Ribeiro talked about, but also the need for data adequacy. We will not be able to strike such arrangements with any country we want, and they would have to be under the aegis of an international agreement scrutinised and passed in the other place and this House.
It was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, in Committee that I had unwittingly made the case for another Bill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, talked about that. Another Bill is easier said than done, and anyone who has been in Government knows that you cannot just pitch up with a Bill. There is a complicated and often painful process of going through the PBL Committee and other committees to get such Bills. This Government are constantly accused of doing nothing other than Brexit, and here they are doing something other than Brexit. Surely this is a welcome opportunity to do something beyond the thing that, frankly, we are all a bit tired of talking about.
If not now to extend the scope of our powers to strike these arrangements on a global basis, then when? We cannot assume that another opportunity will come this way soon, and what will the human consequences of that be?
Viscount Bridgeman (Con)
My Lords, I am privileged to follow my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy, and I am sure that Peers from all sides of the House will have been impressed by the thoughtful letter which the Minister has sent to us all. In it, there are a number of concessions, which will be subject to later amendments in this debate. The insertion of a sunset clause is a valuable safeguard, as are the requirements that arrangements are limited to a public authority, and the statutory duty to report to Parliament on an annual basis. All of these are important concessions. Finally, on the Henry VIII clause, the Minister’s letter refers to removing the powers in the Bill to make regulations containing consequential amendments to primary legislation. Individual healthcare waits for nobody.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Jolly, and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, who I am sorry could not be with us today, for giving me the opportunity to deal with the important matter of the global nature of the Bill. We have already had a good deal of debate about this during our progress on the Bill, but it is a pleasure to return to it today yet again.
It is important that the Government explain why we believe it appropriate to seek powers which are global in nature. As I mentioned in my response in Committee, the EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee of this House, which is very wise, remarked that:
“Reciprocal healthcare oils the wheel of the day-to-day lives of millions of citizens”,
and brings the,
“greatest benefit to some of the most vulnerable members of our society”.
I am grateful to noble Lords from across the House, not only in the debate today but during the progress of this Bill, who have been clear that there is widespread cross-party support for the current EU arrangements, and for providing the people who rely on these arrangements with the assurance that the Government are taking all the necessary steps to support them in these uncertain times.
We clearly all support the arrangements we have with the EU. It therefore does not seem logical to preclude the possibility of seeking new arrangements or strengthening existing ones outside the EU. Where the Government have a good policy in one place, it seems logical that we should want to extend it to others. Reciprocal healthcare agreements promote tourism and facilitate economic exchange and growth by enabling people to study, travel and work abroad without worrying about their ability to access healthcare, or the cost of doing so. As we have discussed in our debates on this issue, reciprocal healthcare arrangements are particularly important for older people, people such as me with chronic conditions, or people with disabilities, for whom access or costs can be a genuine barrier to travelling.
Reciprocal healthcare agreements enable people to travel overseas for planned treatment, which enables patient choice. One of the genuine benefits of the current EU arrangements is to enable mothers to travel to a home country to give birth close to their families and support networks. That is available only to EU citizens at the moment, not to those from other countries who live here. Our existing arrangements with the EU enable around 1,350 UK residents to receive planned treatment or maternity care in another EU member state. We do not want to be forced to limit choices only to EU countries in the future.
Reciprocal healthcare agreements can also help to support international healthcare co-operation through fostering closer working relationships between countries and states. We can be proud that the UK is a prominent voice in the global healthcare community and is a key driver in global attempts to raise standards of patient safety. We could help to further drive that agenda through developing even stronger relationships with our close partners. I have heard the concerns raised by noble Lords about the costs of these arrangements. Reciprocal healthcare agreements enable countries to reimburse one another on a fair and transparent basis. Noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, have queried why we cannot simply rely on waiver agreements. Fair reimbursement is the key reason why. Without this Bill, we would be restricted to waiver agreements outside the EU without a way to establish fair and transparent payment and cost-recovery mechanisms.
Agreements with other countries predate the EU and have never been limited to Europe. This is one reason why the concept of restricting the Bill to the EU does not make sense. We have agreements outside the EU now and will continue to have them in the future. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and my noble friend Lord Ribeiro raised the matter of scope—the countries which the Bill would apply to. As Clause 4 sets out, data can be shared only in accordance with the GDPR and our data protection regulations. This means that no reciprocal healthcare agreement could be reached with a country that does not meet data adequacy standards. Over and above that, as my noble friend rightly noted, this scope would be further narrowed by the need to agree reciprocal healthcare arrangements only with countries that have a compatible healthcare system. This would mean that countries such as Venezuela, raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, would simply be out of scope for an international healthcare agreement. Safeguards built into the Bill would be in place.
I make it clear that I have heard the concerns raised at Second Reading and in Committee about the global scope of the Bill and the breadth of the delegated powers. We have taken considerable steps to address the concerns about the breadth of the powers—the root cause of the concern about the global scope. As has already been referred to, we have tabled a large package of concessions, which I worked hard to try to deliver. The first was to remove the consequential Henry VIII powers; I am taken by the terminology for this now being a “Blackwood amendment”. We have limited the ability to confer functions to public bodies. We have provided greater parliamentary scrutiny over regulations relating to data processing and greater transparency over the financial aspects of future reciprocal healthcare policy in the form of an annual report. I hope that this reassures the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. We have placed a statutory duty to consult the devolved Administrations where regulations make provision within devolved competence. Finally, and very significantly, we will sunset two of the three regulation-making powers at Clause 2, so that they can be exercised only for a period of five years after exit day. This final amendment means that it is not possible for the Secretary of State to set up any kind of long-term scheme to unilaterally fund mental health treatment in Arizona or hip replacements in Australia, as the DPRRC proposed. In tabling these amendments, we have limited the delegated powers and therefore the scope of what can be done under the Bill around the world. We have also provided additional parliamentary scrutiny mechanisms and greater transparency.
During the debate on Amendments 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 27, 28 and 29, from the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Jolly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and my noble friend Lord Dundee—who cannot be in his place—I have not heard any concerns raised on the fundamental principle of reciprocal healthcare in countries outside the EU. Rather, I have heard the need for reassurance that in implementing agreements with other countries we seek to appropriately cost such arrangements, protect the NHS, and ensure that those countries which we strengthen or make new agreements with have appropriate healthcare systems and are able to process data appropriately. We are firmly committed to all these principles.
When the Bill was debated in the other place, questions were raised concerning the possibility of a reciprocal agreement with Guernsey, which is something we will need to look into following EU exit. This was seen as a positive possibility of the Bill; it is just one example of how our relationships might evolve and how the Bill can offer people new opportunities which they are currently denied under our legislative framework. If the scope of the Bill is limited to matters relating only to EEA countries and Switzerland, the Government would be unable to implement a reciprocal healthcare agreement with countries such as Guernsey where we are able to reimburse one another fairly. We would also be giving up the opportunity to support people, to bring them confidence and comfort outside the EU.
As the UK considers its relationship with the rest of the world, it is appropriate to take this opportunity to consider strengthening our existing agreements while exploring possible agreements with other countries. The powers under this Bill allow us to fund healthcare overseas to support UK nationals who live in, work in, study in, want to visit or give birth in other countries, while ensuring that we also have appropriate scrutiny powers within this Bill. They also allow us to extend similar opportunities to overseas nationals to use the NHS funded by their own country, making the NHS more sustainable and fit for the future. This is what we would be giving up with these proposed amendments.
There has been much debate in this House and outside it about whether there should, in fact, be two separate Bills: one to provide for implementing agreements with EU, EEA countries and Switzerland, and the other at a later date to provide for countries outside that group. I believe that this is the intent of Amendment 4, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks. That would not be an effective use of parliamentary time; it would prove a barrier to the development and implementation of policy in this area that is clearly in the interests of the people whom I have already discussed. I am also not clear how different a different implementing Bill would look, as it would simply be for the implementation of international healthcare agreements and would be rather similar, whether they are for the EU country or for a country in another part of the globe. It seems to be doing the same work twice.
With the Bill, we seek to ensure that we have an implementing mechanism for reciprocal healthcare now and into the future. While it may be appropriate in other policy areas for the Government to seek new primary powers to implement specific, individual international agreements, it is simply not the case with reciprocal healthcare agreements. These agreements are not far-reaching in nature and are very limited in subject matter: they are about reciprocal healthcare. As has already been discussed, the Government already rely on the royal prerogative to enter into these agreements with other countries. This Bill is simply a smarter implementing mechanism for these agreements.
I also have concerns that Amendment 4 risks our ability to effectively implement a future relationship with the EU. Recognising the broader benefits of reciprocal healthcare, we want a long-term relationship with the EU but, as with any area of policy, we must have flexibility as to how we negotiate with the EU and how we arrange our broader relationship with it. EU law evolves and, as we discussed in Committee, there are proposals currently before the European Parliament that would mean that elements of that model might change in the near future. This amendment would prevent the UK from implementing that evolved arrangement even if that was the desired negotiating position of the UK. If we put this on the face of the Bill, we would have no flexibility on how we would do that, including agreements already concluded with Switzerland and the EEA and EFTA states. The noble Lord himself acknowledges in his amendment that flexibility is needed, but through this amendment that flexibility would be difficult to apply in practice.
In relation to all the amendments in this group I firmly believe that, in pursuing future reciprocal healthcare policy with close partners outside the EEA and Switzerland, the Government are providing hope and opportunity to people. Our colleagues and friends in the other place overwhelmingly supported this endeavour. We have introduced significant restrictions on what this Bill can do globally. However, I regret that these amendments would prevent us from being able to look to the future and embrace an opportunity for EU exit. It would be a great shame to miss that opportunity.
I recognise the valuable contributions from many Members of the House on enhancing and improving many elements of this Bill; I thank them for the time that they have given me, but I am unable to accept these amendments. I hope noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments on that basis.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the Minister for her remarks and for the attention that she has paid to this matter all the way through. Everybody appreciates that enormously. In a way, she has made my argument for me, as has the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, because nothing in the Bill says that healthcare agreements have to be reciprocal. In a way, that proves that we do not need an international healthcare arrangements Bill: we need a European Union-EEA healthcare Bill to deal with reciprocal arrangements and do the job that we have in front of us.
I do not accept the argument put by the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, tugging at our heartstrings, about the human consequences of this. Actually, there is nothing to stop the Government bringing forward a global healthcare Bill. I am absolutely sure that the Minister and her colleagues, with the help of the noble Lord and others, could get this into the Queen’s Speech in two months’ time, when we could have all these discussions about how it might work. He said that we do not have any disagreements in principle about this. Actually, we do not know whether we have any disagreements in principle about international healthcare because we have not had that discussion: that is the discussion we would have if we were dealing with a Bill that was being consulted upon, going through pre-legislative scrutiny and all those other things that we have been arguing need to happen if we are to have a Bill of the scope that the Minister and her party wish to have.
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Jolly, and my noble friends Lord Foulkes and Lord Judd for their support. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, who, in his brief remarks got the argument absolutely right yet again. As I was preparing for this, I looked at the agreements we have with Australia and New Zealand, for example. These things are complicated—of course they are— and in a way that is why they deserve and need further consideration. I fear that we are not convinced by the Minister’s arguments and I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Thornton
“and may not exercise the power conferred by section 1 otherwise than in accordance with such regulations.”
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, as I should have done at the beginning of the first group, I thank the Minister for her help and courtesy in discussing this Bill and in engaging with Peers across the House to see how we should proceed with it. I echo the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, including his tribute to the Blackwood amendment in respect of Henry VIII powers. As the Minister will have appreciated and has recognised by her actions, there is a real concern about the use of delegated legislation to amend or revoke primary legislation and EU legislation.
Amendment 3 is intended to bring a constitutionally acceptable structure to the Bill. It will ensure that the powers of the Secretary of State can be exercised only within the context of regulations. I will start with a word or two about the other amendments in this group: Amendment 5, on the words “for example”, and government Amendments 6, 7 and 8, which limit the delegation of powers to public authorities.
As we have heard, Clause 2 contains the principal regulation-making powers. We had considerable debate, both at Second Reading and in Committee, about how unacceptably wide those powers are. The use of “for example” at the beginning of Clause 2(2) speaks volumes as to the disrespect shown in the Bill for the proper restriction of ministerial powers. The Delegated Powers Committee and the Constitution Committee have exposed how outrageously broad these powers are.
My amendment is directed at the absence of anything in the Bill that would limit the Secretary of State to exercising his Clause 1 powers only in accordance with regulations. One does not have to read far into the Bill to appreciate that, under Clause 1:
“The Secretary of State may make payments, and arrange for payments to be made, in respect of the cost of healthcare provided outside the United Kingdom”.
This is wholly without restriction. It is this glaring deficiency—the failure to tie the Secretary of State to the exercise of powers in accordance with limitations either in the statute or contained in regulations—that my amendment is intended to cure.
The Minister frankly and commendably, if I may say so, recognised on our first day in Committee that the effect of Clause 1, if not amended in the way I suggest, would be to enable the Secretary of State to make or arrange payments without any regulatory limitation. She justified this untrammelled power—which, frankly, I find frightening—on the basis of urgency. She said that the Bill was unlikely to secure Royal Assent before March, so regulations would not be laid before the summer. If there were no deal, she explained, Ministers might need to use the powers before then. She mentioned—again, frighteningly—sharing data as well as making healthcare payments before the Government had a chance to get regulations passed to deal with these matters “more transparently”, as she put it.
This clause alone, unamended, would justify this country ruling out a no-deal exit and ensuring that our leaving date is delayed. It is an extraordinary travesty of the notion of the United Kingdom Parliament taking back control that we are asked to pass a Bill which involves ceding to Ministers an entirely unconstrained power to pay money out across the world on the sole professed ground that the Government failed to introduce legislation in a timely way, and to permit Ministers to spend public money and make arrangements of great public importance without any parliamentary scrutiny or authorisation.
I turn briefly to the other amendments in the group. Many of us still take the view that their scope is breathtakingly and unacceptably wide. The Government’s proposal to limit possible delegation of the Secretary of State’s powers so that such powers may be conferred only on a public authority is of course welcome; so is the limited five-year sunsetting provision, to which we shall return later, but, taken together, they barely scratch the surface of the massive transfer of unrestrained power from the legislature to the Executive set out in Clause 2. Of course, the sunsetting clause should be more restrictive—at least as restrictive as proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. Again, we will come to that later.
It goes without saying that the ridiculous and offensive restriction-busting words “for example” should be removed, as proposed in Amendment 5. However, the only satisfactory way to restrict the Government’s power to what is necessary and acceptable is for the House of Commons to now accept the amendment we just passed restricting the use of the Bill to replicating the arrangements we have with the EU, the EEA and Switzerland. We hope that it does that.
This Government and future Governments must show more restraint and respect for the proper limits to the scope of delegated legislation. In the Bill, as in others to do with Brexit, they have not done that. It is to be hoped that they return to a wiser path in future.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for his exposition, which saves me from exploring yet again the powers in the Bill. I shall speak to Amendment 5, which is a simple amendment but one that we think might be quite clever in its intent. It states that regulations under the Bill can be made only for specific purposes.
When the clause was debated in Committee, noble Lords discussed the nine regulation-making powers mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, which brought comment from the DPPRC, about the widest possible scope. However, as drafted, Clause 2(2) appears to bestow infinite powers on the Secretary of State to make regulations by virtue of the seemingly innocuous phrase “for example”, which effectively grants the Secretary of State carte blanche to bring regulation forward outside the listed examples in relation to pretty much anything and everything. Just deleting those words will assist with the accountability that needs to be built into the Bill.
Amendment 5, which has the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, would ensure that regulations can be brought forward under the Act only for the purposes specified. We will, of course, support the Minister in the amendments she has tabled in this group—Amendments 6, 7 and 8 —and I think the combination of our amendment and hers significantly improves the Bill, so I hope she will accept it. I probably need to say that, unless there is a very good reason why she does not want it and why it should not be there, we will seek support from the House for this amendment.
Lord Judge
My Lords, we have here a new example of constitution-making. We have now got rid of Henry VIII in this Bill and we have something rather more subtle—not something that that great, mighty ogre could have conceived of for himself.
The new example is:
“Regulations under subsection (1) may, for example”.
Those of your Lordships who were in the House when we discussed the Trade Bill last week will remember another regulation-making power—another blockbuster like this one—only the words used were not “for example” but “among other things”, in relation to regulations under whichever subsection it was. What kind of primary legislation is this? It is really rather alarming. The primary legislation provides:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations”,
do this, that and the other: (a), (b) and (c). Well, fine. The regulations “may” do nine things—there is an amendment to one of them to come later, but this is not relevant to present purposes—specifying just about anything you can think of.
Why do we not say, even in relation to the EU, that the regulation-making power should be defined as widely as it is in Clause 2(2) but not extend further? The reality is that, with these words, in truth there is no limit to the regulation-making power. I find that astonishing, and I suspect that many Members of your Lordships’ House will find that astonishing. So we now have within the terms of the Bill—subject to the Henry VIII point, which is going—in effect an undefined, unconstrained power given to the Secretary of State to make regulations. It will not do.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge; he has been totally consistent in this field, and I very much sympathise with the point he has just made.
I serve on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and, although I cannot speak on its behalf, I think it would share with me the view that the way in which the Minister has responded to our concerns and corresponded with us has been exemplary. We thank her, I am sure, for that; it is very valuable. However—she probably anticipated a “however”—in our report of 14 February there were two critical paragraphs to which she has not responded in the various exchanges we have had with her. I hope your Lordships’ House will not mind if I read them, because they are extremely important, not just for this Bill but for a whole series of Bills that have been coming before us in recent weeks. The paragraphs refer to some of the correspondence we had with the Minister, and go as follows:
“The Minister repeatedly refers to the need for ‘flexibility’, given that reciprocal healthcare arrangements remain subject to negotiation. She says that there must be flexibility as to the meaning of healthcare, as to the persons who can be funded and as to the persons to whom functions can be delegated. The Minister says, at paragraph 19: ‘This is a forward-looking Bill and so flexibility is key’”.
We then put in our report, in heavy type:
“Powers that are too wide are not the more attractive for being part of a ‘forward-facing’ and ‘forward-looking’ Bill”.
We continued:
“At paragraph 29, the Minister says again that the Bill is a ‘forward-facing Bill’, this time to justify taking powers to go beyond replacing current EU arrangements”.
Again, in heavy type the report continued:
“Given that post-Brexit reciprocal healthcare arrangements are the Bill’s principal target, the powers in clause 2 to make law governing the provision of healthcare by anyone anywhere in the world could have been more effectively circumscribed”.
Those two paragraphs are not just appropriate to this Bill but demonstrate how, on many occasions in recent weeks, we have been effectively offered a skeletal Bill, with very considerable primary legislation made subject to largely unspecified future executive powers. Very often, it would seem, there is good reason, because of urgency or expediency. We are, however, establishing precedents for the post-Brexit situation. At the moment this can be used as an excuse—perhaps only for a few more days before the other place decides that the timescale is ludicrous—but it is not acceptable that we are constantly given legislation for a particular purpose and told that Ministers must have very wide-ranging, unspecified future powers simply for reasons of urgency. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, have said, if we are not very careful we will establish precedents in this way.
I hope that when the Minister responds—having not previously done so in her exchanges with the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—she will comment on the particular points that were made in the report’s recommendations.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is right in saying that we are establishing a precedent, but I have been looking at the word “example”, and wonder whether the Minister has examples of this kind of legislation being used elsewhere. I cannot think of any. I examined the withdrawal Bill, which was very wide-ranging, and as far as I can recall this phrase does not appear in it even though it contains many provisions about delegated legislation. It would, therefore, be helpful to me if it was demonstrated that this is not the kind of precedent that has been described. In general, however, I congratulate the Minister and her Bill team on going a very long way to meet our objections in later parts of the Bill. I am, however, worried about this bit of it and would like to be reassured.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for tabling Amendment 3 and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for Amendment 5, both of which seek to place limits on the powers in the Bill.
I will first address the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, on Amendment 5, and clarify the purpose of Clause 2(2). We have had some debate about this already but this will be helpful. Clause 2(2) is intended to be an illustrative list of examples of the type of provision that may be included in regulations made under Clause 2(1). It is not itself intended to be a delegated power. The intention has always been to be prudent and transparent in the use of the delegated legislation, and the list was included to be helpful, by demonstrating the types of provision that the regulation-making powers at Clause 2(1) could enable, in order to effectively implement international healthcare regulations in the same way as under reciprocal healthcare regulations. This is not uncommon in primary legislation.
