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
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Amber Rudd)
When fully rolled out, universal credit will be £2 billion per year more generous than the support it replaces. As a single system that integrates six legacy benefits, universal credit will enable 700,000 households to access approximately £2.4 billion of welfare that previously went unclaimed. Our welfare reforms are about targeting support at those who need it most.
Bob Blackman
At the Budget, additional funds, which are to come into effect in the new financial year, were allocated to pay for work allowances,. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on when those work allowances will come in, how much they will be, and how much extra the working people in my constituency who receive universal credit can expect to receive each week?
Amber Rudd
My hon. Friend is right that an extra £1.7 billion a year will be put into work allowances to increase them by £1,000 from April 2019. That will provide a boost to the incomes of the lowest paid that will result in 2.4 million families keeping an extra £630 per year of what they earn.
Huw Merriman
It is not just the financial support that is key, but the support provided by jobcentres in getting people work-ready. One of my constituents was languishing on benefits for a decade with no interventions. Now, under universal credit, she is being helped and supported to become job-ready. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that we continue this approach, and that we reach out and support the work coaches in jobcentres?
Amber Rudd
I thank my hon. Friend and near parliamentary neighbour for pointing out the excellent work done by work coaches. The defining difference between universal credit and the legacy benefits that it replaces is that tailored, personal approach, which really helps individuals to get back into work.
Luke Graham
What support is being given, through not only universal credit but schemes such as Access to Work, to those who experience mental ill health?
Amber Rudd
I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out this important element of universal credit. We are determined to make sure that universal credit really supports the most vulnerable. We are piloting a new scheme in Milton Keynes in which people with mental health difficulties are given an early referral to make sure that their needs are dealt with early on, so that they can be given the appropriate, personal, supportive care that they need.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The five-week wait for universal credit assumed that everybody would have their last month’s pay cheque in the bank, but reality is not like that. Most claimants have to take an advance—a debt to the Department—the repayment of which often forces people to use food banks, as the Secretary of State has rightly acknowledged, or go into rent arrears. Will she scrap the five-week delay?
Amber Rudd
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue; we have addressed concerns about the five-week wait by putting in additional measures. One measure now in place relates to the receipt of legacy housing benefit over two weeks. All universal credit applicants can get an advance, and we now find that 60% of applicants take up that opportunity. That obviates the need for concerns about the early amount of cash that people get.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I spent most of Saturday collecting a third of a tonne of food for our local food banks as part of our Winter of Compassion campaign. It is already clear that we will have to run such food-bank collections all year round. When will the Secretary of State join us in Birmingham to help collect the food needed to end the hunger that her policies are causing?
Amber Rudd
I totally reject the right hon. Gentleman’s assumption and comments. The issue with food banks is partly that the early roll-out of universal credit had some difficulties. We now know that 85% of applications for universal credit are paid on time and, as I said in answer to an earlier question, 60% of people get advances. I hope that that combination will enable people to access the cash that they need straight away.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Despite the recent funding, the levels of work allowances have still not recovered from the cruel cuts made to them back in 2015. Does the Secretary of State recognise that although the principle of simplicity behind universal credit is a good one, if universal credit is to have credibility, it needs to be funded properly?
Amber Rudd
It is because universal credit needs to be funded properly that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has, since 2016, put another £10 billion into different areas of it, to ensure that it does what it sets out to do, which is support the most vulnerable and help others into work.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The UK Government have removed the higher rates in universal credit for lone parents under 25. In answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), the Minister for Employment had the audacity to claim that under-25s have lower living costs, and that
“this reflects the lower wages that younger workers typically receive”
as a result of state-sanctioned age discrimination, including through this Government. Will the Secretary of State tell me in what way it costs a 24-year-old less to be a single parent than it costs a 26-year-old?
Amber Rudd
I point out to the hon. Lady that we have made available more childcare that is both better and lower-cost. A person can now have 85% of their childcare costs paid under universal credit. We have also made sure, as I said in a recent announcement, that work coaches have the wherewithal, through the flexible support grant, to give that money to people who need it early on in the process.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Ministers may like to claim that nobody will be worse off on universal credit, but people transferring through natural migration get no protection against loss of income, even though they may just have moved home. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what the Government will do to ensure that nobody is left worse off?
Amber Rudd
I ask the hon. Gentleman to engage with the change that is universal credit. People were left to languish on previous legacy benefits, and were not helped into work at all. We now have a system where the money is focused on trying to help people into work. That is why we have seen the changes with the work allowance, and why we have seen additional support from the Chancellor. It is a different system from that point of view.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Alok Sharma)
Under universal credit, our work coaches provide vital one-to-one support to all claimants. Work coaches receive appropriate training to ensure that they can offer support to claimant groups with a variety of characteristics.
Mary Robinson
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Will he say what support he is giving to people in my constituency to help them back into work?
Alok Sharma
I thank my hon. Friend and her parliamentary office for engaging with their local jobcentre in Stockport. I know that she has visited it and seen the one-to-one support provided. She asked for a specific example; in the past week, Stockport jobcentre has been working with claimants to prepare them for a sector-based work academy opportunity with the NHS, which will lead to 20 guaranteed interviews.
Matt Warman
I have seen the positive effect that the roll-out of universal credit has had in the jobcentres in both Boston and Skegness, but it remains the case that some applicants’ assessment is overturned on appeal. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to get this right first time more often, and can he tell me what he is doing to make that happen?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. He will know that earlier this month, the Secretary of State announced a range of measures to better support people with disabilities and health conditions, which of course included exploring whether we can improve the mandatory reconsideration process to reduce the volumes of cases going to appeal.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)
When I last read the claimant commitment, it was like a prison manual. The duties were all on the claimants’ side, with none on the Department’s. Will the Minister meet me and community groups that have designed a fairer commitment, in which there are duties on the Department to make a success of universal credit, as well as duties on claimants?
Alok Sharma
Of course I am always happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman. I would say, though, that claimant commitments are agreed with claimants. It is work that is done together; that is what is important.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
Alok Sharma
The hon. Gentleman will know that, across Government, we have a strategy to tackle homelessness. He will also know that we have introduced measures such as the landlord portal, so that payments for rent can be paid directly to social landlords, and that, just a few weeks ago in January, the Secretary of State announced a further change that will allow rents to be paid to private landlords much more easily. We are keen to make sure that this works for everyone.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for both coming to my Harlow jobcentre to see how universal credit works in practice. May I ask the Minister specifically what he is doing to help single parents who are moving on to universal credit?
Alok Sharma
My right hon. Friend is a huge champion for his constituents. He is extremely well regarded in the jobcentre, interacting with constituents and indeed with those working there. The Secretary of State has already referred to the fact that, from 1 April, we will be increasing work allowances by £1,000.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
Four single mothers won a legal challenge against the Department for Work and Pensions in January because their universal credit payments did not take into account the way in which their incomes changed from month to month, yet the Government decided to apply for permission to appeal. This was turned down, with the judge saying that the way in which the Secretary of State had interpreted and applied the legislation
“was not only wrong as a matter of language, it produces absurd results”.
Why did the Government choose to spend public money seeking to appeal the original decision, and what are they going to do now to address this grotesque injustice?
Alok Sharma
As the hon. Lady will know, we are considering this case, so it would not be appropriate to comment at this stage.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
More people who are severely disabled will receive higher payments under universal credit. This means that around 1 million disabled households will gain on average around £100 more per month on universal credit than on legacy benefits. The universal credit rate for the most disabled people is up to £328.32, which is up from the employment and support allowance level of £163.15.
Vicky Foxcroft
I have a constituent with a severe brain injury who applied for universal credit in August 2018 and immediately lost his severe disability premium. Since then, he has lost over £1,500 in benefits. What are the Government doing to ensure that extremely vulnerable claimants who have lost their severe disability premium are given the back payments to which they are entitled?
Guy Opperman
If the hon. Lady writes to me personally, I will ensure that officials sit down with her and go through what seems to be a very difficult case. I have suffered from a brain injury, so I know the difficulties involved. The hon. Lady will be aware that the transitional payment and the gateway are available for those receiving the severe disability premium, and that these elements provide protection long-term. Over 1,200 staff are working to ensure that repayments are made.
Paul Blomfield
Our experience in Sheffield is that many people with learning disabilities cannot manage digital applications and are not easily granted access to non-digital routes, and that others who start on digital applications with support, but struggle once they are on their own, are not allowed to return to non-digital routes. Will the Minister therefore agree to assess demand for non-digital applications, and to publish clear guidance for jobcentres to make it easier for people with learning disabilities to be granted access to non-digital claims?
Guy Opperman
It is a pleasure to answer this question, because both the hon. Gentleman, who is a friend of mine, and I have suffered from the disabling effects of brain tumour. The House will be aware that this is Brain Tumour Awareness Month and that it is Wear A Hat Day on Friday. I will ensure that the points he raises are addressed. He will be aware of the help to claim service, which is already in existence, and of the work that we are doing with Citizens Advice, which will come up to speed in April. A great deal of effort is also going into home visits for vulnerable claimants. However, he raises a legitimate point that we will most definitely look into.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Employment Minister will recall the case of my constituent Ben Seaman, who received a payment following underpayment of ESA; his parent was concerned that as a result, he would be unable to receive ESA in future. I am very grateful for the letter that the Secretary of State has written to me, which arrived today. Will the Minister confirm that those transferring from ESA to universal credit, who have to log this collection of underpayment within a month, will be told in advance of transferring?
Guy Opperman
I am delighted to hear about the very welcome development that has been communicated by the Secretary of State today. I can confirm what the Employment Minister has set out today, and I am delighted that this progress has been made.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I am glad that 145,000 more people with disabilities have found work in the last 12 months, leading to a total of 930,000 moving into work in the last five years. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s declared target of helping 1 million people with disabilities into work could be rather more ambitious than it is?
Guy Opperman
One million is a great start, but I believe that there is capability for more. I encourage all employers up and down the country to consider the many talented disabled people who want to join the workforce. The numbers are up all over the country already, as my hon. Friend outlines, but there is a lot more that can be done.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
Those with disabilities have been contacting me from across the United Kingdom in my position as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for disability, telling me that they still find it extremely difficult to access home assessment for benefits, and that they are then being penalised by having to provide GP letters, for which they are charged. Will the Minister respond to this situation and ensure that these people are not being penalised twice for their disability when accessing the benefits system?
Guy Opperman
I am happy to assure the hon. Lady that her concerns will be taken up by the Department; a Minister will meet her to go through her complaint.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I was recently visited by a constituent who was very distressed during his personal independence payment assessment because he felt that the assessor had not understood his case or his records and did not have the full facts. When will we introduce video recordings, so that our assessors can be held to account?
Guy Opperman
My hon. Friend raises a legitimate point. Video recording is an important step forward introduced by this Government. The pilot from last November appears successful, and we are looking to do a full roll-out later this year.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
The Minister for Employment (Alok Sharma)
Any claimant may claim universal credit by telephone. Each request will be considered on its merits, through discussions between the Department and individuals to see which method of claiming is most suitable and beneficial. After those discussions, phone claims are available to any individual who wishes to proceed with one.
Rosie Cooper
What efforts are made to engage by telephone with those who are considered to be in need of making a claim, who may include elderly, disabled or rural claimants with poor or no internet access?
Alok Sharma
There is a freephone line. Last month, in February, 1.2 million calls were received on the universal credit full service line, and for those who are particularly vulnerable, home visits are also available.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
How fast will the fast track be for cases of mental disability?
Alok Sharma
We are starting on this work; I made reference to the speech that the Secretary of State made earlier this month. However, if my right hon. Friend has a specific case to raise, we will be very happy to take it up.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Amber Rudd)
I am pleased to say that since 2013 the number of people claiming unemployment-related benefits in Kettering has decreased by over a third. The latest published statistics show that there are 3,520 people on PIP in Kettering, 35% of whom are getting the highest rates, compared with 14% of working-age disability living allowance recipients in the area when PIP was introduced.
Mr Hollobone
It is taking too long for those who are refused PIP to successfully appeal against the decision. Across the country, it takes 190 days, and the worst 10% of cases in the east midlands now take 300 days. What percentage of PIP refusals are successfully overturned on appeal?
Amber Rudd
I share my hon. Friend’s concern that it is taking too long, and that too many appeals are indeed overturned. That is why I committed in my most recent statement to making sure that we look again at mandatory considerations to make them more effective, so that we can start to reverse this. I share his concerns and I am addressing the issue.
Mr Speaker
By his deployment of the words, “Across the country”, the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) has helpfully enabled the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) to come in on this question, as it now refers to a wider area, and not simply to Kettering.
Mr Sheerman
The Secretary of State is a fair-minded person. This morning, I have been looking at her constituency stats, the Kettering stats, and my stats in Huddersfield. However, I appeal to her to raise her vision beyond just the stats and the data, and to look at the evidence from children’s charities such as Action for Children, which will tell her that in her patch, in Kettering and in my patch, child poverty has not diminished.
Amber Rudd
I am very mindful of what we are delivering on the ground to individual constituents, families and children. We attempt, we hope, to protect the vulnerable and help people into work, but I know that my Department has a part to play in reducing poverty, and I am focused on that.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Alok Sharma)
There are more people in work across our country than ever before, wages are growing at the joint-fastest rate in a decade, and Office for National Statistics data estimates that in the year to September 2018 there were 938,400 people in work in the great county of Hampshire.
Mr Jayawardena
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. That is great news, but what more will the Government do to help people who find themselves out of work into new jobs?
Alok Sharma
Under universal credit, as we have noted before, work coaches provide that vital one-to-one support and advice to help people into work. The disincentives of the legacy system are gone, and the reforms are working. In my hon. Friend’s constituency of North East Hampshire, the number of claimants is down by 42% over the past five years.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Justin Tomlinson)
Household incomes have never been higher. In 2016-17, there were 1 million fewer people living in absolute poverty than in 2010. In Scotland, whichever way we look at poverty—relative or absolute, and before or after housing costs—in the three years to 2016-17, no measures are higher than in the three years to 2009-10; in fact, three are lower.
Brendan O’Hara
A few weeks ago, a young family with a newborn baby appeared at my constituency office in Helensburgh. They were halfway through their four-week universal credit assessment period. This was a family in crisis. They were penniless, and the father had not eaten for three days. They did not even have enough money to buy baby milk and had been refused healthy start vouchers because they ticked the wrong box. Is that not the reality of the poverty being created by the Government?
Justin Tomlinson
I am sorry to hear about the circumstances of that case, and I am happy to look into it further. One of the recent announcements we have made is that there will be Citizens Advice support within every jobcentre from April onwards. That is the sort of case where Citizens Advice can step in and provide independent support and advice, to ensure that people get their full entitlement.
Drew Hendry
Be it universal credit, the benefit freeze or Brexit, the poor are being hit the hardest at the moment, yet according to research from the Resolution Foundation, overall tax and benefit changes will take £100 from families in the bottom fifth of income distribution and give £280 to those in the top 10. Does the Minister think that that is fair?
Justin Tomlinson
That is not something I recognise. Through the additional money being put into universal credit, record employment, the changes to the income tax personal threshold and rising wages, the poorest fifth in society are now £400 better off in real terms than in 2010.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that, with employment at record levels and wages rising in real terms, the best approach to helping people out of poverty is the one that this Government are delivering?
Justin Tomlinson
My hon. Friend is spot on. Only 5% of children whose parents work full time are in poverty, against 63% for families where there is only part-time work, which is why our delivering record employment in all regions of the UK is making a real difference.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
Next year, the benefit freeze will leave the poorest 20% of families with children £900 worse off on average. In January, the Secretary of State said that the benefit freeze was the right policy at the time, but both she and the Chancellor have signalled that it will not be renewed in 2020. If it is not the right policy now, why are the Government continuing with the freeze for another year?
Justin Tomlinson
The hon. Lady continues to object to any measures to restore fairness to the benefits system. Under the last Labour Government, we saw welfare spending increase by £84 billion and an additional tax burden of £3,000 per hard-working household. This is about fairness and supporting people, while having a good safety net for those most in need.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Ind)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Amber Rudd)
No one has to wait five weeks for the first part of their benefit because, as the hon. Lady is aware, they can get an advance of up to 100%, and 60% of people do that. We have also introduced a two-week run-on of housing benefit, and from next year a further two-week run-on of employment and support allowance, jobseeker’s allowance and income support will be available. Those payments are in addition to each claimant’s universal credit benefit award.
Heidi Allen
I am afraid to say that the five-week wait issue is not going to go away until the Government recognise that it is driving some people to food banks. I was in Glasgow on Friday with the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), and we will continue on our tour of the UK, taking a camera crew with us and shining a spotlight on poverty until the Government change their mind on this. For the most vulnerable in society who have zero financial resilience, the four-week assessment period makes no sense at all—they have to wait four weeks to prove they have no money. I have suggested that there is a need to identify the most vulnerable claimants—those with no financial resilience—and hand-hold them through the system, and either make the assessment period start at minus four weeks or make those advance payments non-repayable grants, not for everyone but for the vulnerable.
Amber Rudd
I am always willing to look at suggestions for how to improve universal credit. The hon. Lady is well known for bringing forward a lot of suggestions for us to look at. However, we need to be careful not to create incentives that are counter to our intention to help people into work. I do believe that advances work well, and the work coaches I talk to—I also go around the country talking to people about it—do tell me that they make a significant difference.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
A constituent of mine, a working mum with two little girls, had to wait the five weeks for her universal credit claim and then a further month for assistance with childcare costs because the Department insists on paying childcare in arrears. We all know that, in the real world, nurseries have to be paid in advance, so why cannot the system recognise that simple reality?
Amber Rudd
We have acknowledged that issue. I have announced that work coaches now have access to the flexible support fund so that they can give that money in advance and do exactly what the hon. and learned Lady is suggesting—giving that money to the people who need it when they are ready to pay for childcare to get into work.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Justin Tomlinson)
An evaluation of the cap, covering these groups, is expected to be published in spring 2019. Some claimants might not be required to look for work, but they are expected to undertake activities designed to help them prepare for and move closer to the labour market. Those needing additional help adjusting to the cap can apply for discretionary housing payments.
Ms Buck
But this is really missing the point. As the Work and Pensions Committee report made absolutely clear, the benefit cap should not apply to people who are not required to undertake a work search. Why are constituents such as mine having to find £50 out of their child benefit and child tax credits when they are in homeless accommodation and have no say over where they are accommodated and how much rent they are paying, or when they are exempted from a work search, including, in one case, when a mother had been fleeing domestic violence?
Justin Tomlinson
There are automatic exemptions for claimants on DLA, PIP, carer’s allowance, guardian’s allowance, working tax credits when working over 16 hours a week, universal credit when earning over £542, ESA support or the UC higher rate. Where they are not covered by that, discretionary housing payments can be used, and in that case they certainly should have been looked at favourably.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
On 29 January, the Minister told me in a written answer that the Department does not know how many resettled refugee families may be subject to the benefit cap. Can he give me an assurance on the Floor of the House that the Government will start to look at that data and guarantee that no such family will be left unable to access the financial support they need?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Lady. I have met a number of stakeholders to discuss this issue and wider issues connected to refugees. It is an area of priority for the Department, and I would be happy to meet her to discuss this further.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
This country spends £121 billion on pensioners every year, with an increasing budget. My hon. Friend will be aware that the state pension is up well over £1,000 per annum in cash terms since 2010. In addition, there are 12 million winter fuel payments, at a cost of about £2 billion, specifically for the over-80s, with a payment of £300 a year to the individual.
Mr Robertson
I thank the Minister for delivering that good news to the House. While automatic pension enrolment will certainly help people as they move into retirement, can we make sure that we do not take our eye off the ball with older pensioners, with particular reference to fuel poverty, because there is still a problem?
Guy Opperman
My hon. Friend makes two points. The first is that auto-enrolment is a massive success in Tewkesbury, with 23,000 men and women now saving up to 5%—going up to 8% in April—for their long-term retirement. In addition, on fuel poverty, he will be pleased with the warm home discount scheme, which supports over 2 million low-income and vulnerable customers each year with direct assistance with their costs. However, I accept that there is always more that we can do.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, one in six pensioners now live in poverty. Last year, 46,000 pensioners died prematurely, and the winter fuel allowance has not been increased for 15 years, so what is the Minister doing about that? The Government are cutting pension credit for couples at the same time.
Guy Opperman
The reality is that pensioner poverty is at an historically low level. The hon. Lady will be aware of the 12 million winter fuel payments, at a cost of £2 billion, with £200 for households with someone who has reached state pension age and £300 for households with someone who is over 80. In addition, there is the warm home discount support I just outlined.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s response this morning to the collective defined-contribution scheme consultation. What does it mean for posties in East Renfrewshire, a number of whom are looking forward to meeting the Minister when he comes up to Barrhead on Friday?
Guy Opperman
We believe that collective defined-contribution schemes are a positive step and a welcome innovation to help postmen and women up and down the country to have a sustainable long-term retirement. I welcome the support of the Communication Workers Union and Royal Mail, and the role my hon. Friend has played in the House of Commons. I look forward to meeting some of his posties early—very early, I believe—on Friday morning.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
My constituent Christine Paris is a vulnerable 60-year-old women, who has a rare birth defect causing severe learning disability. She has never been able to work and she cannot even travel alone, yet she is being placed in the work-related activity group and forced to face yet another humiliating fit for work assessment. Will the Minister look into her case personally? Does he agree with the Centre for Health and Disability Assessments, which says that the assessment process is unfit for people with learning difficulties, and will he conduct an urgent review?
Guy Opperman
If the hon. Lady sends that case to the Department, I and the Minister concerned will look into it specifically.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
In legislating to allow 140,000 Royal Mail workers to benefit from the CDC scheme, will the Government also legislate as soon as possible to compel employer contribution with the pensions dashboard and to strengthen powers and criminal penalties available to the regulator, to provide a better pension for tens of thousands of workers, to help all workers to plan for their retirement, to protect workers and to send an unmistakeable message to the Philip Greens of this world that those who rob workers of their pension security will end up in the dock?
Guy Opperman
The hon. Gentleman and I are united in our desire for a Bill that addresses collective defined-contribution, compulsion on dashboards and the defined-benefit reforms that we all agree are both required and necessary. I am confident that with a constructive, cross-party approach, over the next few months, with the hon. Gentleman and other political parties, we can introduce those measures very soon.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Justin Tomlinson)
Our own evidence does not show a direct link between the increase in food bank use and the roll-out of universal credit. As the Trussell Trust has said, it is impossible to identify one single cause. Universal credit spends £2 billion more than the system it replaces, and it incentivises work, providing a pathway out of poverty.
Helen Hayes
In my surgery on Friday, I met a family with very young children who have been without benefits to which they are entitled since before Christmas, due to mistakes by the DWP. They are already in housing rent arrears and reliant on the local food bank. Without resolving those errors, the DWP is now moving them on to universal credit, where the terrifying prospect of a five-week wait and no funds to repay an advance pose a real risk of homelessness. I want the Secretary of State not only to look into this case but to deal with the incompetence and cruelty in her Department, which are causing such misery for far too many people.
Justin Tomlinson
First, I give a commitment that, yes, I am very happy to look into that specific case. It highlights the problems with the legacy benefits, whereby £2.4 billion a year of benefits were missed. It was a complex, bureaucratic process where mistakes could happen and claimants—particularly vulnerable claimants —did not take what they were entitled to. Under universal credit, with personalised, tailored support, mistakes can be rectified more quickly.
Lilian Greenwood
Rent arrears are deducted from jobseeker’s allowance at £3.70 a week, but for universal credit the deduction is £31 a month, while overpaid benefits and advance payments are deducted at even higher rates. Some of my constituents are having over £100 deducted from their monthly universal credit payments, forcing them to dip into their rent money and use food banks just to get by. They would not find themselves in this position if they were not waiting up to five weeks to receive their first payment. The Secretary of State says she has put in measures to address that, but they clearly are not working. When will Ministers face the facts and scrap the five-week wait?
Justin Tomlinson
Those transferring from legacy benefits would get two weeks’ housing benefit run-on, no strings attached, in addition and would automatically be offered the advance payment. We have lengthened the time over which that would be repaid and lowered the rate at which it would be claimed back.
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Alok Sharma)
The number of people in employment has never been higher, with a record 32.6 million people in employment. That is up by more than 3.5 million since 2010. The UK’s employment rate is at a joint record high of 75.8%.
Royston Smith
More people in Southampton, Itchen are in work than has been the case for years, but many of them are in jobs with poor prospects and low pay. What are the Government doing to create jobs with higher pay and better prospects, not just in Southampton, Itchen, but across the country?
Alok Sharma
Well, 75% of the jobs that have been created since 2010 are permanent, full time and in high-level occupations that attract high wages. Of course, my hon. Friend is right that we need to do even more to upskill people and help them enter better-paid work. That is why, across the Government, we are investing in higher level apprenticeships, technical skills and a national retraining scheme.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Last month’s unemployment figures showed rises in six areas, including the north-east. There are more than 800,000 people on zero-hours contracts and wages are £9 a week lower than in 2008. Will the Minister describe how he intends to address job insecurity, low pay and the clear failure of the Government to tackle regional inequalities?
Alok Sharma
The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, be aware that since 2010 employment has gone up in every region and country of the United Kingdom. As I have pointed out, 75% of the new jobs are in high-level occupations. He talked about zero-hours contracts. He will know that there has been a drop in the number of zero-hours contracts over the past year. Ultimately, he talked about failure. The only failure we recognise is that absolutely every Labour Government have left unemployment higher than when they entered office.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
We are glad to hear that employment has gone up in every region of the country. Will the Minister at some stage, if not today, put out a written statement on why it is thought that unemployment always rises with a Labour Government and employment increases with a Conservative Government?
Alok Sharma
We can all have our theories, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right that that is precisely what happens. What the Labour party should be doing is congratulating the Government on the work we have done over the past nine years to get employment up.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Justin Tomlinson)
We are committed to ensuring that individuals receive high-quality assessments. Providers are closely monitored against a range of measures, including through independent audit, to improve the accuracy of the advice they provide to decision makers. We continually look to improve the efficiency of the assessment process by working closely with our providers.
Diana Johnson
Quite apart from the problems with and maladministration of work capability and PIP assessments, I have requested that Ministers consider the passporting of people who were affected by the contaminated blood scandal, so that the benefits they are currently on are passported on to the new benefits. I do not understand, when there is a public inquiry into the scandal, why these people are still having to go through the assessments.
Justin Tomlinson
I know that the hon. Lady has campaigned for a number of years on this incredibly important issue, and I pay tribute to the diligence of her work. I would be very happy to meet her to discuss the matter further.
Mr Sweeney
Some 72% of personal independence payment appeals were successful in the first three months of last year, which is an appalling failure rate. It is my understanding that Scottish Ministers have had power over the administration of personal independence payment since the Scotland Act 2016 came into effect, and that they would have the power to usurp the failed system and adopt a new one. Why is it taking so long to do it?
Justin Tomlinson
From my former role as Minister for Disabled People, I know that Scottish Ministers had the opportunity to take that forward. We are willing to work with their officials to make that possible if they wish to proceed. The ball is very much in their court.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I declare a family interest in the answer to my question. The undoubted problems with health assessments are causing delays in the appeal process right across the board, not just with PIP and others, but with disability living allowance and mobility allowances. Will the Minister agree to see me and discuss how we can accelerate the process, because some appeals take more than 39 weeks to come to fruition, with the effect that children have to wait over a year before they get their proper allowances?
Mr Speaker
I am sure that the Minister will agree to see the right hon. Gentleman. It would be extraordinarily reckless and foolhardy to refuse to do so, and I am sure that the Minister would never be reckless or foolhardy.
Justin Tomlinson
It will be a pleasure to meet my right hon. Friend. We have been working very closely with the Ministry of Justice to improve the capacity within the tribunal system, to speed up the process. The Secretary of State has set out ambitious plans to improve the mandatory reconsideration stage to reduce the number of decisions that are going on to the independent appeal part.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Will the Department and Ministers join me in paying tribute to Disability Support Project in Redditch, which does some great work to help disabled people to navigate the bureaucracy surrounding the system? Will the Minister outline when we will see a difference on the ground from some of the measures that he is putting in place to improve the transparency of the assessment procedures?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the fantastic work that her local organisation does. Those with that frontline experience have to be at the heart of the improvements that we take forward. We engage very proactively and constructively with stakeholders, national and local, and they are helping to shape the improvements.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Justin Tomlinson
We are always reviewing that process and we work very closely with stakeholders, with their wealth of experience, to make sure that we continue to deliver improvements.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Amber Rudd)
Domestic abuse is a devastating crime and my Department will always do what it can to support victims of domestic abuse. Departmental training and awareness is now better than ever, but I can confirm that, by the summer of this year, we will ensure that we have domestic abuse specialists in every jobcentre to help everybody who needs it.
Will Quince
What steps are the Government taking to increase the provision and quality of supported housing for such vulnerable people?
Amber Rudd
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. Of course, supported housing is essential for vulnerable groups, including those fleeing domestic abuse, which is why we announced in August last year that we will maintain funding for all supported housing and housing benefit. I am going to work closely with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Chancellor and local authorities to ensure that quality and value for money are always available in supported housing provision for domestic abuse victims.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
Making sure that the system prevents domestic abuse, including financial abuse, is as important as supporting those, rightly, who are affected by it. The Secretary of State made a statement a few months ago regarding single payment of universal credit. What progress has she made on that to make sure that women and the children they support as main carer can directly receive the support that they so rightly need?
Amber Rudd
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. She is right and I announced recently that I want to make sure that it is the main carer who receives the benefit. I am working with jobcentres to ensure that we have a new approach so that there is effectively an early question in their process where they find out who the main carer is, who is usually a woman, so that we can ensure that potential victims of domestic abuse are more likely to have access to the overall funds.
Mr Speaker
Patience and the City of Chester are alike rewarded. I call Mr Christian Matheson.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Minister for Employment (Alok Sharma)
Universal credit is now available in all jobcentres across the country and is helping people into work. The universal credit claimant survey published last year showed that, under universal credit, the likelihood of being in work almost doubles between the point of making a claim and nine months into the claim.
Christian Matheson
Of the claimants who have been transferred from legacy benefits on to universal credit, what proportion are now receiving more money than they were under legacy benefits, what proportion are receiving the same and what proportion are receiving less money than they were?
Alok Sharma
The hon. Gentleman is referring to where people have a change in circumstances. That is not anything new under universal credit: changes in circumstances exist within the legacy benefits system. People get a different calculation in terms of the amount of money, and that has not changed under universal credit.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The Minister will know that universal credit uses Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs real-time information to determine the amount of money a claimant will receive each month. Late submissions by employers have led to claimants having reduced or cancelled payments because of money they earned a long time ago. Does the Minister not agree that this issue needs to be looked at if universal credit is to be an effective system that does not increase poverty?
Alok Sharma
The hon. Lady raises an important point. We make sure, working with our colleagues in Her Majesty’s Treasury, that employers are made aware of the fact that they need to get the right date into the RTI system.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Amber Rudd)
Today I can announce that this Conservative Government will deliver on their promise to legislate to create a new type of pension scheme: collective defined- contribution schemes. These schemes will help improve retirement outcomes for members, while also benefiting employers. Savers’ contributions are paid into a pooled fund, which is invested to achieve a target benefit. At retirement, savers receive a regular pension income. This is a major promise delivered. It shows this Government are meeting their objective to protect private pensions and provide security for hard-working savers in retirement.
Jack Brereton
I thank my right hon. Friend for updating us on her Department. Will she comment on how the Government are helping young people in my constituency into work?
Amber Rudd
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter, and I thank him particularly for the great work he does in his constituency for young people. I have looked into this, and there are many different initiatives taking place in his constituency, but I particularly commend the Prince’s Trust, which does such great work across country, and which attends the jobcentre fortnightly to provide targeted support for 18 to 24-year-olds.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Shocking reports have emerged today that ill and disabled people are being left without vital social security, as the Department for Work and Pensions has sent misleading letters to GPs advising them that they no longer need to provide fit for work notes to patients who are refused employment and support allowance. Patients need those notes to access the assessment rate of ESA if they are appealing the decision, and this obviously results in many being left close to destitution and in rent arrears. Will the Secretary of State commit today to reword these letters and immediately prevent any further harm to any ill and disabled people?
Amber Rudd
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to set the record straight. These letters simply inform GPs when a claimant has been found fit for work, and are not intended to dissuade them from issuing fit notes for ESA appeal purposes. To claim otherwise is inaccurate. We are committed to ensuring our communication is clear, which is why the wording of this letter was cleared by both the British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners. However, we will of course consider feedback when revising the letter.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Amber Rudd
Of course. My hon. Friend is right. I will take a careful look at that issue to ensure that is the case. We care enormously about making sure there is correct access for disabled people. If I may say so, nobody cared more than my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), who did such great work for everybody with disabilities and who will be sorely missed in the Department.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
My SNP colleagues and I have been seeing a growing number of constituents who are EU and European economic area nationals and who were previously entitled to social security payments but who are now seeing their universal credit claims rejected because they have failed the habitual residence test. Can the Minister tell me categorically whether DWP guidance has been issued or changed on this matter, and whether this is just an extension of the hostile environment?
The Minister for Employment (Alok Sharma)
The hon. Lady may have written to me about this previously, but let me just make it clear that the right of EEA nationals under freedom of movement is not an unqualified one. EEA nationals who stay in the UK beyond the initial three months must be exercising treaty rights, and this means they must be working, studying, self-employed or self-sufficient.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
A mother in my constituency is struggling due to a lack of financial support from the father of her children. The woman’s ex-partner is not in work, but he gets considerable income from several properties he owns. However, that income is not considered by the Child Maintenance Service when calculating maintenance for his children. What can the Minister do to make sure the Child Maintenance Service focuses on not only salaries but other forms of income?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Justin Tomlinson)
I will be very happy to look personally into this case and to report back. Actually, we do have powers to investigate further—these powers were opposed by the Labour party in January. We believe that everything should be done to help the receiving parent get the support they are entitled to.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
The Government will not be revisiting the state pension age arrangements for women born in the 1950s who are affected by the Pensions Act 1995, the 2007 Act, introduced by the Labour Government, or the 2011 Act, introduced by the coalition. A High Court ruling on this matter will proceed to a full hearing on 5 and 6 June, so further comment would be inappropriate.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend’s Department holding up the transfer of welfare powers to the Scottish Government?
Amber Rudd
Absolutely not. We work closely with the Scottish Government to ensure that their proposals, which sometimes differ from ours, are met, and we are bending over backwards to ensure that we assist them. We are still waiting to receive further information so that we can deliver on their ambitions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I call Jim Cunningham. Get in there, man! Your moment has arrived.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Alok Sharma
Our frontline staff deliver vital support to more than 20 million people across the country, and of course we are committed to supporting them in their roles. That includes monitoring staff levels and ensuring that their caseloads are indeed manageable.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Amber Rudd
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are introducing measures to help people gain early access to money so that that eventuality does not occur. They can receive benefit advances of up to 100%, which 60% now access, and can access the housing benefits run-on, which is additional money, and, from next year, other legacy benefits, which are also additional money and which will be paid within that two-week period.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Alok Sharma
I thought that we had a constructive discussion. As the hon. Gentleman says, my officials have also talked to the council, but I am always happy to have another discussion. I should add that the total amount of new burdens funding is increasing from £14 million to £18 million in 2019-20.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Amber Rudd
That, of course, applies to 4% of the overall decisions that are made. However, I acknowledge that we need to do better, for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and those of the rest of us. That is why I have already announced that we will look again at the mandatory reconsiderations to ensure that fewer people proceed to the necessary tribunal reviews.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Amber Rudd
I have just answered that question, in terms of making sure that we do better and that the mandatory reconsiderations will have additional support to ensure that a greater proportion of those reviews do not have to go forward and so are not overturned.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
George Osborne said in his 2015 summer Budget that the welfare system should always support the elderly and the vulnerable. Does the Secretary of State agree? If so, why are we seeing stealth cuts to pension credit for mixed-age couples—a loss of £7,320 to some of our poorest and most vulnerable pensioners?
Guy Opperman
These changes were introduced in the Welfare Reform Act 2012. We have always made it clear that mixed-age couples already claiming pension credit or housing benefit for pensioners immediately before 15 May will not be affected for as long as they remain in receipt of either benefit after that date. Just to be clear, there is no impact or effect on their state pension.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Were the Secretary of State to get a tax rebate she would be very surprised if she was taxed on it, but my constituent saw an abatement by 63%. Will the Department sort out the reductions to universal credit when people get tax rebates?
Alok Sharma
I am very happy to look at the individual case the hon. Lady raises, but, as she knows, under UC we have a taper that works: it incentivises people to take on extra hours because they get to keep more of the money that they earn.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Like the Secretary of State, I will miss the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton); she was working with me on my Access to Welfare (Terminal Illness Definition) Bill—a critical Bill at a time when the Scottish Government are consulting on new standards for clinicians to decide when someone is terminally ill. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the Bill and move it forward?
Amber Rudd
I am aware of the good work that my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth was doing with the hon. Lady; I am aware of the campaign and how important it is, and I will be delighted to meet the hon. Lady to see how we can move it forward.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
My constituent received a UC sanction for accompanying her younger sister, who has severe cerebral palsy and for whom my constituent cares, to an appointment at the children’s hospice at Loch Lomond. Surely that is an inhumane way to treat young carers under the UC system.
Alok Sharma
I am very happy to look at the individual case that the hon. Gentleman raises. Of course, he will be aware that easements are available in the system, but I will be very happy to talk to him about that specific case.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
My constituent has a connective tissue disorder that has left her bedbound for three months because she regularly dislocates her joints. Despite evidence from her GP and chiropractor, the Centre for Disability and Health Assessments has refused a home assessment because she takes taxis to her GP appointments. Does the Secretary of State think that decision is fair? If not, will she look into it to overturn it?
Amber Rudd
It sounds to me like the hon. Lady’s constituent should have had a home visit, but I hope that the hon. Lady will have received the email I sent out inviting Members of Parliament to an open hour that I am having tomorrow so that they can bring any individual cases. Sometimes it is best to have a one-to-one over individual cases, rather than deal with them on the Floor of the House.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I would like to press the Secretary of State further on the assurances she gave to the Opposition Front Benchers. As part of the review, will she be prepared to ensure that the original wording is reinstated so that claimants are not left without benefits while appeals are pending?
Amber Rudd
I am always willing to look at new ideas on how to improve the offer we have, and I will certainly take a look at what the hon. Lady sends to me.
Speaker’s Statement
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I wish to make a statement to the House. There has been much speculation over the past week about the possibility of the Government bringing before the House a motion on Brexit for another so-called meaningful vote under the statutory framework provided in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. On 13 March, however, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) asked on a point of order, at column 394, whether it would be proper for the Government to keep bringing the same deal back to the House ad infinitum. I replied that no ruling was necessary at that stage, but that one might be required at some point in the future. Subsequently Members on both sides of the House, and indeed on both sides of the Brexit argument, have expressed their concerns to me about the House being repeatedly asked to pronounce on the same fundamental proposition.
The 24th edition of “Erskine May” states on page 397:
“A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”
It goes on to state:
“Attempts have been made to evade this rule by raising again, with verbal alterations, the essential portions of motions which have been negatived. Whether the second motion is substantially the same as the first is finally a matter for the judgment of the Chair.”
This convention is very strong and of long standing, dating back to 2 April 1604. Last Thursday, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) quoted examples of occasions when the ruling had been reasserted by four different Speakers of this House, notably in 1864, 1870, 1882, 1891 and 1912. Each time, the Speaker of the day ruled that a motion could not be brought back because it had already been decided in that same Session of Parliament. Indeed, “Erskine May” makes reference to no fewer than 12 such rulings up to the year 1920.
One of the reasons why the rule has lasted so long is that it is a necessary rule to ensure the sensible use of the House’s time and proper respect for the decisions that it takes. Decisions of the House matter. They have weight. In many cases, they have direct effects not only here but on the lives of our constituents. Absence of Speaker intervention since 1920 is attributable not to the discontinuation of the convention but to general compliance with it; thus, as “Erskine May” notes, the Public Bill Office has often disallowed Bills on the ground that a Bill with the same or very similar long title cannot be presented again in the same Session.
So far as our present situation is concerned, let me summarise the chronology of events. The draft EU withdrawal agreement, giving effect to the deal between the Government and the EU, was published on 14 November and the agreement itself, together with the accompanying political declaration on the future relationship, received endorsement from the European Council on 25 November. The first scheduled debate on what I will hereafter refer to as “the deal” was due to take place on 11 December. However, on 10 December the vote was postponed after 164 speeches had already been made over three of the five days allotted for debate. That postponement was caused not by me or by the House, but by the Government. Indeed, I pointed out at the time that that was deeply discourteous to the House and I suggested that the permission of the House for that postponement should be sought. Regrettably, it was not.
Over five weeks later, following a further five-day debate, the first meaningful vote was held on 15 January, which the Government lost by a margin of 230 votes—the largest in parliamentary history. Subsequently, the second meaningful vote was expected to take place in February, but once again there was a postponement. It finally happened only last Tuesday, 12 March. The Government’s motion on the deal was again very heavily defeated.
In my judgment, that second meaningful vote motion did not fall foul of the convention about matters already having been decided during the same Session. This was because it could be credibly argued that it was a different proposition from that already rejected by the House on 15 January. It contained a number of legal changes which the Government considered to be binding and which had been agreed with the European Union after intensive discussions. Moreover, the Government’s second meaningful vote motion was accompanied by the publication of three new documents—two issued jointly with the EU and a unilateral declaration from the UK not objected to by the EU. In procedural terms, it was therefore quite proper that the debate and the second vote took place last week. The Government responded to its defeat, as they had promised to do, by scheduling debates about a no-deal Brexit and an extension of article 50 on 13 and 14 March respectively.
It has been strongly rumoured, although I have not received confirmation of this, that a third, and even possibly a fourth, meaningful vote motion will be attempted. Hence this statement, which is designed to signal what would be orderly and what would not. This is my conclusion: if the Government wish to bring forward a new proposition that is neither the same nor substantially the same as that disposed of by the House on 12 March, that would be entirely in order. What the Government cannot legitimately do is to resubmit to the House the same proposition or substantially the same proposition as that of last week, which was rejected by 149 votes. This ruling should not be regarded as my last word on the subject; it is simply meant to indicate the test which the Government must meet in order for me to rule that a third meaningful vote can legitimately be held in this parliamentary Session.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I make three points following your helpful statement?
First, at the beginning of it, you used “may” and not the word “must”. At the end, you used the word “must” and not the word “may”. Those are the first two points.
The third point is this: when Sir Ian Gilmour put forward a provision in effect for putting carpets and coffee in betting offices, the puritans objected, so the Bill was withdrawn. Shortly afterwards, a Bill on miscellaneous premises and miscellaneous provisions was passed because no one noticed that it was to do with coffee and carpets in betting shops.
Therefore, there are times when the title of a Bill has been changed. Perhaps if the long title of something that the Government proposed was changed, that might be accepted by the Chair, rather than it having to be ruled out.
Mr Speaker
I am not sure there were three points there—I detected only two. I do not wish to be unkind or discourteous to the hon. Gentleman, whom I hope I always treat with the utmost respect, but I am somewhat foxed and befuddled by his first observation, which was not as overpoweringly clear to me as manifestly it was to him. I certainly referred to “Erskine May”. I was not conscious that I had used the word “may” early in my statement and the word “must” at the end of it in a way that would brook of contradiction or, indeed, be open to the suggestion that the words were contradictory. If he wishes to labour under that impression and can subsequently convince me, over either a cup of coffee or a cup of tea, that I have erred in some material respect, I shall always be prepared to profit by his counsel. As for the point in respect of the late Ian Gilmour, I am not familiar with that particular example. I suspect it would be interesting reading, and I will add it to my list for the period of days that lies ahead. I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said and for the courtesy with which he has said it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I will come to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) but first let us go to the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It seems to me that what you have said makes an enormous amount of sense, given that this has been defeated on two separate occasions. Unless there is a substantial difference, it must follow that what you have said, in a very important statement, makes an enormous amount of sense. I just wondered about one thing with regard to the precedent of 1604, which was whether there was any connection between that and the gunpowder plot being very shortly afterwards. [Laughter.]
Mr Speaker
Well, the hon. Gentleman is a far superior historian, and he may know this—I will not say. I appreciate also his sense of humour on what is, nevertheless, an extremely important occasion. I thank him for what he has said. I have always respected him as a principled and indefatigable parliamentarian. In fact, I think that across this House, whether people agree with him or not, they know of one thing, which I once said, as he knows, on the occasion of Her Majesty the Queen’s visit to this place. As I said directly to her, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) speaks and votes only and always as he thinks the national interest requires. There can be no greater compliment to a Member of Parliament than to say that to him or her.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I thank you for your statement this afternoon? We do indeed live in interesting times. However, it is fair to say that we are in a constitutional crisis, and I seek your advice on how we can convey a message to the Government that the issue of leadership is now most important and, indeed, imperative. What can we do to prevail upon the Prime Minister that she must immediately call a meeting of all Opposition leaders in order that we can react to this crisis and find a way ahead, and, moreover, that she must immediately meet the Heads of Government in Edinburgh and in Cardiff?
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman has made his point with force and alacrity. It is not for me to say whom the Prime Minister should or should not meet, but that point is registered and on the record. If I know the right hon. Gentleman as well as I think I do, it will be repeated by him with some passion and vociferousness in the days ahead and, not least because of the force with which it is articulated again and again and again, I feel certain that it will be heard. Whether it is heeded remains to be seen, but it will be heard.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, may I say how delighted I am that you have decided to follow precedent, which is something I am greatly in favour of? Dare I say that there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repented than over the 99 who are not in need of repentance? I wonder whether you might help the House with two points of clarity. First, would your indication today prevent the Second Reading, or even the First Reading, of the so-called withdrawal agreement Bill, which may have the same effect of confirming the meaningful vote? Secondly, would I be right in thinking that a new Session after a prorogation would allow the motion to be returned to the House?
Mr Speaker
The House would decide on the principle of the withdrawal agreement Bill at Second Reading, if we got to that point. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes and the—if he will forgive my saying so—partly rhetorical question accompanying it about post Prorogation and a new Session seem to me to be self-evidently valid. I am not advocating that, but that point is self-evidently valid and I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you confirm to the House that the point of the rule in “Erskine May” was to stop the bullying of the legislature by the Executive? We should exclude the fact that MPs may be either strong-armed, bullied or bribed with issues such as the sacking of the civil servant who is currently in charge of the Brexit negotiations—who, by the way, was overheard in a Brussels bar predicting that what we have seen with meaningful vote 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ad infinitum, would be the Government's way of getting this botched deal through the House. The “Erskine May” rules are there precisely to avoid the kind of spectacle we have been witnessing in the past few months. Will you take all the Government’s other behaviours—ignoring votes of Parliament, making a distinction between votes that somehow are binding and others that are not binding, refusing to grant Opposition days, and beginning not to vote on Opposition days and to ignore the motions that the House passes, thereby devaluing Parliament’s opinion—into account as you judge meaningful vote 3 and any motion that the Government bring forward?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. I will reflect carefully on what she said to me. She is an extremely experienced and seasoned parliamentarian and, of course, a former shadow Leader of the House, so I will factor into my thinking the considerations that she has adduced. I do not think there is one single rationale for the emergence and continuation of the convention. I touched on some of the thinking behind it in my statement. It would be true to say that a concern with the judicious use of parliamentary time, when that time is finite, and the avoidance of its wastage is an important factor. Another important factor is ensuring clarity and consistency so far as the statute book is concerned. Associated with and underlying all that is a concept of respect for the importance of decisions made by the House and the weight to be attached to them. I will reflect carefully on these matters.
I say gently to the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg)—because I failed to respond to this point, which was very good and wittily delivered—that so far as tradition is concerned, he has a perfectly fair point. A tradition does matter and is important. What I would say to him is that just because it is not desirable to follow precedent in every case, irrespective of circumstance, that does not mean it is justified not to follow it. It depends on the particular circumstance. For example, it depends whether one is facilitating the House and allowing the expression of an opinion that might otherwise be denied, as was the case on 9 January.
In this case, of course, where we are talking about the same-question rule, I have already explained that this matter has been treated of by the House, so the question of whether a subsequent motion is the same, or substantially the same, is a live matter for consideration and judgment at the appropriate time. In fact, that seems to me to be so obviously commonsensical an observation that only an extraordinarily sophisticated person, perhaps bereft of such common sense, could fail to grasp it. The hon. Gentleman most certainly would not fall into that category, because he is both extraordinarily sophisticated and blessed, I feel sure, with a very large supply of common sense.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have said memorably in the past that, sometimes, we have to take the rough with the smooth. Well, it seems to me that, today, that applies to others. May I ask whether this principle applies in other contexts as well? For instance, the House voted a few weeks ago on what became known as the Cooper-Boles amendment to overturn Standing Order No. 14(1), essentially to take control of the Order Paper for a day. That was rejected. Last week, the House then voted against what became the Benn amendment, which was, I would argue, substantially similar to the original Cooper-Boles amendment to take control of the Order Paper and override Standing Order No. 14(1). Now you on that occasion, Sir, judged that it was permissible to ask this question because it was not exactly the same as the first one. May I offer you a thought that if there were to be a third variant of that, if it were to be substantially the same, then, to be consistent, Sir, you would have to rule that out, too?
Mr Speaker
I am always grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I have often reminded the House, and I say this for the benefit of those attending to our proceedings, that I first came to know him in September 1983 when I unkindly and wrongly suggested that, intellectually, he was knee-high to a grasshopper. That was very unfair of me and, to his great credit, he did not appear to bear any grudge and we have got on pretty well over the ensuing 35 and a half years. I always listen to his advice. The answer is that everything depends on context and circumstance—[Interruption.] Yes, of course it does; manifestly and incontrovertibly it does. It is a question not of abstract principle or wallowing, as Edmund Burke would say, in the realms of metaphysical abstraction, but of attending to circumstance, and I would look at that with the important considerations and principle of which he has reminded me in the forefront of my mind in making a judgment. He is absolutely entitled to raise that point and I would indeed have to weigh up very carefully whether a proposition was in fact the same or substantially the same or whether it could credibly be contended that it was different.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Ind)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is what happens when you do not seek consensus and compromise from the beginning, but lay down red lines and doggedly stick to them with an act of stubbornness and brinkmanship that has brought us to this point. The crisis that is now upon the country has to be unprecedented. We are due to leave the European Union in 11 days and there is no plan and there is no certainty, and this country, especially business, is crying out for them.
Mr Speaker, what would you now expect the Government to do? We are relying on tweets, rumours and spin from No.10 and, as I have said, the clock is ticking. I say with no disrespect to those sitting on the Treasury Bench that there is no senior Member here from Government who can help us with a timetable—[Interruption.] I said a senior Member who can help us with a timetable. [Interruption.] Now, we have that senior Member—the Leader of the House—with a timetable. I meant no disrespect to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Mr Speaker, what do you now expect in terms of this timetable so that, in this crisis, we can make progress and do the right thing by the country?
Mr Speaker
What I have to say to the right hon. Lady is threefold. First, there was already present in the Chamber—before the arrival of the Leader of the House whom we welcome to our proceedings—the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions who, by any standard, must be considered to be senior. I will not get into a vulgar argument about the respective levels of seniority of different hon. and right hon. Members, and there are, of course, different forms of seniority, but the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was already present and the Leader of the House has now joined us.
I say to the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) that it is not for me to say what the Government should do, but it would be helpful to the House to have the earliest possible indication of how the Government intend to proceed in this important matter. Of course, we may learn more about the Government’s intentions as a result of the upcoming urgent question that I have granted to the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening), who applied to me for that question this morning. I have every expectation that the right hon. Member for Broxtowe and many others will be in their places for that, so we will learn more anon.
Colleagues’ disposition—in other words, what they choose to do and how they wish to proceed—is a matter for them. The role of the Speaker is to seek to facilitate the House and, if I may say so—and I will—to have a particular regard for the concerns of Back-Bench Members, who should be heard in this place. Part of the responsibility of the Speaker is, frankly, to speak truth to power. I have always done that and, no matter what, I always will, because I think that is the proper thing to do. Others can proceed as they wish, but I have never been pushed around and I am not going to start now.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As a newish Member of this House, I thank you for the clarity of your statement, and for confirming that everything depends on context and circumstance. Since the vote last Tuesday, this House has voted against a second referendum, against the Cooper-Boles amendment—twice—and against a no-deal Brexit in 11 days’ time. Are those the sort of decisions that, in your view, affect the context and circumstances on which this House might make its own decision?
Mr Speaker
I think the context is a freestanding matter. It depends on the situation at the time, and that is partly a matter of opinion. All government—all influence of human beings upon another—ultimately rests upon opinion, and it depends on what the situation is more widely. I know that the hon. Lady would not seek to entice me—because that would be unkind of her and she would not do that—to pronounce on other questions that are not today before the House. I would not do that, but I would reflect on them in the circumstances of the time, and it is perfectly reasonable that I should be asked to do so if that situation arises.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I do apologise to the Chair of the Brexit Select Committee, whom I should have called several minutes ago.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In distinguishing between the character of the first meaningful vote and the second, in your statement you drew attention to the fact that, in the second meaningful vote, the Government had brought back additional documents, assurances and legal agreements that had not be contained within the first. Does your statement suggest in any way that, in order for a third meaningful vote not to fall within the statement that you have just made, it would require further changes to be agreed with the European Union, rather than, for example, the Government saying that they are prepared to make an offer to a particular party represented in this Chamber about its participation in future arrangements? In other words, would there have to be new political agreement under section 13(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in order for such a motion to be in order, as opposed to not in order?
Mr Speaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I would say—preliminarily and off the top of my head—that, in all likelihood, the answer to his question is yes; I do think that a demonstrable change to the proposition would be required. For example, simply a change in an opinion about something would not itself constitute a change in the offer. I would have to look at the particulars and make an honest assessment of the circumstances, and perhaps of the competing claims made as to the veracity of one proposition, argument or another, but, fundamentally, for something to be different, it has to be, by definition, fundamentally different—not different in terms of wording, but different in terms of substance—and this is in the context of a negotiation with others outside the United Kingdom. That would be my initial feeling.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not envy you in trying to make these difficult decisions. First, can I press you on your understanding of what is substantively different? For example, were the Government to come back with a proposition that they would write into law the Stormont lock, would that be substantively different? If there were to be commentary that changed our opinion of this at the European Council, would that be substantially different? Many Members of this House feel that having taken no deal off the table, which I voted against, already makes the situation substantially different, so will you say a little more about that?
Secondly, Mr Speaker, you listed some precedents starting with 1604, which is very interesting to new Members. Some Members were already here; I was not, as a new Member. We are in an unprecedented situation in which we have voted for a referendum, giving sovereignty to those it belongs to—the people—and we are now bound by that decision. How will you deal with this unprecedented situation? My constituents who are worried about their jobs, or worried about losing the Brexit they voted for, will always prefer you, instead of rigidly sticking with precedents from 1604, to be a modern Speaker for modern times who cannot stand in the way of delivering the early deal that I believe will solve this problem.
Mr Speaker
With the very greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that I have demonstrated, over a period of nine and a half years and more, that I am not a stickler for tradition. I do not believe in doing everything the same way for ever more just because people say to me, as so many have, “Oh, Mr Speaker, it’s always been done that way, or, “Oh, we’ve never previously had X.” I have been ready to countenance change. I remember once being told many years ago by a retired and senior Clerk of this House that she was very pleased that I had secured support for the establishment of a nursery in the House that Members and staff could pay for. She said to me that she did not know whether I was aware that throughout her four decades’ service in the House, the idea of establishing such a facility had periodically been discussed but unfortunately nothing had ever happened, which was not helpful to her in terms of work/life balance—her professional commitments and her childcare responsibilities. So I think I can say, with the very greatest respect, that I have attempted to be a progressive change-maker. As for the particulars concerned, it has to depend on the circumstances. I would have to look at the specifics. It would be reckless and foolhardy to pronounce in the abstract.
I would say further to the hon. Gentleman, just to remind him of the context of my statement, that, as regards the use of time, we have been addressing this matter for a period spanning four months. In so far as time has been lost during that period—for example, at one point, a loss of five weeks without the matter coming to the House—that was not a result of fiat by the Chair or folly by the House; it was the express decision of the Government. I cannot, off the top of my head, remember for certain whether the hon. Gentleman supported the Government’s position on that matter. I have a very high regard for his ability, because he is an extremely able man. I hope he will not take offence if I say, in the nicest possible way, that he has always seemed to me to be a keen supporter of close regulatory alignment with the Government Whips Office.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for your guidance today. Here we are in the gravest constitutional situation that I have seen in my nearly 40 years in this House, and were it not for your good guidance today and over the past few weeks, I think this House would have been very badly served indeed. The fact of the matter is that what you have said today has great repercussions for the business of the House. What is your advice from the Chair, or could we have an early statement from the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House, on what is the next step? We are leaving the European Union and we have only a few days. What is the best way that we can represent our constituents at this grave time of crisis?
Mr Speaker
The short answer is: let us debate these matters sooner rather than later. Of course the Government, for the most part, control the Order Paper—we know that, and the Leader of the House is the Government’s representative in the House—but there are situations in which Members can give voice to their views, whether the Government particularly want that to happen or not. For example, on more than 570 occasions over the last nine and a half years, I have seen fit to grant urgent questions, believing that that is in the interests of the House, is beneficial to Back Benchers and secures ministerial presence in the Chamber, so that the Government can be legitimately questioned, probed, scrutinised, challenged and held to account. There will be further such opportunities today, and knowing the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman, who will have served 40 years in the House in less than two months’ time, I feel certain that he will be well up to the task of posing suitable inquiries and expressing his views on this matter in the days ahead.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are correct that “Erskine May” says:
“A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”
That is absolutely clear. When you allowed the second meaningful vote, your ruling was clearly a balanced decision, but “Erskine May” seems to be clear that it is about whether the motion is substantially changed, not whether something else has happened—that is irrelevant; it is what has happened to the motion. We have in this House the procedure of use of the previous question, which I was thinking of using. The reason why we have it is so that the same question can continue to be debated another time. Can you confirm that this is about the substance of the motion, not something else happening?
Mr Speaker
It is about the substance of the motion—what it is commending to the House, and what proposition is being put. It is not a question purely of the words, but of the meaning, the intention and the purpose.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have made today a very important and dramatic statement. Already constituents are getting in touch with me to ask exactly what that means, and we have to be clear with the country about what you have said. The Government cannot bring back another meaningful vote if it is the same in substance as the last one. The Government’s one and only intention is to achieve and secure that. This week, they intended to do that very thing, and now you have said that that cannot happen. Stressing that for clarity would be abundantly helpful.
My experience of this Government—I do not know whether it is yours—is that they will try anything to get this through, and they will have the impertinence to try to bring this back once again in any guise that they think will be possible; perhaps it will be under the guise of the Democratic Unionist party agreeing with their deal. How do you intend to be vigilant about that prospect? Under what criteria will a motion be assessed, if the Government bring one back and try to present it as being significantly different from their last one? How do we judge what they are doing, so that this ruling can stand? It is an important ruling, and it is correct.
Mr Speaker
It seems to me that it is principally a question of whether the proposition is the same, or substantially the same. I would confer. I would of course seek advice. I would have my eyes and ears open. I am looking to serve the House, to reflect its interests and to demonstrate respect for its wishes. I simply repeat that the convention is there for a purpose, and that purpose seems to me to be an honourable and valid purpose. I am afraid that I will have to look at the particulars in the light of what is presented, but I hope that the Government would feel that respect for procedure matters.
I note that, as the hon. Gentleman asks his question and I respond, the Leader of the House is playing with her electronic device, as is the Deputy Chief Whip. I did not include him in the category of very senior people in the House, but I readily grant that that is a debatable proposition. It would seem to me to be helpful if people showed respect for each other in these circumstances, and if, when in the Chamber, they listened to what others had to say. However, if they choose not to do so, so be it. I try to show good manners, and I hope others will try to do so as well.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand your clarity on this. A second referendum was overwhelmingly rejected by the House of Commons in a vote last week; does this mean that if that is brought back, you will apply the same considerations, so that such a motion is not repeated?
Mr Speaker
I did indicate to earlier inquisitors that everything depends on the circumstance. Is the proposition fundamentally the same, or can it be argued that, in the circumstances of the time, it is a different proposition? I would have to look at that in the circumstances of the time. Is it a relevant factor to be considered? Of course it is, and that is why I have articulated the convention in the way I have done.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, are you able to update the House on any sanctions that might have been applied since 1604 to any Governments who have sought to re-table the same motion, and what such sanctions are available to you today? Over a number of months, we have tabled a succession of amendments in relation to a people’s vote, and I want your reassurance and clarification that there is nothing in what you have said that precludes our pressing another amendment on the matter of a people’s vote.
Mr Speaker
As I have just said to the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), it depends on the context or the circumstances. I cannot yet know in what situation a proposition may be put.
The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) asks me about sanctions. I am not aware of any particular sanctions, other than that if a proposition is judged to be the same or substantially the same, it will not find its way on to the Order Paper. There may be instances in which this has been dishonoured or inadvertently neglected, but I referenced in my statement the fact that the absence of Speaker intervention since 1920 is attributable not to the discontinuation of the convention, but to general compliance with it. For the most part, the convention has not been invoked in respect of Governments, but I would argue that that is not least because, on the whole, Governments have tended to comply with the convention.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Do you concede that had you made this statement in fundamentally the same way between the first and second presentations of a meaningful vote, there might have been Members of this House who, believing that the second meaningful vote was their last opportunity to vote positively on the question, would have changed their minds? When there are particularly fast-moving negotiations, we have sometimes seen substantial, if subtle, changes to an agreement during a debate and before a vote. May I inquire how, in that instance, you would assess the validity of another presentation of the meaningful vote?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman’s latter point is nuanced, and I think it would be sensible to say, I am afraid—because I think it will disappoint him, but it happens to have the advantage of being true—that I would have to look at the particulars. I cannot possibly be expected to pontificate, or even speculate idly, on an abstract proposition. I would have to look at the reality of what was on the table.
I have always had a great fondness for the hon. Gentleman, but on his first point, I have to say that although the Speaker tries to be helpful to the House, it is not my responsibility, and I would not ordinarily be expected, to hold Members’ hand in advising them on how they should vote in a particular circumstance. Members are perfectly capable of making those judgments for themselves. The reason I did not make a statement at an earlier stage, I say in terms that brook of no misunderstanding, is that no such statement was required, for the simple reason that I adduced in my statement: the second vote on 12 March and the debate that preceded it were entirely proper; there was not a breach of the convention. For the hon. Gentleman to say that it would have been helpful if I had said what I did not say at a time that I could have said it because it might have assisted Members, who as a result of it not being said were not helped, is not altogether helpful, and I am not sure that his logic is impeccable.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for your statement today. The Government have gained an infamous historical reputation for trickery and abuse of Parliament during this whole process, and already rumours are going around that they might seek to use prorogation as a method of getting out of this. Can you confirm that that would not only provoke a greater constitutional crisis, but also result in us losing every single piece of legislation currently before both Houses, including many of the pieces of legislation needed to implement any Brexit?
Mr Speaker
If particular legislation was subject to carry-over, that would not apply, but in the expectation, let us say—or, to use a more neutral term, in the circumstance—that it was not subject to the carry-over procedure, manifestly and incontrovertibly it would fall. As for whether the Government are contemplating that, I have no way of knowing. No Minister has indicated that to me. I have no idea what is in their mind. It would be an unusual step, but look: I have been in this place a little over 20 years, and some quite unusual things have happened. I have no way of knowing whether this is being contemplated.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In 1604 and in 1920, we were a sovereign Parliament, and we were not subject to the EU constitution, which this House voted for under the Lisbon treaty. This House has passed legislation under article 50 for us to leave the European Union, which is time-sensitive. Parliament could proceed in a rather stately manner in 1920, because it was not subject to such things, but we as a Parliament have voted to leave on a particular date; therefore there is a certain importance to making decisions prior to that date, and not in the next Session.
Secondly, the meaningful vote in itself is a constitutional innovation. It was this Parliament trying to impose on the Government greater parliamentary scrutiny. In that process, the Government have brought forward votes—more votes than most of us expected, and with more amendments than most of us expected. There was a degree of constitutional innovation in what you ruled during that process, Mr Speaker, in order to involve Parliament. Given the time-sensitive nature of the proposal, and given that this Parliament wanted to be involved, I can see no reason why we should not be put through the pain of perhaps another vote.
I stress that the article 50 legislation went through this House and the withdrawal Act went through this House. Every Member of this House expects to have a say on the type of Brexit that we will actually undertake. Sometimes, even if we are dealing with a matter that has been dealt with before, it is important that this House makes a decision or decides not to make a decision; but not considering the matter again could in itself have consequences.
Mr Speaker
Again, one has to reflect on the particulars. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the issue is not the pain of any vote, which is a subjective matter upon which I do not think I should pontificate—especially as I do not cast such, other than in the circumstance of a tie, which has not arisen since 1993 in this Chamber—but its propriety.
It is absolutely true that the House has legislated in respect of article 50—I believe it did so in March 2017 in the last Parliament—and that that has created a strong expectation, but whether Parliament chooses to legislate on this matter or, as the Government have signalled in recent days, depending on circumstance, to request a particular extension, is a matter for the House. I do not think that the issue of pain really comes into it; it is just a question of what is proper.
I know that the hon. Gentleman, whom I have known since we competed with each other in Bristol South in June 1989, is a stickler for propriety. [Interruption.] I am asked who won. It would not be seemly to say, but I think the hon. Gentleman’s result at the 1992 election was rather better than mine.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Obviously we fully endorse and respect your statement. On a point of clarification, I want to ask something that I am sure people out there will be asking when they read this statement today. On 29 January, the House of Commons voted against the SNP and Plaid Cymru amendment on extending the article 50 period and ruling out no deal by 327 votes to 39. We obviously voted again on those matters last week. Will you clarify why that did not fall under the same ruling?
Mr Speaker
I would have to look back at those particular votes. I did not receive advice at that time about non-compliance. I do not think that there was a general sense in the House that there was an issue of non-compliance, and I was not asked to rule on it. Matters are already treated of by the Table Office on the basis of established custom and practice. If those matters were accepted on to the paper, the issue of selection would have been for me, in the interests of facilitating the debate. However, the issue of propriety was not raised with me at that time.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Most people who watch our deliberations are watching with increasing amazement. They do not understand the nuances of the twists and changes with which we go about our business here. To many of them, what we are doing at the moment makes very little sense at all; they want to get on with things.
May I ask you, Mr Speaker, as the custodian of the reputation of this House, whether you really think it was right to bring forward this ruling today, at this stage, rather than perhaps last week, because many of us are looking forward to voting again one way or another this week? Perhaps you can inform the House how you came to this opinion and when, and say whether it would have been better at the time of the second vote to announce that there would not be time to have a third vote.
Mr Speaker
I am a little taken aback by the inquiry from the right hon. Gentleman. I signalled to the hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) why I did not think any statement was required at that time. It is, of course, true that the House passed a motion on Thursday that specified a potential end date for an agreement to be reached. It specified that if an agreement was reached by that date, a particular extension to article 50—if memory serves me, to the end of June—would be requested of the Union. Why did I not say anything at that time? The motion that was passed was not in respect of the withdrawal agreement, and I could have had no way of knowing at that time whether revisions to the agreement or the accompanying declaration would be sought, let alone obtained.
I can be expected to rule only at the material time. If I had ruled—[Interruption.] I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, because I know that he has a great sense of fair play. If I had ruled last week, I think I can say with complete confidence that there would have been people accusing me of being hasty and premature, and commending to me the idea of waiting. I thought that it was appropriate to reflect on the matter over a period of days, and I am saying what I am saying before the Government table a new proposition. It seems to me timely to say it now, rather than to wait several days, but to have done so several days ago did not seem to me to be warranted. I have made my best judgment in the interests of the House as an institution, and of its individual Members.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are obviously right that the House does not wish to vote on the same proposition over and again. Equally, I am sure that you will be aware of the fact that some hon. Members were interested in meaningful votes because at that time, they would be able to vote on amendments on matters that we have not yet considered. If the Government are unable to make any changes to their proposition, I seek your guidance on how we might secure opportunities for voting on those alternative propositions. I heard you talk about urgent questions, but of course, there is no vote on an urgent question or a statement, and a Standing Order No. 24 motion is in neutral terms. The Government have not been very generous recently in offering Opposition day debates either, so I seek your advice on how hon. Members might proceed.
Mr Speaker
Obviously, it would be helpful to the Opposition if Opposition days were supplied. That has not happened recently and I have no way of knowing whether the Leader of the House has it in mind to provide for Opposition days. I think that colleagues would think that it was a democratic and seemly thing to do to ensure that the principal Opposition party had the requisite allocation of days. So far as other business is concerned, the hon. Lady should look closely at the Standing Order No. 24 procedure. What she says about it is true, but I think that she should reflect upon the opportunities that the Standing Order No. 24 procedure presents, because the opportunities are fuller than has traditionally been acknowledged or taken advantage of by Members of the House of Commons.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You helpfully reminded us at the beginning of your statement of the size of the majority against in the vote that took place last week. I think that most observers would feel that, for that to be turned around and for the motion to pass, it would require a significant change. As I understand it from your ruling this afternoon, if, perhaps at the European Council in a few days’ time, a significant change could be achieved, you would allow a further meaningful vote on that basis.
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman is very fair-minded and, what is more, he is perceptive. I think I hinted at that, perhaps not with the crystal clarity that he has brought to bear on the subject, but in essence, he is right: if there is a substantially different proposition put as a result of revisions sought and obtained and new agreement reached, that would constitute a new proposition to be put to the House. I would have to look at the particulars and I am not committing to a specific at this moment, but I think nobody could outdo the right hon. Gentleman today by way of reasonableness.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In our current constitutional crisis, I welcome your reaffirmation of the rule of law in this House—namely, “Erskine May”—and the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Given the gravity of the situation, though, could you enlighten the House as to whether “Erskine May” makes any provision for a Speaker’s Conference to bring together all parties in the House under your chairmanship to try to find a way forward?
Mr Speaker
There can always be Speaker’s Conferences, though I must say—I do not direct this particularly at this Government at all; it is a wider observation—that it is a perhaps curious and quaint fact that ordinarily, Speaker’s Conferences are convened at the instigation of the Government of the day. Indeed, I recall a particular occasion some years ago when I had some interest in the possibility of a Speaker’s Conference on aspects of parliamentary power. If I said to the right hon. Gentleman that the reaction to my suggestion at the time from the then Leader of the House was not wildly enthusiastic, I think that I would be somewhat understating the position. But that was then, and maybe the new Leader of the House, or relatively new Leader of the House, who has been a notable reformer in other respects, will be seized by the salience of what the right hon. Gentleman has commended to the House and will feel that she could have a key role in initiating such an important constitutional development. If she did, I would be perfectly willing to play ball with it. I have no idea; it is not something she and I have discussed, but you never know.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to be very clear: I am indeed a reforming Leader of the House of Commons. For me, treating colleagues with courtesy and respect is at the forefront of that reform. Any Speaker’s council would have to have that at its heart, and I simply would not be confident that that would be the case.
Mr Speaker
Well, so be it. I treat the House with respect. I have treated its Members with respect. I chaired a previous Speaker’s Conference, and there was no criticism of the way in which I did so. One reason why the Leader of the House might not be well versed in that particular Speaker’s Conference and in a position to make a judgment about my chairmanship of it is very simply that it took place before the right hon. Lady entered the House of Commons.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This House runs on conventions, as you have already made clear in your statement today. One of those conventions is that Treasury Benchers always tell Opposition Front Benchers of statements they are going to make. To clarify, can you confirm to the House that you not only informed the Leader of the House of your intention to make this statement but told her the contents of your statement?
