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, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Gavin Williamson)
Last year we published the first UK-wide veterans strategy, which looks at what more we can do to support veterans. We engaged with service charities for ideas on how we can enhance support for our veterans.
Steve Double
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Vet Fest, an event that will be held in my constituency this summer, will be a celebration of camaraderie for our armed forces veterans and their families and will raise awareness and money for three important charities: Combat Stress, the Royal British Legion and SSAFA. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating and thanking those who are putting on that event for their hard work and dedication, as well as all volunteers across the country who work to support our veterans?
Gavin Williamson
I join my hon. Friend in expressing thanks for what they do, and I encourage volunteers across the country to do likewise through such a great initiative. We are always grateful for the many thousands of volunteers who contribute so much to supporting our veterans community, as I know he does.
Victoria Prentis
I am sure the Secretary of State is aware of the Royal British Legion’s excellent campaign to “Stop the Service Charge”. Can he update us on what the Government are doing on the possible removal of visa charges for Commonwealth UK armed forces personnel and their families?
Gavin Williamson
I was delighted to visit the Heyford and Bicester veterans group with my hon. Friend just a few weeks ago and see the amazing work that it is doing to support so many of our veterans. The issue she highlights is vital. The Ministry of Defence continues to work with service personnel and their families to support them, and we are in discussions and working closely with our Home Office colleagues on that important issue.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
In the United States, an impressive military charity called Soldier On has established housing co-operatives to give homeless ex-servicemen an affordable place to live and allow them to help control the running of it. Would the Secretary of State consider such an approach here in the UK?
Gavin Williamson
That charity has also been looking at the United Kingdom. We are keen to work closely with it, to see how we can take the lessons learned from the United States and the positive experiences that have been created and ensure that it can benefit people here in the United Kingdom.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Although I certainly endorse the gratitude expressed for the support that many thousands of volunteers give to veterans, is it not time we accepted that it should not be left to charities to look after people who have been injured in the service of their nation? It is not charities that send people into war; it is Governments. What representations has the Secretary of State made to his colleague the Chancellor to ensure that health services, local authorities and other public bodies are adequately resourced, so that the welfare of veterans can be funded from the public purse, rather than relying on charity and volunteers?
Gavin Williamson
This Government have put veterans and our service personnel very much at the heart of not just what the Ministry of Defence does but right across Government. Of course, devolved Governments play a vital role in delivering services. We all recognise the important role that charities play, and they provide a lot of services on behalf of Government, in order to be best able to reach out to people who have served in our armed forces.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I am the proud and entirely unworthy owner of a veterans badge, as my seven years were largely spent in the bar. Is there not an argument that people who truly deserve a veterans badge should have a much more visible symbol of their service, and that perhaps the title should be restricted more to those who truly deserve it, rather than people like me?
Gavin Williamson
We all think that you truly do deserve it; we certainly would not want to take it off you. We are looking—
Mr Speaker
Order. I gently say to the Secretary of State that, in order for him to take something off me, I would have to have it in the first place.
Gavin Williamson
Mr Speaker, we will have to see if we can get you one as well in the future.
We are constantly looking at how we can recognise those who have served. The veterans ID card is another important step forward in ensuring that there is true recognition of the service that so many people have given our country.
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)
We remain committed to maintaining the overall size of the armed forces and a range of measures are under way to improve recruitment and retention. The challenge is kept under constant review. Importantly, the services continue to meet all of their current commitments, keeping the country and its interests safe.
Royston Smith
Having served in the Royal Air Force, I know how rewarding a life in the military is, and also how demanding it can be. I also know how difficult recruitment and retention is, particularly retention. Has my right hon. Friend considered free wi-fi for military personnel to help them and their families feel less isolated when they are serving away from home?
Mark Lancaster
We recognise the importance of connectivity for our personnel. I reassure my hon. Friend that for those serving on operations, the Ministry of Defence will pay for internet connection to enable them to connect with family and friends. For those on non-operational tours abroad, the wi-fi costs are also covered through a welfare package.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
One way to retain more Royal Marines is to ensure that their accommodation is of high quality. As Plymouth is no longer getting the superbase we were promised, could the Minister set out how the facilities at Stonehouse barracks will be increased, including making sure that all the accommodation blocks have hot water and good heating?