The list is reflective of the kind of provision already included in our current, more comprehensive, reciprocal healthcare arrangements with the EU, and it is intended as a guide to how the powers in Clause 2(1) can be exercised. Regulations under this clause need to be able to do everything that they might need to do to provide healthcare outside the UK, or to give effective agreement. I described in some detail during our debate on this clause in Committee why each of the descriptive lists were included and what they would be used for.
This amendment could mean that future Administrations would be unable to effectively implement reciprocal healthcare agreements with the EU, individual member states or other countries. The reason for this, which has already been alluded to in the debate, is that we have not yet concluded those negotiations and so it is not possible to rule out what we may need to provide for in regulations to give effect to an agreement. In addition, it would not be appropriate to circumscribe in the Bill the Government’s negotiating mandate with the EU, EU member states or countries outside the EEA and Switzerland.
The examples in Clause 2(2) are not exhaustive, but they are useful pointers to aid understanding of how Clause 2(1) is capable of being exercised. I think they have served their purpose, given that we have had such robust debate about them. They offer additional transparency and assistance in understanding how the regulation-making powers in Clause 2(1) would work for the purpose of implementing reciprocal healthcare agreements. This is not an unusual statutory construction; there are examples of where regulation-making powers are accompanied by illustrative lists of what may be included in regulations in order to provide assistance in the understanding of what the powers are capable of doing. As to whether those illustrative lists include the words “for example”, I have an example from Clause 11(2) of the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018, which states:
“Regulations under subsection (1) may, for example—”,
include paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). That is perhaps a helpful example for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope.
As this important policy area continues to develop and progress both in the EU and outside the EU, it is appropriate for the Government to be able to respond to protect the continuity of care of those already in receipt of reciprocal healthcare, as well as to explore whether we would like to extend it to others. Were we to accept this amendment, it would, as I said on the previous group, restrict the implementation of reciprocal healthcare arrangements to current processes. That is clearly inappropriate when implementing dynamic agreements in which there are two parties.
Regulations under Clause 2(1) need to be able to do everything they might need to do to provide for healthcare outside the UK or give effect to a healthcare agreement. One small example of why it is right that the Government retain the ability to do this is developments in IT or new technology. As technological change continues to gather pace, it is right that the Government should be able to make the best use of those changes and ensure the most effective and efficient systems for the people accessing these arrangements. That is why we might need to bring in another regulation-making power. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, as a former Health Minister, would agree that technology has the power to change the way people access healthcare and can make a real difference in people’s lives, especially perhaps those who are restricted from accessing healthcare because of long-term conditions or distance from services.
While the illustrative list at Clause 2(2) does not expressly make reference to this matter, it may well be necessary to make arrangements to ensure that the most effective and efficient technological processes and systems are incorporated into the implementation of future reciprocal healthcare agreements. The Government are working, through this Bill, to ensure that we have the necessary ability to implement future international healthcare agreements with both EU and non-EU countries.
Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, speaks to concerns about the breadth of the powers in the Bill. Clause 1 follows a long line of general payment powers found in primary legislation, further to the Public Accounts Committee’s concordant that government expenditure should flow from a specific Act of Parliament. It is a free-standing payment power and needs to be so. Notwithstanding that, we have deliberately chosen to include a power in Clause 2(1) that can be used to support the exercise of the payment power. Therefore, it is not possible for the Government to accept this amendment. Indeed, the DPRRC recognises that general payment powers are not delegated powers.
As I said in my response to this amendment in Committee, the Bill is making good progress through Parliament but clearly will not have Royal Assent until later this month. So, with the best will in the world, we will not be able to lay regulations until the summer. However, in the undesirable, unprecedented situation of no deal, we may need to use these powers before then. That would be specifically for a scenario concerning citizens’ rights agreements with the EFTA states and with Switzerland, which will protect reciprocal healthcare for people living in those countries on exit day, or in other specified cross-border situations.
It is good news that we have operative agreements in the context of no deal, as they will guarantee healthcare for those covered by them. It is likely, though, that we will need to use the power in Clause 1, together with Clause 4, to temporarily implement those agreements. We cannot therefore accept the amendment because we would not be able to protect the healthcare arrangements of people in those countries. We will bring forward further detail in coming weeks when we can be clearer about bilateral agreements, and on the need for any further arrangements. I hope that noble Lords will agree that the Government must have the ability to provide for people at this unprecedented time. I emphasise that stand-alone funding powers such as those in Clause 1 that operate without the need for delegated legislation are not unusual—so this is not being brought in simply because of a no-deal situation.
I have listened carefully and considered the comments of noble Lords about concerns about the scope and breadth of the power. That is why we have sought to address concerns about it, with a large package of amendments to which I have already referred. We have specifically limited the delegated powers and the scope of what can be done under the Bill, and provided additional parliamentary scrutiny mechanisms and greater transparency.
Finally, I will speak to government Amendments 6, 7 and 8. They are in direct response to the concerns raised that regulations under the Bill could be used to confer functions on anyone, anywhere. It is understandable that noble Lords raised the possibility that the regulation-making powers in Clause 2 could be extended to confer functions on private bodies. There is not and has never been an intention to confer functions on private bodies in order to implement reciprocal healthcare arrangements. This was always the case but, given the concerns raised, we are taking action to make this clear.
The proposed government amendments limit Clause 2 to the operation of Clause 2(1) to ensure that any conferral or delegation of functions may only be to a “public authority”. The definition of “public authority” is a person who exercises a function of a public nature. This ensures that public bodies maintain autonomy over how services are procured, contracted and delivered. When making regulations to implement such healthcare agreements, we wish to confer relevant functions on appropriate public bodies according to their part, giving them clear legal responsibility and an operating mandate. Our amendment does not prohibit us from doing this.
I therefore hope that noble Lords will withdraw or not move their amendments.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I shall seek leave to withdraw my amendment, because I feel very much under pressure from what the Minister has just said. It is the case that the free-standing power is needed, as she said, because of the delay that there has been in order to ensure that the payment power can be used before regulations can be laid. My amendment would therefore imperil the continuation of our current European arrangements. I feel under pressure because it the wrong way to do this. It is a great shame that this legislation was not introduced timeously, but I do not wish to divide the House on my amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
“(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may be used only to the extent necessary to replicate so far as possible the model of reciprocal healthcare for the European Union, the European Economic Area and Switzerland in place before the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.”
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
Amendment 4 is, I think, consequential on Amendment 1.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
I am not sure that Amendment 4 is entirely consequential, so it is probably better if I do not move it, now that Amendment 1 has been agreed.
Baroness Thornton
Baroness Thornton
I listened very carefully to the Minister and I am not convinced, partly because the regulations under Clause 2(2) are very helpful. They give the Government everything they need to take forward the negotiations on reciprocal healthcare, and as the Minister herself said, we have put the regulations in place to help with a no-deal situation, which I hope will not occur. But the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Judge, made the point that those words are, while dangerous might be an exaggeration, certainly not appropriate.
Lord Woolf (CB)
Does the noble Baroness agree that, with “for example”, you may not be extending the jurisdiction of the regulations but actually limiting their range? That is what the Minister was seeking to tell us in her eloquent description of her case. If you say “for example, cows”, you have the example of animals that fall within the range of cows. Without that phrase, some cases would not apply to cows.
Baroness Thornton
I hate to disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, but the words “for example” expand the list rather than decrease it. That is the point of this amendment. Given the huge weight of regulations that we are dealing with in this House, if something is not included in that list, I am sure that that can be remedied. We are getting very good at remedying those situations. We on these Benches think—and other noble Lords have certainly agreed—that “for example” expands the range and that is not necessary or appropriate, so I beg to move and wish to test the opinion of the House.
“(2A) But regulations under subsection (1) may not confer functions on, or provide for the delegation of functions to, a person who is not a public authority.”
“(5) In this section “public authority” means a person who exercises functions of a public nature (but does not include a person who does so only because of exercising functions on behalf of another).”
“(6) No regulations may be made under subsection (1)(a) or (b) after the end of the period of five years beginning with exit day.”
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
My Lords, the Bill’s delegated powers and their global application have been a source of spirited debate since this Bill’s introduction, and noble Lords have rightly given considerable scrutiny to this matter. A number of amendments were tabled in Committee, including those by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Jolly, the noble Lords, Lord Patel, Lord Kakkar and Lord Marks, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. This issue has concerned Peers across the House. I am pleased to say that the Government have listened carefully and tabled an amendment that significantly curtails the scope of the delegated powers in the Bill.
Amendment 9 directly addresses the concerns raised by restricting the exercise of the delegated powers, and, as we have already discussed, limits the global scope. The Bill is intended to support the implementation of comprehensive reciprocal healthcare arrangements with countries within and outside the EU, and to implement possible future partnerships. It was drafted to fulfil this purpose in a number of different scenarios, and that remains the Government’s intention, but we have listened closely to the points raised by Peers both inside and outside of this Chamber, as well as to the views of the DPRRC and the Constitution Committee, and concluded that the regulation-making powers that can be used to set up schemes for unilateral healthcare overseas should be time-limited.
The powers in Clause 2(1)(a) and Clause 2(1)(b) would primarily be needed, in the event of a no deal, to mitigate any detrimental effects of a sudden change in healthcare access for UK nationals living in the EU. These powers would be required in the event that reciprocal arrangements are not in place. Our aim remains to reach an agreement on reciprocal arrangements, but as a sensible Government, we need to plan for all eventualities.
In the unprecedented event of leaving the European Union with no deal, we would need to have the option of establishing support mechanisms for people in exceptional circumstances where there would be a serious risk to their health should any member state not agree to maintain reciprocal healthcare. However, we have listened, and want to ensure that while the Government have the ability to provide for people in this unprecedented time, we are still respectful of the constitutional roles of Parliament and the Executive. In response, we feel that the delegated powers that implement healthcare arrangements outside of reciprocal healthcare agreements with other countries should be sunsetted.
During the five years before the sunset, we will retain the flexibility to deal with exit scenarios using regulations under Clause 2(1) as appropriate. These powers can be used to offer UK nationals reassurance and certainty, which we intend through this Bill. After the sunset, making use of the regulation-making powers under Clause 2(1) would be limited to Clause 2(1)(c) only, which provides the Government with a mechanism to give effect to future complex global healthcare agreements. However, it is important to state that this amendment will mean that it is not possible for the Secretary of State to set up any long-term scheme to unilaterally fund mental health treatment in Arizona or hip replacements in Australia, as has been suggested. Of course, this is not something a reasonable Government would intend to do, but I am happy to provide that reassurance. However, we would want to remove any perceived risk regarding this power, and that is the intention of this amendment.
In tabling the amendment, the Government have sought to clarify the intended use of the important powers in Clause 2(1)(a) and (b). This represents a significant restriction of the Government’s use of delegated powers, in direct response to concerns raised by parliamentarians across this House. It also represents a significant check on the global scope of the Bill. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend will forgive me if I ask for a point of clarification. If Amendment 9 is passed, after the sunset clause is implemented, powers could only be made in relation to a healthcare agreement. However, Clause 3 says that a healthcare agreement can concern either healthcare provided outside the United Kingdom and paid for by the United Kingdom, or healthcare provided in the United Kingdom with another country paying. It does not require reciprocity. Is that quite the restriction my noble friend was suggesting, since it could still be unilateral, not reciprocal?
Baroness Thornton
I thank the Minister for tabling this sunset clause; she is quite right to do so. I had not thought of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, but it is a good one. However, we support the amendment.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for his question. This power enables a unilateral scheme, so it does not require reciprocity and is intended to be used only in an emergency scenario where a group of individuals are in difficulty. That is why it is appropriate to sunset it in this way.
I thank the House for its support for the amendment and hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, will withdraw his amendment on that basis. I beg to move.
Lord Judge
“( ) No regulations may be made under subsection 1(a) or (b) in relation to countries outside the European Economic Area or Switzerland after the end of a period of two years beginning with exit day.”
Lord Judge
Given the result of the Division earlier this afternoon, I do not intend to move this amendment. If we have to reconsider the issue, however, I may have to come back to it.
Baroness Thornton
Lord Clement-Jones
“( ) The processing of personal data in accordance with subsection (1) must comply with—(a) the seven Caldicott principles outlined in the Caldicott Committee’s Report on the Review of Patient-Identifiable Information and subsequent reports;(b) the Government’s Data Ethics Framework.”
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 14, and your Lordships will be pleased to hear that I will be brief.
During the passage of the Bill, considerable concerns have been raised by a number of noble Lords about the use and sharing of data within the NHS. It is a hotly contested subject, and one of the best briefings on it is from our Library, prior to a debate on 6 September initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. It unpacks a number of the concerns and issues about data within the NHS, and I am sorry that I have been unable to be at Second Reading or in Committee to expand on some of those issues.
During our Select Committee inquiry into artificial intelligence, there were a number of witnesses who talked about the use of data in the NHS, and we drew a number of conclusions, namely that the data was not in good shape to be utilised for beneficial purposes such as research, diagnosis and screening. That is another issue, however; what concerns noble Lords is the question of sharing. Now that we have seen Amendment 1 pass, maybe we will deal only with countries where there is a level of data adequacy which gives us an assurance about the use of NHS data. As the King’s Fund said last year in its report, Using Data in the NHS:
“National policy has to keep a balance between responding to legitimate public concern about the security and confidentiality of data and enabling data to be shared and used by NHS organisations and third parties. It is also essential that NHS national bodies are transparent with the public about how patient data is used”.
It went on to suggest that the level of opt-outs for patients would be key to the quality and validity of future research, and that NHS England and NHS Digital should keep this under review. One of the issues in the NHS is that there are several organisations responsible for NHS data. It is not just NHS England, NHS Digital, the National Information Board and Public Health England. The Caldicott Guardian—the national guardian for health and care—has a responsibility as well. It is quite a disparate, rather balkanised issue.
I was reassured on reading what the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, had to say when she responded, as the Minister, to this set of amendments in Committee:
“Under the Bill, personal data can be processed only in accordance with UK data protection law, namely the Data Protection Act 2018 and the general data protection regulation, which will form part of UK domestic law under the EU withdrawal Act 2018 from exit day”.
I am not going to go into all the questions about data adequacy and so on. I take what she said as quite reassuring, but it was less so when she later responded to what was then Amendment 23—this amendment is identical. She said:
“I assure the Committee that the Government are committed to the safe, lawful and responsible processing of people’s data”.
However, she then said:
“As the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy noted, the Caldicott principles and the Government’s Data Ethics Framework are admirable standards to apply to the handling of patient data. Both of these non-legislative frameworks are in line with the Data Protection Act and the GDPR, which are enshrined in the Bill”.—[Official Report, 19/2/19; cols. 2261-63.]
That is not unequivocal in terms of those standards applying. As the Minister knows, we discussed this between Committee and Report. I had hoped to receive correspondence from her, but sadly I have not done so. She may need to repeat whatever text of the letter she may be able to find in her outbox. I hope she can give the House reassurance that the national data ethics framework and the Caldicott principles will apply to any sharing of data. The data ethics framework is a cross-government standard, of course, but the Caldicott principles are specific to the NHS. It is important to make sure they apply both domestically and internationally.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for giving the House the opportunity to talk about this issue again. He has been deeply involved in this topic and, as he said, I spoke on it in Committee. Compliance with this country’s very robust data protection rules is critical in general and particularly important in healthcare. This was discussed in the debate instigated by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg; it has been a topic of conversation in this House, both in and out of the Chamber, on many occasions.
The noble Lord talked about the number of bodies that have some responsibility: he called it balkanised. It is important that we do not create a balkanisation in the law, even if a small one is in operation. One set of law should take precedence over all data protection, security and connected issues. That is, and should be, the Data Protection Act 2018. This means that there are operational guidelines, frameworks, principles and so on about how these ought to operate within individual contexts. That is precisely where the Caldicott principles come in. They take a general piece of legislation and translate what good practice in interpreting it ought to mean in a health setting. In that sense, it is important to say that we should not put those principles in a legislative setting. They are interpretive of the core, primary legislation and may need to change over time. They may need to adapt; there may be an eighth principle as we get into interesting questions about the value of data and so on.
It is important to recognise that the Caldicott principles bring to life what the Data Protection Act ought to mean in health settings. It would be a mistake to create competing law. Of course the Government agree with the noble Lord about the importance of giving force to the principles. That is one reason why we supported the Private Member’s Bill brought into this House by my noble friend Lady Chisholm to put the national data guardian on a statutory basis. I hope that that gives him the strength of reassurance about the way that the framework is constructed, which is not to create an opportunity to do funny stuff at the edges, but rather to make sure that there is primacy of one set of legislation.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, the noble Lord used the expression, “giving force”. If those principles are given force, it means that the Government treat themselves and put on the record that they are bound by those principles. That is what giving force would mean in those circumstances, because these are novel circumstances set out in the Bill. That kind of reassurance is needed with the data ethics framework.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I had amendments that the Minister responded to at the Dispatch Box and I accepted her explanation at the time. Now I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is trying to raise, that those principles that she enunciated about data protection included the Caldicott principles. As that reassurance was given at the Dispatch Box, I think it will cover the issue.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I added my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I am grateful that he has made the argument so I do not need to repeat it. Of course, I spoke about this in Committee and, like other noble Lords, I was reassured at the time by the explanation given by the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor. Since then, however, the Bill team has actually made available the Bill data processing factsheet, which is very useful. It explains things in great detail, so I wondered whether it might be a good idea if this was given to everybody involved with this Bill. I do not know whether the noble Lord has seen this, but it is a very useful piece of information. Otherwise, I was satisfied in Committee, and if the Minister answers the questions, I am sure that I will remain satisfied.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jolly and Lady Thornton, for tabling Amendment 14 and raising the issue of the lawful and responsible processing of data. I start with an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. My noble friend Lady Blackwood did write to the noble Lord, and I am sorry that he has not yet received the letter. We will endeavour to send him another copy as soon as possible.
As my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy said—and I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Patel, that—data sharing is a necessary and crucial aspect of maintaining effective complex reciprocal healthcare arrangements, and the Government are committed to the safe, lawful processing of people’s personal data. There are, as the noble Lord said, safeguards in place in respect of processing personal data for the purposes set out under the Bill, for which the Bill makes express provision. The Bill makes it absolutely clear that it does not authorise the processing of data that contravenes UK data protection legislation.
Data processing will be permitted only for the limited purposes set out in the Bill. Personal data will be processed in accordance with UK data protection law—as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, observed—namely, the Data Protection Act 2018 and the general data protection regulation, which will form part of UK domestic law under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 from exit day.
I assure the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Clement- Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that the Caldicott principles are an important part of the governance of confidential patient information in the NHS and a guiding mechanism for organisations in how they should handle confidential patient information on a practical level. The NHS is expected to adhere to these principles.
Since 1999, NHS bodies have been mandated to appoint a Caldicott Guardian. These principles are therefore ingrained in the current operation of the NHS and confidential patient data handled by the NHS for purposes in relation to reciprocal healthcare will be subject to these principles. The principles are consistent with the requirements of the GDPR and a breach of the Caldicott principles would most likely amount to a breach of the GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. The principles are not intended for statute but are of real practical and operational importance when confidential patient information is processed. This will be the case when confidential patient information needed for reciprocal healthcare arrangements is processed.
It is also worth noting that reciprocal healthcare arrangements will not normally involve the processing of confidential patient information, except in particular circumstances, such as facilitating planned treatment. However, where this information is processed through reciprocal healthcare arrangements under the NHS, it must comply with UK data protection legislation. NHS organisations, as they do now, will be required to adhere to the Caldicott principles. The data ethics framework that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned sets out collective standards and ethical frameworks for how data should be used across the whole public sector, as well as the standards for transparency and accountability when building or buying new data technology. Where the framework refers to personal data, it consistently cross-refers to the principles in the GDPR, which is the relevant legislation that policymakers must consider when processing personal data.
Personal data processed for the purposes of reciprocal healthcare arrangements would therefore also take into account the data ethics framework. In addition, from 1 April 2019, the National Data Guardian will be put on a statutory footing and will therefore be able to issue formal guidance and informal advice to organisations and individuals about the processing of health and adult social care data in England. This will provide patients statutory independent oversight of the use of health data, with health bodies being required by law to have regard to the guidance issued by the National Data Guardian. This is another way in which NHS organisations in England which are processing data in respect of reciprocal healthcare will be monitored and personal data can be further protected as necessary.