Mr Speaker
I absolutely cannot confirm anything of the sort. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that his understanding about what might happen between the usual channels is one thing; that absolutely does not apply to Speaker’s statements. If the hon. Gentleman—
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman shrugs and says, “Why not?” That has never been the case. The Speaker of the House makes statements to the House at a time when the Speaker of the House thinks that they will be of interest and benefit to the House. I am under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to pre-announce that statement, either to the Leader of the House or to the shadow Leader of the House, and I did not do so. If the hon. Gentleman—a keen student of parliamentary procedure—is offended by that fact, well, I am sorry, and he is of course welcome to be offended, but there is absolutely no breach of parliamentary protocol or etiquette whatsoever. That is the reality, and I have explained the position in terms clear and unmistakable.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you confirm that a meaningful vote would be intrinsically different if it included the provision for a confirmatory vote by way of a public vote?
Mr Speaker
Again, I would have to look at the particulars. I would look at the specifics; I would assess what was being proposed; and I would make a judgment about it. I prefer at this stage to rest on what I have already said about the principle that something should be different, not the same or substantially the same. I would have to look at the specifics in the circumstances of the time.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are now 11 days, six hours, 21 minutes and about 40 seconds from leaving. This can be described as nothing other than a constitutional crisis. Can you advise us how we can bring forward an emergency motion on revoking article 50?
Mr Speaker
Emergency motions—I say this as much for the benefit of people observing our proceedings as for Members of the House—are capable of being requested under Standing Order No. 24. The hon. Lady will know that any Member can apply for the right to conduct a Standing Order No. 24 debate on a motion and that that request is, in the first instance, submitted to me. If I decide that the application can be made in a speech of up to three minutes, it is made on the Floor of the House. If I decide that the application is valid, and the application is supported, the debate can take place, and there is nothing to stop such debates taking place in the ensuing days. Many have taken place before—obviously, on nothing like the scale of urgent questions—and I have no reason to suppose that it will be different in the future.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Does the House have the authority to suspend the Standing Orders that prevent motions from being brought back to the House in the same form?
Mr Speaker
The Clerk of the House has confirmed my own understanding, which is that the House is the custodian of its own Standing Orders. The Standing Orders are a matter for the House, and they can be changed. That has happened before, and it could conceivably happen again. So the answer to the central inquiry is yes.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any definition, in terms of precedent, of the meaning of the term “substantial change”? If there is not, can you confirm that that does not preclude you from making a novel decision?
Mr Speaker
I am sorry if this disappoints the hon. Gentleman, but it is context-specific, and it is a judgment for the Chair. The Chair seeks to make a judgment on the basis of what will be in the interests of the House. I do not think that I can say fairer than that, or say anything different. I hope that that is useful to colleagues.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you clarify a point? Is it the case that you have not ruled out a third meaningful vote, and it is just a matter of that vote’s being conditional on other matters applying, in the motion as well as in the substance?
Mr Speaker
I think that I explained the position to the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale). It depends on the specific terms of what is proposed. Forgive me—I do not mean this discourteously in any way—but I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here throughout our exchanges. Maybe he was; I do not know. What I was seeking to convey, however, was that a new proposition could be put, but the convention would militate against the same, or substantially the same, proposition being put. So I am not closing the door, and, indeed, I specifically said towards the end of my statement that this ruling should not be regarded as my last word on the subject. It is simply meant to indicate the test that the Government must meet for me to rule that a third meaningful vote can legitimately be held during the current parliamentary Session. I do not see that I can expand on that, nor should I be required today to do so.
Mark Pritchard
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.] I think that the Speaker decides. Would your advice to those who are, perhaps, becoming exercised about this be, “Don’t panic”?
Mr Speaker
I am always inclined to say, “Don’t panic.” I am not in the business of panicking myself. I think I can safely say that I have never lost a wink of sleep over any work-related matter. There is no merit or purpose in doing so. I think that we should approach these matters with calm, deploy reason, and seek to make sensible judgments, not just in our own interests and the interests of the House, but in the interests of the people whom we are sent here to represent. I have always done that, and I am sure that that is what colleagues think it is right to do, including, most certainly, the hon. Gentleman.
I am most grateful to colleagues for the interest that they have shown and the inquiries that they have put, and I thank them for their involvement.
Far-right Violence and Online Extremism
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for Security and Economic Crime, in the light of the recent terrorist attacks against the Muslim community of Christchurch, New Zealand, to make a statement on the Government’s strategy to tackle far-right violence and online extremism in the United Kingdom.
The Minister for Security and Economic Crime (Mr Ben Wallace)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for asking her question, so that the Government can put on record their position on extreme right-wing, neo-Nazi and other types of violent terrorism. The Home Secretary would have liked to respond to the question personally, but he was visiting the Regent’s Park mosque with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government today to show support for British Muslims following last week’s horrific terrorist attack in Christchurch. The attack was a sickening act of terrorism which the Government condemn, as we do the incident reported in Utrecht today and the attack in Surrey on Saturday evening.
The Government take all forms of terrorism and extremism seriously. Our counter-terrorism strategy, Contest, does not differentiate between what motivates the threat: it is designed to address all forms of terrorism whatever the ideology, whether Islamist, neo-Nazi, far-right or extreme left.
If we are to tackle terrorism in the long term, we must challenge those seeking to radicalise people. The Prevent policy is designed to safeguard our vulnerable citizens from being recruited or motivated into terrorism. That is why I always urge people to get behind the policy.
Our counter-terrorism strategy is agnostic to the threat: it is not relevant to us in what name terror strikes; it is the use of violence and hate that we seek to stop. Government and law enforcement will direct their funding wherever the threat emerges, and if we are to stay one step ahead as the threat changes so must the funding. We will continue to keep funding for protected security measures under review as that threat moves and will indeed consistently review it for places of worship and other areas that may be vulnerable.
Social media platforms should be ashamed that they have enabled a terrorist to livestream this evil massacre and spread this mantra of hate to the whole world. As the Home Secretary has made clear, enough is enough. We have been clear that tech companies need to act more quickly to remove terrorist content and ultimately prevent new content from being made available to users in the first place. This must be a wake-up call for them to do more. There can be no safe spaces for terrorists to promote and share their sick views. The online harm White Paper will be published imminently and will set out clear expectations for tech companies to keep users safe and what will happen if they fail to do so.
This Government take the growing threat of the extreme right wing extremely seriously, and I can assure the House and our Muslim communities that we will stand together to counter it wherever it manifests itself in our society.
Janet Daby
Last week’s terrorist attacks on mosques in New Zealand killed 50 people and wounded a further 50 people. I am sure the whole House will join me in expressing our most sincere condolences to those who have lost loved ones as well as our solidarity with the people of New Zealand as they come to terms with this and legislate to prevent such incidents from happening again. We have also seen this morning that a terrorist attack took place in the Netherlands, and we offer our sincere condolences to the three people who died during it.
In Lewisham, we have five mosques; two of them are in my constituency, and I have been contacted about the very real concern. This type of racial hatred and violence, whether in the UK or elsewhere in the world, must not be tolerated. It brings with it such immense fear, worry and anxiety for our Muslim communities, for families, children and young people. This should not be happening to people in this country or other countries; this should not be how people live, and the Government need to demonstrate that everything is being considered and done to keep people safe from harm and to promote respect and acceptance of difference and others. Will the Minster therefore state how his Department will deal with social media offences, including the removal of extreme content, and protect free speech, while developing an efficient strategy to tackle hate speech online? Also will he confirm he will be increasing his commitment to financing mosque security?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Lady makes some very valid points. First, on the money to protect vulnerable places—whether places of worship, schools or large public areas where people might gather—we of course continue to fund that where the threat requires it. We will continue to review the places of worship fund. The last round of ’18-19 was not oversubscribed despite efforts to advertise it to a number of mosques and other places of worship. We will continue to build on that, and if there is more requirement for it we will certainly stand ready to do that, to make sure my constituents in Preston in their mosques and the hon. Lady’s constituents in theirs get the support they need. Every single police force has a national counter-terrorism security adviser whose job is to go out and advise businesses, communities and places of worship about what they can do to mitigate any threat, even if it is threat unseen, and how they can make sure the people who use their premises are kept safe, and I urge people to do that.
On top of that, the National Counter Terrorism Security Office publishes an online manual to help places of worship, specifically, with tailor-made areas. The Home Secretary and the Communities Secretary are absolutely determined to make sure that the threat of attacks such as what we have seen in New Zealand is headed off. There are different factors at play in the United Kingdom but nevertheless, as I said this morning, it is perfectly possible that this type of thing will happen here.
We are already seeing a growing threat from people moving into the extremist mindset of the extreme right wing and neo-Nazis, and that is the pool that terrorists of the future will recruit from. We must all get together—all of us—to make sure that we teach our children about tolerance and equality and that we understand that just because someone disagrees with us, they are not lesser people. If someone comes from a different religion, they are not lesser, and if they have a different colour, they are not lesser. Until we embrace that, extremism will grow. Doing that is the best way of heading off far-right and neo-Nazi extremism.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
With my New Zealand passport in my left pocket, may I thank the House and the nation who, with a very few exceptions, were extremely sympathetic? That was spread throughout the media. Although in New Zealand the armed forces and sports teams, such as the All Blacks, are fearsome in the field, as a nation the people are known for their friendliness and acceptance of different races, colours, and religions. What is most disturbing is that even with such community integration, a case such as last week’s, which “could not happen in New Zealand”, did. The All Blacks I just mentioned are a positive example, as they are of different races, colours and religions but are brilliantly effective at playing as a team.
One positive point, as I am sure the Minister will agree, is that our gun laws are much tighter at the moment than at least those of New Zealand, if not those of all nations. Does he agree that our laws are sufficient, but the difficulty is the importation of illegal weapons? Will he go for that rather than changing our gun laws?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend, as a New Zealander and a Brit, makes a valid point about the strength of the New Zealand nation. He makes the correct observation that the gun laws in this country make it much harder for people to acquire weapons that could wreak mass murder very quickly, as we have seen following the use of semi-automatic assault rifles in places such as New Zealand and the United States. That does not mean that we should ever stop ensuring that when such threats present themselves we put all our resource and, if necessary, our legislation behind making the restrictions that are needed.
Although many people have considered such attacks, they have been unsuccessful in this country because they have simply not been able to get their hands on the type of weapon system that we saw being deployed in New Zealand. Our law enforcement agencies will continue to target both the legal acquisition of weapons by unsuitable people and illegal acquisitions through smuggling, so that we can ensure that our places are safer.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, thank you for granting this urgent question, and it is a credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) that she applied for it. I join all Members in passing on condolences to the families and friends of those murdered in this heinous act of terror against people for no other reason than that they were Muslims. We send sympathies to the people of New Zealand, and to those affected by the incident in Surrey and the ongoing situation in Utrecht.
As the Leader of the Opposition has said, an attack on anyone at worship is an attack on all peoples of faith and non-believers too, as they go about their lawful, peaceful business. The harrowing live streaming of events in Christchurch, on the other side of the world, raises questions about the role of social media platforms in facilitating a growing extremism. Although a White Paper on online harm is of course welcome, does the Minister accept that asking online platforms to act is not enough and that we need a new regulator with strong powers to penalise them if they do not curb harmful content?
We must also ensure that our laws and policies are robust and up to date. Will the Minister clarify when the new Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation will be appointed and in post? Will he also confirm that lessons will be learned from both domestic and international experience in the forthcoming independent review of the Prevent programme?
I am not suggesting that any political perspective has a monopoly on virtue. Does the Minister agree that such vile acts of hatred show that we must all redouble our efforts to argue for a society of tolerance and respect?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman makes many points with which I agree. Tolerance, respect and the underpinning of the British values of democracy and the rule of law are vital in our society, and the more we teach our children about that and the more we clamp down on those who do not believe in that, the better a place we will be.
As for the hon. Gentleman’s questions about the to-be-appointed Prevent reviewer, I cannot speak for that person—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I referred to the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.
Mr Wallace
I will get to that, but the hon. Gentleman did mention the Prevent review. I want the person reviewing Prevent to be as free as possible to examine people’s views, perceptions and evidence, and I would like those who criticise Prevent the most to produce evidence rather than anecdotes. The Government will, of course, listen to whatever the review produces.
I turn to the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. Hopefully, the appointment will happen in a matter of days or weeks. We are at an advanced stage in the selection process. Like the hon. Gentleman, I would like an appointment as soon as possible, because no Government benefit without an Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.
On new regulations regarding online harm, I know that Opposition Members will be impatient, but they will have to wait for the publication of the online harms White Paper. The document will obviously examine regulation versus voluntary action, but I have said on the record several times that a voluntary system is not enough and that regulation or other methods of encouragement should be explored.
I have also been clear that many online companies are hugely profitable and global, so whatever regulation we explore will have to be deliverable. That is why I met representatives of the G7 in Toronto last year to discuss what the G7 can do collectively; why the Home Secretary attended the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism, as did his predecessor, to ensure that countries around the world can get to grips with the problem; and why the European Union is taking forward plans to seek regulations in certain areas, especially the time in which content should be taken down.
If we are to deal with the problem, we must take a layered international approach to regulation—otherwise, companies will simply move their servers to escape their obligations. It is one thing to deal with the big companies that have a nexus here, but there are many tiny companies spreading hate around the world that may have servers in jurisdictions that we cannot reach. That is why we need an international consensus to deal with the challenge.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The House will welcome the calm and purposeful way in which my right hon. Friend spoke this afternoon and in his broadcast round this morning. He was matched by the Opposition spokesman, who has shown that this is a task for the community. This is not just about other faiths, but the whole community, and we must stand with the Muslims as we stand with the Jews.
Will my right hon. Friend go on encouraging the Community Security Trust—the CST—to share with our mosques and Islamic societies the basic steps that people can take, within the law, to help to raise levels of confidence and security?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend makes the strongest point of all, which is that we will defeat this challenge through peer group pressure and by coming together to show what is unacceptable. The CST has already offered online material to help advise other places of worship in how to make themselves safe. But the fact is that our law enforcement cannot do this on their own. The current threat is from sudden violent extremists—people who, in minutes, can step outside their front door, grab a knife or car and wreak murder on our streets. That is not going to be spotted by a police officer on every corner, or a large intelligence service, without the support of the public, who can understand their neighbours and bring any worries they have to the attention of the correct authorities, to make sure we say, “This is not acceptable.”
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
No one who has ever visited New Zealand can fail to have been struck by not only the beauty of the country, but the warm welcome one gets from its diverse people, as the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) has said. On behalf of the Scottish National party, I wish to condemn the terrible evil we saw in New Zealand last week, and to send our heartfelt condolences to the bereaved and injured.
In Scotland, our Muslim community are a valued part of our society, as they are across the whole of the United Kingdom, but we must always be aware of the particular threat posed to them from far-right extremists. I am sure the Minister will agree that Islamophobia must be combated and condemned wherever it raises its head. Does he also agree that politicians, journalists and those in the public eye should always be cautious never to cross the line on free speech and fair comment to risk stirring up the sort of hatred and “othering” that can feed into the narrative of the far right?
There have been a growing number of incidents across the UK in recent years, and it was good to hear the Minister on the radio this morning and this afternoon saying that he is alive to that threat and will put resources into tackling it. I noticed that on the radio this morning the Muslim Council of Britain was very concerned to ensure that its community should get the same sort of funding as the Jewish community has received to protect its places of worship against attack, and I was pleased to hear the Minister say on the radio that protective security tacks with the threat present. It seems that he does recognise the threat, but will he confirm that he will be meeting the MCB to discuss its requests and to look at directing funds where needed?
Finally, we have seen incidents where far-right extremists have tried to intimidate and silence Members of this House who have called them out for their hate. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), in particular, has suffered at the hands of far-right extremists recently. I know that the Government have been very sympathetic about that, but does the Minister agree that all of us, across this House, must stand united with our colleagues against the threat from the far right?
Mr Wallace
The hon. and learned Lady makes some good points. On her point about Islamophobia, I have publicly spoken out for many years about the fact that Islamophobia exists. It exists across our communities, in all our political parties and in the communities we represent; it exists throughout Europe, not just in the UK, and we have to tackle it.
If you want a good lesson on how to tackle intolerance, Mr Speaker, I should say that one of the early successful policies of the SNP was on dealing with anti-sectarianism. The SNP recognised in Scotland that this starts with sectarianism and it grows into violent extremism. I have to commend the SNP for what it did all those years ago on that, taking strong steps, certainly among the football community, to stamp it out. That is why, in the end, we have to focus upstream. We must focus in the communities and say what is not acceptable. We must embrace policies such as Prevent to make sure that everyone realises that this is ultimately about safeguarding.
On the issue relating to the community trust, the hon. and learned Lady is right. We will direct our funds as the threat changes, and we are completely open to learning every day from the attacks and plots we see, either here or abroad. We shall direct this in that way. My colleagues in government regularly speak to a range of Muslim communities, and many of us in this House will speak to our own communities in our own constituencies.
We will sense the fear that there currently is in some of those communities as a response to the attack in New Zealand and that there was even before that, given the growing rise of Islamophobia, spread through the evils of some of these chatrooms on the internet. We must, all of us, say that that is not acceptable, and neither is intolerance aimed at other people in other discourse around the world, be it in respect of Unionism and nationalism, or Brexit and remain. Intolerance is where this starts as a small seed, and it grows into hate.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and I strongly agree that the tech companies need to do more to stop the spread of hate and incitement to violence. However, does he also recognise that the internet is a force for good and that many authoritarian countries—China and, now, particularly Russia—are attempting to impose censorship on it for their own repressive political purposes? Does he therefore agree that any measures we take need to be proportionate and targeted, and must not allow other countries, such as Russia, to claim somehow that they are acting for reasons similar to ours?
Mr Wallace
It is tempting to say that my right hon. Friend is asking the wrong person. As Security Minister, I see daily how paedophiles, organised crime, groomers and terrorist recruiters use the internet as not a force for good. As we speak, the internet is being used to undermine our own democracy.
My right hon. Friend makes a valid point that, in places where there is no democracy and no rule of law, the internet is sometimes people’s only hope to engage with free thought and the outside world. We have to be very careful about how we balance that but, nevertheless, we know these companies can remove extremist content very quickly when they put their minds to it.
There are certain areas on which we all agree. I cannot find anyone in the world who would support allowing child sexual exploitation images to exist on our internet. Violent extremism, beheading videos and bullying online cannot be acceptable in any society. We can all agree that a number of activities should not be allowed or available on the internet without someone taking responsibility for preventing the broadcast or spreading of it. All of us in this House have to try to navigate that fine line, and we will debate it when the online White Paper comes before us.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Minister admit that the internet has allowed the formation of chatrooms such as 4chan and 8chan, online communities such as the “incels”—the involuntary celibates—who are misogynistic and who blame women for their lack of access to sex, and the bubbles in which both ISIS and, now, neo-Nazi, far-right white supremacist groups gather their followers? Does he acknowledge, and does he have a plan for dealing with, the grooming and the escalation of evil and violence that is growing in these unregulated spaces?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Lady makes the right point. Many characteristics are shared across the spectrum of violent extremism. Whether it is Islamist/Daesh/ISIL extremism or far-right extremism, they often use the same methods. They often appeal to the same type of people.
Both the Government and the Opposition Front Bench have been grappling with how to deal with safe spaces, either in the material world or, indeed, online. This concept of safe spaces either in failed states or on the internet, where these people are reinforcing their prejudices and joining up, is characteristic of the 21st century. It could be argued that 10 years ago people sat on their own in their bedroom and spoke to no one, but now they can speak to thousands. That is being used to seduce people, to groom people and to twist people.
We must start in our schools, which is why I am pleased that the state, local education authorities and primary schools have started to teach children about using the internet safely. Some of the big communications service providers, such as Google and Facebook, also go out to schools and teach young children about how to behave on the internet and what to be careful of.
The challenge is growing. Hopefully, the online White Paper will be a doorway we can all go through and will start a big debate about how to tackle this. But there is also the simple issue that we all have to think about what we, our children and our friends are looking at. We have to ask ourselves, “How are we going to stop it in this day and age?” How many people in this Chamber, at any one time, are on their telephone? An awful lot.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
On Saturday morning, I met Muslim families from all over Essex who had come to Chelmsford to meet each other. I spoke to many leaders of the community, but also to young teenage girls and other younger members of the community, and it is clear that they are very fearful and worried. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that our Muslim constituents are our friends, neighbours and colleagues; that they are vital to British society today; and that we as parliamentarians and Government Members will do everything to stand by them and keep them safe?
Mr Wallace
British Muslims are part of Britain. That is it. They are no lesser than any one of us; we are all the same. We all share different politics and different views. We all have views of the north and the south—living in Lancashire, I have an entirely different view of the south, and my Muslim communities in Lancashire will have a different view of the south as well. We stand shoulder to shoulder. We are not going to let these people spread their hate and we will put in all the resource we need to put in to counter it. It is very much incumbent on us all, from all parties, to do it together, because if we do not do it together, the bad people will exploit that difference and make it worse.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
On Friday night, hundreds of local residents in Walthamstow joined together in a vigil for the people of Christchurch. We heard from both our Muslim community and our New Zealand residents, and many were clear with me that they recognise that far-right extremism does not come along talking about Hitler and wearing jackboots; it comes from those people who slowly drip, online and offline, poison into our politics and discussions. It behoves us all in this place, therefore, to stand up to the people who lead that charge. What does the Minister intend to do, when he recognises this twisted mindset, to make sure that nobody in this place gives a platform and a veneer of respectability to people like Steve Bannon, Candace Owens and Fraser Anning? Let us say that they are not welcome here in this Chamber and here in this country.
Mr Wallace
That is an immature comment. The reality is that, when we talk about tolerance, we talk not about no-platforming or shutting up people with whom we disagree; we talk about a discourse in which we challenge people’s views, because only by challenging people’s views do we sometimes get to the heart of the argument and either come together or agree to disagree. If we shut people down or bully or ridicule people, we are leading down the path of intolerance. Personally, sometimes I find other people who are invited to this House unpalatable, but I do not think it is my place to shut people out of the heart of our democracy. The way we show them up is by challenging their assertions, proving them to be wrong and taking their arguments apart. That is the best way.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
As the Minister is aware, I was a councillor in Tower Hamlets at a time when young schoolchildren were groomed to go to Syria and we had far-right marches going through the borough. It was clear from my time as a councillor just how important Prevent is for giving children the intellectual resilience to resist those kinds of radical, unpleasant and divisive messages. Unfortunately, we have seen too often that people try to spread misinformation about Prevent. Does the Minister share my concern that politicians should challenge that misinformation so that communities feel greater confidence in Prevent and feel confident enough to share the kind of critical information that stops people falling prey to radicalisation of this kind?
Mr Wallace
I feel that the best way for us to deal with Prevent is to publish the statistics about who is referred, how it works and what the outcomes are. No doubt when there is an independent review of Prevent it can examine all the evidence from both sides and take a view. The only observation I have about Prevent is this. I have listened to the critics, some of whom are my friends, over the past two and a half years, and when they explain, they often just explain the Prevent policy but worry about its name. It cannot just be about the name; it has to be about the substance as well. I see good results in Prevent. Over the past three years, I have seen hundreds of people who were really at risk of becoming terrorists being diverted from that path. I think those more than 700 people in the past three years contribute to our being a safer society.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I send, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, sincere condolences to the victims, their families and all the people of New Zealand. We stand in unity with them and with all our Muslim brothers and sisters across the world.
Will the Minister condemn without reservation Islamophobic language, whether used by individuals or in the media? The Liberal Democrats have looked at the proposed definition of Islamophobia from the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims, and we think that it is a very good one and have adopted it. Will the Government do likewise?
Mr Wallace
I condemn Islamophobia. It is racism; it is like any other type of racism. We should not even subdivide it. It is what it is. It is racism, just as antisemitism is racism. I do not need to go beyond that. Anyone who is caught doing it should be called out and dealt with, whether that is in my political party or in any other political party. I have absolutely no qualms about that. They should be dealt with.
On the definition of Islamophobia, I read the all-party group report and I looked at its definition. It is an interesting and good starting point. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary chaired on, I think, 5 March, a roundtable with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and members of the Muslim community to discuss Islamophobia and what can be done on it. We will look at the definition and at what we can do to start on that process. But all of this comes back to this: if we over-define, if we start subdividing Islamophobia and antisemitism, we forget what this is really about, which is tolerance. It is really important that we accept that we are tolerant of people. That is what underlines extremism: where people choose not to be tolerant, they start to become extremists. When they think other people are lesser, that is where we are in trouble.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I express compassion and solidarity with all Muslims from New Zealand, across the world and in my constituency of Harlow. We have the wonderful Harlow Islamic Centre in my constituency. It is a small community, but a thriving one. In 2013, there was an arson attack on the Harlow Islamic Centre mosque. Will my right hon. Friend set out again what provision and support there is for the smaller mosques and thriving communities such as Harlow to ensure that these kinds of attacks do not happen?
Mr Wallace
First, in the Metropolitan police, there are counter-terrorism security advisers who will come out to any mosque, or any place, to help to advise on what steps can be taken to do that. The places of worship scheme, which has received £2.4 million over the past three years, can be applied for. The latest round was not fully subscribed. We will do all we can to advertise it and encourage it. Indeed, the Home Secretary and I have looked at different ways to remove the barriers to people applying to that scheme to make it as easy and as straightforward as possible. We hope to improve that even more. Like my right hon. Friend, I have some very small mosques in my constituency. They are just as vulnerable as some of the very big ones. We must make sure that protective security applies to us all.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I add the DUP’s sympathies to all those who were killed and injured in New Zealand in that very vicious terrorist attack? Northern Ireland has experienced the unadulterated evil of people slaughtering worshippers in what should be a safe place—for example, in Gospel Hall in Darkley on 20 November 1983. In the face of evil, it is time for good people to stand with those who have been attacked. So can the Minister confirm what support has been offered to New Zealand in relation to policing, to forensic expertise and to counselling support for those victims who have lost loved ones?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend knows all too well the cost of terrorism and indeed, in the society in which he lives, the cost of division. We have offered to the New Zealand authorities any help they wish to have, either in the intelligence or the police space, and we will continue to do that, as we will with the Netherlands authorities following the attack today. Ultimately, we must make sure that, when it comes to saying what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, linking violence and politics is not acceptable. That is a good starting point. We must make it very clear across our political discourse that the first point is that that is never acceptable—it is never acceptable to invoke that and to say that people should be lynched. We should never ever invoke violence in the same breath as politics.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I feel that it is a matter of some regret that this urgent question has been framed as one of right-wing extremists, because there are also left-wing extremists; this is terrorism, pure and simple. I am proud that my first question in this House was to ask for the finances to provide security at Jewish schools in my Hendon constituency. Indeed, the Community Security Trust is based in Hendon and provides that security. Now we need to make the same call on behalf of Muslim schools and Islamic institutions in our constituencies. Will the Minister take that suggestion to the Treasury and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and ask for resources to be made available to these communities, because any kind of extremism is not acceptable?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend is right. As I said in my statement, as the threat moves, we will tack with it. The Home Secretary’s first point of call is within the Department and then it is the Treasury. We are determined to make all our places of worship safe, and we will do what is necessary.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I too visited mosques and had contact with local Muslim leaders on Friday, and there was a palpable sense of fear. I praise South Wales police and our police and crime commissioner for responding so quickly. I was particularly disturbed to speak to young people who told me that they were watching the video of the horrific attacks in New Zealand. We have to do everything we can to prevent young people from having to see such horrific content. On that note, I have to push the Minister and the Home Secretary further. I do not doubt their sincerity in wanting to deal with these issues, but they say that we need to wait for the online harms White Paper. I have previously raised with both of them the issue of an organisation called Radio Aryan, which is available on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. I have also raised this matter directly with the social media companies, and it is absolutely clear that they do not give a damn. That content is still online this morning. It advocates antisemitism, Islamophobia, homophobia and white supremacy. Why is it still on there and what are the Government going to do to remove it?
Mr Wallace
As I said earlier, one of the reasons that some of these things remain online is that the servers of the companies are often abroad and out of our jurisdiction. We are seeking the powers to do something about that through the online harms White Paper. If these companies have a nexus in the UK, it gives us more power. If they do not, we have to look at other technical issues and see whether we can do this another way. The White Paper is imminent, and I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and any Member from across the House to discuss whether they think it is too soft or too hard, or what needs to be done to improve it.
The hon. Gentleman points out one of the real challenges. The United States’ first amendment protects freedom of speech. We often approach companies in America asking them to take down websites and so on, and we get a first amendment response—that is, that they are obliged to United States law and the first amendment. That is why we ultimately have to seek an international solution to go alongside whatever regulation we look at here.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I was particularly moved this afternoon to hear the Home Secretary using the Arabic words, “Bi-smi llāhi r-rahmāni r-rahīm”, meaning “In the name of God, the most compassionate, the most merciful.” We are fundamentally talking about a compassion and a mercy that were not shown to a community—this time in New Zealand, but sometimes at home—and a justice that we now need to extend to members of our own community who feel that they do not have access to the same security as others. I welcome the views that will come forward from the Home Secretary and the Security Minister, and the work that they have done. We need to make sure that addressing these publishers—for that is what they are—who are putting up, or tolerating the publication of, online hate material is absolutely the first line of defence, not the last.
Mr Wallace
The communications service providers around the world need to get the message that we know that they seem to manage to do something when they really want to. We know that their algorithms are often designed to maximise viewing numbers and profits, rather than the safety of our constituents, and we need them to realise that we are on to that and are going to do something about it. Last year, Facebook took down 14.3 million pieces of content, 99% of which was done by automated tools. Before that, it took the Government to set up the Counter-Terrorism Internet Referral Unit—not the CSPs. That unit, on its own, managed to take down 300,000 pieces of content. If we can do it, those multi-billion-pound global corporations can invest more in artificial intelligence, and they can do so much quicker.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The UK Government currently chair the Commonwealth Heads of Government, of which New Zealand is a proud member. In passing on our condolences and our thanks for the excellent work of Jacinda Ardern, its Prime Minister, will the Minister agree to convene a discussion with the 53 nations about what we can do about Facebook and Twitter to collectively close down extremist content across the Commonwealth?
Mr Wallace
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good suggestion. At the CHOGM that happened last year there was a session or two on cyber, but his recommendation is a valid one. I will nick it, if I may, and take it forward.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I was reassured by the Minister’s remarks about the work the Department is doing to help mosques and places of worship to fight hate crime, but could he confirm that that work extends to Scotland and outline what discussions he has had with the Scottish Government in this regard?
Mr Wallace
My understanding is that matters relating to places of worship are devolved to Scotland. However, I am always in contact with officials and ministerial counterparts in Scotland, and I will continue to discuss this with them. I am due a visit there very soon, and I will no doubt add that to the agenda.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Mass murder of innocents praying at their place of worship is one of the most abhorrent acts imaginable. We must urgently have conversations about the implications of words and actions, including those in the media. My constituents—those of all faiths and none—are fearful of attacks. Is the Minister of the opinion that the police have adequate resources to protect our mosques, other faith establishments and other sensitive sites, and will additional funding be made available to these places of worship so that worshippers there feel safe?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Lady will know, as I met her recently, that a number of colleagues across the House are feeling intimidated, bullied and threatened on a regular basis in our inboxes and in our letters, and often physically in person at our surgeries. That is something we have to deal with. What came across at a meeting we held recently was that there is not enough consistency in the police response, and police leaders are aware of that. Some colleagues in this House have a good police response; others have a wholly inadequate one. That extends to the places of worship where people sometimes feel that when they need help they do not get it. We have to improve the consistency. We also have to improve what the Crown Prosecution Service does in charging and dealing with those who are spreading hate and intimidating people. Again, this is all too random across the country, and that does not provide the reassurance that many Members, and our constituents, need.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
Like many across the House, I spent time in mosques and with my community on Friday. Obviously, as you can imagine, this was a painful reminder of what happened in Batley and Spen only three years ago. At times like this, compassion is of course needed, but we also need a strategy that works. Dressed up as free speech, white nationalism is a threat to us all. Does the Minister agree that we need to demand more of our mainstream media than newspaper editors who thought it was fine to screen the live filming on Facebook, and the media barons and politicians who see difference as the enemy? We need more than thoughts and prayers when tackling hatred—we need action, so what discussions is he about to have with media moguls and newspaper editors?
Mr Wallace
The strategy for dealing with terrorism is the Contest strategy. If the hon. Lady reads that, she will realise that it is a well-polished strategy started under the previous Labour Government that is managing to have a successful counter-terrorism effect in the United Kingdom. With regard to the media, whether mainstream or fringe, it is absolutely the case, first, that they must not prioritise sensationalism over the facts. Secondly, all media have a responsibility to report accurate facts. The interpretation of those facts is obviously up to the free press and the media, but they must be careful and responsible about what they do. Like her, I have frustration that some media outlets sometimes actually end up being the biggest broadcaster of hate and terrorist content. They must be made to realise that. I am going to be telling them that over the next few weeks, going right to the top. I am not sure that my rank gets me to a mogul, but it will certainly get me to an editor.
Wes Streeting
I thank the Security Minister again for what he said following the appalling attack in New Zealand and what he said today following the events in this country and the Netherlands over the weekend. Further to the answers he has given to other Members, I want to say, in terms that I think my Muslim constituents would want me to use, that the kind of prejudice that slaughtered innocent people in Christchurch does not begin with a gunman mowing down people in their place of worship. It begins with unchecked prejudice in our workplaces, our schools and our communities, which is amplified in the pages of national mainstream media outlets that should know better. I am afraid it is also legitimised by people who purport to be mainstream politicians and aspire to the highest office who describe Muslim women as “bank robbers” and pillar boxes without any reaction.
On a day when HOPE not hate has called for action from the Conservative party to tackle Islamophobia within its ranks, when Baroness Warsi has again asked her own party to act and when my constituents are looking to the Government to act, they will have no confidence in this Government to tackle the prejudice they face unless they have confidence in the governing party to tackle racism within its own ranks. I say that with humility but great sincerity. Enough is enough. Condemnation in general is nothing compared with specific condemnation. When will the Minister’s party tackle the racists in its ranks, whether in this House or at the grassroots?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman is right; we need to show leadership. If we see racism or antisemitism in our ranks, we should deal with it. If we see Islamophobia in our ranks, we should deal with it; if I find it in my party association, those people should not be in the Tory party. I totally agree with everything he said. We have to be cautious about what we say and what we inspire, given our privileged places as political leaders in society. That goes for my friends, my colleagues and my opponents on the Opposition Benches.
We should also recognise that the next step in intolerance is linking violence to politics. The hon. Gentleman sits in a party whose shadow Chancellor talked about lynching my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Ms McVey) when she was in the Department for Work and Pensions, and whose shadow Chancellor regularly supported Irish nationalism that had a violent streak rather than a peaceful one. Let us see what his actions are when it comes to condemning Labour’s Front Bench.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I associate my party with the condemnation across the House of the appalling attack in New Zealand. That shows, if evidence were needed, that such attacks can happen in the most peaceable and unlikely of communities. Security is a reserved matter, though the Welsh Government have responsibility for economic, social and cultural matters to do with the faith community. Is the Minister confident that there is sufficiently deep co-operation between the Home Office and the Welsh Government to ensure that such attacks do not occur in rural and city communities in Wales?
Mr Wallace
All I can say is that we have very strong links with the Welsh Government and the police and counter-terrorism units in Wales. I have visited a number of sites. We speak regularly, including when it comes to conducting exercises across the United Kingdom so that we can practise our response, and I regularly see bulletins about what is going on in Cardiff and other parts of Wales. I am confident that the Welsh police do an outstanding job in dealing with this issue. Many Members in this House bring examples to me involving the far right. I am confident that they are doing a very good job, and I will continue to work with the Welsh Government to ensure that it is delivered.
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Security Minister assure communities in Lancashire of the Islamic faith, of any other faith or of no faith that everything is being done through the security and intelligence services and the police to monitor and deter potential attackers from targeting places of worship, including online activity and political campaigns aimed at Muslims and other minority faiths? This should not just be about tolerance, which means accepting something whether we like it or not, but be about mutual respect. Let us talk more about mutual respect, not just tolerating something even though we might not like it.
Mr Wallace
How we respond to that tolerance is about mutual respect: whether we disagree and disagree in a manner that accepts people as equals or whether we disagree and denigrate them for having a different view is about respect. The hon. Gentleman and I are neighbours in Lancashire, and we both represent a multicultural society that has worked very well together. I am determined to make sure that we work with Lancashire constabulary to deliver it, but I know that Preston City Council will help deliver some of the solutions as well, as indeed will he and I as civic leaders.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
People in Wakefield stand together in solidarity with our Muslim community, the people of Christchurch and the victims here at home and in Utrecht today. May I say to the Minister that I think the grief felt by the relatives of those killed and seriously injured will have been immeasurably increased by the knowledge that those deaths and injuries were live-streamed and broadcast around the world? Does he agree with me that the days of the tech companies marking their own homework should be over, that we should be legislating in this country and in the EU to make sure that nobody profits from this type of streaming, and that any media company in this country that profited by seeing their ad revenues go up through hosting those videos on their sites should donate the increased profits and revenues to a fund for the victims and their families?
Mr Wallace
I completely agree with what the hon. Lady has said on all her points. Yes, those who made any profit from that horrendous streaming should donate it.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I, too, express my solidarity with the New Zealand people and our Muslim brothers and sisters. Although I am pleased with what the Minister has said about the regulation of social media platforms, may I remind him that we are seven years after Leveson, and that Leveson 2, which was meant to address that, was completely ignored by this Government? On the issue of prevention, I appreciate that there is a review of the Prevent programme, but what are the Government specifically going to do about socioeconomic inequalities, which are a known driver in developing distrust and alienation between different communities?
Mr Wallace
First, a good economy is certainly one of the ways we can try to make sure that people feel more empowered. We will differ about how to go about that between both sides of the House, but employment is a very good start point. When we mix and engage with people in our workplaces, we learn about people’s differences and, I hope, become stronger together. The Government have also funded—with £63 million, through the Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary—the Building a Stronger Britain Together fund, which is working with 230 community groups up and down the country to make sure that we work together better, integrate better and understand each other better.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Last Friday, the Mayor of London and I attended the East London mosque for a vigil in solidarity with the victims of the terror attack in New Zealand. As we left, an anti-Muslim hate crime attack took place in my constituency, despite what had happened. Will the Minister look at how to take far-right activism, far-right groups and the threat more seriously? For years, we have campaigned for some of those groups to be proscribed, and the Government have fallen short. I ask him to take that much more seriously, to look at making online platforms responsible for the content of what they provide and to consider the German approach of fining online companies when hate crime material—online hate propaganda—is on those sites. Without making them responsible and making them pay for what they host, we are not going to be able to tackle this appalling level of hatred against Muslims and also against other minorities.
Mr Wallace
I do not, and neither do the police or the intelligence services I work with, in any way miss or fail to recognise the threat from the far right. It was this Government who first proscribed a far-right, neo-Nazi group—National Action—over 18 months ago. We did that, and we have subsequently taken action against a number of people and organisers. On hate crime, which is also one of the planks we need to take away from extremists, we have funded a £1.5 million action plan. We have asked the Law Commission to review the hate crime legislation to make sure it is fit for purpose. No doubt, the Law Commission will look at hate crime in the online space as well, and I hope it can feed into the online harms White Paper that is coming soon.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
We stand in solidarity with the Muslim community in Christchurch, New Zealand, and across the world. My mother with my grandparents emigrated there in the 1950s, and only by virtue of lack of employment am I a Scot and not a Kiwi.
The attacks in Christchurch are surely a tipping point for action by social media companies and this Government. I take on board what the Minister says about collaboration and co-operation, but the Government have been dragging their heels on the White Paper. I understand that he needs to collaborate with countries across the world, but surely now is the time to show some leadership, step forward and have proper legislation and regulation. Not only should no family lose a loved one in such horrific circumstances, but they should not then find out that the brutal murder of their loved one was streamed online for 17 minutes and is still going around online now.
Mr Wallace
I hope that when the White Paper comes out that the hon. Lady is not disappointed. Given the way the internet is constructed, we have to make sure that regulation works. There is simply no point in putting out a load of regulation if everyone puts their servers somewhere like Cuba or North Korea and nothing can change. We have to make sure we have a technical solution alongside a regulatory solution.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) for securing this urgent question, and you for granting it, Mr Speaker. May I say how disappointed I am in the “whataboutery” response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting)? As a Muslim who has the largest Muslim constituency in the United Kingdom and who spent the weekend reassuring not only my constituents but my own Muslim family, I can tell the Minister how Islamophobia happens: it happens because it goes unchecked; it happens because people in politics have responsibilities that they do not meet. The Conservative party ran the most Islamophobic dog-whistle campaign against the Mayor of London, who happens to be Muslim. The party has yet to apologise for that campaign. Its former chair Baroness Warsi is crying out for an inquiry, as is the Conservative Muslim Forum. The Minister must check that his own house is in order before he can give me or my constituents any confidence that his party can safeguard the Muslim community.
Mr Wallace
I have long been a good friend of Baroness Warsi. I read her book and met with her, and indeed I encouraged her to apply to be the extremism commissioner at the time the post was advertised, because I thought she would bring a good measure of sense to dealing with some of those issues. Regrettably, she did not take up my invitation, but it would have been a good thing.
I am not making excuses for Islamophobia. Islamophobia exists. Islamophobia is racism. Islamophobia should be dealt with. If it happens in my party, we should deal with it and we should deal with it forthwith, and I am happy to do that wherever I see it. We should all make sure we deal with it. I totally agree with the hon. Lady: it is racism and where we see it we should stop it in its tracks.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
There is an old expression, “The pen is mightier than the sword.” Words, written and spoken, have consequences. Over the past 20 years we have seen the rise of anti-migrant sentiment, anti-Muslim sentiment and anti-black and minority ethnic community sentiment, not only in the United Kingdom, Europe and America, but in Australia. Politicians and media online, in print and in other forms, newspaper moguls and editors such as the owners of Fox News and Murdoch, the Daily Express, The Sun and others have consistently run lies about all those communities. It is not surprising that some people seeing this day in, day out, start to hate those communities. We have established writers and columnists in this country, such as Katie Hopkins, Rod Liddle and Melanie Phillips, encouraging all this. When will we seriously tackle the issue of what is in the media?
Mr Wallace
I still believe that the best way to challenge the ignorance and misinformation spread by the likes of Katie Hopkins is to call them out and challenge their argument. The best way to bring these people down and show them to be the Walter Mittys or the fake people they are is to put their arguments to the test, because time and again they fail. I read the online advice published by groups such as al-Qaeda; it is by made-up half-trained imams who do not know what they are talking about when they talk about Islam. I see the neo-Nazi and National Action stuff; it is written by pretty much imbeciles making two plus two equal 10. The best way to expose them to our young people is to challenge them, because when they are challenged in any forum they fall over at the first test. That is a good way to put them out of business for good.
Mr Speaker
May I say very gently to the Minister and to colleagues that as we have now been on this matter for one hour and two minutes, there is a premium on brevity, on this the occasion of the 574th urgent question during my time in the Chair? I never like to cut these questions off and I want to facilitate colleagues, but it would be helpful to have questions and pithy answers, rather than orations.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
My city of Oxford saw some truly disgusting Islamophobic graffiti sprayed last weekend. The local police are dealing with it resolutely, but we all know that it comes on top of enormous pressures from knife crime and county lines. Senior police officers have said that they do not have sufficient resources. The Minister is right that this is not just about police resources, but surely that is part of it. Will he be asking for more?
Mr Wallace
Last year, when the police and intelligence services came to ask for more, we gave them £161 million more. We made sure that we found the funding, year on year, as the threat increased.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
May I send my condolences to the families of the deceased and injured in New Zealand and the Netherlands, and praise the actions of New Zealand’s Prime Minister? Will the Minister hold the internet companies and social media companies responsible in legislation? Will he ask the Home Secretary, who is not in the Chamber at the moment, whether he will meet me and imams from across the country to look at how we can protect our places of worship?
Mr Wallace
On the last point, I will make sure that the Home Secretary replies to that request. I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman on a regular basis, with his communities if he would like, to discuss what more can be done and to keep an eye on this issue.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
May I join hon. Members from across the House in condemning these horrific, sickening, cowardly terrorist attacks? Can we, as a House, unite today and pay tribute to the heartening response that has been demonstrated by people of faith and no faith up and down our country and more broadly, who have stood in solidarity and made it clear that those who seek to divide us will never ever succeed? This House wants to be very clear in sending that message today.
I want to emphasise the point that, tragically, far right and Islamophobic views are being tolerated and normalised more and more by those in the mainstream—those in power and responsibility, whether in the media, public life or public institutions. Frankly, that is feeding into the rise of the far right and Islamophobia. What concrete steps will the Minister take to address that and end all forms of racism, in particular Islamophobia?
Mr Wallace
When I see Islamophobia in the media, it breaks down into three reasons: laziness, because the journalist could not be bothered to find out about what they were writing about; ignorance, because they do not know anything about the religion, people or communities they are writing about; and naked racism or aggression. We can deal with two of those factors quite well.
We need to make sure that we educate people about different faiths in this country, so that they understand the differences within the faiths and across the faiths. We need to bring more people together to understand our different communities. That is why the £63 million for building strong communities is a good place to start. If we can remove the ignorance and teach tolerance and respect for each other, together we will make a difference. That is a strong message to send.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
It is very clear that the Government are not doing enough to tackle this crime. The Home Office reported recently that religious hate crime rocketed by 40% across England and Wales in just one year. More than half of it is directed at Muslims. What are the Minister’s Government going to do now to tackle the rise in far-right attacks against British Muslims and other minority communities?
Mr Wallace
As I said to one of the hon. Gentleman’s honourable colleagues, we asked the Law Commission to review hate crime to make sure that the legislation is fit for the 21st century, and can deal with, for example, the online aspect and how things have changed. We will fund that with £1.5 million. We will also make sure that we tackle the ignorance that I talked about in communities; that is the first thing we need to do. At the same time, we need to deal with online harm to make sure that people stop spreading it. We have also funded work with groups such as Tell MAMA, so that people can report hate crime better, because by them reporting it and our getting better data, we will be able to do something about it.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I implore the Minister, as a member of the Government, to resist the temptation to in any way get into a “he said, she said” party political defence of racism at any level in our society. Does he agree that as political parties that lead, and aspire to lead, the country, we are all responsible for promoting tolerance, equality and being against racism in all its forms, wherever it may appear? As membership organisations, we have a responsibility to ensure that zero tolerance within our ranks means exactly that.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Muslim community in Oldham is deeply concerned about the prospect of being targeted in further attacks. The drip, drip of the type of lower-level abuse that I see online creates a culture in which people think that they can go further and push it, that difference is okay, and that there should be even further division. The application deadline for the Government’s fund to protect places of worship closed in August last year. We know that there is an underspend in that budget. There is no reason why the Government cannot have a rolling fund in place, so that applicants do not have to wait until the Government are able to administer the application process. Please take the brake off that fund and give places of worship the protection that they need.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I put on record that I associate myself with the comments from the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who is an Antipodean as well, and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for going to Finsbury Park mosque, one of my local mosques. I challenge the Minister to discuss with the Department for Education how we can help our schools, particularly in areas that are predominantly non-Muslim, to visit mosques, synagogues, Hindu temples and churches in these times when people do not necessarily get taught any religion at home. That way, we can promote awareness across the piece—not just in areas where we have a lot of Muslim constituents, but across all our communities—and this attitude cannot just pop up in a spirit of ignorance.
Mr Wallace
The hon. Lady is right. This starts off in ignorance and is then exploited. The situation is different in different constituencies. In my constituency, people visit different communities and mosques and places such as that. I would definitely urge other people to do that, but I am very happy to write to the Department for Education to make sure that we redouble our efforts and spread that good practice across the country.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
My thoughts are with all those affected. Extremism is on the rise on the left and the right, but much of that is being harnessed in our prisons, where hardened extremists are housed alongside young offenders who may be impressionable and extremely risky. What dialogue is the Minister having across Departments on justice to ensure that the policy reaches across Departments, and that our prisons counter radicalisation and are places of rehabilitation?
Mr Wallace
In the last two years, we have worked with the Ministry of Justice to seek, where appropriate, segregation away from vulnerable people. We have redoubled our efforts on taking the Prevent programme into prisons, and have added a bit of compulsion around some offenders going into the Channel programme to make sure that they are challenged and hopefully diverted from that course. Like the hon. Lady, we totally recognise that that is effectively a captive audience, and that if we do not deal with the issue there, prisons will churn out new extremists.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I also associate myself with the condolences that have been expressed to the victims of the appalling atrocities over the past three days. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) in raising the importance of schools with the Minister. Will he also discuss with his colleagues in the Department for Education the problem of some parents choosing to withdraw their children from religious education classes, particularly when they think that the classes will be about Islam and Muslims? Will he discuss what can be done to make sure that parents understand the importance of their children being educated in all things?
Mr Wallace
I would be very happy to raise that with both Ofsted and schools. As the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) said, ignorance is where this starts, and we must do everything we can to ensure that our children are educated about different faiths and religions.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
In November, I was at St John’s Wood synagogue in solidarity after the Pittsburgh shootings, and on Friday, I was 500 yards away at the Regent’s Park mosque after the Christchurch atrocity. Over the last couple of months, these communities have felt a level of risk, a level of abuse and a rising level of hate crime that are unparalleled in modern times. Our local police were there in strength on Friday, but they are stretched, as the Minister has heard from others today. We have lost one third of our police. Our safer neighbourhood teams are on the frontline, embedded in communities and helping to respond to these challenges, but they are being decimated. Please will he listen to the call for support for safer neighbourhood teams to work with our religious communities?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Lady will know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been listening and has been making representations on that. At the last police funding settlement, we found enough money, plus the precept, to give the police more funding. The calls are being heard, and we will see what we can do.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Is it not time to talk to the general public about how extremism, both on and offline, is there to generate hate, conflict and division, and is sometimes funded, supported financially and generated by foreign states, terrorists and non-state actors, as well as political extremists? The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has shown that we are 77% more likely to forward and project forward something that disgusts or shocks us. Is it not time to talk to ordinary people about the importance of not sharing, but reporting and deleting?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Lady has made the incredibly wise observation that some of this funding, and some of the influences on extremism, are coming from outside this country. Some of it is deliberate, and is done by states and groups, and we should definitely explore what more we can do. One of the best ways to deal with it at this level is through transparency on where money comes from and where it is going. I have always campaigned for that, and we need more of it.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
Social media may well have turbo-charged the far right’s ability to organise and communicate, but it also provides an opportunity to watch that. I know the Minister cannot give details, but can he give the House reassurance that the intelligence and security forces in this country have the capacity to monitor all known members of far-right organisations; that if necessary, that capacity will be increased; and that it will not be compromised through a lack of budget or resources?
Mr Wallace
As guided by the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, we will do whatever monitoring and investigation we need to, where that is proportionate and necessary, to head off any terrorism or violent extremism, wherever we see it, whatever its cause. The intelligence services and the police have the resource at the moment. One of the reasons why I am such a supporter of Prevent is that if we do not deal with the next generation and the potential pool that terrorism recruits from, we will not have the resource in years to come.
Article 50 Extension Procedure
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union if he will make an urgent statement to the House setting out the Government’s plans in relation to the article 50 period extension procedure that the Government will follow, following on from their written ministerial statement to that effect on Friday 15 March.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Kwasi Kwarteng)
[Interruption.] Thank you very much. That is good advice—always gratefully received.
As set out in a written ministerial statement, and in accordance with the motion approved by this House on Thursday 14 March, the Government will now seek to agree an extension with the European Union. The extension process has been set out in a Government paper published last Thursday. While article 50 does not set out how either party should request an extension, the Government believe it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister to write to the President of the European Council.
It is highly likely and expected that the European Council will require a clear purpose for any extension, not least to determine its length. The European Council has to approve an extension by unanimity. With this in mind, we will look to request any extension in advance of the March European Council. It is the Government’s expectation that the European Council will decide whether to agree any UK request at this meeting.
As soon as possible following agreement at the EU level, we will bring forward the necessary domestic legislation to amend the definition of exit day. That legislation will take the form of a statutory instrument. If agreement is reached at the European Council, the statutory instrument will be laid before Parliament next week. The draft will be subject to the affirmative procedure, and will need to be approved by each House. I hope this reassures hon. and right hon. Members about the procedure that will be followed this week and next.
Justine Greening
There are still many questions that the Minister has to answer in relation to how we will use our time productively over the remaining two weeks. As we have heard today, it is now not clear whether the Government will be able to bring a third meaningful vote before the House; indeed, one reason why I tabled this urgent question was that it was not clear to me whether that vote, if it were held, would even be held this week, before the March EU Council.
It is imperative that the Government set out clear proposals for three scenarios that Britain now faces. The first is that the meaningful vote is held, and the deal passes. However, that does not look likely in the next few days. How will the Government approach that, with the EU Council taking place later this week?
The second scenario is that there is no meaningful vote, but Parliament has the chance to express its will, as the Minister says, on what the clear purpose of any extension should be. That will also take time to negotiate. What will the Government’s approach be to ensure that they do not go against the will of the House, which has consistently—twice—voted to avoid a no-deal exit from the European Union?
The third scenario is that we have no meaningful vote, and Parliament does not have the chance to discuss and agree a clear purpose for an extension. This place has been frustrated time and again by the Government, who have been wasting time and bringing back a deal that has still not passed, instead of allowing this place, through free votes, to reach a consensus on what we feel would be an appropriate way forward. That takes time, and we do not have much time. What approach will the Government take to allow us to ensure that we do not inadvertently crash out at the end of next week and go against the House’s clear no-deal vote? Will the Government propose a provisional extension that can be updated if the House needs more time than the following two weeks to determine a clear purpose for any extension? Will they accept votes in the House that define that clear purpose, and understand that those are binding when negotiating an extension mandate via the EU?
I question the appropriateness of the Secretary of State’s role in negotiating an extension. We had a free vote in the House last week, and I respect that. I also respect the way he chose to cast his vote; he was absolutely within his rights. However, he voted to leave come what may on 29 March. I take a different view from him, as does the House. It is simply not appropriate or credible for him to be the lead person negotiating on this country’s behalf with the European Union. I say that with some regret, but that is nevertheless the position we find ourselves in.
It is absolutely crucial and urgent that the Government chart this country a way through the next vital 11 days. The House has had a series of votes to express its will. The Government have consistently—I really regret this—tried to frustrate that will by ignoring it. In doing so, they have wound down the clock to leave very little time for Parliament to do its duty by our country, which is what it wants to do. We need clear answers, a clear process and contingency plans, and those need to be set out today, so that the House has a chance to debate whether they are adequate and, if they are not, the direction we want to give the Government to make sure we protect our country.
Kwasi Kwarteng
There were lots of questions from my right hon. Friend. She made some remarks about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s votes last week. I voted exactly the same way as he did—I voted against an extension in the free vote.
One of the points about the votes on Thursday was that it was absolutely vital that the House voted against the Benn amendment, which, if it had been successful, would have bound the hands of not just this Government but future Governments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did exactly the right thing by voting to reject the amendment—and, as I remember, it was rejected by three votes. That is exactly what I did, and that is exactly why he voted the way he did.
With regard to the last vote, it was a free vote. My right hon. Friend said, as I did, that we would not seek to extend article 50. However, as Members of the House know, the House did vote to extend article 50. As a consequence, I set out clearly in my statement the process that will be followed. As I said, we will, as soon as possible following agreement at EU level, bring forward the necessary domestic legislation to amend the definition of exit day. That legislation will take the form of an affirmative statutory instrument, which will be laid before the House after the agreement with the EU, next week.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) on securing it. It is particularly interesting that the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has been given the task of responding. As he rightly admitted, he, like the Secretary of State, voted against the Government’s motion on Thursday. He has not reconsidered over the weekend, and he comes before us glorying in the fact that he opposes the Government’s stated policy, which is to seek an extension to article 50. Can he tell us whether he even agrees with what he has just read out from the Dispatch Box?
However, in all seriousness, the written ministerial statement made on Friday throws up a series of important questions. First, given that it appears there is now little chance that the House can approve the deal before tomorrow, for what purpose will the Government seek an extension to the article 50 process, and how long do they propose it lasts? The written ministerial statement is clear that the EU would require a clear purpose for anything longer than a technical extension; it cannot be just the principle that is put to the EU.
Secondly, leaving aside the SI dealing with the domestic legislation, is it the Government’s intention to bring back the terms of any extension that might be agreed, so that the House can debate and vote on them, as the Minister for the Cabinet Office indicated in response to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) in the debate on 27 February? Finally, have the Government sought or received any legal advice relating to the requirement to participate in the European elections, given that, as the Minister will know, there is a range of views not only inside this place but outside?
The fact that we need to extend the article 50 process is a mark of this Government’s abject failure. For weeks, the Opposition have argued that an extension to the article 50 process is inevitable; on Thursday, the House, if not the Minister and his colleagues, finally accepted that. We need clarity from the Department on precisely how this process will unfold.
Kwasi Kwarteng
Let me respond very briefly to the hon. Gentleman. He suggested that I did not agree with the statement; I fully agreed with everything in it. That is just for the hon. Gentleman’s—[Interruption]—instruction.
Kwasi Kwarteng
A very amusing interjection.
The Government have made clear, and the Prime Minister made clear a couple of weeks ago, that in the event of the meaningful vote not getting through, there would be a number of votes on consecutive days outlining what the process would be. [Interruption.] Members say that they have heard that before. That is because of the process that is unfolding. What we will do now is seek an extension of article 50. [Interruption.] That has been very clearly expressed.
As for the meaningful vote, Mr Speaker, you made your opinion clear in your statement, but I do not want to prejudge whether any meaningful vote will come to the House, or to prejudge its success or otherwise. We have made it very plain that if we are given the meaningful vote, we will seek a short extension, if we get that through the House, and if we do not, we will seek a longer extension. I am pleased to be able to inform the House exactly what the position is.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
May I urge the Government not to seek any extension in the event that their agreement is not successfully put through the House? The Government’s long-term, consistently stated policy has been that we will leave on 29 March 2019, and that is what those who voted for both main parties will expect following the clear statements that were made at the time of the 2017 election. Will the Minister persuade the Government to go to the important meeting with our European partners this week and to table a fully comprehensive free trade agreement? I think that they would be willing to discuss that if the alternative were leaving without such an agreement, and then we would not need to impose new barriers. What’s not to like? Will the Government get on with it?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am delighted, and not wholly unsurprised, by my right hon. Friend’s intervention. I have followed his speeches and declarations in the House with interest for many years.
The referendum happened, but we must also get legislation through Parliament. We live in a parliamentary democracy, and last week the House made very clear its view that we should take no deal off the table and seek an extension of article 50. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister outlined a series of measures whereby she and her Government would try to follow the directions of the House in respect of the extension and in respect of taking no deal off the table.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I commend the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) for submitting the urgent question, and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting it.
Last week, the House voted by a sizeable majority to rule out any possibility of our leaving the EU without a deal. If the Government, by prevarication or otherwise, cause us to crash out without a deal, that will surely be the greatest case of contempt of Parliament in the history of not just this but any Parliament. The Government have 11 days left in which to take the action that they must take to prevent that from happening. When no deal was ruled out last Tuesday, there were 17 days left, so the Government have used more than a third of their time doing precisely nothing. The Minister was full of promises about what they intended to do, but could give no answers about what they had done to seek and secure that extension.
Let us consider the options that we now have. The Minister must accept—I hope that he will accept—that the Prime Minister’s current deal is not coming back. It is finished, and the Government must come forward with another solution. If they do not—given that the House has clearly rejected the threat of being forced out without a deal—and if they cannot sort this out within 11 days, the only option is for them to revoke article 50.
In a written statement on 15 March, the Prime Minister said:
“In accordance with the motion the House approved on Thursday 14 March 2019 the Government will now seek to agree an extension with the EU.”
Why did the Government not start to do that when the Prime Minister made her statement? What was the purpose of delaying for the best part of a week, a third of the available time for the disaster to be averted? Will the Minister vote for the statutory instrument that he mentioned to extend article 50—given that he has already voted against that—or will he follow the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State into the book of shame that lists the names of those who speak in favour of a measure at the Dispatch Box and then vote against it?
Last Tuesday, the Attorney General published his legal opinion, and within hours we were being told by an hon. Member that the Attorney General had extended that advice. Can the Minister tell us whether the Attorney General has amended, extended, reviewed, revised or in any way changed the legal opinion that he published last week? If so, why has Parliament not been notified—or is all the talk about the Vienna convention just a fantasy, an attempt to bring on board reluctant Members to vote for a deal that we now know is dead in the water?
Yesterday, the Prime Minister tweeted that we should all be
“pragmatically making the honourable compromises necessary to heal division and move forward”.
Does the Minister recall that the Scottish Government put forward an honourable compromise in December 2016 that would have prevented this mess and that his Government rejected it out of hand? Why does the Prime Minister not practise what she preached in her tweet yesterday? Why do the Government not now accept that they cannot give the answer themselves and that they must talk to other parties to get us out of this disastrous mess?
Mr Speaker
Order. I have the greatest possible fondness for the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will not take it amiss if I say that while I greatly enjoyed listening to his dulcet tones, he did exceed his allotted time: indeed, he took three times his allotted time. I savoured every word, but he did exceed it. It was supposed to be a minute, and he took three.
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman produced a whole battery of questions. He asked why we had not sought an extension. The European Council will start on Thursday; at that point a letter will be sent, and we will seek an extension. He also asked about the statutory instrument and what my vote would be. Perhaps I am part of a tiny minority in the House, but I still think that there is room for a vote on the deal. I think that that may happen, and I do not want to prejudge the situation.
Mr Francois
Given that the European Council is only three days away, may I ask the Minister three questions? First, how long an extension will we ask for, or has Olly Robbins not yet told the Cabinet? Secondly, what is the purpose of the extension? Thirdly, will the statutory instrument be debated on the Floor of the House, rather than upstairs in Committee, and will the Government allocate a whole day for the debate?
You chair the House of Commons Commission, Mr Speaker, and today is D minus 11. If, as a result of these historic events, we do leave the European Union at 11 pm on 29 March, will you, Sir, use your influence with the House of Commons authorities to ensure that Big Ben chimes at 11 pm, so that we can celebrate our freedom?
Mr Speaker
I shall take the last part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question as rhetorical. I do not want to rehearse that particular matter. Suffice it to say that—as the right hon. Gentleman may know, but may not—the idea was canvassed in the House of Commons Commission, but did not enjoy support beyond, if memory serves me, one person, who was perfectly entitled to that view. I am not knocking the person who expressed it, but it was not more widely shared. I absolutely admit that if the right hon. Gentleman were himself a member of the Commission, the support for it would obviously have doubled.
Kwasi Kwarteng
My right hon. Friend asked, essentially, two questions. He asked how long the extension would be. That depends on whether the meaningful vote goes through. If we have a deal and if the deal goes through, we will ask for a short extension. If, for whatever reason, the vote does not happen, or is frustrated, or the deal is voted down, we will probably ask for a long extension. [Hon. Members: “How long?”] That would be a matter for the EU, and for our Government, to decide.
My right hon. Friend’s second question was about the statutory instrument. As a former Whip, he will know that such matters are for the usual channels—for the business managers in the House. I am sure that we will have further clarification later in the week.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The Minister’s assertion that my amendment of last Thursday would have bound future Governments comes as a great surprise to me because, as I recall, it asked for a motion to be prioritised on 20 March. But leaving that aside, can the Minister confirm that the Government intend to agree to the extension at the meeting of the European Council later this week, however long that extension is, and do not intend to bring back the length of that extension to the House for endorsement?
Kwasi Kwarteng
On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, I am not here to wrangle with him about the meaning of his amendment; all we know is that the amendment was rejected so what its force would have been is of academic concern. It was rejected, thankfully, and we can move on.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s comments on the extension, I said—very clearly I hoped—in my opening statement that the Prime Minister would write a letter and the length of the extension would be agreed between the EU and the UK Government.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
The motion debated by the House last week envisaged a short extension, and as my hon. Friend pointed out there has to be a purpose to a short extension. Given the absence of a withdrawal agreement will the Government look again at the potential of using such a short extension to apply to join the European Free Trade Association pillar of the European economic area agreement to which we are a party, and thereby rely on our existing legal rights under that treaty?
Kwasi Kwarteng
As my hon. Friend will remember, there were two options. If the deal is adopted by the House, the Government will apply for a short extension of the article 50 period. If it is not—if the deal is voted down or for whatever reason is frustrated—we would have to seek a longer extension. It is not currently the Government’s intention to seek to join EFTA or any other of those organisations. We made it very clear that this was a binary choice: we would have the deal, in which case we would ask for a short extension, or we would have to ask, regrettably perhaps, for a longer one.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The Minister seems to be the only person in this House who thinks the deal can be agreed before this week’s European Council meeting. It is not going to be; let us get real about this. Does he understand something we have been trying to impress on the Prime Minister for some time: the one and possibly the only way she can save her deal now would be to bring it back here and make it conditional on putting it to the British people?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I was very struck during last week’s events about this so-called people’s vote, because my understanding was that the Labour party had suddenly changed its policy in favour of it, but then of course when the amendment came from the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), the Labour party refused to back it, so I and others are in a lot of confusion about the nature of the so-called people’s vote. I am not going to prejudge things; I still think there is a chance that the deal can come back and go through the House, but perhaps I am an eternal optimist.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Given the centrality of Northern Ireland to the Brexit process, does the Minister agree that a solemn and binding change that involved Stormont in the future arrangements in the political declaration or the unilateral declaration would constitute a very significant change to any meaningful vote that was brought before this House?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: Northern Ireland is at the front and centre of this current debate, and the Government’s intention is absolutely that Stormont, if and when it is reconstituted as a Government, will have a complete role in moving forward both the deal and further Brexit discussions.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Ind)
May I congratulate the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) on securing this question? As you know, Mr Speaker, it had widespread cross-party support, and rightly so.
I gently say to the Minister that it might help if he actually were to take a note of questions when they are asked of him, and if he had done that he might have been able to answer the question that I think has been asked by a number of hon. Members. The Minister has told us that he thinks the deal might somehow go through by Thursday and in that event a short extension would be sought to cross the t’s and dot the i’s—those are my words—but in the extremely likely event that it will not go through by Thursday, the Government’s plan is to ask for a longer extension, and the question we are all asking is this: what will the purpose of that extension be? So the Minister understands: we have got to give the EU a reason, so what will the Government’s reason be—the purpose—for the long extension, please?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I must say that, being relatively new to the Government Front Bench, it is a new experience for me to be utterly patronised by a former right hon. Friend, and with respect, Mr Speaker, I will answer the questions in the way I see fit. [Interruption.] If that does not satisfy the right hon. Lady—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is a very high octane atmosphere. The right hon. Lady’s question was entirely in order—I would have ruled it out of order if it were not—but equally I say, with great respect to the Minister, that the Minister’s answer must be heard.
Kwasi Kwarteng
Thank you.
As I have said on numerous occasions in response to questions from the right hon. Lady and others, we have a choice: if we accept the deal, we can ask for a short extension to get through—[Interruption.] She perfectly accepts that; I thank the right hon. Lady. With regard to the longer extension, that is something we have not yet asked for, and when we do so, there will be a debate about the SI that will extend it for next week, and there will be—[Interruption.] I refuse to be patronised by the right hon. Lady and say there will be ample opportunity, as she well knows, to debate the extension of the SI next week.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
So far the Minister has not explained, to my satisfaction anyway, why we need an extension at all, certainly given the votes last week, and, secondly, why on earth would we want a long extension? What is the rationale behind that? Is the Minister also aware that Mr Guy Verhofstadt has just said that the UK could be refused an extension if the Prime Minister fails to get agreement in the Commons on the meaningful vote, and, secondly, does he know that Elmar Brok is saying that the Italians are almost certainly going to refuse an extension anyway?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am very pleased that my hon. Friend has asked a question. He is a great parliamentarian: he has ample experience over many years in the House of Commons, and he will have noticed that there was a vote on Thursday in which the House said we should extend the article 50 process. It is on the back of that that I have made this statement relating to extending the article 50 process, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has presented these two choices. I am not prejudging the meaningful vote. Many people in this House have condemned it already; I am not prejudging that, but that is why we are going to extend the period.
My hon. Friend may rely on other Governments vetoing the extension of article 50. That may well be the case; I cannot prejudge that. But what we do know is that many people in Europe have said they would accommodate the United Kingdom if it were the case that the Government should extend the article 50 period.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Two things are very clear today. One is that our country is being humiliated by the European Union—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady, but the House must try to calm itself. In particular, the hon. Lady must be heard—and however many times her question needs to be put, it will be heard.
Kate Hoey
I was going to add, Mr Speaker, that that humiliation is being helped by some people in this House.
The second thing that is so true today is that any extension of article 50 will be seen as, and is, a betrayal of the referendum vote. When the Prime Minister goes to the Council this week, will she go cap in hand, as she seems to have done, and ask for more for the agreement—for some changes? Or will she go and say very clearly, “This deal has not been accepted by Parliament, so therefore we are leaving, as Parliament voted, on 29 March”?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The Prime Minister set out a series of votes that took place last week. We all know the results of those votes. At the end of the process, in the final vote on the Thursday, the result was roughly 420 against 202. The House voted by two to one to extend article 50, and that is what the Prime Minister has said she will do. We have a parliamentary democracy, and the Prime Minister very clearly set out what would happen.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
Will the Minister rule out the possibility of our taking part in the European elections?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I would love to do that, but my hon. Friend knows that the way to have done so would have been to vote for the deal so that we could have left on the required date. If the extension is two years, of course I cannot rule out the possibility that these elections might be held, because my understanding is that it is a matter of law that we should have representation in that Parliament.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I would never try to patronise anybody, so let me ask a blunt and simple question. If, as it appears will be necessary, we have to ask for a longer extension—what for?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I will give a blunt and simple answer. We will have a debate next week when the SI is determined, then there will be a—[Interruption.] That is exactly what the process will be. The hon. Lady knows that as well as I do.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) wanted to ask a question, but he is now feverishly writing with his pen. I know that he will know in his head exactly what he wants to ask.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. If this agreement is not passed by 29 March, what does the Minister think will be any different on 29 April, 29 May or 29 June? If it cannot be agreed, should we not just simply leave on 29 March?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I know that my hon. Friend is a passionate believer in Brexit, but it has been very clear from the events last week that there is no majority in this House for leaving without a deal. The Prime Minister and her Government believe that we should take some instruction from the House to take no deal off the table, and that is what happened.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
The Minister was getting a bit het up earlier about questions being asked—perhaps the Government should come to this place with something to say. There are 11 days before we are due to leave, and the Government have absolutely no plan whatever about how to get the country out of this mess.
Time and again, Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box and said that the House cannot agree on what it wants, yet the Government whipped people to vote against the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), which would have set aside a day for us to put those options forward. Opposition Members know how we want to get out of the mess, so why do the Government not give us the chance to do so?
Kwasi Kwarteng
In my brief time as a Minister, I have been very clear about the way to get out of the mess. The obvious way was to vote for the deal—a reasonable deal. The Opposition voted it down and now they turn around and have the effrontery to say, “What shall we do?” They have been totally negative. That is exactly why I have calmly set out the next steps for the extension of article 50.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
How onerous would the conditions for granting an extension have to be for the Government to desist from their intention to lay a statutory instrument before the House?
Kwasi Kwarteng
That ball is now rolling, I am afraid. My right hon. Friend is still trying to expand on the fantasy of no deal, but no deal has been taken off the table by this House, and that is why we are talking about extending article 50.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Minister says that he answers questions in the way he sees fit, but I think the House would say that that is not at all. If he cannot think of a reason for a long extension, who does he expect to come up with one?