Mark Lancaster
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a complex programme was announced through the better defence estate strategy. On the specific issue he raises, I am told that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), intends to visit shortly.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
The chief executive officer of Capita says that it will lose a lot of money on its recruitment contract on behalf of the MOD. In that case, I presume that the Government have a strong legal case for simply terminating the contract without compensation and taking it back in-house and doing it properly.
Mark Lancaster
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has certainly made it clear that he has not ruled out the option of terminating the contract. However, in recent months we have seen dramatic improvements in the performance of that contract, partly because of the money that Capita has put in—its own money—to ensure that that is the case.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Every year my home town of Tain in the highlands hosts the Tain highland gathering. It has been a good number of years since I have seen any armed forces recruiting stands at the highland games. These stands have been very successful in the past—children and young people love them—but frankly, as has been said, Capita is not doing very well. May I encourage the Minister and the Secretary of State to get the stands set up again? In my own case, those people would be rewarded with a very large glass of our local amber nectar, Glenmorangie.
Mark Lancaster
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting that recruiting opportunity. I might visit myself, given what is on offer. He makes a very sensible suggestion and I will ensure that it is fed into the system.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
The size of the Army is in freefall under this Conservative Government. The number of fully trained regulars has fallen from 78,000 to 75,900 on this Minister’s watch. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who has responsibility for defence people, is reported to have said that he will resign if that number falls below 70,000. What about the Minister for the Armed Forces—is he prepared to make that same commitment?
Mark Lancaster
I am certainly not prepared to resign from my role as a member of the Army Reserve, because that would really not help matters, would it? The hon. Lady over-eggs the pudding slightly by saying that the numbers are in freefall. Yes, numbers have fallen but, with the highest number of applications on record in January, we have already explained why we are confident that the numbers will increase. Crucially, the Army remains at 93% manning and can meet all of its operational commitments.
Nia Griffith
Does that not say it all? The Minister does not even have the courage to put his job on the line. Time and again, he comes here and bluffs his way through with empty rhetoric, but the simple fact is that he has failed completely and Army numbers are falling month after month. At best he is complacent; at worst he has junked the stated target of 82,000 and does not have the guts to tell us. When is he going to accept that it is his responsibility to end this failure and get a grip?
Mark Lancaster
I have been accused of many things in my life, but lacking courage is probably not one of them. If the hon. Lady knew anything about me, she would probably realise why that is the case. None the less, the issue remains a challenge and I am confident—as I have just said, recent figures show the highest number of applications on record in January—that the situation is improving.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Stuart Andrew)
The UK defence industry is globally competitive and creates and contributes to jobs across the United Kingdom. I am confident that it will continue to thrive in the future. The Government are seeking the best possible deal for UK industry after exit. We support European collaboration on capability development and are promoting the invaluable contribution of UK industry.
John Spellar
That was a standard complacent reply from the Minister. Ministers are still hanging on to the mythology that EU regulations prevent them from supporting British industry, most recently with the fleet solid support ships. Of course, no one else in the EU holds on to that view or, indeed, behaves like that. However, as leaving the EU looms, will the Minister now show some decisiveness and backbone, instruct his officials to scrap the old discredited dogma and start putting British industry first?
Stuart Andrew
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we are trying to make our defence industry the most competitive in the world so that we win those international competitions. It would not be right for me to comment on the decisions taken by other countries on FSS, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, but I note that the EU Commission has publicly questioned the legality of applying article 346 to the procurement of support ships by other member states, so I am glad that we have behaved properly.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Of course our commitment to EU security, European security and working with our NATO colleagues will continue after we have left the EU. That is why we are working on ambitious future arrangements. People know that they can rely on the armed forces of the United Kingdom.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
The Minister knows that I am a huge advocate of the combat air strategy, and had the first debate on that in the Chamber. Given that we are about to leave the EU and Team Tempest is so far showing impressive signs of movement, when will we discuss a replacement for the Hawk so that we have a full package and a training aircraft, and can secure the jobs at Brough?