It is important to note that express reference to these principles in the Bill would not provide any additional protections for personal data or confidential patient information, as the standard of protections required is the same as the existing data protection legislation already provided for in the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and others for their support in observing this. Furthermore, as I have said, these principles already apply to NHS organisations and will continue to do so in respect of reciprocal healthcare. As a result, it would be inappropriate to put these in the Bill and I am therefore unable to accept the amendment. However, the Government have listened carefully to concerns surrounding the list of persons who can lawfully process data as a part of implementing new reciprocal healthcare arrangements under the Bill and have tabled an amendment on this issue.
Currently, the list of authorised persons under the Bill includes the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and a Northern Ireland department, NHS bodies and providers of healthcare. Of course, over time, public bodies change, are reformed and refashioned, and functions are transferred between them in consequence. Clause 4(6)(e) gives the Secretary of State the ability to respond to such changes so that systems can operate efficiently and data can follow in an appropriate and lawful way to enable such operation. We propose, however, subjecting any regulations that add to the list of persons authorised to process data for the purposes of the Bill to the draft affirmative procedure. This would allow Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise authorised persons handling personal data while ensuring that the Government have the ability to guarantee that future agreements are administered in the most efficient way possible.
The Government are firmly committed to the safe, lawful processing of personal data, and to ensuring that patients have enforceable protections under data protection legislation. I hope, given my assurances that any data processing under the Bill would comply with the Caldicott principles and the data ethics framework as appropriate, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, kindly mentioned the factsheet. Of course, if it is useful, we would be very happy to put this in the Library. Officials do a tremendous job and I am very grateful to them. I hope, with the assurance I have given noble Lords, and the fact we are providing greater scrutiny, that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, that was exactly the kind of robust response from the Minister that I was hoping for. It is very rare that I listen to a government response and nod all the way through, so I thank her for that very careful response, both on the Caldicott principles and the framework for data ethics, and for going into the accountabilities, and the affirmative procedure guarantee at the end—that was a bouquet. It is not that we on these and other Benches do not understand the value of NHS data and the real importance of that balance. This is not designed as a negative approach to the use of NHS data; it has huge potential benefits, but we have to make sure that it is kept within that ethical framework. The Minister has demonstrated that that kind of culture is ingrained—or is certainly expected to be ingrained—in the NHS and that Caldicott Guardians, post 1 April, will be very much on the case. In those circumstances, with pleasure, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Manzoor
“Requirement for consultation with devolved authorities
(1) Before making regulations under section 2 that contain provision which is within the legislative competence of a devolved legislature, the Secretary of State must consult the relevant devolved authority on that provision.(2) In this section—“devolved authority” means the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers or a Northern Ireland department;“devolved legislature” means the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly.(3) A provision is within the legislative competence of a devolved legislature if—(a) it would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of the Scottish Parliament;(b) it would be within the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales if it were contained in an Act of the Assembly (including any provision that could only be made with the consent of a Minister of the Crown); or(c) the provision, if it were contained in an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly—(i) would be within the legislative competence of the Assembly, and(ii) would not require the consent of the Secretary of State.”
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, in Committee, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton, Lady Jolly, and Lady Humphreys, tabled amendments on devolution and specifically sought to place an obligation on the Government to consult with the devolved Administrations when making regulations under this Bill. We listened very carefully to that debate and were committed to bringing forward a government amendment which set out, on the face of the Bill, a duty to consult the devolved Administrations where regulations under Clause 2 would make provisions that would be within the legislative competence of a devolved legislature. Government Amendment 15 fulfils this commitment.
I am delighted that the Scottish Parliament has granted a legislative consent Motion to the Bill and that the Welsh Government have tabled a consent motion in the Welsh Assembly recommending that the Assembly, which is debating the Motion today, grants consent to the Bill. We have also had positive and productive engagement with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Department of Health and in the Northern Ireland Office. We are grateful for their support and agreement to ensure that this Bill applies and extends to Northern Ireland.
The regulation-making powers in the Bill provide us with a legal mechanism to implement comprehensive international healthcare agreements into domestic law and provide for healthcare outside the UK for the benefit of all UK nationals. It is, however, recognised that these powers may be used in ways which relate to devolved matters, by which I mean domestic healthcare. In light of this, the amendment provides:
“Before making regulations under Section 2 that contain provision which is within the legislative competence of a devolved legislature, the Secretary of State must consult the relevant devolved authority”.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I support this important amendment, to which I have added my name on behalf of these Benches, and I thank the Minister for the proposed new clause.
Our original amendment proposing a duty to consult the devolved Administrations before making regulations under Clause 2 highlighted a glaring omission from the original Bill which has now thankfully been remedied by this amendment. Although we were very grateful for the assurances the Government gave that there was active involvement and discussion on the Bill with the devolved Administrations on matters affecting them, the requirement as a statutory duty was crucial, as many noble Lords stressed in Committee. We underlined that a statutory commitment to consult and seek the views of the devolved Administrations on matters affecting them would enable future discussions on reciprocal healthcare arrangements to take place on a collaborative and constructive basis.
I thank the Minister for updating us on Scotland and Northern Ireland, as also happened in Committee. I note too that a supplementary legislative consent Motion with regard to the Welsh Assembly is being discussed today. I was going to ask the Minister for further news, but obviously she has not had any, and I am sure that she will let us know as soon as there is some.
As the Minister also mentioned, in addition to the requirements contained in the amendment, the memorandum of understanding that has been developed between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government to underpin the amendment provides for devolved Administrations to be consulted on: the negotiation of new healthcare agreements; the development and drafting of regulations under the Bill to implement such agreements; and agreements which apply to or have implications for devolved Administrations, and on regulations giving effect to those agreements. We very much welcome that.
Finally, I ask the Minister for a formal response to the question I raised in Committee on the Constitution Committee’s report on the Bill in February in respect of the devolved Administrations. Paragraph 15 stressed the need for the Government to set out how they intend to manage the overlapping competencies in relation to the Bill and other policy areas. The committee pointed out that the potential for overlapping competencies will increase as all powers are repatriated from the EU, as does the scope for disagreement about such issues, and this will need to be managed. If the Minister prefers to write to me on this matter, that would be acceptable and much appreciated.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing the amendment and for the implicit acceptance that the recognition of the powers of the devolved Administrations was a serious omission from the Bill. I must admit that I find the ineptitude—I think that is the right word—of Ministers and officials who produce Bills such as this without “devolution proofing” them deeply frustrating. Surely it would have been possible someone to take a few seconds at the early stages of the Bill’s production to ask, “Does this Bill have an impact on the powers of the devolved Administrations?” That would have saved so much time, and prevented my blood pressure skyrocketing.
While I am pleased that the amendment calls on the Secretary of State to consult with devolved Administrations on matters that are within their devolved competence, may I press the Minister to explain the implications—and perhaps the limitations—of the word “consult”? My amendment in Committee called for an assurance that the Bill would not allow the Secretary of State to amend, repeal or revoke Welsh primary legislation—which is rather different from mere consultation. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could clarify this for me so that we have on record a full recognition of the powers of the devolved Administrations.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, I signed the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, in Committee. Indeed, as I indicated in the speech I made then, when evidence was given to the Scottish Parliament committee that was looking at the legislative consent Motion memorandum issue, there was an expectation that there would be a consent provision in the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood of North Oxford, clearly indicated an intention to do so when she replied to the debate; I put on record an appreciation of the fact that we now have this delivered in letter and in spirit.
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Wheeler and Lady Humphreys, for their support for this amendment.
I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, that of course consent means exactly that. We have gone a long way to set out a memorandum of understanding that is mutually beneficial; it will be a beneficial working relationship to ensure that the devolved Administrations will continue to play a vital role in delivering reciprocal healthcare. We will continue to consult and to work closely with them, both at ministerial and official level. I therefore reassure her on that point.
I will write to clarify the issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, raised. As I said, the MoU that we have agreed sets out our future working relationship, which will include consideration of where compliances overlap.
This amendment represents our close working relationship; I give an assurance from the Government that we are committed to ensuring that arrangements will be conducive to the development of a reciprocal healthcare system that operates effectively across the whole of the UK in a way that fully respects the devolution settlements. I hope that, with the assurances I have given, noble Lords will feel able to support the amendment.
Baroness Manzoor
“Report on payments made under this Act
(1) The Secretary of State must, in relation to each relevant period—(a) prepare a report in accordance with this section, and(b) lay the report before Parliament as soon as practicable after the end of the period.(2) Each report must give details of payments made under the powers conferred by or under this Act.(3) “Relevant period” means—(a) the period beginning with the day on which this Act is passed and ending with the end of the first financial year to begin after exit day;(b) each subsequent period of 12 months.(4) “Financial year” means the period of 12 months beginning with 1 April.”
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, financial reporting in the context of the Bill has already been the subject of debate in Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and my noble friend Lord Dundee, who, sadly, is not here today, tabled an amendment on this matter, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton, Lady Wheeler, Lady Jolly and Lady Finlay, also spoke on this important matter.
While we were unable to support the amendment tabled in Committee, the Government supported its spirit, in line with our ongoing commitment to transparency, particularly when it comes to the use of public money. We made this clear in our letter to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee earlier this year, and I am pleased now to introduce this government amendment, which provides a statutory duty to publish an annual report. Government Amendment 16 places a duty on the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament each year. This report will outline all payments made during the preceding financial year in respect of healthcare arrangements implemented by the Bill. I believe this amendment directly addresses many of the concerns raised by noble Lords in Committee, and the clear request for increased scrutiny of the use of public money.
The nature and implementation of future reciprocal healthcare agreements is, of course, a matter for future negotiations. However, we envisage that, through this reporting mechanism, we would also be able to provide Parliament with further information on the operation of future agreements. For example, we anticipate that this report would include details of both expenditure and income to reflect the reciprocal nature of agreements.
The amendment provides for annual reports, which will be published as soon as is practicable after the end of each financial year. Expenditure by the Department of Health and Social Care relating to EU reciprocal healthcare arrangements is currently published to Parliament in the form of annual resource accounts. Reporting on future reciprocal healthcare arrangements will continue in this way. Indeed, as now, the department’s future expenditure on reciprocal healthcare will be subject to the existing government reporting requirements. For example, DHSC income and expenditure accounts, relating to current EU reciprocal healthcare arrangements, are already audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and published by the Treasury as part of the annual report presented to Parliament.
However, the Government have heard the need for greater transparency in our administration and implementation of reciprocal healthcare arrangements. Moreover, we understand the importance of presenting this information in a clear and accessible document, which is why we propose to go beyond the current reporting requirements with this amendment. Our intention is that Parliament should have clear and easy-to-access details of the public spending on healthcare arrangements implemented under the Bill.
Noble Lords have also expressed concern over the scope of the powers in the Bill. This proposal works alongside the Government’s other amendments in providing clarity. It allows for increased parliamentary scrutiny in respect of costs incurred in relation to future healthcare arrangements.
We remain committed to financial transparency. The amendment ensures that we are able to continue providing Parliament with further opportunities for scrutiny. I hope that your Lordships will be able to offer their support to this amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment 17 (to Amendment 16)
Baroness Thornton
“(2) The annual report laid under subsection (1) must include, but is not limited to— (a) all payments made by the government of the United Kingdom in respect of healthcare arrangements for healthcare provided outside the United Kingdom to British citizens;(b) all payments received by the government of the United Kingdom in reimbursement of costs of healthcare provided by the United Kingdom to all non-British citizens;(c) the number of British citizens treated under healthcare agreements outside the United Kingdom;(d) the number of non-British citizens treated under healthcare agreements within the United Kingdom;(e) any and all outstanding payments owed to or by the government of the United Kingdom in respect of the provision of healthcare outside the United Kingdom made before the passing of this Act; and(f) any and all administrative costs faced by NHS Trusts in respect of implementing healthcare agreements.(2A) The information required under subsection (2)(a) and (b) must be listed by individual country in every annual report.”
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, this is a probing amendment to Amendment 16. I am seeking reassurance about the contents of the annual report. I very much welcome the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, which we shall be supporting.
I realise that lists are a dangerous thing to put in a Bill. In proposing her amendment, the noble Baroness covered some of these points. However, it is very important, given the powers that the Bill contains, that information—for example under Clause 2(2)(a) and (b)—must be listed in every annual report by individual countries. We feel that proposed new paragraphs (a) to (f) in our amendment need to be contained within the annual report.
This amendment seeks reassurance that the contents of this report will be consistent with the powers that the Government are seeking in the Bill.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. Without repeating our debates at previous stages of the Bill, it would be helpful to have reassurance from the Minister that the content of the list in the noble Baroness’s amendment is exactly the sort of detail we need. It is important to reassure people on exactly how any financial arrangements for healthcare will be made.
Lord Lansley
Further to that point, I think following the list exactly may be the most difficult thing for the Government to do. Amendment 16 sets out to commit to a report on payments. We have healthcare agreements with, for example, Australia and New Zealand where no money changes hands. As I understand the way in which these agreements work, it would be very difficult for numbers of British citizens in Australia or Australian citizens here to be collected to be reported. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked for the list to contain exactly the sort of information we need. While the list may indicate the sort of information we are looking for, if it is not available, it is not available.
Baroness Brinton
Under current arrangements, the National Audit Office is able to tell us exactly the costs of the reciprocal arrangements with Europe. I am therefore struggling to understand why we might not be able to do this elsewhere in future.
Lord Lansley
The costs are exactly what the Government are proposing to report on. The Australian agreement, for example, does not involve payments to and fro. So costs do not arise. We have mutual, reciprocal agreements about treating each other’s citizens in our domestic healthcare system.
Baroness Brinton
I am sorry to prolong the point but, surely, we would be clocking up those costs in the NHS, even if they were not reclaimed.
Lord Lansley
The Minister may wish to advise on this. I understand that we probably do not—because there is no requirement to recover the money—whereas, under an EU agreement, we collect the data because we are required to charge the Governments who are the competent authorities for those patients.
Baroness Brinton
I am really sorry to prolong this point but, if we are trying to make sure that new reciprocal arrangements are effective, this is exactly the sort of data collection that we should be seeking. Even if it is not used initially, the whole point is that we want to understand the costs of each arrangement.
Lord Lansley
I am making a simpler point: it is no good asking for information that is not collected. There is a good reason why it is not collected. Although, this might happen in future, at the moment I do not think anybody is proposing to switch the Australian and New Zealand agreements to ones where there is reciprocal reimbursement. In this case, I do not think the information is being collected.
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for her amendment and to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lord Lansley for their contributions. I am not sure I want to go down this route. However, if the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, wants me to write to her to clarify the point she raised, I will certainly do so. From what I have seen, my noble friend Lord Lansley is correct in saying that we have a reciprocal agreement with the countries he mentioned, where money does not exchange hands.
I can reassure the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Brinton, that—as I indicate—the Government have listened to the need for greater transparency in the administration and implementation of reciprocal healthcare arrangements. I welcome the support around the House for our intentions. We understand the importance of presenting this information in a clear and accessible document, which is why we propose to go beyond the current reporting requirements. Our initial commitment to the DPRRC is contained in the amendment that the Government have tabled on this matter.
As I said, the government amendment directly addresses concerns raised by noble Lords. I hope it reassures noble Lords and demonstrates that we have listened to the clear request for increased scrutiny of the use of public money.
The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, would ensure that specific requirements are reported on. The detailed content of the financial report should—and could only—be determined, once reciprocal healthcare agreements have been made and technical and operational details are known. We do not know what these agreements may be in future. If we accepted the amendment, we would be placing a statutory duty on future Administrations to collect and report on data we have not yet agreed to exchange with other countries. This is not appropriate.
Our amendment is a more feasible way of reporting on future healthcare arrangements that does not pre-empt their nature or how they may be implemented, but still allows for transparency and accountability, which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and other noble Lords seek. It is a baseline, and we intend to go further than just reporting on payments, but we cannot provide a statutory obligation to do so.
The Department for Health and Social Care is currently working to ensure that UK nationals can continue to access healthcare in the EU in the same way they do now, either through an agreement at EU level or through agreements with relevant member states. In either case, we will have to agree how eligibility is evidenced, how—and how frequently—that information is exchanged and the reimbursement mechanisms that will govern those new agreements. Such agreements will have to take into account the operational possibilities and limitations of each contracting party to ensure the smooth operation of reciprocal healthcare arrangements. This should include how NHS trusts in the UK can evidence eligibility for the treatment of non-UK citizens in the most efficient and least burdensome manner.
Once those administrative details are known, the Government will be able to speak confidently to the specific measures that can be reported on for each country. There is an annual reporting mechanism in the government amendment to provide such detail. I acknowledge that the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, is well meaning and agree with its spirit, but the level of detail proposed in it could constrain or create unnecessary burden when administering future healthcare arrangements that have not yet been negotiated.
It is in the interest of neither the Government nor Parliament to force unnecessary administrative burdens on the NHS, which the amendment could inadvertently cause. The level of detail required in the amendment may create new reporting requirements on front-line NHS services.
As always, should the noble Baroness wish, the Minister or others from the department would be very happy to meet her to talk further about the issues, once we have a clear understanding of future negotiations and how they progress. I hope I have reiterated the Government’s commitment to accountable financial reporting, and that the noble Baroness and other noble Lords feel reassured on our commitment to ensuring that sufficient and appropriate checks and balances are in place on reciprocal health agreements. I hope she will agree that her amendment, which places a statutory duty on future Administrations to collect and report on data we have not yet agreed to exchange with other countries, is inappropriate. I hope I have reassured her and other noble Lords and she feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the Minister. I said from the outset that this was a probing amendment and I therefore beg leave to withdraw it.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
My Lords, I now turn directly to the Henry VIII powers of the Bill. As noble Lords know well, the inclusion of the consequential Henry VIII power in the Bill has been the subject of animated debate both inside and outside this Chamber. The Government have been listening closely to these concerns in the Chamber but also in the reports from the DPRRC and the Constitution Committee. In response, we have tabled Amendments 18, 19, 20, 24 and 25, which is a significant step and addresses these concerns directly.
This group of amendments removes Clause 5(3) and amends Clause 5(4). As a result, it will now not be possible to make consequential amendments to primary legislation using regulations made under the Bill.
I want to be clear that the consequential Henry VIII powers were initially included as a future-proofing mechanism. They were never free-standing and we had envisaged using them in only a limited set of circumstances. As negotiations have not yet concluded and the terms of any agreements are not yet settled, there may be situations where it would be appropriate to amend primary legislation. This is why the power was included. We cannot rule out that we may want to amend primary legislation to give effect to a reciprocal healthcare agreement in future, and the lack of such a future-proofing mechanism limits our ability to ensure that the statute book in future is as coherent as it can be.
However, we want to alleviate any fears that we are taking powers which are not absolutely necessary in this Bill. As such we are prepared to take the significant step of removing the entire Henry VIII consequential powers in Clauses 5(3) and (4).
In addition, the Government have listened carefully to the concerns about the list of persons who can lawfully process data as a part of implementing new reciprocal healthcare arrangements under the Bill. To facilitate greater parliamentary scrutiny on this issue, the Government have tabled Amendment 20, which subjects any regulations that add to the list of persons authorised to process data for the purposes of the Bill to the draft affirmative procedure, which we have already debated. This would allow Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise authorised persons handling sensitive patient data, while equally ensuring that the Government can guarantee that future agreements are administered in the most efficient and effective way possible.
I hope that your Lordships will view these amendments, together with the other government amendments, as a genuine and significant effort to reduce the scope of powers in this Bill and respond to the concerns raised by this House concerning the use of Henry VIII powers. On that basis, I commend the amendments to the House.
Lord Judge
My Lords, I have already spoken warmly about the efforts by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood, and referred to us having a little touch of Blackwood in this House. Let it continue. I should like what has happened today to be habit-forming.
Lord Hope of Craighead
Perhaps I may add a few words to those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I was particularly concerned by Clause 5(3), as the noble Baroness may remember, and am delighted to see it removed because, as worded, it gave rise to a lot of problems. Together with the other amendments proposed, there is considerable improvement and I am most grateful.
Baroness Thornton
I tabled an amendment in this group. First, I join the noble and learned Lords and all noble Lords in saying thank you very much to the Government and the noble Baroness for removing these Henry VIII powers, which cause so much heartache in this House—we really do not like them at all. I tabled Amendment 21 because I should like an explanation. Given that our Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers Committee have several times said that they find the negative procedure rampant in the Bill, and that the British Medical Association has also voiced its concern about legislation being subject to the negative resolution procedure, in the interests of accountability, I need to ask the Minister to explain to the House the justification for negative procedure throughout the Bill. Should it not be subject to the same level of scrutiny as in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, for example?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank the noble and learned Lords for their support for our amendments to Clause 5 and the removal of the Henry VIII operation within the Bill. I shall do my best to continue in the way I have started in this House.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for her Amendments 21 and 23. The Government recognise that appropriate levels of scrutiny are the hallmark of an effective and responsible parliamentary system and that the processes by which we draft, consider and test legislation must be robust. It is necessary that we look at the nature of the subordinate legislation in the Bill and balance the need for scrutiny against the appropriate use of parliamentary time.