Kwasi Kwarteng
As I have said, in a spirit of optimism, I still believe that there is a chance—perhaps a slim chance—that the meaningful vote will go through. People can scoff and laugh, but I still believe that. In the event that it does not go through, we will have to ask for an extension, then the SI will be laid before the House. There will be ample debate next week on what the House might wish to do in that longer extension period.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
You correctly said in your statement to the House earlier, Mr Speaker, that in December we had three days of debate on the withdrawal agreement before the Government pulled that vote. I think we had another five days of debate in January before the first meaningful vote. I think I am correct in saying that, at that Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister said 108 times that we would be leaving the European Union on 29 March.
This is a very important matter for the country, and the Minister just said that we would need ample debate on an SI to change the date. May I have assurances that we will have at least a week’s worth of debates in this House to ensure that we discuss it properly?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend knows the procedures of this House as well as I do. As I said in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), that is a matter for the business managers. My right hon. Friend, as a former Whip, knows exactly how time is allocated in this House, and this is not something that I can opine on from the Dispatch Box.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
May I return to the issue of process? The Minister said earlier that the Prime Minister will write a letter to the EU Council for the meeting on Thursday and Friday. In that letter, I assume that she will ask for an extension, and if we do not have a meaningful vote and agree the withdrawal agreement this week, she will have to say what the longer extension is for and for how long she wants it to be.
Can the Minister tell us now what extension the Prime Minister will ask for in that letter to the EU Council—how long an extension will be asked for and its purpose? I assume that the idea is that that will be agreed at the European Council. It will not be up to Parliament to decide the length of the extension or its purpose, because the Prime Minister, I assume, intends to agree it with her European counterparts this week. Is that correct, Minister?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Lady asks me to speculate about the contents of the Prime Minister’s letter, and I am not in a position to do that. That will be revealed in the course of the week, I suppose. As for the debate on the SI, we will have ample opportunity to discuss the purpose of any extension.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Mr Speaker, you and I have been in this House together for nearly 22 years, and I do not think that I have known such grave times as those that we are experiencing at the moment. They require serious questions and serious answers. In the not entirely unreasonable event of the EU Council deciding at the weekend not to grant any extension at all to put us out of our misery, what will the Government’s response be?
Kwasi Kwarteng
It is self-evident: in that case, we would leave on 29 March with no deal, because that is what the EU would have forced us to do.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Businesses and our constituents will be looking on at this farce in horror. The Minister is either unable to answer questions or gives contradictory answers, upsetting everyone on both sides of the House. He referred to your statement, Mr Speaker, and said that he still thinks that there is a slim chance that the meaningful vote could go through. Is that because, as the Leader of the House has been muttering in the corridors, the Government intend to try to suspend the Standing Orders to get the vote through, despite what you have said?
Stephen Doughty
That is what the Leader of the House has been muttering in the corridors this afternoon.
The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster both made it clear that the Government would bring forward legislation to implement any extension to article 50 and that the date would be amendable, so will the Minister explain how it will be amendable?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am unsure what the hon. Gentleman is referring to as being amendable. The motion will or may well be amendable with respect to—[Interruption.] A motion on 25 March will be amendable if we have another vote, but my understanding is that the SI will not be amendable.
With respect to conversations that the Leader of the House may or may not have had, I have no idea what she has been saying in the corridors. I have been in the Chamber for most of the day.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
Will the Government be tabling the memo that was sent to them by the alternative arrangements working group on 13 February in order to try to get changes to the package of documents that might enable the withdrawal agreement to be approved?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend has done good work on that amendment, and we have worked hard to try to incorporate some of that thinking into the withdrawal agreement. That process is ongoing.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
It seems as if the Minister’s answers to our likely questions were written before Mr Speaker’s statement at 3.30 pm, so the Minister will probably have to think a little more creatively. What consideration has he given to allowing the House to vote on a variety of different options for the way ahead?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I thank the hon. Lady for her concern about my answers. They were actually produced after Mr Speaker spoke—[Interruption.] Things move very fast in this place, as she knows. It is not currently our intention to have indicative votes, and I cannot be clearer about that. However, we are going to lay an SI to extend the article 50 period, and I have said that many times.
Mr Speaker
What an unenviable choice between two very fine Members of Parliament! C comes before p in the alphabet; on that basis alone, I call Mr Alex Chalk.
Alex Chalk
The Minister indicated that the basis for the extension will be determined following a debate in this House next week. That is the week beginning 25 March, and we are leaving on Friday 29 March. How can we be satisfied that there is sufficient time for the debate to take place, the application to be made and for it to be approved or otherwise in that time?
Kwasi Kwarteng
If my hon. Friend is asking me whether the timeframe is short, of course it is short. However, as I have said many times, the House voted last week to extend the article 50 process, and the Government will have to table an SI in order to do that. However, that has to be done after the March EU Council meeting, which takes place on 21 and 22 March. That is the logic behind the timetable.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Every time the Prime Minister or another Minister claims to be being clear on this issue, the Brexit quagmire gets murkier and murkier. This Government have tried to avoid parliamentary scrutiny at every stage, and they are carrying that on today. They think that they can run down the clock without us noticing, but we will. Rather than automatically crashing off a cliff next week after they have run down the clock without properly seeking an extension, will the Minister confirm that the Government have the power to revoke article 50?
Kwasi Kwarteng
As I have repeated many times, we have a process, and this urgent question is all about the process, which I have outlined. I know that people are saying that this is impossible, but if the meaningful vote goes through, we will ask for a short extension to get the necessary legislation through. If it does not go through, we will ask for a longer extension. In both scenarios, we would have to lie—[Hon. Members: “Lie?”] Forgive me, we would have to lay—[Laughter.] Let me rearrange the phrasing: a statutory instrument would have to be laid in order to extend the article 50 process. That is the world in which we live.
Mark Pritchard
I commend the Minister for batting very well on a difficult wicket. I hope that he moves up in the reshuffle batting order after today. He has done very well—[Interruption.] I think my time has passed.
Was it not the Government’s position that if the House agreed to the withdrawal agreement, they would seek a short technical extension? Given that the Prime Minister will probably go to the EU summit without a withdrawal agreement having been passed, is it not likely that the EU, which will then be in the driving seat, will ask for a long extension?
That being the case, would it not be a little premature of the Prime Minister to take a letter ahead of a possible third meaningful vote next week—subject to a change in the motion, as outlined by Mr Speaker earlier? Would it not perhaps be better to wait until next week to see whether we can get the meaningful vote on the Order Paper and voted through and then ask for a short extension, rather than have a long extension dictated to this House and this country by the EU?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am delighted that my hon. Friend sees the world the way I do. In fact, the Government’s choice would have been to get the withdrawal agreement through the House and then leave on 29 March, but the House had other ideas and the deal was voted down, so we are now seeking to extend the process. I happen to think that the meaningful vote could get through—maybe next week, but who knows? But in the event that it does not, we need a way to extend the article 50 process. That is what I have been outlining this afternoon.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Prime Minister’s deal has been defeated twice by huge majorities, and Mr Speaker ruled this afternoon that it cannot be brought back without a substantial change. The EU has said that there can be no substantial changes to the deal, so the only remaining course of action short of no deal or revoking article 50 is to seek an extension, but the agreement to that extension has to be unanimous. Will the Minister therefore acknowledge that if the EU does not agree to an extension, the only course of action open to the British Government to avoid the disastrous consequences of a no-deal exit would be to revoke article 50 unilaterally?
Kwasi Kwarteng
We have in fact had many votes on SNP amendments to revoke article 50—
Kwasi Kwarteng
Or amendments to have a second referendum and all the rest of it. It is therefore unlikely that such a motion would get through the House, and it is not the Government’s intention to revoke article 50. As I have said, there is the meaningful vote—the deal—and we will then get a short extension, but if we vote it down, it will be a longer extension.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
The Government have run down the clock, and they have failed twice. When will Ministers finally set out a realistic plan for an extension of article 50?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I cannot stress enough how interested I am in the fact that the hon. Gentleman does not feel that we have set out a plan for an extension. I mentioned the SI that would be laid next week, and I set out that there would be a debate. The Government listened to the House last week, and we are committed to extending article 50, as I said in my initial answer.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
The Minister will know that businesses and people up and down the country are anxious about the prospect of no deal. Does he therefore accept that they need more reassurance than him saying, “We’re going to bring forward an SI and see what happens”? Will he set out what he will do to reassure people that we will not crash out without a deal? Will he also reassure the House that the Government have no intention of proroguing Parliament as a way of getting their deal through?
Kwasi Kwarteng
In respect of no deal, the House has made its voice very clear. In respect of extending article 50, the House, once again, has made its voice very clear and the Government have responded to that. That is why we are going to ask—I could not be clearer—for an extension of article 50. The debate is about how long that will be. I still hope there will be a deal, in which case we will ask for a short extension but, if not, we would have to look at another timeframe.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Time is very short, so how is the Minister going to interact properly with the sidelined Welsh Government? So far, the UK Government’s record is not satisfactory—they have not been competent, from the bungling over legislative competence to the workings of the Joint Ministerial Committee, which has been described by others, not remainers and not nationalists, as not fit for purpose.
Kwasi Kwarteng
Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), has met the Welsh Government many times and has had constructive dialogue with them. It is worth remembering that the Welsh Government gave their legislative consent to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 last summer. So that is something where we worked together admirably and we got a good result.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
We are here because the Government have spent the last three years ignoring the political and practical realities of Brexit, and now the Minister is trying to do the same thing with only 11 days to go. The Prime Minister cannot bring her deal back to Parliament. The European Union will not negotiate a new deal unless the red lines change. So could he stop treating Brexit like some internal Conservative party parlour game, take a real-world decision and tell us how long the extension will be and for what?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The idea that I or anyone else is treating this as a parlour game is completely irresponsible. In 2016, 17.4 million people, including many of the hon. Lady’s constituents, voted to leave the EU and we are taking our responsibilities extremely seriously. She may think it is a parlour game, but we do not agree with her. I have stressed many times that we will be seeking an extension, either a short one if the meaningful vote goes through—[Interruption.] People are laughing that out of court. I still have some hope that it will go through. If that is voted down, we will seek a longer extension. In both of those cases we will seek to lay an SI.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
Is it true that the Conservative party is seeking an extension to replace the Prime Minister with a new leader who can deliver Brexit and make a better attempt—or at least some attempt—for them at winning a general election? So will the Prime Minister be penning a letter of resignation?
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
The Minister has stated that there will be time to debate the SI that he is intending to bring before the House. Could he unequivocally state now that it is his intention that the SI will be debated on the Floor of the House and not in a Delegated Legislation Committee? If he cannot do that, will he unequivocally state that, if it is to be debated in a Delegated Legislation Committee, the composition of that Committee will reflect the political make-up of this House and, thus, have no majority for any one party?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Obviously, as I have said in other answers, the nature of the SI debate is something for business questions. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman asks the Leader of the House how that process—[Interruption.] He understands the proceedings of the House and how this House works. That is a matter for the business managers but, having been a Member of this House for nine years, I would be surprised if the SI were not debated on the Floor of this House.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Can the Minister explain the source of the chink of light that seems to be guiding his optimism on a meaningful vote passing this week? If he cannot, can he explain to the House how it would work—how would a debate on an SI next week inform a letter to be written this week?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I know that the hon. Gentleman is an acute observer of debate and language, but let me assure him that the debate on the SI will be a full and ample one, as to the reasons at the time. The Prime Minister has made it clear—[Interruption.] It may just be a quirk of my nature, but I am still optimistic that we may well get a meaningful vote through. If we do, we will apply for a short, technical extension.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
We are days away from our planned exit day and the European Council is even sooner. With respect to the Minister, because I do not think this is his fault, let me say that it is completely unacceptable that the Government, at this stage, are not able to say to the House in simple terms the basis on which the Prime Minister will ask for an extension to article 50 later this week. May I help the Minister out of this hole by reminding him of a commitment made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, from the Dispatch Box, that this House would be given, by the Government, an opportunity for a series of indicative votes to see whether a consensus can be built involving a majority of Members? Does that commitment still hold?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My understanding was that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s commitment related to the period after we had decided to extend the article 50 period—that was when potential votes of the nature the hon. Gentleman describes would take place. I cannot stress more passionately to him that I still believe there is a binary choice: we still have the prospect of a deal or not. I still believe that that is an option. He has ruled it out, as have many others, but I still believe there is an option—[Interruption.] The Speaker did not rule it out.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Minister keeps saying he is an optimist, but it seems to me, from the answers he is giving us, that he is living in a parallel universe when it comes to timescales and managing this process. Let us try again. He says that, if the withdrawal agreement does not go through this week, the Prime Minister will ask for an extension on Thursday. What we have been trying to tell him is that debating the SI next week is after Thursday and therefore pointless. So what reasons will the Prime Minister give for a long extension on Thursday?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The SI is not pointless at all because, as a matter of law, in the withdrawal Act, the exit day is 29 March. The hon. Gentleman will understand that, if we are going to extend the article 50 period, we have to amend the exit day as described in that Act, so the SI is absolutely necessary.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Can the Minister finally give the House the details of his spirit-of-optimism deal?
Kwasi Kwarteng
This is a quirk of my personality. I am an optimist by nature and I still believe that, until the end of the game, we cannot decide who the winner is going to be. I still believe there is a possibility that we will have a meaningful vote and it will get through this House.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
There are real-world consequences from the Government running down the clock. One of my constituents, Stephanie, has just had to pay £157 for a one-week fast-tracking of her passport in order to be able to travel on 24 March; people need a passport that has at least six months before its expiry. If the date is going to change, that expense will have been for nothing. So what will the Government do to compensate constituents such as mine who have been affected by that, if the Brexit date does change?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I reject the assertion that we are going to run down the clock. We have made it explicit that we will seek an extension. I do not see what could be less running down the clock than seeking an extension to article 50.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
This has been a mildly amusing but not particularly illuminating session. Clearly, the Minister has been dealt a rum hand today. He goes on about a debate on an SI to potentially extend the article 50 process, but for the love of God can he please give us the Government’s reason for extending article 50 for a long period of time?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The Prime Minister has set out a reason as to what we were going to do in the event of her deal being voted down, and that is exactly what I have spent an hour in this House trying to explain.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Minister has made it clear that his understanding is that the House has voted that we will not leave with no deal. We are in this situation because of the mess the Government have made of the negotiations. So does it not follow that, if we do not get an extension from the EU this week, the Government have to bring a vote before this House to revoke article 50?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The best way to exit the EU is, dare I say it, to get a deal and to vote for that deal. In the event that does not happen, the SI is the means to enact what the House has voted for. The House has been clear that it does not want a no deal, and the way to avoid a no deal is to table an SI. That is as simple as it can be.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
The excellent new Clerk of the House has been very clear that the way in which we extend article 50 is by the unanimous agreement of the EU27—we assume that will take place at the Council meeting this weekend—and that the EU27 have to agree with us the purposes of the extension before they will agree to it. I assume I am correct, but will the Minister please correct me if I am wrong? The House would then have to vote on a statutory instrument next week.
I gently say to the Minister that I believe he may be wrong in saying that we can debate the purposes of the extension. Those purposes will already have been agreed by the Prime Minister and the European Council before the Government can move the statutory instrument—the Government cannot move the statutory instrument unilaterally.
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Lady gently reminds me of a couple of facts, and I will gently remind her of a couple of facts. We still face a choice. I do not share the assumption that the meaningful vote will not come back and that the deal is dead. I think we can command a majority for the deal in this House. Until the meaningful vote has passed, or until the deal is completely impossible, I do not want to prejudge the reasons why we should have a longer extension. That is my view, and the hon. Lady has her view, which I fully understand.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I was only going to take the first one. Points of order should actually come after the final urgent question, but I know it is in relation to this urgent question and the Minister is waiting.
Peter Grant
In reply to an earlier question, the Minister stated that, on many occasions, the House has considered and rejected amendments that sought to revoke article 50. As a matter of fact, those amendments have never been selected for debate, and therefore they have never been considered and voted on by the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker, can you advise me, first, on how we can give the Minister a chance to correct his error? It is always better to correct one’s own error. Secondly, and more importantly, can you confirm that, given such amendments have never been selected, there is no impediment in the Standing Orders or in “Erskine May” convention to one being brought forward and considered at a later date?
Mr Deputy Speaker
As we both know, that point of order is about correction, and the hon. Gentleman has put it on the record. I do not think we need to go any further than that.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Does it relate to the previous point of order? If not, I would like to take all the points of order at the end.
Mrs Moon
During the points of order following the Speaker’s statement, it was said there are rumours that Standing Orders will be suspended to bring forward the Government’s motion again. Mr Deputy Speaker, can you explain how that process would come about and how it could be prevented?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I took the previous point of order because it was a point of correction, but I want to take points of order at the end if they do not relate to this urgent question. If the hon. Lady would like to raise it then, she can do so by all means, but it is not relevant to this urgent question. I am not ruling it out, but I am just suspending it for the moment.
Interserve
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the major Government supplier Interserve entering administration.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Oliver Dowden)
I have been asked to respond on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
As I have said repeatedly to the House, the Government are not responsible for decisions taken by companies in the private sector. What the Government are responsible for is the continued delivery of public services, and I assure the House that has happened in this case. Schools continue to be cleaned, roads continue to be repaired and improved, and services in Government buildings continue to run as normal.
I reassure hon. Members that nothing in Interserve’s refinancing will affect the delivery of public services. No staff have lost jobs and no pensions have been affected. The company has executed a contingency plan that it had prudently developed in case shareholders rejected the proposed refinancing deal. This was a pre-agreed transaction, known as a “pre-pack” administration. Hundreds of pre-pack administrations are performed every year, including by well-known companies. It is a well-established and normal process, typically used when a shareholder is blocking a business’s restructuring.
To be clear, the operating companies responsible for the delivery of all Interserve’s services, public and private, have remained wholly unaffected. As a result of shareholders failing to reach agreement on the proposed refinancing, the parent company—Interserve plc—was put into administration. The operating companies, the companies that actually deliver the services, were then almost immediately purchased by a new company, Interserve Group Ltd.
This new company has been considerably strengthened. It now has a much stronger balance sheet, £110 million of additional cash and a greatly reduced debt burden. It is in taxpayers’ interest to have a well-financed and stable group of suppliers, so this has been a positive outcome for the company’s customers, supply chain and employees.
I am clear on the benefits of outsourcing. Working with the private sector allows us to access expertise and economies of scale that can help us to deliver more innovative public services at better value for the taxpayer. As I have said before, this Government are driven by what works, not by political dogma, and the evidence is clear. Research shows that outsourcing delivers savings of between 20% and 30% compared with bringing services in-house.
However, we recognise there is more we can do to improve how we outsource. We have learned from the collapse of Carillion, and we are implementing changes to our procurement and commercial processes, as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and I have set out in several speeches. For example, we have published “The Outsourcing Playbook”, which was developed with industry and outlines a range of measures designed to ensure that outsourcing projects succeed.
We are now asking suppliers of critical contracts to provide detailed information to help to mitigate any risk to service delivery in the rare event of corporate failure. These “living wills” are now being piloted by five strategic suppliers, including Interserve. We are taking action on prompt payment, including excluding suppliers from Government procurement if they cannot demonstrate prompt payment to their supply chain. We are also taking steps on embedding social value in Government procurement, and I launched the consultation last week.
These sensible and prudent steps will help us to ensure that we get procurement right first time, that we identify and remedy financial risks to Government services and that we manage taxpayers’ money in a way that achieves the best value for money. Indeed, the fact we had ongoing engagement with Interserve throughout this process, through our Crown representatives and the Government commercial function, demonstrates the strength of the Government’s approach to managing our strategic suppliers.
Once again, although the corporate structure of Interserve changed on Friday, I reassure all hon. Members that public service delivery remains wholly unchanged. No jobs have been lost, no pensions have been affected and no services have been disrupted.
Christian Matheson
Mr Deputy Speaker, would you pass on my thanks to Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question?
The slow-motion car crash that is the Interserve crisis seems finally to have come to a dreadful conclusion. Let us first remember the company’s 45,000 employees and hundreds of small subcontractors living with uncertainty today. In June 2018 the Cabinet Office gave Interserve a red rating, which indicates:
“Significant material concerns for Cabinet Office Commercial Relationships Board to consider High Risk designation.”
That followed profit warnings issued over the previous year. Despite this, Interserve continued to receive public sector contracts worth hundreds of millions of pounds, including from central Government—a situation remarkably similar to the problems with Carillion just over a year ago. According to the GMB union, the largest of those contracts is worth £66.7 million and was awarded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in August.
What checks did the Government make to ensure the contracts they were signing were being given to a company capable of delivering them? Can the Minister also confirm reports that his Department drew up secret plans to nationalise some of these contracts—in other words, to take them back in-house—should Interserve fail? Incidentally, we would support such plans in principle. If such plans were drawn up, why did contracts continue to be awarded to a company that Ministers knew was struggling and was possibly unable to fulfil them?
Will Ministers now activate those plans? If not, what steps will the Government take to ensure continuity of services, especially if parts of Interserve’s business are sold off? Among many other things, Interserve builds motorway junctions, provides maintenance on military bases and runs probation services—badly in the last case, even by the Government’s own admission.
Does the Minister agree this company has simply been hoovering up contracts willy-nilly, regardless of expertise and clearly without regard to the financial implications of such a strategy? Does he agree that Ministers have allowed this to happen based on a false economy of impossible contract prices that, as in the case of Carillion, brought down the whole company and much more around it? Does the Minister accept that the Government’s policy of focusing on just a few major contractors owned by big financial institutions has not only squeezed smaller UK businesses from the scene, but driven the risk to an unacceptable level, at great cost to the taxpayer? The Conservatives’ claim that outsourcing provides value for money has again been shown up for the ideological baloney that it really is. Finally, will the Minister confirm that the Government are looking at all major suppliers to ensure that their finances and ability to deliver contracts are watertight? After Carillion, and now Interserve, the public are entitled to ask who is next.
Oliver Dowden
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. As he knows, I have great respect for him, but he rather overstates the case in respect of Interserve. Let me go through some of the points he raised. First, he asked whether checks were performed on the company before contracts were awarded. Yes, of course those checks were performed.
Rather than trading rhetoric around, let us look at the facts. Interserve issued a profit warning in September 2017, after which no major central Government contracts were awarded to Interserve until it completed its refinancing in April 2018. Since that refinancing, two such contracts have been awarded: one in August 2018 for facilities management for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in Europe, where Interserve was the incumbent supplier, so it was essentially a continuation of that service; and secondly, a contract with Highways England was awarded in September 2018 for a £12 million bridge over the A63. Of course, contracts are being awarded across the wider public sector but, in respect of the contracts awarded by central Government and for which Ministers are responsible, those are the major contracts that were awarded in the relevant period.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we will nationalise the company. The point here—indeed, the point about all the contingency—is that there is no need to invoke the contingency. Contingency is used if a company collapses —if it goes into liquidation—whereas in this case the companies that deliver services for the Government are entirely unaffected. All that has changed is the ownership by the parent company. Indeed, what has changed is that the company has got stronger—it has £100 million more on its balance sheets and fewer debts because of the restructuring—so there is absolutely no need to invoke the contingency preparation.
The hon. Gentleman talked about a few major companies winning Government contracts; let me tell him the figures: more than 5,000 companies bid for and win Government contracts. We have set a demanding target of a third of all business going to small and medium-sized enterprises.
If the hon. Gentleman is worried about contracts going to Interserve, perhaps he should speak to a few of his colleagues. For example, a £10 million contract was awarded to Interserve in June 2018—by Labour-run Southwark Council. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could have a word with Labour-run Wales, which awarded a contract to Interserve just in December.
I really have to say to the hon. Gentleman that at this time when employers, suppliers and public service workers are seeking calm heads and reassurance, we are absolutely clear that they are completely reassured. I would have thought the hon. Gentleman would have done better.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend recall the inquiry and report by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which I chair, on the collapse of Carillion? We found that in this sector there was a habit of companies taking on far too much risk without sufficient compensation from contractors, and we found over-optimism on the behalf of Government that they could transfer risk at unrealistic prices. Is this not another example of a company that is paying that price? Should we not be more optimistic that the company has been put into a pre-pack administration in a much more responsible fashion, with lenders taking a much more responsible view? Is there not also a lesson that shareholders must accept that this is not a sector that lends itself to high risk and high return? We do not want to trust our public services to such a risky model.
Oliver Dowden
I thank my hon. Friend for his question; as a former member of his Committee I know about his considerable expertise in this field. Indeed, the expertise provided by his Committee helped to frame the Government’s response post-Carillion. For example, that is why I launched the outsourcing playbook a couple of weeks ago. It deals with exactly this point, and is a guide to how Departments should allocate risk as between the Government and the private sector.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the overall approach that should be taken. I have been clear, as has my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, that outsourcing companies that provide services to the Government should expect reasonable but not excessive rates of return. Through the programme of reforms we have introduced, we are moving towards a new model for outsourcing.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
The Minister puts a brave face on things and tries to spin well but the truth is that, first with Carillion and now with Interserve, the collapse of these major multinational multi-service companies seriously damages the entire credibility of the Government’s outsourcing procedures and policies. If I understood correctly, he confirmed that contracts were awarded to Interserve last year, after it was known that the company was crippled with debt and facing imminent collapse and restructuring. If that is the case, I seriously suggest that the procedures for the protection of public money in this context are not adequate, and his Department ought to look into revising them.
Will the Minister give an assurance that no further contracts or spending will be lodged with the group that has taken over the Interserve contracts from this day forward? Will he put in place procedures such that any other companies facing imminent collapse are taken off the tender shortlist and contracts are not awarded to them?
We are all mindful of the fact that a no-deal Brexit has not yet been taken off the table. It may still be the case that, in the weeks and months ahead, the Government are scurrying around trying to find private contractors to undertake large amounts of work at short notice. What assurance can the Minister give the House that, if that is the case, the procedures will be more robust than they were in this case, to make sure that public money is protected?
Oliver Dowden
I will take as a compliment the hon. Gentleman’s opening remarks saying that I have spun this well. I have not spun it well; I have set out the facts, which are that the situation for the companies delivering the services in question remains wholly unchanged as a result of the change in the parental ownership structure.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the contracts that the Government have awarded, and I have already set out that position. Again, if he thinks it is irresponsible to be awarding contracts to Interserve, I suggest he has a word with his colleagues in Scotland, where Interserve has been winning contracts left, right and centre. In fact, it is even protecting the pandas at Edinburgh zoo through an outsourcing contract. Back in November, the Scottish Government awarded a contract, saying it would
“deliver benefits for the North Ayrshire communities as well as long-distance road users upon completion”.
Who was that contract awarded to? Interserve.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Although I do not believe in nationalisation—save for, perhaps, the Brexit process—and although this is not the same as Carillion, I say gently to the Minister that this is a near miss for jobs, investment and the whole credibility of outsourcing. Is this not potentially another case of greedy capitalism—I speak as a Conservative MP—giving capitalism a bad name, rather than considerate capitalism? Will the Minister enlighten the House as to what has happened since Carillion’s collapse and the so-called stress testing, with the unit in the Treasury and the unit in the Cabinet Office, to ensure that this does not happen again? Following on from what the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) quite rightly said, what else are the Government doing to try to prevent this from happening again?
Oliver Dowden
Let me restate this point. My hon. Friend raised the issue of whether this situation was a near miss, as compared with Carillion. The situation with Carillion was very different: it had problems across all its contract base and issues with its management, which are currently being explored. In this case, there is a specific issue in relation to some of the energy for waste contracts, which are being dealt with. The company sought to refinance to strengthen its balance sheet. It failed to do that because of the position taken, some might say, by some greedy capitalists, in respect of some of the hedge funds that owned shares in the company and refused to consent to its restructuring. None the less, it has gone through a pre-pack, and as a result its position has strengthened considerably. It has £100 million more on the balance sheet and it has reduced its debts considerably.
My hon. Friend is right to challenge the Government on what wider lessons we have learned. It is precisely why we engaged in a tremendous exercise of consultation, engagement and reform. For example, we spent more than 1,400 hours gathering evidence and, as a result of that, we have announced extensive changes through the new playbook.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
We can get into the weeds, but the big picture is that only a handful of civil servants in the Minister’s Department actually know in detail at any point what might or might not be happening with a company’s balance sheet. Earlier, the Minister talked about local government, but it is not privy to that information. Indeed, the Minister is not privy to that information. Is not the big risk that things can be happening with very little or no real scrutiny? The public is in the dark, the Minister is in the dark, and certainly other public service purchasers are in the dark, and is that not one of the big problems?
Oliver Dowden
I take this opportunity to reassure the hon. Lady and the House that I am most certainly not in the dark about the position of our strategic suppliers. Almost every week I meet the senior officials she referred to in order to understand the situations of our strategic suppliers. Moreover, I regularly meet the Crown Representatives who, as she knows, are responsible for managing the strategic suppliers on behalf of the Government.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for the answers that he is giving. Clearly, there are big advantages both on costs and quality of service provided by outsourcing, but does he not agree that some of these conglomerates that provide a whole spread of different outsourced services are disadvantaging the small and medium-sized enterprises that could otherwise gain these contracts directly? Clearly, with this restructuring, they could miss out. When restructuring happens, someone loses out. Should the Government not now be considering a wider spread of smaller contracts so that SMEs can properly compete against the conglomerates?
Oliver Dowden
As ever, my hon. Friend raises a very important point. He is absolutely right that, post-Carillion, we must ensure that we strengthen the supply chain. One of the ways in which we do that is through increased diversity, particularly by enabling small and medium-sized enterprises to bid and win Government contracts. That is why we have reduced complex pre-qualification questionnaires, why we have set a very demanding target of 33% of all contracts going to SMEs and why, in November, I announced proposals to ensure that strategic suppliers who did not pay their subcontractors on time would face exclusion from winning Government contracts.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
The Minister spoke as though just a couple of bad mistakes were made at Interserve, but the truth is that this company had gross borrowings of £850 million and an operating profit last year of just £93 million, owing to a whole series of bad mistakes. When my Select Committee did our inquiry into the collapse of Carillion, we warned that it was unlikely to be a one-off and that the whole model, the whole system, was broken. As with Carillion before, the vultures are circling this firm, earning tens of millions of pounds. A total of £90 million was paid out in the past 12 months to advisers—EY, now acting as the administrator; Rothschild, which is advising Interserve; and Grant Thornton, which is bringing in money as well. Why not let the hospitals, the schools, the local authorities and others take these contracts back in-house and manage them in-house in future rather than have this failed contracting-out model? Rather than paying out millions of pounds to advisers, this money should be invested instead in the crucial public services on which we all rely.
Oliver Dowden
I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Lady and I know that she has considerable expertise in this field. It is precisely for that reason that in reforming the process of outsourcing—the so-called playbook, the decisions that the Government go through in deciding how and whether to outsource—we now consider whether it is better to bring services in-house or to outsource them. There is a lot of evidence to show that outsourcing brings genuine efficiency savings and genuine innovation—the evidence shows that it can be between 20% and 30%. She castigates me for my description of the situation in respect of Interserve. It is very different from Carillion. There is one major problem for Interserve and that is in respect of the energy for waste contracts. I would much rather that Interserve had dealt with that itself and not been forced into a pre-pack administration. Unfortunately, the shareholders did not consent to that, but the net effect of all of this is that the company is strengthened. It has £100 million more in cash and has considerably reduced debt.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
One of the key lessons that emerged from the collapse of Carillion was that small companies that were acting as subcontractors were left dangerously exposed by unethical and over-lengthy payment terms. Can the Minister confirm that no subcontractors, whether in my constituency or elsewhere, have been adversely affected in this case? Will he update the House on what he is doing to ensure that these big companies cannot continue to act unethically in this way, but should play by the rules?
Oliver Dowden
As ever, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. First, straight off the bat, I can give suppliers in his constituency that assurance. There is absolutely no change in the status of the credit rights of those suppliers who are providing services, as the operating companies remain unaffected; it is the ownership that has changed. He rightly raises the point about supply chain finance. That is a major issue. I have twice already brought in strategic suppliers and reminded them of the importance of paying their subcontractors on time, and we are backing that up with action. In November, we announced a prompt payment initiative to ensure that, in future, if they fail to pay their suppliers on time, they will be excluded from Government contracts.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my position as chair of the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group. May I correct the Minister on two things? First, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office contract was not renewed in August 2018—that was when the bid was accepted. Can he confirm that the actual renewal date of that contract was December 2018 and can he perhaps explain the four-month delay? Was it because of Interserve’s financial position? Secondly, he said that jobs are protected. Will he therefore explain why the Interserve FCO contract plans to make five employees redundant on Friday and issue them with redundancy notices? I really seek an assurance from the Minister that pay, jobs, pensions and employment terms and conditions are protected for Interserve employees delivering public services?
Oliver Dowden
I thank the hon. Gentleman for both of those questions. Let me deal with each in turn. Interserve will make decisions as to employment and other things on an ongoing basis. Nothing has changed between Friday and now; none of those job changes will be as a result of this change in the corporate structure, as the operating companies are wholly unaffected. Clearly, I cannot, from this Dispatch Box, give commitments on the future employment decisions of a private company going forward, but I can assure him that none of those will arise from this change in the corporate structure. He made a point—a pedantic but an important one—in relation to a contract being accepted. Essentially, that happens when the relevant Department, the Foreign Office, has signed the contract, because, at that point, it is legally obliged to enter into it and deliver on it. There may be a gap between the contract being agreed and it actually being entered into. That is the point at which the assessment is undertaken, which was in August.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
When Carillion collapsed, 30,000 small businesses lost, on average, £141,000. For one business in my constituency, the figure was over £176,000. I appreciate that it is not exactly the same, but may I urge the Minister to look at my Bill for project bank accounts, which would have protected the small businesses that lost that money in Carillion? Project bank accounts would also protect businesses that must be worried about their future in Interserve, and other companies, and would ensure that late payments are prevented.
Oliver Dowden
I welcome the hon. Lady’s acknowledgement that this situation is different to Carillion. She rightly raises the point about project bank accounts, and I know that she has been a strong campaigner on that issue. I agree that there is an important role for project bank accounts to play, particularly in the construction supply chain. That is why last year I hosted a roundtable at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy with suppliers to understand their experience of project bank accounts and to consider how we can use them more widely across the public sector.
Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Interserve is the second giant probation privateer to collapse in less than a month, despite hundreds of millions of pounds in bail-outs. Will the Minister explain why the Government are planning to repeat the mistakes of the past and re-let probation contracts on an even larger scale? Is it not time to call a halt to the process and bring these services back in-house?
Oliver Dowden
The Ministry of Justice, in consultation with the Cabinet Office, the Treasury and others, is looking at the approach to probation contracts. It has already made announcements and will be making further ones. The new playbook sets out the approach that we should take to outsourcing Government contracts, and looks at questions such as the balance of risk, whether a contract would best be provided by the Government or an outsourcer, and the balance between the amount done by the Government and the amount done by the outsourcer. Those exact tests will be applied in the next stage of probation contracts.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thinking about the defence of our country, Interserve is doing great work for our armed forces in bases such as the Falklands, Ascension Island and elsewhere. As the Minister said, the trouble has largely been caused by the activities of two hedge funds—sheer speculation. What measures or reforms might the Government consider to prevent these activities from getting in the way of our vital national security?
Oliver Dowden
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s frustration with the behaviour of some of the hedge funds concerned, and their failure to agree to this refinancing. However, I reassure him that there will be no change to the delivery of any contracts that Interserve carries out, including the ones that he listed. Those services are being delivered in exactly the same way today as they were on Friday; there has been no change in jobs, no changes in pensions and no change in the delivery of those services.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Interserve has the contract for the long-awaited bridge across the A63 in my constituency, and Highways England is doing everything it can to ensure that work continues as normal. I am giving the Minister the opportunity to offer me and the people of Hull the reassurances and guarantees that we need, because we will not be very happy if there are any delays to the bridge, after waiting 20 years to have one. Will the Minister offer guarantees that as Interserve goes through administration, there will be no delays to the building of the bridge, no delays to the payment of the people working on the bridge, and no delays to payment of local subcontractors?
Oliver Dowden
Once again, I remind the House that that contract was awarded in September 2018 by Highways England. I absolutely assure the hon. Lady that there will be no change in the delivery of these services by Interserve as a result of the change in the corporate structure. Clearly, I cannot guarantee the whole schedule of the building works and so on, but I can 100% assure her that no change will arise as a result of this change in the corporate structure, because the operating company remains completely unaffected; it is just the ownership that has changed.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I am afraid that some of the Minister’s answers will come back to haunt the Government in the not-too-distant future. Some 45,000 jobs are at stake—£2 billion-worth of public sector contracts. Is it not about time to get the referee on the pitch and bring the contracts in-house?
Oliver Dowden
I am acutely conscious of the jobs that are at stake, which is why I welcome this refinancing. It means that there is £100 million extra cash in the company and there are lower debts. I can reassure every one of the employees that their jobs and pensions are not at risk as a result of the restructuring, and neither is the service delivery.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The community rehabilitation company Working Links collapsed a few weeks ago, and the assessment by the Government through the National Audit Office was that £467 million-worth of additional costs had to be met. Now that eight of the 21 community rehabilitation companies are changing their ownership and management, what assessment has the Minister made of additional costs to the Ministry of Justice for probation CRCs?
Oliver Dowden
Once again, I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that there will be no additional costs in respect of those contracts as a result of the corporate restructuring, as the company delivering the contracts remains wholly unchanged.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
On the back of the collapse of Carillion, I was told by someone who works in the business of two other companies that they would go the same way in due course. They said that the second company to go that way would be Interserve; I will not mention the third. What due diligence did the Government carry out on the implications for other service companies? If it was known in the industry, why was it not known by the Government?
Oliver Dowden
As I have said repeatedly from this Dispatch Box, the Government undertake appropriate contingency planning in respect of all our strategic suppliers. We have not had to invoke that contingency with Interserve because the companies delivering those services remain wholly unchanged; no jobs are lost, no pensions are affected and no services are disrupted.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
When Carillion went down, lots of jobs were lost and projects were put on hold, and confidence was badly dented. At that time, we were informed that steps were being taken to ensure that the situation would not happen again. Only a matter of months later, Interserve has experienced difficulties, and yet again the general public are losing confidence. It seems that outsourcing has become a gamble. Could the Minister outline steps to restore confidence? Is he satisfied that Interserve’s financial position has been secured, and what discussions have taken place with other companies to check and monitor that no other big companies are facing major financial problems?
Oliver Dowden
As I have said, I would rather that this corporate restructuring had happened in a smoother way. It has happened through a pre-pack process, but as a result, the companies actually delivering the public services are unchanged; it is their ownership that has changed. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that all the contracts currently being delivered by Interserve will continue to be delivered and will be unaffected, because their specific corporate ownership has not changed. Jobs will not be lost as a result and pensions will not be affected. Indeed, the company’s balance sheet is strengthened.
Chris Stephens
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister has said on two occasions that no Interserve employees would lose their jobs, but there has been an acknowledgement that five redundancy notices will be issued on Friday. I would suggest that those statements are incompatible. Can you advise me on how the Minister can correct the record about jobs being lost, and is there any other way in which Members can lobby the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to ensure that those five employees are not served with a redundancy notice on Friday?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
The hon. Gentleman has resolved the matter by putting it on the record. I know that through his good offices, and given his background, he will not let the issue drop today. I am sure that he will find other methods to ensure that he continues to support the employees whose jobs may be at risk.
Business of the House (Today)
Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, proceedings on the Motion in the name of Jeremy Corbyn relating to the Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 62) may continue, though opposed, for 90 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of, and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) will not apply.—(Iain Stewart.)
Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:50 - The House divided: - Ayes: 240 / Noes: 292 - Question accordingly negatived.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That the Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 62), dated 14 January 2019, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18 January, be revoked.
This motion concerns the serious shortage protocol. I thank the business managers for allowing time for this debate, but it really should not have come about as a result of the Official Opposition tabling a prayer against the regulations. The Government should have brought these proposals to the House for full debate and scrutiny, because the serious shortage protocol is perhaps one of the most far-reaching and contentious of the Government’s changes to medicines regulation in recent times.
The Government are using Henry VIII powers to enable Ministers to issue a serious shortage protocol for pharmacists to follow. The Department of Health and Social Care has stated that the protocol
“could be issued…in instances of serious national shortages and would enable community pharmacists and other dispensers to dispense in accordance with the protocol—rather than the prescription—without contacting a GP.”
These reforms represent a quite extraordinary power grab whereby Ministers can grant themselves the authority to instruct local pharmacists to ration drugs, overrule the GP’s prescription and dispense therapeutic generic equivalents or reduced dosages in the event of a medicines shortage.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the particular concern among people with epilepsy, who require absolute consistency of supply and for whom any change in medication can have dire consequences? The brilliant organisation SUDEP Action has raised very specific concerns about the risks to people with epilepsy.
Jonathan Ashworth
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. He is quite right to raise those concerns about patients with epilepsy, which I will touch on in the course of my remarks, echoing the point that he made with great eloquence.
These changes represent an extraordinary power grab. Ministers should have brought them to the House for proper scrutiny, and then, of course, they should have gone out for proper consultation with patients, patient groups and health stakeholder. That is why the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges stated that it is
“inexplicable and unacceptable that an issue of this importance is not the subject of wide consultation and that medical royal colleges as doctors’ professional bodies were not specifically engaged in the process.”
The British Medical Association said that it
“should have far more time to adequately consider the Government’s proposals for change.”
That is why we have brought this prayer motion and why I am pleased that we have the opportunity to debate these proposals today.
It is worth saying a word about the context in which we debate these proposals. Notwithstanding the confusion on the Government Benches about when we actually do exit the European Union—the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) has given us no greater guidance today in his remarks at the Dispatch Box—it is worth recalling that, as The Lancet said only last month, Brexit, especially a no-deal Brexit, will affect the healthcare workforce, NHS financing, the availability of medicines and vaccines, the sharing of information and medical research.
Our effective joint working with our European partners has been vital for the NHS over recent years, in everything from infectious disease control to the licensing, sale and regulation of medicines. Developing new medicines depends on the international co-operation that is fundamental to accessing clinical trials. Patients in the UK are currently able to access EU-wide trials for new treatments, and the UK has the highest number of phase 1 clinical trials across the EU.
Thanks to the strength of our pharmaceutical base, every month, 45 million packs of medicine move from the UK to the EU, with 37 million packs going from the EU to the UK. We know that 99% of the insulin used in the United Kingdom is not manufactured in the UK. Current EU legislation allows for the legitimate trading of medicines quickly and swiftly cross-border, but the cost of no deal could see pharmaceutical products subject to 44 separate checks and controls at the borders, hugely delaying access to medicines.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making some very important points. I wonder whether he has seen the advice from the UK BioIndustry Association, which knows what is going in the life sciences sector and says:
“Despite the expertise and efforts of the MHRA…with 12 days …until Brexit, being prepared for a ‘no deal’ is an impossible task”.
Jonathan Ashworth
I thank my hon. Friend. As the Member of Parliament for Cambridge, he works very closely with the life sciences and pharmaceuticals industries and is a great champion for them. He is quite right to raise those concerns—although it is not clear if we are leaving in 12 days because, as I said, the Minister at the Dispatch Box earlier was pretty hopeless in giving the House any clarity on that matter. I suppose we will have to wait for further statements from the Government tomorrow, unless the Health Minister wants to clarify matters for us in a moment.
One of the issues that the organisation my hon. Friend mentioned is concerned about is the parallel trade in medicines, where pharmaceutical exporters seeking to profit from currency fluctuations could see medicines intended to meet UK patient requirements being quickly distributed out to the EU because of the advantage that a fall in sterling, perhaps, could accrue to them in those circumstances. This is why we have seen widespread concerns about medicine shortages in the event of no deal.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
This is not something just for the future. I am already getting reports that certain medicines are in short supply, and patients are being advised to go back to their GPs to see if there are alternatives because somebody somewhere is already stockpiling and there is not the flow through. Does my hon. Friend accept that?
Jonathan Ashworth
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. There have indeed been reports of shortages in certain medicines. In recent weeks, we have heard of shortages of Naproxen, an arthritis medicine, with similar reports about EpiPens a few weeks ago. I have heard from some community pharmacists, directly themselves, that there is even an shortage of aspirin. I emphasise that these are anecdotal reports rather than information based on any national reporting that I have seen—this is what community pharmacists have told me when I have been in their pharmacies discussing this with them—but yes, there are shortages now as a result of the uncertainty in the pharmaceutical market.
Diabetes UK has warned that
“despite reaching out directly to the Department of Health and Social Care in December, we still have not seen the concrete detail needed to reassure us—or people with diabetes—that the UK Government’s plans are robust enough to guarantee no impact on insulin and medicine supplies in the event of a no-deal Brexit.”.
It was a similar story from the epilepsy bodies, who said:
“We do not have confidence in the current arrangements to ensure the continuity of life-saving medications for people with epilepsy.”
The Government have sought to reassure patients that their contingency plans are failsafe, but the report in The Lancet that I referenced earlier also said that
“stockpiling arrangements cannot cope for more than a few weeks.”
It also noted that some affected products, such as radioisotopes needed for treating some types of cancer, simply cannot be stockpiled. This chimes with the Royal College of Radiologists, which last month issued staggering concerns about the supply of medical isotopes, spelling out how the expected disruption would force clinicians to alter treatment plans and mean the prioritisation of some cancer patients over others. That is why the Government are proposing the serious shortages protocol contained in this statutory instrument and effectively using Henry VIII powers to enable Ministers to issue a protocol to pharmacies for them to follow.
As I said, this is an extraordinary power grab. It will effectively mean that a GP’s prescription can be changed by a pharmacist. No longer would a medicine be prescribed by a doctor who knows the medical history of the patient but instead by a pharmacist acting in accordance with a protocol drawn up by the Government. That is why these emergency measures have, quite rightly, raised alarm among various patient groups—because these changes could cause real problems for people with long- term conditions.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it would be sensible if there was a sunset clause, because clearly giving that much power to a pharmacist as opposed to a physician who knows the patient is very dangerous if it is to be used for the long term or perpetually and not just to deal with the current crisis?
Jonathan Ashworth
The hon. Lady makes an entirely reasonable observation. I trust that the Minister took note of it and look forward to her reply to that point.
Norman Lamb
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this puts individual pharmacists into quite an invidious position because they may well be having to make decisions that may impact adversely on a patient’s health and wellbeing when they are not necessarily skilled to make those judgments? My concern particularly relates to epilepsy but it applies to other areas as well.
Jonathan Ashworth
The right hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head. That is exactly the point that has been put to me when I have visited community pharmacists and discussed this with them. Of course there are other pharmacists who have perhaps done more training and want to work at the top of their licence and believe that there is a role for more autonomy. However, there are real concerns about the way in which these changes are being rushed through without any resource put into education, explanation or wider training that may be needed. In those circumstances, it is appropriate that we raise our concerns, support our motion and oppose the Government’s proposal today. He is absolutely right—I have heard that concern expressed directly. Many community pharmacists do not necessarily want this responsibility, given the wider concerns and implications that he highlighted.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The point made by the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) raises two issues. First, what is the point of doctors having all this training if anybody without it is suddenly able to dole out prescriptions? Secondly, are pharmacists insured, and is there an insurance scheme for them if they make mistakes? Doctors have a professional insurance system, and pharmacists presumably have a completely different one.
Jonathan Ashworth
My hon. Friend is right. That is exactly the point that community pharmacists put to me in Loughborough about three weeks ago when I visited them to discuss this. Echoing her point, the BMA has said that it does not support a “blanket approach” to allowing pharmacists to provide therapeutic equivalents where a prescribed drug is not available. The National AIDS Trust has said:
“The only person qualified to safely alter the medication prescribed to a person living with HIV is that person’s HIV consultant.”
SUDEP Action, alongside a broader coalition of epilepsy charities, is particularly worried about these proposals.
After facing pressure from those groups, the Government accepted that replacement drugs were unsuitable for epilepsy patients, but they have left it open to pharmacists to reduce the strength or dosage of epilepsy medication. I am not convinced that that will eliminate the big risks faced by these patients. As the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) said, many patients with epilepsy—especially the elderly—are on other medications, and any changes require careful management because of the interaction between different medicines. Up to 90% of people with epilepsy state that even a deterioration in their mood can have a negative effect on seizure control. Anti-epileptic medications have more significant interactions than any other group of drugs.
There are situations where the specific brand, type, form or strength of a treatment must be carefully tailored to the individual based on their responses, which is done by the prescriber and the patient over time. If that is changed by a professional who does not know the patient or their individual risks, some have warned that the consequences could be a loss of control of the condition, failed treatment and an unnecessary emergency, with very serious consequences indeed.
Anne Marie Morris
The hon. Gentleman is making a first-class point. This puts patients at risk, and it is not appropriate for the pharmacist to make that decision. People think that generics are the same thing as branded drugs, but they are not. For some, a particular brand is crucial. I commend him for what he is doing.
Jonathan Ashworth
I am flattered to receive such commendation from the Conservative Benches, and I commend the hon. Lady for her extremely well-made point, with which I agree entirely. I hope that the Minister will respond to the second good point that the hon. Lady has made.
The stakes are too high to get this wrong, yet there has been no impact assessment or risk assessment undertaken on serious shortage protocols for this statutory instrument. This is an unacceptable risk to anyone with a long-term condition and should be recognised by anyone making contingency plans. I was particularly horrified to read in the explanatory memorandum for this SI—it is quite shocking:
“The main benefits of the protocol would be the NHS cost savings associated with GP time.”
In the same breath, it casually goes on to say:
“There may be some risks to patients”.
That is in the Government’s own paperwork. It is astonishing. How can the Government seriously prioritise NHS cost savings over patients’ lives and allow an explanatory memorandum to go out with that sort of wording in it? I hope that the Minister can explain how that got in there and at least reassure us that it is not the Government’s position. If it is the Government’s position that there may be some risks to patients, that suggests that the Government should have come to the House sooner to explain why they are making this regulatory change and not left it to the official Opposition to table a prayer motion to get this debate.
I would like clarity from the Government on a few things. It is not entirely clear from the legislation exactly when these powers would be used. I would like to hear from the Minister whether these powers will be introduced in a no-deal Brexit scenario only or whether we can expect them to be more permanent. I am also concerned that there will only be a review of new powers one year after a serious shortage protocol is issued by Ministers. This speaks to the point made by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris). One year is too long to wait if this causes serious problems for patients and the wider sector.
Considering that the stakes are so high, it is be essential that the Government deliver extensive communication and training to GPs, pharmacists, other healthcare professionals and the public, to help them understand any new protocols and manage expectations and any dissatisfaction. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined the Government’s plans. I talk and listen to frontline NHS staff all the time, and I know that there is a well-founded fear about the implications of a no-deal Brexit for hundreds of thousands of people in need of life-saving medicines. I am interested to hear from the Minister what information about these protocols has been shared with the health sector and professionals involved.
When the Secretary of State gave evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee a few weeks ago, he informed it that he will prioritise medicines over food. That glib assertion from the Secretary of State hardly offered the reassurance that patients deserve. Brexit should not compromise patient safety in any way. It is up to the Minister to allay the widespread concerns, but if she is not able to do so, we will test the opinion of the House. I commend our motion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)
I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House and reassure Members on both sides of the House about the purposes of the regulations. I have been asked a number of questions, and I will try to answer all of them as best I can.
I want to start by saying that there is considerable misinformation out there about these regulations, which are designed to most efficiently manage the supply of medicines in the event of a shortage. I should also make clear to the House that this is not just a Brexit regulation; it will apply in any case, not just in the case of no deal, not least because recent events have shown the challenge in managing medicines. The regulations on how pharmacists will be able to apply this protocol are designed to minimise not only the demand on GPs but the risk to patients, because pharmacists will only be able to use their powers under these regulations according to very clear criteria, and we will still encourage them to speak to prescribers where there is any element of doubt.
Anne Marie Morris
Will the Minister give us some details about what those criteria will be, so that clear decisions can be made by pharmacists and so that when a particular brand is really important for a patient, there is no possibility that a generic will be substituted?
Jackie Doyle-Price
The circumstances will be different from protocol to protocol, which is not a very clear answer—but we would have to look at each incident. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) mentioned HIV medicine. Another example is antipsychotic medicines, where there is a clear relationship with the patient: obviously, it would not be appropriate to unilaterally change those items of medication.
When a prescription is issued, the pharmacist has to dispense that medicine according to strict instructions under the terms of the prescription. For example, if the prescription was for packets of 200 mg tablets and there was a shortage of those, they could be substituted with a different measurement. All those issues would be dealt with from protocol to protocol, having been considered by a pharmacy panel who can properly and rigorously challenge what an appropriate substitute would be in the event of a shortage of any medicine.
Anne Marie Morris
Is the Minister not concerned about the challenge that, however qualified the pharmacist, they do not have the patient’s notes? She has referred to an amount, and I understand how having two smaller pills will equal what should have been prescribed, but when it is a generic versus a specific branded medicine, that is a very difficult and challenging decision to make.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I come back to what I said to my hon. Friend earlier. The terms under which pharmacists will be able to exercise their discretion will be clearly set out in each protocol, and there will be full consultation by an expert panel, with ministerial approval in such an event.
Norman Lamb
Will the Minister clarify whether, if there are adverse effects as a result of some change that has been made in these circumstances, the prescriber, the dispenser or the Government would ultimately be liable?
Jackie Doyle-Price
The protocol will be very tightly drafted, which will really limit the ability of the pharmacist, who would only be able to prescribe outside the terms of the prescription within the narrow confines of the protocol. As I say, this has been done to secure continuity of supply when there is a potential challenge, but I would expect to take advice from a pharmacy panel, in conjunction with those most affected, to make sure that we put in place appropriate risk management on those occasions.
Helen Goodman
What kind of timescale is the Minister considering? Let us take people with epilepsy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) said at the Dispatch Box, if somebody’s condition changes, it might take six months to work out what the right prescription ought to be. The Minister surely cannot say that we will write a protocol in Whitehall in the event of some sudden shortage and implement it across the land because, as we keep saying, different people have different medical needs.
Jackie Doyle-Price
We are talking about a protocol that can deal with an immediate shortage, but we would not expect that shortage to continue indefinitely. It enables us to manage the shortage, while trying to secure the ongoing supply.
Reference has been made to EpiPens, and that is exactly what happened in that context: we knew that we had a shortage and that there was a supply coming, so steps were taken to manage the supply so that everybody who needed EpiPens had a supply of two, with dispensaries managing that supply. We would expect the same to happen. Where we issue a protocol, we would expect prescribers to go back to their normal supply of medication once we had corrected the supply problem, and this is to get us through that period. It is also to encourage people not to stockpile medicines in the event of worries about a shortage. This is about giving people the reassurance that we will manage such shortages effectively.
The hon. Member for Leicester South mentioned that there had been criticism about a lack of consultation. It is worth noting that the Government have been challenged by the Good Law Project on a number of grounds, but it is also worth telling the House that the High Court decided last week that permission for judicial review would not be granted on the issue of lack of consultation.
I want to clarify the purpose of the regulations. First, they implement the EU falsified medicines legislation on certain safety features on the packaging of medicines. They also extend the exemption for the supply of naloxone hydrochloride, so that drug treatment services can supply all dosage forms of that medicine; at the moment, we can only supply injectables, but we now know that nasal administration is more efficient. In addition, and this is obviously the main crux of the debate today, they enable retail pharmacies, where appropriate, to supply against a serious shortage protocol, instead of against prescriptions, if such a protocol has been issued.
Not implementing this statutory instrument would have dire consequences. Not only would the Government lose this tool to manage shortages of medicines, but we would also deny drug treatment services the ability to supply all dosage forms of naloxone hydrochloride. Without this SI, we would not be able to introduce UK-specific flexibilities for the falsified medicines safety features scheme, meaning that a disproportionate burden would be put on the supply chain.
On the safety features, I would like to say that we are committed to stopping falsified medicines from reaching patients. Our No. 1 priority is safe access to medicines in the most efficient way. I can also say that we want to retain a close working partnership with the EU on medicines regulation, for all the reasons the hon. Gentleman outlined, and we wish to ensure that patients continue to have timely access to safe medicines and medical innovations.
The new safety features measures under the EU delegated safety features regulation are directly applicable, and they already require UK manufacturers to place a unique identifier and tamper-evident features on packaging for almost all prescription-only medicines. These medicines need to be scanned on supply to the patient to verify their authenticity. Our position is clear that, as a member state, we were obliged to implement these requirements. We worked extensively with stakeholders to understand the detail and to develop the best approach on the flexibilities and enforcement specifically for the UK, and this was tested through a formal consultation process.
It is worth noting that the UK has a very complex supply chain. Without the national flexibilities in this statutory instrument, the burden on industry would be disproportionate and it would risk patients not getting timely access to medicines; nor would we be able to enforce the requirements already in place. The reputation of UK medicines, the UK pharmaceutical industry and regulators could be seriously undermined. I have already mentioned the issue of naloxone hydrochloride. It is administered in the event of a heroin overdose, so we clearly want to make that available in the most efficient way possible.
To come back to the serious shortage protocol provisions, these will provide the Government with an additional tool to deal with a shortage of medicines. Over 2.5 million prescription items are dispensed in primary care in England alone every day, and the vast majority are not subject to supply problems. However, we must have a robust system in place for when they are. We work closely with the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, the pharmaceutical industry and NHS England in operating and managing the supply chain to help prevent shortages, and to ensure that the risks to patients are minimised when shortages do arise.
The issue of EpiPens is a very good example. Last autumn, we faced a serious international shortage of EpiPens. That shortage had a knock-on effect on other adrenaline auto-injectors and, despite efforts by the Department and the industry, there was not enough supply to meet the demand in the country. We were therefore forced to ration the available injectors so that the available supply could be spread out across all patients who needed them until more stock became available. To be able to do that, we put in place a dispensing protocol.
The protocol required pharmacists to check with patients how many adrenaline injectors, including expired ones, they had so that pharmacists could decide on the number of injectors to supply. Patients below a certain weight had to be referred back to their prescriber. Again, another risk management tool that we would apply in issuing a protocol would be to make sure that pharmacists were referring people back to their prescriber if there was such a question. This ensured that, throughout the duration of the shortage, we managed the available stock in such a way that each patient had access to at least two injectors. It was this incident with the adrenaline injectors, as well as our EU exit preparations, that led the Government to formalise that what was done in the EpiPen situation should be put in place to manage other serious shortages, should they arise.
I say again that this is not the Government’s plan for dealing with medicine shortages in a no-deal exit. That is simply not the case at all. We wanted to introduce these provisions before 29 March so that we would have the option of issuing protocols, but only as part of our multi-layered approach to minimise any supply disruption in a no-deal exit. We are confident that our other management plans will deal with that. These include securing additional roll-on roll-off freight capacity for goods; buffer stocks and stockpiling; extra warehouse space; and space on aeroplanes for products with a short shelf life or specific storage conditions. The questions raised about radioisotopes are clearly relevant to that. These regulations will ensure that companies can continue to sell their products in the UK. They will strengthen the process and resources used to deal with shortages in the event, despite everyone’s best efforts, that they do occur.
Anne Marie Morris
The Minister is being generous with her time. Will she explain what currently happens when there is a shortage? Of course I realise that patients need medicines, but why do we need this specific piece of legislation when, so far, the Government have dealt with many other shortages reasonably adequately, I should have thought?
Jackie Doyle-Price
As I explained, it was the issues regarding EpiPens that brought home to us the need to have a suitable protocol in place.
Hon. Members have expressed concern about the role of pharmacists in the system. At the moment, where the prescriber has prescribed a specific medicine, including a specific strength and quantity, the retail pharmacist must supply exactly what is on the prescription and cannot deviate from that. The pharmacist has no flexibility if the exact order cannot be supplied, for example, because of supply issues. The pharmacist has to send the patient back to their GP. Clearly that would not be an efficient use of GPs’ time if we could put in place a protocol that would enable the application of alternative medicines.
The serious shortage protocol enables retail pharmacists to supply in accordance with a strict protocol for a specific prescription-only medicine, rather than against a prescription, without going back to the prescriber. That will be done only in exceptional circumstances, in the event of a serious shortage of a medicine, when all other mitigation measures have been exhausted or would be likely to be ineffective, and all the clinical community think it is appropriate to issue such a protocol. The protocol may prescribe one of the following options: an alternative quantity, an alternative pharmaceutical form, an alternative strength, a therapeutic equivalent or a generic equivalent. However, as I said, each case will be considered on its merits, and of course the risk of various health conditions. We believe that therapeutic substitution will be extremely rare. It would need to be clinically appropriate, and a sufficient stock of any alternative would be required.
As I have said, any serious shortage protocol will be developed with clinician input. Which clinicians are involved will depend on the expertise required, but we would involve, for example, the relevant royal colleges and societies. We would also work closely with patient representative groups, as we did in the EpiPen shortage. Each protocol would clearly set out what action can be taken by the retail pharmacy, in what circumstances, for which patients, and during which period. I re-emphasise that this is not about pharmacists acquiring prescribing rights by the back door. It is entirely about ensuring that patients have access to the medicine they need by making the best possible use of highly qualified pharmacists and freeing up GP time for patients who need to see their GP. If a pharmacist is in any doubt about what they are prescribing, they can always exercise their professional judgment to refer an individual patient back to the GP, and if patients do not want the alternative under the protocol, they can always go back to their prescriber.
Let me be very clear: patients will not be given alternative medicines where this is not medically appropriate. This includes patients with complex medication regimes or conditions such as epilepsy or HIV. However, that does not mean that they are exempt from the protocols. For example, a protocol for a reduced quantity of anti-epilepsy medication could be issued, as we did for EpiPen. That would have to be considered against a backdrop of all the available stock being spread out across all patients, and there being time for patients to see their prescriber if the supply issues become long- term. Without the protocol, some patients would receive the medicines prescribed to them, but some would leave the pharmacy empty-handed. Clearly, we need to make sure that all patients have timely access to their medicines.
In the event of a serious shortage of any medicine, it is vital that patients continue to receive the treatment they need. The introduction of strict protocols, developed with specialist doctors, is a sensible step that will, in exceptional circumstances, allow highly trained pharmacists to provide an appropriate alternative or quantity, as set out in the protocol, to reduce the impact on patients. This ensures a co-ordinated response to a shortage and timely access to medicines.
Of course, I hope that we never have to introduce a serious shortage protocol, but there may be times when we have no other options, because all other measures have been exhausted or are likely to be ineffective. Not implementing the statutory instrument would put patients’ timely access to medicines at risk, first, by not enabling drug treatment services to supply all dosage forms of naloxone hydrochloride; secondly, by imposing much more burdensome implementation of safety features of packs of medicines with flexibilities to accommodate the specific characteristics of the UK supply chain; and thirdly, by denying the Government an important tool to manage shortages of medicines and to ensure that patients continue to get the right medicines in a timely manner. I hope that the motion is defeated.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
We are discussing changes to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012. I welcome the implementation of the falsified medicines directive, with its provisions on unique identifiers and anti-tampering devices. I also welcome the change to allow nasal naloxone to be used to deal with opioid overdose. But snuck in among those perfectly reasonable measures is the serious shortage protocol. That deals with prescription-only medicines and highlights what we face with Brexit coming in 11 days.
Forty-one million packets of drugs a month go from the UK to the EU, and 37 million are imported into the UK, including almost all insulin—the UK does not produce insulin to a large extent. There are many other drugs that the UK does not produce. We have previously and in this debate raised the issue of radioisotopes, although this clearly does not apply to that. There will also be problems with the supply chain of raw chemicals to produce drugs in the UK and with processes such as batch testing for UK exports into the EU, because the EU will not recognise batch testing not carried inside the EU. One of the key words missing from the withdrawal Act that was scattered throughout the Chequers deal, if we can call it that, is “frictionless”. Do a word search. It is not there. We have been discussing this matter in the context of no deal, but there will be issues regarding the supply chains in making drugs and moving drugs around even if the Government’s withdrawal agreement goes through.
Bizarrely, section 8 of the explanatory memorandum to the regulations claims:
“This instrument does not relate to withdrawal from the European Union.”
As we would say in Scotland, “Aye, right.” It continues that:
“if withdrawal from the European Union were a contributing factor to a serious shortage…a serious shortage protocol could be used”.
That is the thinnest fig leaf I have ever seen in my whole life.
The documents talk about the Minister or Ministers being able to add drugs to the serious shortage protocol list. Who is meant by “Ministers”? Is it the devolved Ministers in Edinburgh and Cardiff, or are we merely talking about all the junior Ministers and the Secretary of State here in Westminster? Health is devolved, and the use of drugs and the diseases dealt with vary across the UK. It is important that health is not pulled back away from devolution. I would like that to be clarified, particularly when the Minister suggests that this is not a short-term solution, but envisaged as a long-term solution for shortages.
I accept that shortages can arise, but normally they are few; normally it is possible to get access to information about what is causing them, making it easier to come up with solutions. However, as has been said, the review will take place only after a year, which is quite a long time for a protocol to be in place. It would be useful to send information on what replacements could be used to the GP or prescriber, rather than to the pharmacist. If it is known that there is a national shortage, why wait until the point of dispensing the drug? Tell GPs. Tell non-GP prescribers. Do not leave it to the last minute, when someone is in the pharmacy. That is the issue: the shortage protocol gives pharmacists the power to override the prescriber. Predominantly, that is a GP, but not necessarily.
I say to other Members that pharmacists can change the strength, but not the dose. If someone is on a 10 mg tablet and is used to taking one 10 mg tablet, they may be given two 5 mg tablets. That may seem innocuous, but an elderly, vulnerable or slightly confused patient who knows that they take one tablet every morning might end up taking half the dose they require. Even worse is if they are given a larger dose that they are meant to cut in half. That is much more complex. The number of tablets patients have to take could cause confusion.
The statutory instrument talks about quantity. At the moment, patients are usually given eight weeks of a prescription and pay a prescription charge. If they only get four weeks of their medication, will they get the second four weeks without paying another prescription charge or will prescription charges be doubled? That is not an issue in Scotland, but it is certainly an issue here in England.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is speaking very knowledgably about dosage. Many of my constituents are on methadone prescriptions. They need to get the correct amount of prescription or it can have very real consequences for relapse and how they are able to live their lives. Does she agree that protections need to be put in place for groups for whom removing the dose could have severe consequences?
Dr Whitford
It is critical that the patient’s dose is not changed or put in danger. The management of any condition is dose sensitive. We cannot go down to homeopathic doses of antibiotics or blood pressure medication—that would be crazy.
Pharmacists can give a different form, such as liquid, solid or capsule. Again, for some patients that will not be a problem; for others, it will. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) mentioned generic drugs. Generally, NHS prescribers use generic drugs as the default to save money. However, I have had patients who had appalling side effects from the generic form of tamoxifen, but not from the non-generic brand. There always has to be a right for GPs to say, “In this case, I will use the brand.”
The most important bit of this statutory instrument is that it allows a change to a completely different drug. It may be a drug that is approved by a panel sitting somewhere in London with the colleges, who say that it is a reasonable replacement for the other drug, but that does not take into account the fact that patients are all individuals. I can tell you that they are all individuals.
Pharmacists are very knowledgeable—in Scotland, we have had community pharmacists for over a decade and they contribute massively—but they work to their own protocol, they work within limits and they do not have access to the patient’s notes. Therefore, they cannot see that the patient has been on a drug in the past and had terrible side effects. They will replace with a protocol drug, but what about the responsibility? Why is this happening right now?
It suggests to me that the Department of Health and Social Care is expecting massive shortages, to the point where the simple act of picking up the phone and saying to the GP, “I don’t have drug A. Would drug B be reasonable for Mrs Smith?”, is somehow impractical. I find that very worrying. It may be that Mrs Smith has had six drugs to control her blood pressure. Drug 2 and drug 5 caused her to faint or have blackouts, but the pharmacist does not know that.
Epileptics have been mentioned. The issue with epileptics is that any change can destabilise their epilepsy. They are therefore never prescribed by generic, but are prescribed by brand to avoid precisely that.
Norman Lamb
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. Does she agree that there is often an interaction between epilepsy drugs and other drugs that the patient may be on and that any interruption of that relationship may cause problems?
Dr Whitford
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and one that applies to many drugs. When we prescribe, we sit and look at the interactions. I would expect a pharmacist to look at that. They will have the patient’s full prescription and should, therefore, be able to look at interactions.
Dr Whitford
That is the key thing: they do not have the patient’s records and they do not know what problems a drug may have caused in the past.
This change could have a real impact on epileptics. It brings the danger of a fit, and the fit itself may be a threat to them. Obviously epileptics are exposed to sudden unexpected death in epilepsy and can suffer from trauma, depending on where they are when they take the fit. They can even lose their driving licence for a year because they have one fit. The social impact of that on epileptics is enormous.
It says in the explanatory notes that, because of that, epilepsy drugs and biological drugs would not be considered suitable for the protocol. However, it does not say that in the SI—they are not excluded. It is important that such people are protected.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I have been listening closely to the hon. Lady. This is already happening. A friend of mine went to her chemist to pick up some drugs and the dosage was halved by the pharmacist, not by her doctor. She had enough drugs to keep her going until she went to the doctor again, who reinstated the original drug. I just think it is really scary at the moment; people do not understand why this is happening. It cannot be about Brexit, because it is happening now.
Dr Whitford
I am just coming on to that issue. I reiterate that it is the strength, rather than the dose, so I imagine the hon. Lady’s friend would be expected to take two smaller tablets, not to reduce her dose.
As I have said, the obvious thing would be to share the protocol with the prescribers, not to aim it at the pharmacists who are right at the end of the process.
Why is it that we are seeing the shortages now? Quite simply, there are two ways to stockpile: either by forcing increased production, which it is not necessarily within the gift of the Department or even the Secretary of State to do, or by setting aside some of the drugs within normal production. When I talk to my GP friends, they talk about a massive surge in shortages over the past nine months. That coincides almost exactly with the acceleration of stockpiling. My concern is that drugs are being set aside into the stockpile and that is causing shortages right now.
There should be publication of the list of drugs that are at risk of shortage, so that a GP can say, “For this lady or gentleman it is not that important, so if it is a shortage drug I won’t use it, but for this other patient I will have to use it.” Apparently, that is currently hidden behind commercial sensitivity.
It is important that a consultation and an impact assessment are carried out. I was shocked that the BMA was given a week to respond and the General Medical Council was not even consulted. This statutory instrument totally reverses medical and prescriber legal responsibility, so who is legally responsible? How do pharmacists feel about the fact that they might be held answerable for changing the drug, or will the Government underwrite that? I think that this has been appallingly handled and has been snuck in with no scrutiny and no debate.
The hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) talked about cost and time saving for GPs and, secondary to that, the impact on patient safety. If we look at the basis for the review in a year, it says that No. 1 will be the function of the market and that No. 2 will be the impact on patients, so again we see that patient safety is not being put at the heart of this. This proposal has not been properly thought through, particularly if it is envisaged as a long-term solution to drug shortages. No deal should now be off the table, as of last week. There should be time to look at this issue properly, consult properly and come up with something that will not endanger patients.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
I very much agree with the concerns that were raised by the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford). Let me make a general point first. I recognise that this statutory instrument is not being introduced purely for no-deal planning, but clearly, there is a recognition that the risk of shortages increases in a no-deal scenario. To me, it absolutely beggars belief that Cabinet Ministers in this Government were willing last Thursday purposefully to vote against an extension and therefore in favour of the risk of no deal in just a few days’ time, knowing that the risk to patients would increase as a result. It is extraordinary that Ministers in a Government could choose to vote in that way knowing that patients would be put at greater risk.