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Lady is right about the future combat air strategy. We are in negotiations and discussions with other partner nations. When it comes to the issues around Hawk, we have done an enormous amount of work to try to get more orders for the Brough site. I recognise how important that is. I have visited Kuwait myself to try to get that order over the line. It is still a work in progress, but I hope that we will be successful.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend is right to raise that. I went to see some of the small and medium-sized businesses that are working with our armed forces on some of the projects that have been funded through that, plus the innovation fund—the £800 million over 10 years that is encouraging as many businesses as possible, many of which have probably never worked with defence in the past, to come forward with their ideas.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Today, we saw the ceremony for confirming the move of the EU anti-piracy taskforce from Northwood to a new location near Cadiz. All around us, we are hearing about the consequences of Brexit not only on the defence industry but on our security relationships. Despite there being a rather uncommon consensus in the House about the importance of those relationships, we have heard precious little from the Department. Not only our closest allies, but the defence industry, serving personnel and policy makers need clarity on the UK’s grand strategy. Will the Minister stop hedging their bets and tell us about the defence and security relationship that the Government want with the EU?
Stuart Andrew
Part of the negotiations with the EU has heavily focused on our future relationship and the collaboration we want with EU nations. However, at the end of the day, the cornerstone of our defence is NATO, and those relationships, and our bilateral relationships with many other countries, will form the way that we do defence in the future.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
As the Conservative party plays political games and the Cabinet seeks to oust the Prime Minister, the huge uncertainty for our defence industry continues. The Prime Minister’s Brexit deal has been rejected twice, so will the Minister accept that the Government must now do the responsible thing and work across the House to build a consensus for a better deal? Instead of treating this House with yet more disdain, will he confirm that the Government will work with MPs from across the House to determine the course of action?
Stuart Andrew
I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that this is defence questions. The Prime Minister will be making a statement shortly. Perhaps that question would be best put to her.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I pair question 4 with questions 11, 12, 19 and 23?
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Mr Ellwood
I am sure they are all very genuine. The support we provide our veterans is a genuine subject. We owe our veterans a huge debt of gratitude, but it is important that that gratitude is reflected in the practical support we provide. That is exactly why we are investing in a new veterans strategy, which will be fundamental to improving the co-ordination of that support.
Mr Speaker
It has been gently pointed out to me—not that one wishes to be pedantic, merely correct—that one might not be able to pair something, particularly when there are four. A grouping, on the other hand, is perfectly orderly. Mr Merriman, let us hear it man.
Huw Merriman
We were waiting for you to finish, Mr Speaker. [Laughter.] I know my place.
I thank the Minister for his answer. The charity sector plays an amazing role in enhancing support for veterans. What engagement has the Minister had with that sector?
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. It is so important that we engage as much as we possibly can. There are over 400 service-facing charities. They are co-ordinated by the Veterans’ Gateway and Cobseo, forming themselves into clusters so we can provide the necessary support in the various areas required. Every second Monday, the Defence Secretary and I meet people from the charity sector. In the coming weeks, we will be meeting charities based specifically in the arts.
Henry Smith
Recently, a monthly drop-in service has been established at Crawley library for veterans to get advice on the services supported by the Royal British Legion and SSAFA, among others. May I have a commitment from the Ministry of Defence that it will continue to work with the voluntary sector, which provides such fantastic support?
Mr Ellwood
My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary underlined the importance of geographically locally based charities. It is so important that the message gets out that support is available to veterans. The biggest challenge we face is veterans not being aware of where to go for help, so I am very grateful for that work in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
Emma Hardy
Veterans in Hull are very fortunate to have the support of incredible people like Steve from Hull Veterans Support Centre and Paul from Hull 4 Heroes. There is an ambitious plan to build a veterans village in Hull. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the best way that he can support it?