The draft affirmative resolution offers a greater level of parliamentary scrutiny and may be appropriate for particularly significant or sensitive regulations. For example, that is why the Government have agreed that that is appropriate when amending the list of authorised persons able to process data for the purposes of reciprocal healthcare. It is important to understand that, where the UK negotiates a new comprehensive international healthcare agreement, most of the important elements setting out its terms would be included in the agreement itself rather than in the regulations, made under the Bill, that implement it. The regulations giving effect to such an agreement would be much more likely to focus on the procedural, administrative or technical details, such as the types of documents or forms to be used to administer reciprocal healthcare arrangements. Evidence tabled during the course of the Bill’s passage from the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and the British Medical Association demonstrates that the administration for current arrangements works well. The regulations made under this Bill would be likely to simply provide for the effective and efficient administration of these arrangements.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I beg to move.
Amendment 21 (to Amendment 20)
Baroness Thornton
Baroness Thornton
I thank the Minister for her explanation, which of course I accept. I am sorry I did not speak to Amendment 23 in my name, but it is consequential on Amendment 21. I think we probably just have to be watchful, so I will not move these amendments.
Baroness Thornton
Baroness Thornton
Withdrawal Agreement: Attorney General’s legal opinion on the Joint Instrument and Unilateral Declaration
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General:
“I would like to make a Statement about my legal opinion on the joint instrument and unilateral declaration concerning the withdrawal agreement published last night.
Last week, I confirmed I would publish my,
“legal opinion on any document that is produced and negotiated with the Union”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/3/19; col. 1112.]
This has now been laid before the House. This Statement summarises the instruments and my opinion of their legal effect.
Last night in Strasbourg, the Prime Minister secured legally binding changes that strengthen and improve the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. The Government laid three new documents reflecting these changes in the House: a joint legally binding instrument on the withdrawal agreement and the protocol on Northern Ireland; a unilateral declaration by the United Kingdom in relation to the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol; and a joint statement to supplement the political declaration. The legal opinion I have provided to the House today focuses on the first two of these documents, which relate to the functioning of the backstop and the efforts of the parties that will be required to supersede it.
Let me first tell you what, in my opinion, these documents are not about. They are not about a situation where, despite the parties using good faith and their best endeavours, they cannot reach an agreement on a future relationship. In my opinion such a scenario is, in any case, highly unlikely to occur. It is in the interests of both the United Kingdom and the European Union to agree a future relationship as quickly as possible. Were such a situation to occur, however, the legal risk, as I set it out in my letter of 13 November, remains unchanged.
Let me now move on to what these documents do achieve. As I set out in my opinion, the joint instrument puts the commitments in the letter from Presidents Tusk and Juncker of 14 January 2019 into a legally binding form and provides, in addition, useful clarifications, amplifications of existing obligations and some new obligations. The joint instrument confirms that the European Union cannot pursue an objective of trying to trap the United Kingdom in the backstop indefinitely. The instrument makes explicit that this would constitute bad faith, which would be the basis of a formal dispute before an arbitrator. This means, ultimately, that the protocol could be suspended if the EU continued to breach its obligations.
The joint instrument also reflects the United Kingdom’s and European Union’s commitment to work to replace the backstop with alternative arrangements by December 2020, including as set out in the withdrawal agreement. These commitments include establishing,
“immediately following the ratification of the Withdrawal Agreement, a negotiating track for replacing the customs and regulatory alignment in goods elements of the Protocol with alternative arrangements”.
If an agreement has not been concluded within one year of the UK’s withdrawal, efforts must be redoubled. In my view, the provisions of the joint instrument extend beyond mere interpretation of the withdrawal agreement and represent materially new legal obligations and commitments which enhance its existing terms.
The unilateral declaration records the United Kingdom’s position that, if it were not possible to conclude a subsequent agreement to replace the protocol because of a breach by the European Union of its duty of good faith, it would be entitled to take measures to disapply the provisions of the protocol in accordance with the withdrawal agreement’s dispute resolution procedures and Article 20, to which I have referred.
There is no doubt, in my view, that the clarifications and amplified obligations contained in the joint statement and the unilateral declaration provide a substantive and binding reinforcement of the legal rights available to the United Kingdom in the event that the European Union were to fail in its duties of good faith and best endeavours.
I have in this Statement and in the letter I published today set out my view of the legal effect of the new instruments the Government have agreed with the European Union. However, the matters of law affecting withdrawal can only inform what is essentially a political decision that each of us must make. This is a question not of the lawfulness of the Government’s action but of the prudence, as a matter of policy and political judgment, of entering into an international agreement on the terms proposed. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement made by the right honourable Attorney-General in another place. The purpose of the Statement was to provide the Attorney-General’s opinion on the implications of the three documents produced following the Prime Minister’s dash to Strasbourg yesterday. The purpose was, of course, what the Prime Minister had promised to negotiate, referring to,
“not a further exchange of letters, but a significant and legally binding change to the withdrawal agreement”.
According to the Mail on Sunday—not a newspaper that I necessarily follow in any respect—the Attorney-General is reported to have said:
“I will not change my opinion unless I’m sure there is no legal risk of us being indefinitely detained in the backstop. I am putting my hand on my heart. I will not change my opinion unless we have a text that shows the risk has been eliminated. I would not put my name to anything less”.
Before considering the merits of what the Prime Minister has obtained it is worth considering what has not been achieved. As I predicted in the debate yesterday—was it only yesterday?—there is no change to the withdrawal agreement. Its 597 pages remain unchanged. That is not entirely true, because they have been reduced to a smaller volume. The text, however, is completely unchanged. So too are the 26 pages—I think now 28 pages—of the political declaration.
The result is that the legal risk remains unchanged. As the Attorney-General states in paragraph 19 of his latest opinion:
“The legal risk remains unchanged that if through no such demonstrable failure of either party, but simply because of intractable differences, that situation does arise”—
that is, the situation in which no new agreement is reached—
“the United Kingdom would have, at least while the fundamental circumstances remained the same, no internationally lawful means of exiting the Protocol’s arrangements, save by agreement.”
I had the opportunity to hear the Attorney-General’s Statement in another place this morning, and I understood him to be reconfirming that position in his answers.
It is also worth restating that—despite rumours to the contrary—there are no changes to the arbitration provisions and no new system of arbitration: it will still be lawyers who make this decision. It also follows that the statement in paragraph 16 of the Attorney-General’s opinion of 13 November 2018 still stands. That statement was as follows:
“It is difficult to conclude otherwise than that the Protocol is intended to subsist even when negotiations have clearly broken down. The ordinary meaning of the provisions set out above and considered in their context allows no obvious room for the termination of the Protocol, save by the achievement of an agreement fulfilling the same objectives. Therefore, despite statements in the Protocol that it is not intended to be permanent, and the clear intention of the parties that it should be replaced by alternative, permanent arrangements, in international law the Protocol would endure indefinitely until a superseding agreement took its place, in whole or in part, as set out therein”.
I understand that still to be the position and invite the noble and learned Lord to confirm it.
In his Statement, the Attorney-General focused particularly on other available remedies in the event that the European Union can be proved guilty of bad faith in not reaching an agreement. He says—this is important, and the noble and learned Lord repeated these words earlier—that the new documents are,
“not about a situation where, despite the parties properly fulfilling the duties of good faith and their best endeavours, they cannot reach an agreement on a future relationship”.
Again, therefore, I ask the noble and learned Lord to confirm that the Government accept that if, while acting in good faith, both parties cannot reach an agreement, the backstop would endure with no predetermined end date. I underline the phrase “can be proved to be” acting in bad faith, because that would have to be demonstrated—would it not? —and it would be for the United Kingdom, if it was asserting that position, to prove it. Can the noble and learned Lord confirm that? The burden of proof, as we lawyers say, would be on us.
I also question the likelihood that that could be proved. I have made this point before in the House. It would be a very strong thing—a virtually impossible thing—for this arbitral panel to find on proof that senior statesmen and politicians were acting in bad faith, rather than simply being unable to agree on what are important matters for them—for their constituents, as for ours. As a practising lawyer —at least when he is not fulfilling governmental responsibilities—would the noble and learned Lord agree that the prospects of proving that, when the EU negotiators are saying, “No, we did not regard these proposals as being in the interests of the EU”, are vanishingly small? If he were advising a client, he would tell him so now.
In his previous advice, the Attorney-General referred to the difficulties of proof and the egregious nature of the conduct that would be required to establish a breach of those obligations by the EU. These are very strong things to have to prove. I respectfully suggest that, in reaching a view on how much comfort these arrangements give, that must be borne very much in mind.
The Attorney-General says that he believes the risks of an indefinite stay are reduced. He does not—it seems to me—explain in his advice why they are reduced. I understood that, in short, he sees a greater political will to reach an agreement. That is a political judgement. It is of course open to him and to others to take the same or a different view on the political will. I cannot, however, agree that anything in any of the three documents changes the legal reality.
In paragraph 4 of his opinion, the Attorney-General referred to a,
“systematic refusal to take into consideration adverse proposals or interests”.
A systematic, contumacious or deliberate refusal even to consider proposals would, I suppose, be evidence of bad faith—but that is as far as it goes. A sincere disagreement about the terms, however, is not bad faith.
As for the third document, the unilateral statement, it is that and nothing more. It is what the United Kingdom says that it thinks, but that does not make it so. I do not, therefore, share the view that there is anything in these legal documents that shifts the legal risk.
I am loath to go back to the codpiece that I referred to yesterday. However, I said then that I did not really understand how that soubriquet had come into being. From what I have read since, it is apparently code for figleaf. I regret to say that despite the energy and good faith of both the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General—which I respect—these are no more than a figleaf, and Members of the other place are left to make their political judgments on the basis of the Prime Minister’s deal.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I do not propose to repeat the speech I made yesterday, in which I suggested that it was inappropriate for lawyers to determine an issue as important as whether the backstop had run its course. I am very pleased that in the conclusion to his Statement today, the Attorney-General emphasised that matters of law affecting withdrawal can only inform what is essentially a political decision that each of us must make. As it is a political decision, it is really not right to ask lawyers to determine whether a state is acting in bad faith, as the noble and learned Lord said a moment ago. I commend the Attorney-General for sticking firmly to the opinion that he first gave and not being shifted, despite the enormous pressure I have no doubt he is under.
An aggrieved party under this instrument would have to persuade the arbitrators to prove—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said—that the other party had failed the best endeavours test with the objective of applying the backstop indefinitely. Further, he would have to prove that there had been a persistent failure or a systematic refusal to consider the other side’s proposals. Only if the arbitrators found in the aggrieved party’s favour would they be able to use temporary measures to suspend the backstop—and I emphasise the word “temporary”. The other party could cure the problem at will at any time by taking the necessary measures to comply with the ruling.
My first question to the Minister, therefore, is this: what does he envisage to be temporary measures? What does that mean? Clearly, it would not be a permanent unilateral withdrawal from the backstop. What would happen at the Northern Ireland border to the free passage of goods if temporary measures were taken? Would it be a smuggler’s free for all or a clamping down?
The Attorney-General originally advised that it would be highly unlikely that the United Kingdom could take advantage of the remedies available to it for a breach of good faith and best endeavours because of the difficulties of proof and the egregious nature of the conduct, which would have to be established. I remind your Lordships that according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word “egregious”, which the Attorney-General in typical fashion rolled off his tongue, means “shocking”. Is it now then all about timetables? That is all that the instrument appears to lay down. I listened to the Attorney-General talking in the other place about time being of the essence. To every lawyer, that phrase means that if the timetable is not adhered to, the whole agreement is defunct. The United Kingdom negotiators have not shown themselves to be particularly conscious of time over the past two and a half years. Will a breach of the timetable on either side now amount to egregious, shocking conduct, sufficient to trigger the dispute settlement arbitration procedures?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I am obliged to noble Lords for their contributions. Referring to the observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, I will perhaps begin where he finished. If the noble and learned Lord was to revisit his study of early Italian Renaissance sculpture, he might be reminded that the fig leaf can cover some very important bits. Therefore, one must bear in mind that the use of analogies is not always entirely helpful.
In paragraph 19 of his opinion, the Attorney-General set out his view that the legal remains unchanged. But that was not the question that was being addressed. The issue that exercised people was one of an extreme nature, which one would, frankly, never anticipate arising where parties have entered into an international treaty in good faith and intend to discharge their obligations under that treaty in good faith. As I observed in a previous debate, if you simply do not trust the person with whom you are contracting or entering into a treaty, there is little point in doing so—you would not proceed in the belief that they would ever finally discharge their obligations. Here, however, we proceed in the confident belief that their obligations will be addressed and met.
It is therefore important that, in the context of the further agreement, the parties have fixed a date of December 2020 by which to use their best endeavours to arrive at an alternative to the backstop. It is in these circumstances that it is considered appropriate, as the Attorney-General observed in paragraph 7 of his opinion, to note that the provisions now represent materially new legal obligations and commitments which mean that unconscionable behaviour on the part of the EU, and failure to fulfil its obligation to seek suitable and alternative practical means of dealing with the backstop, would have to be properly addressed in the context of the arbitration provisions.
It is in that context that I come to address the questions posed by the noble and learned Lord, which touch upon each other. He began by asking how, if there is bad faith by the European Union, we would prove it. There are circumstances in which it would become apparent that the European Union was intent upon seeking to trap the United Kingdom in the backstop, notwithstanding the provision of alternative arrangements. But let us be clear: one does not anticipate or foresee that that would ever occur.
On that point, I note that the backstop has significant drawbacks for the European Union, just as it has significant drawbacks for the United Kingdom. If it were ever to emerge, the backstop would result in Great Britain enjoying the benefits of a customs union and paying nothing for that. The relevant payment in respect of the customs union would come from trade in Northern Ireland, not in Great Britain. Let us remember that there is very little in this that benefits the European Union, let alone the United Kingdom.
If we were, however, to find ourselves in a situation in which there was shocking or egregious conduct on the part of the European Union, the arbitration measure would be available. In finding that there was a breach, the arbitrators would be entitled to grant temporary measures. That would include a temporary suspension of the operation of the relevant backstop provisions with regard to the border.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, asked, quite rightly, what would happen at the border. One answer is that we would find ourselves in that situation only where the European Union had not been prepared to engage with coherent, sensible proposals put forward by the United Kingdom to deal with the border and ensure that it could remain entirely open. If a suspension was ordered by the arbitrators, it would then be open to the United Kingdom to implement those proposals unilaterally at the border in order to deal with the issue. If thereafter—in utterly extreme circumstances—the European Union was to persist in refusing to engage with the temporary suspension of the protocol, the arbitrators would eventually come to the conclusion, quite rightly, that the protocol was simply not required; that it was no longer “necessary” because the alternative arrangements during the suspension had clearly worked to the satisfaction of the European Union, which had done nothing in the meantime. Again, I stress that we are talking about the most extreme of circumstances. I do not contemplate that, politically, anyone will go there.
Lord Goldsmith
The noble and learned Lord has given us extreme examples such as unconscionable behaviour and all the rest of it, but does he not agree that the most likely circumstance in which we fail to agree is because we fail to agree? We have seen it over a period of time already, and know that it does not have to be unconscionable or as a result of bad faith. In those circumstances, none of these arguments would avail.
Lord Keen of Elie
I do not accept the noble and learned Lord’s suggestion that that is the most likely or probable outcome. We have already seen circumstances in which parties have laid out the suitability of alternative arrangements for the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Work will go on with regard to that. There is going to be a track of work carried out as soon as the withdrawal agreement is concluded in order to bring that to fruition by December 2020. There is therefore no reason to suppose that such a thing is impossible. If we have a situation in which the EU simply refuses and turns its face away from a workable proposal, then there will be an issue of good faith and best endeavours to be addressed and disposed of. But the political reality is different. This is very much a situation in which we are dealing with an extreme. Equally extreme is the idea that somehow, over a period of almost two years, the parties would not be able to conceive of a means of dealing with the border except by means of the backstop.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I have had the opportunity to study the earlier and most recent legal opinions of the Attorney-General. I agree with him that as a matter of law there is a risk. But I was a mathematician before I became a lawyer. One has to find out the size of the risk. Every one of us who crossed the street today to come here had to take a risk, did we not? I came yesterday by aeroplane, which also has a risk. The question is: what is the risk? A good deal of the discussion that has just taken place is about what happens in the event of extremes, but the most important way to annihilate the risk is by reaching an agreement that supersedes the protocol altogether. If we want to see how probable an agreement is, we have only to listen to Mr Johnson, who said: “They are keen to sell us their prosecco”. The European Union is as keen to have a free trade agreement with us as we are to have one with it. In fact, its trade is greater towards us than our trade is to the EU. Therefore, the chances are high, to be judged on the facts as they are now, that there will be an agreement to supersede the protocol. That is what one has to measure. So far as I am concerned, the risk is negligible—a very unlikely event. I would feel sorry if the future of our United Kingdom, in this connection, were determined by an appreciation of a so-called risk that is practically negligible.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
Just to deal with “egregious” first, surely the word derives from the Latin “e grege”—
Lord Keen of Elie
I will welcome the noble Lord’s comments. His reference to Latin will no doubt enhance this debate. However, for the moment, I entirely concur with the observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. It would be foolish in the extreme to make an important—indeed, significant—political decision on the basis of a risk that can genuinely be regarded as negligible.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, I apologise for my slip. The word “egregious” derives from the Latin “e grege”—outside the flock; in other words, it means abnormal, out of the ordinary. “Shocking” is the wrong translation.
The elaborate piece of theatre that the Government staged last night in Strasbourg and the opinion of the Attorney-General have been designed to ensure that we do not stay in the customs union. As the Minister himself acknowledged, staying in a customs union would be greatly in the national interest. The Government’s policy in this matter is 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Industry and commerce are crying out for the opportunity to stay in the customs union. If we did find that opportunity, I hope we would grasp it. It is much more likely to come to us not from bad faith on the part of the Commission or the Irish but simply because the whole idea of establishing a frontier that is not a frontier proves to be hocus-pocus, as my noble friend Lord Bassam has shown. No such technology is even under study at present. Anyone who knows anything about venture capital knows that the chance of a blue-sky idea becoming viable and generating money is, at best, one in 20.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Lord for his address on “egregious”, and I do not disagree with the derivation of the term. It would be an abnormal situation to find ourselves in, and that is why I reiterate that it would be exceptional, unusual and unfortunate for us to proceed to make a political decision based on such an abnormality. The point I sought to make on the customs union is that in so far as we remain within it as a consequence of the backstop, if we ever did, it has clear deleterious impacts upon the European Union. We would, in a sense, be getting a free ride on the customs union so far as Great Britain is concerned, but not so far as Northern Ireland is concerned. But I do not anticipate that we are ever going to find ourselves within that backstop and, therefore, within that customs union.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, I have had the chance to study the Attorney-General’s comments and I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, that the Attorney-General is right. There will always be a legal risk and he would be wrong not to tell us that it remains. But that is the nature of risk. I am told that in Chinese the word “risk” is made up of two pictures—opportunity and danger. We have to look at the opportunities and then the danger, but not always concentrate on the danger.
For the likes of me, the pint is always half-full. For some, it is always half-empty. I thought that the worry about the backstop was that there was no timetable in which this matter might be resolved. December 2020 has been put into the agreement. There was also a worry that the United Kingdom might not be able to unilaterally withdraw from arrangements that did not help the rest of us. That has changed and is now reflected in the protocol. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that it is not lawyers who will resolve this but political will, which is the way in which we should proceed.
Having read the legal opinion, I am of the view that although what has been achieved by the Prime Minister does not take away the legal risk, the issue is more about what will happen in terms of agreements. In the end, do we believe as a nation that we are capable of achieving the best agreement in our interests and those of Europe? We have been good at negotiating protocols that have helped democratic institutions all over the world. This is a time to start believing that we should create a good agreement by 2020 and show good faith. If others do not do so, then the arbitration would come into being.