I want in particular to address the concerns of patients with epilepsy, including the concerns raised by the really good organisation, SUDEP Action. For those who are unaware, SUDEP means sudden unexpected death in epilepsy, so we are talking here about all those people who lose their lives as a result of epilepsy. There are very real and legitimate concerns about the impacts that the measure will have on those people. To bring this into really sharp focus, Simon Lees, one of the trustees of SUDEP Action, who has epilepsy, was today refused the supply of one of his three epilepsy medications because of a shortage. His brother died from epilepsy shortly after his medication was changed, so the risk to patients is very real.
As others have said, pharmacists are highly skilled professionals, but they are not specialist prescribers or skilled in assessing the risk of unexpected death through epilepsy. There is a particular concern about people with a learning disability who may also have epilepsy, who are particularly at risk. As the SNP spokesperson said, pharmacists do not have access to the full patient record. The need for consistency for these patients in the supply, dosing, timing and formulation of anti-epileptic drugs is absolutely critical. There is a real risk when medications change. That is why specialist prescribers play such an important role in any change for a patient with epilepsy. Person-centred prescribing and medication management is the most effective way to keep these patients safe, so it is little wonder that those people and the organisation that supports them are so concerned about this issue.
I also want to make some particular points that SUDEP Action has raised. The current documentation on the protocol indicates that there is no requirement for patients to be made aware of medication changes—that seems extraordinary to me—or a recognition of the channels available to them should they wish to challenge or question those changes. Without those safeguards, people with epilepsy may be unaware of medication changes that have occurred, putting them at significant risk, particularly if these changes result in increased side effects or changing seizure control. It is also unclear whether the pharmacist, the original prescriber or the Government are ultimately accountable for adverse effects—I made this point in my challenge to the Minister—caused by one of the protocols being activated. Should a death occur following a lack of consistency of supply of the usual medication, who will be held to account for that change? As others have said, it seems essential that the Government make publicly available a list of the medications that are at risk of shortage. There should be an early warning system for prescribers so that they are aware of the risks of medications running short in supply.
In conclusion, there are legitimate and serious concerns here, and that is why I will be joining others in voting in favour of the motion to revoke the regulations.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)
I am glad we have had the opportunity to have this debate. Like other hon. Members, I want to focus on the impact these changes could have on those with epilepsy. I thank SUDEP Action, which the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) mentioned, for the work it has done to bring concerns about this issue to the fore. I also agree with many of the concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) expressed in his opening remarks.
The Secretary of State was unable to address bereaved families and clinicians at the recent summit held by SUDEP Action, but will he meet me, other hon. Members and representatives of SUDEP Action and talk directly to families about the concerns they have? If he could agree to do that, it would be very helpful.
Medicines shortages pose a serious risk to people with epilepsy. As hon. Members are aware, it is a high-risk condition, requiring complex, tailored care. As other hon. Members have said, many people with epilepsy are particularly vulnerable to changes to that care. I have recently met families, such as that of Rachel Shah, whose daughter Emily died aged 19 shortly after a non-specialist prescriber made an error with her medication. The family and the non-specialist were entirely unaware of the risks of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy, and the error was not noticed. That is quite shocking.
Studies show that people on existing medications are put at risk when those medicines are changed. Tried and tested systems mean that, when there is a medicines shortage, specialist prescribers with expertise and access to the full patient record are involved in any changes. There are known risk factors that can increase the risk of death among people with epilepsy. However, those can be carefully managed through open, positive relationships between clinicians and patients. Those clinicians have often had responsibility for the patients’ medication schedule, which has often been worked up with the patient over many years.
The serious shortage protocols, passed under the Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2019 give pharmacists the right to supply a different quantity or pharmaceutical quality of medicine in the event of the country experiencing a serious shortage of prescription-only medicines. As other hon. Members have said, pharmacists are skilled professionals in medicines and medicines management, but they are not specialist prescribers. Nor are they specialists in assessing SUDEP or other epilepsy risks in individuals, and they do not have access to full patient records.
Jackie Doyle-Price
With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would just like to reassure the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis). We do not consider that treatment for epilepsy would be appropriately covered by a serious shortage protocol, for exactly the reasons that they have both outlined: this is specialist prescribing and very bespoke to the patient. In the event of a shortage of epilepsy drugs, the clear guidance would be for the pharmacist to refer the patient back to their prescriber. The shortage protocols will be very tightly defined, within given circumstances, as to what drug will be an appropriate alternative treatment; they are by no means meant to be very one size fits all.
Mr Lewis
I think the Minister for that reassurance. I think we will want to see that in writing. Having that clarity is incredibly important, so that when the guidance is published, the reassurance is there for people with epilepsy and their families. That is incredibly important.
We should remember that laws that sought to allow change in the prescription of epilepsy medications were rejected in 2010 after a public consultation that highlighted major patient safety concerns. MHRA guidance in 2017 included vital safeguards against switching medication for people with epilepsy. These issues have therefore been interrogated in the past.
A precautionary approach concerned with patient safety would include analysis and openness about the causes of medical shortages; include an impact and risk assessment; aim to avoid any risk of worsening medical shortages; follow good practice in the regulation of medical shortages; include training and communication arrangements for all affected; and include clear, robust and timely accountability to patients and the public for adverse events and avoidable deaths. Nurses and clinicians are currently unable to gain access to a number of medications. They need to know which are on the list of likely shortages, and whether all the possibilities of measures to prevent such shortages have been exhausted.
People with epilepsy are recognised to be a high-risk group in current legislation. They must be protected against shortages of any medications that they take—not just their epilepsy medication—by a requirement in the legislation, and in any accompanying guidance, for the involvement of a specialist prescriber at all times. To be fair, that is the assurance that the Minister sought to give this evening.
It is not good enough to say in the explanatory memorandum that protocols will not apply to certain epilepsy treatments for which a brand is required. Any change in the 2017 MHRA guidance on epilepsy medication should be avoided, although, if such a change is required owing to a serious shortage, it must follow public consultation with the involvement of the third sector and patients. I think that patient groups feel they have been excluded from the process thus far. I urge the Minister to agree—in the spirit in which she has engaged with the House this evening—to meet SUDEP Action along with me, and other Members, if the Secretary of State is not willing or does not have time to do so.
The Government should make publicly available the list of medications that are at risk of shortage. If people living with long-term health conditions, and their clinicians, know about serious shortages that may affect them, they should have opportunities to contribute to any consultations and debates. An early-warning system for prescribers is essential, but it must be extended to all specialist prescribers. Many are on the front line, trying to ensure continuity of medication for patients, and they will be able to provide the necessary reassurance for those patients if they are aware of potential shortages.
We should not forget the anxiety that this will cause among people who are already extremely vulnerable, and the fact that that anxiety could lead to further health problems. All who are involved in the chain need to be able—where appropriate—to offer the maximum clarity, information and reassurance. The Government should also publish an operational framework and guidance to ensure that there is good practice and medicine shortages can be managed safely. They should commit themselves to patient-centred and shared care decision-making.
Perhaps this is the most important point that has been made so far: it is still not clear where accountability lies in the event of an adverse event—worst of all, a death—when there has been a failure of continuity of supply lines. That issue has been highlighted by the Pharmacists’ Defence Association. Obviously the association is very concerned about the potential negative effect on pharmacists, but a greater concern relates to the potential impact on patients and families.
This legislation is not simply another complication caused by Brexit. It may present serious challenges for many years to come. It is first and foremost about patient safety, and in those circumstances, the Government need to take appropriate time and care when making their decisions.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I am pleased to have an opportunity to make a short contribution to the debate.
It is ironic, given that one of the main Brexit campaign slogans, on the side of a bus, promised £350 million for the NHS, that one of the most serious problems we are having to consider is the problem of medicine shortages in the event of Brexit. The Minister has still not made clear the extent to which those shortages are related to Brexit. Common sense suggests that this is a Brexit statutory instrument, and I am assuming that it went through the usual Brexit process of being dealt with by the European Statutory Instruments Committee, but the Minister has not made clear why we are having these shortages in medicines, which are happening already. I have a constituent with a child with epilepsy who is finding it difficult to get their child’s prescription. If this is not Brexit-related, how come all these shortages are suddenly happening now, at a time when the pharmaceutical industry is being told it needs to stockpile?
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly support the points my hon. Friend is making and the concern she is raising about the potential link to Brexit, which would seem to many Members to be an obvious connection. Does she agree that Brexit is not only threatening the NHS through these potential shortages of medicines, but threatening the staffing of our NHS? I represent a seat where 13% of the staff at the local hospital come from EU countries, and many are leaving and going home, which is of deep concern to our residents.
Helen Goodman
Of course what my hon. Friend says about staff shortages and Brexit is absolutely right.
I was going on to say that I have a GlaxoSmithKline factory in my constituency, and obviously I have discussed this issue with it. It is extremely underwhelmed by the Government’s no-deal planning, and extremely under- whelmed by the fact that it is having to pay for these extra stockpiles. All these Brexit costs that are being put on to the industrialists mean that there is less money for research and development, investment, job creation and all the things we would all like to see.
It is notable that there are very high numbers of people with the conditions most likely to be affected. There are 4 million people in this country with diabetes, 500,000 people with epilepsy, and 250,000 people whose allergies are so serious that they need an EpiPen. Given that we clearly have 5 million, 6 million or perhaps 10 million people whose health is likely to be at risk if there are medicine shortages, I would have thought that the Government would have not just done a full risk and impact assessment but produced for us today, alongside the statutory instrument, the protocols. The Minister knows which drugs and conditions we are talking about; surely, given all the problems we have had with the industry, doctors and patient groups not being properly consulted, it would have been sensible to make those protocols at this moment, so we could look at them alongside the statutory instrument. I hope the Minister will come to the Dispatch Box and answer some of these points. She is shaking her head.
Jackie Doyle-Price
This is a tool to manage serious medicine shortages. I do not expect any medicine shortages, but this tool exists in the event of them arising. As for the idea that we could bring together a list, we do not anticipate that there will need to be a list.
Helen Goodman
Brexit is now 11 days away. Collapsing out of Europe with no deal is obviously far less likely following the votes of last week, but it is still a possibility, and at that point the possibility—the probability—of these medicine shortages will increase very significantly. Here we are, less than a fortnight away, and the Minister has not got these protocols in draft at the moment. [Interruption.] The Minister is still chuntering; I am sorry, but she has not provided us with the reassurance that we want. I speak as someone who carries an EpiPen; I am not very taken with the idea that I will not be able to get an EpiPen, and my husband will not be very taken with the idea that he cannot get his epilepsy tablets. If the Minister and Department of Health and Social Care officials think that this is a way to save money, they could not be more wrong.
When things go wrong—when a person has a fit, or goes into anaphylactic shock—they are taken into A&E, and they might be there for 12 hours. That is not cheap; that is not a saving. Of course, it is extremely dangerous, too. The rate of death for people with epileptic fits is one in 100; one in 100 fits leads to death. Ministers are taking much too great a risk with their fellow citizens’ lives.
Question put.
Integrated Care Regulations
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Amendments Relating to the Provision of Integrated Care Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019, No. 248), dated 13 February 2019, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13 February, be annulled.
I am grateful that we have found time to debate this prayer motion in my name and the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. For the Government to have attempted to make these changes without proper scrutiny is a huge discourtesy to the House. These changes are fundamental, with potentially far-reaching implications for the NHS, and they have aroused concern—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. It is not fair to the hon. Gentleman that people who have voted are now having conversations here. I would be grateful if people who wanted to talk about other things left the Chamber.
Jonathan Ashworth
The changes in the regulations have aroused considerable concern in the country, and proper parliamentary time should have been made available for a proper debate on them; they should not have been made through secondary legislation.
The Opposition oppose the regulations and will seek to test the House’s opinion on them. We oppose the changes not because we are against integration. We have long called for greater integration of services to offer seamless care to patients, because the demands on the NHS are of a different nature from those of 71 years ago, when a Labour Government created the NHS with a tripartite structure. In those days, life expectancy was so much shorter, and infectious disease was the overwhelming medical challenge. In 2019, we are worlds away from the days when 30,000 hospital beds were set aside for the treatment of tuberculosis, or when wards were filled with row after row of iron lungs to treat those suffering from polio. Today, we are all living longer, with a variety of complex conditions, from diabetes to cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease—conditions that increase the risk of a poorer quality of life and mean a greater risk of premature death. Indeed, around 14.2 million people in England—nearly a quarter of all adults—have two or more conditions. More than half of hospital admissions and out-patient visits, and three quarters of primary care prescriptions, are for people living with two or more conditions.
The issue is not just ageing and frailty; poverty takes its toll. People in the most deprived areas of England can expect to have two or more health conditions at 61 years—10 years earlier than people in the least deprived areas. Health inequalities are widening, while advances in life expectancy are stalling. An ageing population, the increase in long-term conditions, and the increasing number of people with multiple health conditions means that we need to integrate services. Sometimes in these debates, when we talk of long-term conditions, we suggest that we are talking about a homo- geneous group, but it is quite the opposite. We could be talking of a 61-year-old man with renal failure and high blood pressure, or a 101-year-old woman with profound deafness and blindness. The way that such conditions affect quality of life, and the extent to which they are amenable to medical intervention, is likely to vary.
If health services are not better co-ordinated and not integrated, there is a greater risk to patient care through the poor co-ordination of medical care and increased time spent managing illness. The need to manage multiple medications may lead to poorer medication adherence, adverse drug events, and the aggravation of one condition by the symptoms or treatment of another. It can also mean damaging self-management regimes in which there are competing priorities, and a bewildering landscape for patients, who are often of an advanced age, with cognitive impairment and limited health literacy, so we support integration.
I have seen integration working on the ground. Just last week, I was in Bolton, where I visited the Winifred Kettle centre to see the model of integrated multi-agency work bring together mental health professionals, pharmacy, physio, occupational therapy and social workers. In Bury, I heard about how the local council’s chief executive doubles up as the chief executive of the clinical commissioning group. In Luton and Dunstable I saw with my own eyes that the hospital trust has various social care workers in its discharge unit, helping to avoid the indignity of huge numbers of elderly patients being trapped in hospital, ready for discharge but delayed for days on end, as happens too often. In Wolverhampton, a fascinating example is being developed: the hospital trust is taking on and employing GPs directly. In Wolverhampton, they call it vertical integration, although some might wish to go as far as to suggest that it is the nationalisation of general practice, something that not even Nye Bevan was able to achieve.
A Labour Government would move away from a competitive landscape of autonomous providers to one of area-based care delivered through integration, collaboration, partnership and planning. We will restore a universal, publicly provided and administered national health service. Locally, we envisage something akin to health and care boards, with a duty to provide health not only for those on a CCG list but for all residents. Nationally, the Secretary of State’s duty to provide care will be reinstated. We are consulting on these matters with patients, staff and wider stakeholders.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Very quickly, does my hon. Friend not agree that the big problem with integration, if we support it, is the lack of funding, and the lack of proper training in the various disciplines? Only a couple of years ago, there was a cut in the funding for pharmaceuticals.
Jonathan Ashworth
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Integration is not about saving money. For integration to work properly, it needs to be fully funded, and, of course, the NHS has been through the biggest financial squeeze in its history. We do not oppose integration. Indeed, that is why the previous Labour Government introduced a section 75 partnership arrangement, and why we were so vociferous in our opposition to the Andrew Lansley Health and Social Care Act 2012, which went completely counter to international evidence and exacerbated local fragmentation of health structures. It is a delicious irony that Ministers, all of whom were dragooned through the Lobby to support the Lansley Act, despite expert after expert warning them what a mistake it would be to press ahead with it, are now trying to propose regulatory changes, so that we can essentially work around that Act. The reason why we cannot support the regulations today is that the most damaging part of that Act is still on the statute book.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
On the point about the Health and Social Care Act, a third of the contracts have been awarded to private providers, and millions were wasted when they collapsed. The explanatory memo for this statutory instrument says that it is expected that organisations holding an integrated care provider contract will be statutory providers, such as NHS foundation trusts, but that is not legally binding. To protect our NHS, do we not need to know definitively that providers will be public, not private?
Jonathan Ashworth
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, the Minister cannot give that reassurance because of the Lansley Act that Ministers voted for in 2011.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I am only sorry that I cannot be with my hon. Friend on the Front Bench tonight. I have really enjoyed working with him; he is a fine shadow Secretary of State, and I know that he will make an excellent Secretary of State. Unfortunately, I cannot be with him, because when we on these Benches vote against the Whip, we have to deal with the consequences.
As my hon. Friend knows from many debates I have taken part in for the Opposition, despite repeated questions to various Ministers, there has been no absolutely no reassurance that the private sector will not continue to be involved in these matters.
Jonathan Ashworth
My hon. Friend makes his point typically eloquently and with force. May I say to him that we miss him on the Labour Front Bench? He was a real rock in the shadow Health and Social Care team. It is typical of him that when he decided last week that he could not support the Labour Front Bench position on a referendum, he took the honourable course of action and chose to leave the Front-Bench team. I think that he has the respect of many in the House for that position.
This is the nub of our opposition tonight. Contracts are still being put out to competitive tender, even when some commissioners claim that they do not wish to do this. Here lies the danger: nothing prevents, and some things might encourage, these integrated care partnership contracts being put out to tender and perhaps being won by a private sector provider. Ministers repeatedly tell us that ICPs, and before them accountable care organisations, are not about ushering in a further role for the private sector. If that is the case, and if patients and staff are to have confidence that the ICP contracts will not end up in private hands, the Government’s overarching competition legislation must be changed first. As that legislation has not been changed, and as we will still have commercial contracting for the delivery of medical services, there is a risk that a multi-billion pound contract covering hundreds of thousands of people and packaged up for 10 to 15 years could be handed over to a big provider. That is why the Health Committee, which is broadly supportive of these integrated care models, issued this warning in its report:
“The ACO model”—
it was using the terminology of the time—
“will entail a single organisation holding a 10–15 year contract for the health and care of a large population. Given the risks that would follow any collapse of a private organisation holding such a contract and the public’s preference for the principle of a public ownership model of the NHS, we recommend that ACOs, if introduced, should be NHS bodies and established in primary legislation.”
We agree.
The impetus for this contract comes from the example of Dudley, which I am sure the Minister will want to talk about. When the chief executive of Dudley CCG attended the Select Committee, even he conceded—although he said that it was unlikely—that because of the procurement rules, it would not have been possible to have kept out private providers applying for the contract. When asked whether the contract could go to a private provider, he said:
“In theory, it is technically possible for that to happen”.
Although Mr Nigel Edwards of the Nuffield Trust shared the Minister’s scepticism that the contract could go to a private provider, he did concede before the Select Committee that:
“To privatise in the sense of handing over all the assets and staff to a private contractor is a theoretical possibility.”
NHS England’s own analysis of the contract published at the end of last week concedes:
“However, it should be understood that current NHS law and EU and domestic procurement law prohibits CCGs or NHS England from taking steps, whether through evaluation criteria used in a procurement or otherwise, to disqualify certain categories of provider (e.g. independent sector providers) from bidding or being awarded commissioning contracts.”
This is our first objection, because Labour is not prepared to nod something through when there is a theoretical possibility hanging over us that, in the words of NHS England, an independent sector provider could not be disqualified from being awarded commissioning contracts.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that to cure these problems, we need not secondary legislation, but a thoroughgoing review of NHS legislation?
Jonathan Ashworth
My hon. Friend is right; we need to sweep away the Lansley legislation and put the NHS on a sustainable public footing. NHS England attempts to reassure those who are concerned about this contract by putting in place some further conditions. It talks about transparency and insisting on a “minimum level of assets”. Note the qualifier “minimum”—not all assets. It also talks of a
“restriction on carrying out any business other than that required by the ICP Contract”.
Again, note the words used—not a prohibition on other business activities, just a restriction. This is in the circumstance when the contract is awarded to a non-statutory provider.
NHS commissioners are obliged by law to advertise many larger NHS contracts, giving firms such as Virgin Care the chance to bid. Since the Lansley Act came in, £10 billion of contracts have gone to private providers, and there is a further £128 million of NHS tenders in the pipeline. It is all very well for the Secretary of State to go to the Health and Social Care Committee as he did a few weeks ago and say:
“There is no privatisation of the NHS on my watch, and the integrated care contracts will go to public sector bodies to deliver the NHS in public hands.”
The Secretary of State is not in a position to make that promise to the Committee, because of the legislation that is in place.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Ind)
As my Committee has already been quoted, I think that it might assist the House if I were also to quote from the conclusions that we came to on this issue. The Committee said:
“We recognise the concern expressed by those who worry that ACOs could be taken over by private companies managing a very large budget, but we heard a clear message that this is unlikely to happen in practice. Rather than leading to increasing privatisation and charges for healthcare, we heard that using an ACO contract to form large integrated care organisations would be more likely to lead to less competition and a diminution of the internal market and private sector involvement.”
Jonathan Ashworth
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. She is correct in as much as there is not currently a long queue of companies lining up to take control of whole health systems, but that could change if some new form of Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is brought in by a post-Brexit deal. A number of these companies are becoming increasingly litigious in the courts, which is why Virgin Care took the NHS in Surrey to court. However, even if a private provider is not gifted a whole contract, which is the point that the hon. Lady is making, there is nothing to prevent it from buddying up with NHS bodies in joint ventures as a way of exercising influence over the way in which local health systems are configured. There is already evidence of private sector involvement in the establishment of the integrated care system, with Centene UK—an offshoot of an American health insurer—working with Capita in the Nottingham ICS.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Earlier in his remarks, my hon. Friend talked about confidence for people locally in what is happening in the NHS. Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), only in February NHS England itself issued its case for primary legislative changes in which it says, with regard to these proposals, that it wants to
“start a broad process of engagement with the NHS, its partner organisations and those with an interest in how our health service operates.”
That will hopefully involve patients and the public. In Bristol, we embarked on a 10-year contract for community services on the day after the NHS plan was invoked without consultation with local people, an assessment of basic health needs or alignment with the rest of the situation. The problem is that we have yet another change that people locally do not have confidence in. It really is time for the Government to come forward with a cohesive change for the future.
Jonathan Ashworth
That is absolutely right. Notwithstanding the sincere views of the Select Committee, there is a lack of confidence out in the country about the way in which these commercial contracting arrangements work. We are seeing that in Bristol, as my hon. Friend so eloquently outlined. Despite the blasé attitude of the Secretary of State in the Select Committee, this is the same Secretary of State who has sat back and done nothing while a PET-CT cancer scanning contract in Oxford is privatised, leading to a fragmented service putting patient safety at risk.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I know my hon. Friend has been working very hard on this issue. I have had droves of patients and staff contacting me with their concern about what is happening. They are astonished that this privatisation is continuing given the comments made by the Secretary of State. There seems to be no willingness at all for any challenge to NHS England’s decision, which is going above the heads of those who deliver the care and which, as my hon. Friend says, would threaten its quality and safety.
Jonathan Ashworth
We keep being told by Ministers, by those who are favour of integrated care and by various interested stakeholders that Labour Members are scaremongering and that we have nothing to worry about—that it is all going to be fine and all going to be in the public sector—yet at the same time we are seeing controversial privatisation after privatisation all across the country, of which the one in Oxford is just the latest example. This has happened since the Secretary of State went to the Select Committee and said that there would be no privatisation on his watch.
In south-east London, private companies are in a three-way fight for the biggest-ever NHS pathology contract—a £2.2 billion contract for 10 years. If the Secretary of State was sincere in his commitment to no privatisation on his watch, he would bring forward legislation to ensure that ICPs are statutory public bodies that are publicly accountable. He would first take the advice of the NHS itself, as embodied in the long-term plan and the subsequent proposals for legislative change, and rid our NHS of the morass of competition law and economic regulation that was brought in by the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Everyone agrees that this particular aberration has had its time.
While the NHS proposals do not yet go as far as Labour Members would want and would not resolve all the problems of the internal market and private sector involvement that our NHS struggles with, they would remove the default assumption for competitive tendering that would currently make many ICSs feel obliged to put contracts for ICPs out to tender for fear of falling foul of the competition rules. Overall, they provide a far preferable base from which to pursue integrated care than the maze of contradictions and obstacles that Andrew Lansley’s Act forced on them. Rather than this regulated change, why is the Minister not bringing forward the legislation that NHS England has called for?
I have two other quick points for the Minister. The new secondary legislation seeks to substantially change the regulations underpinning the existing contractual arrangements for the provision of NHS GP services. We should remember that general practice is already hard to recruit for and we are already losing GP numbers, yet the proposal to incorporate GP practices into ICPs appears to cut across the idea of GPs beginning to work in wider networks covering 30,000 to 50,000 patients, retaining their GP contracts but sharing common resources. That was highlighted as a direction of travel to be celebrated by the Prime Minister when launching the long-term plan.
GP practices can already network and collaborate without this new contract. The contract will offer a sweetener to GPs of new money if a GP practice signs up to the new contract, but the proposals have been opposed by the BMA. Dr Richard Vautrey has said:
“We have repeatedly expressed our serious concerns about ICP contracts which leads to practices giving up part or all of their General Medical Services contract as a result. Practices should not feel pressured into entering an ICP contract as to do so could leave their patients worse off.”
Perhaps the Minister can explain why he is correct and Dr Vautrey is wrong.
I want to make a quick point about the pooling of budgets with respect to universal free-at-the-point-of-use NHS and means-tested social care. If the boundaries between health and social care are dissolved, will the Minister mandate ICPs and clearly specify that which is considered healthcare and that which is considered social care? I raise that because we are already seeing CCGs across the country cutting back on their responsibilities to provide continuing healthcare for some of the most vulnerable people. Can he guarantee that some services currently provided free on the NHS—whether rehabilitation care or nursing care provided by district nurses, such as wound care or continence care—will not suddenly be designated as social care, so that charging creeps into the system?
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman talked about the funding of social care. One of the recommendations made by the Health and Social Care Committee, in concert with the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, as a solution to adult social care funding, was a system of social insurance. Would he support that on a cross-party basis?
Jonathan Ashworth
The hon. Gentleman is a passionate campaigner for his social insurance proposal, and I have heard him make that point many times. I say to him gently that when the Government bring forward their Green Paper—I emphasise the word “when”—we will engage fully in the debate, and I am sure he will make that point then, whether the debate happens this year, next year or the year after; we will wait and see.
There is a problem with the dissolving of boundaries between health and social care and what that could mean, with charges creeping into the system for some services that were previously considered NHS services but are now designated as social care services. Is the Minister prepared to mandate ICPs, so that we have clear guidelines about that? Finally, where is the patient voice in any of this? Where are the guarantees that decisions will be made not only in public but with the public involved in the decisions that affect them locally?
We on the Opposition Benches support integration; we have long called for it. We support greater collaboration. We support the planning of health and social care delivery in local areas. We support restoring local area-based health bodies delivering care, rather than the fragmented mess we have today. We have, of course, had such bodies before—we used to have district health authorities and strategic health authorities, and some have suggested rather mischievously that we seem to be going back to what we used to have in the past.
Until the default assumptions of tendering and wasteful procurement exercises are removed from primary legislation, such secondary legislation will always create further dangers of private operators gaining control of NHS services. Until that is done, Ministers will have no one to blame but themselves if the spectre of privatisation continues to haunt their ICP plans. We oppose NHS privatisation. We oppose NHS cuts. We oppose anything that undermines the fabric of a public national health service. We oppose these regulations. We seek to annul them, and I commend our motion to the House.
The Minister for Health (Stephen Hammond)
Although we oppose the motion, I welcome the opportunity to debate the regulations. The NHS long-term plan, which was published in January, set out a clear blueprint for fully integrated community health in the NHS for the first time in its history. The plan highlighted the intention to dissolve the historical distinction between primary and community health services and to break down the traditional barriers between care institutions, teams and funding streams, so as to support the increasing number of people with long-term health conditions, rather than viewing each encounter with the health service as a single unconnected episode of care.
NHS organisations will increasingly focus on population health by delivering the so-called triple integration of primary and specialist care, physical and mental health services, and health with social care, which is consistent with what doctors have consistently reported they need. I obviously welcome the commitment from the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), to integration. Today, the integration of services can take place through collaboration and co-operation, including some local alliance arrangements. However, in some areas, people working on the ground have told us that it would be better to have a lead provider to take responsibility for the integration of services for a population through an integrated care provider contract.
It is worth making the distinction between integrated care providers, which we are discussing tonight, and integrated care systems. An integrated care system growing out of the current network of sustainability and transformation partnerships will provide a platform on which commissioners can make shared decisions with providers about how to use resources, design services and improve population health. The long-term plan has set out an ambition for all STPs to evolve into ICSs. Integrated care providers, or ICPs, will be a new way of integrating health and care services so that people’s care is co-ordinated around them.
NHS England has developed the ICP contract to enable local areas to commission local health and care services, including primary medical services through a single contract. The intention is to establish the right organisational and financial incentives for providers to collaborate in order to deliver preventive, proactive and co-ordinated care. It is important to underline that ICPs are not new types of legal entity, but provider organisations that have been awarded ICP contracts. In the long-term plan, NHS England underlined that, when the contract is made available for use, it expects ICP contracts to be held by public statutory providers, and I want to discuss that a bit more in my remarks later.
Turning to the particular statutory instrument we are discussing tonight, we have identified a number of regulations that need to be amended to allow the first ICP contract to be awarded.
Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)
In the last year, I have been on numerous Delegated Legislation Committees, and I have been shocked by the complex and far-reaching changes the Government have forced through without appropriate scrutiny. Can the Minister justify why substantive change to existing regulations should not be part of a Bill and subject to parliamentary scrutiny?
Stephen Hammond
As the hon. Lady knows, this has been subject to considerable scrutiny. It has been scrutinised by the Health and Social Care Committee, as she has already heard from its Chairman. She will also have heard that it has been subject to a number of other scrutiny processes, including judicial reviews.
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
The Minister is correct in saying that there has been some analysis of integrated care partnerships by the Health and Social Care Committee, but it has not scrutinised this statutory instrument. The Select Committee actually recommended very clearly that ACOs or ICPs should be NHS organisations. Will the Minister say why he should not accept the Committee’s recommendation?
Stephen Hammond
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the long-term plan has set out that the ICP contracts will be held by public statutory providers. That point has been made and reiterated several times not only in the Select Committee’s scrutiny, but in the remarks that the Committee and a number of people have made about privatisation. The Chairman of the Health and Social Care Committee has already intervened on the shadow Secretary of State, but she has said:
“The evidence to our inquiry was that ACOs, and other efforts to integrate health systems and social care, will not extend the scope of NHS privatisation and may effectively do the opposite.”
Dr Wollaston
Will the Minister assure the House that only public statutory providers will hold these contracts? That would be reassuring, as the language on this is not completely clear. Will he also give some assurance regarding the Select Committee’s other proposal, which is that the policy should be carefully piloted and evaluated? If it is done first in Dudley, followed by careful evaluation, I would be prepared to support it. If he cannot give reassurance on those points, it would be difficult for me to support the regulations.
Stephen Hammond
I can give the Chair of the Select Committee the assurance that the ICP contract will be made available in a controlled and incremental way, conditional on the successful completion of NHS England and NHS Improvement assurance through the integrated support and assurance process. That incremental process is, I think, in line with what she and her Committee recommended.
Jonathan Ashworth
Will the Minister confirm that, because of the competition and procurement rules and the regime brought in by the Andrew Lansley Act, he cannot rule out the possibility of an independent provider winning a contract? He might say it is unlikely, but he cannot rule out the possibility, so why does he not introduce a measure—a simple one-clause Bill, perhaps—to give the assurances that many campaigners want?
Stephen Hammond
The hon. Gentleman is right: it is highly unlikely. More than that, it is stated and restated in the long-term plan that NHS England has the clear expectation that the ICP contracts will be held by public statutory providers. He knows that, and others who have discussed this point have made it clear.
Justin Madders
I have a simple question and we would like a simple answer. Yes or no: do the Government intend to repeal section 75 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012?
Stephen Hammond
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the NHS has proposed in a recent legislative document that it looks at a number of issues. It is important that that round of engagements takes place, and the Government will consider what is said.
The majority of the amendments we propose simply ensure that the regulatory framework that applies to contractual arrangements for the provision of healthcare services continues to apply where services are provided under the new ICP contract and to those organisations that hold a contract. That is an important safeguard that, in simple terms, helps to ensure that care provided under an ICP contract is subject to all the same rules as care provided under existing and other NHS contracts, such as those governing the handling of complaints and the reimbursement of travel expenses.
The shadow Secretary of State has asked me to comment on the substantive change being proposed, underpinning the existing contractual arrangements for the provision of NHS GP services. The regulations will allow GPs who are currently providing services under existing contractual general medical services or personal medical services arrangements to suspend, rather than terminate, those arrangements in order to provide services under an ICP in what is known as a fully integrated arrangement. The British Medical Association has underlined that GPs should not be pressured into joining an ICP arrangement, and we want to make it clear to the House tonight that the participation of any individual GP practice is entirely voluntary. Any role in any ICP will be for them to decide. Allowing the suspension of GP contracts allows GPs to take part in an ICP arrangement but keeps the option available to them of returning to their previous contract.
The hon. Gentleman expressed a number of concerns about the ICPs. He implied that they had been brought in by stealth. In fact, the proposals have been subject to significant scrutiny by Parliament and the public, particularly in the past year. We have already discussed the examination of the evidence by the Health and Social Care Committee, which published a report last summer, which is, I believe, largely supportive of ICPs, recognises potential benefits and sets out helpful recommendations on introducing them in England. I have described the consultation processes previous iterations of the ICP contract and the regulations have gone through.
Moreover, as the Health and Social Care Committee was promised, NHS England has completed a full public consultation on the ICP contract and announced through the long-term plan that the ICP contract will be available for use. NHS England’s full response to the consultation was published on 15 March.
Various people have made points tonight about the privatisation of the NHS and said that ICPs are a route to privatising the NHS. They are clearly not.
Stephen Hammond
The NHS has stated clearly that NHS England’s expectation is that these contracts will be held by public statutory providers. The hon. Lady, who is making a number of points—[Interruption.] She says she is not making them, but shouting at me. Indeed, she is shouting at me.
Stephen Hammond
Oh, she is chuntering at me. While she is chuntering at me, she might like to consider what the King’s Fund has said about the claims of mass privatisation, which is that they are “hugely overstated”. I have already quoted the Chair of the Select Committee, who said that the evidence to its inquiry was that ICPs and
“other efforts to integrate health systems and social care, will not extend the scope of NHS privatisation and may effectively do the opposite.”
It is important to recognise that NHS England has taken measures to build a clearer narrative around integrated care. The long-term plan, which will be backed by £20.5 billion extra by 2023-24, will introduce integrated care for patients in England over the next decade.[Official Report, 19 March 2019, Vol. 656, c. 6MC.] Where local commissioners propose to use ICP contracts, they will have to ensure that it is an effective and beneficial option for the local area. The regulations will ensure that the healthcare of this country is improved by integrated care providers. I commend them to the House.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
As I have said in many debates, I totally support integration. That is the journey we have been on in Scotland for almost 20 years. We amalgamated some trusts after devolution, we got rid of hospital trusts in 2004 and we got rid of primary care trusts in 2009. We had the health side run by health boards, which are statutory bodies that carry out area health and social care planning for a population. The integration between health, which is free, and social care, which is means-tested, was passed in legislation and introduced in 2014.
I warn Members that that is much more difficult than integrating the NHS itself. The NHS in England has become really fragmented. It is important to put that back together before integrating it with social care. What integration stops is the arguments between acute care and social care about which purse the money comes out of to look after a particular patient, but there does have to be money in the purse to start with. In Scotland, we spend £163 a head more on health and £113 a head more on elderly social care. The money is needed to provide the service. Scotland is the one place in the United Kingdom where we provide free personal care, because we think it is cost-effective as a way of allowing people to stay at home.
The Minister says that these will be statutory bodies and that they are unlikely to be private companies. If that is what the Government believe, they should put it in legislation, because that removes any doubt or concern. The response to the consultation says that
“further requirements around financial controls, transparency and accountability will be developed before the ICP Contract is made available for use.”
When will that be? Will it be before contracts are put out? The transparency is critical. If any private companies are running ICPs, they will hide behind commercial sensitivity and will not be open to freedom of information. That would be unacceptable. What about their contracting, which is mentioned in this SI? Will section 75 be revoked so that we do not have a replay of what happened in Surrey, when commissioners tried to bring the new contract back to the NHS, were sued by Virgin for over £2 million and settled out of court?
If outsourcing continues, fragmentation rather than integration will continue. Will tariffs be abandoned because they reward admission to hospital, whereas the aim of this proposal is to support people at home? How will the components of an ICP between a main acute hospital, a small cottage hospital and social care or community services be funded? It may all sound very good if it is a gentleman’s agreement, but if one part of that system goes bankrupt because the financing system has not been changed, all bets will be off and all co-operation will disappear.
Social care is critical to this and Age UK says that well over 1 million people are not getting the social care that they need. It is necessary that the ICPs deliver prevention, early treatment, chronic disease management, acute care, mental health, social care and end of life. That is a lot of different players to bring together and it is important that the Government recognise that the Health and Social Care Act 2012 fragmented and blew apart the whole system. For integration to work, they need to admit that it failed, bring back proper legislation and put the system back together in a way that is wrapped around the patient, so that there is patient-centred, not budget-centred, care.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Promoting integrated health and care services for my constituents in Cornwall has been a top priority for me since I was elected in 2010. I am delighted that promoting integrated care is a priority for the NHS long-term plan, enabling an NHS that is increasingly joined-up and co-ordinated, overcoming the traditional barriers between care institutions, teams and funding streams.
The NHS has been developing, testing and evaluating new models of care to integrate services for some time. I was delighted to support the Kernow clinical commissioning group to participate in the integrated care and support pilots, a precursor to the vanguard programme. The vanguard programme built on that work, and evaluation shows that the new models of care enabled more people to be cared for closer to home and at home, supported by joined-up services. That leads to fewer unplanned and emergency admissions to hospital.
That learning is enabling the further changes that this SI will make. I know from conversations that I have with local commissioners of health and care services that, too often, different funding streams, organisational structures and governance arrangements get in the way of commissioning patient-centred, joined-up services for people who need support from NHS primary and secondary care, as well as Cornwall Council. The integrated care contract that we are considering tonight has been carefully consulted upon and will give a new opportunity and more choice to local health and care professionals on how they can improve the services that they provide locally. No two communities are the same. Providing world-class health and care services to people in Cornwall needs a very different approach from the approach in Manchester. I welcome the intention of the SI to enable the right clinical, organisational and financial incentives for providers to collaborate to deliver preventive, proactive and co-ordinated healthcare for the communities that they serve. This is an important SI that will enable improved patient care and I am delighted to support it tonight.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Should my Whip, who is not listening at the moment, wish me to sit down, he needs to indicate that to me and I will do exactly what I am told. The changes that we are discussing today are technical, but important. The creeping fragmentation and privatisation of our NHS, where more and more services are contracted out to unaccountable profit-making companies, has occurred precisely because of such obscure, technical changes.
My constituents need integrated care services across different organisations, as well as more preventive health and public health action. That is urgent, it should be a priority, and there should be legislation and full debate to make it happen. Currently, just 54% of my constituents—barely more than half—receive the breast cancer screenings they need. We have lower rates of physical activity than the national and London averages, as well as higher rates of smoking, and 44% of local children leave primary school obese. If the legislation we are talking about were just about joining up care for patients, creating genuine efficiency by avoiding duplication of services, or enabling patients to receive effective care closer to home in the community, rather than in hospital, I would absolutely welcome it.
Jonathan Ashworth
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I hope she continues to make an excellent speech. On the point about what is happening in east London, there is a very good integrated programme there for dealing with diabetes. The point is this: there are very good examples of integration taking place across the country without the need for this contract, which could usher in greater privatisation.
Lyn Brown
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I believe, and I know he believes, that these changes are important and should not be done by statutory instrument. The goal of healthcare integration can and should be pursued with the full scrutiny provided by primary legislation.
Locally, these plans have raised huge concerns. Currently, Newham is in a sustainability and transformation partnership with seven other boroughs—Havering, Redbridge, Barking and Dagenham, Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets, Hackney and the City of London. Those are really very different places, not only politically but in terms of age, ethnicity and levels of deprivation. Any integration plan that covers that wide an area will be incredibly difficult to get right.
I understand that the current thinking is more about dividing that eight-borough STP into three new integrated care systems, or ICSs. Newham will be lumped together with Waltham Forest and Tower Hamlets. I am very worried that pushing these areas together, with one extremely overstretched budget, will result in money being taken away from my constituents in Newham, whose needs are extremely high. If the Government were talking about enabling greater integration at local authority level, where democratically elected councillors could be properly involved, the issue would not be that much of a concern.
To be frank, I have absolutely no confidence that there would even be a proper consultation about integrating Newham into a three-borough ICS. I know that that is what local leaders expect only because I asked them about it before the debate. I am told that not one health body locally actually wanted to sign up to the STP—not one local body. But that did not matter to those who are really in control, so it was just put in place anyway as the East London Health & Care Partnership. This supposed partnership was given an incredibly complicated governance structure. Again, no one actually wanted it. That was not because health bodies do not want to collaborate; it was because this Government’s failed reforms do not have the confidence of clinicians.
There are many basic questions that need to be answered and that have not been. I have five for tonight. One, how do the Government plan to prevent fragmentation, given that there are so many different ways that these arrangements could be made? Two, how will existing borough-level partnerships slot into these new structures? Three, how are dedicated NHS staff, elected local representatives or even—horror!—patients themselves going to have control over how these structures are implemented, which areas are joined together and which services are included? Who will have that control?
Four, once one of these integrated bodies has been set up, what actual accountability will there be? As we know, public health and social care services are currently in the hands of councils. Even beyond that, many health and wellbeing objectives are the statutory responsibility of local councils too. Therein lies accountability to local people, but it is totally unclear to me how councillors will be able to hold the new ICPs to account in turn. If those new bodies are going to be responsible for making decisions, they should have to be transparent and accountable. I am not at all opposed to the integration of services, but we must create more accountability, and not risk losing the little that is currently there.
My fifth and final question is this. How will the Government guarantee to my constituents that this change will not become another back-door privatisation? How can they reassure me that the enormous, inefficient, profiteering “health maintenance organisation” monsters that exist in the United States will not be given a foothold here in exchange for, say, a trade deal post Brexit? This is what I find most offensive about the statutory instrument. Ministers have been offered the chance, time and again, to say that private companies will not be able to act as integrated care providers, and will not be able to bid for the huge contracts that will be created. But I have heard no good reason why the Government will not make those commitments.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
The House of Commons Library recently confirmed that 26 health service contracts worth more than £128 million are currently out to tender, on the basis of legislation that NHS England recently urged the Government to repeal. Does my hon. Friend not think that private companies should be blocked from securing these contracts, and that the Government should deal with the counter- productive effect that these competition rules and powers have on the integrity of NHS care? There is a branch of Virgin Care in my local community. Someone who attends a podiatry appointment, for example, will be told that no qualified staff are on hand, but only people who can cut nails. It is outrageous that those people are being paid on the same basis as everyone else.
Lyn Brown
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Private companies are able to work within the structure set out in primary legislation such as the 2012 Act. The Minister said in an interview that one of the reasons why we cannot have this in a Bill is that it would be too complicated to draft. As far as I can see, however, it is quite simple. The Government should bring forward new legislation to put these reforms on a proper transparent footing with full scrutiny, and should argue for the decisions that they want to make—including decisions about openness to private contractors, if that is something that, ideologically, they want to defend.
The Government should give the English electorate a plan that they can see and can judge for themselves. The Government should tell the electorate what they are doing with the NHS. My feeling is that their proposals are contained in an SI because they hoped that they would slip by, would not be seen and would not be judged, but I tell the Minister that he will be judged.
Question put.
The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 20 March (Standing Order No. 41A).
Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With the leave of the House, motions 4 and 5 will be debated together.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)
I beg to move,
That the draft Organic Production (Control of Imports) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 13 February, be approved.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this we will consider the following motion:
That the draft Organic Production and Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 13 February, be approved.
David Rutley
These statutory instruments are made under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 which incorporates EU law into UK domestic law on exit. This Act also gives powers to the UK to make amendments to the retained law to make it operative. One of the things these instruments do is take powers currently held by the Commission and transfer them to the appropriate Ministers in the UK.
These instruments are grouped as they both relate to amendments to EU organic legislation, namely Council Regulation (EC) No. 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and Commission Regulation (EC) No. 889/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No. 834/2007, with regard to organic production labelling and control, and Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1235/2008 laying down detailed rules for implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No. 834/2007 as regards the arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries.
I should make it clear that the instruments do not make any changes to policies; they are purely technical in nature. They correct technical deficiencies in organics legislation to ensure it remains operable on exit and to preserve the organic standards of the current regime. The Government are strongly supportive of organic standards, many of which were developed in the UK and adopted by the EU. The UK has a world-recognised standard of food production and labelling which we wish to see maintained.
The UK organics industry is currently regulated by EU law, which sets out standards for organic production. Regulations apply to the production of food, animal feed and livestock, including bees and farmed fish, marketed as organic. The regulations set out the requirements for organic production, processing, labelling and imports as well as the inspection systems that must be in place to ensure the requirements are met. They stipulate that organic food must be inspected and certified within the scope of a tightly regulated framework and originate from businesses registered and approved by organic control bodies on the basis of a rigorous annual inspection.
The UK has over 6,000 organic operators and the sector is worth over £2.3 billion in the UK economy. Many operators are farmers and small and medium-sized enterprises. Indeed, the Soil Association reports that in 2018 the organic sector was worth £2.3 billion to the UK economy, with organic sales increasing by 5.3% in 2018. The market is in its seventh year of growth. Home delivery of organic produce through online and box schemes is growing fastest, at 14.2%, and independent retailers maintain strong sales of organic, with sales increasing by 6.2%. Key categories driving growth in the market are beers, wines and spirits and chilled foods, and in 2017 exports are estimated to be worth £225 million, excluding food from other processing and animal feed. Ambient grocery products, which include tinned and packaged food, are the largest export.
The first instrument, the Organic Production (Control of Imports) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 makes operable retained EU legislation in Council Regulation (EC) No. 834/2007. Commission Regulation (EC) No. 889/2008 and Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1235/2008 deal with reserved measures covering imports and trade in organic food, feed and vegetative propagating material or seeds for cultivation. For example, the instrument transposes powers from the Commission to the Secretary of State to recognise countries and control bodies that can operate for the purposes of export to the UK. Organic control bodies in third countries will be able to apply to the UK to be recognised to certify products from around the world to import to the UK.
The instrument also sets out minor technical amendments and maintains the status quo until 31 December 2020. To maintain the status quo, this SI gives recognition to certified organic products imported from the EU, the EEA and Switzerland for 21 months. The instrument also applies for the same period of time limit during which the UK would not require additional border checks for organic products imported from the EU, EEA and Switzerland.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend will, I hope, come to this later in his speech, but how will we ensure that the standards of our organic farmers in the UK are not undermined if we are not overly attentive of what is being shipped in at the borders?
David Rutley
My hon. Friend can be assured that we are in no way seeking to water down our standards. We will no doubt talk further about that during the rest of the debate.
The approach that I have referred to responds to industry concerns and helps to maintain continuity, ensuring a flow of products. The organic regulations will now apply to imports at UK borders rather than EU borders and will ensure the continued regulation and certification of imported organic products to the standards currently applicable in the UK—I underline that point. The import system allows traceability of each product at all stages of production, preparation and distribution. This gives consumers confidence that imported organic products have been produced to the same high standards as UK organic produce.
The draft Organic Production and Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 ensure that organic standards remain the same for organic operators within the UK by making operable EU legislation in Council regulation 834/2007 and Commission regulation 889/2008. Without these amendments, part of the legislation would not be operable when applied in a UK-only context—for example, references to the UK as a member state. The certification and traceability of organic food and feed products will continue and standards will remain the same. This instrument sets out minor technical amendments. It also references the time-limited period of 21 months during which we would not require additional border checks for organic products being imported from the EU, European economic area and Switzerland.
The first set of regulations concerns reserved matters, as these regulations relate to the control of imports and exports. The second set concerns devolved matters. That is why we have two SIs before us today. Although there is no formal duty to consult as there are no substantive changes to the status quo, we have engaged with the United Kingdom Organic Certifiers Group, UKOCG, and from that engagement it is clear at the outset that the UK organic control bodies are particularly concerned about continuing recognition of UK certified organic products by the EU and recognition of EU imports by the UK. Our decision to continue to recognise products from the EU, EEA and Switzerland for a time-limited period has been welcomed by the group as it provides certainty on imports for the immediate future. We continue to work closely with the group on this and on the future implementation of the UK regulations.
These statutory instruments apply to the United Kingdom, and we have worked with the devolved Administrations on their development. Officials have had very helpful discussions with their counterparts in the DAs, and we are working with them on all aspects of the organics regime to form an agreement on how we can all work together moving forward.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister is probably aware that concern has been expressed by some agri-food companies in my constituency, although perhaps not those in the organic business, about packaging, labels and access to those things. There seem to be some delays either from the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland or the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs here in London. They are asking what food stamp they will have to have on their packaging so that they can export their products. There is some cloudiness or mystery about exactly what that will be. Can the Minister clarify where we are?
David Rutley
I understand, I think, the hon. Gentleman’s point, in the sense that there are a number of labelling issues, as he appreciates—I know he is an expert in these matters. I think the point he is making is about the EU logo, which is mandatory for all products packaged in the EU. In the event of no deal, such products should not use the EU organic logo, but producers can continue to use the logos of their organic control body and certification code and sell in the UK and in countries that have agreed that the UK has sufficiently similar organic standards. That said, as he knows, there are still issues—I have no doubt that Members will speak about this—to do with the EU’s recognition of UK organics. There are issues with labelling that I can take up with him in more detail separately.
I will now wrap up my initial remarks, hear what other Members have to say and come back to these points in more detail. These measures remain essential to ensure that UK organic businesses can maintain their organic certification. These statutory instruments will ensure that the strict standards in place for organic production are maintained when we leave the European Union. I commend them to the House.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to be taking part in this debate at this fairly late hour. We could have done this in a Committee Room upstairs at 6 o’clock, so it is good to know that the timetabling really is working well. At least we have a packed Gallery wanting to listen to our every word. We would not have had that if we had been doing this upstairs at 6 o’clock, because our Second Delegated Legislation Committee earlier was also packed—with no members of the public. There is something about what we are saying or doing that is not quite hitting the public’s imagination. However, these draft regulations relate to an important issue for the organic industry. The topic of the earlier Committee—the movement of animals—was also important, for reasons that I set out then, and I do not intend to repeat them.
The Lords debated the two statutory instruments that we are considering now on 13 March, so there has been some scrutiny. However, our caveat, as always, is that the process has been terribly rushed, and none of us knows quite what the repercussions will be. Although the civil servants are doing a wonderful job of cutting and pasting 43 years’-worth of European regulations, no one knows how well that is being done. We will not see the impact for some time, but there will be an impact.
We do not have any particular problem with taking the two statutory instruments together, but the issue at the heart of all this, as has been picked up by the National Farmers Union and the Soil Association, is to what extent we can guarantee that the quality of our organic industry will not be undermined by cheaper imports. That is a real threat, because the proposed trade deals are with countries that have different organic standards. The US, for example, does things very differently from us when it comes to the treatment of organic produce, both in growing it and in trying to keep it as fresh as possible for as long as possible.
It took some time to work all this regulation through with our EU neighbours. There was no quick fix, and our approach to organic standards is different from that of some other EU countries. It is good to see the former Minister, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), in his place, because he signed off one of these statutory instruments, so I am glad that he has come to check that we are doing a good job. He may have something to say about what he did in signing it off. The draft regulations are about ensuring that we not only do not dilute our standards, but keep our export markets in place. The last thing we want is to shut down our potential future exports when we have been successful. Even though we are still a major importer of organic produce, we have a good reputation based on what we sell abroad.
I have some questions for the Minister; it would be a surprise if I did not. The first is about what would happen if we crashed out of the EU on 29 March. What guarantees that existing regulations and, dare I say, the certification bodies are able to handle a purely UK-based measure of good organic quality? We already have different measures, as there are six mainland bodies and two from Northern Ireland, about which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will no doubt say something later. We need to be absolutely clear that those bodies can undertake proper scrutiny of what is good-quality food, because if our standards slip, we will lose our export markets.
Although the Soil Association is by far the largest certification body, it is not the only one, so if things go wrong next week, what is in place to ensure that this industry, which is a microcosm of British agriculture, but a very important part of it, can cope with whatever is coming its way? Those are the concerns that have been expressed to me and, no doubt, the Minister. If we go through this transition period, as we hope, we will have 21 months available. What measures will be put in place to ensure that we do not in any way undermine the quality of produce in this country during that period? Labelling is so important. In this area of agriculture, we need to know that what is on the label is actually being delivered. We have to get that right, but we also have to be clear that anyone in the EU from whom we import materials during those 21 months is keeping to their side of the bargain.
This is really about how important the Government see this industry as being. It is still a nascent industry in which we want more farmers involved; 6,000 producers are defined as organic, and we want that number to increase, because this is a successful niche market. We would hope that the Government had good strategies to ensure that growth continues.
As usual, I have my ask about access to the TRACES—trade control and expert system—database. Presumably, that has been pretty important in enabling us to know that things that are defined as organic across the EU can be defined in that way, and so can be put on a database in which there is some commonality. What progress is being made on that? I asked the Minister earlier about the animal issues that we were looking at during debate on the agricultural statutory instrument. It would be interesting to know what progress the Government were making on the alternative to the TRACES database, or whether they are able to pay money to keep their place on the database. I am not totally sure about that. In the interim, will we be stuck with some manual processing of the certification measures?
It would have been helpful if we had got the Agriculture Bill through, because what we are dealing with here might have been part and parcel of that. Sadly, we hear nothing of the Agricultural Bill or, sadly for my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), the Fisheries Bill. We rushed through those before Christmas, so that we could have a comprehensive approach to fishing and agriculture, but sadly those Bills seem to have disappeared into the ether. I hope that we will not be faced with their having to be reintroduced in a new Session, as some of us worked hard on them. It would be hard for some of us to have to go through them all again, given that even though we disagreed on elements of those Bills, we did make some progress. We were hoping that on Third Reading, and particularly on Report, we would be able to make further progress and improvements to that legislation.
In conclusion, I hope that the Government have got the message that we have tried to play our part in scrutiny, and in looking seriously at these important bits of legislation, albeit at nearly half-past 10 at night. We have a number of other SIs before us this week— I believe I have seven, which for me is a record—so we will be meeting on a regular basis. It is important that we undertake this scrutiny to the best of our ability, and we can do that only if the Government are absolutely clear on why they are bringing legislation forward, and on how they will at least maintain standards and, if at all possible, improve them.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
I rise to support these two statutory instruments. I will be brief because, although I intended to serve on the original Committee, I appreciate that I have not had a chance to give you a great deal of notice of my intention to speak in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I pay tribute to our civil service and the officials in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who, on these regulations and many others, have done a sterling job in making sure that retained EU law is operable should we leave without an agreement at the end of this month. Over the past six months, I have seen at first hand the huge amount of work put in by DEFRA officials, working late at night, to ensure that we have such statutory instruments in place so that retained EU law is operable when we leave.
We often read media reports that we are not ready for a no-deal exit and that we could not possibly leave without an agreement, and on that basis Parliament decided last week to vote to say that we should not leave without a withdrawal agreement. My experience in the Department until quite recently is that a huge amount of work has been put in, and the civil service has made sure it is an option for us to leave without an agreement, should that be necessary and should Parliament have the courage to do so. Obviously, we will find out in the next couple of weeks whether, indeed, that is still necessary.
Both sets of regulations, in common with all statutory instruments tabled under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, make very minor changes simply to make existing retained EU law operable.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my fear that people working extremely hard very late at night to get through vast quantities of regulations might make some mistakes?
George Eustice
No, I do not. Having worked in DEFRA for five and a half years, I have tremendous admiration and respect for all those people. Although they work very hard through the night, somebody will mark and check their work the next day. That is how our civil service works, and it has made a sterling effort to make sure we have all these regulations in order.
As a general rule, almost every regulation of these two statutory instruments substitutes “Secretary of State” for “European Commission”. These regulations are not complicated but rather straightforward. We often hear a lot about so-called Henry VIII powers in such debates, and there is a suspicion that, through the use of statutory instruments, we might be making changes to primary legislation that should not be made.
In truth, the most pernicious use of a Henry VIII power in modern times has been section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, which has run rampant through whole pieces of primary legislation, even important flagship Acts that predate our membership of the European Union. We are in a rather odd situation in debating on the Floor of the House whether it is okay to change “European Commission” to “Secretary of State”, as the original powers implied by these statutory instruments were imposed by the European Union without any debate in this House, typically through either an implementing Act or a delegated Act, and therefore with little or no scrutiny by the European Parliament and often with little or no scrutiny by the European Council. The role of this Parliament, if it was lucky, was to receive an explanatory memorandum but, by and large, only ever to receive letters to the European Scrutiny Committee advising on what the European Union had done to us.
Nevertheless, this is what taking back control means. It means that our Parliament, for once, is starting to take an interest in these matters, rather than leaving them to the European Union.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I pay enormous tribute to my hon. Friend. I was his Parliamentary Private Secretary when he was an Agriculture Minister, and I went through a great amount of this important work with him. On organic standards, is it not the case that we very much see ourselves as setting the bar not just nationally but across Europe and across the world, that we have influenced Europe on these standards and that we ought to keep these standards as high, if not higher, in leaving?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, that is exactly what the regulations are about. We have had some influence on the organics regulations. Indeed, when I first became Agriculture Minister, something called the organics dossier was going through the European Parliament, and it concluded that journey only around six or nine months ago. Along with the smarter rules for safer food dossier, it became something of an internal joke about an interminable debate taking place in the European Union. In the end, we managed to get that agreement into something that was satisfactory to us, although it meant that not much had changed.
Finally, let me recognise something in the statutory instrument related to the control of imports. As the shadow Minister said, we are indeed ready to replace the EU trade control and expert system with a new UK system that has been in development in DEFRA for at least the past nine months. There has been a prototype version for several months and it will be ready to replace TRACES from the point at which we leave the European Union. I welcome the Minister’s point about the recognition of existing EU logos and standards for a 21-month period. Of course, we all hope that the European Union will do the honourable and sensible thing and reciprocate.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
You wait ages for one Drew to come along, Madam Deputy Speaker, and then two come along together.
Agriculture is a critical industry for the rural communities throughout Scotland. It is very important to the people who elected me and many of my colleagues. The regulations are part of a process that takes away rights from people, takes away guarantees and opportunity, takes away power from the Scottish Parliament and puts business and food production at severe risk.
The agriculture sector in Scotland currently depends on 10,000 non-UK migrant workers in the soft fruit and vegetable sectors for the harvest in the summer and autumn, especially in the highlands. Tens of millions of pounds could be lost as there is no certainty about whether the LEADER programme will continue. The programme has provided £50 million from the EU with match funding of £50 million. Nor is there any certainty that funding for agri-environment schemes that support climate-change objectives will be available post-Brexit. That means a potential loss of around £40 million per year.
No rural constituency in Scotland voted for Brexit—none of them voted in favour of leaving the EU—yet Scotland is having to leave with the rest of the UK. All Brexit scenarios are bad for Scotland. We are 11 days away from leaving the EU and we still do not know whether we will leave with no deal or, if there is a deal, how that will affect rural Scotland. All sectors of the Scottish rural economy would be negatively affected by a no-deal Brexit, but the farming and food and drink sectors are particularly exposed. Brexit is bad for our EU friends, neighbours and colleagues.
A no-deal Brexit is projected to result in EU migration falling and potentially turning negative. That would create skills shortages for industries such as agriculture and food processing, which, as I said, rely on EU and seasonal workers. EU citizens who are currently working and living in the rural economy will be able to stay only if they apply for settled status. The Migration Advisory Committee’s proposals and the £30,000 salary requirement for skilled workers would mean that many sectors in Scotland’s rural economy would find it hard to recruit seasonal migrant workers.
Under the common agricultural policy, the EU provides £500 million for Scotland’s rural economy. There have been no guarantees from the UK Government on that funding after 2020. We do not know whether funding will be available to pay farmers and crofters after the scheme year 2021; the UK’s guarantee on agricultural support is to the end of this Parliament only.
The food and drink sector estimates that a no-deal Brexit could lead to a loss of £2 billion-worth of food and drink sales, with implications for the rural communities where many producers are based. We will lose the European Food Safety Authority’s expertise in the risk assessing of marketing applications for genetically modified organisms, unless the UK remains in the European economic area or European Free Trade Association after leaving the EU.
Owing to strict health rules, the EU bans the importation of seed potatoes from third countries with the exception of Switzerland. Therefore, leaving without a deal would close the EU market to around 20,000 to 30,000 tonnes of seed potatoes exported annually, which currently generates around £6 million.
There is no certainty that the alternative markets for this seed, at home and abroad, can be found, resulting potentially in price depression across the whole of the Scottish seed industry. We will no longer be part of the EU’s Community Plant Variety Office and if we leave without a deal, applications for registrations of plant varieties and intellectual property protection will have to be made in both the UK and the EU, resulting in a doubling of registration costs for plant breeders. We will also not have access to the advisory group on food chain and animal and plant health, which covers Scotland’s tree health interests.
The Scottish Government’s position is that the EU organics legislation is devolved and that functions in the proposed regulations could be exercised for a devolved purpose. The provisions in the organics legislation are observing and implementing obligations under the CAP. These should not be transferred solely to the Secretary of State. Food standards, post-Brexit, will be a critical issue and it is crucial that neither food safety nor standards are diluted or diminished. That is a commitment that should be legislated for in the forthcoming Report stage of the Agriculture Bill.
The stockpiling of food in preparation for Brexit demonstrates the drastic effect that the Brexit process has on the most basic of human needs. It is scandalous that this is even having to be considered. The UK Government must now either extend article 50 and set in motion plans to hold a second EU referendum with remain on the ballot paper or revoke article 50. Staying in the EU is the best for all. It is what Scotland and Northern Ireland voted for. It is the only way to protect jobs, living standards, our public services, economy and food standards and supply. Scotland did not vote for Brexit and we should not be dragged out of the EU against our will. The way that Scotland has been treated throughout means that the case for Scottish independence has never been stronger.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate; I think that we should perhaps get back to organic farming. It is nice to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice). I would like to put on the record my thanks for all the work that he did as Minister and all the great, detailed help that he has given the whole agriculture sector over this five-year period.
I welcome this debate tonight. We must remember that organic production in the UK is probably one of the best—if not the best—in the world. Converting to organics takes longer in this country than it does in other EU countries, even under present legislation. We must remember that our poultry, pig, beef, lamb and dairy industries all operate under very high standards of organic production and people respect and trust that production. We must remember, as we move forwards, to make sure that imports meet our very, very high standards.
We also have a lot of vegetable and fruit production, but much of that is organic. Again, it needs a great deal of labour. If a farmer weeds organically, they are not using any form of chemicals to destroy those weeds, which means that they have to use extra labour in order to keep that production going. We may in the future be able to electrocute weeds provided that we get them at a very early age. Seriously, this is something that may well help with the labour requirements in production in the future, but again that will not happen overnight, so we must be realistic as we move forward. I agree very much with the Minister and the previous Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth, that DEFRA has done an awful lot of work to prepare either for a deal on Brexit or for no deal.
We can deal well with the imports of organic food, because we can bring products in, check the standards and ensure that they flow freely into the country. Where I have slightly more of a problem—DEFRA has admitted this to me, although it is not its fault—is that every time the Department contacts the European Union about registering as a third country and ensuring that there is third country equivalence, we just do not get a reply. To a degree, we can let the imports flow in because we can recognise the previous EU standards, but it will be much more difficult to get that food across the channel if the EU decides to play hardball.
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an important point about being listed as a third country so that exports can continue. Shortly before I left the Department, there was a request from the European Union that we dynamically align our regulations for a period of nine months, and in return the EU would recognise our third country status from the start. We are obviously willing to agree to that.
Neil Parish
I very much welcome that comment, because two or three weeks ago, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee went to DEFRA, where we saw the regulations being laid out and had a look at what was happening. I welcome what my hon. Friend said, but I reiterate that as much as I may love our French cousins, they can be very difficult when it comes to trading into the European Union. Much of our produce will have to pass from Dover through into Calais, and we have to be absolutely certain that they will process our food and let it into the EU.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Ind)
My hon. Friend rightly makes the point that we can unilaterally decide to be freer about letting goods come across our border. However, surely one issue is that a free-for-all and a lack of proper checking could put the organic sector at risk.
Neil Parish
The hon. Lady raises a good point. Milk production is a good example. Organics is a selected market; although a good number of people buy organics, there is a ceiling of around 10% of people who actually buy organics overall. Therefore, exporting organic food is as important as importing it. On the dairy side of organics, the big milk co-operative Omsco trades very successfully into the United States, but that has to be maintained—and we must have the certification, and all these other things must work, in order for that to happen. That is why we have to be very careful to ensure that we can trade successfully in a no-deal situation.
I spent a number of years in the European Parliament, so I know that our great French cousins are able, for example, to stop cheese coming in from Holland when they suddenly decide that there might be a problem with it and that it might actually help the French market to keep it out for a while. The European Commission then challenges them, and eventually they capitulate and the cheese comes back in from Holland. The point that I am making quite clearly tonight is: let us go in with our eyes open to the fact that there could well be a problem in the future if we do not get these rules right and recognised, and if we do not actually get that produce back into the EU. As we leave the European Union, it is very important that we take as much of trade with us as possible, and then we can also have future trading relationships across the world.
Thank you for letting me speak in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I am delighted to take part in this debate.
The organic sector in this country prides itself on its high standards. We set a very high bar and are renowned for expertise in this area. Indeed, we have been leaders in the field globally. I therefore welcome these regulations ensuring that our organic standards will remain exactly as they are when we leave the EU. We will embrace the current regulations but I am led to believe that, as and when the EU, after we have exited, decides that it might change its regulations, we will consider the regulations and decide, on their merits, whether they are right for us and whether to adopt them. This is one of the benefits of leaving, in that we can start to plan much more freely for ourselves.
Crucially, we have to keep these high standards. That is very important because we currently have 6,000 organic producers in this country who will be wanting certainty so that they can continue business as usual. We have many such businesses in the south-west.
Rebecca Pow
I will of course give way to a fellow Member from the south-west.
Peter Heaton-Jones
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She raises exactly the right point. It is good to see so many south-west constituencies represented across the House today. It is a very important region for producers in the organic sector. The crucial point is that many of them are very small businesses. They are often not large farms or large producers but small farmhouse-table businesses. These small producers with narrow margins have to know where they stand and get certainty. That is why this statutory instrument, and all the work that was done under the previous Minister and is being done under the current Ministers, is vital.
Rebecca Pow
Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend—I could not agree more. He is right about the south-west. I was going to name just some of the businesses in the area. We have Riverford Organic Farmers, which has franchises all over the region; there may be some in his constituency. We have Merricks Organic Farm in Langport and Stream Farm in the Quantocks. They often do a whole range of products—beef, chicken, lamb, and even trout and strawberries. They are holistic but often small businesses that are absolutely dependent on keeping the purity of the standards for organic produce.
Bill Wiggin
What I find most important is that the consumer has confidence, when they see what the label says, that that is actually what they are going to buy. That is not always true of pasture-fed produce, but it needs to be. The support that the organic sector has had from the legislation and the Government has been tremendous. I would like us to spread this much further and encourage more businesses like those my hon. Friend mentioned. I hope she agrees.
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I thoroughly agree. I know that his own beef animals are pasture-fed—an excellent system in its own right that is really good for sequestering carbon in the grass. He is so right about the labelling. The consumer needs to know what they are buying. That is why these regulations are really important. If people are buying organic, they need to know that it is organic and up to our high standards, not some watered-down standards from somewhere else.
We have quite a large number of organic milk farms, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) mentioned. In Somerset, we have Coombe Farm Organic—milk producers who have three main farms and 1,000 cows. It is imperative for companies such as that that we know that their produce is organic, why it has been classed as organic and that it has been checked. Often, it has been checked by the Soil Association, which is the main organisation in this country that certifies organic produce. It has 27,000 members and is very much valued. It developed the world’s first organic certification system, way back in 1967. The standards have been widened since that time, so they encompass agriculture, aquaculture, ethical trade—I have a company in my constituency, Hambleden Herbs, that imports lots of spices and herbs, all organic—food processing, forestry and horticulture. It is really important that we maintain this system of standards so that these businesses can carry on operating from day one on leaving the EU and we can know that they are doing the right thing. It is important that we keep our high standards.
The organic sector is valuable, as we have heard—it brings £2.2 billion per annum to the UK economy, and our exports are worth £200 million, so that is also significant. The sector is growing because there is now a lot more emphasis on what we might call environmental farming or eco-farming. That is all referenced in the Agriculture Bill, the new environmental land management schemes, the 25-year environment plan and the forthcoming environment Bill. I believe that the organic system will grow, which is why it is even more important that we maintain our standards.
Just today, as luck would have it, I hosted an event on soil in Westminster, which was attended by more than 200 people. We talked about the degradation of our soils and the cost to the economy, which is a staggering £1.2 billion a year. I am pleased to say that there is a great deal of talk about soil going on through the Bills that are being introduced. The way to prevent soil degradation is to introduce policies that ensure healthy soils and biodiversity, with all the things that soil brings to us, including carbon capture, which will help with our climate change targets and mitigation—I see the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth sitting on the Front Bench—as well as flood resilience and providing healthy food.
Inevitably this soil health agenda will drive us towards management systems that are along more environmentally friendly farming lines and, for purists, along more organic lines. The standards will remain very necessary, as they will if we work towards improving biodiversity in this country, which is equally important. For example, there has been a desperate crash in insect numbers here and globally, with flying insect populations globally down by two thirds. Insects are the workforces of agriculture—they pollinate our crops, and we rely on them. The sustainability of the planet depends on redressing these crashes in biodiversity across the board for all sorts of species. That inevitably means that we will use less pesticides and adopt more environmentally friendly methods of farming through land management systems, and if we head towards organic, the standards that we will maintain through the regulations will be more important than ever. The regulations apply to imports and exports; that is very important. We must ensure that they cover vegetative material for propagation in the horticultural industry and others and seeds for cultivation.
One of the most exciting and interesting television series I ever presented back in the day was called “Loads More Muck and Magic”. It was an organic gardening series—I think it was the only one ever on television—on Channel 4. It was filmed in conjunction with the Henry Doubleday Research Association, which was the expert in organic growing at the time and is now called Garden Organic. That series instilled in me a great knowledge; I learned a great deal. I will never profess to be an expert, but I realised what purists organic farmers are and how valuable they are to the environment. They remain so, and I believe they will have more influence. The regulations will ensure that those standards are maintained, and I fully support them.
David Rutley
This debate has been interesting; I think we should do it more often at this hour. I will keep this short, because my good friends in the Whips Office are giving me the evil eye—I always want to ensure that I do what they want—and I know that Madam Deputy Speaker is keen for us to move quickly on.
We have had some fantastic contributions, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow). I did not know about her involvement with “Loads More Muck and Magic”, but clearly we have some real talent and expertise on this subject in the House, for which we are grateful. We also heard the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin).
I want to reassure the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) that there will not be a free-for-all. In my brief comments, I hope I can reassure her, the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) and others who raised concerns about this issue. We are committed to ensuring that the UK maintains its high standards for organic production and retains a strong testing regime for organic goods. The hon. Member for Stroud talked about control bodies. They will continue to certify operators as they do now. They are all accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service as suitable to be a certification body, and that important work will continue. Before the UK accepts any applications from third countries or control bodies, rigorous checks will be carried out to ensure that the current high organic standards in the UK will be maintained.