I want us to take the Chinese view; there is always danger in risk but this is the time for me to say to everybody: let us seize the opportunity and be reconciled on an issue that looks difficult. A time may come, friends, when although lawyers talk and talk—I am one of them—this issue should not be resolved by them but by politicians.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. I agree with his observation that ultimately we are concerned with a political, not legal, decision. We have to remind ourselves that the withdrawal agreement is the means to an end, not the end in itself. Either we leave on 29 March without any deal in place, because the law has already determined that that is our exit date, or we can leave sensibly, with a withdrawal agreement that takes us into the realms of further negotiation for our future relationship. There is no reason to suppose that as a consequence of that further move we are ever going to find ourselves in the backstop, let alone considering how to come out of it.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
There are two other options. We could of course change the law and we could take an extension under Article 50. I think there are new elements in the new texts. I do not think they remedy what is, for me, a humiliatingly bad deal, but I see two new elements. First, there is a greater urgency—or an impression of urgency—in the treatment of the search for alternative arrangements to the backstop. The impression created is that the philosopher’s stone will be more actively sought. That does not guarantee that the philosopher’s stone will be found, and that is the risk that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, might want to bear in mind as well.
The second point is more legal than political. I see a change in the treatment of the risk of being trapped in the backstop because the European Union breaks the commitment in Article 5 of the withdrawal agreement to exercise good faith. As the Minister said, however, that is a vanishingly small risk. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said, the real risk is that the search for a mutually acceptable solution—a workable alternative arrangement—continues for some considerable time to prove fruitless. That is the real risk. Alchemy is like that. Does the Minister agree? Does he also agree with Mr Varadkar that the texts are perfectly acceptable because the withdrawal agreement has not been reopened and the backstop not been undermined?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, on the matter of alchemy. Nevertheless, I agree with much of what he had to say. These further agreements inject a greater element of urgency into the whole process that is to be carried on and underline that this process will be carried on in good faith. That being so, there remains the outlier risk that a solution will not be found by December 2020. We remain confident that it will be. But in the event that it is not, the backstop will continue for a period. Wherein lies the disaster?
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
Does my noble and learned friend agree that, if at the end of this week the House of Commons discusses a delay to the Brexit date, a short delay would be entirely useless? Does he agree that what is required is a substantial delay of the kind advocated by the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Hannay, or the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong yesterday? As existing members of the European Union, we could discuss and negotiate our future relations with the European Union either within or without. Does he agree that that does not necessarily involve Brexit or, necessarily, a further referendum? Indeed, it might involve a Government of national unity to negotiate.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, my views on whether an extension should be short, long or anything in between are of no moment because, at the end of the day, any extension sought will have to be on the basis of consent with the European Union.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that nobody would ever take any medicines if they read the leaflet in the packet in detail? That is the sort of risk we are talking about. Does he further agree that the deal on offer should be accepted tonight in another place and we should then move on?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I concur with both of my noble friend’s observations.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord emphasised the importance in the joint instrument of urgency. Indeed, paragraph 7 of the Attorney-General’s opinion today states:
“Therefore, provided the United Kingdom can clearly demonstrate in practice that it is effectively organised and prepared to maintain the urgent pace of negotiations that they imply, the EU could not fail to match it without being at risk of breaching the best endeavours obligation”.
As the Minister has emphasised that this is political, perhaps rather more than legal, I ask him a political question. Can he give the House three examples of when, since March 2017, the United Kingdom Government, in dealing with Brexit, have clearly demonstrated in practice that it is effectively organised?
Lord Keen of Elie
Respectfully, it appears to me that we have demonstrated that throughout the process.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, can we return to the legal advice, which is the subject of this Statement? Does the noble and learned Lord agree that the legal advice has not changed at all—yes or no?
Further, if we adopt his attractive metaphor about Italianate sculpture, does the Minister agree that if yesterday’s breathless Statement from the Prime Minister, anticipated in the House of Commons, is a fig leaf, if we lift that fig leaf, we will find that behind it are no parts whatever? To proceed towards an impossible, extreme scenario, as suggested by the noble and learned Lord himself, is something that a skilled lawyer in private practice, as the noble and learned Lord has been, would say to every client, “You can’t do it”.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, as regards the legal advice, I refer back to paragraph 7 of the Attorney-General’s letter, in which he said that the,
“Joint Instrument extend beyond mere interpretation of the Withdrawal Agreement and represent materially new legal obligations and commitments”.
To that extent, we have moved on. But of course, he also made absolutely clear that the legal risk that had been addressed in the context of whether there was a unilateral right to leave the backstop had not changed and that there was no internationally lawful means of exiting the protocol’s arrangements except by agreement. But context is everything.
On the second point, there appear ample grounds for supposing that, in taking this forward, we will arrive at a resolution of an issue that troubles lawyers but I suspect does not trouble politicians quite as much: whether or not the backstop is somehow a black or white outcome. It is not an outcome that is anticipated nor one that we believe we will have to address, and if we have to address it, we do not believe it will ever be permanent, and that for political reasons alone.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I wanted to ask the noble and learned Lord to name an alchemist who ever succeeded in his determination to turn lead into gold, but perhaps that is for another occasion. Since we are talking about risk, it is important to remember that one risk that featured very strongly in noble Lords’ consideration of these matters is the possibility that anything that seemed to have the effect of recreating a border between the north and south of Ireland was a risk we were not willing to take. One reason for that was the fragility, albeit that it is still in existence, of the Belfast agreement. I say with due respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that when one is considering risk, this is not crossing the road: it is a risk that could have the effect of bringing to an end many years of fragile peace. In those circumstances, it is hardly surprisingly that people want to be pretty certain, before that risk is taken, that to do so is not likely to lead to an adverse outcome.
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, I must say that I entirely disagree with his analysis. The whole point of the present withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol is to ensure that we adhere not only to the terms but to the spirit of the Belfast agreement. That is why the backstop has been formulated in the manner in which it has. We will leave the backstop only when, or if, there is a need to put in place alternative structures that do not require a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I reiterate my belief that we will never actually enter the backstop in the first place. We have that period up to December 2020 in which to address this issue and it is not beyond the wit of man or alchemist to resolve such an issue.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the Attorney-General stated:
“A unilateral declaration by one party to a bilateral agreement constitutes an authentic interpretation of the treaty if it is accepted by the other party”.
Does he not find that a little odd? It would not then be a unilateral statement at all but a joint statement. On what authority did the Attorney-General say that the EU has agreed to the UK unilateral but it will not object to the UK unilateral statement? I see no trace of that in any of the documents.
Secondly, the use of the arbitration procedure remains shrouded in mystery as a result of the provision in the withdrawal treaty that any dispute involving the interpretation of EU law has to go to the European Court of Justice and not the arbitration panel. It that likely to be the case in most of the disputes?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, with respect to the two points raised, a unilateral declaration by one party can have legal status as an interpretive document in the context of international law. In circumstances where the other party does not object to the unilateral statement, it will be seen to have legal status with regard to that party’s interpretation of the relevant treaty. In that context, I therefore see no difficulty with the opinion expressed by the Attorney-General on that point.
On the suggestion that the arbitration will be shrouded in mystery because of the need to refer a point of law to the European Court of Justice, I remind the noble Lord of my response to a question from him some time ago, when I pointed out that the real issue will be of fact, not law. It is therefore difficult to envisage the European Court of Justice having any material role in the context of a dispute over good faith or best endeavours.
Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) (No. 2) Bill
Tuesday 12th March 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Act 2019 View all Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 165(a) Amendments for Committee (PDF) - (11 Mar 2019)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to both Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper. When I last brought forward a budget Bill for Northern Ireland, I stated that it would be the last time. Events have made a liar of me. I apologise for that.
In the absence of devolved government in Northern Ireland, the UK Government have a responsibility to ensure good governance and to safeguard public services and public finances. I therefore ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to two pieces of necessary legislation.
The Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) (No. 2) Bill will have all its stages in your Lordships’ House today. However, following engagement with a number of noble Lords, the regional rates and energy Bill will have only its Second Reading here today. All further stages will take place on 19 March, primarily to allow time for further discussion and reflection.
With your Lordships’ permission, I will discuss each Bill in turn, The Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) (No. 2) Bill would put Northern Ireland finances for the 2018-19 financial year on a legal footing and enable Northern Ireland’s departments to continue to deliver public services into the first half of 2019-20. Your Lordships will recall that the UK Government legislated for the 2018-19 budget for Northern Ireland last year. This legislation was necessary to provide a clear legal basis to Northern Ireland departments, enabling them to manage their resources. The resulting Northern Ireland Budget Act 2018, which passed in July, did not direct any spending but rather allocated funds to departments to be spent by the Permanent Secretaries according to departmental commitments. As we approach the end of the financial year, those spends need to be placed on to a legal footing, as is standard practice in any budgetary process. That is what this Bill does.
In addition, the Bill provides for a vote on account for the first half of next year, which will give legal authority for managing the day-to-day spending in the run-up to the main estimates process. This year, following discussion with the Northern Ireland Civil Service, the Bill provides a higher than normal level of vote on account, some 70%. This is in recognition of the known increased spending pressures and the lack of Ministers in place to react and respond to emerging or escalating pressures. It also recognises the uncertainty of the political situation in Northern Ireland in the coming months. A higher level of vote on account funding is prudent, providing the practical and legal certainties to protect public services in any and all circumstances up until the point that legislation on the Northern Ireland budget for 2019-20 is taken forward.
Your Lordships will recall that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland published a draft budget for 2019-20 in February. It is important to recognise that this budget Bill does not legislate for that budget position. Those allocations will require their own legislation later this year. The vote on account in this Bill and the draft Northern Ireland budget position for 2019-20 provide the necessary clarity and certainty to Northern Ireland departments to enable them to plan and take decisions in the coming year.
I will briefly turn to the Bill’s contents. In short, it authorises Northern Ireland departments and certain other bodies to incur expenditure and use resources for the financial year ending 31 March 2019. Clause 1 authorises the issue of £16.8 billion out of the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. The allocation levels for each Northern Ireland department and the other bodies in receipt of these funds are set out in Schedule 1, which also states the purposes for which these funds are to be used. Clause 2 authorises the use of resources amounting to some £20 billion in the year ending 31 March 2019 by the Northern Ireland departments and other bodies listed in Clause 2(3). Clause 3 sets revised limits on the accruing resources, including both operating and non-operating accruing resources, in the current financial year. Clause 4 sets out the power for the Northern Ireland Civil Service to spend from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund some £11.8 billion for the forthcoming financial year. This is the vote on account provision I outlined earlier. It is linked to Clause 6, which does the same in terms of resources. The value is set at around 70% of the sums available in both regards in the previous financial year. Schedules 3 and 4 operate on the same basis, with each departmental allocation simply set at 70% of the previous year. Clause 5 permits certain temporary borrowing powers for cash management purposes.
The Bill would ordinarily have been taken through the Assembly. As such, at Clause 7, there are a series of adaptations that ensure that the Bill will be treated as an Assembly Budget Act once approved by this Parliament, enabling Northern Ireland public finances to continue to function notwithstanding the absence of an Executive.
Alongside the Bill is a set of supplementary estimates for the departments and bodies covered by the budget Bill, which was laid as a Command Paper in the Library of the House on 28 February. These estimates, prepared by the Northern Ireland Department of Finance, break down the resource allocation in greater detail. For those who wish to delve in, they are thoroughly set out in the document of which I have a copy here. As your Lordships will recall, this process is different from estimates procedure at Westminster, where the estimates document precedes the formal Budget legislation, and is separately approved. However, this would also be the case were the Assembly in session.
I also ask the House to give a Second Reading to the Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) (No. 2) Bill. This Bill would deliver two essential measures: it will enable the collection of regional rates in Northern Ireland, and will ensure fair and appropriate tariffs and cost-capping measures are in place for the renewable heat incentive scheme in Northern Ireland. The bills are not without their controversies, as noble Lords will be aware. However, the measures are necessary.
The first clause of the Bill addresses the issue of regional rates. In the absence of an Executive, the UK Government have set this rate for the past two years. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland intimated the rate—an increase of 3% plus inflation on the domestic rate and an inflation-only increase on the non-domestic rate—in her budget Statement of 28 February.
The second section of the Bill, specifically Clauses 2 to 5, concerns the administration of Northern Ireland’s renewable heat incentive scheme. I need to be clear that this is a devolved matter. We are taking forward legislation at the behest of the Northern Ireland Department for the Economy. Without legislation, there will be no legal basis to maintain the payments to participants in the scheme.
The tariff levels set out in this legislation are based upon analyses of the additional costs and savings of operating a biomass boiler in Northern Ireland following extensive consultation, assessment and analysis under- taken by the devolved Department for the Economy and through detailed discussions with the European Commission. These rates are significantly lower than previous tariffs. The European Commission is clear: the tariff rate cannot deliver a return higher than 12% per annum. For participants with lower usage needs or higher capital costs who have returns below 12%, the Bill introduces a voluntary buy-out scheme.
As I have said, these tariffs, and indeed this scheme, are not without controversy; I appreciate the desire of noble Lords to consider this significant and complex subject in more detail. There will be a Committee stage, on Tuesday of next week, where these proposed RHI measures and the amendments that noble Lords have tabled can be addressed separately. I will ensure in the intervening period that my officials, together with officials from the Northern Ireland Civil Service, are available to engage directly with issues that your Lordships may wish to raise on this matter. In addition, my officials will issue a detailed question-and-answer script addressing commonly asked questions; this note will be distributed to interested Peers shortly.
In conclusion, I hope your Lordships will recognise the necessity of the actions that I have presented today. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, noble Lords will of course understand why, as he said, the Minister has made a liar of himself and had to come back to the House. It is fair to say that it is not the Minister who has made a liar of himself but the circumstances in which we find ourselves. But to be asked to pass these two Bills—and certainly the budget Bill—at Second Reading, through all their stages, only a week or so after the documentation became available and where the detailed publication, as he says, is very hefty indeed, falls way below what I would regard as any acceptable level of scrutiny. It starts to cause real concern as to who is checking what is going on with respect to the money allocated to Northern Ireland.
Will the Minister consider whether steps could be taken to provide some comfort—and more than that, oversight? For example, the Public Accounts Committee could have a specific role to look at the follow-through from what we have voted. I do not believe that the Select Committee in the Commons has the resources to do that. It was not set up for those purposes; indeed, the second Bill may in any case be the subject of an inquiry being conducted by the House of Commons committee. It will probably have its hands full. I say that to the Minister in all seriousness; many of us are concerned that £20 billion is being voted on for Northern Ireland. We understand that it is necessary, but we have no clear, detailed oversight as to how that will be spent and whether it will be spent properly. Given the problem of the renewable heating scandal, we have every reason to be concerned about scrutiny.
That is my first point. The second concerns more specific questions on issues that do not appear in the budget, which people might have hoped to see: for example, the Hart inquiry into historical institutional abuse, which has cross-party support, and which people had hoped would make progress. I would be grateful if the Minister could say something about that. There is also the issue of pensions for severely disabled victims. The last time this was raised, the Minister said that he had asked for a report from the Victims Commissioner. Can he give us some feedback on whether that report has been received? Let us bear in mind that these are elderly and sick people who, sadly, are dying, and need early action rather than considered delay.
A broader point is that there are issues not in the budget for which there appear to be all-party consensus. Might it be possible in the circumstances to see whether other decisions could be taken? When I raised this matter with officials they said that they could in principle but, before committing to something, one has to identify where the money is coming from or what else is being cut. I raise as an example—as it has been raised with me—the medical school at the McGill campus in Derry, which people had hoped would be progressing by now. The site and buildings are available, but students are leaving Northern Ireland to go to other universities, mostly in Scotland. As the Minister will know, the problem when students go outside of Northern Ireland for training, is that very often they do not come back. There is a need for places within the Province.
On the rates Bill, we accept that a simple decision has been taken to increase the business rates by inflation and the domestic rates by 3% plus inflation. Most of us recognise that as a fairly understandable formula and I suspect most people will accept it. Regarding the RHI, it is clear that, since the scheme was set up, the tariff has been set on two separate occasions at a value well outside either value for money or state aid criteria. This has led to the situation in which we now find ourselves. I am sure that all Members engaged in this debate will have received similar emails to the ones that I am receiving, from people who fear they will be substantially damaged and, indeed, distressed by the proposed cap. We will debate that in detail next week; I just make the point that it needs to be determined.
The fact nevertheless is that the Minister and officials encouraged people to take up high borrowing. The banks participated in that encouragement, relying on a comfort letter from the Minister and the support of officials. Understandably, people are saying, “We took decisions in good faith on the basis of 20-year guarantees from government Ministers, which are now being reversed”. Naturally they feel angry. Having said that, I suspect some people were quite fly at the beginning, saw a good deal coming down the track and took advantage of it. This raises a second question: why were these deals not cross-checked in any way? Why were there not investigations to ensure that they were compliant with both the spirit and the letter of the scheme? That seems a legitimate concern.
I have two final points to raise. The first is one that officials explained to us but it would be helpful if the Minister could do the same: how does the Northern Ireland scheme differ from those on mainland GB? Certainly, all the letters and emails that I have received express concern that people in Northern Ireland feel disadvantaged compared with those in GB. I know there are reasons for it, but it would be good to have them put the record. The second point relates to the buy-out scheme, which the Government are proposing to introduce. On the face of it, it could resolve the problems for some people by enabling them to get a capital sum that could discharge their liabilities. But, given that the circumstances of different contracts are variable, there may well be people for whom that buy-out is not appropriate; I mean people who have acted in good faith and not unreasonably. The question is whether the Government may at some point have to consider some kind of distress help for genuine cases, although I appreciate that how you establish what is a genuine case might be quite difficult.
With these remarks, my message to the Minister is that I understand the reason this has been brought forward and I recognise that services in Northern Ireland have to be maintained, but I hope he will agree that quite a lot of questions need to be answered.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for bringing forward these essential Bills today. They ensure that public services continue to be provided in Northern Ireland and give departments some certainty going forward. In the unfortunate continued absence of decision-makers at a local level, I welcome the Government taking these necessary steps but I know that they too will recognise that this is far from an ideal situation. Regrettably, this is the third consecutive occasion that expenditure in Northern Ireland has been considered through an unusual, fast-track process in your Lordships’ House, with little scrutiny or knowledge of how allocations to specific departments have been decided. I would much prefer that Bills such as these were being presented in a fully functioning Stormont Assembly by a locally accountable Minister. Equally, I wish that local representatives were able regularly to debate, scrutinise and analyse specific spending, and raise matters relating to their areas. Unfortunately, this is impossible to the same degree right now.
One political party aside, all the other parties want to get back into government and into a functioning Assembly. MLAs were elected to serve the people, but unfortunately they are prevented from doing their jobs. None of us wants to be in this situation, but the people of Northern Ireland must not be punished further because of a political stalemate.
As with any budgetary allocations, challenges are presented—and specifically when allocations are based on historic decisions. When allocations are made by individual departments, we cannot always be certain that the finances will go towards areas that the public might expect to be prioritised. In addition to looking at the amounts being allocated, we must also look closely at how effectively that money is being spent. For example, significant additional money was secured for education as a result of the confidence and supply arrangement. This money was originally meant to go towards front-line services in education. After numerous inquiries, it was eventually revealed that the department allocated this money to finance the Education Authority, which was running a deficit. After further such inquiries to the department relating to spending, a number of my party colleagues met with a series of principals in the education sector. These principals were unanimous in the view that action, in the form of ministerial involvement in the decision-making process, needs to happen soon to rescue their sector from what they describe as an impending crisis.
While the current situation presents considerable challenges, those have been reduced significantly by the welcome additional money obtained for the reform of the health service and for front-line services. On health transformation, the Permanent Secretary to the Department of Health recently made it clear that £100 million was invested in health transformation funding last year, and a further £100 million will be invested this year, as a result of the confidence and supply arrangement. This must be welcomed by all, because it provides an opportunity for the rolling out of multidisciplinary teams and other measures that will save money in the long term. These substantial amounts of money are going directly into transforming the health service, and I welcome that.
While always remaining challenging, there is positive news for our schools, with increased spending on front-line services. I trust that key services such as health and schools can also benefit from regular monetary round allocation in year. For homes and businesses struggling with slow—or no—broadband, the ultra-fast broadband project is also moving forward, along with a clear pathway for spending the £150 million secured through the confidence and supply negotiations. I look forward to the tender process starting and the infrastructure being laid. This investment will make a real difference—according to independent estimates, it could be worth over £1 billion for our local economy.
There is also good news for areas of deprivation, with £20 million from the confidence and supply deal being allocated to help some of the most vulnerable communities. This budget reflects the priorities of an Executive of more than three years ago. Indeed, if we look closely at the heads of spending for 2018-19 and 2019-20, we see that they are virtually identical. Very little is new, because of the current situation.