Comments have been made about TRACES. We are replacing the TRACES NT import system, which is different from TRACES, with a manual system for an interim period for organics, until an electronic replacement is available. The manual system mirrors the one that was in place 17 months ago. A trial with a number of importers, with support from port health authorities, is being carried out to refine guidance, and it will help to ensure a smooth transition. We are looking at autumn 2020 for the electronic replacement.
There are of course opportunities ahead, not least because my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) was the Minister of State. He was an illustrious Minister of State, which is probably an understatement, given that he was in post for five years. He carried out really important work to set out the framework for the Agriculture Bill. I am really pleased to have sitting beside me his successor as the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill)—another outstanding Minister—who is just back in the Chamber, hotfoot from the EU Agriculture Council meeting today. The Agriculture Bill sets out how farmers and land managers will in the future be paid for public goods, such as better air and water quality and improved soil health. All of this will help the organic sector to move further forward.
We are working with organic and control bodies, and we have been holding technical discussions with the European Commission about the UK’s organic third-country recognition and to explore routes to help to ensure that UK organic products can continue to access the EU market. I recognise the fact that we have heard from both the former Minister of State and the current Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and I hope that the EU will be listening to their very wise words.
We had a wide-ranging—and wide, I would say—speech from the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). [Interruption.] No, not him, but his comments. He made points about devolution, but these statutory instruments apply to the United Kingdom, and we have worked with the devolved Administrations on their development. Officials have had very helpful discussions with counterparts in the devolved Administrations, not least in the Scottish Government—I was up there speaking to one of the Ministers about this—and we are working with them on all aspects of the organics regime to form an agreement on how we will all work together. I thank them for their work on these important statutory instruments in recent months.
I conclude by saying that, for the reasons I have set out, I commend these statutory instruments to the House.
Question put.
The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 20 March (Standing Order No. 41A).
Motion made, and Question put,
That the draft Organic Production and Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 13 February, be approved.—(David Rutley.)
The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 20 March (Standing Order No. 41A).
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 6 to 16 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118 (6)),
Exiting the European Union (Animals)
That the draft Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 14 February, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)
That the draft Food and Feed (Chernobyl and Fukushima Restrictions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 4 February, be approved.
That the draft Food and Feed (Maximum Permitted Levels of Radioactive Contamination) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 4 February, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Food)
That the draft Food and Feed Imports (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 5 February, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)
That the draft Official Controls for Feed, Food and Animal Health and Welfare (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 4 February, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Public Procurement)
That the draft Public Procurement (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 11 February, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Architects)
That the draft Architects Act 1997 (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 18 February, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Criminal Law)
That the draft Criminal Justice (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 11 February, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Private International Law)
That the draft Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non-Contractual Obligations (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 11 February, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Legal Profession)
That the draft Services of Lawyers and Lawyer’s Practice (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 12 February, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Family Law)
That the draft Jurisdiction and Judgments (Family) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 14 February, be approved.—(Jeremy Quin.)
Question agreed to.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE Committee
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Selection Committee only makes recommendations to the House. Last week, we had objections to our recommendations. Normally, we would hope that the House would come to a decision. That has not happened. I am rather hoping that, sometime this week, time will be found for the House to make a decision because Members are affected by the make-up of Select Committees. Perhaps the objection we have heard this evening might also be considered, so that the Members concerned at least know what is likely to happen.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving me notice of it. I understand that some previous Select Committee membership changes that were objected to appear on tomorrow’s Order Paper and can be debated. I am sure he understands that it is a matter for the Government to decide when to provide time for the debate on the change objected to tonight, but the Ministers on the Treasury Bench will have heard his words, and I am sure they will feed that back through the appropriate channels.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Ind)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you give some guidance on whether the objection raised today will be debated at the same time as last week’s objections, or will the debate have to take place on a different date?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
As I understand it, it may be possible for Select Committee changes to be debated together, but it is a matter for the Government to decide whether to take that matter tomorrow or to take it separately.
Transition Towns and Fossil Fuels
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Last week on the Radio 4 “Today” programme, one topic was covered every day several times. I am of course talking about Svalbard—no, not that other topic, which is taking our attention away from virtually everything else, but Svalbard, a Norwegian archipelago in the Arctic ocean roughly midway between mainland Norway and the north pole. As well as beautiful tundra, fossils, rich geology, incredible flora and fauna, including polar bears, there are glaciers as far as the eye can see, but climate change is happening much more rapidly in the far north, and as temperatures rise, the ice melts, with serious consequences for us all. The international director of the Norwegian Polar Institute, Kim Holman, who lives in Longyearbyen on Svalbard, says of climate change that:
“this town is certainly the place where it’s happening first and fastest and even the most.”
Holman notes that Svalbard used to be where students came to observe Arctic conditions, and now it is the place they come to study climate change.
Svalbard is indeed a hotbed of scientific research. In just one month last year, there were more than 600 scientists from 23 countries doing research on and around Svalbard. One of those scientists was my very own niece, Aliyah Debbonaire, who is researching the microbiology of those melting glaciers for her PhD. Understanding these microbes may help us to solve other urgent global problems, such as antimicrobial resistance, but her research is a race against time—against the global emergency which is climate change.
There is little doubt that fossil fuels are responsible for the vast majority of UK and world carbon emissions, which make up the majority of greenhouse gases causing climate change. If we limit average global temperature rises to 1.5° C by rapidly reducing our use of fossil fuels, that would avoid some of the most catastrophic effects. That is the goal our Government have committed to in the Paris agreement on climate change, and I applaud them for that. The current Climate Change Act 2008 target is an 80% reduction of carbon emissions by 2050, but we can and we should increase our ambition—perhaps to net zero carbon emissions by 2050, or even sooner. Transition towns can help, and I will speak more about that shortly.
I recently visited our Aliyah’s old school, Cotham—in my constituency of Bristol West—which inspired her scientific future, to speak to the current students and answer their questions. Almost all of them said that what they were worried about most was climate change. One student asked, “What would happen if we banned fossil fuels?” I really loved that question, and I promised to bring it up today, because it is the obvious question to ask. If fossil fuels are the main source of the problem of carbon emissions, why are we still using them? Of course there are many reasons, and we all have to think about what we are prepared to change to end the use of fossil fuels, and that is where transition towns come in.
I believe that the abolition in 2016 of the Department of Energy and Climate Change has removed governmental focus. That Department was established by the last Labour Government, along with the world’s first Climate Change Act and the world’s first legally binding carbon emission reduction targets. Unfortunately, the Committee on Climate Change says that the UK is unlikely to meet its fourth and fifth carbon reduction targets from 2023 onwards. I would be interested to know the Minister’s thoughts on that.
Meanwhile, transition cities, transition towns and other groups are trying to lead. The first transition town was Totnes in Devon in 2006. Transition towns are communities taking responsibility for creating sustainable ways of living, including by addressing climate change, starting locally. There is now a global network of towns, cities, villages and universities in more than 50 countries.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter to the House. I spoke to her before the debate to associate myself with her ideas. Does she agree that it is essential that all communities consider the ethos of transition towns, try to be more environmentally aware and seek to change their impact on climate change? Does she further agree that wonderful initiatives like my local council’s recycling community investment fund, which puts the money saved by achieving recycling targets into community projects to raise environmental awareness, are examples of councils doing exactly what she is referring to?
Thangam Debbonaire
The hon. Gentleman is right that that is a very good example of a local initiative and I applaud his council.
Transition Bristol was founded in 2007 and is the longest running city transition initiative in the world. I am sure that the example given by the hon. Gentleman is leading pioneering work like Transition Bristol. Transition Bristol is a network and an initiator of city-wide and local projects that are helping us transition away from fossil fuel use and towards a sustainable future. As the Transition Bristol website says:
“Decreasing our use of fossil fuels is not negotiable. We have a choice—to make this shift in a way that builds community.”
Transition towns are not just about the why and the what of becoming carbon neutral; they are about the how.
The activities and organisations within Transition Bristol include Bristol Energy Network, which is supporting communities to build an energy system that works for everyone.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that organisations such as like Plymouth Energy Community, which is crowd-funding solar panels to go on primary schools, have a huge rule to play not only in providing low-carbon solutions, but in engaging members of the public in the process?
Thangam Debbonaire
My hon. Friend is right. That is a perfect example of what is great about transition towns and the energy networks and other organisations within them. I salute what they are doing. I would be interested to visit his project.
Bristol Energy Network supports communities to build those energy systems and Bristol Food Network helps people to grow, eat and cook seasonal locally grown fresh food. Neighbourhood groups, including the Montpelier, Bishopston, Easton and Redland groups in my constituency, help to carry that right down to the hyper-local level.
Bristol is well known for its environmental ethos. Last year, the city council declared a climate emergency on a motion proposed by a Green councillor, Carla Denyer—thank you, Carla—pledging to become carbon neutral by 2030. Similar motions have been passed by many local authorities across the country, including, I believe, the Minister’s own county council. Will the Minister join me in commending those councils for their actions, which help to support the focus of transition towns?
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that one of the most disappointing aspects in this area is the stalling of the renewable industries?
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I can only say to the Minister and her colleagues that whatever is happening in renewables, we need to double or triple it if we are to meet our carbon reduction targets. My experience is that we have seen it stalling, whereas we need to be increasing it. I will be interested to hear what she has to say in her remarks.
What commitments will the Minister make to policies and resources to support and expand the impact of transition towns to end our use of fossil fuels? The rapid development of renewable energy sources over the past few decades had helped to reduce hugely the UK’s carbon emissions. Transition towns show how emissions can be reduced in practice by involving people in sustainable energy choices, but individual and hyper-local actions can only go so far. They need Government leadership and support.
The Transition Bristol linked organisation, the Bristol Energy Co-operative—this is similar to the example cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard)—has raised more than £10 million to build solar farms in our area. These projects reduce emissions and build support for transition, but, frustratingly, recent Governments have cut support for the feed-in tariff introduced by the last Labour Government for small-scale renewable energy and changed planning laws, which apparently makes it harder to get planning permission for onshore wind.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister ought to be made aware of the places where onshore wind was planned but, because of the changes in the financial regime, has been dropped, such as the two large turbines just south of Ipswich?
Thangam Debbonaire
I was not aware of that particular example, but I am sure that the Minister will be interested to hear that and will perhaps have a response to it in her summing up.
I understand that the deployment of solar and new onshore wind has fallen drastically since 2016. I am also worried by the interest in fracking, because that is surely pouring fossil fuel on the fossil fuel fire, when we really should be doing everything that we can to put that fire out. Does the Minister agree that we should support transition towns by leaving fossil fuels in the ground?
On a study fellowship that has been organised for me by the Industry and Parliament Trust, I have learnt about the potential for expanding renewable energy. That includes the potential for energy from wave and tidal—from marine sources. I believe that it is the Government’s job to help to fund, invest in and support emerging technologies precisely at the point when they cannot yet turn a profit but have the potential to do so. Only by supporting these early stages can this country become a world leader in these technologies, allowing us to export them, as well as to create jobs and reduce fossil fuel use. This reflects the transition towns’ spirit of involving communities in the transition away from fossil fuels. For instance, in Swansea, everyone seems to be very knowledgeable about and supportive of the Swansea bay tidal lagoon project and the science behind it.
Other forms of marine energy are of course available, as I know the Minister knows from a recent meeting that she and I were both involved in. I would be interested to know whether she has had chance to reflect on what we learnt in that meeting, because the UK has massive untapped potential for marine energy generation, but it needs investment and support. Will the Government commit to investing in helping emerging renewable technologies to move from the developmental stages to being fully commercially viable, with subsidies or other support, especially in industries of the future?
One of the most striking places that I visited was the Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult in Blyth. That area, devastated by the collapse of the traditional coalmining and shipbuilding industries, is now helping to creating the jobs of the future as it tests the biggest wind turbine blades in the world—I have been to see it and it is pretty impressive. This is transition in action, but I would like to see more. Will the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to invest further in renewable energy industries, such as wind, tidal and wave, especially in the most deprived parts of the UK?
We can also do much more to make our homes more efficient. Labour’s zero carbon homes standard was designed to reduce energy use in new houses, but unfortunately, the standard was scrapped in 2015, causing great disruption to industry preparing for it to implemented. It would also have saved families living in new properties around £200 a year on increased energy bills. Labour policy is to reinstate the zero carbon homes standard, but in any case, new standards only deal with new houses. What about existing homes, which are some of the poorest insulated in western Europe? Our cold, damp homes lead to recurring illnesses that Age UK and the Institute of Health Equity have warned are costing our NHS over £1 billion each year.
Transition Bristol members have taken on that challenge, insulating existing homes and making them more energy-efficient, but unfortunately, we have seen a Government cut to the energy company obligation, resulting in a 97% fall in the installation of new boilers and home energy-efficiency measures under this scheme and a significant fall in funding for cold homes. Labour policy is to bring all homes up to a good standard by 2035, with all fuel-poor homes fixed by 2030. I would love that to be something that the Government decide to take on, because frankly, we need this now. Given that insulating homes reduces fuel poverty and energy demand, what are the Government doing to reinstate energy-efficiency measures?
Transition Bristol and campaigners have been very effective in changing our ideas about travel, and I am proud to represent a constituency where people walk and cycle more than almost anywhere in the UK. However, freezing fuel duty for almost a decade has effectively subsidised car use by tens of billions of pounds, while train fares have gone up by approximately twice the rate of inflation. I therefore ask the Minister what more can be done to encourage more sustainable transport use, thereby supporting transition towns in their efforts to reduce fossil fuel use further.
There are many other ways the Government could support and build on transition towns’ excellent work, and I would like the Minister to consider some suggestions, which are meant in the spirit of generosity. Recent analysis from the European Commission found that the UK gives the most subsidies to fossil fuels of any EU country, while equivalent subsidies to renewable energy industries were apparently much lower. I would like that to be rebalanced. If the Minister wants to correct me in summing up, I would be grateful.
We also need to stop supporting polluting projects abroad. UK Export Finance has a record of financing fossil fuels in low and middle-income countries. It is estimated to have provided £551 million in support of fossil fuel production overseas per year between 2014 and 2016, and that must stop.
Currently, the planning application fee for a large solar farm is the same as that for developing a shopping centre covering the same surface area. That should also change. If we continue to support the excavation of fossil fuels, and fossil fuel power stations, these fuels will continue to be burned. The barriers are no longer technological or even financial; they are political.
On Friday, I met some young women at the climate change demonstration on Parliament Square. Rosa, Rebecca, Tilly and Grace were all so inspiring, and they made so many great suggestions, such as a real ban on single-use plastics. I know that that is the Government’s intention, but they would like a real ban, and they would like it right now. They told me they want that sort of leadership from the Government; they do not just want to see individuals being made responsible for making all the changes. They also said they wanted the net zero carbon emissions target to be met by 2025 and that they did not want us to wait to 2050.
As I draw to a close, let me say this. For all the young people demonstrating in Bristol, in Parliament Square and everywhere else against climate change; for the people of Bristol West who tell me how much this issue matters to them; for their children and grandchildren; and for my own nephews and nieces and their children—the next generations, for whom the Minister, myself and all hon. Members come to work every day to make the world a better place—I ask the Minister: will she consider declaring a national climate change emergency and work with Members on both sides of the House to do everything she can to support the local work of transition towns through Government action and take a lead internationally as well as nationally?
To conclude, I return to Aliyah and to Svalbard. Svalbard and its extraordinary geography and ecosystem need us to act right now. Meanwhile, Aliyah has recently finished all the field and lab work for her PhD, and she gave birth earlier this month to the first Debbonaire of the next generation—baby Olive Emilie Debbonaire-Crabb. I am going to meet Olive for the first time this weekend, and I cannot wait, but she and others of her generation also cannot wait for us to act. I know the Minister will share my ambition, because children being born now in Bristol, in her constituency and across the country depend not just on transition towns but on businesses, scientists and us politicians to protect them from climate change.
When new baby Olive turns 18, I want to be able to look her in the eye and I do not want to say, “I tried to stop climate change, but I failed. I’m sorry.” I want the polar bears on Svalbard to survive, and I want this beautiful planet to thrive for her. I want to say to Olive, and to all the next generations, “My generation of transition town campaigners, businesses, scientists and politicians in the House of Commons and in local councils everywhere, motivated by our love for you and for our beautiful planet—from Svalbard to the south pole—stopped climate change.”
The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)
I was hoping that the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) might provide some sugar-rich vegetarian snacks, as we are going on so late this evening, but we have been thwarted once again on a Monday night. However, I congratulate her on securing a really important debate.
I was hoping that we would hear a little more about transition towns, Bristol, of course, being my home city. I commend the very long-standing and active groups that have led to so many changes in that beautiful city. It seems very appropriate on Global Recycling Day to be discussing what some of these extraordinary communities have done. Of course, Bristol was one of the very early cities that set out on this path, and it has had some highly ambitious and really successful initiatives. In my constituency, the Sustainable Devizes group was set up in 2008. Most recently, it focused on a waste-free February. Similar groups are being set up in 303 other locations across the United Kingdom.
What is so wonderful about the network is that it is bringing people together to discuss problems, solutions and changes, many of which are easier to make on a local than on a national scale. It is coming up with creative ways of using local assets, innovating and making links with local universities. I see that happening throughout the United Kingdom. I recently attended a UK100 event in Leeds, a national green finance conference, which showcased the actions that various local authorities and groups were taking. The hon. Lady and I both love our railways. A group called 10:10, working with Community Energy South and Network Rail, is looking into how the railways can be decarbonised. Solar power and battery storage could be used to provide some of the current that the electric railway system uses at present.
We have talked about Bristol. It was amazing to see its City Leap prospectus, which moves away from some of the more “micro” initiatives and involves thinking, in a broad and holistic way, about how to build heat networks, smart energy systems, energy efficiency initiatives and renewable energy generation in a joined-up way. That joining up is very important. The Government are committed to building millions of homes, and we have an opportunity to include many system-integrated solutions in their design before that actually begins.
The hon. Lady made some slightly critical comments, with which I shall deal shortly. However, as she knows, I am passionate about bottom-up support. I have set up five new regional local energy hubs, because—as, again, she will know—some areas, including towns and cities, are very much in the lead in this regard, while others would love to try but are not sure where to start. Our aim has been to invest in the hiring of experts and to enable best practice to be shared. The hubs are intended to increase local capacity and to hire dedicated energy or sustainability officers to support local authorities and local enterprise partnerships.
We have talked about towns, but, as someone who represents a very rural area, I was keen to ensure that the rural community energy fund would continue to support rural communities. Through what is elegantly known as a MoG—machinery of government—transfer of Government assets, I managed to move it from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, so that we could integrate it with much of the local work that we are doing. The fund will open for business again within a few short weeks.
The hon. Lady referred to the benefits of local action. That, of course, does not just mean reducing carbon dioxide emissions; it means warmer homes, people who are healthier as a result of cycling or walking, air quality improvements, and the creation of what I think we have increasingly realised is an incredibly exciting part of these changes through the green business opportunities that exist. About 400,000 people in the United Kingdom work in the low-carbon economy, which means that it is bigger than the aerospace sector in that regard. It is growing at between 5% and 6% a year. That is part of the global transition to low-carbon economic growth.
The hon. Lady tweaked me slightly about the shutting down of the Department of Energy and Climate Change. In fact, subsuming it in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has allowed us to understand far more about the opportunities and to broaden the conversation about low carbon. What was perhaps rather a niche conversation has become a fundamental conversation about how the economy should be working, and how businesses should be working. I hope that the hon. Lady was as pleased as I was by the Chancellor’s green spring statement last week. He made clear not only the desirability of, for instance, removing fossil fuel heating from new buildings, but the huge economic opportunities that it provided. I think that putting the two Departments together has allowed us to become much better at understanding those opportunities and attracting investment in them.
We are, of course, very focused on the leadership of the public sector, which can also be a major drive for many local transitions. The hon. Lady will know of the Salix scheme, a zero interest rate scheme enabling local authorities and devolved parts of the public sector to invest in their own low-carbon activities.
The hon. Lady made a powerful point about the need to come off fossil fuels completely and the role of transition towns in doing so. I hope that the hon. Lady is as pleased as I am that we will be phasing out coal, the dirtiest form of fossil fuel, completely from our generation system. For a country that built its economic success on the hard-won mining of coal to be one of the first major countries to be phasing it out completely as part of its generation system is hugely valuable. That has allowed us to take our commitment to phasing out coal and turn it into a global movement, the Powering Past Coal Alliance, where we have now persuaded over 80 countries, cities and states to also commit to phasing out coal. If only the world would phase out coal, we would be in a substantially better place.
The hon. Lady mentioned the feed-in tariffs and the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) raised the challenge about renewables investments. We should not define success in delivering renewables energy just based on how much we subsidise it. The feed-in tariff we have provided has cost us about £6 billion to date and will continue to cost us several billion pounds over its lifetime at a point when subsidy-free solar is becoming a reality, particularly at the commercial level. While we might have seen a tail-off in some solar installations on domestic fittings, there is an enormous increase in subsidy-free solar in the planning system at a more commercial level.
We are up to 32% of our energy system from renewables. I was lucky enough to launch the offshore wind sector deal last week—on a very windy day where wind was picking up over 30% of the total on that day alone. We have set out a 10-year market horizon for offshore wind, with the confident expectation that we will be at over 70% zero-carbon energy in our energy system before baby Olive even gets to her 16th birthday. This is a major transition that we are undertaking, and we have the largest and deepest offshore wind market in the world and we continue to invest.
The hon. Lady asked me about tidal. I grew up a few miles from the Bristol channel; I have seen the power of those tides washing in and out every day. The challenge is that I have to invest other people’s money in the most cost-effective carbon reduction energy systems and also the ones that have the most global potential. I look at everything through the grid of asking what is the lowest cost, what is the carbon dioxide reduction potential and what is the competitive advantage. Sad as it is, there are some brilliant ideas for tidal and marine and we have lots of new ideas coming forward, but tidal lagoons at the price being quoted would have been the most expensive power station we had ever built in the UK, with quite limited global reach for that technology.
We are always looking for new ideas, however. My Department has about £2.6 billion of taxpayers’ money to invest in research and development in this clean energy area over the course of this Parliament, the largest R&D budget we have ever had in this area, and we see huge opportunities in many areas, including marine and tidal at the right price.
I want to briefly touch on where I think some of the community groups and local authorities can be helpful. I often think that it is difficult to sit in Westminster and try to pull levers, because situations are different on the ground; we have very different levels of knowledge, commitment and circumstances, and as in so many areas learning from innovation and vision at the local level and looking upwards is important. I am thinking in particular of Leeds. The work that Leeds City Council has done in introducing hydrogen into the heating system, a major opportunity to decarbonise heating going forward, should not be underestimated.
I know the hon. Lady does not think this, but somebody listening might think she had rather a dismal view of what we have achieved as a Government. She is right that we were the first country in the world to pass a Climate Change Act. It was brought forward with very strong cross-party support as quite a radical piece of legislation at the time. Since then, as indeed before then, we have led the world in decarbonisation. We have dropped our carbon emissions consistently, more than any other developed country, compared with our economic growth, because of course, as the hon. Lady knows, what we want to do is grow our economy and reduce our carbon emissions. That has only accelerated. In 2016-17, our emissions were down 4.7%. This is happening in many areas.
We do have challenges, particularly in the housing space and in decarbonising heavy industry and transportation, but we are absolutely leading the pack with our decarbonisation story through continued investment, continued ambition and a legislative framework. I hope that the hon. Lady and her party will support our bid to help the climate change talks next year—the all-critical conference of the parties talks in 2020, at which countries will come together for the first time since the Paris agreement to show what the numbers will be, so that we can assess how on-track or off-track we are. The UK could also showcase much of the incredible innovation we have in this area. I hope there will be strong support from all Members for our bid, although we are cognisant that other countries also want to host the talks.
The hon. Lady will also know that we were the first industrialised country to ask for advice on a net zero economy, following the report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We look forward to that advice.
What I would say to baby Olive and all the other young people—although she is a little young to come and protest, many others did—is that we should be proud of what we have done in the UK through a combination of ambition, cross-party working and some good policies. We have delivered a good track record and we know we have more to do. There is a strong commitment across the House to deliver more, and I heartily commend the transition movement on its impact, its vision and its ongoing commitment to stopping climate change.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention and Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) and (Levy Account: Basis of Distribution) 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 Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention and Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) and (Levy Account: Basis of Distribution) Regulations 2019.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I love being Minister for local government and I love local government finance, but no one ever wrote a sonnet about the business rates retention system. The technical nature of the draft regulations gives us a good idea why not; I pay tribute to my officials for preparing some very helpful explanatory notes to translate them into plain English.
The draft regulations will do two very simple things: provide the basis on which we will distribute the levy account surpluses, and make changes to the regulations that give effect to the business rates retention scheme—not least to create the 75% retention pilots in the forthcoming financial year. Let me take those matters in turn, beginning with the levy account surplus.
Under the rates retention scheme, authorities may be entitled to a safety net payment if their business rates income falls below a certain level. The cost of such safety net payments is met by charging authorities a levy of up to 50% of any business rates growth that they achieve. In the past, we have also top-sliced an amount from the settlement to supplement the levy income and ensure sufficient funding from which to make safety net payments. Since 2013-14, we have top-sliced a total of £255 million that would otherwise have been distributed to authorities through the settlement. Effectively, safety net payments are therefore paid for by the local government sector; central Government simply act as an agent to collect and distribute the sums between authorities.
The top-slice and all the levy and safety net payments are made into or from a levy account that is kept by central Government. In line with the legislation, any surplus in the levy account at the end of the year belongs to the sector and is to be distributed to local government or carried over to the next year. At the end of 2018-19, the levy account will show a surplus of £188 million. As we announced in the 2019 local government finance settlement, we have decided that £180 million of that surplus should be distributed back to the sector. Legislation requires us to set out in regulations the basis on which the surplus should be distributed. The draft regulations therefore provide that all authorities should get a share of the 2018-19 surplus, in line with their shares of settlement funding in 2013-14—the first year of the rates retention scheme, and the first year in which we top-sliced sums from the settlement.
I am pleased to tell the Committee that we fully consulted local authorities on the basis of the distribution at the time of the provisional settlement in December. Fully 93% of respondents supported the proposal, including all the relevant local government bodies, such as the Local Government Association, London Councils, the District Councils’ Network, SIGOMA—the Special Interest Group of Municipal Authorities—and the Society of County Treasurers.
Let me turn to the changes that we are making to the day-to-day administration of the rates retention scheme. The running of the scheme is dealt with by means of a number of sets of regulations, the most important of which are the Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention) Regulations 2013 and the Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) Regulations 2013. Those regulations provide, among other things, for the percentage shares of business rates to be paid by billing authorities to central Government and major precepting authorities, and for the way in which the levy and safety net payments are to be calculated.
The draft regulations will make a few changes. They will ensure that the relevant shares of business rates income and the calculation of levy and safety net payments for 2019-20 and beyond reflect the Government’s decisions to create 75% retention pilots for 2019-20; make changes to the structure of local government in Dorset, Suffolk, Somerset and Northamptonshire; change certain values for the Isles of Scilly used in connection with the scheme; and change the way in which levy and safety net payments are calculated to reflect the higher compensation given to local authorities as a result of improvements and changes made to the small business rate relief scheme.
This is a highly technical set of regulations but most of the provisions simply give effect to changes previously approved by this House, either in the settlement or in other regulations. They ensure that authorities get the sums from the rates retention scheme that they are due. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. This is a very important issue. Although the regulations appear to be very technical, they are fundamentally about how we pay for local public services, and to what degree local areas raise their tax locally, retain it and then spend it in their locality, as opposed to returning it to central Government and then having it redistributed in a different way. The issues are important, and will materially affect the financial bases of the local authorities concerned.
The issues that the Labour party has with this set of proposals reflect our concerns about previous proposals. First, we are concerned about capacity within the Department. The National Audit Office report of March 2017 reported a reduction of nearly 40% in staffing capacity in the directorate responsible for delivering the programme; there was a 39.6% reduction in staff. We are also concerned about the viability of individual schemes where local authorities have to hold more in reserves pending the outcome of appeals. In 2017, that amounted to £2.8 billion. We are concerned about how much local authorities are being asked to keep in reserves pending appeals, when the national framework for business rates is decided by central Government, not local government.
However, we have a more fundamental problem with the direction in which the Government are taking local finance more broadly. The proposal is almost saying: “It’s survival of the fittest. If you can raise the money locally, you can retain it and spend it on public services. The measures by which you can raise it are usually outside of your control, such as your historical house price base, and your historical employment, industrial and commercial land supply base. If you can raise it through those measures, then good. If you can’t, you won’t be able to afford to fund basic public services in your area.” We see that with the reduction—indeed, now the almost entire removal—of revenue support grant.
With the shift towards business rate retention, what we are seeing is not new money or free money. Rather, there is a deal: things that are currently funded through central Government grants—for instance, the public health grant and the like—are being taken away and the money made up for, almost pound for pound, by business rate retention. The choice of areas is quite telling, because the effect on central Government coffers is broadly neutral. The amount being taken away in grants provided under the current scheme is broadly in line with the retention amounts being kept locally through the new powers. The question is: what happens when we talk to local authorities where there is a greater imbalance between the amount received through current grant funding and what they would receive under a move towards retention?
We share many of the concerns raised by the National Audit Office in its March 2017 report, on both capacity and the amount of money that councils are being expected to keep in reserves. The Government should step up and hold a more fundamental review of how councils are funded that goes beyond business rates and the fair funding review that is currently taking place. We have massive concerns about the removal of deprivation as a measure of funding need in a locality, as we know that it drives a lot of need in an area.
We do not support the Government’s proposed move towards a “survival of the fittest”, “sink or swim” settlement, but we recognise that they have been in discussions with Labour-controlled authorities and combined authorities. On that basis, we will not seek to divide the Committee. However, we are getting to the end of the road. I fear that some councils will really struggle to make ends meet, and not just those where the control of the council is questionable, as we have seen in some Conservative-controlled councils. The demand for services massively outstrips the amount of money that the council has for those services. The Government need to find a more sustainable solution to funding—not just taking it from the needy and giving it to the less needy. We need more money for our basic public services.
Rishi Sunak
As always, I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton, which are always thoughtful and well informed. On this matter, however, I disagree with him. We will, of course, have more general debates on the right way to fund local government as we approach the spending review. I look forward to those discussions, which are slightly out of the scope of these regulations.
The crux of what the Committee is talking about today is the creation of 15 new business rate retention pilots. That is 15 new parts of the country where local authorities can keep 75% of the growth in the business income that they generate, rather than 50%, as in the normal system. That is central Government empowering local government to drive growth in their areas and to be rewarded for their efforts by keeping the proceeds of that growth.
Some 122 local authorities will benefit, including those of many Members present. Cumulatively, the extra money that local government will be able to keep will be around £490 million, when the 15 pilot areas in London are added together. Add that to the five existing 100% devolution areas that the Government have already created, and that is an additional £143 million. That is £633 million of incremental funding that the local government system is keeping as a result of driving growth in their areas.
That is what we are about on this side of the House: empowering local government to make decisions, to keep the proceeds of that activity and, in doing so, to provide a better community for their local residents. We are here today to implement that. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman will not divide the Committee, and I thank him for his thoughtful comments.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Immigration, Nationality and Asylum (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 Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration, Nationality and Asylum (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Delivering a deal with the EU remains the Government’s priority. We are, nevertheless, preparing for a range of scenarios. As the Prime Minister has pointed out:
“The legal default in UK and EU law remains that the UK will leave the EU without a deal”
on 29 March
“unless something else is agreed.”—[Official Report, 13 March 2019; Vol. 656, c. 464.]
UK domestic law has given effect to the obligations in the fields of immigration, nationality and asylum that arise from our membership of the European Union. The UK has also been subject to directly effective EU law. When we leave the EU, aspects of our legislation and retained direct EU law will fail to operate effectively; if they are not modified or revoked by this instrument, they will contain deficiencies.
The draft regulations will make changes to a range of domestic primary and secondary legislation to prevent, remedy or mitigate deficiencies in law that arise from the UK’s exit from the EU. They will ensure that if the UK leaves the EU without a deal, our statute book will operate on exit day until new legislation on these issues is commenced.
First, the draft regulations will make the technical changes required to correct wording in our legislation that describes the UK in terms of our membership of the European Union or the European economic area. Those changes will not alter the legislation’s effect. Similarly, the draft regulations will make technical amendments to domestic legislation that refer to EU rights retained by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
Secondly, the draft regulations will revoke relevant retained EU legislation relating to immigration. They will also revoke a number of instruments that give effect to the UK’s membership of the EU asylum acquis and that will be inoperable on exit. By leaving the EU, the UK will also leave the asylum acquis. The draft regulations will therefore revoke the Dublin regulation and the Eurodac regulation.
Thirdly, the draft regulations will make a number of transitional and saving provisions in relation to the measures that they will amend, so that the amendments in question do not have an inappropriate effect in respect of decisions or other actions taken before their commencement.
Finally, the draft regulations will apply the UK rules for criminality to EEA, Swiss and Turkish nationals. This amendment applies only to their conduct after exit. Our intention, which the Home Secretary has already announced, is to apply the same rules to new arrivals, irrespective of which country they come from.
The Government believe that we must plan for every eventuality, including a no-deal scenario. In introducing the draft regulations, we are taking practical steps to ensure that the UK statute book will operate effectively on exit in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal. The draft regulations will prevent deficiencies in immigration and asylum law that arise from the UK’s leaving the EU, and will ensure continuity until the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill allows the Government to introduce the future borders and immigration system. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson.
Labour opposes the draft regulations on four grounds. First, they will make changes to 21 separate pieces of primary legislation—something that should rightly be done through primary legislation. The Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, which has just come out of Committee, was surely the perfect vehicle for any necessary changes to primary legislation before exit day. Putting those changes into a Bill would have allowed more time for hon. Members to scrutinise exactly what they will mean for each of the Acts affected, and to table amendments if necessary. We accept that many of the changes are technical, but they could easily have been spelled out in the Bill and nodded through in Committee.
Our second reason for opposing the draft regulations is that on the Bill Committee we spent a lot of time talking about how chaotic and disorganised the current immigration rules are. They are almost impossible for immigration lawyers, judges and Home Office officials to understand, let alone the average person applying for a visa without the help of legal aid. The point of supplementary scrutiny is not just to criticise the Government, but to consider and improve what they are doing. More chances for scrutiny would avoid contradictory rules and bad laws.
Thirdly, the draft instrument puts the cart before the horse. We do not yet know whether the immigration Bill will become law, as it faces significant hurdles before Report in the Commons and has not yet been through the Lords. This statutory instrument makes changes for a post-Brexit immigration landscape that is not yet assured.
Finally, the statutory instrument revokes the Dublin III regulation, which determines which EU member state is responsible for returning an asylum claim.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am pleased that my hon. Friend raises the question of the Dublin agreement. Is it his understanding, as it is mine, that a significant number of families who can currently be reunited thanks to that regulation could no longer be if there were no deal and we were to exit on the basis of the SI before the Committee?
Afzal Khan
I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend. We accept that leaving the EU will mean leaving Dublin III, but we would have liked continued co-operation on family reunion even in a no-deal scenario.
Dublin III has been a crucial mechanism for reuniting refugee families. In 2018, over 1,000 people were reunited with family members in the UK under that regulation, including over 150 children. If the UK leaves the EU with a deal, Dublin III will remain in place until the end of the transition period, during which time the Government are committed to negotiating reciprocal arrangements on separated children. That should be expanded to include all the family reunion cases allowed under Dublin III.
If we leave without a deal, we will immediately cease to be part of Dublin III, and many refugees will be unable to be reunited with their families from 29 March. UK immigration rules contain provisions for the reunion of refugee families, but evidential requirements are higher than under the Dublin III regulation, in which the definition of “family member” is broader. We support calls for the UK’s immigration rules to be more generous in family reunion cases, so that children can sponsor family members and the definition of “family” is broader.
We welcome the Government’s inclusion of a saving provision in the draft regulations to allow for take-charge requests made before exit day to continue to be considered. In the light of delays between an application for asylum and the submission of a take-charge request, however, what consideration was given to making the asylum application the cut-off for the process, rather than the take-charge request?
Stephen Timms
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson; I apologise for being a couple of minutes late to the Committee. I want to underline the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton.
I am grateful to the British Red Cross for circulating to us some information on the impact of the instrument in the event that the UK leaves the European Union without a deal. I am grateful that the Minister has made it clear that if we leave with a deal, the Government will use the subsequent transition period to ensure that we will be part of the Dublin III regulation. That is a very welcome assurance.
The problem is that if we leave without a deal, we will immediately be in a position whereby Dublin III will not apply to us. Instead of passing this SI, should the Government not commit to keeping us in Dublin III for the period immediately after we leave—if we leave without a deal—to ensure that the type of family reunions that are now possible continue at their current level, which, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, was significant in 2018?
It is not clear why the SI has been framed in such a way that we would leave the Dublin III regulation immediately on exiting the EU if we did not have a deal. It is clearly the Government’s intention that we should be part of that arrangement in the longer term. As I have said, I am glad that the Government have committed to thinking about negotiating that during the transition period. However, I am concerned that, as worded, the SI would take us out of that regulation immediately if we left the EU without a deal, so I hope the Government will take a different approach on that point.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I will speak briefly, Mr Hanson, by way of an alternative to intervening on the Minister, because it will give her more opportunity to reflect on what I have to say, and I only really want to say one thing.
First, this statutory instrument, like many others that we are debating at the moment, changes an enforceable EU right into a retained enforceable EU right. That is the pattern of what we are doing, but it is really important that we recognise that while that is acceptable for a limited period—a transition period—it is not acceptable long term. We need to revise our thinking sufficient to satisfy the expectations of the population who regard our immigration policy as having been out of control for some time. Secondly, there is a need to skill our own people to do many of the jobs that have been done by EU migrants in recent times. Thirdly, I want to respond to the profound concerns that people in my constituency and others have about population growth. We are growing our population at something like a quarter of a million per year, and that simply cannot be maintained indefinitely. It places immense pressure on public services, it changes the character of the place in which we live very significantly, and people do not want any more of it.
Sir John Hayes
On that note, and without wishing to detain colleagues on the Committee unduly, I happily give way to my hon. Friend.
Michael Fabricant
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He is showing the advantage of making a little speech-ette rather than asking a question, as it enables me to intervene on him. As one Administration cannot bind another, can he not be assured that something like this order cannot be everlasting forever?
Sir John Hayes
I am guided and informed, as ever, by the expertise and diligence of my hon. Friend, who brings both those things, among many other virtues, to all of his work and to our endeavours. He is right, of course, that leaving the European Union provides a chance—but no more than that—to reconsider what future we want to build. I do not want to open up this debate—indeed, you would not let me, Mr Hanson—except to say that my hon. Friend, as ever, makes an apposite, incisive and erudite contribution to our affairs.
With that—some might say excessively complimentary —response, I will bring my remarks to a conclusion. I simply seek the Minister’s assurance that the Government will indeed look afresh at these things. I do not say that we will change everything; of course we will not. We will continue those things that are right for Britain, and many are, but we would not want simply to plough on regardless.
Caroline Nokes
I fear that I will not make a speech-ette, but there will certainly be no ploughing on regardless either. I am grateful for the Committee’s contributions to the debate and I will address some of the issues raised.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton asked why we are not using the immigration Bill for these provisions. Of course, these provisions are very much in preparation for no deal, which is an eventuality that I do not want. The Government continue to work hard to secure a deal, but unless alternative arrangements are made, it is the default legal option. As he pointed out, the immigration Bill has just completed its Committee stage in the Commons and, to be frank, we do not expect it to have Royal Assent by 29 March, which is when these measures might be needed.
The use of secondary legislation and the immigration rules, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, is a long-established method that we have used to make changes to the immigration system. Under those well-established procedures, such changes are still subject to proper parliamentary oversight and debate, including through Committees such as this. The hon. Gentleman will know, as we discussed at the Committee stage of the immigration Bill, that the Law Commission is currently conducting a public consultation on the simplification of the immigration rules, commissioned by the Government. We look forward to receiving its response and considering its report in due course. As he knows, I am on record as having said that such simplification is much needed.
The right hon. Member for East Ham and the shadow Minister mentioned the Dublin III regulation, which is arguably the most significant regulation revoked by this instrument. As Members will be aware, the Dublin regulation contains rules for establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the member state responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in a member state by a third-country national or a stateless person, and the legal framework for returning asylum seekers to, and accepting them from, the EU. This instrument ensures that the statute book will continue to function effectively for asylum in a no-deal scenario and provide transitional arrangements. Should the UK leave the EU with no deal, those Dublin requests relating to family reunification that are still pending resolution will continue to be considered under existing provisions. That would apply to any take-charge requests that we have received before exit.
Stephen Timms
I am grateful to the Minister for that reassurance that applications that are already in the system will continue to go forward. However, given that the Government have committed to seeking to extend the Dublin III arrangements for good if we get a deal, should this SI not provide for us to continue those arrangements in the event of no deal as well? I cannot think of any reason why leaving the EU without a deal should prove disadvantageous to families seeking reunion under the existing asylum arrangements.
Caroline Nokes
I welcome that intervention, but we have to be realistic about leaving the European Union and needing a cut-off date. Dublin is a reciprocal mechanism, and we cannot oblige other EU member states to comply with the process after the UK has left the EU. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct: we want a comprehensive readmission agreement that could include family reunion, if that were reciprocated. However, given the wider issues at stake with the EU, including matters such as data adequacy, we cannot continue Dublin III post exit.
As a consequence of leaving the EU, the UK will no longer be a participating state in the Dublin regulation. That certainly presents a challenge, but it also presents us with an opportunity to seek new agreements with the EU on asylum that better reflect our position as a third country. Since 2016, we have accepted more Dublin transfers than we have returned to our EU partners. The latest available published data shows that 209 people were returned to the EU27 under Dublin 2018, meaning that returns under that regulation make up about 5% of total asylum returns.
This instrument is designed to prevent any deficiencies arising from the UK leaving the EU. It ensures continuity until the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill allows the Government to introduce the future new borders and immigration system. On that basis, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put.
Draft Animal Welfare (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 (David Rutley)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Animal Welfare (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
As always, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Gapes. This statutory instrument applies to the UK, and is made under the enabling power in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to transfer powers currently held by the European Commission to the appropriate UK Ministers. The instrument is technical in nature, and is to ensure a smooth transfer of powers from the EU to the UK. I first make it clear that this instrument does not make any change to policy, except in relation to the recognition of EU-authorised slaughterers; I will set out those changes later.
Secondly, I also make it clear that this instrument in no way diminishes our controls in the critical area of animal welfare. The UK has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, which will continue to apply through existing UK legislation and, indeed, retained EU law. There is no intention to use any powers transferred through this instrument from the EU to appropriate Ministers in the UK to reduce animal welfare standards. In fact, that transfer of powers will enable animal welfare regulation in the UK to be further strengthened as new research and evidence emerges.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
Can the Minister give me some reassurance—he may have gone some way towards doing so in his opening comments—that post Brexit, his Department will carry out a review of animal welfare protections, giving consideration to how we can improve this country’s animal welfare standards where it is practical and correct to do so?
David Rutley
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I know he has a keen interest in this issue, and I assure him that through the statutory instruments we have been debating over recent weeks, we will make sure that current EU law is brought into the UK. We are committed to going further: we will address the issue of animal sentience, increase sentences for animal cruelty and ban wild animals in circuses, all through primary legislation. We will also ban third-party puppy and kitten sales, which I know is an issue of real interest, not least to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes. We have a very full agenda.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Could the Minister tell us in his opening remarks how much his Department has spent on these statutory instruments in this week alone, let alone the past few months?
David Rutley
I will seek some inspiration during the course of my opening speech. It will be difficult to give specific details, but obviously this SI is part of a broader package of preparing for all eventualities, whether a no-deal scenario or a deal. Of course, within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, bringing environmental, agricultural and fisheries legislation into the UK represents a huge, transformational change.
I also assure members of the Committee that, in transferring powers over animal welfare from the EU, we have the expertise and capability within agencies such as the Animal and Plant Health Agency and the Food Standards Agency to robustly enforce animal welfare requirements and ensure that the regulations are strengthened sustainably over time. Animal welfare is a devolved policy area, and frameworks are in place to ensure close collaboration with devolved Administrations in this area, including a consensus that high standards should be retained as we leave the EU.
The instrument primarily makes minor operability changes to three pieces of legislation to ensure that retained direct EU legislation protecting the welfare of animals kept at control posts, while being transported, and at the time of their killing will continue to operate effectively once the UK has left the EU. The first piece of legislation, EC regulation 1255/97, relates to control posts—that is, approved areas for animals to be unloaded, fed, watered and rested for at least 12 hours during long journeys. There are currently 11 designated control posts in the UK, and the EC regulation sets out the health and hygiene requirements for control posts and details how they should be constructed, operated and approved. The SI makes a number of minor operability changes, including updating references and definitions. As is currently the case, the power to designate or suspend control posts will remain devolved to the relevant Ministers in the devolved Administrations. The SI will not alter the current requirements or standards for control posts; those will be maintained after exit.
The second piece of legislation, EC regulation 12005, relates to the welfare of animals during transport and sets out the standards to be applied when moving live vertebrate animals for commercial purposes, as well as the necessary documentation to accompany the journey and the checks to be carried out on consignments leaving or entering the EU. The regulation also sets out the requirement for transporters, drivers and vehicles to be authorised. The regulations before us will enable such authorisation, issued by an EU member state, to continue to be recognised in the UK, an approach that will help to minimise friction at the border and prevent potential animal welfare issues arising from delays in animals entering the UK from the EU.
Finally, the instrument makes technical changes to EC regulation 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing, to ensure that it remains operable after the UK exits the EU. The regulation requires that animals shall be spared any avoidable pain, distress or suffering during both their killing and any related operations. It sets out detailed rules on the accepted methods of stunning and killing, as well as the layout, construction, equipment, handling and restraining operations at slaughterhouses. The draft instrument will not alter the current requirements or standards, maintaining them after exit.
I draw the attention of hon. Members to one policy change in the regulations. EC regulation 1099/2009 requires all slaughterers to be trained and competent in the task they undertake, with certificates of competence issued by a competent authority. Currently, a certificate of competence issued by an EU member state must be recognised in the UK. The regulations will end that requirement because the continued recognition of certificates issued by other member states would open up potential enforcement issues. We would be unable to suspend or revoke a certificate if a slaughterer breached the requirements of the retained EU, or domestic, legislation.
The impact on businesses in all parts of the UK will be minimal. By not continuing to recognise certificates of competence from EU member states, a limited number of slaughterhouse employees will need to apply for a certificate from a competent authority in the UK to continue to work here after exit. Applying will cost about £225, and we expect fewer than 200 individuals in the UK to be affected—about 3% of all slaughterers.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will know from other Statutory Instrument Committees that I pay close attention to impact assessments, and on page 6 of the explanatory memorandum, it states:
“An Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument as there are limited impacts on business”.
However, the Minister just told us that the measure will have an impact on 200 people. What confidence can we have that it will be only 200, if no impact assessment has been prepared? This sounds like a severe and important change, and I would expect an impact assessment to have been prepared. Does the Minister not agree?
David Rutley
I agree that it is an important issue, but on whether there should be a fully scaled-up impact assessment, clear criteria are set out under the Treasury’s better regulation guidance. Because the measure affects only a small number of slaughterers, and the amount of money is small—£225, which, as I was about to say, is often picked up by employers—it falls well below the requirement for a full impact assessment. What I have wanted to do with this statutory instrument, as I know the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members have been keen to see, is, where possible, to set out what the costs could be, even if they are small.
I want to reiterate that in many cases employers pick up the costs. In line with the better regulation framework and in accordance with the Treasury Green Book guidance on impact assessments, an assessment was not required for this statutory instrument. Although there was no formal duty to consult because the changes are so minimal, we have engaged directly with industry representative bodies, and more widely, and have received no expressions of concern. The devolved Administrations have been consulted on the instrument and they support this approach.
I thank hon. Members for their contributions so far. The functions are vital if UK Ministers are to carry on their functions relating to animal welfare. Without those powers in UK law, respective UK Ministers would be unable to introduce measures that the EU Commission currently has the authority to introduce on behalf of member states.
It is therefore necessary for the operability of our animal welfare regulations, and to ensure that we can further strengthen those regulations sustainably over time, that we pass the statutory instrument. For the reasons that I have set out, I commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. As always, I thank the Minister for his remarks.
I will start with the usual caveat. At one level, this is one of those Committees where we are merely nodding through something that may, in due course, become just a series of technical changes. However, this SI includes live exports, the pre-stunning of animals, journey times and other things that—if my postbag is anything to go by—people care passionately about in their own right, so we are nodding through something very important.
The Minister will come back with the usual proviso that the Government are not making any changes to the legislation—I will come on later to people who wish that the Government had made some changes to the legislation, particularly given their commitments to issues such as the banning of live exports—but as the Opposition, we have to do our best to ensure that what is passed is fit for purpose and gives us confidence that the situation will not change for the worse.
We are considering some difficult issues; I will mainly refer to what different groups have said about the regulations. When the Minister responds, it would be helpful for him to put on the record at an early stage where the Government are on their policy of banning live exports. They campaigned on the issue, and many Conservative MPs strongly support it, as stated in the 2017 manifesto, but there has been a rolling-back of the belief that it can be easily done.
We have not really touched on the difficulty that the different territorial Administrations have different views about the issue. For example, the Scottish Government feel that it should not be interfered with, because live exports into England, Northern Ireland and the south of Ireland are important for Scotland. We have to make sure, however, that when we pass the measure, at least the people responsible for undertaking those activities know exactly what the law says, and that the law is being enforced.
We as a Parliament have made many statements about how we want to ensure that journey times are kept to a minimum, and that animals are properly fed and watered—that word “lairage” appears—so they are taken out when appropriate and allowed to stretch their legs. It is the case that we cannot then control what happens in the EU, but we certainly must control what happens in the UK, so it is important that we get the regulations right.
As the Minister rightly said—hon. Members will be pleased to know that I will not say much about it—the statutory instrument refers to the regime for slaughterers’ certificates of competence. It sounds straightforward, but I ask the Minister which body will oversee that in the UK, because it will obviously have to comment on the suitability of other nationalities to do the type of work that they will be doing, which will depend on their qualifications in their own countries. We are losing the commonality of the EU, which was one of its great advantages, and which meant that there was at least some standardisation of qualifications.
As an introductory point, it is also worth noting the issue of third-country health certificates. Unless I am wrong, the draft regulations will permit meat produced in EU member states and in the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland to be accepted without a third-country health certificate. I would be interested to know whether such a certificate will be required of those countries with which we intend to sign trade deals, because there needs to be some consistency in what we put in place with countries that we deal with as members of the EU and those with which we would normally expect some form of import and export relationship. If and when such trade deals are passed in due course, depending on what happens on 29 March, will DEFRA have a say over the third-country health certificates?
I will not rehearse the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South about cost, but it would be interesting to know to what extent DEFRA has factored in the additional environmental impact and who will pay for it. Those costs will include collecting data, monitoring the effectiveness of the regulations and reporting regularly. We will lose access to the TRACES—trade control and expert system—database, which presumably we had particular access to in regard to such activities, so it would be interesting to know how far DEFRA has got in finding an alternative, running it and ensuring that it actually works.
No doubt the Minister has considered input from stakeholders, as I have. I make my usual declaration that I am an associate of the British Veterinary Association, which is reasonably happy with the draft regulations, bar the issue of certificates of competence. It is important that it be clearly spelled out how those certificates will operate, because—as I have said on numerous occasions—95% of our vets on the line in abattoirs come from outside the UK, and most of them come from within the EU. Without a vet on the line, it has to shut down. It would be interesting to know how the system will operate, at least in the short run; if we do not get it right in the short run, it will not work in the longer run. It would be useful if the Minister explained exactly how the one thing links into the other.
Luke Pollard
I have been reflecting on the Minister’s remarks about the number of people affected. I wonder whether it would be helpful for the Committee to be given the geographical breakdown of those figures, so that we know which regions of our country will be most affected by these changes and whether any of them are in the south-west, which my hon. Friend and I represent. That would help us to understand the impact on our regional economies as a result of the additional regulatory burdens for people continuing to do their job.
Dr Drew
That would certainly be very helpful. There are three abattoirs in my constituency; I could not say how many of them are personed by EU vets, but I know that that is common across the terrain, so I imagine that they are.
Compassion in World Farming sees the draft regulations as a missed opportunity. It would like the Government to go much further on tightening up pre-stunning, live exports, movements and other matters that we have discussed. It would be interesting to know by what process we will ensure that if and when we leave the EU, what we do in this country—hopefully we will at least maintain the same standards—will happen in the rest of the EU. One would not want to see any diminution of standards here, but if animals are being exported into the EU, clearly we need to ensure that standards there remain the same. It would be useful to hear from the Minister how we will continue negotiating with our colleagues—or, after March, our former colleagues—to ensure that standards do not decline anywhere. We pride ourselves on our approach to animal welfare; that is one of our arguments for not signing free trade deals with certain parts of the world.
CIWF has also looked quite hard at some of the slaughtering methods. It is not happy with the current methodology for pigs, sheep or broiler chickens, which it felt should have been tightened up. It is not necessarily about just the method of slaughter, but the mechanism behind it. I have the figures here. A recent survey by the Food Standards Agency reports that in England and Wales 86% of pigs are slaughtered with high concentrations of carbon dioxide. CIWF argues that that is incredibly environmentally damaging, and something that should gradually be run down and replaced. It will be interesting to see whether the Government have that as part of their agenda. Likewise, the non-stunning of sheep is a problem that we have never really got into, because of the normal arguments about halal and shechita methods of slaughter—sheep tend to have been left out of that.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is disappointed that this SI does not go further, certainly in terms of managing live exports. It has asked, what happens in terms of additional border inspections posts? I have asked the Minister that on previous occasions. We have to be aware that at the very least, as an independent nation, we will have to have more independent border inspection posts. It will be interesting to see what contingencies the Government put in place to ensure that that is the case. If the exports go through even the existing ports, such as Dover, we will need to do more checking.
The Dogs Trust—interestingly—said that it did not have time to respond, because the consultation period was so short, but it is a pretty important organisation. It is worried about the transport of adult dogs. I had not realised how many dogs get picked up, literally because the method of transport is so poor that they are seized as part of that transit. The Dogs Trust regularly rehouses adult dogs and puppies that are taken in that way. It felt that this was an opportunity to look at the way in which we transport these animals, and to raise awareness about the diseases that animals can acquire. I am told that leishmaniasis and babesiosis are both rife among puppies—something which the Dogs Trust has to deal with when rehoming those animals. What mechanisms are the Government putting in place to try to bear down on disease, when things are clearly not right at the moment?
I think this is a missed opportunity. Although SIs are coming round with such regularity that none of us knows what we are doing, but we do the best we can, there are some reasons why we should set a standard—not necessarily a gold standard—at which we can feel confident that our animal welfare is the best in the world. If we are saying that we will not diminish that, we have to be confident that it is the best in the world, so when and if we sign these wonderful trade deals, we have to set that as the standard. If other countries cannot meet those standards, we cannot sign the deals.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that if we reduce our standards in any way, we will potentially cut off trade with the entire European Union? Furthermore, does he agree that any delays at the border, as we have seen this week, could be hugely detrimental to animal welfare and could actually increase the incidence of disease outbreaks?
Dr Drew
I agree, and that is why I am saying that we have to ensure that our standards not only stay high, but get higher. Therefore, we will find, hopefully, that countries that we trade with will want to reach those standards.
In conclusion, this is another piece of legislation that, at one level, is nothing other than the usual cut-and-paste job. However, it covers a number of hugely controversial areas, and if we do not get this right, we will have missed an opportunity. More particularly, if we get it wrong, we will all come to rue the day when we sat in this very interesting room—not one that I have been in before, but one that is no doubt fit for purpose, as we have seen today.
David Rutley
I thank the hon. Member for Stroud for—as always—his thoughtful contributions on a number of issues, and I will do all I can to address his points. There may be one or two issues on which I will need to get back to him in writing after this meeting; I hope he will understand, given everything we are trying to deal with today.
David Rutley
Again, I will pick that up afterwards, but I understand.
The hon. Gentleman’s first question, which has come up several times, is why we are not doing more within this SI. It is important for me to say at the beginning that under the withdrawal Act, we do not have the power to make changes to the current legal regime for live exports, welfare at slaughter, journey times, and the other things we have talked about. This SI is not the place to make those changes. However, the hon. Gentleman regularly holds my feet—and those of other Ministers—to the fire on those topics, and he is aware that we have made commitments to bring about changes and are absolutely committed to moving those things forward.
The Government’s manifesto made it clear that we will take early steps to control the export of live animals for slaughter once we leave the European Union. Last year, we sought evidence on how we could achieve that, including through a possible ban. We are currently awaiting advice on that issue from the Farm Animal Welfare Committee, as well as its advice on how we can improve welfare more generally for animals in transport. That advice will be available shortly, and will address both live exports and the transport issues that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of which body will authorise the slaughter certificates: the Food Standards Agency will continue to do so post exit. He also understandably raised issues about slaughter, particularly religious slaughter. He and I were both at the BVA’s annual dinner recently—at which he was a welcome guest, given his contribution to that organisation—and he will remember that at that dinner, I was clear that the Government’s long-standing position is that we would prefer to see animals stunned before they are slaughtered. We accept the right of Jewish and Muslim communities to eat meat slaughtered in accordance with their religious beliefs; however, the Government believe that consumers should have available the information necessary to make an informed choice about their food. We will consider that issue more fully, and actively work on it, once we have left the EU.
David Rutley
Clearly, we will need to assess the whole issue of food labelling more fully once we leave. The hon. Gentleman knows that we are already working on allergens, which are an important dimension. While we are in the EU, we are limited in what we can do, but when we have left, we can look at this issue in the round. This is not just about religious slaughter, although that is one key dimension, or the method of slaughter, which could include CO2 concentrations; we need to think more broadly about sustainability and the welfare standards that are involved. All of those things will be reviewed fully once we have left the EU. The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of CO2 concentrations as a method of slaughtering pigs. We are aware of that issue; we will focus on it, and trials are underway on potential alternatives, such as low atmospheric pressure stunning.
I will try to answer some of the hon. Gentleman’s more detailed questions. He asked about the geographic split of slaughterers who might be affected, prompted, I think, by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport—they were an amazing double act today. Unfortunately, at the moment, we do not have a breakdown of that concentration, but I will take a closer look at what information we might be able to provide to the hon. Member for Stroud.
Luke Pollard
I am interested in the parallel between the fees that the Minister has mentioned and the settled status application. On 21 January, the Prime Minister said:
“I can confirm today that, when we roll out the scheme in full on 30 March, the Government will waive the application fee so that there is no financial barrier for any EU nationals who wish to stay”—[Official Report, 21 January 2019; Vol. 653, c. 28.]—
unless, of course, they work in a slaughterhouse. I would be grateful if the Minister could look at whether now is the right time to waive that fee, so that there is no financial barrier to any EU citizen continuing their employment in the UK. The loss of that £225 times 200 would cost the Department about £45,000 but it would send out an important message. Will the Minister consider waiving the fee, or explain why he disagrees with the Prime Minister about financial impediments to EU nationals continuing to work here?
David Rutley
As always, the hon. Gentleman is a formidable Opposition spokesperson. He seeks to tempt me down paths. All I can say is that I completely agree with the Prime Minister. What the hon. Gentleman mentions is a broader issue about ensuring that EU nationals are welcome and that their contributions are recognised in this country. This is about a technical skill—
David Rutley
If I can finish my answer, we also need to be aware of the fact that the EU has not recognised our certificates either. We have also to bear in mind that we do not have unlimited funds with which to address such issues and that, in most cases, it would be down to the businesses involved to take on the costs. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but our assessment is that it will not be an impediment for the individuals, so he cannot take too far the argument that I am at odds with the Prime Minister—that is a step too far, even though he tempts me down that path.
I think I have addressed most of the other issues that have been raised. As for border inspection posts and the RSPCA’s concerns, they are commercial entities and we are working with commercial bodies to determine what the future requirements might be. The hon. Member for Stroud made an important point about adult dogs, which I will pick up separately as I do not have all the answers. I think he knows, because we share a commitment to doing all we can to tackle illegal puppy smuggling and its disease and welfare implications—not just for the dogs but for humans—that we will make that a priority.
I hope I have answered most of the questions to the satisfaction of members of the Committee. I reiterate that the regulations will not amend current welfare standards but will make operability changes to ensure that existing EU law works appropriately once we leave the EU. I also wish to make it clear that the Government have no intention of reducing animal welfare standards; in fact, we will look to strengthen them, over time, in light of evidence. For the reasons I have set out, I commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Animal Welfare (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Draft Challenges to Validity of EU Instruments (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 Exiting the European Union (Chris Heaton-Harris)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Challenges to Validity of EU Instruments (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies; I believe this is a first for me as a Minister. I am slightly reticent as to any rulings that you might make. We have interesting times when people are in the Chair in this place at the moment.
The draft instrument is now the third that I have had the pleasure of debating under the affirmative procedure. A motion to consider the same regulations was passed in the other place just last week. The draft regulations are part of the Government’s wider programme of secondary legislation to ensure that the UK’s legal system continues to function effectively when we leave the European Union. They will take effect on exit day, or, if an implementation period is agreed, at the end of that period.
The overall intention behind the draft regulations is to make sure that validity challenges that originate in our domestic courts before exit can continue to be heard after exit. They will do that by making provision for UK judges to have jurisdiction to hear those cases. At present, they do not have that jurisdiction; only Court of Justice of the European Union judges have the right to deliver judgments on validity. Questions of validity arising in domestic courts must be referred to the CJEU for judgment.
The draft regulations mean that domestic judges will not be dependent on the judgments of CJEU judges to make rulings in domestic cases. Domestic judges will be empowered to make rulings independently of the CJEU, using the same grounds as are currently set out in article 263 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union: a lack of competence; infringement of essential procedural requirements; infringement of the treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application; or a misuse of powers. I bring to Members’ attention that the number of validity challenge cases referred by UK courts to the CJEU is extremely small. Over the last five years, only 12 cases have been referred by the UK courts, and only one has been partially successful.
As I mentioned, the intention behind the draft regulations is to ensure that access to justice is not restricted after exit. Without the draft regulations, the effect of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 would be that pending cases for which references have already been submitted to the CJEU would not be able to continue. Indeed, whether the CJEU will continue to rule on validity cases submitted by the United Kingdom remains uncertain. The draft regulations will make sure that these pending cases can continue. At the last count, there were only three such cases.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
It would be interesting for the Committee to know what those three cases are. Will the Minister go on to them?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I will happily go on to those cases. They are three basic tax cases: C-182/19, brought by Pfizer Consumer Healthcare, concerning the tax classification of certain therapeutic bandages; C-677/18, brought by Amoena, concerning a tax classification for accessories for artificial body parts—actually, mastectomy bras; and C-612/16, brought by C & J Clark International, concerning the anti-dumping duty and the import of certain leather footwear originating in the People’s Republic of China and in Vietnam. That last one was actually nearly a constituency case of mine. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.
As I said, the intention behind the draft regulations is to ensure that access to justice is not restricted after exit. Without the draft regulations, the effect of the EU withdrawal Act would be that pending cases for which references have already been submitted to the CJEU could not continue. I have said that it remains uncertain whether the CJEU will continue to rule on validity cases submitted by the United Kingdom.
The regulations also cover cases where a domestic court has not yet made a reference to the CJEU but was planning to do so, and any case, other than cases begun before exit, in which a validity challenge may arise. That means that where claimants have brought a case before exit day that hinges on the validity of an EU law, there will be a mechanism in place to ensure that rulings on validity can be provided domestically. The regulations provide that where domestic judges find that an EU law was made invalidly, they will have the jurisdiction to declare it void. The effect of a declaration of invalidity will be that the law is not valid for the purposes of migrating to the UK statute book—in effect, there was never a retained EU law version of it.
I highlight to hon. Members the fact that my Department has worked closely with the Ministry of Justice in developing these regulations. In particular, officials from my Department have worked with judicial policy officials to ensure that both judges and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service are aware of these changes and can manage any change in workload accordingly. Given the historical number of cases that I referred to earlier, my officials expect there to be a very limited number of potential cases aside from the three currently pending, which I have just talked about.
There are two final elements to the regulations that I would like to touch on. Regulation 5 stipulates that the courts must give the appropriate UK authorities notification of their intention to declare an EU law void, and regulation 6 stipulates that any UK authorities have the right to be joined as a party to any proceedings in which these regulations apply. In these regulations, “the relevant UK authorities” is defined as
“a Minister of the Crown (or a person nominated by him), the Scottish Ministers, a Northern Ireland department, and the Welsh Ministers”.
The effect of regulation 5, therefore, is that UK Government Ministers and all the devolved Administrations must be informed when a court is planning to issue a declaration of invalidity.
That particular requirement of the regulations was suggested by the Scottish Government following consultation with them on our proposals. Although the laying of this statutory instrument did not require formal consent from the devolved Administrations, my officials and I were keen to ensure that they were given ample opportunity to provide their views. As I said, as a direct result of this engagement we considered it appropriate that all the devolved Administrations, not just the Scottish Government, be given the right to be notified and be joined as a party to a legal case, given that EU law can directly relate to their respective devolved legal competences.
I have of course thanked the devolved Administrations for their extremely helpful input and received letters from both the Welsh and Scottish Ministers responsible for EU exit, testifying that they are content with these regulations. I would be more than happy to elaborate on any aspect of the regulation that the Committee might find useful. I hope that all members of the Committee will agree that the draft regulations are necessary and important to ensure that courts in the UK can continue to administer justice effectively once we leave the European Union.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
If I may echo the Minister, it is a pleasure to speak to this statutory instrument with you in the Chair, Mr Davies. I thank the Minister for his detailed explanation of the instrument and his comprehensive response to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling.
Schedule 1, from which this statutory instrument flows, relates to section 6 of the EU withdrawal Act on the interpretation of retained EU law. The relationship between domestic law, EU retained law and EU law post exit will give rise to many legal complexities and this SI, though narrow in its scope, raises serious technical and constitutional questions that require clarification.
The Minister did not take the EU withdrawal Act through the Commons, but I am sure he paid close attention, and he will know that when we originally debated it over several long months there was no clarification of schedule 1 paragraph 1(2)(b), which exempted the ban on validity challenges where,
“the challenge is of a kind described, or provided for, in regulations made by a Minister of the Crown.”
This SI provides the necessary criteria, as the Minister set out, and we do not intend to divide the Committee on it.
There is a point on which I seek clarification from the Minister, and that is the decision not to provide a mechanism for the domestic courts to take into consideration future declarations of invalidity by the Court of Justice of the European Union and the potential impact on UK citizens or businesses. The justification for that, as set out by the Minister and in the explanatory memorandum, raises several questions and risks creating an ambiguous legal position. The concern was also expressed in the other place and by the House of Lords Constitution Committee. Paragraph 2.7 of the explanatory memorandum refers to the fact that
“domestic courts have never been able to find EU law invalid.”
That is true, but we are dealing with a new category of EU retained law that will require an innovative approach, as reflected in the fact that the SI gives domestic courts a time-limited power to rule on the validity of EU law.
Paragraph 2.9 of the explanatory memorandum asserts that the approach in the 2018 Act was
“to take a snapshot of EU law as it stands on exit day.”
I recognise that the Government believe that that will provide legal certainty, but I am concerned that it does not robustly tackle the complex questions that the provision raises. We believed that our post-Brexit relationship with the CJEU should be much more dynamic and we tabled amendments to that effect in our consideration of the Bill. However, we recognise that there was some acknowledgement that the influence of the CJEU could not be exorcised from EU retained law, and it seemed that the Government had some appreciation of that.
Section 6(2) of the 2018 Act permits domestic courts to take account of CJEU judgments post exit, but not be bound by them. That is a sensible approach that reflects the unique new category of law created by our departure. However, it is negated by section 6(3), which limits any questions on validity in accordance with retained pre-exit case law and pre-exit EU competencies. The Government’s justification for that in the SI relies heavily on their belief that it will affect a small number of litigants. The Minister made the point that cases are extremely rare. If the Government believe the cases are so few in number, would it not be more consistent and arguably provide more legal certainty to permit domestic courts to have regard to post-exit questions on validity? I recognise that the Minister is arguing that that creates uncertainty, but that is at odds with his argument about the rarity of the cases. We cannot predict that, and the relationship between retained EU law and other domestic legislation is likely to raise a host of questions for the courts.
The instrument risks denying courts what might be much-needed flexibility in dealing with the new relationship. Let us take one example. Paragraph 2.4 of the explanatory memorandum recognises that a declaration of invalidity by the CJEU leads to a disapplication of the legislation, which
“is as if the law in question never existed.”
Have the Government given any consideration to a legal challenge that there was no valid underlying EU law to be transposed into domestic law, therefore meaning it does not exist in EU retained law? This is not a question of parliamentary sovereignty, as per paragraph 2.9, which states that it would be
“for Parliament to decide whether and how to diverge.”
Rather, it is a case of whether that snapshot, as the Government deem it to be, was itself inaccurate. I would appreciate clarification from the Minister on that point.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I have a couple of quick questions for the Minister. I completely understand the Government’s desire to achieve legal certainty, which is, as he himself said, the purpose of the regulations.
Paragraph 2.1 of the explanatory memorandum clearly states:
“On exit day, the EU Withdrawal Act makes clear that there will be no right in domestic law on or after exit day to challenge any retained EU law on the basis that, immediately before exit day, an EU instrument was invalid.”
Is that designed to oust a challenge on any other grounds? It sounds suspiciously like an ouster clause. The Minister will know from history that the courts in this country are reluctant to entertain Governments’ attempts to remove the purview of the courts entirely, and it does sound as if that is exactly what the provision is trying to do. For example, the grounds that the Minister gave include a lack of competence, an infringement of an essential procedural requirement or a misuse of powers.
If an applicant brought before a UK court after exit day an application in relation to a piece of EU law that had been completely transferred—not an application pending in the way that is described here, but rather one that only started after exit day—and the removal of the purview of the CJEU had taken effect, and the application related, for example, to a breach of the rules of natural justice, which a court would certainly wish to entertain, or to a Minister misinforming himself as to his powers, including on an EU law that had been transferred to the UK statute book and had not been challenged hitherto, or in relation to any infringement of procedural requirements, which I suppose would include the rules of natural justice, what would be the Government’s attitude to such an application? Are the Government trying to say that the courts could not entertain such an application? I hope not, and the Minister is shaking his head.
Secondly and finally, if there were a case where a court found itself saying, “This is an instance where we would recognise the validity of the applicant’s claims if we could, but thanks to this regulation we can’t, so we won’t”, what would then be the Government’s policy?
Vernon Coaker
I think I agree with the hon. Gentleman regarding the questions that he has just asked.
I will say this again, and I say it in every SI Committee that I am on: there are numerous SIs that pass into law that have huge implications and people come to our surgeries and say, “When did this happen?” It usually turns out that it was under some SI, rather than a piece of legislation discussed in the main Chamber.
I am not a lawyer, but I will pick up on one or two things that the hon. Member for South Norfolk asked about. The Minister may say, “I have already answered this”, but for the benefit of those who might read these proceedings and non-lawyers, it would be helpful for us to understand better.
I take the point that the Minister made, when he very helpfully read out the court case numbers, which I failed to write down; I did write down the topics. But this is the point: those cases will be dealt with, because they have already begun. I understand that, because these cases were already entered into by the courts beforehand, so there will be an opportunity for our courts to make a judgment on them after exit day—should that happen.
I have no idea what challenges there are around therapeutic bandages or artificial body parts or anti-dumping duties on footwear from China, but I would hesitate to say that these issues are irrelevant or of no consequence, partly because in numerous SI Committees seemingly impenetrable things happen and impenetrable regulations are passed, and then sooner or later somebody comes to one of our surgeries and says, “You’ll never guess what: I have a footwear business and I do a lot of trade with China, and something has happened so that it’s been declared invalid and I can’t now do it.” I have no idea. I am not saying it is wrong or right; I just do not know.