This legislation allows permanent secretaries to take decisions that could redirect spending. Senior civil servants have been tasked with taking the majority of the decisions within departments for over two years. However, in a number of instances key decisions are still not being made. A growing number of key decisions still need to be made on health, education, infrastructure and public services. In many cases, these decisions are about prioritisation—for example, decisions still need to be taken on school places and teaching staff.
Given all available information, it is clear that further action is required in order to deliver good government for Northern Ireland. Can the Minister provide some assurances to the departments that the relevant ministerial direction and involvement in the decision-making process will be provided? The people of Northern Ireland require further assurances, because at the minute, they are only receiving the bare minimum level of governance. We cannot allow the decision-making process to grind to a halt.
My party will continue to work towards a return to locally accountable government. I am of the firm belief that, with political will on all sides, it is possible to see local government back up and running. In its absence, my party will continue to work hard, here and in the other place, as it has done in relation to the confidence and supply arrangements. We will continue to press the Government on all of these matters in the weeks and months ahead.
Turning to the Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) (No.2) Bill, I have reservations about the level of the domestic rate increase, which is above the rate of inflation. In fact, it is the rate of inflation plus 3%. In some cases, this will cause considerable difficulty for households that do not qualify for housing benefit on their rates but are still in low-paid employment and wish to stay in employment. However, it was initially proposed that the increase would be much higher, and in that regard I am grateful to the Government for listening to the concerns expressed by my colleagues in the other place.
I welcome and appreciate the efforts made by the Government in relation to city deals. These projects could lead to a potential increase in employment and opportunities for local businesses; I hope and trust that the relevant measures will shortly come before the other place and your Lordships’ House.
On the renewables scheme, I thank the Minister for arranging briefings on this very complicated matter. The issue is controversial and far-reaching, and its consequences will be felt by a lot of people for a long time. I honestly do not know of anyone who can say that this scheme has in any way been a success. In fact, the way it was set up and ultimately abused by some was disgraceful; fundamental change was required. Why was this not stand-alone legislation?
It is important to say that the scheme was not abused by everyone. As we all know, some certainly did abuse it and their subsidies were rightly cut. However, many people entered into the scheme in genuine good faith and, as a result of the information they were given, ultimately installed more expensive boilers, expecting to get a return at some point in the future.
The historical problems associated with the RHI tariff are the subject of an ongoing public inquiry, so it would be wrong to press those matters in too much detail today. However, the Minister will be aware of our concern that there has been a lack of proper scrutiny of the new proposals. There needs to be further scrutiny, even after this has gone through, so that there can be an opportunity for revision if at any point the figures are proved to be wrong.
While we await the report of the public inquiry, one of the issues on which it makes recommendations may be how we scrutinise measures such as this going forward. We would have hoped that Parliament could set an example on that. Will the Minister address the concern about the timing of this proposal, coming as it does so close to the end of the financial year?
My Lords, I give my support to these Bills.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, when the business Motion was being discussed last week, I made the point that the method of dealing with Northern Ireland legislation in this place is entirely unsatisfactory. I support the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, to that effect. We know that budgets are annual events and we know that the setting of a regional rate is an annual event. Therefore, there are no surprises, and it is not as though the legislative business that we have had to deal with in the last few weeks has been so pressing that we could not have made time for these Bills to be dealt with in a proper way.
The other significant point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, was on the absence of any meaningful scrutiny. This is concerning, because for years—literally years—now, nobody has been looking at any of these things, other than the examinations conducted from time to time by the Auditor-General in Northern Ireland. Given that enormous amounts of money are going from this Parliament to Stormont, nobody there is accountable to anybody here, and there is nobody there for them to be accountable to. It is probably a new version of “accountable but not responsible”. Therefore, we have developed this limbo land, where the Government trundle on but without the checks and balances that are the hallmarks of a democracy. I appeal to the Minister, as I appealed to the Leader of the House last week, to prevail upon his colleagues that legislation dealing with Northern Ireland should at least be dealt with in a respectable way and at a respectable time, when we can scrutinise it to the best of our abilities, in the hope that it will find its proper place back in the devolved institutions.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, spoke about the estimates for the Executive Office for the next financial year. As they have for some considerable time, those estimates contain the phrase,
“actions associated with the preparation and implementation of the Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry Report and Findings”.
That report came out three years ago. I am aware that there has been a consultation, which has now closed. We have had a report and now a consultation, and so it goes on. These people were abused 40 or 50 years ago in some cases, and due to the political limbo that has been created—let us not blame whoever it is—they are being abused all over again, because they are not getting any help at all.
I know that, apart from the state having a responsibility, some of the churches and orders whose members were responsible for some of this abuse also have a responsibility, and their insurers clearly do as well. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that in the financial year about to begin, there is, at the very least, provision in that budget for interim payments to be made. These people are getting on in years and they are suffering again. There is unanimous support in the political parties for this matter to be resolved—not a single elected Member objects to this—yet we are still confronted by the fact that nothing has happened and these people have received nothing. It is inhuman and entirely unsatisfactory, and I appeal to the Minister to ensure that some progress is made in the financial year about to begin.
I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, about bringing together the rates Bill and the RHI matter. They are two entirely separate matters, and they should not be in the same piece of legislation. I do not know how the Public Bill Office allowed it, and they should be separated; there is no reason for them to be linked.
Another issue in the estimates is that the Permanent Secretary in the Department of Health announced that he was going to start work on the development of a cancer strategy. This is something that Northern Ireland sorely lacks, and I welcome it, but as he said, there is no reason to believe, unless a Minister or somebody else is responsible at the end of the process, that decisions can be taken. I have repeatedly given statistics to this House on waiting lists—they are growing and growing and growing. In every category they are worse each quarter than they were the quarter before. They would not be tolerated in any other region of the United Kingdom. We are now up to 289,000 outpatients waiting for a consultant’s appointment. Of those, 95,000 have been waiting for over 12 months. For some procedures that are not life-threatening, people were told last week that they may have to wait 10 years. Where are we going with this? There is nobody there in a position to implement the many reports that have been produced and deal with things as they have been developing.
Another matter the Minister might address is that we are now getting into the habit of turning capital into resource, whereby we are taking money out of the capital budget to put into the revenue budget. The Treasury used to go mad if anybody proposed doing that, but now it seems to be the done thing—it is commonplace. On top of that, we are borrowing through the RRI initiative, and the interest payments in this budget are now up to £51 million a year. That is becoming a burden in itself. Something is radically wrong when we are in the position of having to move money from a capital budget into a revenue budget when we have huge infrastructure issues to resolve, such as our road system and many others. We are also confronted with large sums of money being allocated to the legacy proposals—£150 million is supposed to be ready to support the historical inquiries unit, which is a catastrophe, and that would not cover even half its life. Yet we are short of nurses: this week we are flying people from England into some of our hospitals in Belfast because there are no nurses to look after the wards. Think of the cost of that. We have got our priorities entirely wrong and I hope we can get some accountability and scrutiny into this place.
I appreciate that at least the RHI committee stage will be taking place next week, which will give us an opportunity to go into more detail because it is a complicated subject. It was a catastrophic failure of administration and incompetence, against the background—as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said—of people being given guarantees by the Government. I do not quite know how we get out of this. It is a big problem, and it requires scrutiny.
We are dealing with such a complicated matter, with two Bills and all their stages being taken in one evening. I do not know about those who may have looked at it, but it is exceptionally complicated, and not something you can deal with on the hoof. It requires a committee to examine it in detail and resolve it, because there are big issues of principle involved. In all of this, there will be casualties if we do not watch how we handle this. I welcome that we will have a further opportunity to go into this in more detail next week, but I appeal to the Minister to prevail upon his colleagues to treat legislation regarding Northern Ireland with some parliamentary respect, so that at least in the interim, when we are waiting—we hope—for devolution to be resolved, people can feel that somebody is looking after their interests.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Empey, and I will be reiterating some of the points he has made in relation to proper scrutiny.
Our debates on Northern Ireland inevitably evoke feelings of the deepest concern and great sadness in all parts of our House. There is no prospect of a swift resumption of devolution, and politicians of all parties shrink from the prospect of direct rule for reasons that are frequently rehearsed. Over a year has now passed without the slightest glimmer of serious optimism regarding the restoration of devolution, and an end to the political limbo—unprecedented in our modern history—into which our fellow countrymen and countrywomen in Ulster have been cast. Even the principal public services that are the responsibility of local councils elsewhere in our country lie beyond their democratic control. In Northern Ireland, Stormont is the upper tier of local government as well as a devolved legislature—something I have often urged the Government to bear in mind.
It was in February last year that the last serious hope of progress came and went. Yet, astonishingly, the Budget Bill before the House today has been presented to Parliament accompanied by comments that anticipate the imminent return of devolved institutions. The Bill’s Explanatory Memorandum, prepared by the Northern Ireland Office, tells us that the Government,
“sought to defer legislation as long as possible to enable the final decisions on the allocations to be made by a restored Executive”,
and to avoid,
“distracting from and undermining the work towards talks aimed at restoring an Executive”.
What work? What talks?
Fantasists must dwell in the Northern Ireland Office. Only they could believe that a breakthrough on devolution was possible while the Bill was in preparation. The House will surely decline to enter the office’s world of make-believe, and accept that, on the ludicrous grounds that it has given, the Bill should now be rushed through Parliament without serious scrutiny, in defiance of our long-standing opposition to unnecessary fast-track procedures, against which our Constitution Committee has so frequently warned.
How have financial allocations to the Northern Ireland departments been determined? How will increased spending affect those public services to which extra resources have been given? Above all, to what extent will this Bill help reverse the current “decay and stagnation” in the public services, of which Mr David Sterling, head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, has recently spoken. These questions cannot be answered because the necessary information has not been made available to Parliament, and the Northern Ireland Office’s unacceptable delay in producing the Bill has prevented its examination in committee. The Explanatory Memorandum states unapologetically:
“Due to the need to implement the Bill urgently, the Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has not scrutinised the Bill in draft”.
It is extraordinary that the Secretary of State should have approved such conduct.
The same criticisms apply, perhaps even more forcibly, to the other Bill being rushed through Parliament. It will make drastic changes to the Province’s renewable heat scheme, adding still further to the huge controversy with which the scheme has been surrounded since its start. The livelihoods of small businessmen are being placed in jeopardy. Yet this Bill is to be denied full examination by Parliament. However, it is good news that there is to be a separate Committee stage in this House next week. The Government should give an unequivocal pledge today that these are the last major Northern Ireland Bills that they will bring forward without making adequate information and time available to enable both Houses of Parliament to carry out their work of scrutiny and debate, which is all the more essential in the absence of devolved government.
I referred at the outset to the feelings of sadness with which the affairs of Northern Ireland are surrounded. I feel especial personal sadness this month. On 30 March it will be exactly 40 years since Airey Neave was murdered. I had been his political adviser for nearly two years. Those who killed him have never been brought to justice, and the crime has taken its place alongside so many other terrorist atrocities for which no one has been punished. Forty years ago, efforts to restore power-sharing devolution had failed. Thanks to Airey Neave, the Conservative Party had a plan to put the public services vested in Northern Ireland as the upper tier of local government back under the control of elected representatives, pending the return of devolved government. After the 1979 general election, the Northern Ireland Office scotched that plan. It would not necessarily serve as an exact blueprint for Ulster today, but perhaps the initiative that Airey Neave proposed should spur us to contemplate new approaches to the government of a part of our country which meant a great deal to him, and which deserves better government than it possesses today.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
My Lords, I will speak on the Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) (No. 2) Bill in particular. I declare an interest, as shown in the register, as the owner of two non-domestic properties in the cities of Armagh and Belfast and the chairman of a company that owns 14 properties in different towns across Northern Ireland. The issue of rates is, therefore, important to me and those who work with me.
The subject of this Bill should, of course, be for the Stormont Assembly, as several noble Lords have already stressed. I am a strong supporter of devolution and was very much involved in the negotiations that led to the Belfast agreement. I believe in shared government at Stormont—a cross-community Government comprising Catholics and Protestants, Unionists and Nationalists. That is the best way forward for Northern Ireland. The imposition of GB rule on Northern Ireland is not a solution, but Sinn Féin makes this devolution unlikely. For at least one year it has stalled the creation of devolution. It does not want responsibility for unpopular decisions at Stormont as it prepares for the southern Irish general election, which could be within the next year. The campaign for equality of Irish with English is only an excuse for delaying the restoration of the Executive at Stormont, as only 1% of the people of Northern Ireland speak Irish daily—much less than those who speak Chinese, Polish and Portuguese. It was wrong to link rates and the renewable heat incentive scheme together in the Bill. The RHI scheme is a major and controversial subject in itself and I am glad that the Minister—I hope that he still is a Minister because I have just heard that the Government were heavily defeated by 149 votes in the House of Commons—has decided that the Committee stage of the Bill will be next Tuesday and not rushed through tonight. That is appreciated.
I welcome the decision to keep rates on non-domestic properties to zero plus inflation, as some retailers in Ulster towns—like elsewhere in the United Kingdom—are suffering from online competition and closing down. In contrast, life is buoyant in border cities such as Newry and Armagh, as the Irish cross the border in their thousands each day to do their shopping. The reason for that is, of course, the change in exchange rates following the Brexit referendum. Last year, Irish shoppers spent £415 million in Northern Ireland. It is expected that this year they will spend a further £500 million on daily shopping in Northern Ireland.
Has the reorganisation of local government, from 26 councils down to 11 super-councils, resulted in savings, as was suggested at the time? There seems to be a growing democratic deficit in local government in Northern Ireland. People no longer know who their local councillors are; it used to be that they were known individually. Some of the new super-councils are making major decisions in committee, where even the media are often excluded. Approval of the committee’s decisions is at monthly council meetings by a nod of the head, without proper public debate. There needs to be greater transparency in the affairs of some of the 11 new super-councils in Northern Ireland.
The RHI scheme is a problem area, due to a decision of the European Union. Here I quote the Secretary of State, Mrs Bradley, in the other place:
“As I said, this situation has resulted from a decision of the European Commission on state aid rules, and failure to do this”—
to pass the Bill—
“will mean no subsidies being paid to anybody”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/3/19; col. 1012.]
The European Commission, therefore, is very much a problem when we discuss the whole of the RHI scheme. As the decision on the scheme must be made by 1 April 2019, as we have been told, but we are leaving the European Union in advance of that on 29 March 2019, will the Minister say whether the EU rules on state aid still apply after 29 March 2019?
Finally, the problem with the RHI is that almost 2,000 businesses feel that they were badly misled by decisions made by both the DUP and Sinn Féin at Stormont. Both were involved, not just one. The problem appears worse, as people in the rest of the United Kingdom will be getting £20,000 per year for a biomass incinerator, whereas their equivalents in Northern Ireland will be getting only £2,000 per year. Likewise, the scheme in the Republic of Ireland will be more favourable than that in Northern Ireland.
People in Northern Ireland who got involved in this scheme on the recommendation of politicians now feel very aggrieved at this unfair treatment. These RHI proposals are very complicated and we will debate them at greater length in Committee next week. However, many feel that they were misled. A number might be forced into bankruptcy—it is as serious as that. The form in which the changes in the RHI scheme are presented, almost as an afterthought to announcing the annual rates, is mischievous, to say the least.
I oppose this Bill, and should either Her Majesty’s Opposition, who are not particularly present this evening, or the Liberal Democrats, who also are not noticeable by their presence—there must be something going on in the other place—propose amendments next Tuesday, I will probably vote with them.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his presentation of these Bills. He commands considerable respect and affection in this House because he is assiduous in his work, he is committed to the business and he is a man of integrity. He clearly demonstrates that by what he says. At the start of the debate, he admitted that the commitment that he had made last year was not one that he was in a position to deliver. We all have some sympathy with him. However, I associate myself with comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, when we last discussed some of these matters just a week or so ago. He said that he would be persistent in raising the same question and the same issue in respect of Northern Ireland until the Government addressed it.
The truth is that there is nothing at all surprising about the tragic state of affairs in which we find ourselves in the politics of Northern Ireland, because most of us here have been predicting it time after time, debate after debate, for almost two years now. The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, pointed out that there is not a huge array of people on all the various Benches, but this is not a question of this House. Not only noble Lords and other representatives here from Northern Ireland but the people of Northern Ireland need to understand that the lack of presence is a representation of how people on this side of the water feel about things. I see on the other side of the road hundreds of EU flags, lots of union flags, and flags of Scotland, Wales and lots of other places. In the last few weeks, however, I have not seen a single flag of Northern Ireland, and it is not because we are short of them in Northern Ireland.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
On a point of information, I have seen two Northern Ireland flags recently.
Lord Alderdice
The noble Lord must have brought them with him himself, because certainly nobody over here would even have known what they were, never mind be displaying them. The truth is that the interests of the people on this side of the water have moved on for a whole series of reasons, and we have to take this extremely seriously, because when people are frustrated, disadvantaged and do not have the opportunity of making a difference—and many people over here feel they have no chance of making a difference to the difficulties in Northern Ireland—then they move on in their minds and in their feelings. This is a very real danger in Northern Ireland.
We have no devolution and we understand the reasons for that. It would be perfectly possible, however—as the noble Lords, Lord Trimble and Lord Empey, and I have pointed out repeatedly in this place—for the Government to permit the Assembly to sit and debate these issues, and that would inform the conversations that we have on this side of the water in two ways. First, it would mean that there was some holding to public account, if not to legal account, of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. When I was growing up, I had a relatively implicit trust in both the competence and the integrity of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. That has been shattered and blown apart repeatedly over the last number of years, as a combination of incompetence and a lack of integrity has been demonstrated over and over again. If there were Northern Ireland politicians from right across the parties demonstrating in debate their concern for these issues, that would hold Northern Ireland civil servants to account in a way that has not been the case for a long time.
Secondly, if Northern Ireland representatives in Belfast were having to hold the discussion and the arguments in public, even if they were not able to make decisions, people from Northern Ireland would start holding them to account for the fact that many of these adverse decisions were made by those very representatives. When they are not meeting and there is no debate, it is far too easy to pass it across the water to somebody else. I do not, for the life of me, see why the Government are not prepared to allow that degree of accountability, even though it does not have legal force. It would also say to many people in Northern Ireland that those who are being paid to be Members of the Legislative Assembly should be doing not just constituency business in their offices but constituents’ business on the Hill.
Lord Empey
Is the noble Lord aware that there was no greater opportunity than to use the MLAs in the run-up to this budget? Instead, there were two or three very brief and perfunctory meetings, of little import, between the civil servants and representatives of the parties. Surely it would have been a golden opportunity to let them go through the process, even if it were for guidance, if for no other reason.
Lord Alderdice
The noble Lord knows that I agree entirely with him. I simply cannot see that there is any sound reason at all for the Government to hold back on this. My noble friend Lord Bruce of Bennachie has insisted, quite rightly, that there is now deep concern that large amounts of money are being allocated and spent in Northern Ireland without proper accountability and with increasing concerns that they are not being properly dealt with, spent and accounted for. It is not possible for us in this place, in the absence of direct rule, to hold to account, and even if we had direct rule, it would not be a satisfactory holding to account. Why? It is because neither in this place nor in the other place is there a representation of the nationalist community.
Now, one might well say that some of that is the nationalist community’s own choice; that is not the point. The point is that there is not satisfactory representation and therefore the degree of accountability is not one that is going to be acceptable to large proportions of the population. Many of the arguments will not be satisfactorily adverted and adduced. I do not want to see direct rule, but I also do not want to see a continued drift and I have to say that, not just on this issue but on the issue that has just been debated and voted down at the other end of this building, the Government have shown an absolutely clear habit of kicking the can down the road and not making the decisions, even when it is manifestly clear that it is long past the time when the decisions should be made.
So we come to these Bills. Why do they go through some kind of emergency procedure? Was it some great shock or surprise that these Bills were going to have to be brought forward? Of course it was not, but it looks like every piece of Northern Ireland legislation is now going through an emergency process, even when it is known six months in advance that the matter must be dealt with in this place. This is not an acceptable way of going about things. Why do we have democratic processes? We have them because it is the way that we find to disagree with each other, as much as to agree, but to do so democratically and without violence. If people are left with no way of affecting process inside the democratic process then they will be encouraged to look beyond it, and that is not something that we should preside over.