However, I have a couple of questions and it would be helpful if the Minister could answer them. I ask the Minister’s pardon if this is obvious, but it is not obvious to me: is this a no-deal SI, or is it just an SI that is passed whatever the consequence or outcome, whether we leave with a deal or no deal? Is this in lieu of a no-deal Brexit?
Normally, under our constitution, the courts can interpret the law, but as I understand it this measure will allow the courts to strike a law down. So what part of our constitution is the Minister saying allows us to strike down a law? Can he more properly explain the operation of retained European law after exit? I thought it was just, “This is the law, these are the laws we don’t want, these are the laws we do want, so they become part of our law—full stop.” Now, if I am not a lawyer, somebody needs to explain what “retained” means, because what I have just said is what I would have assumed it meant.
Mr Bacon
That is my understanding as well—that retained EU law simply becomes part of domestic law. My questions to the Minister were around the case of something that—in these terms and for these purposes now, after exit day—would no longer be termed in retained EU law but simply for these purposes domestic law, and whether, as this purports to suggest, it would oust the ability of an applicant to get a court to entertain whether this was in breach, or whether the powers that the Minister was using, or purporting to use, under that—for these purposes—domestic law were wrong and invalid, and the Minister was acting inappropriately.
Vernon Coaker
I agree with that. It is very well put and is a question for the Minister to answer, because it goes to the heart of what we are asking.
My final point in this brief contribution is important. What happens if the CJEU—I need to be careful here or I will confuse myself—finds a pre-exit provision of EU law to be invalid? It will cease to be EU law, but will it continue here? The CJEU will have found an existing piece of EU law, which, presumably, we have retained, invalid, so it will not operate in the rest of Europe, but, because it is retained, we will not have the opportunity—or will we?—to strike it down. Or will it simply continue here, even though it has been struck down in the rest of the EU, if the Minister understands me?
Vernon Coaker
I think that is a really important question. On this invalidity in one part of the EU versus validity, the Committee, and certainly the people who read our proceedings, would find it helpful if the Minister explained that in non-legalistic terms so that people like me, if not anybody else, could more properly understand it.
Nobody has ever discussed this with me, and I have no idea whether anybody will, but I just know that, even though there are only three or four or maybe five or six cases, if a case turns up in one of our constituencies it becomes a very big deal. I do not want to be in a position—neither does anybody on the Committee—where somebody says, “Did nobody ask what this meant in terms of validity of EU law and retained law, or who could strike it down, or what the role of our courts was?” The Minister remarked on this, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central from our Front Bench, but a couple of answers to the questions posed by the hon. Member for South Norfolk and me would be helpful to our deliberations.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the various members of the Committee and the shadow spokesman for their points, questions and contributions. I attempted in my opening speech to be relatively brief. Unfortunately, some of the questions raised are relatively complicated, so I am afraid my concluding remarks might take slightly longer.
I will go through some of the points raised. To give an example, one case that I mentioned was partially successful, and I should go into more detail so that people can understand exactly what sorts of case have been subject to validity changes in the past. The one that was partially successful was a tax case submitted by the first-tier tax tribunal. The case concerned the validity of regulations imposing anti-dumping duties on shoes containing specific leather parts. The hon. Member for Gedling is completely correct: such cases are very particular to certain Members of Parliament. I come from Northamptonshire. Shoe manufacturing is a big deal in my part of the world and the case was a big local news story at the time. The CJEU found that, although parts of the regulations were invalid, the parts imposing the anti-dumping duties were still valid, which is why the ruling was partial.
The claimant in the case, Clarks the shoemaker, a manufacturer, claimed that the EU had committed an infringement of an essential procurement requirement on the basis that the Commission had not adjudicated upon claims for market economy treatment and individual treatment by certain Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers. The claimant argued, therefore, that the regulations imposing anti-dumping duties on specific footwear containing uppers—which, as members of the Committee will know, are the parts of the shoe that cover the toes, the top of the foot, the sides of the foot and the back of the heel—made from leather, and originating from Vietnam, China and Macao, were invalid.
The CJEU found that two EU regulations were partially invalid, but that specific requirements of regulations imposing the anti-dumping duties were still valid. In other words, the hon. Gentleman is quite correct. Although it is easy to brush over the effects of the judgments in a couple of sentences in Committee, they are quite significant judgments for big manufacturing companies across our constituencies. He and my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk were right to raise the questions that they did.
The first question is, does the measure reduce access to justice in certain ways? No, it does not. It allows cases begun before exit to continue largely as at present. Without regulations, it would not be possible to continue a validity challenge begun before exit. The decision that it will not be possible to challenge the law on the basis of validity after exit was taken and voted upon by Parliament when the EU withdrawal Act passed.
Another question was, what will happen if the CJEU rules after exit that EU legislation was invalidly made? Will that invalid legislation remain on the UK statute book? The answer is yes—decisions by the CJEU will not affect retained European law. The hon. Member for Gedling asked what EU retained law is. It is a snapshot of all European law taken the day we leave the European Union. It is being done by the National Archives, and will be accessible to every person in this country. I have been to visit the programme that is doing this. I promise the Committee that not only is it on budget, on time and able to do its job; it is ready to go now. There will therefore be a body of retained EU law that people can interrogate from their homes, should they wish to do so.
Even if the CJEU decides to void legislation after exit day, that law will remain on the UK statute book as retained EU law, because the European Union (Withdrawal) Act will take a snapshot of EU law as it stands on exit day, and all law on the UK statute book at that time will be valid as a result of its being made law under the Act. After exit, it will be for Parliament to decide whether and how to diverge from EU law, or indeed perhaps to take note of what might have happened at the CJEU, and to take action that flows from that.
Another question—raised, I think, by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central—was, why do the regulations not go further and include provision for future rulings of the CJEU to be taken into account, or provision for there to be consideration of future rulings? The decision to extinguish validity challenges domestically is coherent with the Government’s intention to re-establish UK parliamentary supremacy over UK law after exit. After exit day, it should and will be for Parliament to decide how, when and whether the UK should modify retained EU law.
Mr Bacon
The Minister is being very clear and has, to some extent, put my mind at rest. I have no issue with the idea that our domestic courts cannot challenge the validity of EU retained law—for these purposes, domestic law. In any case, an ability on their part to do that would seem to me to be a dodgy and suspicious foreign import to English jurisprudence, so I have no problem with that at all. I suppose what I am really trying to get at is simply whether I am correct in supposing that the SI does not purport in any way to limit at all the ambit of the judicial review of administrative action of any law, including the law to be imported as EU retained law into domestic law.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance.
Returning to why the regulations do not go further, the statutory instrument could not act in contradiction to the explicit intention of the withdrawal Act. It could not, for example, make provisions so that UK judges followed validity rulings of the CJEU, or so that future rulings of the CJEU on validity would mean that retained EU law was invalid.
I hope that I have answered a couple of the questions. I am wary in that I might not have tackled everybody’s questions, so, as I begin to conclude, if I have missed anybody I would very much appreciate it if they let me know. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk talked about an ouster clause. We have copied the CJEU grounds, and cannot currently challenge validity for any other reason. I hope that he is now completely satisfied on those grounds.
The regulations aim to ensure the effective continued delivery of justice as we leave the European Union. As such, they are an important part of the Government’s preparations for the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. As such, I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Challenges to Validity of EU Instruments (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Draft Financial Services (Miscellaneous) (Amendment) (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 Financial Services (Miscellaneous) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey? As the Committee will be aware, 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. The Treasury has been laying statutory instruments under the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to deliver that, and most of them have now been debated and approved and are in place for exit day should they be needed. The SI being debated today is one of the final parts of the programme. I believe it is the 51st SI and the 31st debate in which I have taken part.
The instrument revokes a number of pieces of UK domestic law and retained EU law that it would not be appropriate to keep on the statute book after exit. It also makes amendments to a number of financial services EU exit SIs to reflect other instruments that have been laid as part of the wider legislative programme, corrects minor errors identified in legislation after making and makes amendments to ensure consistency between EU exit instruments.
Turning to the substance of the SI, it has five main components. First, the SI amends UK domestic law to ensure continuity with other legislation that has been amended under the 2018 Act. Specifically, it makes amendments to primary and secondary legislation that does not fall within the remit of changes made by other instruments. Specifically, the SI removes references to EU institutions and regimes in four Acts of Parliament: the Insolvency Act 1986, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, the Income Tax Act 2007 and the Corporation Tax Act 2009. The amendments will ensure that provisions that are irrelevant in a UK-only context are not retained on the UK statute book. The SI also makes minor technical amendments to seven pieces of secondary legislation to reflect changes made by other legislation. For example, it updates the definition of “credit institution” as introduced by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Secondly, the SI makes minor technical amendments to 12 other financial services EU exit instruments that have been previously debated by the House. A number of the amendments are being made in this instrument because they are consequential on other instruments that have only recently been made, such as the Equivalence Determinations for Financial Services and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. A minority of the amendments correct drafting errors and improve the clarity of drafting. For example, a duplicate provision is omitted from the Bank of England (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, as the same amendment is made by the Deposit Guarantee Scheme and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
At this point, it would be appropriate for me to acknowledge the enormous amount of work done by my colleagues in the Treasury to minimise the number of amendments that have been necessary. We are talking about 10 or 12 in 1,000 pages of SIs.
Thirdly, the SI revokes three UK statutory instruments that relate to EU regimes that will not be applicable to the UK in the event of a no-deal exit, given that they implement EU law that is being revoked at exit day under separate instruments.
Fourthly, the SI makes amendments to or revokes retained EU law to ensure consistency with other EU exit instruments that have been made and to remove references to EU institutions that will no longer be relevant post-exit. For example, part of regulation 33 revokes EU regulations providing for functions and administration of the European Central Bank.
Finally, the SI makes transitional and saving provisions to address deficiencies that arise from the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and to limit disruption to the financial services industry if the UK leaves without a deal. For example, a minor change is made to article 7 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001, which excludes deposits held in lawyers’ client accounts from being regulated under financial services law, as they are already regulated by the Law Society. European-registered lawyers are currently included in the exemption, and the SI ensures that the exemption will continue for a limited period after Brexit. A transitional regime is also made for group supervision under the Solvency 2 and Insurance (Amendment, etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, so that where a group is supervised by an EEA supervisor, the relevant provisions that impose requirements on the Prudential Regulation Authority as a group supervisor do not apply for a period of two years after exit day.
The Treasury has worked closely with the financial services regulators in the drafting of the EU exit instruments amended by the instrument. We have also engaged extensively with the financial services industry on the instruments to which the SI relates. In summary, the Government believe that the proposed legislation is necessary to ensure that the UK has a coherent and functioning financial services regulatory regime once it leaves the EU, and that the legislation will continue to function appropriately if it leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period. I hope hon. Members will join me in supporting the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. Once again, the Minister and I are discussing a statutory instrument that makes provision for a regulatory framework after Brexit in the event of us crashing out without a deal. On each occasion, my Front-Bench colleagues and I have spelt out our objections to the Government’s approach of using secondary legislation to fulfil that process.
As the Minister has said, we are reaching the end of the process or, as Churchill might have said, the end of the beginning. This is one of the last few statutory instrument Committees that I will address before we perhaps leave the European Union at the end of the month. We have had some 25 or 26 debates—my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) has shared the burden with me. I place on record my thanks to my staff, particularly Sophia Morrell in my office and Mary Partington in the shadow Chancellor’s office, for their assistance with the process. It has been technical and burdensome, so the support of dedicated staff has been essential. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Withington and for Colne Valley for their support and attendance.
It has been a long process for us all, including the Minister and his staff. It is a source of some frustration that the Government held a vote to prevent us crashing out only last week—we wanted that to happen many months ago. Technically, we are debating secondary legislation that the Government have stated that they will never allow to be needed, but these are not normal times. I also note that we have not received a new date for the Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill to return to the Commons. Will the Minister tell us whether there is any plan for it to return?
The statutory instrument demonstrates the scope of what the Government have attempted to carry out in the process. The pressure of scrutiny has been immense and, at this late stage, we seem to have been presented, in a way that is difficult to analyse, with a substantial wrap-up item that contains dozens of individual changes to previous statutory instruments. The Minister has shed some light on the source of the amendments and has been candid in saying that some reflect deficiencies in the original instruments that we have passed, but they are similar in scope to the Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill and go to the core of our critique of the process.
Surprisingly, I note from the explanatory memorandum that the SI was originally tabled as a negative instrument. That decision was subsequently declined by the European Statutory Instruments Committee, or sifting Committee, hence our debate under the affirmative procedure today. I am minded to vote against it for that reason, on principle, but if the Minister agrees, a better way forward might be for him to write to me to set out, in his view, the balance between the drafting errors and the technical amendments contained in the instrument, and to place a copy in the Library so there will be complete transparency for all hon. Members as to exactly what it contains and relates to.
The Chair
In the absence of other hon. Members queuing up to contribute, I call the Minister to reply.
John Glen
I thank the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde for his comments. I acknowledge the courteous and thorough way in which he has gone about his work. Where there have been differences between us, he has raised them in the spirit of constructive scrutiny, and he has worked extremely hard with his team. As someone who was responsible for supporting the shadow Chancellor in a previous era, I know how challenging it is to do that sort of work, so I pay tribute to his office and those who have supported him. I will thank my hon. Friends at a later point, because I still have more to do.
The hon. Gentleman raises significant and substantive points. I cannot assist him with respect to the timing of the Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill. I acknowledge that the Bill is outstanding, but at this point in time I am not in a position to give him the information he seeks.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the move from negative to affirmative process. I undertake to write to him about that. My understanding is that it was moved in that direction because of the sheer volume of small amendments. I reassure him that it was always envisaged when this process was designed, and when I saw that spreadsheet back in October, that there would be mop-up measures given the nature of the complexity of the exercise.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that there have been no meaningful policy changes through this SI. These are technical changes, often to remove reference to the EU, and the drafting errors are a significant minority. Nevertheless, I will reflect fully on his comments and where I can offer him some more substantive words of reassurance I will do so.
Having given that response, I hope that the comments I made on the necessity for this SI in ensuring a functioning and coherent legislative and regulatory regime for financial services have been heard. I commend this regulation to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Aviation Noise (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Draft Aviation Statistics (Amendment ETC.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Draft Aviation Safety (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Aviation Noise (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Aviation Statistics (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the draft Aviation Safety (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Jesse Norman
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. The draft instruments that we are considering 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 without a deal. The Government’s priority is still to leave the European Union with a deal, but of course we must make all reasonable plans to prepare for a no-deal scenario, and that includes ensuring that there is a functioning statute book for aviation.
The first draft instrument, on aviation noise, makes amendments to domestic legislation and a directly applicable EU regulation that relate to aviation noise certification and the circumstances in which operating restrictions are considered at airports. The relevant regulations are, first, the Aeroplane Noise Regulations 1999, which were made to implement in UK law EU obligations relating to noise certification requirements in respect of propeller-driven and civil subsonic jet aeroplanes. The noise regulations prohibit certain aircraft from taking off or landing in the UK without having an in-force noise certificate issued by the UK or a competent authority of the state of registry that is recognised by the UK.
Secondly, the Air Navigation (Environmental Standards For Non-EASA Aircraft) Order 2008, also known as the environmental standards order, sets out the environmental standards relating to the noise and emissions of specific UK-registered aircraft that are not subject to the basic EU aviation safety regulation—EU regulation 2018/1139—and regulation by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency. Those regulations apply largely to light and microlight aircraft.
Thirdly, EU regulation 598/2014, commonly known as regulation 598, establishes the rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of operating restrictions at certain EU airports, based on a balanced approach to noise management, which has been an agreed International Civil Aviation Organisation principle since 2001. Finally, the Airports (Noise-related Operating Restrictions) (England and Wales) Regulations 2018, otherwise known as the operating restrictions regulations, appointed competent authorities for England and Wales for the purposes of regulation 598. The withdrawal Act will retain EU regulation 598 in its entirety, on exit day, in UK law.
The draft instrument 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 a European economic area state which apply to other foreign-registered aeroplanes. That will in effect end the automatic recognition of noise certificates granted in the EU and EEA. Rather than the UK automatically recognising noise certificates granted in the EU and EEA, noise certificates from the EU and EEA will be subject to the same rules that currently apply to noise certification of aircraft from non-EU and non-EEA countries. The requirements relating to certification of UK-registered aeroplanes are being amended so that they apply only to use in the UK rather than use in the EU and EEA. The regulations apply to propeller-driven and civil subsonic jet aeroplanes. That includes light aircraft and commercial passenger aircraft.
Criminal offences for breach of the noise regulations have existed in domestic legislation since 1999 and carry a penalty of up to £2,500. Those offences already apply to third-country operators and to operators of UK-registered aircraft operating in the EU, but not to certain smaller civil subsonic jet aeroplanes registered in an EU member state, EEA state, Gibraltar or Switzerland. The amendments to the noise regulations that I have described mean that from exit day the aircraft will be covered by the offences for breaching the noise regulations.
The changes to the environmental standards order amend the terminology used in the 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 obligations 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 on Scottish Ministers. It includes an obligation on competent authorities to inform the Commission and other member states that operating restrictions are planned to be imposed.
The instrument instead provides 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 measures providing for technical updates to the regulation to take account of changes in relevant international rules is conferred instead as a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations subject to the negative resolution procedure. The changes to the operating restrictions regulations reflects a very small amendment to the title to regulation 598 made by the instrument and removes the word “Union”.
When the instrument was debated in Grand Committee in the House of Lords last week, the issues of consultation and independence of competent authorities were raised. As the aviation Minister, Baroness Sugg, said during that debate, the instrument itself does not appoint the competent authorities. That was done last year for England and Wales following extensive consultation. An instrument was laid on 5 March appointing competent authorities for Scotland. It is a requirement under regulation 598 that the competent authorities are independent of any organisation that could be affected by noise-related action. There is a requirement for right of appeal. It is also a requirement under regulation 598 that stakeholders are consulted before any operating restrictions are imposed. That remains unchanged.
The draft aviation statistics instrument amends EU regulations 437/2003 and 1358/2003, and seeks 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 the instrument made under the European Communities Act 1972 creates a mechanism to enforce the obligation on airports to provide data, because there is currently no penalty if an airport does not comply.
The SI was initially laid as a proposed negative instrument, but we have accepted the recommendations of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to re-lay the SI using the affirmative procedure instead, acknowledging its concerns about the potential impact of the changes on commercial airport operators. I thank the Committees for their work in considering the statutory instrument.
EU regulation 437/2003, referred to as the statistical returns regulation, requires operators of airports served by commercial flights to provide their member state with specified statistical data. In its existing form it specifies information that must be compiled by the member state: in this case, a function carried out 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 processes.
EU regulation 1358/2003, referred to as the implementing regulation, 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 comprises effectively all that see commercial air traffic. The list included 46 airports across the UK at the point of its last update by the EU.
The withdrawal Act will retain EU regulations 437/2003 and 1358/2003 in their entirety on exit day in UK law. The draft instrument that we are considering makes the changes necessary so that those EU regulations continue to function correctly after exit day. It is essential to ensure that the regulatory regime in place after exit continues to allow statistics on the total volumes of passengers and freight using UK airports to be compiled. The gathering of such data and publication of derived figures by the Civil Aviation Authority are activities that are important for Government, the public and the sector itself to be able to monitor performance. Further, the draft instrument amends the statistical returns regulation to remove the duty on the UK to continue to transmit the data to Eurostat. The power to collect statistical data and the obligation on respondents to provide that data are to be retained, with responsibility for the functions being given to the CAA.
The instrument amends the implementing regulation to remove the specific list of airports covered. The list is, in fact, superfluous, as the existing implementing regulation contains a mechanism that sets the burden of data collection at different levels, depending on the volume of traffic seen by an individual airport. The mechanism will remain in the retained EU regulations, so what is expected of airports will stay the same.
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 the legislation continues to operate after the UK has left the EU, and the amendments to the retained EU legislation are essential if that is to be achieved.
During the preparation of the instrument, a review of the statistical returns regulation highlighted the requirement for an enforcement mechanism, to meet the UK’s responsibility as a member state. That is why the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee recommended that the instrument be upgraded to the affirmative procedure. The instrument therefore provides a mechanism whereby the CAA can enforce the obligation on airports to provide the data specified in the statistical returns regulation. In determining the penalty, enforcement mechanisms in similar legislation were considered, so as not to go beyond prior precedent. Consequently, the Department decided to match the enforcement power in the Airport Charges Regulations 2011, with a civil penalty of up to £5,000. That part of the regulations is required regardless of final decisions on the UK’s future relationship with the EU.
Hon. Members may recall that the draft aviation safety instrument was debated in a Delegated Legislation Committee on 19 December 2018. Since then, a new EU regulation was published on 10 January and entered into force on 30 January. That regulation amends a small number of provisions relating to the medical assessment of pilots that were already being corrected by the draft instrument. As a consequence, a few aspects of regulation 318 in the original draft instrument would no longer accurately correct retained EU legislation, as the EU legislation they acted upon would have changed. In particular, the inaccurate aspects of regulation 318, on the medical assessment of pilots, would have been outside the powers of section 8 of the EU withdrawal Act, under which the draft instrument has been made—in other words, ultra vires.
To ensure that the entirety of the draft instrument made proper and correct use of the powers in the EU withdrawal Act, the Government made the decision to withdraw it, correct it and re-lay it at the earliest opportunity. The version of the instrument we are considering today also takes account, therefore, of the new EU regulation, the resulting changes to regulation 318 in this instrument and the minor addition required to regulation 327. The rest of the instrument remains unchanged.
The current instrument corrects five principal EU regulations relating to aviation safety, together with a number of Commission implementing regulations made under them. The five principal EU regulations include regulation 2018/1139, more commonly known as the EASA basic regulation, and regulation 3922/91 on technical harmonisation. Although the latter has been largely superseded by the former, provisions on flight and duty time limitations still apply to the crews of aeroplanes undertaking air taxi, emergency medical services and single-pilot commercial air transport operations. The third of the five regulations is regulation 2111/2005, which establishes the list of air operators banned from operating into the EU on safety grounds; the fourth is regulation 996/2010, which sets requirements for the investigation of air accidents and incidents; and the final one is regulation 376/2014, which establishes requirements for civil aviation occurrence reporting. 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; and the design and operation of aerodromes.
The draft instrument makes the changes necessary to ensure that those regulations, when retained in UK law on exit day continue to function correctly. The changes include, for instance, making it clear that the retained legislation applies only to the UK and not
“the territory to which the treaties apply”,
and replacing references to the competent authority with references to the Civil Aviation Authority.
The instrument also transfers certain functions currently undertaken by EASA to the CAA—for example, approving organisations that design aircraft, and certifying the design of aircraft and engine types. Under the EU regulations, the Commission has a number of functions, including the power to adopt regulations, to adopt or amend technical requirements and to make certain limited amendment to the principal EU regulations. These legislative functions will be transferred to the Secretary of State to be exercised through regulations subject to the negative resolution procedure. These powers 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.
All certificates, licences and approvals issued by EASA or EU EEA states prior to exit day will remain valid in the UK by virtue of the withdrawal Act if they were valid in the UK immediately before exit day. The draft instrument provides that such certificates should be treated as if they were issued by the CAA. With the exception of certificates relating to aircraft design, the instrument also limits the validity of such certificates to two years after exit day, after which time CAA certificates will be required. The CAA needs to issue the safety certificates to have full oversight over aviation safety in the UK, in accordance with the UK’s obligations under the Chicago convention.
As I said in my opening remarks, we are continuing to work to achieve a positive future relationship with the EU, but these instruments are an essential element of our contingency planning for a no-deal exit. They would ensure that, in the event of a no-deal exit from the EU, the UK’s framework for aviation noise, statistics and safety continues to work effectively, and that the aviation industry and consumers have clarity about the regulatory framework that will be in place. I commend the instruments to the Committee.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I note that the Government are starting to group instruments together. That seems inevitable, as we may well be running out of time, but it speaks to the fact that the Government’s handling of Brexit has been a complete and utter debacle from the very outset. It would be good if the Minister gave us an idea of how many more instruments are required in the aviation sector and whether they will be grouped.
I can confirm that we support these statutory instruments. The Aviation Noise (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 make changes to domestic EU-derived legislation relating to noise. The changes will ensure that the legal framework relating to noise continues to function correctly after the UK leaves the EU. The legal framework will operate in a self-contained way in the UK, but will keep the same requirements of UK-registered aircraft. It will continue to follow the international standards laid down by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. It keeps the UK noise regulations in line with the EU’s. We recognise that the instrument is needed as we leave the European Union.
The instrument brings responsibilities currently held by the Commission back to the UK—in this case, to the Civil Aviation Authority. There will be a cost impact to that. I think I am right in saying that the amount for extra staffing at the Civil Aviation Authority amounts to something in the region of £192,000. That seems a very conservative figure, so will the Minister tell the Committee how many staff will be required?
On the Aviation Statistics (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, the statistical returns regulations require airport operators to provide statistical data to EU member states, and require member states to collect data from airports and transmit statistical returns to Eurostat. If there is no agreement with the EU providing for the UK to send statistical data after exit, we will no longer send data to Eurostat. The instrument obliges respondents to provide data to the Civil Aviation Authority, and gives the CAA the power to force airport to provide it with statistical data. The explanatory note makes no reference to the Civil Aviation Authority being provided with any extra resources to carry out this function. Does the Minister feel that it is already fully resourced to carry out these additional functions?
In relation to the aviation safety regulations, current safety functions are done on the basis of the UK being a member of EASA. On numerous occasions I have asked whether the Government intend to negotiate to ensure that we remain a member of EASA. The Minister has never been able to confirm the Government’s position in relation to that.
In this case, the UK-wide regulator will no longer be the UK-wide regulator. It already undertakes the majority of certification and oversight tasks required by the retained EU legislation. It is important to note that we will continue to have the same technical requirements and standards as the EASA system on exit day. Could the Minister explain the position for the next stage of negotiations? Will they definitely make the case for the UK to continue to be a member of EASA?
As with the other two instruments that we are discussing, this SI brings functions from EU bodies to the Civil Aviation Authority. Again, I reiterate my questions around resources. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed my points. I am sure the Committee looks forward to his answers.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Many, if not all, of the points I would like to make have been covered, so I will just make some general comments. In essence, this is about rights for people in their homes and those who might be affected by aircraft movements, as well as the rights of the air industry, passengers and travellers, relating to their lives, convenience, business and safety. Yet here we are, 11 days out from Brexit, trapped on a flight to nowhere, with no pilots and mired in on-board fighting. Eleven days to go—it is an absolute scandal.
Scotland did not vote for this and we do not want this. As well as this unnecessary farce, there are still far too many unanswered questions for aviation and everything else on Brexit, especially the calamity of no deal. It is time to evacuate from this Brexit, to delay article 50 and put this back to the people.
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull East and for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey for their questions, which I will address in turn. The first question raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East was about the number of further SIs to be debated. I am delighted to tell him that I do not expect us to have to debate any further SIs on aviation. Therefore, on the question of grouping—[Interruption.] I am sure colleagues will feel extreme joy. Certainly, there is a little frisson in the ministerial team. That is good news.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the cost impact on the CAA. I think he will agree that the number he raised—£192,000—is remarkably small. I reassure him that the CAA is well advanced in managing the overall burden of its scale-up for Brexit. There are something like three more people to be retained or hired, and this sum relates to those people. There are currently 47 full-time equivalent staff in place out of 50, with three expected, so I think the CAA is well on top of the issue.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we will have to remain part of EASA. He will understand that we wish to continue UK participation in EASA for all kinds of reasons. It is a highly respected organisation. The CAA has always had a very close relationship with it. As we discussed, the CAA was one of the progenitors of EASA. It is in the interest of both the UK and the EU not to disrupt existing safety arrangements. The CAA has not unfortunately been able to hold formal discussions with EASA about EU exit issues, but it is clear, as are we, that it will need to liaise with EASA very closely in the event that this country leaves the EU without a deal. Many of those relationships are already in place.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey. I lack his skill for aviation metaphors, such as evacuation, bail out or whatever. He was right to focus on rights. I hope he is reassured that this, as a formal lift-and-shift and modest correction exercise, does nothing to impugn the rights of people as they currently exist under this legislation. Indeed, it seeks to ensure that they are protected by ensuring that the UK statue book continues to work in a functional way for aviation. I hope the Committee supports the statutory instruments.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Aviation Statistics (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Aviation Statistics (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(Jesse Norman.)
Draft Aviation Safety (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Aviation Safety (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(Jesse Norman.)
Ministerial Correction
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Treasury
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
Any amendments to fix the exit deficiencies would have to be made known to the Treasury, and any new binding technical standards derived from this ongoing review will also have to come from the Treasury and will have to be laid under the affirmative procedure.
[Official Report, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 20 February 2019, c. 9.]
Letter of correction from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury.
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Members for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds).
The correct statement should have been:
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
Any amendments to fix the exit deficiencies would have to be made known to the Treasury, and any changes to binding technical standards derived from this ongoing review will also have to be made known to the Treasury.
Petitions
Green Deal Scheme
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
ISIS Members Returning to the UK
(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
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered E-petition 231521 relating to ISIS members returning to the UK.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. The petition has been signed by more than 580,000 people—more than any other petition that the Petitions Committee has received in this Parliament. It calls on foreign fighters who travel to Iraq and Syria in order to join the terrorist organisation Daesh—also referred to as ISIS—to have their citizenship revoked. It has gained extreme momentum in recent weeks following the publicity surrounding the case of Shamima Begum, her efforts to return to the UK and the subsequent saddening news of the death of her infant child. Despite the actions of the baby’s mother, Jarrah was a British citizen guilty of no crime. I mourn his death. The case of Shamima Begum is complex and highly emotive, and it is still ongoing. The Minister will have access to realtime details of it, so I will make no further mention of it. Rather, I will discuss the petition text in the broad context in which it was originally started.
The terrorist threat facing the United Kingdom and other western nations comes not just from one front. Even as we debate this matter here today, details of a shooting on a tram in Utrecht are still coming through. I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House will be with everybody affected in the hours ahead. The horrendous atrocities in Christchurch on Friday serve as a reminder that terrorists claim to operate in the name of many different races and religions, on behalf of many groups and ideologies, and in different regions across the world. That is a timely reminder that a single, catch-all approach may not be the most suitable means of dealing with all terrorists. I will therefore use this opportunity to consider the petition text—the proposal that restricting the return to the UK of anybody who has decided to join a terrorist group, and removing their citizenship and passports, would help keep the UK safe from terrorists and their actions.
The Home Secretary recently stated that as many as 900 people who have been deemed to be a concern to our national security have travelled to Syria and Iraq to join terrorist organisations. About 20% of those 900 have been killed on the battlefield, 40% remain in the region and 40% have returned to the UK. That means that about 360 people who are deemed to be a security concern have travelled to Iraq and Syria and since returned. Of those 900 people, more than 100 have been deprived of their British citizenship.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
More than 11,000 of my constituents have signed the petition. I believe that enemies of our country should not be allowed back into it. Does my hon. Friend agree that British citizenship should not be taken for granted, and that the decision not to allow ISIS members back into the country will act as a deterrent to others who are thinking about betraying our country?
Luke Hall
My hon. Friend gets to the heart of the matter. The fact that so many of her constituents signed the petition demonstrates the strength of feeling in many communities. Later, I will look in a bit more detail at whether and when it is right to remove citizenship. I thank her for that intervention.
The petition text states that a ban on all foreign fighters returning to the UK would send a message to others that membership of terrorist organisations is not tolerated. That is representative of a concern raised by many people that, in recent years, our democracies have taken too lax an attitude in dealing with extremism, allowing people the freedom to act in unacceptable ways that contravene traditional British values. Many people who have contacted me since this debate was scheduled worry that a precedent is being set, and that people are allowed to act as they please with no fear of consequence, resulting in an environment in which people feel able to join terrorist groups without any retribution.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is illegal under international law to strip away someone’s nationality if thereby they are left completely stateless?
Luke Hall
I thank the right hon. Lady for making that point. At the moment, I am trying to articulate the concerns of the people who signed the petition. In a minute, I will talk about my own thoughts on the petition text. I am very aware of the point she makes, and I thank her for doing so, but that cannot cloud the fact that a lot of people feel this, which has resulted in the huge support for the petition. Those who have contacted me feel strongly that these are reasons for change alone.
A number of people who signed the petition think that, when foreign fighters realise that the area they have travelled to is not the utopia they anticipated, they feel able freely to return to their old lives in Britain without being prosecuted, and that taking a stronger line in denying those people the right to return to the UK would remove a substantial burden from our police force, which is required to spend time and resources in responding to terrorism-related incidents. The police’s time could be better used on other issues to maintain security and keep people safe on our streets.
A third argument that has been put forward is that the Government could do more to ensure that people who travel to countries such as Iraq and Syria to aid and abet terrorism can be reliably prosecuted for their actions on return to the UK. At present, every person returning to the UK is questioned and investigated. The Government have made it clear that, wherever possible, prosecutions are brought. However, statistics show that, of the 360 people who have returned to the UK, only 40 have been successfully prosecuted. It is of course incredibly difficult to gather evidence from regions such as the territories held by Daesh. Most people recognise and understand the difficulties that are likely to arise in trying to build a case against foreign fighters in order to level a charge against them that can be successfully prosecuted when they are in those regions.
People support the new public offence of entering or remaining in a designated area, which will enable prosecutions to be brought against people travelling to regions that the Government have designated as a terror risk. Therefore, although deprivation of citizenship may be suitable in certain unique situations, there are advantages to establishing that broader approach while retaining the ability to strip citizenship if the circumstances dictate that that would be the best course of action to keep our country safe.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Ind)
The hon. Gentleman is setting out well the concerns raised in the petition. Does he agree that we ought to look exceptionally at the idea of applying the declared area offence retrospectively? That unusual but not unprecedented measure could be a way of prosecuting many of the hundreds of people who have come back to this country and are escaping prosecution at the moment.
Luke Hall
The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important issue. If that was something that our police and security services felt would aid them in their work, I would support it. We should consider our responsibility as a country for dealing with British nationals who have become radicalised by domestic terrorists. We should have faith in our British court system. If someone is born, raised and radicalised in Britain, it ought to be the British Government’s responsibility to hold them to account for their actions. They should be tried in front of a British jury by British judges, and held accountable to the standards required of our great legal system.
The precedent that blanket deprivation of citizenship, in contravention of international law, would set for other nations around the world should also be considered. Consider this scenario: a person from another country becomes radicalised by a terrorist group and has their citizenship from their country of birth revoked on the grounds of their eligibility for British citizenship. Were that individual’s country of birth to take the view that it wished to disown them, would it be right for the UK to be required to be responsible for the detention, rehabilitation and guarding of the future welfare of that individual?
Were such policies to be pursued by countries around the world, the extent of the problems created would be untold. For example, suspected terrorists would end up littered across the globe, with no state prepared to take them, own them and prosecute them for their crimes. Some countries could choose to go further and cancel citizenship for someone who has committed a crime at any point while they are away from their country, which would render them the responsibility of whichever state they happen to be in at that particular time.
Part of the solution to the question can be found in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, which introduced temporary exclusion orders enabling the Secretary of State to render invalid a foreign fighter’s British passport and require that individual to apply for a permit to return to the United Kingdom—that was clearly a positive step. In some cases, the severe penalties for failing to comply, including lengthy prison sentences, go some way to providing a deterrent—my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) mentioned this—to people considering making the journey to join terrorists groups.
We should acknowledge that the circumstances are different in every case, so the approach that we adopt must allow Ministers, informed by this country’s security services, to evaluate every instance based on its own circumstances. A framework that allows that to happen effectively is required. We must be able to demonstrate that membership of terrorist organisations is never tolerated under any circumstances, and provide a greater deterrent to people considering becoming a foreign fighter. That can be effective only as part of a wide-ranging Government framework for tackling the problem head-on and confronting it at an earlier stage.
The measures that the UK’s counter-terrorism strategy takes to prevent people from becoming radicalised in the first place are vital to ensure that risk is minimised. I support the Government’s Prevent strategy and the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, which updates offences relating to the obtaining and sharing of terrorism-related materials. I was pleased to sit on the Public Bill Committee for that Bill as it was steered through the Commons. The new legislation ensures, for example, that material that is only viewed or streamed—rather than downloaded to form a permanent record—is also now considered an offence. There is room for the Government to go further. A July 2018 report, co-authored by the Chair of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, considered the possibility of designating treason as a new offence.
The matter of how the UK ought to deal with returning foreign fighters is clearly complex. Although a number of arguments support proposals to remove the citizenship of anybody who decides to travel to Syria or Iraq to join Daesh or any other terrorist organisation, evidence shows that adopting a catch-all solution is not always so simple. With the Government’s Prevent and Contest strategies, along with the new Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, I feel confident that we are taking positive steps, but more can be done.
What steps is the Minister’s Department taking to build a case for prosecuting people who have travelled to regions such as Iraq and Syria? What assurances can she give that the legislative framework is now in place to prosecute effectively any returning foreign fighters? What more are the Government doing to improve the prosecution rates of people who we know have been in the region and are a threat to our national security when they return to the UK? Finally, what consultation has she had with our security services and police forces to get a better understanding of what further powers they would like us to legislate for?
I conclude by sending my condolences to everybody affected by the attacks in Utrecht and in Christchurch. A tough and balanced approach from the Government will allow us to uphold our principles of access to justice while continuing to be one of the safest countries in the world, with security services that are the envy of the world.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Ind)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Howarth, and it is a pleasure to follow that very measured and balanced opening contribution from the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall). It is unfortunate that the debate clashes directly with an urgent question in the main Chamber about far-right violence and online extremism in the wake of the Christchurch terrorist atrocity. That means that a number of us have had to choose between one and the other, which we did not originally think would be the case.
I will set out why I do not agree with the central proposition of the petition. The Government could be far more effective in tackling the menace of foreign fighters returning to the UK. Their current measures probably alienate people on most sides of the debate, and not for the first time.
It is abhorrent for anyone who claims to be British, who was born here and who has benefited from the manifest advantages that our country and society offer our citizens, to declare themselves effectively in opposition to everything that the UK stands for, to go as far as to travel to another country to take up arms—or to aid those taking up arms—fundamentally against the British state, and to aid actions that could result in members of the British armed forces being killed on the battlefield. Why, then, although I sympathise with its aims, do I think that the petition is wrong? There are two reasons.
The first is on the grounds of effectiveness. If we pronounced that no British citizen who went abroad as a foreign fighter would be allowed to return to the UK, we would essentially be tearing up long-standing international agreements on the exchange of citizens. That would make this country less, not more, safe, which is the opposite of the petition’s intention.
In the wake of the focus on the Shamima Begum case, I asked the Home Office to list the number of foreign citizens whom it has attempted to deport from the country, both for terrorist-related reasons and for other reasons. The officials who drafted the parliamentary answer on behalf of Ministers said that that information was not available. That sounds absurd; of course the Government know how many foreign nationals they have deported over recent years. The Government should be open about figures, particularly when that information probably stands to strengthen their overall position, which is to adhere to international rules on deporting citizens who are guilty of sufficiently serious offences.
I would be surprised if the figures, once we have them, do not show that, overall, the UK has deported more foreign extremists from our territory over the past five, 10 or 20 years than it is looking to accept back via deportation. Therefore, if we were to declare unilaterally that we will no longer accept British people back from foreign countries, not only would we be in breach of international rules, but why then would any other country accept back one of its nationals who has been found guilty, or is even suspected—people can be deported on the basis of less than a full conviction by a British court—of committing a terror offence. That approach could spectacularly backfire.
The second reason is a moral one, and I believe this strongly. When British society has created the problem—Shamima Begum was born in Britain, she is a British person and she was radicalised in Britain—she is our problem to sort out. How is it acceptable for the Government to deport the problem to another country through whatever strangulated means they used and without fully explaining them? In such circumstances, surely we need to be careful about the message we are sending as lawmakers. I am afraid that statements such as, “These people aren’t really British”, often have an undercurrent of meaning—that such a person does not look right, that they do not have the same skin colour as a British person or dress in the same way or follow the same religion as a British person. That is fundamentally wrong. We are an open society. We welcome people in and, once someone has been born here or has been accepted as British, that is it. We need to make our society work and to be far better at rooting out extremism in our country and in our communities, but the Government are not doing that sufficiently well enough.
We should pay attention not to stopping those Brits who have gone over and committed atrocities coming back, but to finding a way properly to prosecute them for any evil acts they might have done. That would be the deterrent effect to stop future generations going over.
Ms Abbott
Does my hon. Friend agree that telling first-generation British citizens of Bangladeshi origin that their citizenship can be stripped from them at will is potentially counterproductive, and that Shamima Begum should have been brought home, interrogated, and put on trial if that was the right thing to do?
John Woodcock
I thank the right hon. Lady for that intervention. Yes, I believe strongly that Shamima Begum should be brought home and put on trial. The possibility that there is insufficient evidence to try her is deeply alarming, however, and I will come on to how the system ought to be strengthened. Anyone who looks at the case, apart from those from a narrow and legalistic background, will see a woman who travelled over to the so-called caliphate of Islamic State with the express intention of supporting it. She admitted that openly to the journalists who found her and who interviewed her subsequently. She admitted to supporting the caliphate as part of a community. How on earth can she not be prosecuted for terrorist offences? If the legal position is that proof is needed of the active aiding and abetting of violent acts, or of carrying out such acts directly, clearly the legislation is far too lax.
That is the first point on which I want the Minister to come back to me on, although I understand that she is standing in for her colleague, the Security Minister. By the way—if this is not too much of a detour, Mr Howarth —I commend the Minister, probably on behalf of everyone present and of much of the House, on what she apparently said on the margins of a vote to the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), about the issue of historical child abuse. I will say no more than that and I do not expect her to comment on it for Hansard.
We should ensure that the terrorism laws are fit for purpose. If people go over there and admit to being part of and in general support of that organisation, in whatever way, that means that they are guilty of a terrorism offence, and they should be prosecuted for it. Some of my colleagues and I have long pushed for an Australian-style declared areas offence in British law—to be fair to the Security Minister, he was also on that track. That is finally being done, although it is being weakened in a way that I am concerned about, but let us see. It is good for it to be on the statute book. The Iraq and Syria conflicts will not be the only such conflicts so, in future, with such an offence, a case could be made against someone simply for going to an area that has been prohibited.
As I mentioned in my intervention on the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate, a potentially severe threat to national security is posed by the hundreds of returnees whom it is apparently not possible to prosecute—or the enforcement agencies are not willing to prosecute them—so, in these serious times, we should make that law retrospective to cover people who went out to the area during the conflict with Daesh, to make it possible to prosecute them. If they had good reason to be there—they were genuinely part of an aid mission or were there with journalists, for example—they will be able to prove that.
What is palpably obvious, however, is that the majority of those returnees went over to support the caliphate. The failure to prosecute, or the apparent unwillingness to countenance such radical measures to hold them to account, leads people to lose faith in our judicial system and to favour the kind of measures set out in today’s petition. If the Minister cannot give an answer, I would very much appreciate one from her colleague.
The Government have announced a review of the Prevent programme. It is important for Members in all parts of the House—unfortunately, in particular, those in the Opposition—not to undermine and damage the purposes of the Prevent programme by, in essence, mimicking the criticism pushed forward and pumped into our communities by Islamists determined to delegitimise the intervention of the British state. Too many times in recent years, we have seen good people in effect taken in by the idea that the British Government should in some way not get involved at all in such issues. That is a deliberate strategy—it is exactly what Islamists of different shades, from the apparently non-violent to those committed to violent jihad, have intended to do, and it is very dangerous.
I hope that the Government will reflect on the culture of secrecy that they still maintain on this issue. We recognise that there are difficulties and that it can be awkward to talk about the lack of success, but the Government are doing themselves no favours by making it difficult to drag out information about their measures to tackle extremism. It took months for me to prise out of the Security Minister the figure of 40 successful prosecutions, and the Government still refuse to give any details of the nature of those prosecutions, despite repeated requests from journalists. In a recent meeting of the Home Affairs Committee, the Home Secretary, with the permanent secretary sitting next to him, agreed to my request to look at that issue. I would like a response soon.
It is a total fallacy to suggest that the British state’s inefficiency in prosecuting people can be kept secret. The Government may be worried that a message is going out to communities that people can get away with extremism, but there are hundreds of people who are living examples of that message. Government secrecy will not prevent potentially vulnerable people from finding out. With respect, I suggest it is solely a measure to cover the Government’s embarrassment. If they want co-operation across the House to find more effective ways to prevent extremism, they need to begin with more transparency.
Like the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate, I hope that the Government are looking realistically at modernising treason laws. We should not simply stick that on a press release to sound more draconian and in touch with the 19th century; in these difficult times, we ought to examine that closely. I would welcome an update from the Government: what steps are they taking to look at how the law could be modernised to apply to the current situation?
Toughening up our data-sharing laws could be an important part of stopping foreign fighters before they make the journey abroad. There was debate in the main Chamber about the proposed data-sharing agreement with the United States, which I do not propose to rehearse. In recent days, following the appalling tragedies in Christchurch, social media companies have been unwilling to acknowledge their responsibility and the impact they can have. I have not tried to look for the video, shared far too readily on social media, of deeply distressing images of peaceful Muslims being gunned down as they went to pray. It is shocking that social media companies refused to pull the plug on their platforms while the vile video was being shared, which clearly could incite further acts of terror.
There is something deeply wrong in the relationship between community, Government and the social media giants. An effective way to address that could be to take down the platforms in international emergency situations. A palpable contribution to fighting the extremism that leads people to go to foreign lands could be to require companies to share with Government the IP addresses and log-in details of every user who hosts extremist content that companies take down.
Social media companies are getting better, although far slower than we would like, and are upping their game at taking down extremist materials. But there is a weird situation because, although far more is being taken down than just a year ago, the vast majority disappears into the ether. Every time that extremist material is shared online, spotted and taken down is an opportunity for Government to spot someone who has been or is being radicalised. That is better than waiting until it is too late, when they have committed a terrorist act on British soil—God forbid—or have become foreign fighters or supporters of foreign fighters abroad. The Government can do so much more. In this debate and in the weeks ahead I hope they will step up their fight.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I thank the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall)—something I have not said before—for setting out the petition so well. It can be quite difficult to do that in a balanced way on such a sensitive issue, but he handled it very well. He spoke of the declared area offence, which is intended to make it easier to convict those who travel to conflict areas. We tried to put appropriate safeguards in place, and we welcome the measure, provided that those safeguards are in place. I join him in sending our condolences to those involved in the atrocities in Utrecht and Christchurch—an urgent question is being asked about that in the Chamber. It is important to remember the victims of extremists and terrorists.
The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) mentioned the clash between this debate and the urgent question in the Chamber. I am curious about why we are often quick to label far-right violence and extremism as that, rather than as terrorism. We are quick to describe members of Daesh and al-Qaeda as terrorists, but we seem to talk about the far right in stages; we call it extremism and violence, and only after a certain amount of time do we call it terrorism. I am a little uncomfortable with that, to be honest.
I jokingly said before the debate that I do not think the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness and I have ever knowingly agreed on anything since my election in May 2015. However, halfway through his speech I found myself agreeing with almost everything he was saying—I even said, “Hear, hear” at one point. That was a shock to both of us. We did diverge at one point, where we have subtle differences of opinion, but I welcome much of what he said. He made a good point about the impact on international relations in an incredibly sensitive area if we were to disallow the return of Daesh terrorists to the UK. His point about social media companies is incredibly important. I think we would all accept that there has been an improvement in those companies’ reactions with regard to taking down content and so on, but too often their reaction is still far too slow. There is still a long way to go with regard to social media platforms doing their bit.
There is no doubting the gravity and importance of this issue and of the petition. We must all recognise that there is a deep sense of anger in the country. That is evidenced by the nearly 600,000 signatures on the petition, 582 of which came from my constituency. Regardless of our opinions on the petition or anything else, we are all deeply concerned about the threat from Daesh, al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations and ideologies. I very much feel the anger—I hear it in surgeries, and I get emails the same as everybody else—of those who signed the petition. However, I do not agree with the solution they call for.
The petition asserts that removing citizenship from Daesh members would keep the UK safe from terrorism, but that is fundamentally flawed and, as we heard, flies in the face of international law. The UK must meet its international obligations, allow the return of its citizens and ensure that they face the full consequences of their actions. If we do not take responsibility for that, on whose shoulders should it fall? Stripping extremists and terrorists of their citizenship would leave a line of angry, radicalised and violent people in post-conflict regions and give them, through their extremist lens, further reason to wish violence upon the people of our countries.
Alex Younger, the chief of MI6, insisted that although he is “very concerned”—as we all are—about the individuals making their way back from Syria and elsewhere in the region, British nationals have a right to come to the UK. The Times also reported that MI5 sees individuals who have joined Daesh as potentially valuable intelligence assets in continuing the fight against Daesh and its murderous ideology at home and in the region.
However, no one who has fought for or assisted a terrorist group will ever face a warm welcome on their return to the UK. Many of these fighters have committed unimaginable acts of terror and violence against innocent people in the name of a fascist ideology; of that there can be no doubt. It is vital that we recognise that if a UK citizen becomes isolated from society and susceptible to radicalisation, it is we—our society and our Government —who failed to prevent that. As has been said already, if the UK allows radicalisation to happen, it is our responsibility to make amends and bring the UK national in question to justice.
Having been the SNP’s Front-Bench spokesman on the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill—I am sure that I took interventions from the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness—I very much look forward to the review of the Prevent strategy that the Opposition secured during the Bill’s passage. We will seek to ensure that the review is independent and that its scope is wide enough for it to be truly effective. The point was made earlier that that is not about watering down our approach to Prevent; I say in response that it is about ensuring that it is effective, which I think we all want.
Between 2014 and 2017 there was a dramatic rise in the number of UK citizens who lost their citizenship, so will the Minister carry out a full review of the powers available to the Home Office to strip an individual of their citizenship? Statistics show that citizenship deprivation was used only a handful of times a year, but its use rocketed from 14 times as recently as 2016 to 104 times in 2017. Under the Immigration Act 2014, the UK Government are required to carry out a review of the Home Secretary’s power to revoke citizenship. The first such review was conducted in 2016 by the eminent QC David Anderson—he is now Lord Anderson—in his capacity as the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, but no subsequent review has been published, and the position of independent reviewer is currently vacant. The next review would need to cover the period from July 2015 to July 2018.
On that note, it is worth considering these comments by Duncan Lewis Solicitors:
“The power to deprive UK citizens of their citizenship can only be used against the children of immigrant parents—meaning that the application of the policy is inherently discriminatory. It cannot be used on a white English person with white English parents.”
That aspect of the current powers must surely be dealt with in the next review to address fully the obvious concerns about the policy.
The Home Secretary also has powers to ensure that foreign fighters can return to the UK to face justice, and powers that would enable him to manage the return of foreign fighters. Provided he reasonably suspected that an individual had been involved in “terrorism-related activity” and posed a threat to security in the UK, he could impose a temporary exclusion order, which have been mentioned, under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. That would permit return only on strict licence conditions. If an individual was still considered a threat to national security, further restrictions could be imposed on his or her liberty through a terrorism prevention and investigation measure, or TPIM. It may be possible to prosecute under the Terrorism Act 2000, which includes offences of being a member of, or aiding and abetting, a proscribed terrorist organisation.
I shudder to think what state we would find our world in if all countries abdicated responsibility for the terrorists born in their country. The UK has been described as being in the “vanguard of citizenship deprivation”, with an approach that contrasts starkly with that of other European countries, such as France and the Netherlands, which have returned their citizens from Iraq and Syria to face justice at home. In a recent similar case, Ireland most likely will not revoke the citizenship of a Daesh fighter returning there. Even Donald Trump tweeted that the UK should “take back” Daesh fighters captured in Syria and “put them on trial.” Surely that shows just how out of step with the rest of the world we have become.
I have not mentioned her by name thus far, although she has been brought up, but the reason this issue has gained so much attention of late is of course the case of Shamima Begum, who had her citizenship revoked by the Government—a move I wholeheartedly disagree with. Surely she must come to the UK to face justice. What has not gained the same attention is the death of her son, Jarrah, an innocent newborn baby and a British citizen who died in a refugee camp in Syria—a child who, if he had returned, may eventually have gone on to live a normal life in the UK. I hope that the Government reflect on their actions, or lack thereof, in that case.
Our position is clear: the UK bears responsibility for all its citizens, and the actions of the Home Secretary are to be condemned. It is time for Daesh members to come back to the UK and face justice.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
In the light of the terrorist atrocity in Canterbury, New Zealand, this debate about a petition that quite correctly expresses horror and condemnation of terrorism, whatever its source, is extremely timely. The petition expresses a deep sense of anger about terrorism, but it also poses the very important policy question, “What are we going to do about returning foreign fighters?”
Government Members said that British citizenship should not be taken lightly. You do not have to tell the daughter of West Indian migrants that British citizenship is a pearl beyond price. I do not take it lightly, my parents did not take it lightly and I do not believe the parents of some of these foreign fighters take it lightly. I do not think the contention that, because someone’s parents or grandparents migrated from somewhere, they do not take the notion of being a British citizen very seriously, stands up.
A lot of this debate revolves around the particular case of Shamima Begum. I have said before in the House—I will repeat it, for the avoidance of doubt—that Shamima Begum made some very bad, very stupid and quite possibly illegal choices. She has also made some terrible statements in the media. I do not, and Labour does not, sympathise with or excuse her views or her actions. What we on the Opposition Front Bench are concerned about is what should be done genuinely to make this country safer.
On the question of Shamima Begum, we have to recognise that she was just 15 when she left this country to join ISIS. She had clearly been groomed in her bedroom by the disgusting agents of ISIS. There has been talk from Members who seemed to imply that she is wholly responsible for her fate; I thought that since the Rotherham child sex abuse cases the House had moved beyond blaming 15-year-olds who had been groomed entirely for their fate.
We have recently discussed cases of British people being deprived of their citizenship, including Shamima Begum. We now learn that other British women were made stateless under the previous Home Secretary, but in secret. At least the current Home Secretary has disclosed, with a little prompting, that he has made someone stateless, which is an improvement on his predecessor. However, he seems unable to tell us if he has received any advice from MI5 or MI6, and what they have said about his decision to strip Shamima Begum of her citizenship. He is unable to clarify what other legal advice he may have received.
It is not clear what steps, if any, the Home Office took to ensure the safe return of Shamima Begum’s son, Jarrah, who was a British citizen and who was born before the Home Secretary’s decision. That son now lies dead. Shamima Begum has buried three babies in Syrian soil in less than a year. Will the Minister tell us whether there will be coroner’s inquest for Jarrah and whether the Home Office is willing to facilitate contact between Shamima Begum and her legal representatives?
When we debated this issue, the Home Secretary repeatedly hid behind the words that he cannot talk about individual cases. He appears to be pretending that Shamima Begum’s case is somehow sub judice and therefore cannot be safely discussed. I put this as kindly as I can: that is nonsense, as everyone knows—the Speaker had to point this out. The Home Secretary had no compunction about naming Shamima Begum directly, for the benefit of 400,000 readers of The Times in an article he wrote on 17 February. That article was headed:
“If you run away to join Isis, like Shamima Begum, I will use all my power to stop you coming back”.
He clearly had no problem discussing an individual case then. Can Ministers not see that that defence will not do?
The House can only speculate what line of defence Ministers will take when the almost inevitable legal challenge to their decision comes, if not in this case then in other cases. I remind Ministers that they have lost twice in court when attempting to strip British citizens of Bangladeshi descent of their nationality. As Ministers like to remind us, the duty of the Government is to ensure the safety and security of all our citizens. I contend that it is not for Ministers to pick and choose who enjoys those rights; it is a matter of law. One is almost obliged to ask Ministers if they regard it as their duty to uphold the law and to defend British citizens, such as the defenceless baby, Jarrah.
Let me remind the House of article 15 of the universal declaration of human rights, which says:
“Everyone has the right to a nationality…No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality”.
Could the legal position be any clearer? The idea that Ministers can unilaterally deprive British citizens of their nationality and render them stateless is clearly contrary to international law. Hopefully, the Minister will explain how she proposes to get away with that. Shamima Begum had only one nationality; now she has none. The same applied to her children. The Home Office decision, which I contend was clearly against international law, has deprived them all of their citizenship.
Citizenship entails obligations as well as rights. The basic obligations include not breaking the law of the land. If Shamima Begum and others in similar circumstances have broken the law, they should be allowed to return, but they should be investigated, interrogated and, if appropriate, prosecuted. They are the responsibility of the British Government. We are talking about British citizens. If Shamima Begum or anyone else is identified as representing a threat, our judicial system is there to deal with it. We are a country of laws, and it should be clear that dealing with a threat is preferable to not dealing with it, and dumping it on foreign countries.
Ministers like to say that they are acting in defence of us all from the terrorist menace. We see from Christchurch, New Zealand, that the terrorist menace, whether Islamic or far right, is real, but does anyone seriously claim that Shamima Begum was more dangerous than the upwards of 400 foreign fighters who have returned from conflict zones, having fought for ISIS, al-Qaeda or their disgusting offshoots or splinter copycat organisations? It is reported just 40 of those fighters have faced any charges, and that the others remain at liberty. We need a more systematic approach and a proper programme for returning foreign fighters—perhaps an extension or an enhancement of the Prevent programme—but the idea that one 19-year-old girl with a two-week-old baby was somehow more dangerous than the 400 foreign fighters who have already returned seems to me to be a difficult position to defend.
No less a person than the President of the United States, Donald Trump, has said that European countries ought to be prepared to take their foreign fighters back from Syria and related territories, and put them on trial, where necessary. It is not often that I find myself agreeing with the President of the United States, but on this point he is correct. How can we expect other countries and jurisdictions to deal with British citizens who have broken British law?
Returning foreign fighters are a real threat to our security. That is a genuine terrorist threat, and I contend that the Government have yet to respond to it adequately. We cannot ignore the fact that there are many hundreds of British foreign fighters in Syria and associated areas. We need a proper programme to deal with them. Arbitrarily stripping people of their citizenship, contrary to international law, is not the answer, not least because it can be challenged in court.
Instead of seeking cheap headlines and grandstanding against Shamima Begum, Ministers’ time would be better spent—and our security enhanced—by addressing the real risks and threats posed by foreign fighters, and understanding that if they are British they are Britain’s responsibility and should be subject to the British criminal justice system. As the security services have said in the past, we need a genuinely tailored programme to deal with the threat. It cannot be a case of knee-jerk reactions to newspaper headlines. Some 400 foreign fighters have returned to this country; we need a more systematic approach to keeping this country safe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. May I join colleagues from across the House in reflecting on the fact that the debate follows upon the weekend’s terrible events in New Zealand and Surrey and, today, Utrecht. As has been said before, we will reflect on the fact that terrorism takes many forms but the purpose of terrorist acts is to undermine the rule of law, to frighten, and to put a stop to the values that we hold dear in western society. It is sickening that people choose to undermine our societies by killing the most innocent of people—people going about their daily lives, whether at a place of worship or in a car park as they go about their day-to-day business in a working day.
Many colleagues are in the main Chamber, focusing on the issue of far-right violence and online extremism, and bearing that in mind I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) for the measured and balanced way in which he opened the debate. It is quite something that the petition has secured some 570,000 signatures which, as my hon. Friend told us, makes it the most heavily endorsed petition to have come before the House. It is with those great expectations of the public weighing heavily on our shoulders that I hope to answer some of the points raised today.
Victoria Atkins
I am sorry; I was talking about the people who signed the petition. I do not understand the link. Perhaps the right hon. Lady could clarify.
Ms Abbott
I apologise to the Minister. I was referring to her earlier remarks about far-right terrorist responsibility for the atrocity in New Zealand. I wanted to understand whether she has figures available for the number of far-right terrorists whom Government agencies are currently engaged with, and who are passing through the Prevent programme. If she does not have the figures to hand I will quite understand, but perhaps she can write and furnish me with those figures.
Victoria Atkins
I am happy to provide that information. As the right hon. Lady knows, the Prevent programme, which I shall talk about later, focuses on the threats and risks posed by individuals regardless of the ideology under which they claim to be acting or which people who are worried about them, and who have referred them to the Channel programme under Prevent, are worried they are operating under. The Government have been clear that people of far-right tendencies are part of the programme and are being helped through it. We are clear that it is a matter of threat and risk. The efforts to stop radicalisation apply regardless of the false ideologies that people appear to subscribe to when they are put through the programme.
I thank other Members—including the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), who has paid particular attention to this subject during his parliamentary career—for their contributions and thoughtful comments on such matters as the passage of the most recent counter-terrorism Act, the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019.
The Government’s priority is the safety and security of the United Kingdom and the people who live here. That includes managing the risk posed by those who have gone to fight in Syria or Iraq or to support terrorist organisations such as Daesh or al-Qaeda. We have a range of powers and tools available to us to protect the UK from the national security risk posed by returning Daesh members. Members have referred to specific cases in their speeches, but I cannot as the Minister discuss individual cases in response, for many reasons including the possibility of related or future investigations or legal proceedings. Of course the Government never comment on the operational capabilities and methodologies of the security services, for obvious reasons.
All decisions that we make must be rooted firmly in British values and must be made in accordance with the law. That means that we cannot make people stateless, and UK nationals have the legal right to return to this country. However, anyone who returns from taking part in the conflict in Syria or Iraq can expect to be investigated by the police and prosecuted, where there is evidence that they have committed criminal offences that meet the requirements in the code for Crown prosecutors. About 900 people have travelled from the UK to engage with the conflict in Syria and Iraq, against the advice of the Foreign Office. Of those, approximately 20% have been killed in the conflict and about 40% have returned to the UK. They have all been investigated and the majority have been assessed to pose no or a low security risk. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness asked about the number of foreign nationals who have been deported and I am afraid I do not have that information at hand, but I will ask the Security Minister to write to him with it.
We know that those who remain in the conflict zone include some of the most dangerous, who choose to stay to fight, to raise families or otherwise to support Daesh. They turned their back on this country to support a group that butchered and beheaded innocent civilians, including British citizens. Those individuals pose a greater threat to the UK than those who returned earlier in the conflict. They will have become desensitised to violence and may have received combat training and intense indoctrination. They will have had the opportunity to expand their terrorist network. Where they pose any threat to this country we will do everything in our power to prevent their return. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office advises against all travel to Syria and since 2011 there has been no consular support available to British nationals there. We are resolute that we will not put British officials’ lives at risk to assist those who have left the UK to join a proscribed terrorist organisation, and therefore we cannot and will not actively provide assistance to any individuals who have travelled to the region.
The Home Secretary can exclude non-British nationals from the UK, and under the British Nationality Act 1981 has the power to deprive any British national of citizenship status. Deprivation of citizenship is used in extreme cases where it is conducive to the public good and where it would not leave the individual stateless, which would be unlawful. Deprivation is a powerful tool that can be used to keep the most dangerous individuals out of this country. Each case will be considered based on the information that is available, regardless of gender, age or family status. Since 2010, the power has been used about 150 times for people linked to terrorism or serious crimes. I know that that is a matter of concern to colleagues, so I emphasise that Parliament has clearly set out the legislative basis for the exercise of the power, and that it is a decision to be taken by the Home Secretary. Removing an individual’s British citizenship is a weighty decision and, for that reason, it is a matter reserved to the Home Secretary. He takes those decisions in the light of carefully considered advice prepared by officials and lawyers. However, a statutory right of appeal is attached to each deprivation decision, and individuals can and do exercise that right, so that the courts can review the appropriateness of a decision independently.
Several colleagues have raised the issue of bringing to justice people who return to this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate did so on behalf of the petitioners, and the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness emphasised its importance. Those who have fought for or supported Daesh, whatever their nationality, should wherever possible face justice for their crimes in the most appropriate jurisdiction. Sometimes that is in the region where their offences have been committed.
Individuals who return will be investigated and, where there is evidence that crimes have been committed overseas, they should expect to face prosecution in the UK. There have been about 40 convictions of individuals prosecuted following their return from Syria for a range of offences, either connected with their activities overseas or as a result of subsequent CT investigations. That includes a 10-year custodial sentence for Mohammed Abdallah, a British national convicted in December 2017 of Daesh membership after leaked documents from a defector revealed his role as a specialist sniper, and a minimum of 40 years imposed on Khalid Ali, who was sentenced in 2018 for planning a terrorist attack in Westminster. I will, however, remind the Security Minister of the specific request by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness.
In answer to questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate regarding new offences, or offences available for law enforcement and the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute, our courts could try cases involving overseas terrorism offences relevant to foreign fighters even before the recent extensions of extraterritorial jurisdiction in the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019. Those offences include preparation of terrorism, for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment; encouragement of terrorism, the maximum sentence for which has been extended from seven to 15 years by the 2019 Act; training for terrorism, which also has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment; and membership of a proscribed organisation, which has a maximum sentence of 10 years.
Hon. Members also asked whether the Government are considering a new law of treason. That is a matter for debate and the Government have not yet reached a settled position, but our concern is that to prosecute terrorists for treason risks giving their actions a political status or a glamour that they do not deserve, rather than treating them merely as criminals. That is why we recently passed the 2019 Act, which updates terrorism offences and introduces new powers to reflect the threat we face today from foreign terrorist fighters, thus providing the police and intelligence services with the powers they need to protect the public. At this point, we do not believe there are grounds for introducing an offence of treason, but of course the Government keep all these matters under review.
It is of course for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether individuals should be prosecuted, in accordance with the code for Crown prosecutors. As has already been acknowledged, for crimes committed in a conflict zone where there is no national infrastructure and no police force taking section 9 witness statements or making notes about who said or did what, obtaining evidence admissible in a UK court is extremely difficult. That is the problem we have to face.
That is why, where prosecution is not possible, we have a range of powers available to protect national security and to monitor and manage the risk posed by terrorism suspects in the UK, including terrorism prevention and investigation measures and temporary exclusion orders to place conditions on individuals’ return, including regular reporting to a police station and mandatory attendance on our de-radicalisation programme. The best way to reduce the risk posed by these individuals will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Those decisions are based on advice and intelligence from the security services, counter-terrorism police where relevant, and specialist security and legal officials in the Home Office.
We publish statistics on the total number of TEOs in place in the annual “Disruptive and investigatory powers: transparency report”. Last week the Home Secretary asked officials to expedite the publication of the next transparency report, which will include the most up-to-date annual figures on disruptive and investigative powers, including TEOs and deprivation orders, because we recognise that it is a matter of great concern to the House.
The Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act updated our terrorism laws for the digital age and modern patterns of radicalisation, closing gaps in some existing offences and adding new ones, such as recklessly expressing support for a proscribed organisation, or publishing its flag or logo online. The Act also creates a new power to ban British citizens from entering designated terrorist hotspots without legitimate reason. The designated area offence, along with most of the Act’s provisions, will come into force automatically in April, two months after Royal Assent. Decisions to designate an area will be based on careful assessment of all relevant information, including sensitive intelligence as well as open-source information, while applying the tests of necessity and proportionality.
The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness raised the question of retrospectivity—an understandable point to make. This is where balance is required; our priority to protect the security of the United Kingdom must be within the confines of the rule of law. In line with normal judicial principles, the power will not be retrospective and it will not be possible to prosecute for travel to an area before it is designated, but it will be an offence to remain in an area after it has been designated, even if the person has been there for some time. Individuals will have one month to leave the area, following which they will face prosecution if they remain. I hope that goes some way towards answering his concerns.
These powers and tools send a clear message to individuals that membership of or support for terrorist organisations will not be tolerated. Of course, as has already been discussed, this is against the backdrop of the Prevent strategy, which seeks to help those who may be at risk of radicalisation and extremism and to put them on to another path of lawfulness, away from criminality and potentially terrorism offences, by ensuring that they are able to obtain help locally from Prevent officers and others to steer them on to that better path.
The UK is doing all it can to help innocent people caught up in this conflict. We have committed £2.8 billion to Syria since 2012—our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis—and we are on track to resettle 20,000 vulnerable refugees who have fled the country, with our national resettlement programmes resettling more than any other EU state in 2017. We do not have a consular presence within Syria from which to provide assistance. Our position therefore applies as much to children as it does to adults. However, if British children were able to seek consular assistance outside Syria, then we would work with local and UK authorities to facilitate their return.
Children returning from Syria are likely to have been exposed to the conflict and to have experienced trauma. In some circumstances they may also pose national security concerns that must be carefully managed. A range of specialised support, some of which is funded directly by the Home Office, is offered to address many concerns ranging from safeguarding to national security. Our support will be tailored to the needs of each individual child. Local authorities and the police can use existing safeguarding powers to protect returning children, support their welfare and reintegration back into UK society, and minimise any threat that they could pose within schools and to their local community.
Ms Abbott
On the question of children, which the Minister addressed a few sentences ago, we have seen that journalists, aid workers and United Nations officials can go in and out of Syrian refugee camps. Why is it so impossible to make arrangements to protect British children?
Victoria Atkins
As the right hon. Lady knows, and as I have said twice already, we do not have a consular presence in Syria. The firm advice of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is that it is not safe to travel there. I know that journalists and aid workers travel there against that advice, and they must take that decision very carefully and seriously. However, we are clear that we do not wish to put British officials at risk in a part of the world that we have designated as so dangerous that we have withdrawn consular support from it.
Ms Abbott
I am well aware that the Government advise people that it is not safe to travel to Syria. However, the Minister will be aware that children, particularly those who may only be a few months old, are not in a position to abide by that advice. I ask her again: would it not be possible, working with NGOs, to get these very young—often weeks or months old—British children out to the nearest British consular presence, which may be on the border with Turkey?
Victoria Atkins
First and foremost, we do not want babies to be born in war zones, so the longer-term answer is that we do not want people traveling to Syria in the first place. It is not good for them and it is against clear FCO advice; we have clearly advised people for some years not to travel to the area. As I have already set out, if children are in a camp, it may well be that aid workers and others seek access. That is against our advice. I am afraid we cannot put officials at risk in that way.
This is very difficult—I do not think that anyone pretends otherwise—but Syria is in a part of the world from which we have withdrawn consular support, and anyone going there does so against Foreign Office advice. Given the situation in the region, everyone who returns from Syria or certain parts of Iraq, including some children, must expect to be investigated by the police, to determine whether they have committed criminal offences, to assess any safeguarding concerns and to ensure that they do not pose a threat to our national security.
Before I bring my remarks to a close, I note the completely reasonable comments that have been made about the role of social media and tech companies in this regard. Colleagues will know that the Home Office and others are working with tech companies to ensure that they clean up their own backyards. We have seen some progress by some of the major technology companies, including the development of technology that can automatically detect and take down terrorist content. However, such material continues to remain accessible. More needs to be done.
As part of our efforts to prevent the dissemination of terrorist content online, the Government are not only preparing a White Paper on online harms, but working with those in the advertising industry to make them more aware of the types of content that is appearing online, and to highlight that their advertisements may unknowingly appear next to that harmful content. I must say that the industry response has been very positive, and I hope that we will see some real change over the coming months. However, as this weekend has shown, there is a great challenge to the tech companies to ensure that, when invidious material is placed on their platforms, they remove it as quickly as possible, so that it cannot be forwarded or embedded in the web.
I conclude by thanking the 570,000 people who felt moved to sign the petition, causing us to debate this important issue again in the House. The Government’s priority is to ensure the safety and security of the United Kingdom and the vast majority of our citizens who continue to uphold our shared values. We will not allow anything to jeopardise that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered E-petition 231521 relating to ISIS members returning to the UK.
Written Statements
High Streets
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
On Saturday I announced the national High Streets Community Clean-Up Programme. This £9.75 million programme will provide every local authority in England with grant funding to work with community groups to carry out locally led spring cleans on their high streets and town centres.
Our ambition is to build strong, resilient and empowered communities where local citizens feel proud of the place in which they live—and this money will empower local authorities to support residents to take control over their high streets and town centres.
Events are scheduled across the country to take place in March to coincide with clean-up campaigns, including the Great British spring clean beginning on 22 March. This funding reflects commitments given in the litter strategy and will increase the reach and impact of such events.
[HCWS1423]
Collective Defined Contribution Pension Schemes
(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)
Today the Government publish our response to our consultation, Delivering Collective Defined Contribution Schemes.
The UK has a world-class occupational pension system. But there is always opportunity for further innovation and improvement to ensure pensions work for their members, who deserve security in retirement. The Government believe that Collective Defined Contribution (CDC) pension schemes can be a key part of this.
CDC schemes are a new type of pension scheme. In a CDC scheme, like Defined Contribution (DC), contributions are paid into a fund. Unlike DC, these funds are pooled, and at retirement, individual members receive a regular pension income from the fund. This income will be based on the value of their contributions and savers will save towards a “target” benefit whose value will depend on the fund’s performance.
The CDC approach increases investment leverage for savers, and helps members secure a regular income in retirement at lower cost. For employers, CDC, like DC, provides stability and predictability in their obligations to the pension scheme. Therefore, CDC helps improve retirement outcomes for members whilst also benefiting employers.
In that spirit, Royal Mail and the Communication Workers Union have proposed a CDC pension scheme in the belief that this will be advantageous to both the employees and the business. This is a start and will provide a firm footing for further innovation in pensions.
We set out our proposed approach for providing for CDC schemes in our consultation document Delivering Collective Defined Contribution Pension Schemes, including requirements for CDC schemes to operate with systems and approaches that ensure sustainability, transparency and effective communication. Intergenerational fairness must be at the heart of CDC schemes. All this will be underpinned by a requirement for CDC schemes to be authorised by the Pensions Regulator. Government are grateful for the constructive comments and broad support our proposals received. Also, many responses, from trade unions, master trusts, and other pension providers, expressed a desire to see more people benefiting from the advantages that CDC can bring. They urged us, in time, to extend CDC to other parts of the pensions market.
Pension reforms in recent years have transformed pension saving in this country, whether it is auto-enrolment or the new state pension. The creation of CDC schemes is part of an ambitious reform of private pensions schemes, the pensions regulator and the way that savers interact with their savings through improved information and guidance. This means people can prepare for retirement with confidence. We will provide more options for employers to ensure that scheme members can adequately save for retirement and to better protect their income in later life.
As part of these reforms we intend to bring forward legislation to facilitate single and associated employer CDC provision as soon as parliamentary time allows, and consider further what other provision would be appropriate for the future.
[HCWS1422]
House of Lords
Children: Covert Human Intelligence Sources
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the debate on the regret motion on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Juveniles) (Amendment) Order 2018 on 16 October 2018 (HL Deb, cols 435–50), what assessment they have made of the recruitment, use, deployment, numbers and oversight of children used as spies by the police.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, Lord Justice Fulford, undertook to report on this issue. He has now written to the chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights with his findings, and a copy of the letter has been placed on his website.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the Minister for that response. Does she agree that the police setting targets for increasing the number of child spies in each region goes beyond what the Minister told us before—that this is a rarity? I have been alerted by a whistleblower that the police are doing exactly this. There is no way I can check, so will the Minister check for us and report back to the House?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I most certainly will. Obviously, the police are operationally independent of the Home Office, and I do not know why they would be setting targets for this. The noble Baroness referred to the letter of Lord Justice Fulford, which says that 17 juvenile covert human intelligence sources, or CHISs, have been used in the past three years. When she refers to targets, I assume she means targets upwards, but I will certainly look into the matter.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that all those under the age of 18 should be treated as children, yet the Government allow the police to recruit 16 and 17 year-olds as informants without an appropriate adult being present. Accepting that it does not have to be a parent or guardian if they are also involved in criminality, can the Minister explain why such children cannot be questioned as a suspect in a criminal investigation without an independent adult being present but they can be recruited as an informant?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord and I have gone over this on a number of occasions; the situation reflects the emergence into adulthood of 16 and 17 year-olds. That said, where anybody undertakes covert human intelligence, there is always an independent assessment of various aspects of their personality, their willingness and their ability to undertake such a difficult task.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I recall from our previous discussion on this issue that the young people involved are likely to be the children of people the authorities are interested in. That puts these children in a very dangerous situation. What measures are in place to ensure that children are protected and do not feel pressurised into undertaking this dangerous activity?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord brings forward an important point: someone recruited as a covert human intelligence source might be the child of someone who is already involved in criminal activity. Anybody under the age of 16 cannot be involved in anything to do with their parents.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Who conducts the independent assessment of potential child spies, to which my noble friend referred, and what happens to the results of those assessments?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The Investigatory Powers Commissioner has oversight of all decisions taken on these children.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, do the assessments to which the noble Baroness referred include an assessment of the best interests of the child under the UN convention?
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is the increase due to the amount of criminals who are now using young people, especially in the drugs-related elements of crime? What are the Government doing to address that problem?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, a number of complex matters are driven by knife crime, by gangs, by county lines and by drugs, and the noble Lord is right to raise the issue. I have gone through the various things we are doing on knife crime—including the Offensive Weapons Bill—and the various aspects of what we are doing to tackle drugs, most notably a public health approach to the issue.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to children under 16 not being allowed to be involved in intelligence involving their parents. Does that prohibition include other family members—for example, siblings or carers who are not their parents?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I know the prohibition involves parents. I do not know about siblings—I shall get back to the noble Baroness on that—but any family affiliation would make it difficult to ask them to undertake such a thing.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Investigatory Powers Act has been the most amazingly successful piece of legislation? It has enabled us, for example, to identify the growth in right-wing extremism, into which the agencies have put a great deal of effort recently. We should be pleased that it went through this House and the other House and is now on the statute book.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is right, especially given the events of the past few weeks,
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, are there guidelines which restrict the use of children in this way to cases where the suspected offences are very grave indeed and where there are no other means available to obtain necessary evidence?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord will appreciate that I cannot talk about operational matters. I hope he will be comforted by the fact that the use of a juvenile as a covert human intelligence source is only in exceptional circumstances.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
When we discussed this on previous occasions, the Minister promised us a much higher level of judicial supervision over the process. Is that in place?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
At the time, I said that Lord Justice Fulford, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, provided the oversight needed. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, had referred to judicial oversight, which I explained would require primary legislation. I said that Lord Justice Fulford provided a sufficient level of oversight and that it was satisfactory at this point.
Festival of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 2022
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goddard of Stockport
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure that the museum sector is able to support the proposed Festival of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 2022.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, the festival of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is an exciting opportunity to celebrate creativity and innovation across the UK in 2022. The festival is still in the early stages of planning. However, we expect our excellent and vibrant museum sector to play an important role.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
The Minister kept his face straight there. I thank him for that Answer, but does he agree that there are many important collections up and down the country owned by local councils, whose funding has been decimated and which are now being forced to make impossible choices, in some cases leading to the disposal of those collections? Hertfordshire is recommending 90% disposal. The collections are based on local towns and cities; they are regional assets and parts of the town and place. We cannot lose them. The mark of a civilised society is how we treat our citizens. We have not been doing that very well for the past four years. Does the Minister agree that we should protect the history and heritage of this country? Once it is gone, we cannot get it back.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I definitely agree with the noble Lord that we should protect the heritage of this country. He also mentioned impossible choices. The Mendoza review showed that the museums and galleries sector is vibrant and that over the past 10 years—the 10 years of the review period—public funding to museums across the country was broadly flat. Some individual local authority museums have particular problems and each case is unique, but Arts Council England is helping them, and by and large most museums are in good shape. Hertfordshire has agreed that any money raised by purchases will be invested in the remaining collection in the first instance, including in the conservation and potential move of the nationally significant sculptures that it possesses. It has fully considered the Museum Association’s code of ethics.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, recent history shows that these large-scale national events work best when they are led by visionaries, are connected with communities, are delivered by independent bodies, and—with great respect—politicians stay clear. Let us contrast the Millennium Dome with the astounding success of the London 2012 Festival, Hull City of Culture or the 14-18 NOW commemoration. Who has been appointed to key leadership roles for this festival? What delivery mechanisms will be put in place to balance accountability to the funding body with genuine curatorial freedom?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I agree with the noble Baroness that it is better if Ministers stay out of it. That is why the intention is to have a commissioning body that is independent of government. It will have £120 million of extra money to spend, but nobody has been appointed to it yet.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend include the world of horticulture, given our magnificent gardens and parks and the world-class flower shows we have each year?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, while I have great sympathy with my noble friend, I have just said that the delivery body will be independent of Ministers. However, I am sure it will take note of what my noble friend said.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I grant that there must be this arm’s-length relationship between the organisation of the festival and the Government. However, when the body that oversees the festival is set up, can we find a way of ensuring that it is reminded that this is neither 1851 nor 1951 and that Britain is a much more diverse country now than it was then, so that we can celebrate diversity in the course of this festival? If we are looking for someone to lead and spearhead those who organise this festival, as the noble Baroness said, may I recommend someone who I know will be free from the summer and who has proven organisational ability and a great inspirational character, namely Mr Warren Gatland?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
It is not a sporting festival. I completely agree with the noble Lord’s previous point about diversity. Arts Council England is paying particular attention to that. He will have seen that the annual report mentioned diversity in the arts and culture sector. Equality, Diversity and the Creative Case was published in February this year.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, why is the title of this proposed festival as it is? In 1951 we had a Festival of Britain. We are now talking about a festival of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Surely it would be more appropriate to have a festival of the United Kingdom.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I do not know why that title was selected but it seems to explain exactly what the festival is all about.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, is this new festival an opportunity to establish a museum of Brexit, where the record of this Government can be preserved for future generations? Would not the advantage be that there is already a perfect location in the Chamber of Horrors?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I imagine that the noble Lord wants it to be publicly funded, but I do not think that that is necessarily what the public want.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that local authorities that disperse or sell collections, or propose to close galleries, are in fact repudiating the past and those who have been kind enough and benevolent enough to give? Does he agree that it is something that should on all occasions be avoided?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
No, my Lords, I do not agree. Sometimes museums have to do what the Mendoza review suggested—that is, to have a dynamic collections policy, which in some cases means getting rid of some pieces which are in storage and are not being preserved well because they are not in ideal conditions, and using the money raised to preserve the best items in their collection and to buy new items which might interest a younger audience.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Will the festival take place before or after the general election that is due in 2022?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The plans have not been made but I believe that the festival will take place across the whole year, so it will happen either side of the general election, if it takes place in 2022. Many other interesting events will be taking place, not least Her Majesty’s Platinum Jubilee, the 100th anniversary of the BBC and the 75th anniversary of the Edinburgh Festival Fringe.
Cycling: Licences and Insurance
Lord Winston
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the case for requiring adults riding bicycles in city centres to have a licence and third-party insurance.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government considered this matter as part of the cycling and walking safety review in 2018. They have no plans to require cyclists to have a licence or third-party insurance. The costs and complexity of introducing such a system would significantly outweigh the benefits, particularly the requirement for a licence. However, the Government believe it is wise for all cyclists to take out some form of insurance, and many cyclists do so through their membership of cycling organisations.
Lord Winston (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. Of course, most cyclists are conscientious and law-abiding but an increasing number are extremely aggressive and ignore, for example, the fact that some streets are one way, pedestrian crossings and red lights at traffic lights, and from time to time they collide with pedestrians. In view of the fact that the Government obviously wish to encourage cycling—and I agree with that—does the noble Baroness not think that they should consider their obligation to improve public safety and therefore implement these or similar measures?
Baroness Barran
The noble Lord makes a number of very fair points. The Government obviously want to reinforce safety for all road users, particularly those described as vulnerable road users, including pedestrians and cyclists. He will be aware that there was a review of cycling and walking safety, and licensing and insurance were considered as part of that. Over 3 million new cycles are sold each year. Licensing and insurance would require the establishment of a central register, and the Government’s view is that this would be very cumbersome and expensive to administer. There is evidence that other countries that have trialled these schemes have then withdrawn them. The Government have committed, through the cycling and walking investment strategy, to a 50-point plan and £2 billion of investment to improve safety for all road users.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, should we not consider whether we wish to encourage cycling for the health benefits that it gives, and indeed its advantages regarding reduced congestion, or whether we wish to deter cyclists—I declare an interest as a former chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Cycling Group—with unnecessary regulation that would keep the police busy for the next 100 years?
Baroness Barran
I hope I can reassure my noble friend that the Government are definitely seeking to strike a balance, with substantial investment in education for all road users and safe infrastructure. We are also reconsidering some of the offences relating to cycling. However, noble Lords will be aware that trying to retrofit new, safer and more sustainable transport modes to old cities is a challenge.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, your Lordships and others who cross Millbank to this House, especially between the hours of 5 pm and 6 pm, will know that the number of cyclists who breach the zebra crossing with pedestrians on it is, frankly, an accident waiting to happen. What measures can be taken, without licensing cyclists, to prevent this occurrence happening—by, I should say, a minority of cyclists?
Baroness Barran
My Lords, the Government do not in any way condone unsafe cycling. A number of noble Lords have mentioned to me the risks and perils of crossing Millbank but, as the noble Lord said, it is a tiny percentage of cyclists responsible for this. The Government’s view is that in the long term, in terms of pollution and health benefits, it is important to encourage safe cycling, hence the 50-point action plan in the strategy.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware that pedicabs—rickshaws on bikes—are licensed as hackney cabs in every part of England and Wales except London, where 1,500 pedicabs go unlicensed with no requirement for insurance, no health and safety checks and no fixed fares. When are the Government going to take action on this matter?
Baroness Barran
As the noble Lord will be aware, transport is a matter that is devolved to the mayor, so the Government have no specific plans in this area.
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that 20 years ago fixed-penalty notices were introduced precisely to deter irresponsible cyclists from cycling on pavements. She may not be aware that freedom of information requests have shown that in 2017-18, 30 out of 38 police forces issued fewer than five fixed-penalty notices and 12 of them issued no fixed-penalty notices at all. Does the Minister really think that there is so little irresponsible cycling on pavements? If she does not think that, what are the Government going to do to protect disabled people, vulnerable pensioners, mothers with babies in buggies and many others from these hoodlums in lycra?
Baroness Barran
I hear the noble Lord’s concerns. I have to say that I did not anticipate the popularity of this topic. The Government take these issues extremely seriously. There are small minorities of motorists, cyclists and, dare I say, what are now known as “smombies”—smartphone zombies, including pedestrians—who cause danger on our roads, but only a tiny percentage of accidents on our roads are caused by cyclists so the Government are seeking a proportionate response that upholds the law but also encourages cycling and walking.
Northern Ireland: Devolved Government
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, what progress has been made? Not enough. The Secretary of State continues to work closely with the main political parties in Northern Ireland to restore devolved government. The Secretary of State met the five main political parties and the Irish Government on 15 February to discuss a further phase of talks to restore devolution, and held further bilateral discussions with the parties on 1 March.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that it is over two years since there was a functioning Executive and Assembly at Stormont? Since that time, key decisions have been made by civil servants that cannot be challenged—and they are normally on the cautious side, given that they do not have ministerial backing. Is it not time that the Government got a move on? Inertia is no recipe. They are betraying the Good Friday agreement and the people of Northern Ireland. Can we not have something more than talks? For example, can we go back to the original idea of appointing a neutral person to bring the parties together and make some progress? At the moment, nothing is happening.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I am happy to confirm the first point the noble Lord made; it has been far too long since there was an Executive in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord will be aware that over the past year we have set out guidance that can be issued to civil servants to allow them to act beyond what would traditionally be accepted by the Civil Service. All we are doing just now has a single objective in mind: to restore an Executive. We have not made enough progress, and responsibility rests not just with the Government but with many other parties as well.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former PPS in Northern Ireland for two years. Against that background of experience, is it not clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has said, that one way or another we need to find an external catalyst to pull together these difficult, challenging people in Northern Ireland, who have little trust in each other? Does this not suggest that you need the experience of some external party or other?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My Lords, the Government have not ruled out using an external facilitator. Indeed, they are actively considering that point. However, it is important to stress that circumstances at this moment may also be a factor affecting that role just now.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, while the Prime Minister is repeatedly failing to get her Brexit deal through Parliament, she has shown less determination in trying to secure the return of a functioning Executive and Assembly in Northern Ireland. Today, we are hearing rumours of a last-minute “Stormont lock”, and other negotiations, to try to win the backing of the DUP for the Prime Minister’s deal. I have two questions. First, if there is a “Stormont lock”, given that there is no functioning Executive or Assembly, would it be the DUP or the unelected civil servants making decisions that would affect the whole of the United Kingdom? Secondly, what assurances can the Minister give to convince this House that the Government’s approach to Northern Ireland and the UK constitution is being driven by something more encouraging than political expediency and the short-term goals of Mrs May and No. 10?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I am unaware of any Stormont lock and cannot comment upon that. On the question of where we stand as a country, the constitution must be respected, as must devolution. That is why we have sought to restore devolved government in Northern Ireland by every means possible over the past period. Without it, direct rule from here would be a terrible retrograde step.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister not acknowledge that the longer this stalemate goes on, the more polarised politics in Northern Ireland becomes and the more dangerous the situation is? Will he not follow up things he has suggested before, including making the Assembly active while positive measures are taken to restore the Executive, rather than determining to get an Executive before the Assembly comes together, so that politicians at least meet each other?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Lord is correct: polarisation is a great risk in Northern Ireland. As we have said before, we are making every endeavour to restore the Assembly and are exploring every possible way. On my previous time at the Dispatch Box, I said that I would sit down with noble Lords who have an interest, hopefully to take this matter forward.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the statement made by the secretary of the senior Civil Service union that civil servants in Northern Ireland who are now taking decisions are becoming public figures? It is worrying for them that they are exposed to the normal cut and thrust of politics. It is very important to bring about a situation with the political parties in Northern Ireland so that civil servants do not feel vulnerable through having to take high-profile political decisions.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The role of the Northern Ireland Civil Service is vital to the functioning of the situation in Northern Ireland as we understand it. In reality, civil servants have been placed in an invidious position. Without their work we would be in a much worse position. However, the reality remains that serious political decisions cannot really be taken by the Civil Service. That is why we require a restored Executive now.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My noble friend referred to consideration being given to the appointment of an independent chairman and for the calling together of the Assembly. When can we expect some decisions to be taken?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
As soon as we are in a position to make that announcement, we will do so.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister spoke of the increasing danger of polarisation in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that part of that danger arises from the fact the DUP purports to speak here on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, but in fact the majority in Northern Ireland were for remaining? Therefore, it clearly does not speak on behalf of the majority in Northern Ireland.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
No single party can claim to speak for any area whatever. There is a diversity of opinion in Northern Ireland and we must respect that diversity in every one of its manifest forms.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, could the noble Lord say a little about the discussions taking place with the DUP at the moment? Frequent meetings are taking place with the Prime Minister. Is this topic on the agenda?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I am afraid I do not know the answer to that question.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, has the Prime Minister met with the leaders of any other parties in Northern Ireland to discuss Brexit in the same timescale as she has met with the DUP? All important decisions in Northern Ireland according to the Good Friday agreement require cross-community agreement. What efforts are the Government making to get cross-community agreement for the people of Northern Ireland?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
Brexit is Banquo’s ghost at every meeting the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland undertakes in Northern Ireland—of that I can be absolutely certain. The important thing is to ensure that all those in those discussions are heard and that their voices are not ignored. We are not yet in a position to bring them together to deliver the Executive that we would wish to see restored.
Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Supplementary Provision and Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the draft Order laid before the House on 16 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 12 March.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, we had an impromptu exchange on Thursday last week after Questions, during which I was asked to return to the House today to set out the Government’s position on the business of the House during the next fortnight. Following further constructive discussions in the usual channels, for which I am very grateful as always to the noble Lords, Lord McAvoy and Lord Stoneham, I am delighted to do so.
In the context of Brexit and the imminence of 29 March, I fully understand why noble Lords want to consider our business with greater attention than normal. I have always been willing to speak to noble Lords about the business of the House when invited to do so, and I am here today.
One of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, was to express concern at the scheduling of the debate on the Spring Statement in Grand Committee this Wednesday, rather than in the Chamber. I am sure that I do not need to tell noble Lords that there are precedents for taking this business on the Floor of the House or in Grand Committee, but I listened to the argument.
The reason for putting the debate in Grand Committee, with the agreement of the usual channels, was to provide some certainty about the slot. At this notice, I am now clear enough about the demands of business this week to move the business from the Chamber to the Grand Committee, and therefore provide time on the Floor of the House on Wednesday for the debate on the Spring Statement. The timings of that Grand Committee and the debate on the Floor of the House should be similar, so I hope that in making this late change I am not risking serious inconvenience to those who have signed up to speak. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, presented a reasonable argument, and I am happy to act on it.
The wider point made by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and others, was to ask that we cease our debates on the scrutiny of secondary legislation necessary for the UK’s exit from the EU, particularly any legislation necessary if the UK leaves the EU without a deal. To be crystal clear, this is not legislation to enable a no-deal exit. The House passed that legislation in the form of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 and the withdrawal Act. This is legislation which mitigates the impact of a no-deal exit and is about ensuring that we have a functioning statute book. The majority of the statutory instruments would be needed at the end of any implementation period.
As my noble friend Lord Finkelstein said on Thursday, nobody, whether they want to leave without a deal or not, can be entirely certain that it will not happen. This Government do not want it to happen and the House of Commons does not want it to happen, but perhaps it will be helpful if I explain to the House why, even so, I cannot be complacent about that outcome.
Whatever the Commons decides, the next meeting of the EU Council is on Thursday. It does not meet again before 29 March. Any extension will need to be agreed later this week and would have to have legislated for next week, in the form of a statutory instrument under the withdrawal Act. In the period between now and having secured a satisfactory agreement to an extension and thereafter legislating to change the date of exit day, we have to operate on the basis that it is possible, whether or not anybody wants it, that one of the necessary steps to prevent our leaving the European Union on 29 March has not been taken. Because that is possible, I believe this House has only two possible approaches to scheduling its business. I am being entirely frank when I say this.
One approach is the one that we have been taking and that I want to continue to take. We have brought forward the secondary legislation to a timescale which has meant that the scrutiny committees have been able to consider it properly and that we as a House, whether in this Chamber or in Grand Committee—sometimes both—have had time to debate each instrument with our normal thoroughness and rigour. Government Ministers in this House have, quite rightly, been put through their paces. I can assure the House that all remaining SIs necessary for day one after exit day have been scheduled for debate. I have every confidence that we will be able to debate them in an orderly way, without significant departure from our normal sitting patterns. I think this is the responsible and consistent approach and serves the public interest.
The only alternative approach would be for me to do what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, asked me to do: to remove all debates on Brexit SIs from the Order Paper in the next fortnight. If anything goes wrong that means that we do not agree an extension with the EU, we would likely have one day—Thursday 28 March—in which I would have to table effectively two weeks’ business. The House would then be asked to consider and approve all necessary legislation in that day. I do not regard that as a respectable or sensible thing to ask the House to do. I will not be making that request, and that is why I will not be un-scheduling any of those debates. As I said on Thursday, the House of Commons will continue to consider the same instruments over the next fortnight.
I have taken a little longer at the Dispatch Box than is customary for a Chief Whip, but given the legitimate questions that I was asked on Thursday and their importance, I hope that the House will forgive me for having detained it today. The Spring Statement debate has today been tabled for the Chamber on Wednesday, and the statutory instruments tabled for the Chamber on that day have been moved to the Moses Room. Otherwise, the business will be as advertised in Forthcoming Business. In the normal way on Wednesday following our usual channels meeting, we will publish further details for the next week.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Chief Whip for his statement. It is rare that we hear him speak for so long; perhaps we shall hear more from him in due course.
I am grateful for the statement. My noble friend Lord McAvoy and I welcome the rescheduling of the important economic debate for the Chamber rather than the Moses Room, as my noble friend Lord Foulkes raised last week. However, it is a sign of how this Government’s handling of Brexit has dominated the political landscape and crowded out everything else.
I am sure that I am not the only Member of this House who finds it quite incredible that here we are, just eight sitting days from the Government’s self-imposed deadline for exit day, and the Prime Minister is still clinging on to her discredited deal as the best the UK can get. She appears determined to batter MPs into submission to agree it. At least the Government are now seeking an extension to Article 50. If the Prime Minister’s deal is not agreed by MPs, any extension must be used to produce a different outcome and not just to rehash the same rejected deal.
To return to the point I made a few months ago in Questions, the Prime Minister’s latest wheeze is apparently to offer a “Stormont lock”, in effect giving her friends in the DUP a veto on UK-wide future regulation if they vote with her on the deal. Yet again, it is a short-term fix with no thought for the wider impact, including the constitutional implications for the other devolved Administrations. We know that there are special circumstances relating to the Irish border, but this seems like political expediency designed to suit the Conservative Party and the DUP, especially given the Government’s failure to get the Northern Ireland Executive up and running again.
I asked last week when the Government would give legislative effect to the decision by the House of Commons to reject no deal. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, declined to answer. The problem is that the only reason that we are still dealing with no-deal Sis—there are relatively few left to deal with—is the Government’s incompetence. The Prime Minister clings to her belief that to threaten us with a crash-out disaster is an ingenious strategy.
I take the point made by the Chief Whip that he must prepare for all outcomes. Should Mrs May’s belligerence mean that we still crash out, these regulations will be needed. It is to the Government’s shame that we will not know until Thursday whether there will be an extension to Article 50. Many of us find it ludicrous that, with all that we could be doing, with all the issues that this country needs to address and resolve, Parliament has had to spend time rushing through contingency arrangements when even the impartial Civil Service has been clear with Ministers that 29 March is unachievable. On a point of clarification, I thought that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, was that he did not trust the Government not to crash out without a deal.
There were questions that were not answered in the Chief Whip’s statement. I would be grateful if he could address them, because your Lordships’ House has struggled to get an answer to them. First, we have been told that the Government will table all necessary legislation for a no-deal Brexit. What are those Bills and where are they? Can the Chief Whip list them today for the convenience of the House?
Secondly, should an extension to Article 50 be granted, what legislation will be required to give effect to it? My understanding is that there will need to be an SI to change the exit day. Will that be it or is anything else required?
Thirdly, as I asked last week and did not get an answer, when will the Government bring forward legislation, whether by SI or in another form, to give effect to the House of Commons’ rejection of no deal as an option?
The Minister will recall that I asked last week whether the Government were considering Saturday sittings. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, was unable to answer then; can the Chief Whip do so today?
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, the truth is that the Government Chief Whip has put a brave face on a farce. The position is that the Commons decided last week that it would press for a rejection of no deal and an extension of Article 50. It has been perfectly clear all along that any such reasonable request would be accepted by the European Council at the end of this week, so the only basis on which the Government are pursuing these no-deal SIs is that they simply have no faith in their own ability to enact what the Commons has asked them to do and what the EU has said it is prepared to do.
I want to ask about the disappearing primary legislation relating to Brexit. Even if the Government were to get their deal through, there are a number of pieces of primary legislation that they say will be necessary at the point we leave the EU, particularly the immigration, Agriculture and Fisheries Bills. None yet has a scheduled date for Report in the House of Commons, which I assume means that they cannot come to this House on the planned schedule until after Easter. There will then be about eight weeks until 30 June, which is the point at which the Government say they wish their extension to come to an end and, presumably, leave the EU. May I have an assurance from the noble Lord that these pieces of primary legislation, which are deemed necessary—indeed, essential—by the Government, will be brought to your Lordships’ House, if the Government succeed in getting their deal through, in a timely manner, so that we do not have the same kind of farcical rush we have been expected to endure on other matters?
I also want to ask the Minister to deny the rumours that have been swirling around the House in recent days that the Government plan to curtail the Easter Recess and that, just as in February, noble Lords will be expected to be in Parliament, business or not, when they are currently planning to be away. Finally, given all the uncertainty surrounding the Government at the moment, will the Chief Whip give the House an undertaking that, in the light of what happens at the weekend, he will return to the House next Monday and explain what is going on?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I genuinely thank the Government Chief Whip for listening sympathetically and agreeing to the specific suggestion I made last Thursday. I hope this will create a precedent.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for his very considerate response to our discussion last Thursday and I recommend that, if he were to take further advice on the organisation of business from my noble friend Lord Foulkes when he offers it, the House would be in a good place. However, the contents of the Chief Whip’s statement is deeply concerning, because the House of Commons resolved by a decisive majority last week not to proceed with no deal. The Government have effectively said that, in the event of their not being able to reach agreement with the European Council this week, they are still keeping no deal on the table, even though it is open to Her Majesty’s Government to take it off the table at any moment by rescinding the notice under Article 50. If the Government were acting in accordance with the will of Parliament, they should, if they cannot reach a deal with the European Council this Thursday and Friday, rescind the notice under Article 50 and not put the country and Parliament through a no-deal Brexit.
The idea that, because we are considering these statutory instruments for 20 or 30 minutes apiece, the nation is somehow better prepared for the horrors of a no-deal Brexit is straightforward Alice in Wonderland. It will be catastrophic for the country if the Government put us through a no-deal Brexit. Parliament has already told the Government, who are supposed to be the Executive and to execute the will of Parliament, that it does not want to see a no-deal Brexit. It is absolutely within the power of Her Majesty’s Government to prevent a no-deal Brexit by withdrawing the notice under Article 50 and it is a complete mystery to me why the Government utterly refuse to follow the wishes of Parliament, which have been so emphatically expressed.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend the Chief Whip was absolutely right to express a degree of caution over the question of regulations. If the European Council does not agree to an extension, we will leave the European Union on Friday 29 March. We cannot change that other than by revoking Article 50, and the Government have no power to do that—it would have to come before Parliament. To reflect, if my noble friend will forgive me, what the Leader of the Opposition was saying, to amend exit day under Section 20 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act would require an affirmative procedure. We hope and expect that such a regulation will be made next week, and we will therefore need to debate it. It would be perfectly reasonable now to schedule such a debate for next week so that Members of this House can prepare for it.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, can the Chief Whip assure us that the suggestion from this House, albeit from only one Member—my noble friend Lord Adonis—that Parliament, which includes this unelected House, should, at the recommendation of an unelected Member of Parliament—my noble friend Lord Adonis—rescind at a stroke a decision that is the consequence of a referendum in which 17.4 million people voted—
Lord Grocott
I hope many people are watching this—I doubt it, but they may well be. They will have just heard a very audible groan at the reference to the 17.4 million electors who cast their votes on the basis of an Act of Parliament that this House supported and whose result the two major parties—we know the rest of the arguments—committed in the general election to respect. The suggestion by my noble friend Lord Adonis that this unelected House should veto all that work and electoral commitment by rescinding Article 50 is something to which this House should give not even a moment’s consideration. It should be a subject of shame.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I respectfully advise the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that just as an Act of Parliament was required to invoke Article 50, an Act of Parliament would be required to revoke it.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, could my noble friend the Chief Whip confirm that the Prime Minister has told the House of Commons on no fewer than 108 occasions that we shall be leaving the European Union on 29 March? Yesterday I listened to the Chancellor on “The Andrew Marr Show” telling Andrew Marr that we were not in a position to be able to leave on 29 March. Whom should I believe? If I believe the Chancellor, what on earth have the Government been doing?
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I will certainly not engage in the continuing dispute between my noble friends Lord Adonis and Lord Grocott, who seem to have developed an antipathy to each other in recent weeks. I too am grateful to the Chief Whip for making this statement today. What he said has been helpful, but does not go far enough in enabling noble Lords to plan what their commitment will be over the next few weeks.
I assume that somewhere in government is a series of contingency plans. I would be appalled and surprised if the very able people in the Civil Service had not been working through a series of permutations—indeed, I would be very surprised if the clerks to this House and to the other place had not been working through a series of permutations. Something is clearly going on, because one understands from the usual gossip mill, involving the staff who support the Members of this House and the other place, that the first week of the Easter Recess will not be happening and that there may be Saturday sittings. They may be misinformed—I do not know where these ideas come from—but it is incumbent on the Government to give us an indication of those contingency plans for various eventualities.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I had responsibility for taking the whole Maastricht Act through Parliament, and I know that it was virtually impossible to determine more than 48 hours ahead how long the debate would be on any one of the 542 amendments tabled to it. Not a single person, on any side of the House, forecast that it would take 25 days in Committee, with three all-night sittings. Secondly, some noble Lords will have lived through the period of the Falklands War. Who could have forecast that Parliament would have to assemble at less than 24 hours’ notice, on a Saturday morning, to debate the Falklands? My noble friend has a difficulty. He has been generous in what he has offered us this afternoon, and we should trust him. He has said that he is involving noble Lords on the Opposition Benches and that they have responded; I, for one, will trust all three Chief Whips to keep us as informed as they are able.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I rise on that good point and I thank my noble friend for his confidence. In fact, I have gone as far as I am able in committing the Government and this House to their work programme for the next fortnight. I can say a certain specific things: we have tabled all the legislation we need to get through for Brexit. We are dealing with the healthcare Bill and the Trade Bill, both of which we should finish this week.
I was asked how Article 50 could be dealt with; it is a simple matter. It would be done through an SI, which cannot be tabled at the moment but only when there is a deferment of the exit date. That will be next week; I imagine that the Prime Minister will make a Statement on Monday, and there will be a debate in this House on the statutory instrument in the course of next week. Noble Lords may soon see a day this week when we publish Forthcoming Business.
Noble Lords have asked what would happen if we had to exercise the legislation required for a deal. Nothing more complicated than a single Bill would be needed for that purpose. There is primary legislation still to be considered, which will be important, but there will be an implementation period if we have an agreed solution. That is what we are looking for. I think all parties are looking for an agreement—that is certainly true of the Labour Party, too. We are looking for an agreement on Brexit, and if that is the case, the primary legislation in the House of Commons at the moment will come to us in due course. It is important not to forget that there is an implementation period and, indeed, considerable discussion and negotiation, to take place once the withdrawal agreement has been signed.
I have been asked about Saturdays. I do not think I have ever suggested that Saturday sittings are likely, but they could be. I will tell noble Lords now that it is possible we might have to sit on Saturdays. When I was asked about the Easter Recess, I said, emphasising the usual caveats more than usual, that those were dates that had been published in the House of Commons and which I hoped we would be able to keep to. I do not know. The course of the next fortnight or three weeks is very involved and, until that time comes, I cannot tell noble Lords whether we will have to sacrifice all or part of our Easter Recess. Personally, I hope that we shall have some time away from this place. We might all be better for having a break, if I am honest. But we still have a public duty to perform, and if necessary, we will come back to the House again.
I think I have answered pretty well everything. The Leader of the House will be repeating a prime ministerial Statement next Monday, and I am certainly prepared to come back to the House about business when it is clear in my mind what we will have to do. In the meantime, I have great confidence that my colleagues in the usual channels and the Convener of the Cross-Bench Peers can talk together about these things and ensure that the Whip noble Lords receive at the end of this week will give them a clear indication of what is demanded of them as Members of this House.
Merchant Shipping (Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 29 January be approved.
Relevant Document: 16th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, if it is convenient, I shall speak also to the Merchant Shipping (Passengers’ Rights) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
These are two sets of draft regulations that will be made under powers in the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and will be needed if the UK leaves the European Union without a deal. To ensure that retained legislation remains operable, both of these draft regulations change references to “member states” and “the Commission” to “the Secretary of State” or “the United Kingdom”. They will also change definitions and other wording to reflect the UK’s position outside the EU.
The Merchant Shipping (Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 deal with the certificates that seafarers need to hold to demonstrate their competence to perform certain roles on ships. The International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers sets the standards of competence for seafarers internationally. Through two directives, the EU harmonised the way in which member states implemented the requirements of the STCW Convention.
The EU directives and the EEA agreement require the automatic mutual recognition of seafarer certificates issued by EEA states. They also establish a process for EU-wide recognition of certificates from third countries. EU countries can accept certificates from third countries that have been approved under the relevant EU process. The EU directives and our international obligations are implemented in the UK by the Merchant Shipping (Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping) Regulations 2015; the SI before the House amends these regulations. This instrument was originally laid under the negative procedure. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee recommended that the regulations be handled under the affirmative procedure; I am grateful to the Committee for its consideration of the regulations and should like to respond briefly to their concerns.
The committee was concerned that, in the event of no deal, the recognition of the certificates of UK seafarers working on EU-flagged ships will be at the discretion of each member state. This instrument cannot, of course, require other countries to take a particular course of action. However, EU employers and trade unions have welcomed the Government’s commitment to continue recognising seafarer certificates from EU and EEA countries; these regulations will enable the Secretary of State to deliver this commitment.
The UK will also continue to recognise the certificates from those non-EU/EEA countries that we currently recognise under the STCW convention. These regulations will also enable the Secretary of State to remove recognition from any country if he is satisfied that the country no longer complies with the STCW convention. The regulations will remove the requirement to report to the European Commission on the seafarer certificates and endorsements issued by the UK, and replace it with a requirement to report to the Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organization on such compliance.
The second set of draft regulations—the Merchant Shipping (Passengers’ Rights) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019—deals with passengers’ rights and other issues involving the carriage of passengers by sea. Under EU regulation 1177/2010, UK passengers travelling by sea and inland waterway benefit from a comprehensive set of rights and entitlements. The EU regulation puts in place consumer protections which allow, among other things, for redress in respect of delayed and cancelled journeys. It also defines the standards which industry must uphold in respect of disabled passengers.
The IMO’s Athens convention requires ship owners to maintain compulsory insurance. This must be sufficient to cover third party claims in respect of the death or personal injury to passengers, and the loss of, or damage to, luggage and vehicles. EU regulation 392/2009 applied the provisions of the Athens convention in EU member states and added some protections above the requirements of the Athens convention. These included a €21,000 advance payout in case of death or serious injuries to passengers and a requirement to replace or repair personal mobility equipment damaged during the course of a journey.
These draft regulations will amend EU regulations 1177/2010 and 392/2009 to ensure that they continue to function correctly as part of UK law if the UK leaves without a deal. The changes we are making will not affect passengers in any way and will ensure that passengers have the same rights and entitlements as today. The regulations will also amend EU-derived domestic legislation which implements EU law in this area. In order for the UK to continue to meet its international obligations under the Athens convention once the UK leaves the EU, these draft regulations will transfer powers from the European Commission to the Secretary of State. These powers will enable the UK to keep up to date with changes to the compulsory insurance requirements and liability limits for ship owners as and when they are adopted by the IMO.
These draft regulations will remove a requirement to accept state certificates of insurance from an EU member state even when that member state has not ratified the Athens convention. This requirement is a legacy from a time when few member states had signed up to the international provisions on state certificates. In 2018, only 21 ships visited the UK which had insurance certificates issued by non-convention EU member states. Once the UK leaves the EU, the UK will accept state certificates only where they have been issued by a state party to the Athens convention. State certificates are easily obtainable from states parties to the convention, including from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. This proposed change will not therefore have a significant impact on industry and simply ensures that we are complying with our international obligations under the convention without exception.
Finally, the regulations will also revoke three Council decisions. Two of these decisions were related to the accession of member states to the Athens convention. The third decision relates to the accession of member states to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage 2001. Like the Athens convention, the bunkers convention obliges ship owners to maintain compulsory insurance—only in this case to cover third party claims in respect of bunker fuel oil spills. The UK will remain party to both of these conventions but these three Council decisions are addressed to EU member states. They will become redundant once the UK leaves the EU and so they are being revoked for the purpose of legal certainty.
The changes made by these draft regulations will ensure that retained EU law operates correctly so that we have an effective system for ensuring that seafarers working on UK ships are qualified to do so, and that passengers can continue to rely upon the rights and entitlements they are currently entitled to. They also ensure that the UK can continue to meet its international obligations and passenger safety commitments. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation.
The first of these two SIs relates to training standards in the industry and is based on EU directives 2008/106/EC and 2012/35/EU. The EU-wide process for the recognition of certificates has been very important—indeed, fundamental—in raising safety levels in an industry where international crews are the norm. In 2016, as the Explanatory Memorandum helpfully tells us, 3,410 UK seafarers had certificates enabling them to work in EU and EEA-registered vessels. The SI adopts the usual procedure, replacing “EU Commission” with “Secretary of State”.
It will not surprise the Minister to hear that I am concerned about the reduction once again in transparency in the process because the SI gives the Secretary of State responsibility for the withdrawal of recognition of parties to the STCW convention where standards are not met. What is the procedure by which the Secretary of State will come to that conclusion? Who will advise the Secretary of State? Will there be any right of appeal? We are replacing a well-established, well-understood European process with a process bathed in mystery. Perhaps the Minister could explain whether any further regulations will set out the process and where any advice might be given to the Secretary of State.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments drew this SI to our attention because of its impact on seafarers. The UK will continue to recognise the certificates it currently recognises but there is no guarantee of the EU recognising our certificates in future. The 2005 directive established certificates of competency; each seafarer must have one, and have it endorsed by the flag state of the vessels on which they want to work. These are known as certificates of equivalent competency. Once the European Commission has approved a third country, other member states can, but are not obliged to, accept seafarers from that third country on their ships. That is an unusual discretion. How does it work in practice? How has it worked in practice until now? Is there a record of seafarers from a recognised third country not being accepted on ships from other EU countries? If there are cases where that has happened, which countries have chosen to exercise this power of discretion? Have we always accepted those certificates?
I am sure the Minister can see where I am going with this. My concern is that once we become a third country our seafarers may find themselves excluded by some EU countries, even though the European Commission has agreed to accept our certificates as compliant with STCW.
There is also my usual concern about how we keep up with the flow of information as the EU changes its standards. It is fine to say that we will hitch ourselves to the current standards, but keeping up with the list of countries recognised by the EU might be more complex than it seems. In this SI, the Secretary of State is given the power to add to or subtract from the list of recognised countries, so I ask the same questions again about that power. What will be the system for this? Where will be the transparency? Who will give the Secretary of State advice? I am even more concerned, because as usual there has been no consultation on this, and it involves individual seafarers. Although companies can be expected to keep abreast of all these changes, individuals should not be expected to have to do so.
I turn to the SI on passenger rights. Officials working in the Department for Transport must be losing the will to live during this whole process. As things descend into farce, it is probably difficult to keep abreast of the pace of these things, but I have to say that this is an unusually opaque Explanatory Memorandum. I draw noble Lords’ attention to paragraphs 2.8 and 2.9, which introduce us to the bunkers and Athens conventions in terms that suggest we chat about them over our cornflakes, so familiar are they to us all. I really grappled with this one; I raise this because if I have misunderstood it, it is because bits of it are particularly complex.
In practical terms, this SI seeks to continue current arrangements on passenger rights and on insurance. I have a technical question for the Minister. In the EU rules on this, the compensation for when things go wrong is currently dictated in euros. It is converted to sterling at the rate for the year ended 31 December 2017. Why are we using something pretty historical for this? It makes it look rather outdated before we start.
Once again, there has been no consultation on this. I want to make an important point in relation to the comments on small business. One after another of these SIs say that there will be minimal impact and only familiarisation costs to SMEs. I am beginning to be extremely concerned that, within each sphere—here we are on maritime—individual businesses are expected to absorb and to familiarise themselves with a number of SIs, not just one. The pace of change for them is adding up to something substantial, and the Government have not consulted them on it.
I also want to ask my usual question: how will the Government keep up with changes that happen in the EU on this? Passengers’ rights are very dear to people’s hearts. If there is any shadow of thought that we in this country have inferior rights, passengers would be extremely angry—and rightly so. Therefore, I am keen that we know how the Government intend to keep pace with change. What will be the process by which the Secretary of State makes decisions to change things when necessary? On whose advice would he act?
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, there is a certain disadvantage in following the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson: she has usually nicked most of my points. I will therefore highlight only a couple.
Paragraph 3.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that,
“EU recognition of United Kingdom certificates will be at the discretion of Member States”.
Clearly, here we have a non-reciprocal situation, where we are providing rights to the EU and it is not necessarily reciprocating. Will the Minister explain the processes the Department for Transport intends to carry forward? Is there reciprocity, as we desire, or will it have to be done state by state? Can it be done through some comprehensive agreement with the EU? What efforts are being made at the moment to try to get a reciprocal agreement?
I share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about the Secretary of State. To be even-handed, I should say that that is any Secretary of State—one is tempted to ponder on this one in particular, but I will set that to one side. I could not find it in the Explanatory Memorandum, but I may have overlooked it: what political oversight is there in the exercise of the Secretary of State’s powers? If there is none, how can there be transparency in the process? To pick up the noble Baroness’s point, how will he be advised?
Turning to the very important issue of passengers’ rights, although the Explanatory Memorandum is a document in the public domain, it is not one dear to people’s hearts, whereas Hansard is. Paragraph 7.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum seems to say that passengers’ rights will be identical. Will the Minister tell us in plain language that they will be identical, so that it can be included in the formal record?
On paragraph 7.3, I share the view about opaqueness. It talks first about EU member states that are not state parties to the Athens convention. Elsewhere, one got the impression that all EU member states were parties now to the Athens convention. Of the member states, which are not parties to the convention? It tells us little about how the Athens convention works and gives appropriate support and assurance to passengers. Will the Minister spell out what the convention does for passengers? I know it limits compensation, but how does it ensure that compensation will be paid? I recognise that the answer to that might be rather complex, so I am content for the Minister to write to me on that subject.
Baroness Sugg
I thank noble Lords for their consideration of these draft regulations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, pointed out the high quality of the seafarer qualifications, and we will continue to recognise them in accordance with the international STCW convention, so standards will not slip and will not be affected by our departure from the EU. To work on a UK-registered vessel, EU seafarers will still need to obtain a UK certificate of equivalent competency.
On the position of UK seafarers on EU-flagged ships, it is in the interests of both the UK and the EU to avoid any barriers to UK seafarers continuing to make the important contribution that they already make. If there is no deal, endorsements issued before withdrawal by EU countries to seafarers who hold UK certificates of competency will continue to be valid until they expire. So, if you are a UK-trained seafarer with an endorsement already issued by an EU country, you will be able to continue working on board vessels flying the flag of that country until the endorsement expires.
We are seeking to ensure that UK seafarer certificates continue to be recognised through the well-established EU process for recognising third-country certificates. That will provide continuity for UK seafarers. As I have said, we have committed to recognising EU countries’ certificates, and that approach has been welcomed. The Commission issued a technical notice in January 2018 setting out that the UK would be treated as a third country and that member states would need to apply to recognise UK certificates under the relevant provisions in directive 2008/106. It is not possible to apply for this recognition until the UK becomes a third country, and the Commission can take around 18 months to process the application. However, member states can recognise certificates in the meantime, and we are confident that the EU will accept that UK training is of a high quality, will want to recognise us as a third country and that major commercial flags such as Malta and Cyprus will continue to recognise the UK certificate of competence. When we raised the issue with all of those countries, they have been positive.
As to the impact on day one, the vast majority of UK seafarers will already have a current certificate of competency which, as I have said, will be valid for up to five years.
On the powers of the Secretary of State to remove recognition from countries, we will be advised by the MCA. The Secretary of State currently makes decisions based on its advice and so that will not change. The decisions will be based on all the evidence available that that country meets the STCW requests. The normal administrative law provisions apply so that the Secretary of State’s decisions can be challenged in court if necessary.
No formal consultation was carried out on the STCW SI, but the department has worked closely with shipping representatives and the trade union Nautilus International. The Government also issued technical notices in September to inform seafarers and companies about the approach. The department has met with the general secretary of Nautilus on several occasions; the MCA has regular contact with it and with the Chamber of Shipping on the whole SI programme. The Shipping Minister recently met with Nautilus and the Chamber of Shipping, which was described as productive by Nautilus. Both organisations support the continued recognition by the UK of certificates issued by EU member states.
On passenger rights, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked about the conversion rate. This was done using the average exchange rate for the year ending 31 December 2017 and the figures were rounded. Therefore, the €80 and €6 in EU regulation 1177 becomes £70 and £5, and the €21,000 reference in EU regulation 392 becomes £18,500. In each case, those roundings work to the benefit of passengers. The conversion was carried out at the beginning of the drafting process according to cross-government guidance, and at the time 2017 was the last full year available. However, as the noble Baroness said, the exchange rate has fluctuated since but, because of the rounding, the effect on passengers is minimal. Those amounts were fixed and we do not have the power to vary them other than through primary legislation.
Passenger rights and entitlements will be the same as they are today. I hope that is plain English enough for the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe.
No formal consultation was undertaken on the passenger rights SI, but the department consulted a range of stakeholders in 2018 when preparing the post-implementation reviews of the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Passengers by Sea) Regulations 2012 and the Merchant Shipping (Passengers’ Rights) Regulations 2013, which implement the relevant EU law in the UK. In both cases, all stakeholders expressed support for the 2012 and 2013 regulations and a desire to see the current rules retained in their existing form.
On further delegated powers to the Secretary of State, the draft regulations transfer powers which currently enable the Commission to amend certain elements of regulation 392/2009, which applies the Athens convention. The powers transferred to the Secretary of State are limited to amending the liability limits to incorporate changes made by the IMO Athens convention and to other non-essential elements of the regulation. No changes to the EU regulation have been made since it came into force, and it is not expected that we will use this power frequently. We will continue to monitor developments in the implementation of the Athens convention at international and EU level. Any other changes to that regulation will need to be made through primary legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about the Athens convention. It establishes a regime of liability for damage suffered by passengers on a sea-going vessel. It declares a carrier liable for damage or loss suffered by a passenger if the incident causing the damage occurred in the course of the carriage and was due to the fault or neglect of the carrier. As far as loss or damage to luggage is concerned, the carrier’s limit of liability varies depending on whether the loss or damage occurred in respect of cabin luggage, a vehicle or other luggage carried in or on it. The key requirement is that the registered owner of a vessel must maintain compulsory insurance. Passengers travelling on ferries to or from the EU after exit will continue to be protected, as it applies to all passengers regardless of nationality.
Under regulation 1177/2010, passengers have the right to information, refunds and rerouting, in some cases, and compensation in most circumstances in which their journeys are delayed or cancelled. The regulation also grants the right to assistance and travel at no extra cost. I hope that is a sufficient explanation of what the Athens convention does. The EU regulations were harmonised and brought it into UK law. The new regulations we are discussing transfer them.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, also asked which member states have not yet ratified the convention. A number of member states have not ratified the convention, despite it having been in force for almost five years. They are Austria, the Republic of Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg and Poland, but only Cyprus, Estonia, Germany, Italy and Poland have maritime ports. Only 21 ships made that journey and it is very easy to get a certificate of competence. We are in contact with those countries which have not ratified the Athens convention.
I hope I have managed to address the points—
Lord Tunnicliffe
I asked whether there is any parliamentary involvement in the Secretary of State exercising his rights under either of these instruments.
Baroness Sugg
On the first instrument and the Secretary of State’s right to remove a country from STCW, I do not believe there is any parliamentary involvement. That would be based on the MCA, as previously. On the delegated powers under the passengers’ rights obligation, that will depend on which regulation he is using. The powers transferred to the Secretary of State are limited to amending the liability limits to incorporate changes and other non-essential elements of regulation. Any other substantial changes will need to be made through primary legislation, which will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. There are no further delegated powers through the STCW regulations.
I hope I have managed to address the points that noble Lords have raised during the debate. I will perhaps write to the noble Lord to clarify the last point on parliamentary scrutiny.
This completes the programme of maritime SIs that noble Lords will consider. I thank the policy officials and legal advisers to the DfT—who I hope are not losing the will to live—for their hard work and diligence in both producing the SIs and briefing the Minister on them. The proposed changes made by these draft regulations are appropriate to ensure that retained EU legislation relating to seafarer qualifications and passenger rights work effectively in the UK from day one in the event of a no-deal exit.
Merchant Shipping (Passengers’ Rights) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 17 January be approved.
Relevant documents: 14th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B)
Licensing of Operators and International Road Haulage (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 6 February be approved.
Relevant documents: 17th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A)
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 will be needed if the UK leaves the EU without a deal. They amend regulation 1071/2009, which sets the requirements and procedures for transport operator licensing, and regulation 1072/2009, which regulates access to the international freight market. This SI makes minimal changes to those regulations and consequential amendments to domestic legislation to ensure that road haulage markets continue to operate effectively.
Regulation 1071/2009 provides a framework for the licensing of transport operators—both haulage and bus and coach operators—in member states of the EU and ensures minimum standards across the EU. Operators are licensed by national authorities. In Great Britain, this is the traffic commissioners; in Northern Ireland, it is the Department for Infrastructure. Operators need to comply with four criteria in order to be considered fit and proper persons to hold an operator’s licence. These criteria are: having a stable establishment; being of good repute; having a sufficient level of financial standing; and possessing the required professional competence.
Regulation 1072/2009 sets out the rules and procedures for accessing the international road haulage market. It allows appropriately licensed hauliers from EU member states to operate in other member states and provides for enforcement mechanisms to regulate and control this access.
The withdrawal Act will retain regulations 1071/2009 and 1072/2009 in their entirety on exit day. The draft instrument we are considering makes the changes necessary so that these regulations continue to function correctly, and it is essential to ensure that the regulatory regime in place after exit continues to operate.
The regulations will ensure that the requirements of regulation 1071/2009 continue to be applicable to UK hauliers and public service operators—both those operating in the UK and those operating overseas. They will also ensure the continued operation of regulation 1072/2009, which provides that hauliers from the 27 EU member states will continue to be admitted to the UK provided they have a valid operator’s licence, issued by the country in which they are established, showing that they meet the requirements that I outlined earlier.
The regulations require hauliers to hold a UK licence for the Community after their current Community licence expires. This is a new document and will look very similar to the current EU Community licence, which hauliers already hold when operating in the EU. The criteria for this will be the same as for the Community licence.
The European Commission has already published legislation that would govern UK operators’ access to the EU for nine months after Brexit. This is based on the principle of reciprocity, and this SI allows us to offer a reciprocal level of access to EU hauliers. The regulations might also help in future negotiations. They demonstrate that the UK is committed to maintaining high standards in the freight industry that meet the EU baseline. They also allow for the UK to adjust levels of market access to EU hauliers in order to reciprocate whatever is agreed in the negotiations.
The access rules in regulation 1072/2009 also include provisions to allow hauliers to practise cabotage—jobs entirely in another member state. Currently, three domestic jobs in a seven-day period are permitted for EU hauliers as part of their return trip once they have completed a job in another member state. Previously the power to suspend cabotage provisions if they disrupted the domestic market was subject to the approval of the European Commission. These regulations transfer this power to the Secretary of State so that we have the ability to suspend cabotage for non-UK hauliers if reciprocal arrangements are not offered to UK hauliers in the EU.
The regulations also modify the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995. Section 2 of the Act makes it an offence for a person to use a goods vehicle except under an operator’s licence. However, for very practical reasons, the provision exempts holders of Community licences issued by member states from this requirement. This means that EU hauliers are able to operate in Great Britain without having to apply for an operator’s licence. An equivalent provision is made in Northern Ireland legislation. The SI also allows us to exempt operating licences using secondary legislation in future.
The regulations provide for the continuation of the road haulage and passenger transport licensing system. They also allow for EU member state hauliers to continue to operate in the UK, ensuring that supply chains continue to function effectively. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I start with the big question, as I see it: where does this dovetail with ECMT permits? We have already been through those in relation to an SI. They are already established as part of our no-deal preparations, and there has already been feedback on the fact that only 5% of the industry will be covered by them. So is this an either/or, or is it an either/or that kicks in after December this year? Perhaps the Minister could clarify for me exactly where this regulation stands in the whole thing.
In essence, and I say these words carefully, this SI substitutes a community licence applied for in the UK with a UK licence for the community. No wonder the public are beginning to get frustrated with the whole thing. Given that this applies to thousands of hauliers—thousands of small haulage firms, many with one or two vehicles—they could be forgiven for getting confused over this. That innocuous though confusing change of name hides a fundamental potential change in their rights to operate within the EU.
On Northern Ireland, I have very serious concerns about cabotage and cross-trade. Paragraph 6.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum makes several references to future arrangements in Northern Ireland. There is of course a great deal of cross-border haulage between Northern Ireland and the Republic. The situation is very nuanced because goods haulage is very different from passenger transport. What will happen to these arrangements if Northern Ireland is caught in the backstop? Generally these SIs say, “We’re sorting Northern Ireland separately”, but this one incorporates arrangements for Northern Ireland. That led me to wonder how it will operate if Northern Ireland is caught in the backstop. Am I right to assume that in that situation these arrangements would cease to apply?
Rather obliquely, paragraph 6.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that the amendments made by the SI also apply to coach and bus services, but paragraph 7.9 says that there is separate provision for international passenger transport. Could I have an explanation of that?
Importantly, regulation 1071/2009 allows member states some discretion to impose additional requirements of operators, and once again the Secretary of State is to get that power. I repeat my usual questions. What about transparency? On whose advice would the Secretary of State exercise this power? How would it be done? Would there be a role for Parliament? Would there be a negative or an affirmative process? I know I ask this every time, but I assume that the answer is different on each occasion.
Applications for Community licences currently go to the traffic commissioners. Will they maintain that role for UK licences in future? If so, what about resources? I am well aware that the traffic commissioners have a very broad responsibility and their organisations are usually extremely thinly staffed. There is the usual hope that the EU will continue to recognise our rights as usual, but there are EU proposals on this and, as I understand it, they do not give us full cabotage rights. They also extend only to the end of this year.
The Explanatory Memorandum says that it is hoped that this SI will be superseded by full legislation by the end of the year. As time goes on, the end of this year looks remarkably soon for there to be even more legislation on this. To clarify, is this EU offer for nine months after we leave for a rolling nine months following Brexit, which will kick in only when we leave, or has it offered this up to the end of this year and that is it?
Once again, there has been no consultation. That is especially serious in this case, because thousands of hauliers who make their living in international haulage will not be able to rely on a Community licence in future. This is not a minor change; it is fundamental. Again, SMEs are not especially taken into account.
Finally, if you currently have a Community licence, will you have to reapply for it? Suppose you have a Community licence that is valid to this end of this calendar year: are there any events or potential Brexit scenarios, foreseen or unforeseen, that could lead to hauliers having to reapply for their licence within that timeframe? Everyone expects that they will reapply for their licence at the end of the period covered, but is there anything that could happen that would interrupt that licence? Or are hauliers right, and can be confident to assume, that if they have a valid licence until the end of this year, for example, they can carry on working until then? I would be grateful for clarification on that.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I took a slightly more optimistic view of this SI than the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. However, clarification in plain language will help. Paragraph 2.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:
“The UK operator licensing regime will generally remain as at present”.
I wonder whether we could have simpler language than that. My understanding, taken with recent agreement in the EU, is that the situation will be fully reciprocal. I will say it again, because it is a question to which I would like a direct answer. The Explanatory Memorandum uses terms such as “provided that”, which enthused me to look up the European Commission—I will not do this again. On 19 December 2018, it published a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on,
“common rules ensuring basic road freight connectivity with regard to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the Union”.
At the end it says that the regulation applies until 31 December 2019, and that it was “done at” Brussels. I do not understand EU law. Is that now a piece of EU law? Does it, together with this SI, mean that in all respects, except the names of these licences, the situation for operators is identical to where we are now, with, of course, the overriding importance that the agreement of the EU is only until the end of the year?
Baroness Sugg
I again thank noble Lords for their consideration of these regulations. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked about the hot topic of ECMT permits. The European Commission has published the draft regulation on road transport. It was approved by the European Parliament last week. We expect it to be approved by the Council of Ministers this week—tomorrow, in fact. We welcome the substance of these proposals, which will ensure that the majority of UK hauliers can continue carrying goods into the EU for the rest of the year without needing an ECMT permit, providing that we reciprocate and provide equivalent rights to EU hauliers, which we are doing through these regulations.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Am I right in understanding that that also includes the cabotage allowance?
Baroness Sugg
The Commission’s proposal includes the right for UK hauliers to complete point-to-point journeys and transit journeys. It also offers limited cabotage and cross-trade journeys. Cross-trade journeys are limited compared to what UK hauliers can do now, which is three movements in seven days. They will still be allowed to do two cross-trade or cabotage operations on every international trip for the first four months of these regulations, then one cross-trade or cabotage operation every trip during the next three months.
Baroness Randerson
Could I point out that this complexity underlines the importance of consultation and, therefore, public awareness? People in the industry could be forgiven for being confused.
Baroness Sugg
I agree with the noble Baroness. The EU has proposed a complex system. It has been clear that it is not replicating current market access provisions, but it is ensuring basic connectivity and phasing out the current system by the end of the year. However, given that UK hauliers are allowed to have these journeys, we do not expect the vast majority of haulage operations to be able to continue. We have ECMT permits to fall back on.
As I said, the measure is based on the UK granting reciprocal access. To protect businesses and minimise disruption, we are currently offering more to EU hauliers than the EU is offering us, so we are mirroring the situation at the moment. We have the power to amend this and mirror the EU’s offer. The regulation does not cover transit to third countries, but will cover transit to EEA countries such as Norway, so we will use the ECMT permits to those third countries. It also makes it clear that bilateral agreements with the UK can be negotiated and concluded for periods during which the regulation applies—for example, after December 2019—but should we be in a no-deal scenario and should these regulations come in, we will of course be negotiating at pace to understand our future arrangement.
If we leave the EU without a deal, we will not be able to issue Community licences, as we will no longer be a member state. Therefore, we have had to come up with a replacement document: the UK licence for the Community. UK hauliers should continue to carry their current Community licence, which lasts for five years. Only when a Community licence expires will it be replaced by the new UK licence for the Community.
Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) (Amendment) Bill
Monday 18th March 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) (Amendment) Act 2019 View all Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) (Amendment) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text
Rivers Authorities and Land Drainage Bill
Monday 18th March 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Rivers Authorities and Land Drainage Bill 2017-19 View all Rivers Authorities and Land Drainage Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 March 2019 - (11 Mar 2019)
Law Enforcement and Security (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 January be approved.
Relevant documents: 17th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A). Considered in Grand Committee on 12 March.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the instrument that the House is invited to approve today was debated in Grand Committee last Tuesday. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was unable to take part, but we had a good and thorough debate, so I shall keep my remarks brief and confine them to the points raised by him in his amendment.
However, it is perhaps worth underlining what we want to achieve in regard to law enforcement and security as we exit the EU. We all want to protect the operational capabilities that help the police, law enforcement and prosecutors do their jobs in protecting the public and bringing criminals to justice. The Government’s position remains that the best way to do that is to exit with a deal. However, it is right and necessary that we prepare for all eventualities, including the no-deal scenario that most of us do not want to see. The instrument before the House forms part of the programme of secondary legislation that the Government have been bringing forward to ensure that there is an effectively functioning statute book on exit day. 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 the area of security, law enforcement, criminal justice and some security-related regulatory systems. 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 that new situation.
Having said a few words about what the instrument does, I should also be clear about what it does not set out to do. For the most part, the instrument is not a vehicle for implementing the Government’s policy response to a no-deal exit. Our contingency arrangements for co-operation with EU partners on security, law enforcement and criminal justice involve making more use of Interpol, Council of Europe conventions and bilateral channels. These are existing alternative channels, outside the EU, that are already in use between the UK and many other non-EU countries. Accordingly, they do not require domestic legislation to set up. That 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, in respect of which this instrument links into our contingency arrangements, is already in place and in day-to-day use by the UK with non-EU countries. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Paddick
At the end insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Regulations cover policy areas that are individually of such significant concern to the House that they should not be considered together, and that Her Majesty’s Government have provided insufficient information in relation to the statutory instrument’s policy objectives and intended implementation”.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I start by apologising to the House that I was unable to take part in the debate in Grand Committee last week. Sad to say, I did stream the proceedings live to my sickbed, so I followed proceedings contemporaneously. The words of my amendment are not my own but those of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s Sub-Committee A. I intend, first, to give an example of how important the areas are that are covered by this SI; secondly, to question the reassurances given by the Minister in Grand Committee on the area of extradition; thirdly, to examine the impact of losing access to crucial EU databases on securing our borders and how that jeopardises the Government’s immigration strategy post Brexit; and finally, to highlight the muddled thinking of the Government that resulted in their putting too many important legislative changes into one SI.
The regret is about the way the Government are showing contempt for proper scrutiny of this statutory instrument by the House, by accident or design, not about the content of the instrument itself. As the Minister acknowledged in Grand Committee on 12 March at col. GC 195, these regulations which cover some of the most important areas of leaving the EU—law enforcement, security and judicial co-operation—have been “under-debated”. Yet despite this, the Government cram every necessary legislative change in these important areas into one statutory instrument. Not only does this make the SI impenetrable to mere mortals, even the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s Sub-Committee A concluded in its 17th report, published on 20 February, at paragraph 5:
“We were not persuaded that so wide-ranging 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”.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I too was unable to attend the debate on this instrument in Grand Committee but it seems that this is an opportunity to make some general remarks about its purposes. Frankly, I can think of no area of importance where our impending departure from the European Union needs to be less of an obstruction to our national security than the exchange of intelligence, as regards both policy and administration. These are all matters of mutual interest, not only between the United Kingdom and other members of the European Union but between the United Kingdom and other nations of the world. I therefore believe that what is needed is some sort of White Paper from Britain to take advantage of our departure from the EU to set out fresh targets of practical achievement—better security, better exchange of intelligence and better safeguarding of rights. However, we have seen many recent examples of where the present system simply does not work; the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, gave some but there are others. I suggest in particular something I have been pursuing for many years in this House: the need for the United Kingdom passport agency to be aware of other passports held by British passport holders.
This is self-evident to most people, but the Government, or rather the Home Office, have objected again and again to implementing it. Current regulations require that if you apply for a British passport, you must declare what other passports you hold. Not only is that information not retained—I have been told that by Home Office officials—but it is certainly not available, as it should be, to those charged with administering the security of our borders.
What should happen, of course, is that the electronic screening of the passport of anyone who passes through border control, into or out of the United Kingdom, should reveal what other passports they hold. In most cases, that would mean no further action, but there could be cases where it would be crucial to improving our national security. There has been a lacuna in creative thinking on this whole subject by the British Government, and the opportunity for us now to get a grip on it is provided by our impending departure from the EU.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Paddick comprehensively covered a point I raised in Grand Committee. He is quite right to say that I fear the Minister did not answer my question, which was: do the EU 27 countries have to change domestic legislation in the same way as us as we shuffle between Parts 1 and 2 of the Extradition Act to operate Council of Europe Convention 57? Subject to what the DPP said, we know that they have the Council of Europe convention in their domestic legislation to operate with non-EU countries. We need to know whether that will be available to operate with us if we are no longer in the EAW.
Interestingly, I discovered that the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, chairman of the EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee—on which I do not have the pleasure of sitting; I am on the Justice Sub-Committee—wrote to the right honourable Nick Hurd MP, Minister of State for Policing, last week on 13 March. The committee had held an evidence session on 27 February. One point was in response to an official I remember working with when I was an MEP but is now, I think, in the Home Office. The letter states that,
“we remain concerned by the extent to which the effectiveness of, as Ms Ellis put it, the ‘plumbing’ put in place by the UK to move cooperation to non-EU mechanisms is ‘dependent on the position of other member states’. Whatever the extent of the UK’s preparations, it is not at all clear that our European partners would be ready to cooperate with us on the basis of the alternative mechanisms the Government intends to rely upon in a ‘no deal’ scenario”.
I have not had the opportunity to catch up on all the evidence, but that letter is in the public domain; it is published on the committee’s website.
Our distinguished colleagues on the EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee are obviously well apprised of the issue, and the Minister’s colleague, the Policing Minister, will presumably have to reply within 10 days. We are interested in precisely the same point. It would cover issues such as extradition of own nationals and political exemptions as well as the basic plumbing, as it was put.
The letter of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, also said:
“We would also be grateful for further information on the UK’s current operation of the Council of Europe Convention on Extradition—which witnesses indicated would be the ‘fallback’ mechanism for future cooperation on extradition with EU countries—with countries such as Norway”.
To inform our knowledge of how this alternative plumbing mechanism would work, how is it working at the moment with Norway?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, these matters were debated in Grand Committee on 12 March. I expressed then, as I do now, that I very much agree with the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Sub-Committee A. It expressed the concerns about the way this regulation has been brought forward. It is fair to say that it was quite damning of how the Government presented the regulations to both Houses of Parliament.
Recommendation after recommendation highlighted how inadequately information was presented to Members of both Houses. In Committee, I very much agreed with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I supported everything she said, except that if the measures came before the House, I would not vote to stop them coming into force. However, at the end of the day, we do not have a fatal Motion here. The regulations are badly drawn up, with little regard to the needs of either House. As I said, that point was made by the sub-committee but endorsed by everyone who spoke in Committee. I also concur with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench.
I have a few other points to make. I do not intend to go into them in detail because I made a lot of them in Committee. I am very concerned that we could lose access to the European arrest warrant and may have to go back to relying on the 1957 Council of Europe Convention on Extradition. That is a retrograde step; the only people who would welcome it are criminals—no one else. I am also concerned about the loss of access to databases. In Committee, I also mentioned the issue of the Schengen information system and Prüm. I do not recall whether I got an answer to my questions. What will be the situation there? Can the Minister comment on Europol and Eurojust? Again, I want to hear more than just, “We are working on it”. These issues are important and we want to know where we stand.
The report is damning, as I said. I hope that the department will learn a lesson from it. I do not think that committees put forward such suggestions lightly. We want proper scrutiny. We want to ask questions and put everything together in one place but it has not worked and I hope that we will not see anything else like it in future. I will leave it there.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank noble Lords for their points, many of which were made the other day in Committee. It is important to be clear from the outset that the regulations play no part in bringing about the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, about which many comments were made. I just want to clear that up. Obviously, the consequences flowing from that include ceasing our ability to co-operate with EU member states through this suite of tools and measures.
As I said the other day, the instrument’s purpose is to make amendments to the UK’s domestic statute book, including retaining EU legislation to reflect the new situation. The changes we are making in the instrument are ones that we cannot and should not avoid in the event of a no-deal exit. The regulations do not contain significant policy choices. For that reason, as I have already said, we do not accept that the changes introduced by the instrument should be of concern to this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, suggests in his amendment that,
“Her Majesty’s Government have provided insufficient information in relation to the statutory instrument’s policy objectives and intended implementation”.
That point was made by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, at whose request the Government produced a second, revised Explanatory Memorandum in addition to both the original one and the impact assessment published alongside the instrument.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has been consistent on the committee’s comments; he made the same point today as he did the other day. I took it on board the other day and I do so again today. As we made clear in writing to the committee, the original, longer Explanatory Memorandum was provided in good faith to provide the committee and other users of it with a thorough explanation of each provision in the instrument. We anticipated that the level of detail provided would be helpful to anyone with an interest in a specific part of the instrument. However, we took on board the committee’s view that we had not struck the right balance and that the Explanatory Memorandum was too long, and therefore provided the shorter one. The committee confirmed in its report that it considers the revised Explanatory Memorandum to be “more accessible” and “more user-friendly”.
All these documents, both Explanatory Memorandums and the impact assessment, attempt to isolate and describe the practical effect of the regulations themselves—what difference it makes if we do or do not legislate as proposed in these regulations—rather than the wider impact of EU arrangements in this area falling away as a consequence of a no-deal exit. But in publications, debates and Select Committee hearings we have provided and continue to provide information to Parliament about those wider impacts. Overall, the making of this instrument will provide legal and operational certainty for the public sector, including law enforcement and criminal justice partners across the UK, such as the NCA and our police and prosecution services.