It is not enough for Governments to suggest that strand 1 of the Good Friday agreement is the key strand and is not being implemented because of political disagreements in Northern Ireland. Strand 3 of the Good Friday agreement, the British-Irish Inter- governmental Conference, did not meet at a top level for 10 years and neither of the Governments asked the other, or insisted on having it. So when people talk about the Good Friday agreement not being implemented, it is not being implemented by the two Governments who are still in operation, in some fashion or other, and that has led to a deterioration in their relationship and in the whole process that we were supposed to be trying to make work. I say it not to the noble Lord, because I suspect he has some sympathy, coming as he does from north of the border himself, but it is really important to be clear to the Government: they are not governing in a satisfactory way, neither in this place, nor in terms of insisting on devolution, nor in the relationship between the British and Irish Governments.
I ask the Minister one specific thing in respect of RHI: I ask not that we have a debate next week and put material through, but will we have a serious debate in this place when the report of the RHI inquiry comes out, when we will have a serious piece of business to address which will make public, in this place and elsewise, the kind of exceptional inefficiency and perhaps even corruption that has gone on in Northern Ireland? Will he undertake that we will have that debate and that we will not be told that it is a devolved matter and not something that we should be debating in this place?
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, it is with some regret that I speak on this issue today. Indeed, I feel that this is the sort of debate that we should not have to have. I find myself in general agreement with everyone who has spoken and with some of the things that have been said, if not all of them. However, I think the Minister knows and understands clearly where we are coming from, those of us who reside and come from Northern Ireland, when we see this type of debate. This debate should be taking place either not at all or in the Northern Ireland Assembly, but regrettably that is not the case. I recognise that the Minister has to do what he has to do. I am not sure that he has to do it at the 11th hour, but it has to be done nevertheless. He may be the one in the firing line—if that is a bad choice of words, I apologise—and has to take the flak here today, but it can come as no surprise to him or to this House that we find ourselves debating this issue this evening.
I could commence by saying, “Here we go again”. We have been here on other rushed pieces of legislation at the 11th hour, which is something I do not understand. I cannot understand why it is that way. We accept, of course, the reason for this Bill because we do not have a functioning Executive and Assembly. That is most regrettable. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, say that he is not a fan of direct rule. Neither am I, but it would be infinitely better than what we are getting at the moment, because, basically, we are not getting rule. My first choice would be to have a devolved Administration in Northern Ireland with a functioning Executive. I suspect that even those who have yet to speak would say that that would be their first choice too.
We were told quite expressly that the Belfast agreement was a great compromise, that it was how Northern Ireland would be governed in future and that all future decisions would be made around the table, either in an Executive or in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Everyone signed up to it, some perhaps more reluctantly than others, but nevertheless we were told that this was as good as it was going to get. Hence, we had devolution for upwards of 20 years. Was it perfect? Not at all. Were there aspects of it that I did not like? There were many aspects I did not like. Indeed, it was the most convoluted and complicated piece of work that I ever witnessed in my political life, but we do not have an Executive today, we do not have a Northern Ireland Assembly, and I make it very clear to this House that I tire of people saying, “Oh, they are all to blame—they could never agree on anything over there”. I make it very clear that we have no Assembly today because Sinn Féin walked out of the Assembly and brought it crashing down. It was a calculated and deliberate piece of work. Surely there have been greater crises that have to be got over, but you do not bring government crashing to the ground to stress your point. You sit down, you debate it and you get on with it.
What have we been asked to do here this evening? The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, it was who put his finger right on it. He said that we are being asked to wave through £60 billion of budget with no scrutiny and virtually no questions asked. We are supposed to suck it up and get on with it. Would this happen in any other region of the United Kingdom? Would it be tolerated in any other part of the United Kingdom? I suspect it would not. Why does it have to be tolerated in Northern Ireland? Do we not deserve better?
Northern Ireland has gone through turbulent times, 30 or 40 years of horrendous times, and there was then a breath of fresh and a sigh of relief that maybe we were going into better times. Should we not be allowed to get on with that? If we cannot have devolution, let us have the second best, which is direct rule. I am not a fan of it any more than is the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, so let us have it on a temporary basis, until we get the restoration of devolution. Surely the Minister can tell us today; the previous time he was here, he said that it would be the last. I am not saying this to embarrass him—I know he said it in good faith—but I noticed he did not say that this time will be the last; he has learned his lesson. Someone has to take the initiative and inject some urgency into the whole situation and debate in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, is correct when he says that prospects of a swift return to the Northern Ireland Assembly do not look promising. That might not be what we want to hear, but it is very factual. The Government need to move with some degree of urgency and say, “Enough is enough; we can’t continue like this, we have to deal with the particular problem here”. That problem lies in the Belfast agreement: it allows a single party to pull down the whole edifice of government at a whim. That has to change; if we do not get that change, we will go in perpetuity into this uncertainty.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass (Ind UU)
My Lords, very much along the lines of the previous speakers who have addressed this issue, I will start with a word or two about rates. The inequity is that domestic rates have yet again risen by 4.8%, whereas commercial rates have risen by 1.8%. While we continue to pay Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly for being idle as far as their public impact is concerned, the ordinary ratepayers—not least those on minimum wage—are being exploited by our so-called streamlined local government. We reduced 26 local councils to 11 in order to save money but, as my colleagues have already pointed out, local councillors are barely known; they are detached, and their decisions are made in enclosed committees and are merely accepted as faits accomplis in full council meetings.
When I was a councillor during direct rule, things were different. We had Secretaries of State—experienced politicians, such as the late Jim Prior, Peter Mandelson and Tom King, to name but three—who knew their councillors and worked through them, and who, bluntly, took no nonsense. I thought I was in a minority, but I am relieved to find that I am not, when I say: let us stop this current pandering to Sinn Féin and let us reintroduce active direct rule with the likes of those three I have just mentioned—there were others—for periods of 12 months, with an obligation on Assembly Members to give four months’ indication if and when they are prepared to assume the responsibilities for which they sought election. That means that if, on 1 June, we decided to have direct rule—the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, knows I have some ideas as to how Members of this House could assist the Secretary of State in the interim period—things would begin to turn around. Common sense might dawn on some of the people who are playing a very dangerous game.
A second point that has not been made tonight is on the issue of accountability, concern and caring about our nation—that, sadly, has been missing, at least in that part of our nation to which I belong and from where I come. Why have I not yet received straight answers to my Written Parliamentary Questions of June, September and December 2017 about the scandalous proxy voting scandal that saw the number of applications for proxy votes rise from just over 2,000 in 2010 to almost 12,000 in 2017—a 555% increase? It was a ploy that succeeded in Sinn Féin unseating all the SDLP sitting Members—Durkan, McDonald and Ritchie—with respective proxy vote increases of 806%, 677% and 434%, and in Ulster Unionist Member Tom Elliott losing in Fermanagh and South Tyrone.
Bluntly, it is fairly obvious—I do not include the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, in this—that, in general, the Government did not give a tinker’s curse. They dismissed the outcome to some vague and never followed-up exclusive responsibility that was passed to the Chief Electoral Officer and the PSNI, without, as far as I am aware—no one has ever bothered to update me on this—a single successful prosecution; that is, if any even occurred. How could they when few were pursued and those whose votes were violated were informed that they—elderly ladies—would be obliged to appear in court to give evidence against Sinn Féin? Most would still see that in historical terms as the Provisional IRA camp. No doubt, the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, will endeavour to enlighten our Chamber—if not today, by next week.
Of course, the most hurtful element within the debate this evening is that of the renewable heat initiative. That brings me to the infamous RHI con game being played against bona fide farmers who were induced to invest huge sums of mainly borrowed money. I will not enlarge on what my colleagues, the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Kilclooney, and others have so graphically explained, except to point out that I was shocked to find Northern Ireland Members in the other place being so utterly mealy-mouthed in their acquiescence to this proposed legislation a week ago.
I will, however, put on record the letter written to the banks by the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, when she encouraged and endorsed the very scheme that the current Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is blithely dismantling. I will also acquaint your Lordships with one brief letter of the dozens I have received from despairing farmers who literally fear for their and their family’s futures.
First, the Minister wrote to the banks in these terms and I think it is important that this goes on the record so that next week we will know exactly what promises were made—promises now being broken. The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment wrote:
“I would also like to draw your attention to the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) which my Department launched in November 2012. This scheme supports the installation of renewable heat technologies in businesses throughout Northern Ireland. Under the RHI, eligible and accredited technologies can expect to receive quarterly payments for the lifetime of the technology (to a maximum of 20 years). The level of payment will be dependent on the heat output of the installation and the eligible tariff for the specific technology. The tariffs have been calculated to cover the cost difference between traditional fossil fuel heating systems and a renewable heat alternative. The tariffs account for the variances in both capital and operating costs, as well as seeking to address non-financial ‘hassle’ costs. In addition, a rate of return is also included on the net capital expenditure to ensure the renewable energy technology is attractive to investors. The rate of return has been set at 12% for all technologies incentivised under the NI RHI (barring solar thermal which has a rate of return of 6%). These rates of return reflect, amongst other things, the potential financing costs of the investment. Tariffs are ‘grandfathered’, providing certainty for investors by setting a guaranteed support level for projects for their lifetime in a scheme, regardless of future reviews. However they will be amended on a yearly basis, for existing installers and new schemes, to reflect the rate of inflation. DETI believes that the RHI is a real opportunity for consumers and investors to install new renewable heating systems and enjoy lower energy costs and ongoing incentive payments. Traditionally the operating costs of renewable systems have been less than conventional oil systems however the capital costs have been somewhat prohibitive. The RHI aims to bridge that gap and provide a return on investment.
It is intended that the NIRO and the RHI will help to incentivise the market to achieve the ambitious renewable targets mentioned above. However, I am aware that in many cases the uptake of the schemes is dependent on potential installations being able to access the appropriate finance to cover the initial capital outlay. I am therefore writing to encourage you to look favourably on approaches from businesses that are seeking finance to install renewable technologies. The government support, on offer through the incentive schemes, is reliable, long term and offers a good return on investment. If you would find it useful, DETI officials would be happy to arrange a seminar for financial institutions, to explain further the current and proposed financial mechanisms.
Your support in working towards a more secure and sustainable energy future would be much appreciated”.
That was signed by the Minister.
In contrast to that, I will conclude by mentioning one letter that I received from a farmer who I know and trust—a middle-aged man with a young son who hopes to succeed him on the farm. He wrote:
“It was this time last year I emailed you regarding last year’s cuts. I know you did your best to try and stop it. I believe the latest bill is going before the House of Lords on Tuesday. This one must be stopped. It will be nothing but mental cruelty to hundreds of participants and their families. I haven’t had a full night’s sleep since the first cuts in 2017. I also have had to get the help of Rural Support. My costs (bank repayments, servicing and extra electricity) not including wood pellets are approx. £65,000 per year, and now I will receive approx £8,000”—
he has four burners. He continues:
“Could you please lobby other members of the House of Lords on our behalf as I am not great at using the computer”.
He borrowed £205,000 over a five-year period. Noble Lords can work it out; he is paying about £47,000 or £48,000 per year to repay that. He has been hoodwinked.
I will stop there but will add only that as a Parliament, we cannot do other than meet our moral obligations to RHI investors.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, unlike most of the speakers in this debate, I do not come from Northern Ireland. It is a part of our United Kingdom that I got to know and love when I was chairing the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in the other place. The people are marvellous; the countryside is beautiful and I fell in love with it.
I shall always have two particular memories, because 2005-10 was a very interesting, formative time. One was in 2008, when Ian Paisley—the late Lord Bannside—retired. I was at Hillsborough. Perhaps some of your Lordships were as well. It was a remarkable occasion. The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, was there to pay tribute. The Taoiseach was there. The most moving and amazing part of that evening was the wonderful address, delivered to his friend and mentor, by Martin McGuinness. We have come a long way since then—and not in the right direction.
There is another event I shall always remember and which is printed on my mind. There was a particularly brutal murder of a young man called Paul Quinn. His parents came to see me and some members of the committee and we were invited to Crossmaglen. I was informed that I was the first British politician from this part of the United Kingdom to address a meeting in Crossmaglen since 1901. The warmth of the people, suffused on that occasion by very considerable anger, was palpable.
I feel very sad indeed that neither the Executive that was created nor the Assembly that met regularly exists for the moment. I do not go along with the desire for direct rule. I believe this would be a terribly unfortunate development. I do, however, associate myself with those who have talked about the way in which we are dealing with Northern Ireland legislation in this place and in another place. It is nothing less than an insult to the people of Northern Ireland for us to fast-track the two Bills that are before your Lordships’ House tonight. Frankly, there is no need for it. I am delighted and grateful that we have another day next week on the second of these Bills. I will endeavour to be present and to take part in the debate. I am sure that your Lordships who are here will all do likewise.
It is not good enough. Billions of pounds are effectively being nodded through. There is nothing approaching scrutiny or detailed examination. If we are to have another year like this—and I suspect that we are—this must not be allowed to happen again. There must be proper, adequate scrutiny, even if it has to take place not on the Floor of your Lordships’ House but in the Moses Room, in Grand Committee. We must engage. The people of Northern Ireland are as deserving as the people of Lincoln—where I now live—or of my former constituency of South Staffordshire. They are not getting the government they deserve. They are being short changed. Unless and until the Assembly and the Executive are restored, we have to shoulder—and willingly—the burden of government. This does not mean an early imposition of direct rule.
In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, took up a cry that we have made separately and jointly on many occasions. Why, oh why is the Assembly not meeting? He and I accept that it would not have legal, executive authority. Time and again, I have asked my noble friend why the Assembly cannot meet. I attach no blame whatever to him. My noble friend is an exemplary public servant. He conducts himself with great dignity and is exceptionally well-briefed. When I said it to him again last week, he was kind enough to say that he would try to give some sort of definitive answer this evening. I wait with real interest because it is very important indeed.
I want to touch on a couple of issues, one of which—this renewable heat incentive—has been touched on many times. I am not going to read anything into the record, because that has been done. I have received, as have many of your Lordships, a number of pleas—cris de coeurs—from people in Northern Ireland who believe that they have been badly let down and misled, encouraged to do things they would not otherwise have done and placed themselves in penury as a result. One of them was cited by a noble Lord a moment or two ago. We have all had those letters and I dare say that we will be referring to them again.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, was unable to be here this evening because of a long-standing previous engagement, but he talked me beforehand because I was one of a group of former Secretaries of State and others who went to see the Secretary of State some weeks ago. I also had a private meeting with the victims’ commissioner, who was over here. We were particularly concerned about the plight of those who, through no fault of their own, had their lives shattered—effectively destroyed—as a result of injury during the Troubles. Most of them are in their 60s or 70s. Many, alas, have already died. We have been told that there is a desire to give them pensions, but as my grandmother used to say, fine words butter no parsnips. These are people who are often living in the most straitened circumstances: their bodies pulverised, their futures destroyed decades ago. They deserve help, and I very much hope that when next we have a Bill before us, it will be a very short one that we can indeed fast-track, and which will enable those people to be recognised.
I finish where I began. It is very wrong that this legislation should be fast-tracked in this way. There is no excuse for it, there is no need for it and the people of Northern Ireland deserve better.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I support the two Bills and thank the Minister for arranging the briefing from his officials in the Northern Ireland Office yesterday. During that discussion, I was struck by a point already raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, this evening: the possibility of a University of Ulster medical school in Magee. The cost mentioned in yesterday’s meeting was £30 million. I asked officials about the cost of the current inquiry into the Scappaticci affair, which according to press reports has cleared £35 million, but no one knew the answer.
I am here making a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, which is that the expense of these legacy inquiries really mounts up. In principle, at least, obvious social goods for the future of Northern Ireland might be obtained if money was not going in that direction on the dramatic scale it has in the past. The Bloody Sunday inquiry, for which I was proud to be an historical adviser, has cost £200 million and is still going on. At the time of the Bloody Sunday inquiry, I did not believe that we would still be having these inquiries, and there are many more to come unless, somehow or other, we get a grip on this. Otherwise, there will not be a medical school in Magee or many other social benefits in Northern Ireland in future.
I have one more point to make to the noble Lord the Minister. I think he is perfectly aware that Northern Ireland housing associations are restricted in their operation by a definition from the Office for National Statistics. This issue was raised in the other place when the legislation was debated, and on 6 March the Secretary of State seemed to hold out the prospect of legislation, although the situation was not made completely clear. I am pressing the noble Lord on the issue of timing. Can we have action before the summer? I understand that he may need to write to me. This is a way to expand social housing, affordable housing, in Northern Ireland without putting any pressure on the block grant. It would therefore be very helpful if progress could be made in that area.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, there has been a wide range of speeches on the Bills here this evening, all very much with a similar theme: the lack of transparency, scrutiny and certainly accountability. We might get a few hours in this House to debate a budget for Northern Ireland—a very unsatisfactory situation for all the people of Northern Ireland—with no real scrutiny or knowledge of how the allocations to departments have been reached. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said, this is the third year that expenditure in Northern Ireland has been debated through this House. Surely the people of Northern Ireland deserve better; they are in a very difficult position. We were told that the Bill has been fast-tracked because there was hope that an Executive, an Assembly, would have been restored to make these provisions. Over the past number of months, was there any real prospect of an Assembly being restored to go through the process of setting a budget? I think not.
While I believe that we have the mechanisms here within Parliament to scrutinise such Bills, I just do not know why those procedures are not used. We will all have known over the last several months that this Bill was coming. We also know that the Assembly would not be meeting to process such Bills. I think this is something the Northern Ireland Office needs to answer, because this is not the way to do business. It is just not possible. Yes, I understand that in the absence of a working devolved Government in Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom Government have a responsibility to safeguard public services and public finances in Northern Ireland. I know that the Bill is putting spending on a statutory footing; that has already taken place. Of course, this is more or less a spending Bill giving departments in Northern Ireland the ability to continue to spend money with a higher than normal level vote on account of 70%. The tragedy of this process is that the Secretary of State cannot direct the spending with these departments or what programmes they can spend money on, so there is no real control over how our Civil Service in Northern Ireland spends money.
Of course I welcome the £140 million of new funding that will go to the health service, education and other projects in Northern Ireland. I place on the record my gratitude to the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Treasury for finding that extra £140 million. Education especially is in dire straits at the moment in Northern Ireland. The various principals of all our schools will tell you the seriousness of the education situation right across Northern Ireland. Our health service in Northern Ireland, which has been mentioned continually in this House, continues to suffer, and our waiting lists get longer and longer. Why? Because we have no Minister in place to lead and to decide policy. It is a total and absolute tragedy. Of course, the £140 million is on top of the £330 million of funding that comes from the Government’s confidence and supply agreement with the party.
I will move on quickly, because the evening is getting on, and raise the issue of a city deal, which has already been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne. I specifically raise the city deal that is very much ongoing in my own city of Londonderry and the region. The Minister will know that I have raised this with him on several occasions. My understanding is that there may be an announcement within the spring estimates. I am not too sure; I do not want to pre-empt that decision. He will know that it will certainly regenerate the region and create employment, economic development and inward investment. A city deal for the region has all of that connotation. Certainly, on two or three occasions someone has mentioned a medical school for the city, which is very much part of the wider city deal. It is something that the Minister knows about and that I have spoken to him about.
I also want to quickly raise the issue of RHI, which comes under the rates and energy Bill for Northern Ireland. The Bill deals mainly with the RHI scheme. We have all received emails and letters from individuals who feel aggrieved by the proposals in the Bill—and rightly so. They went into the scheme very much in good faith and now feel that they are being unfairly treated. I agree with them, and I will not stand here and defend the scheme: it was flawed from day one. We need to be honest enough to say that.
The Minister will be well aware of our concerns about the lack of proper scrutiny for these proposals, which will change the tariff to 12%. The Minister knows that MPs have challenged the figures that the civil servants have come up with. These, of course, are the same civil servants who got the scheme wrong from the start. They are now telling us that the figures are right. I am glad that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has decided to launch an inquiry into the figures and has called for representations; I hope that we can move forward that way. It is, however, a tragedy, and there will be a number of people out of pocket from all this.
The rest of the United Kingdom set a rate of return from the scheme of between 8% and 22%. Here we are told that because of the whole issue of legal aid and the European Commission, Northern Ireland can have only the 12% tariff. There are a number of questions about this. I hope that the ongoing Select Committee inquiry will tease out all these issues, because I and others are concerned that the figures presented to us are not correct and need to be challenged.
In finishing, I mention the issue that the noble Lords, Lord Alderdice and Lord Cormack, and others raised about why the Assembly is not meeting. There is some suggestion that the Assembly should meet in shadow mode. If all the parties could agree, we would be there in the morning, because at least that would be a start towards getting the Assembly to function as a fully devolved Government in Northern Ireland.