I will address policy areas. I reiterate that the regulations cover three subject areas: 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 affecting investigatory powers made deficient by EU exit.
On security, law enforcement and judicial co-operation in criminal matters, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, pointed out that the regulations address deficiencies in connection with EU measures with a justice and home affairs 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 with each other at an operational level. For example, the Schengen Information System, which the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Paddick, referred to, circulates the 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 they are linked policy areas and that the changes being made are very similar across most parts of the instrument, we considered that combining them in a single instrument would assist scrutiny by providing as complete a picture as possible in one place. I accept the points made today by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the other day and today by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, then went on to talk about contingency planning. Our contingency arrangements in this area are largely outside the scope of the specific changes introduced by these regulations. However, they are clearly and properly a matter of great interest to Members of this House. They have undergone detailed scrutiny by the EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee of the European Union Select Committee in this House and the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place. As the Government have made clear in both Houses, the continued safety and security of both UK and EU citizens remains our top priority. That is why we are preparing to move our co-operation with EU member states in a no-deal scenario from EU channels to alternative, non-EU mechanisms. Broadly speaking, this would mean more use of Interpol, the replacement for Europol—the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about this—Council of Europe conventions and other forms of co-operation with European partners, such as bilateral channels. Our contingency plans are largely tried and tested mechanisms that we already use for co-operating with many non-EU countries. However, as we have made clear, they are not like-for-like replacements for EU tools and would result in a reduction of mutual capability in both the UK and the EU. For the most part, the legal framework for these contingency arrangements is already in place: the non-EU mechanisms we are moving to already exist and we already use them with other countries.
One thing that noble Lords brought up on contingency was extradition, which was brought up the other day. The regulations support implementation of the no-deal contingency in this area. They will ensure that in the event of a no-deal exit, we have the correct domestic legal underpinning to operate the no-deal contingency arrangements for extradition—the 1957 Council of Europe Convention on Extradition—with EU member states. To be clear, the amendments under the Extradition Act are not purely discretionary. Once we leave the EU and cease to be bound by the EAW regime, our rights and obligations towards EU member states under the 1957 convention will revive. Under international law, we will be under an obligation to be able to fulfil them and to equip ourselves to do so.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lady Ludford and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark.
The Minister kept on about the regulations not containing any major policy areas. We have not said that they provide major policy changes—we accept what the Government say about that—but what we and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee are complaining about is that far too much legislation is contained within one statutory instrument. I specifically criticised what the Minister said in Grand Committee about the three policy areas and the common legal framework. In response to that criticism she simply repeated exactly what she said in Grand Committee.
I am grateful that the Minister admits that the contingency arrangements will result in a mutual reduction in capability of the UK and the EU, but it leaves an important question unanswered. I accept that she cannot speak for other individual EU states, but one of the purposes of the statutory instrument is to ensure that the alternative extradition arrangements under the 1957 convention can legally operate—that is, that the UK can extradite people to EU states or other signatories to the convention. However, we do not know whether EU states’ domestic legislation will allow them to extradite people to the UK.
As the Minister acknowledges, they may have to redesignate the UK as a Council of Europe member rather than as an EU member state in their domestic legislation in order to make the 1957 convention work. However, we still have no reassurance that the contingency arrangements the Government are relying on will work in practice. I accept that they are doing what they can on their side of the agreement, as it were, but we still do not know whether EU countries will be able to extradite people to the UK under the 1957 convention.
We are getting into the detail but the point is that it does not matter how long or short the Explanatory Memorandum is: if there is too much content in the statutory instrument itself, you will never get an Explanatory Memorandum that will assist the House because it will be either too superficial or too detailed to enable sufficient scrutiny. I believe the Government accept that and hopefully we will not face this situation in the future. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Immigration (European Economic Area Nationals) (EU Exit) Order 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Order laid before the House on 11 February be approved.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B)
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House approves the draft Immigration, Nationality and Asylum (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Delivering a deal with the EU remains the Government’s priority. We are nevertheless preparing for a range of scenarios. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, the legal default in UK and EU law is that the UK will leave without a deal on 29 March unless something else is agreed.
UK domestic law has given effect to our obligations in the fields of immigration, nationality and asylum arising from our membership of the European Union. The UK has also been subject to directly effective EU law. When we leave the EU, aspects of our legislation and retained direct EU law will fail to operate effectively. They will contain deficiencies if they are not modified or revoked by this instrument.
These regulations make changes to a range of measures in domestic primary and secondary legislation to prevent, remedy or mitigate deficiencies in law arising from the UK’s exit from the EU. They ensure that our statute book operates on exit day if the UK leaves the EU without a deal until new legislation on these issues is commenced.
First, the instrument makes the technical changes required to correct wording in our legislation that describes the UK in terms of our membership of the EU or the European Economic Area. The changes do not alter the effect of the legislation. Similarly, it makes technical amendments to domestic legislation that refers to EU rights that are retained by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
Secondly, this instrument revokes relevant retained EU legislation relating to immigration. It also revokes a number of instruments that give effect to the UK’s membership of EU asylum acquis and which will be inoperable on exit. This is because, by leaving the EU, the UK also leaves the asylum acquis. This instrument therefore revokes the Dublin regulation and the Eurodac regulation.
The instrument makes a number of transitional and saving provisions—
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Ah. Do noble Lords mind if we do this one first?
Viscount Waverley (CB)
I think that every Member who has taken an interest in this has been in the Chamber, so the Minister can probably be allowed to continue. That is my view, but other Members may think differently.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I have just taken advice and apparently I cannot do that. Please ignore everything I have just said.
On a day when you have three statutory instruments, an Urgent Question, a Question and a speech to deliver to the LGBT conference, this is what happens. I apologise to noble Lords that I have got the right speeches but in the wrong order. I will sit down for a minute to make sure that I have got the right instrument.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Take two, my Lords. The Government’s priority is to protect the rights of EEA and Swiss citizens who are already here. Deal or no deal, they will be able to stay and apply to the EU settlement scheme, which will be fully open from 30 March.
Delivering a deal remains the Government’s priority. We are nevertheless preparing for a range of scenarios. In a no-deal scenario, we will end free movement as soon as possible after exit, subject to parliamentary approval of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill. Once free movement has ended, transitional immigration arrangements will be in place until the new skills-based immigration system is introduced from January 2021. The intention is to minimise disruption at the border and avoid a cliff edge, providing initial continuity for EEA and Swiss citizens and for businesses. The Government announced these arrangements on 28 January.
I make it clear that these transitional arrangements will not apply to EEA and Swiss citizens resident in the UK before exit. These citizens will be able to apply to secure their status under the EU settlement scheme. Nor will they apply to Irish citizens, who, under common travel area arrangements, will continue to be able to enter and remain in the UK without requiring leave.
Those who are not eligible for the EU settlement scheme will require leave to enter once free movement has ended, and this order provides the mechanism by which that leave to enter will be granted. Such citizens will be granted leave to enter for a period of three months, automatically, upon arrival at the border. This means that they will be able to cross the border much as now, including using e-passport gates. They will not be questioned routinely or have their passport stamped. This leave will allow them to work, study or visit for short periods as we transition to the new skills-based immigration system to be introduced from 2021.
For many individuals, a single three-month period of leave will be sufficient. Others, such as regular business visitors or frontier workers who live in the EU but work in the UK, may wish to come on more than one occasion. The order will enable them to do so by granting leave to enter automatically on each arrival. As now, there will be some EEA and Swiss nationals whom we will not wish to enter the UK—for example, where their presence in the UK is undesirable on criminality or non-conducive grounds. Those who are the subject of exclusion or deportation orders or other specified decisions will not benefit from the automatic leave provisions, and Border Force officers will be able to cancel automatic leave where an individual’s presence in the UK is deemed to be non-conducive. Those who wish to remain for longer than three months would need to apply for European temporary leave before the end of the initial three-month period. This would give them a further 36 months’ leave to remain. These arrangements are a contingency plan, necessary only in a no-deal scenario, to allow us to transition smoothly from the end of free movement to the future skills-based immigration system.
The order also makes changes to support the EU settlement scheme in both a deal and a no-deal scenario. It provides that those granted settled status may be absent from the UK for up to five consecutive years without it lapsing. For Swiss citizens granted settled status or their family members, this period will be up to four consecutive years, in line with the citizens’ rights agreement negotiated with Switzerland. It also ensures that scheme leave granted to a Crown servant, to a permanent member of the British Council who is an EEA or Swiss national or to a member of Her Majesty’s forces will not lapse as a result of an overseas posting. This will also apply to a person with scheme leave accompanying them, or accompanying a British citizen, on such a posting. The order facilitates overseas applications to the scheme and clarifies that scheme applicants will not need to pay the immigration health charge.
These are important measures to support the delivery of the EU settlement scheme and our no-deal contingency plan. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
At the end insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Order provides for changes to the status of European Economic Area nationals entering or resident in the United Kingdom that should be made with the full scrutiny of both Houses in the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill; and that Her Majesty’s Government have failed to provide details on the practicalities of the varying types of leave to remain, including how they will be enforced, the length of an application process for extended leave to remain, and the impact on individuals who may be asked to prove their status”.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, the Minister is so liked and respected in the House that we were all sitting here listening with complete attentiveness to every word she said, and it was only when the word “Dublin” was mentioned that we realised we were dealing with the wrong instrument. We all like the Minister very much and know that she is very busy outside the House as well.
An immigration Bill is going through Parliament, and there is a theme here: yet again, we feel that the Government are hiding from scrutiny and have come up with a patchwork of complicated law through secondary legislation, which we do not think is the right thing to do. They will argue that these provisions need to go through very quickly but, as we have heard, the immigration Bill provides for the end of freedom of movement, so the provision in the order for automatic leave to enter for EEA nationals after freedom of movement has ended can come into force only once the Bill has been passed into law. The timescales are identical, so these provisions should have been up for debate and amendment in that legislation.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has raised questions about how the three-month period will be enforced because, as the Minister said, those entering the country will not be stamped on entry. I have heard the term “light-touch enforcement” used. Could we have an explanation of what that means in practice?
The House of Commons was told that to remain longer than the initial three months, an EEA national would have to apply for temporary leave to remain for up to 36 months. After that, they would have to apply through the new immigration system that should be in place by then. Can we know how long an application will take for temporary leave to remain? If a person goes over the initial three months while waiting for leave to remain, what happens then?
EEA nationals will be over here under three different systems: settled status, the three-month visa and temporary leave to remain for longer than three months. In light of the Windrush scandal, are the Government doing everything they can to ensure that individuals with the right to be here are not routinely and wrongfully challenged or adversely affected, and that they will have no problem proving their right to be here if necessary? This is a most regrettable statutory instrument, which is why I have tabled my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, the first extraordinary thing to say about this statutory instrument is that the Secretary of State did not consider it necessary to consult anyone about it. The second is to make clear its effect and to contrast it with the Government’s often-repeated mantra, not just for leaving the EU but for the dead horse that is Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement, both of which the Government and those in favour of leaving the EU describe as “taking back control of our borders”. The only sense in which this instrument can be interpreted as taking back control of our borders is that the Government have decided by themselves to give up control of our borders without any influence from the EU.
The other contradiction between what the Government claim to be doing and are actually doing is that they say that they are going to create a level playing field for EU and non-EU citizens regarding entry to the UK. This instrument gives preferential treatment to EU citizens after we leave the EU. It grants automatic entry to the UK for EU and EEA citizens even after we leave the EU, with leave to remain for a period of three months. EU and EEA citizens do not even have to have a passport; they can travel on a national identity card. If they do have a passport, they can use the automatic e-gates at airports. In other words, they are as free to enter the UK as they were under freedom of movement. Can the Minister confirm this?
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, we risk getting somewhat lost in the detail here. It seems that the Government are now proposing to open up some 9 million jobs to worldwide competition, while at the same time effectively continuing with free movement to the European Union, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said. As I said before, the risk is that this will run straight out of control. We really need to get hold of this, stay on the main points and be quite sure that the Government are ready to react if the numbers start getting really difficult.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I add to what my noble friend Lord Paddick said—it is the disjuncture and hypocrisy that upsets us. Of course, this is a one-way continuation of free movement. Many of us were extremely distressed when the Prime Minister cited the top reason for celebrating her ill-fated draft withdrawal agreement and political declaration last November; apparently, its top benefit was ending free movement. In fact, this is not happening—at least, not into the UK—and no consideration was given to the benefits of free movement for UK citizens in the rest of the EU. This instrument says nothing about those opportunities, which are being torn away from UK nationals. This will particularly affect young people and those of all ages who want to work or retire in the rest of the EU. It is the Government’s inconsistency which strikes such a difficult note.
Had I had the opportunity to ask my noble friends on the Front Bench, who know a great deal more about immigration law than I do, I may not have needed to ask this question, which concerns the difference between Articles 3 and 7, which I do not really understand. Article 3 is entitled:
“Grant of leave to EEA and Swiss nationals”.
Article 7 is entitled:
“Grant of leave by virtue of Appendix EU to the immigration rules”.
I simply do not understand the difference between those legal bases for extension of leave, as “EEA nationals” covers EU nationals as well. Perhaps the Minister could help me. That also spills over to the health charge, because Article 10, on exempting from the health charge, appears to apply only to those who acquire leave to enter or remain,
“by virtue of Appendix EU to the immigration rules”.
It does not appear to cover those who get leave under draft Article 3. As I say, it may just be that I do not understand how all this interacts, but perhaps the Minister can enlighten me.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the careful and charming way in which she introduced this SI. But we had better remind ourselves what “free movement” actually means. It means that people can move from one part of the European Union to another—but in fact, of course, at some stage they have to have a job. You can remove them from one country to another if they do not have one. That is part of the arrangement.
My worry about this is that we say that we are ending free movement, but actually we have not included the one thing that is a perfectly proper restriction on free movement that we have had up to now. So we are removing the one thing that most people would find unacceptable, which is the mechanism whereby you make sure that people move around the European Union with a purpose and do not become a burden on a particular country they have chosen to go to. I find that bit really very peculiar. No doubt the Government have thought that all through, so we will hear exactly how it works.
Although I shall say this as politely as I possibly can, I think that this is a load of old nonsense. I really do think that the idea that we will grant these opportunities for the rest of Europe but are putting ourselves into a position in which none of these opportunities might be granted to any of our citizens seems to be one of the best examples of the fact that Brexit is a mechanism for shooting ourselves in the foot. The reason we are doing this in a one-sided way is exactly the same as with every other SI we have had: the only things we can do with SIs are the things that affect us, rather than anything in the rest of Europe that affects our people. What better exemplar of the stupidity of leaving the European Union can there be?
My noble friend is of course bound to defend the Government’s policy—although I have to say that I am not really sure what the Government’s policy now is. Indeed, I have not really been sure for some long time, and today it seems even less clear than it was yesterday. No doubt tomorrow it will be more opaque still. But the reality is that this SI displays the fundamental problem that, during the referendum campaign, a lot of promises were made. One of them was, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, that we would “take back control”. So we are taking back control to allow other people to travel into our country, but removing our right to travel into their countries. As a piece of control taking back, that seems somewhat limited in its attraction.
I often ask myself how I would speak on a platform if I was asked a question about these SIs. Indeed, it is a way I think when I look at what we are proposing on the climate change committee. I say to myself, “How would I explain that on a platform?” It is a useful thing for a long-term politician. So I am standing on a platform and somebody says, “Can I go to the rest of Europe like I have always done?” The answer is, “We don’t know, because we haven’t done a deal on that”. “Can my aunt, who happens to be French, come to Britain even if she hasn’t got a job?” The answer to that is probably yes. “How do they make sure she’s here for only three months if she doesn’t have to show her passport or have it stamped?” The answer is that they probably cannot. “Well, will they look out for her?” “No, we’ve agreed that there’s not going to be any looking out for people; it’s not going to be like that at all”.
How does that draw that into the same position as somebody who comes from the United States? Of course, that is entirely different; they have to show a passport and make the arrangements. I do not mind that, because we do not have a mutual arrangement with the United States—but at least we do not have a one-sided arrangement with the United States. At least we do not say that Americans can come here and do all these things and we have no willingness to go there.
I really got up to say to my noble friend how sorry I am that she has had to defend this SI—because it is indefensible. It is a nonsense. It is quite wrong to give other people the rights to enter our nation and say that that is taking back control, and it is quite wrong to give those rights without having previously arranged that we should have the same rights in the rest of Europe. To hide it behind the use of the phrase “free movement” is, of course, the really serious thing, because free movement has always been restricted. If the Government have not used those restrictions effectively, that has been the fault not of the European Union but of United Kingdom Governments of all denominations and types. So I say to my noble friend: okay, no doubt the SI will be passed, but do not think that it does any honour to this Government—and it certainly does no honour to Britain. I am getting more and more embarrassed at the way the rest of the world is seeing us.
Viscount Waverley
My Lords, following on from the point made about stamps in passports, and as a procedural point, would the Minister confirm that all persons exiting the UK are now properly registered as having left the UK? There was a point in recent times when that was not the case. There were stamps for entry, but I understand not for exiting. Clarification at an appropriate time would be helpful.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
I would like to follow up that last point. It is what I have been talking about for years. We have totally inadequate means of knowing who has come in, when they have come in, when they should leave and whether they have left. The whole system is a shambles. This is an opportunity to get it right.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. My noble friend Lord Marlesford is correct; this is an opportunity to get it right.
It would probably be helpful to start by stating the purpose of this statutory instrument, and that, I hope, will go to some extent to my noble friend Lord Deben’s point. This statutory instrument is essentially a temporary arrangement in a no-deal situation, until free movement ends under the immigration Bill. In a no-deal scenario, we will end free movement as soon as possible after exit, subject to parliamentary approval of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill. In a no-deal scenario, once free movement has ended, there would be a transitional period until the new skills-based immigration system is introduced in January 2021. This order ensures that during this period, we would minimise disruption at the border and provide initial continuity for EEA and Swiss citizens, and for businesses. The Government announced these transitional arrangements on 28 January. Regarding the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about seeming to favour EU nationals, the whole point of this is to provide that transitional certainty.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about how the three-month period would be enforced. Obviously these are transitional arrangements, to be put in place only in the event of no deal. We cannot switch things off and on overnight, so we need to ensure that the correct legislation and operational plans are in place. It will take some time to prepare for our new skills-based immigration system, but the Government have been clear that our intention is for it to be in place by 2021.
These arrangements lay the foundations for the future. We cannot control European immigration until all EEA and Swiss citizens here have a UK immigration status, which will take some time. In a no-deal scenario, those resident here by 29 March 2019 will have until the end of 2020 to apply to the EU settlements scheme. These arrangements enable us to move from a rights-based system of free movement to a UK system where everyone requires permission to be here. Accordingly, until the new system is introduced, a proportionate, light-touch enforcement approach will be taken in respect of EEA and Swiss citizens. The noble Lord asked me to define “light touch”—I assume that it means without too much bureaucratic involvement in form filling and other matters that make life very difficult.
If an EEA or Swiss citizen is found not to have appropriate status, we will encourage them to make the relevant application. I am absolutely clear on the importance of clear communications so that individuals understand their status. This is imperative for those resident in the UK before we leave the UK on 29 March, and those who arrive here afterwards. Our focus is on encouraging and supporting EEA and Swiss citizens to acquire an appropriate status and ensure that they have sufficient time to do so. We are committed to a fair immigration system which operates with integrity and which welcomes those who are here legally. But we are clear that compliance with UK immigration laws and rules is essential in supporting this.
For those who arrive after free movement ends, we will make it clear that they need to apply for European temporary leave to remain before their three months’ automatic leave expires. Where they have good reason for not doing so, we will encourage them to make this application, or to leave the UK voluntarily, but where there is abuse of the system, we will consider enforcement action.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked how long the application will take. Applications for 36-month temporary leave to remain will use the EU settlement scheme infrastructure, which allows them to be determined within a period of days. He also asked what will happen at the end of the three months to those who will have applied for 36 months’ leave. If a person applies for 36 months leave within three months, they can still stay lawfully in the UK until their application is decided.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked why the exemption from the immigration health surcharge is needed. The exemption in this order applies to those applying for leave under the EU settlements scheme, not those who obtained three months’ leave to enter under part 2 of the order. The noble Lord also asked if people could leave the UK, then return and obtain a further three months. The answer is yes.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about the three months’ automatic leave to enter. The order provides that in a no-deal scenario, three months’ leave to enter would be granted to EEA and Swiss citizens who required such leave once free movement has ended. It would be granted automatically upon arrival at the border, allowing them to work, study or visit for short periods as we transition towards the new skills-based immigration system, to be introduced from 2021.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked about consultation on the order. These are transitional arrangements to ensure that the border remains fluid after the end of free movement, and until we move to the order arrangements, from 2021 onwards. These plans were set out in the Government’s White Paper, The UK’s Future Skills-Based Immigration System, and the Government intend a 12-month period of engagement on such plans. The noble Lord also asked about the exit checks on EU nationals now. They will be introduced when we leave.
Lord Paddick
I am a little confused. At points, the Minister appeared to say that this was a temporary arrangement in the event of no deal; at other times, she talked about a temporary arrangement pending the introduction of a skills-based scheme. At some points, she talked about that scheme being in place by January 2021; in other places, she talked about it being our intention to have a skills-based scheme in place by January 2021. Is it definite or an intention?
On the light-touch regulatory regime, does that mean that there is a mechanism to enforce the three-month limit on stays in the UK or that there is no such mechanism? Light touch and non-existent are two different things.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of my amendment. The inconsistency, the lack of scrutiny and the whole basis on which the Government are making the regulations are the issues in question for me. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, said much more eloquently than me everything that I wanted to say and I agreed with every word. The only thing I would add is that I am equally confused by the position of my own party on these matters, but that is probably for another place. I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Immigration, Nationality and Asylum (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 11 February be approved.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A)
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, delivering a deal with the EU remains the Government’s priority. We are nevertheless preparing for a range of scenarios.
UK domestic law has given effect to our obligations in the fields of immigration, nationality and asylum arising from our membership of the European Union. The UK has also been subject to directly effective EU law. When we leave the EU, aspects of our legislation and retained direct EU law will fail to operate effectively. They will contain deficiencies if they are not modified or revoked by this instrument.
These regulations make changes to a range of domestic primary and secondary legislation to prevent, remedy or mitigate deficiencies in law arising from the UK’s exit from the EU. They ensure that our statute book operates on exit day if the UK leaves the EU without a deal until new legislation on these issues is commenced.
First, the instrument makes technical changes required to correct wording in our legislation that describes the UK in terms of our membership of the EU or European Economic Area. The changes do not alter the effect of the legislation. Similarly, it also makes technical amendments to domestic legislation that refer to EU rights that are retained by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
Secondly, this instrument revokes relevant retained EU legislation relating to immigration. It also revokes a number of instruments which give effect to the UK’s membership of the EU asylum acquis and which will be inoperable on exit. This is because by leaving the EU, the UK also leaves the asylum acquis. The order therefore revokes the Dublin regulation and the Eurodac regulation—that is where I got up to last time.
The instrument makes a number of transitional and saving provisions in relation to the measures being amended by it. This is so that the amendments do not have an inappropriate effect in respect of decisions or other action taken before their commencement.
Finally, this instrument applies the UK rules for criminality to EEA, Swiss and Turkish nationals; the amendment applies only to their conduct after exit. Our intention to apply the same rules to new arrivals, irrespective of the country from which they come, has already been announced by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
The Government believe that we must plan for every eventuality, including a no- deal scenario. Through introducing this instrument, they are taking practical steps to ensure that the UK statute book operates effectively on exit in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal.
This instrument will prevent deficiencies in immigration and asylum law arising from the UK leaving the EU. It ensures continuity until the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill allows the Government to introduce the new future borders and immigration system. I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee states that the Home Office anticipates that loss of provisions of the Dublin regulations will have a minimal impact on how those seeking asylum in the UK are handled, yet the British Red Cross, which does invaluable work with asylum seekers in the UK, has raised real concerns in its briefing. I propose to raise just one—that which it says concerns it most.
As I understand it, the Government have committed only to maintaining the Dublin III regulation for unaccompanied children. Of course, that is welcome. However, it will leave many who are currently able to use Dublin III’s family reunion provisions excluded. In 2018, of 1,215 Dublin III arrivals, only 159 were unaccompanied children under Article 8, and 869 were wider family reunion cases under Article 9, which allows people who claim asylum in another Dublin member state to join a relative in the UK who has been granted protection. Will the Minister give a commitment that the Government will retain these Dublin protections in our domestic law post Brexit? I believe that this would require an amendment to our family reunion legislation. This would give substance to the Home Office’s assurance that loss of the Dublin provision will have minimal impact—or, in the words of the Explanatory Memorandum,
“a small impact on net asylum transfers”.
If the 2018 pattern continues, we would otherwise be excluding more than 70% of Dublin III arrivals if this commitment is not given. Is this really what the Government intend?
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s Sub-Committee A has drawn two issues to the special attention of the House. The first is that there are EU specifications for certain documents, notably the uniform format for biometric residence permits for third-country nationals. The Home Office explained to the sub-committee that the EU is in the process of switching from the current design, the switch to be completed by all member states by the end of 2019, but the UK will not issue the new EU design. In addition to the questions raised by the sub-committee as to whether immigration officials conducting exit checks in foreign countries to establish whether someone has the right to enter the UK before they depart will be notified of such a change, and whether confusion will be created by deviating from the standard EU format, would a potential delay to the UK’s departure from the EU for 12 months or more require the UK to adopt the new EU design despite what is contained in this instrument?
The other issue is the withdrawal of the UK not only from the Dublin regulation but from the Eurodac regulation. Currently, under the Dublin regulation, an asylum seeker must seek asylum in the first safe country arrived in. The Eurodac regulation covers the use and operation of the Eurodac biometric database, which notifies participating member states of a match if a person has been fingerprinted as an asylum seeker in connection with an illegal crossing into a country participating in the Dublin regulation. My understanding is that this instrument makes the necessary legislative changes to acknowledge that the UK will no longer be party either to the Dublin regulation or the Eurodac regulation, as the UK will no longer have access to the mechanism for returning asylum seekers to the first country they arrived in; nor will they be able to establish by fingerprints that they sought asylum in another safe country, as the UK will no longer have access to that database. Will the Minister explain the practical implications of the Home Office’s response to the sub- committee that asylum claims may still be deemed inadmissible to the UK if the claimants have already been recognised as a refugee or could have claimed asylum elsewhere? How, in the absence of the Eurodac database, will the UK establish this?
If EU member states are no longer obliged to accept transfers from the UK under the Dublin regulation, what is the Home Office going to do with those asylum seekers? If by some other means the Home Office determines that an asylum seeker could have claimed asylum elsewhere, or has already been recognised as a refugee elsewhere, they are presumably genuine refugees and so cannot be returned to their country of origin. As the UK will no longer be a member of the Dublin regulation, presumably they cannot be transferred to the EU member state where they first sought asylum either. I eagerly await the Minister’s response.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, it is striking how small a part asylum and resettlement have played in the conversation about a post-Brexit immigration system. Assuming—and praying—that we do not leave without a deal, I hope that discussion of these vital areas will not be limited to the margins of an already limited engagement with the immigration White Paper and the SIs. I have a series of questions for the Minister.
It might just be me, but I often struggle to see evidence of the Home Office applying the family test in SIs and other areas. Can the Minister assure me that the family test has been applied to these SIs? There is potentially a bit of a catch for people who have made an asylum application in an EU member state prior to 29 March, and who might have chosen to use the Dublin process for the purpose of family reunion. For such people, that might fall out if we leave on 29 March. Can the regulations be amended to ensure that, if they have made an application before 29 March, they will be able to use the Dublin process afterwards?
I endorse the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and shall add a couple more. Of the 1,215 people reunited in the UK under the Dublin system in 2018, more than 800 arrived under Article 9, which allows people who claim asylum in another Dublin member state to join a relative in the UK who has been granted international protection. What assessment has the Minister made of how many of those people may have been eligible to be reunited under Part 11 of the UK’s Immigration Rules? Article 9 also allows people in other EU member states to join relatives in the UK who have been granted refugee status. It is concerning that people in these circumstances have had to travel to Europe to reunite, rather than being able to apply for refugee family reunion under the UK’s own Immigration Rules. What plans does the Minister have to improve access to refugee family reunion under Part 11 of the Immigration Rules, including by expanding eligibility and reducing the costs that families face?
I fully accept that we have to withdraw from the Dublin arrangements, but it is about protecting people, as the Government have promised, into the future. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I am grateful to the British Red Cross for its advice on this.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate makes a good point about the continuity of claims that have already commenced. If memory serves, the law enforcement regulations we were discussing earlier make provision for the continuation of cases that have already started. I too am interested in the answer to that question.
When we were discussing the previous SI, several of us were rather struck by the contradiction between the rhetoric about ending free movement and the reality that the Government actually intend to continue it on a one-way basis with no supervision or control whatever, which seems rather perverse. I am also struck by the proposal to pull out of Eurodac and the Dublin regulation, over which I sweated many days, weeks and months as an MEP—but that is neither here nor there.
The Home Secretary made several assertions on this earlier this year—not least when he curtailed his Christmas holiday to come back and deal with what he claimed was the major incident of a few hundred migrants crossing the channel. When addressing the other place on 7 January, he said that the first safe country principle is,
“at the heart of the EU’s own common European asylum system”,
which underpins the 2005 procedures directive and 2004 qualification directive. He went on:
“It is also a principle that underpins the Dublin regulation. The whole point of the Dublin regulation is that if someone has passed through another EU safe country, it is expected that they claim asylum first there”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/1/19; col. 89.]
Both in that speech to the other place and in numerous instances of press coverage, not least in the Daily Telegraph, a great deal of emphasis was placed on the ability of the UK to send back to other EU countries, particularly France, people whom he thought might be designated economic migrants and would not qualify for asylum. How he could know their status in advance is another question. He made a great deal of this ability of the UK to send people back rather than allowing them to seek asylum in Britain. I found another assertion as recent as a few weeks ago; defending his call to declare a major incident in January, he suggested on 21 February on a visit to Dover that,
“those seeking asylum in the UK should have done so in France or elsewhere on the continent”.
A great deal of emphasis has been placed by the Government, particularly the Home Secretary, on the mechanisms of Eurodac and the Dublin regulation. Suddenly, they are going to disappear.
The Government have made some claims about what they hope to put in its place. Indeed, in the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee we are told in Paragraph 8—apparently this was supplementary information supplied to the committee—that the Home Office said:
“We are also mindful of the obligation in section 17 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (family unity for those seeking asylum or other protection in Europe)”.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, pointed out, under Section 17 of the EU withdrawal Act this would apply only to children. The Home Office went on to say:
“We currently work bilaterally on returns with France where for example the Sandhurst Treaty, and the subsequent Joint Action Plan, features a mutual commitment to return more migrants to France who have used boats to illegally cross the Channel”.
Could the Minister tell us how the family unity provisions under Section 17 of the EU withdrawal Act will work in the absence of the Dublin regulation? How will the arrangements with France, or with any other member state, work—sending people back whom the UK claims need to direct their claims towards the authorities in an EU state? What is the state of play on any replacement measures? Will we just have a blank space where Eurodac and the Dublin regulation currently exist?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, this SI makes changes to 21 separate pieces of primary legislation. Again—and this has been a running theme through many of the SIs today—that is just wrong. Can the Minister explain why there is no suitable Bill which this could have formed part of? Can she also explain why the immigration Bill passing through the other place is not a suitable vehicle?
Putting these changes in a Bill would have allowed Members of this House and the other place to scrutinise exactly what they mean for each of these different Acts, and to table amendments if necessary. If we are to be told that these are just technical, that is fine—we get technical matters in legislation all the time and, as noble Lords will know, they are nodded through without any fuss. But it is this House which should take the decision, not the Government, on whether they should be nodded through or not.
I am aware of the concern about how the rules affect individuals. It is sometimes almost impossible for lawyers, judges and Home Office officials to understand the rules and regulations, let alone the average person applying for a visa with or without the help of legal aid. Good parliamentary scrutiny helps to improve legislation, but by bringing these instruments forward in this manner the Government are not allowing themselves the benefits of that, as there are many experts in this House who can help the Government improve what they want to do.
It could also be said that the instrument seems to be overreaching itself. The immigration Bill has not yet completed its parliamentary passage—it has certainly not got to this House. This statutory instrument makes changes for a post-Brexit immigration landscape that is not yet assured.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. By far the biggest area that noble Lords concentrated on was of course the Dublin regulation. The regulation contains rules to establish the criteria and the mechanisms for determining the member state responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the member states by a third-country national or stateless person and the legal framework for returning and accepting asylum seekers to and from the EU. As I said, the instrument ensures that the statute book will continue to function effectively in a no-deal scenario for asylum and provide transitional arrangements.
In the event of a no-deal scenario, retained EU law becomes deficient, and with respect to asylum, the regulations we use to repeal the Dublin regulation and other common European asylum system measures that we are part of—for example, Eurodac, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, pointed out, and the European Asylum Support Office temporary protection directive—will reflect that we will no longer be part of the acquis. This SI ensures that the statute book will continue to function. However, should the UK leave without a deal, Dublin requests relating to family reunification still pending resolution will continue to be considered under the existing provisions, and that will apply to any take-charge requests that we have received before exit day.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked whether the Dublin regulation will apply in the event of no deal. I will give an example of the numbers we are talking about. Clearly, we will not be a participating state in the Dublin regulation. While this presents a challenge, it also presents in some ways an opportunity to seek new agreements with the EU on asylum which better reflect our position as a third country. Since 2016, we have accepted more Dublin transfers than we have returned to our EU partners. The latest statistics, published in March of this year, show that 209 people were returned to the EU 27 under Dublin in 2018, making up around 5% of the total asylum returns. The Government have committed under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act to seek to negotiate an agreement with the EU that will permit unaccompanied asylum-seeking children to join family members. It would replicate a similar mechanism in the Dublin regulation which would allow children under 18 to join close family members where it is in their best interests.
On returning any individuals under other routes—I think the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked me about that—we will always seek to return those who do not require international protection or have the right to be here in accordance with domestic law. We will continue to make returns to countries where appropriate, and on a case-by-case basis.
Continued co-operation on migration issues is in the shared interests of the UK and the EU. We will work to secure a comprehensive returns agreement with the EU to replace our obligations under Dublin once we leave the EU. If unsuccessful, we will look to work bilaterally with EU member states to strengthen our relationships. For example, we will look to build and strengthen our reciprocal agreements with France as set out in the Sandhurst treaty.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, talked about family reunification without Dublin, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. We strongly support the principle of family unity, and there are several routes by which families can be reunited safely. The UK’s family reunion policy is generous, and we continue to reunite refugees with their immediate family, including by granting over 26,000 family reunion visas over the last five years. We are considering the options to ensure effective co-operation on family reunification of asylum seekers after exit. Deal or no deal, Dublin requests relating to family reunification still pending resolution will continue to be considered under the existing provisions, and, as I said, this would apply to any take-charge requests that we received before exit day.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
Before the Minister moves on, can I be clear that the Government will look at the broader family reunion position? Can she give us an assurance that the aim will be that there should not be any diminution of rights for family reunion that currently exist under Dublin III?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I can give an absolute assurance to the noble Baroness that those obligations, which we take seriously and have done for decades, will continue to apply in giving people who need it asylum or refuge. That is why I just went through the various channels and resettlement schemes that we have engaged in. It does not diminish our will to give people who need it refuge and asylum in our country.
I shall move on, but I stay on Dublin. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who asked about any other international agreements affecting asylum that would be affected by Brexit.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
No, it was not; I am making that up, but I think someone asked it. As a signatory to the 1951 UN refugee convention and the ECHR, we are committed to continuing to fulfil our responsibility. The UK is part of a number of EU readmission agreements with third countries; we are working to replace a number of them with bilateral agreements.
I think this goes to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. Our attitude is not changing towards asylum seekers because of Brexit. She will know, because I have said it before, that in 2017, the UK received the fifth highest number of asylum claims in the EU, and since 2016, we have accepted more Dublin transfers than we have returned, as I referred to earlier. In the year ending June 2017, we resettled more than 16,000 refugees from outside the EU, more than any other EU member state and more than a fifth of all resettlement to the EU. We can also be proud of our leading role in supporting children affected by the migration crisis. Since the start of 2010, the UK has granted more than 51,000 children resettlement, refugee status or alternative forms of protection.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, definitely asked about admissibility, and I think the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, referred to it as well. We have always believed that people should be prevented from making claims in more than one country and on multiple occasions. Asylum should always be claimed in the first country that a migrant reaches, as the noble Baroness said. It is vital that our new system does not encourage asylum-seekers who have already reached a safe country to choose to move elsewhere, so we will continue to assess each asylum claim on its individual merits, as set out in the Home Secretary’s Statement to the House on 7 January.
If an individual has travelled through a safe third country and failed to claim asylum, that will be taken into account in assessing the credibility of their claim. This is a widely held principle accepted by the UNHCR, and it is important to send a clear message to smugglers and traffickers and discourage secondary movements. The standards for protection and assistance will in no way be diminished by the UK’s exit from the EU.
On returning asylum-seekers, the UK is attempting to negotiate an ongoing EU-UK readmission agreement which will replace the current Dublin return capability, and this would ideally be underpinned by a biometric system like Eurodac, although clearly it will not be identical to Eurodac. Inadmissibility rules are domestic law and will still be in place regardless of whether the UK leaves the EU.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked why we are using an SI, not the Bill, to legislate. It is important to ensure that the statute book is operable on exit date, especially in a no-deal scenario. As the Bill has just completed its Committee stage in the Commons, we do not expect it to make it in here by 29 March. With that, I hope that I have answered all the questions and I commend the Motion.
Terrorist Attack: New Zealand
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat an Answer to an Urgent Question asked in the other place earlier today. The Answer is as follows:
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I am grateful to the honourable lady for asking the Question so that the Government can set on record our position towards extreme right-wing, neo-Nazi and other types of violent terrorism. The Home Secretary would have liked to respond personally to this Urgent Question, but he was visiting Regent’s Park mosque with the Communities Secretary today to show support for British Muslims, following last week’s horrific terrorist attack in Christchurch. The attack was a sickening act of terrorism which this Government condemn, as we do the incident reported in Utrecht today and the attack in Surrey on Saturday evening.
The Government take all forms of terrorism and extremism seriously. Our counterterrorism strategy, Contest, does not differentiate between what motivates the threat. It is designed to address all forms of terrorism, whatever the ideology, be it Islamist, neo-Nazi, far-right or extreme left-wing.
If we are to tackle terrorism in the long term, we must challenge those seeking to radicalise people. The Prevent policy is designed to safeguard our vulnerable citizens from being recruited or motivated into terrorism. That is why I always urge people to get behind the policy. Our counterterrorism strategy is agnostic to the threat. It is not relevant to us what name terror strikes; it is the use of violence and hate that we seek to stop. Government and law enforcement will direct their funding wherever the threat emerges, and if we are to stay one step ahead as the threat changes, so must the funding. We will continue to keep funding for protective security measures under review as that threat moves, and will indeed consistently be reviewed for places of worship and other areas that may be vulnerable.
Social media platforms should be ashamed that they have enabled a terrorist to live-stream this evil massacre and spread this mantra of hate to the whole world. As the Home Secretary has made clear, “Enough is enough”. We have been clear that tech companies need to act more quickly to remove terrorist content and ultimately prevent new terrorist content being made available to users in the first place. This must be a wake-up call for them to do more. There can be no safe spaces for terrorists to promote and share their sick views. The online harms White Paper will be published imminently and it will set out clear expectations for tech companies to keep users safe, and what will happen if they fail to do so. This Government take the growing threat of the extreme right wing extremely seriously, and I can assure the House and our Muslim communities that we will stand together to counter it wherever it manifests itself in our society”.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, first, I condemn the terrorist attack in Christchurch, the attack in Utrecht and the attack yesterday in Surrey. All the victims of these incidents are in my thoughts and prayers. Terrorists can never be allowed to win; we utterly reject their message of hate, violence and killing. I also express my anger and disappointment at the actions of the social media companies following the terrorist attack in Christchurch—time and time again, they fail us. They are publishers and are responsible for the content on their platforms. Can the Minister confirm that the White Paper she referred to in her Statement will be the start of putting on the statute book the toughest laws possible in the UK to ensure that these companies understand their responsibilities and that there will be serious consequences where they fail to take them seriously?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I absolutely confirm to the noble Lord that the White Paper and its consequent legislation will tackle this. I have had numerous contacts with CSPs; on each occasion, I have made this point most strongly. They have heard submissions from the honourable Member Luciana Berger about some of the disgusting content about her that has been put online. I have only to look at Twitter to see some of the absolutely appalling comments that people make, particularly about Members of either your Lordships’ House or of the other place. To put such a video online is the final straw, so I totally agree with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and the sooner this legislation comes, the better.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, I also associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. The absolutely shocking events in Christchurch last Friday sent shockwaves right around the world, particularly in this country—Muslims here were fearful of going to a mosque on Friday as well. It is clear now that Muslims need more than thoughts and prayers because many fear that this can and will very likely happen in the UK.
I am glad the Minister highlighted social media responsibilities. The media and some politicians have created a climate in which far-right ideology and commentary can flourish—by giving platforms to right-wing hate preachers and to journalists who write racist opinion pieces, and to those who support Islamophobia on TV. Words have consequences—these events did not happen in a vacuum—and these are no longer fringe ideologies but ideologies tolerated and dressed up as freedom of speech. Will the online harms White Paper that the Minister mentioned include looking at mainstream media? The comments on online mainstream media pieces, such as those on Mail Online, are equally disgraceful and as disgusting as those on social media. That needs to be seriously looked at.
The Minister mentioned the Prevent programme, but it has, until recently, failed to challenge or change the attitudes of those on the far right. We urgently need an anti-extremism strategy that addresses the subversive far-right activity that has been allowed to flourish. Will the Government use their powers to take direct action to tackle these far-right extremists, and will the review of the Prevent programme investigate how the far right has been mainstreamed? As I mentioned, it has been given regular platforms, especially on channels such as the BBC. Last Friday on “Newsnight”, disgracefully, a hate organisation called Generation Identity was invited to comment on the murders. What will be done about this?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. To start with her last point, I understood that some of Generation Identity’s members were supposed to be speaking at an event last year in this country and that the organisers cancelled the event so that Generation Identity could not have a platform to spread its hate. None the less, the mainstream media invited a comment from it.
The White Paper is entirely the platform from which to discuss—effectively, it is a pre-consultation on the legislation—whether mainstream media should be included. Mainstream media should also get its religious literacy right. The noble Lord, Lord Singh, who is not in his place, always talks about it: people are very sloppy with language. We all have a responsibility to be careful about that. The noble Baroness talked about people saying things in the name of freedom of speech, but with freedom of speech comes the responsibility to not let hate take hold. I have often heard freedom of speech used as an excuse to mete out hate and division towards other people—wherever they might be, but particularly in communities where they seem to have a grip.
She also talked about Muslims living in fear—and Muslims are in fear. In Manchester on Friday, I felt a terrible sense of unease. However, there was a lovely vigil on Friday evening, where people of all faiths came together—it was really touching. While people were out celebrating St Patrick’s Day in one bit of Manchester, in another part, just nearby, everyone of any faith and none was coming together to think and pray for our friends in New Zealand.
The noble Baroness also talked about Prevent, which is as much about the far right as it is about Islamist extremism. In fact, we are absolutely cognisant of the referrals to Channel on that issue over the past couple of years having increased significantly, going from 30% to nearly 50% of all referrals. We cannot talk about Prevent without talking about the far right.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, I add my voice to the sentiments of all three Front-Benchers. Does my noble friend agree with the comments made by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, who described those who co-opt Christian language in their hate and speak about a Europe of Christendom against Muslims as “blasphemous”? Does she also agree that, despite numerous mentions of Christianity, biblical teachings and crusade references in the manifesto and act of the New Zealand terrorist, we do not believe this to be a Christian terrorist, nor do we believe that Christianity and Christians are to blame?
I hear my noble friend’s sentiments about being shocked, but does it surprise her that I am neither shocked nor surprised by this act? It has been a long time coming. Many of us have warned the House about the rise of Islamophobia. Therefore, would my noble friend consider some real action to come out of this tragedy? I do not necessarily expect an answer today, but will she take back and consider the Government adopting the definition of Islamophobia as detailed by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims? That definition has now been adopted formally by the Liberal Democrats and is being considered and supported by the Labour Party. The party in government is the only party refusing to accept it.
Will she also ask her department to end its policy of disengagement with British Muslims, which has now been in place for more than a decade? Will she send out an unequivocal message that Islamophobia will not be tolerated in politics, specifically not by the party in government? We can do that by ending the culture of denial in our party and instigating an independent inquiry.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank my noble friend for her points. On her last point about Islamophobia, I think she knows that any hatred towards anybody, regardless of their colour or creed, is absolutely deplorable to me. Certainly, if she or anyone else refers to me any examples of Islamophobia they have witnessed or had reported to them, I will take action and follow up on it immediately.
My noble friend asked about the policy of disengagement. We will engage with people who share our values, abide by the rule of law and are committed to the tolerance of different faiths in our society. I know that my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Communities Secretary held an Islamophobia round table last week, which discussed the Anti-Muslim Hatred Working Group working on a definition of Islamophobia. I am sure that the definition the APPG came up with will provide food for thought.
My noble friend talked about being shocked but not surprised. I am shocked but not surprised every day of the week by some of the things happening in society. Two years ago, it started in earnest on the streets of this country. We must constantly be shocked by it, otherwise I do not think that anything would be done. I have just been told that I am out of time, but I will finish on the words of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury about Christianity. Christianity, or any other religion, can never be used as an excuse to do the sort of things we have seen on our streets and on the streets of other countries.
Brexit: Article 50 Period Extension Procedure
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to an Urgent Question given earlier today in another place by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the Member for Spelthorne. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, as set out in a Written Ministerial Statement and in accordance with the Motion approved by this House on 14 March, the Government will now seek to agree an extension with the European Union. The extension process has been set out in a government paper, published last Thursday. While Article 50 does not set out how either party should request an extension, the Government believe that it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister to write to the President of the European Council.
It is highly likely, and expected, that the European Council will require clear purpose for any extension, not least to determine its length. The European Council also has to approve an extension by unanimity. With this in mind, we will look to request any extension in advance of the March European Council. It is the Government’s expectation that the European Council will decide whether to agree to any UK request at this meeting.
As soon as possible, following agreement at the EU level, we will bring forward the necessary domestic legislation to amend the definition of “exit day”. That legislation will take the form of a statutory instrument. If agreement is reached at the European Council, the statutory instrument will be laid in Parliament next week. It will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure and will need to be approved by each House. I hope that this reassures honourable and right honourable Members about the procedure that will be followed this week and next”.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
Well, I think we all feel rather sorry for the Minister, who has, after all, said again and again that we will leave on 29 March and now knows that we will not—and that is because of the Prime Minister’s failed strategy of running down the clock to get her own way.
We are told that, if the Government are allowed to table the existing deal yet again in the Commons and it wins approval—the Speaker has just suggested that he is not minded to permit a third meaningful vote without a substantial change to the deal; we hear that perhaps we will have to prorogue and then come back—they will apply for an extension to 30 June.
The more likely eventuality is that the Government will fail to get their deal agreed and thus request a longer extension, such that we will need to participate in the European Parliament elections. Given that returning officers must publish notice of the poll by 12 April, with the Government announcing the date beforehand, can the Minister inform the House which date is planned for these elections, whether the Electoral Commission is geared up for this and when purdah will commence?
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I think the Speaker in the other place will tonight be a national hero for—
Baroness Goldie (Con)
This is an Urgent Question; the Minister must respond.
Lord Callanan
The noble Baroness stated that we will not leave on 29 March. Of course, she cannot say that definitely. UK law still requires that we do, and any extension—which we have said we will apply for—has to be agreed unanimously by the European Council. She asked about the European elections; I will give her a detailed answer. EU law requires European parliamentary elections to be held between 23 and 26 May, and the new European Parliament will meet on 2 July. For the UK to participate in the elections, notice of the poll must be published by 12 April. This is set out in Schedule 1 of the European Parliamentary Elections Regulations 2004. In advance of this date—in other words, by 11 April—the Government would have to set the date of the poll by making an order under the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002.
Baroness Ludford
My Lords, as I was saying, I think that the Speaker in the other place will tonight be a national hero for stopping this Government prolonging their manipulative games playing and making a mockery of parliamentary sovereignty. Over the weekend we heard attempts by the Attorney-General to claim that Article 62 of the Vienna convention could be invoked to get out of the backstop early and that this was a substantive change. That has been shot down by all good legal opinion.
MPs have already had two votes on Mrs May’s deal, having been permitted to reassess the information on Brexit and update their views. If the Prime Minister had had her way, it would have been three or four votes. Meanwhile, the voters are denied even one opportunity for a rethink. So is it not finally time to allow the people to have the same opportunity for review and reassessment that MPs and the Government are permitting themselves? This weekend a poll showed that almost six in 10—57% of voters—wanted that opportunity.
Any extension sought under Article 50 must be for a democratic purpose, which does not mean only the European Parliament elections. It is as clear as day that the most legitimate purpose must be for a people’s vote, and that the extension sought must be long enough to facilitate the holding of such a vote, with an option to stay in the EU on the ballot paper. It is rumoured that the Government will seek a nine-month extension. Can the Minister confirm whether that is true?
Lord Callanan
No, I cannot confirm that. I can also reassure the noble Baroness that we will not be seeking permission to hold another people’s vote. We have already had a people’s vote, and the people voted to leave. We are still committed to implementing the results of that decision.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, what happens if the European Union turns down an application by the United Kingdom for an extended period of time for Article 50 and it comes back here? Will we not then need primary legislation to avoid a cliff edge on 29 March? Do the Government have a Bill ready for that eventuality?
Lord Callanan
We will then have the choice of either passing the meaningful vote or we will leave by the normal operation of the law that this House has voted for.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, what purpose will the British Government tell the European Union that a long extension would fulfil? What is the precise purpose that the Prime Minister will say she needs this period for?
Lord Callanan
This will be something the Prime Minister will want to address in her discussions with the European Council. The reason we are requesting this is the request by the House of Commons in the vote it had last week.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I assume that the Government were aware that the other place had a convention dating back to 1604 that you could not bring a proposition substantially the same as one that had already been decided in the same Session of Parliament. If that is the case, why is the Solicitor-General going about today saying that the House of Commons Speaker’s restatement of that convention—that is all he did—has generated a “constitutional crisis”? Is it not the Government’s intention to get the House of Commons to breach its own convention repeatedly until they got their preferred deal through the House of Commons that generated the constitutional crisis, not the restatement of the convention?
Lord Callanan
I am not aware of the Solicitor-General making those comments. I have not seen them; I have been briefing for this session and listening to the debate in the House of Commons. The procedures of the House of Commons are a matter for the Speaker and the property of the House, and nobody is in any doubt about that.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
Can the Minister confirm whether any extension of Article 50 could be rescinded on the same terms as the original Article 50 was applied for?
Lord Callanan
If the noble Lord is asking whether it can be withdrawn once it has been agreed, I do not think so. We are allowed to apply for an extension, and it has to be agreed unanimously. Once that is done, we will need to amend the appropriate legislation in this country, which is the EU withdrawal Act.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I might ask my noble friend the Minister—and he is a friend—a gentle but serious question. How can he expect noble Lords from these Benches to support the policy that is now being advocated, which the Government themselves have consistently opposed and repeatedly promised to never bring before this House?
Lord Callanan
My noble friend makes a very good point and he knows I have some sympathy with his view. However, the will of the House of Commons was clear; it refused to pass the withdrawal agreement that would have resulted in us leaving in a satisfactory manner, and it has requested the Government to seek an extension to Article 50. That is what we will do.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have had two and a half years to resolve this matter. They have spectacularly failed to do so, in such a way that we have now become a byword throughout the world for incompetence at the highest level of government. Parliament has now been trying to solve the problem for a few weeks, and has so far failed to do so. Is it not time to go to the final stage—the one that will produce the highest degree of legitimacy for a final decision—and ask the British people, knowing all that we now know about the conditions that would apply if we had an arrangement with the European Union, and so much more than any of us knew in 2016? Is it not time to let the British public take a considered and final decision?
Lord Callanan
I refer the noble Lord to the answer I gave earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. I do not agree that there should be a further people’s vote; we have already had a people’s vote and we should implement that one first.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, the Minister is of course quite right to say that a majority of people voted to leave the European Union. Does he not therefore think it rather ironic that it is, by and large, Members of Parliament who are strongly in favour of leave who are doing so much to undermine the Prime Minister’s plans to get us out of the European Union on the date that the Government promised and now look as though they cannot deliver?
Lord Callanan
There are indeed many ironies in this process, and that is one of the largest.
Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention and Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) and (Levy Account Basis of Distribution) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 21 February be approved.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B)
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the regulations before the House do a number of things, the most of significant of which are to give effect to the new 75% rates retention pilot authorities that we are creating for 2019-20, and to set out how we will share £180 million of the levy account surpluses between authorities. They also make a number of more minor changes to the administration of the business rates retention scheme, not least to reflect the changes to the structure of local government that will come into effect from 1 April.
The regulations are highly technical, but what they do, as opposed to how they do it, can, I hope, be easily explained. The Government have a clear commitment to giving local authorities more control over the local tax income they raise. In 2013-14, for the first time since 1990, we allowed authorities to keep a proportion of locally collected business rates and to then benefit from the growth in their local tax base. Subsequently, we announced that we would increase the proportion of business rates kept by local government, and we have set out our intention that, from 2021, authorities should be able to keep 75% of local business rates.
Pre-shadowing that wider reform, as part of the recent local government finance settlement we announced that we would create 75% business rates retention pilots for 2019-20. We are creating these pilots in London and 15 other areas. In those areas, authorities will keep 75% of the local business rates they collect in 2019-20, instead of the 50% they would normally keep under the rates retention scheme. Based on authorities’ own estimates of the business rates income they expect in 2019-20, those 75% pilots—the GLA, the London boroughs and 122 authorities outside London—will have additional revenue of £490 million in 2019-20, compared to what they would have received under 50% rates retention.
For this to happen, however, we need to make changes to the regulations that govern the day-to-day administration of the business rates retention scheme. The regulations before the House today make the necessary amendments; principally, to the relevant percentages of business rates income due respectively to central and local government and to the percentages due to billing and major precepting authorities. The percentages set by the regulations for 2019-20 are those proposed by the pilot authorities themselves at the time they applied for pilot status in the autumn, and have been confirmed with them subsequently. They will ensure that the 75% pilots operate as we, and local authorities, intended. They reflect the budgets those authorities have set, on the strength of which they have set the level of council tax set out in the bills being sent to council tax payers.
Under the rates retention scheme, authorities are entitled to a safety net payment if their business rates income falls below a certain level. The cost of safety net payments is met by charging authorities a levy of up to 50% of any business rates growth they achieve. In the past, we have also top-sliced an amount from the settlement to supplement the levy income and ensure that there is sufficient funding from which to make safety net payments. Since 2013-14, we have top-sliced a total of £255 million that would otherwise have been distributed to authorities through the settlement.
The top-slice and all the levy and safety net payments are made into, or from, a levy account which is kept by central government. The primary legislation that provided for the levy account requires that any surplus in the account should be distributed to local government or carried over until the next year. At the end of 2018-19, the levy account will have a surplus of £188 million. We announced at the 2019 local government finance settlement that we would distribute £180 million of that surplus to the sector.
Lord Shipley (LD)
The Minister will be grateful for paragraph 8.1 in the Explanatory Memorandum, which states:
“This instrument does not relate to withdrawal from the European Union”.
It is the first statutory instrument today that does not have that status. However, as the Minister said, it is technical but important.
I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I understand that this statutory instrument has to be brought forward every year to enable the rolling 75% business rates retention pilots to take place, which are now being extended to new areas for 2019-20. In that respect the SI is fine. As the Minister stated, it also allows for the new authorities being created out of reorganisation, such as Dorset, to levy business rates. Obviously that is essential. It allows for the return to councils of money which had previously been levied by central government through the business rates account. The total sum amounts to £180 million, which means that the Government will make themselves popular with those receiving it.
Although this is a technical SI, we should reflect that the basis of business rates is under question and under stress, not least because of the pressures on the retail sector. No doubt we shall have opportunities in the future to discuss that issue in greater depth. However, as the Minister said, this is a technical but important statutory instrument and it has our support.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my local government interests as vice-president of the LGA and as a councillor in Newcastle.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referred to the present situation in respect of business rates. There is a bland assumption by the Government that there is a uniform approach to what can be raised locally, either by domestic rates or business rates, but that is not the position. The amounts that can be generated vary considerably between authorities and the Government have paid little attention to that disparity, in terms of either council tax or business rates.
The Government are making much of the £180 million they are going to restore to authorities. That is £100 million less than the loss that Newcastle City Council alone has sustained in grants from central government since 2010. It is a pitifully small amount and will make little difference to the efforts of local councils—of all political characters—to maintain local services. This is not a substantial change in favour of local government and the Government have to look again at the wider issues of funding a sector of the economy which has been substantially underfunded for the last eight years.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, as the Minister said, the regulations are technical and in that sense I am happy to support them as they stand. I concur with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and my noble friend Lord Beecham and I am sure the Minister will respond to the points raised.
The only issue I want to raise concerns Northamptonshire being in the list of council areas that are involved in this scheme. I know the county council is the precept authority, or the collecting authority, but equally it is a council in crisis. The local government reorganisation is happening because the county council has effectively almost gone broke. Is the Minister confident that we should be doing this in this area, in view of the problems that have been widely reported over the past year? That said, I am very happy to support the regulations.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions of all three noble Lords. As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, this is the first non-Brexit SI, although I noticed it emptied the House as I rose to my feet. He mentioned that the announcement of £180 million going back would be popular with local government. We are always seeking to court popularity with local government, although we do not always achieve it. I am grateful to hear that on this occasion, we have.
The noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Beecham, raised slightly broader issues about the pressures confronting local authorities, which I recognise. We have had to take difficult decisions on public expenditure over recent years, and they have impacted on local authorities and government departments. There will be an opportunity to discuss that.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned Northamptonshire. The change in Northamptonshire is relatively minor and switches responsibility for one service from A to B. I do not think it detracts from the more structural changes that are now having to take place in that county.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I am not sure whether I declared my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I feel I should do so and remind the House of it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I, too, forgot to remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Lord Young of Cookham
I was a vice-president of a preceding local government association, but I was expelled when I introduced rate capping.
Services of Lawyers and Lawyer’s Practice (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 12 February be approved.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, this draft amending instrument forms part of our ongoing work to ensure that, if the UK leaves the EU without a deal, our legal system will continue to work effectively. Your Lordships will be aware that, in preparation for leaving the EU, the Government have signed a UK-Switzerland citizens’ rights agreement, as they have done with the EEA states that are outside the EU. This instrument will modify the way in which relevant retained EU law is revoked in order to retain regulatory provisions for those in scope of the UK-Switzerland citizens’ rights agreement if a withdrawal agreement with the EU is not agreed and implemented before the UK’s exit from the EU. This draft instrument makes changes to the relevant legislation in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland. Scotland is legislating separately with the same policy intention.
Noble Lords will be aware that the UK, as an EU member state, is required to implement two European directives for legal services which are extended to Swiss nationals under the EU-Switzerland free movement of persons agreement. As part of preparations to leave the EU, the Government laid a statutory instrument to amend the domestic legislation implementing these two directives. The original statutory instrument revokes the relevant provisions in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal.
This draft instrument amends the way in which the domestic legislation is revoked, retaining some provisions for Swiss lawyers and those in scope of the UK-Switzerland citizens’ rights agreement. This is to ensure that retained EU law operates effectively in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal, and that deficiencies in retained EU law are remedied in a way that reflects our agreement with Switzerland.
The UK-Switzerland citizens’ rights agreement grandfathers recognition and establishment rights for UK and Swiss lawyers, provided that they have transferred into a legal profession of the other state before exit day. It also protects the rights of UK and Swiss lawyers who are established, registered and providing services under their home title. So long as they remain registered, they will be able to continue to provide services as they do now. It also provides a transition period of four years for lawyers to register as registered European lawyers or to transfer into a legal profession of the other state under these arrangements. These arrangements include citizens who have started but not finished studying for professional legal qualifications.
Finally, it allows lawyers and law firms to continue to provide up to 90 days’ temporary services a year for at least five years, where a contract to provide such services was agreed and started before exit. Swiss lawyers will also be able to apply within four years of exit day to join an English and Welsh or Northern Irish profession on the basis of three years’ qualifying experience as a registered European lawyer, in addition to routes available to foreign-qualified lawyers. For Swiss lawyers and law firms with interests in the UK, this instrument will bring legal certainty. It will effectively implement in domestic law the obligations that we have undertaken at the level of international law pursuant to the UK-Switzerland citizens’ rights agreement, which is why it is necessary to bring forward this instrument at this time. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the Ministry of Justice team on producing an impact assessment which would meet the deepest desires of the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Foulkes. It is excellent. It fully covers the material and, combined with the evidence base, must have involved a great deal of work. The tragedy is that it refers only to 10 Swiss lawyers in this country—and not only that but it has no effect unless we leave the EU without a deal, which looks increasingly unlikely, having regard to the Motions passed in the House below. However, in itself this instrument contains nothing objectionable.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, it is ironic that our departure from the EU, if it occurs, will necessitate an agreement with Switzerland, which of course is not a member. Can the Minister indicate the extent of the problem that the regulations seek to address? How many Swiss lawyers currently practise in the UK—my understanding is that there might be as few as 10—compared with EU lawyers, and how many UK lawyers do so in Switzerland? How do these figures compare with those of other EU states?
The regulations are described as resulting “in the short term” with parties avoiding,
“the costs of adjusting their business models”.
How long is this short term expected to be, and what is the estimate of the cost of adjusting business models?
Paragraph 12 of the Explanatory Memorandum avers that there are all of 10 Swiss registered European lawyers in England and Wales. How many is it estimated will be here after Brexit? The impact assessment states that clients seeking legal services from them will not be allowed to obtain them unless the lawyers are “permanently established in the UK”. How is that status to be established? How many are deemed to fit that description now—presumably there are 10—and how will that be judged in the future? What is the rationale of the provision that Swiss lawyers will have only four years after Brexit to apply for REL status? Why will Swiss lawyers with contracts be able to serve clients for 90 days a year for up to five years? Why just 90 days? Will they have to abandon their clients in the midst of cases, for example?
The impact assessment fails to live up to its title when it explicitly states that:
“The cost of this change cannot be quantified as no data exists showing the number of Swiss lawyers providing regulated services in the UK on a temporary basis”,
and that the,
“cost to regulators is not quantifiable”.
Can the Minister indicate which provisions of these regulations, if any, are quantifiable? What is the anticipated impact on UK lawyers practising, or seeking to practise, in Switzerland, given that they will have a four-year period to register or, if not yet in Switzerland, to apply to transfer to Swiss professional status? UK law firms will be able to continue to serve existing Swiss clients for up to 90 days a year for five years after Brexit subject to written contracts being in place before exit day. What is the estimate of the number, and proportion of the existing number, that Her Majesty’s Government envisage will do so?
The Law Society points out that there is no provision to allow UK law firms to operate in Switzerland under their current structures. What, if any, estimate have the Government made of the impact of this position? The society suggests that some firms will have to amend their corporate structure and that a future trade agreement with Switzerland will have to be negotiated. What, if any, plans do the Government have to deal with this eventuality? What estimate have the Government made of the impact of the changes on the international standing of UK legal services and the contribution they make to the standing of our legal services and to our economy?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to noble Lords. I think the answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is that we are implementing an international treaty, and that is why these steps have been taken. However, to respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, no Swiss lawyers are registered with the Bar Standards Board. We understand that 10 are registered with the SRA, and that is where that figure comes from.
It is not necessary for Swiss lawyers coming into the United Kingdom to carry out temporary work to register and therefore it is not possible to monitor the number, because they are entitled to come in on a temporary basis to provide legal services. The period of four years reflects the fact that it is possible for a Swiss lawyer to transition into membership of the relevant professional body in the United Kingdom in under four years—I understand that at present it is three years—and therefore there is full allowance for that.
With regard to English lawyers practising in Switzerland, at the last count, which I think goes up to 2015-16, in the region of 236 lawyers practising in Switzerland full-time were English-qualified.
With regard to the future corporate structure of English firms operating in Switzerland, I would not venture a view as to what the precise structure would be in the future. However, from engagement with the major legal firms in England and Wales over the last year or so, it is quite clear that they have made provision in anticipation of our leaving the EU, with the consequent effect that that will have on the EU-Swiss agreements on which we rely. We can therefore be reasonably confident that their structures will be compliant with the requirements of Swiss law.
On the question of the international standing of our legal profession, we see no reason to doubt that it will be maintained after Brexit, nor any reason why the terms of the UK/Switzerland citizens’ rights agreement as implemented by this SI should in any way derogate or detract from the standing of our legal profession in England and Wales, and indeed in the UK as a whole.
In these circumstances, we consider that this is a relatively technical amendment to the existing provision that is being made in anticipation of our departing from the EU without a deal. Of course, in the event that the deal is implemented and we go into a transition period, the application of this instrument will be deferred until the end of that period. We will then determine at that time whether in fact we have in place the relevant free trade agreements with both the EU and Switzerland.
Lord Beecham
Before the Minister sits down, obviously I was throwing questions at him that he may not have been able to answer, so will he perhaps cover those that have not been answered in a letter to me in due course?
Lord Keen of Elie
I will consult Hansard. If it appears that there is a question that the noble Lord posed that is relevant to this instrument then I will respond.
Jurisdiction and Judgments (Family) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 14 February be approved.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, this draft instrument forms part of the Government’s work to ensure there are functioning domestic laws in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal on cross-border co-operation on family law. The instrument relates solely to the Government’s no-deal exit preparations. Again, should we reach an agreement on our future relationship with the EU, the Government will review the instrument and amend or revoke it as necessary at the end of a transition period.
This instrument gives effect to a commitment that I gave on behalf of the Government during the debate on 29 January on the Government’s main no-deal family law instrument, the Jurisdiction and Judgments (Family) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. That family statutory instrument has now been made. It puts in place the arrangements in cross-border family law cases that will apply if we leave the EU without a deal. That instrument revokes the retained EU law in relation to Brussels IIa and the maintenance regulations and makes consequential changes to domestic law, including changes to ensure that the jurisdiction rules for cross-border maintenance matters are restored to their pre-EU form.
This small amending instrument addresses a technical issue raised by family law stakeholders. Some family law stakeholders have raised concerns that by the amendments to the Children Act 1989 and the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 made by the main family instrument, we have inadvertently narrowed the jurisdiction of the court and the range of financial remedies that the court may order when compared to the position that currently exists under the EU maintenance regulation. That was not the Government’s intention. Without fixing this issue, the consequence would be that in some cases the court would be limited in terms of the financial remedies that it may grant. For example, the court would be able to make an order only for periodical payments and not for a lump sum or a property settlement or transfer. I extend thanks to the family law practitioners for bringing this issue to our attention.
While the existing approach is workable, the Government have decided to address those concerns to ensure that jurisdiction grounds and remedies are not reduced as a result of a no-deal exit because these are jurisdiction grounds and remedies that emerged after we had engaged with the relevant EU regulation. The instrument therefore amends the principal 2019 regulation so that, post exit without a deal, the courts in England and Wales or Northern Ireland will be able to order all types of financial remedies available under the Act or the Northern Ireland order in circumstances where either a parent, a guardian or the child is habitually resident or domiciled in England and Wales or Northern Ireland at the date of the application. The amendments also ensure that the court has jurisdiction to order a financial remedy in respect of a child where the parents are not married, in a similar way to when child maintenance is being considered ancillary to divorce.
The impacts of the Jurisdiction and Judgments (Family) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 were set out in an impact assessment published on 24 January 2019. This instrument amends those regulations so that the unintended impact of the amendments to the Children Act 1989 and the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 on the court’s jurisdiction and remedies is rectified. As amended, the impact of the Jurisdiction and Judgments (Family) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 will be as described in the original impact assessment. In other words, we had assumed that they would operate in the way in which they now operate in light of this supplementary instrument.
As I said, the instrument addresses concerns raised by stakeholders. My officials met these stakeholders to discuss their concerns. A draft of this instrument was provided to the statutory Family Procedure Rule Committee. Its members include some of the family lawyers who raised these concerns about the amendments to the Children Act 1989 and they were invited to comment on the draft. Those comments were taken into consideration before the instrument was finalised and laid. In addition, my officials have spoken to officials within the devolved Administrations.
In these circumstances, I stress that this is a highly technical instrument, which is intended to take us to the point we believed we would get to with the principal instrument. I beg to move.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, the amendment which the regulation seeks to make is obviously highly desirable. However, I have a question for the Minister, because I cannot for the life of me see how it achieves its purpose in expanding the financial remedies available under domestic legislation. As far as I can see, the only passage which might possibly have a bearing is Regulation 2(2)(a), where we are told that the words,
“in relation to matters relating to maintenance”,
are being deleted. Without more context, it is extremely difficult to see whether this achieves what the regulation seeks to do. I am happy to take the Minister’s assurance that it does, or perhaps he can explain it a bit more. It is characteristic that these instruments are so economically worded that, without a whole lot of legislative material in hand, it is sometimes hard to make sense of them.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, this is a necessary rectification of the earlier regulations. Subject to what has already been expressed, we have no objection to it.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I join my colleague in the House of Commons, and others in your Lordships’ House, in welcoming these amendments which meet concerns raised by family law practitioners, as mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum. They were concerned about the prospective narrowing of the jurisdiction for financial remedies and the type of remedies which would be available.
This raises the question of what consultation took place before paragraphs 14 and 16 of the EU maintenance regulation were originally amended. To be fair, the Government have been persuaded by family law practitioners that the concerns raised were valid, hence the revised amendment in this statutory instrument, but surely adequate consultation in advance of drafting it would have avoided the need to amend it. What consultation, if any, took place? What assurances can the Minister offer that this scenario will not be repeated?
This is not quite the MoJ equivalent of the fantasy ferry projects subscribed to by the former Lord Chancellor, Chris Grayling, but it is rather disturbing. It comes, after all, only some seven weeks since the original regulations were approved by both Houses, and just over four weeks since they came into force.
The Law Society is content with the changes, which effectively revert to the relevant Hague conventions and some English law extant before 2011. I am glad that the Government have recognised the problem, just about in time, and made the necessary change. However, it underlines the need for proper consultation before laying new regulations to comply with the fate which appears to await the country.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to noble Lords for their contributions. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, observes, the supplementary instrument is distinguished by its brevity. Nevertheless, I can assure him that it has the effect indicated by making the deletion from the relevant provision regarding maintenance. That was raised with the Family Law Committee as well. We consider that this will be effective. I will look at the point he raises and will write to him if there is further elaboration and assurance I can give him on it.
Regarding consultation, this issue arose at a very late stage when we were proceeding with the principal instrument. It is a highly technical issue. Indeed, there is some uncertainty as to whether the principal instrument did in fact cover these issues. It therefore proceeded, but, in the light of the concerns that had been expressed, we consulted further with family law stakeholders and brought it to the committee’s attention. It was determined that we should, on any view, take the line—I was going to say “of least resistance”—that, come what may, there was no technical deficiency in the instrument in the event that we exited without a deal.
There was consultation with relevant stakeholders when the principal instrument was considered. Their response on these points came rather late in the day as far as we were concerned. The principal instrument therefore proceeded but I remind noble Lords that when I moved it I drew this point to the attention of the House quite specifically and said that we were giving consideration to a further instrument to address it. It has been at the forefront of our minds for some time. In the circumstances, I commend the regulations to the House.