The answer to dealing with these issues is devolved government in Northern Ireland, and I hope that this is the last time that we deal with such important business—budget-related business in particular—for Northern Ireland. We should not give up hope of Stormont being brought back, perhaps sooner rather than later. Direct rule—and I know that at some point we may have to go to direct rule—has not been good for Northern Ireland. We had direct rule Ministers flying in and out of Northern Ireland with no accountability, making decisions that affected the lives of people in Northern Ireland with no responsibility to them. That cannot happen again. We need to get the Assembly and a workable Executive up and running, because direct rule Ministers, as good as they are, make decisions that affect the lives of all the people in Northern Ireland with no accountability. For me, therefore, it is devolution back at Stormont, and I hope that we redouble our efforts to get the Executive and the Assembly up and running.
I place on record my appreciation for the meetings, short as they may have been, that the Secretary of State and the Minister held to discuss these Bills. He and his officials took time out of a busy schedule to brief us as best they could; I thank him and the Secretary of State.
Lord Rogan
My Lords, I will speak briefly with what is, I hope, a simple message, one which has been expressed many times but needs to be repeated. The Explanatory Notes for the legislation before us this evening begin with the following statement:
“The Bill deals with matters arising from the continued absence of a Northern Ireland Executive, and the consequent inability of the Northern Ireland Assembly to pass legislation to provide the authority for departmental expenditure following the Assembly election on 2 March 2017”.
It is clearly important that we support the legislation because, in its absence, government departments and public bodies in Northern Ireland will be unfunded; no one in your Lordships’ House would want that. However, the people of Northern Ireland should not be placed in this invidious position, with no prospect of the establishment of an accountable, devolved Administration anywhere in sight.
Last Saturday, I attended the Ulster Unionist Party’s annual general meeting in Belfast. It was standing room only, although I am happy to say that my noble friend Lord Empey and I were given seats. The mood was vibrant as candidates and supporters listened to an excellent speech from our party leader, Robin Swann, in advance of the council elections in May. There is real enthusiasm for the democratic process in Northern Ireland, and the absence of a Stormont Assembly and the ability to engage with locally elected Ministers is causing ever-increasing frustration, anger and dismay. As an aside, if we had devolution and the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, was Minister, I have every confidence that a bloody good job would be done.
I reiterate the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Lord Hay of Ballyore, on the proposed medical school in Londonderry. In Northern Ireland, we are short of both doctors and nurses. Can special arrangements be put in place to at least allow this facility to become operational? On a personal note, last Friday I had an examination by a specialist for a minor ailment. Minor though it was, nevertheless an operation is required. It is expected that I will have that operation in two years’ time.
This morning it was announced that four viable parcel bombs targeting London and Glasgow over recent days were sent by a group calling itself the IRA. The perpetrators are thought to be so-called dissident republicans. I remind your Lordships that it was dissident republicans who were responsible for the 1998 Omagh bomb attack, which took the lives of 29 people, including a pregnant mother with twins. As the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said, such evil terrorists exploit political vacuums for their own murderous ends, and always will do so.
I have a simple message for the Minister. I will support the Bill, but the current democratic deficit in Northern Ireland must be closed without any delay, and before the men of violence—according to their own sick mindset—get “lucky”.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. Where there is an absence of democratic government, particularly in Northern Ireland, that gap will be filled by the men of violence. That is an interesting point on which to start this final but one speech in your Lordships’ House.
There has been a theme throughout this evening’s short debate concerning the way in which we scrutinise legislation, particularly of this sort, in Parliament. It was a theme in the other place as well. I hope the Minister will take back to his boss that constantly relying on emergency legislation for Northern Ireland, when we know the timetable in front of us, really is not good enough. When we consider that the meetings that apparently were held with the political parties in Belfast were rather perfunctory, that adds to the difficulties we face.
Northern Ireland is now the least democratic part of the United Kingdom—possibly the least democratic part of the European Union. The local authorities will be elected in a few months’ time but they have very minor powers in comparison with their British counterparts. All other decisions regarding education, health, planning and the rest are now taken by a bureaucracy. I suspect that there is nowhere else in Europe where such huge decisions, involving billions of pounds, are taken by unelected administrators and civil servants. I do not envy them because whatever they do will be criticised. But it is not their job. In a democracy, such decisions should be taken by elected politicians, which has not been the case in Northern Ireland.
A number of your Lordships mentioned the possibility of the Assembly being used for deliberative purposes. Brexit would have been an ideal subject for the Assembly to discuss, as the budget would certainly have been. I might have mentioned before in your Lordships’ House that when I was Minister of Finance in Northern Ireland before an Executive was set up, I took the budget to the new Assembly that had only just been elected. All Members of that Assembly were able to question me about that budget. Such an arrangement would not have legal standing, other than the fact that the Members have been elected legally, but the Assembly would have a deliberative function. I am sure that two of its former Speakers who are here, the noble Lords, Lord Alderdice and Lord Hay, would agree that the opportunity would be enormous and that the people of Northern Ireland would regard it as a first step, particularly given that Members of the Assembly are still being paid. It is a proposal worth considering.
The Opposition will not oppose these Bills. As regards the budget, a number of your Lordships have raised different issues. I echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, about the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Hain—we are all interested in this issue—in pensions for the victims of the Troubles, and the fact that a lot of those people are now old. Indeed, some have died. Around 500 would qualify. A tiny handful would be people about whom there may be controversy. We must not allow that vast majority to be affected by issues of definition of victim; rather, we must address the mental and physical problems that those people face.
The proposal regarding the rates is fair. It is on a level with those affecting my local authority in Wales. There is nothing outrageous about the amount but the point has been made by some Members here that we should consider those who still cannot afford the rates. Although non-domestic rates are smaller, in Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, there are small towns in difficulty and where business rates are a burden. I ask the Minister whether the new small towns initiative will apply to Northern Ireland, by way of the Barnett formula.
A lot of Members rightly raised the RHI, and it is good that next week we will have an opportunity to look at it in detail. We await the results of the inquiry. There might be a judicial review of the issue, which the Northern Ireland Select Committee will deal with next week. Although some people benefited a lot from the RHI, everyone who applied did so in good faith. A lot of farmers and small business people in Northern Ireland will be affected adversely by the results of this legislation. It has to go through, otherwise nothing would come to them at all; but we should scrutinise this issue in greater detail. It was a scandal and I hope that we will be able to rescue some of the people who have been caught up in it. However, I still come back to the fact that none of this should be happening. There should be an Assembly, an Executive, north-south bodies and indeed the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. The east-west aspect of the Good Friday agreement should be operating.
We are 312 hours from the first deadline for legislation—which this House approved, by the way, not long ago. I very much doubt that we shall achieve what we want by that time. The involvement of both Prime Ministers has been peripheral. The Government —to put it diplomatically—were less than energetic in this matter. I cannot see a plan ahead of us. There should be a plan for talks about talks, if nothing else, and there is none. There is no hope of it. We have had over two years without an Assembly or an Executive.
A few hours ago, the Government were defeated by 149 votes on an issue about Northern Ireland, effectively. The proper argument put in the other place was that the Good Friday agreement must not be affected by a hard border. The hard border would adversely affect everything that was agreed 20 years ago. Of course that is right. But here we are today in this Chamber discussing Northern Ireland and the restoration of the Assembly and Executive, and in reality this issue is as great a threat to the Good Friday agreement as that of the existence of a hard border, which has just resulted in a vast government defeat. The two are linked. Had an Assembly and Executive been functioning, a resolution of the backstop issue between both the nationalist and unionist communities in Northern Ireland might well have been possible. These abject failures in negotiations, in both Brussels and Belfast, have had tragic consequences not just for Northern Ireland but for the whole of our country. The crisis we are currently in is partly about Northern Ireland and, frankly, the Government should do something about it.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My Lords, no matter how much homework I do before I come here, I am always confronted by new questions, so I will try as best I can to do justice to all of the questions that have been presented this evening. I also stress that the opportunity next week to examine in greater detail the renewable heat incentive will give us a further opportunity to discuss that issue.
I start on a positive note and I will try to weave my way through all of the other questions. A number of noble Lords mentioned the medical centre in Derry. Derry/Londonderry will secure significant funding through the city deal initiative. Noble Lords will be aware that the Belfast city deal has been set at around £350 million. There will be substantial funds going into Derry/Londonderry and into the medical centre. If it is able to secure the correct construction of its bid, that is exactly the sort of thing that the city deal should be able to move forward. I am not across the details, but I will be, and I will report back when I have more to say. It is a useful initiative to take forward.
The common theme from noble Lords this evening was to ask why we always seem to do this at the last moment and at short notice. It is important to place this in context. The Bills before us are, in a sense, a reconciliation of the moneys broadly spent in the financial year soon to close. The budget for that was set before and we are now reconciling it. It is happening now because we had to wait until the figures were available, and that happened only within the last month. That is why we are doing this today.
On the question of the rates, again, noble Lords were right to flag up that this could have been examined at a different time, but the two issues have been put together in this package. The heating initiative concept also falls into this debate because we face a time limit of the deadline by which we must introduce an adjustment to the scheme because of the grandfather clause that will bring it to an end.
The point noble Lords are making is different: if this is how we are doing things, why are there not more opportunities for further scrutiny by different parts of this House and others, either through committees or elsewhere? I am going to take that away from the discussion this evening because I agree. We should be looking at how to move that forward in a fashion that does not rely on the methods we have used thus far. I do not think they are adequate. When we are spending such sums of money, there should be thorough, careful and detailed scrutiny—not in one evening, not even spread over the two opportunities we have—to ensure that those who are tasked with examining these things are capable of doing so.
I will try to move forward on several of these smaller but important questions. I have had several meetings with the noble Lord, Lord Hain, about pensions. I recognise how important this is and that we need to move forward for the very reasons that a number of noble Lords have struck upon this evening, not least the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. These people are ageing and dying off. We are awaiting the information from the Victims Commissioner. We believe that it will come very soon and hope that we will be able to move forward on this initiative once we receive that. I will come back when I have more details and am in a better position to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, raised the wider question of the Hart inquiry. I wanted to get the exact wording, so forgive me if I read it out. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made it clear that, in the absence of an Executive, she will consider the next stages when she receives advice from the Northern Ireland Executive. We need to move this forward—I recognise how urgent and important it is—and we will do so when we have received that information. Even if there is no Executive, we will not let this settle. We need to make progress now.
I will touch on one of the other, bigger issues, the role of an Assembly, not necessarily as a generator of legislation but as a place where debate and discussion can take place. There is no impediment to the Assembly meeting. It would have to select and elect its own Speaker and its own Presiding Officer, but it could do so. One noble Lord flagged up one of the difficulties: to be an appropriate place for this discussion to take place, it would need to bring together all of those parties. I am aware of the challenge that that may represent. Perhaps noble Lords here gathered can do something to help. On a cross-party basis, they could write to each of the MLAs and ask if they would be willing to sit and meet in such an Assembly now.
There is no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, has flagged up an important point. Just along the corridor in the other place, an extraordinary event has unfolded. It has centred on Northern Ireland, yet the voices of Northern Ireland have been remarkably quiet in this process. It is not just about flags outside but voices in here. Any small progress will be a step in the right direction.
Lord Alderdice
I am very grateful to the Minister, but it feels as if he is giving a veto to one party. When Lord Prior was Secretary of State, an Assembly was able to meet for some years without any nationalist representation at all. We are not talking about that in this situation. I understand what he is saying very well. The Government would be very ill advised to hand out a veto in that kind of way.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Lord is absolutely correct. That is why I am trying to be very careful in putting this forward.
Lord Cormack
I am most grateful. I would like to follow up: I think we see this as one. I appreciate the suggestion that we might take part in some way. However, I would ask that the Secretary of State herself writes to every single elected Member, saying that there will be a meeting on a particular day and inviting them to come. It would be wrong to allow any single segment or group to veto that initiative. It has to be taken at the highest level, by the Prime Minister or Secretary of State.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I accept the words of my venerable and noble friend. I am trying to find a way of moving this forward as best I can. I wonder whether there might be an opportunity for us to meet collectively in a different forum to discuss that very thing. I do not think I will be able to resolve it on my feet. I do not doubt that in a few moments or so I will be getting little notes from my assistants in the Box.
Lord Hay of Ballyore
To follow the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Alderdice and Lord Cormack, has there been any discussion on the idea of a shadow Assembly within the talks at any time? Has it been put by the Secretary of State to the parties? What has their reaction been, if any at all?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Lord raises a question to which I do not have the answer, I am afraid; I do not have it to hand. That is why if we are in a position at a date soon hereafter to sit down and explore some of these issues in an effort to move them forward as best we can, that would not be a bad initiative. Let us revisit that. I am not trying to park it in any way.
I hope noble Lords will forgive me for being a little disorganised: I seem to have an awful lot of papers spread in front of me. I will try to take the points raised by each noble Lord in turn. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked about the RHI situation and how it compares with other parts of the United Kingdom. We are broadly agreed that the scheme in Northern Ireland was not well constructed; we can probably all accept that. The unfolding inquiry into that will set out clearly exactly what has gone on. In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, yes, we can have that debate should your Lordships desire to have one at the stage when a report emerges; I am happy to say that.
The scheme set out a 12% return; that was at the heart of what was meant to be achieved by the initiative. It is indeed 12% in Great Britain itself; the scheme that we anticipate in the Republic would be 8%. One of the reasons that we end up with different figures is that there are different ingredients going in. For example, the scheme in Great Britain is a 20-year scheme, whereas that anticipated in Northern Ireland is a 15-year scheme. Some of the capital costs involved in the scheme depend on when the emergent technology became more cheaply available. The scheme in Northern Ireland that commenced in earnest in 2015—although it opened earlier—contrasts quite clearly with the scheme which opened in Great Britain in 2012, during which there were significant cost reductions.
The scheme construction also differs significantly between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not least the element of “tiering” which exists in British schemes but not in Northern Ireland and the digressive component. I will not go into greater detail on that; we will have an opportunity to do so next Tuesday evening. In the intervening period, I recommend that any of your Lordships who are minded to find further details meet my officials so that those who have serious concerns can have them addressed.
To put this into context, the 12% return that we talk of is the needful part within the state aid rules. The scheme in Northern Ireland as it initially emerged had a return rate of 55%—noble Lords will see the contrast between 55% and 12%. It is not difficult to see how those individuals, who, through clear guidance, accepted a scheme with its various component parts and invested on that basis, now find themselves in the invidious position of all their calculations being blatantly wrong, based as they were on incorrect information. It is important for me to stress that those who were responsible for the wrongness of that scheme, I do not doubt, will emerge from Patrick Coghlin’s report; we will have an opportunity to discuss that further.
I stress that those within the Northern Ireland Civil Service undertaking the work on the current proposals are not the same people. This has been conducted in a very different fashion, based on significant investment in looking at the actual data rather than forecast data. Rather than trying to anticipate what the figures will be, the report itself and the consultants who examined it looked at the actual data. Again, it might be worth getting into the detail of that at an opportunity that will be provided by my officials and by others, because noble Lords will be surprised how quickly this moves from a high-level discussion into extraordinary technicalities.
I have written at the top of this page: “still a Minister”. I think that must reflect on what was going on down the Corridor. I will check when I leave, obviously.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The night is still young, exactly.
Returning to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Empey. In stressing the notion of the cancer strategy, he placed his finger on one of the more important questions: in the previous Act we set out our ability to offer guidance to civil servants in Northern Ireland but at what point does a civil servant in receipt of information feel he is comfortable to implement it or not? There is no doubt in my mind that there is a strong difference between a civil servant who feels so empowered and a Minister who wishes to move things forward, and there is no point pretending that one is the same as the other. I recognise that a cancer strategy is only as valuable as it is implemented in all its manifest forms, and I also recognise how important that will be.
The noble Lord asked about turning capital funding into resource funding. In the current arrangements there will be £130 million of that, and he is absolutely right that the Treasury has in the past not been overly fond of this approach. This particular approach is one method of trying to balance out that budget, but I recognise that there will be other challenges. He rightly points out that there are enough capital projects in Northern Ireland to keep Northern Ireland busy for some time, which is again why there will be £200 million from the confidence and supply arrangements, focused primarily upon infrastructure. That should in some sense help to recognise how we can balance out these particular aspects.
My noble friend Lord Lexden was very critical, and I accept his criticisms in the spirit in which they were given. We deserve some criticism in this area. We should be doing better, so I will take that on board. Again, he flags up the vital role undertaken by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which should have a stronger role in all the things which we are discussing. There is no point in having a Northern Ireland Affairs Committee if the only thing it does not discuss is what you are up to in Northern Ireland in this context, so I shall take that on board. He was right also to remind us of the role of Airey Neave, and the tragic circumstances in which he died. There is much to learn from that period about how we can move things forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, asked several questions. The first one, which he has touched upon previously, was: has the reform of the council structure had any benefit? I do not have an answer to that but I am going to find one and report it to him directly. He also asked what the role of state aid will be after the point at which we depart. The reality is that the state aid approach will be adopted broadly by a UK-based entity called the Competition and Markets Authority, which will apply common rules. I will write to him with more detail so that I can set out at greater length the information which I am here slightly gliding over the top of.
I hope I have answered the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, so I will glide over the top of those and move on.
The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, like many others, raised the very serious point of scrutiny. I hope we can find a way of doing this differently. This time last year, I somewhat foolishly made a bold promise, which I will not be doing it again, as I have discovered that Northern Ireland is not the place to make bold promises—certainly not as far as I am concerned. However, I believe we need to find a different way of scrutinising. It is right and necessary that the people of Northern Ireland have faith and confidence in the way that their money is being administered, and that is going to be done only if they have genuine confidence. The notion of using expedited or emergency powers creates this sense of emergency, which in itself is self-defeating, so we want to move away from that as best we can.
The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, asked certain questions on proxy voting. I will chase up the responses tomorrow and ensure that the noble Lord gets them. He read into the record one of the letters from the responsible devolved Minister, reminding us again that all those individuals who have written to each of us about the RHI scheme did so on the basis of very clear, simple, straightforward guidance. They did the right thing, and so it is important that is on the record and part of the wider discussions that, I do not doubt, will follow on from the report which will be published. That echoes the points raised by my noble friend Lord Cormack, and I am pleased he was able to raise the issue of pensions on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, which we should be able to move forward on, once we are receipt of that information from the victims’ commissioner.
The noble Lord, Lord Bew, asked about how much the Scappaticci affair cost. I do not know, but I will find out and report back to him. I hope I was able to give him some comfort on the Derry medical school.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I will make sure the letter covers that point as well. On the housing association aspect, I have assurances from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that we will find time, and this will move forward as quickly as we can. Whether it will be by the summer will slightly depend upon events, but there will be an ambition to move forward quickly. The longer we delay in moving this aspect forward, the greater the cost to the Exchequer, as the noble Lord will know. If we do not make progress by the end of the financial year, it will have cost us £45 million, which is money we could better spend on a thousand different areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, reminds us of the challenges we face if we are not able to deliver, and he is right to point out the challenges of a vacuum, and who will fill it. It is a stark reminder, and we are living through that reality now. We need to make sure we can make some progress, because it is too important an issue for it to fall into that particular abyss, from which it will be harder and harder to extricate ourselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, as ever, brought forward a useful summary, and trenchant criticism, which lands upon us as the Government. It is important that we recognise the issues we have tried to take forward, and how we can improve the way we do business. He asked a specific question about the small towns initiative, to which I do not have an answer, but I will get an answer and I will write to him, lodging my answer in the Library for those who wish to have that information at their disposal.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, posed a question on scrutiny, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, touched on this. The actual spend is scrutinised by the Northern Ireland Audit Office, but there is a difference between scrutinising post facto spend and the other way around. I take that on board, as I hope he will understand. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, also asked why the flaws in the RHI scheme were not caught earlier. It is a good question, and there have been attempts throughout the process to ameliorate what has become a significant problem. When the scheme was set up, the figures being discussed were in the £20 million range, but when we look at the simple costs now for this scheme, were it to have run the full distance, we would already be at £500 million, which is a significant overshoot. The reason why the judicial review, which is going to appeal and will report soon, found that there should be reform of this is because we need to balance the commitments we make to individual participants in this scheme, and the wider sense of common good and public finances, which are challenging in this regard.
The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, also raised proxy voting. It is important that we get clarity on this, and I will write to him and will share that information with others.
I think I have answered all the questions I can. If I have not answered particular questions, noble Lords should grab a hold of me, and I will answer them. If I cannot do that, we will arrange a meeting where I can answer properly.
Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) (No. 2) Bill
Tuesday 12th March 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2019 View all Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the Whole House amendments as at Tuesday 5 March 2019 (PDF) - (5 Mar 2019)