Mr Ellwood
I am always delighted to meet hon. Members who want to pursue and support veterans’ initiatives. I would be delighted to visit. My mother-in-law lives just down the road from Hull, in Beverley, so perhaps I can tie in the two visits in one go.
Maria Caulfield
Some 60,000 armed forces veterans are currently suffering mental health problems, in prison or homeless. What more support can be given to personnel as they leave the armed forces to help reduce that number in future?
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend is right to focus on specific issues where we need to increase our support. One reason why we are putting together the veterans strategy is to understand where we can do more. The prison sector is one area. She touches on the transition process. It is so important that as people depart the armed forces they know where help can be provided. We are now getting back in touch with armed forces personnel and their families 12 months after they have departed to check on their progress.
Rachel Maclean
Ubi-tech is a business in my constituency made up completely of ex-service people. It is expanding fast and provides services to the MOD and others. It also provides resettlement training and is a supporter of the armed forces covenant. Given that, does the Minister agree that it is not surprising that the business regards the decision to prosecute soldier F after 47 years with absolute dismay? How does the Minister respond to that?
Mr Ellwood
The Northern Ireland prosecution service made an independent judgment on that. I think it would be wrong for us to make any judgment on the Government side. What my hon. Friend illustrates is another great example of veterans charities doing fantastic work on a local basis, and if there is an opportunity to visit her constituency, I would be delighted to meet it.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
On return from his tour of Afghanistan in 2007, my constituent, Robert Duncan, experienced post-traumatic stress disorder. It has taken this long to have a conversation—that is all he wants—with those under whom he served. Why can he not have that conversation?
Mr Ellwood
I do not know the circumstances of that particular case and I would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady to see what more can be done. As I touched on before, we are now far more engaged with the individuals—all service personnel—who served in Afghanistan and Iraq to track their progress and to make sure that we are in touch to give them the support that they need. If there is a case for an individual to be looked at again, I would be more than happy to do that.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
While we know that the charity sector is doing a great deal of work, and we are extremely grateful for that, there is an absence of veterans-focused policies in areas such as welfare and employability. The transition to civilian life can be difficult, so does the Minister agree that the Government must be doing more in this area?
Mr Ellwood
I am pleased that the hon. Lady mentioned that the Government must be doing more. That is absolutely correct. The veterans board was established for exactly this mission—to make sure that it is not just the MOD that does its bit, but that all Government Departments recognise their duty to honour the covenant to ensure that they provide the support that we need to give our brave veterans.
Mr Speaker
We now come to Question 5. [Interruption.] I beg your pardon, Mr Hamilton wanted to come in on this question. [Interruption.] We do like him, but whether we like him or not, he has a right to be heard.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
I apologise to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) for intervening before he had the chance to ask his question. At Defence questions on 18 February, I asked the Minister about the black soldiers of the East Africa Force, formed in 1940, after an investigation revealed that they were paid only a third of the wage received by their white counterparts. On 13 February, Her Majesty’s Opposition wrote to the Government about this issue and I wrote to the Minister on 28 February, but so far no replies have been received. The Foreign Office claims that this is a matter for the Ministry of Defence, but the Minister told the House last month that this was a matter for the Foreign Office. Will he please confirm that it is in fact his Department’s responsibility, and may I ask him again when the East Africa Force veterans and their families might expect, at the very least, an official apology and compensation for this scandal?
Mr Ellwood
Perhaps it does feel like we are living an episode of “Yes Minister”, and I fully understand that, with Departments trying to establish who has responsibility. We need to iron that out, and we absolutely need to get the answers that the hon. Gentleman deserves. Perhaps I can speak with him afterwards and we can move this issue forward.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Gavin Williamson)
Armed forces careers are built on merit, creating an environment where potential is defined by effort and talent and not by background. The skills, education and training that they get in the armed forces give many people the chance to achieve so much not just while they serve, but when they leave.
Michael Fabricant
With the appointment of Brigadier Janice Cook as head of regulation at Defence Medical Services in Lichfield and the very recent appointment of Sue Gray as Air Marshal, does this not demonstrate that there is no glass ceiling for women in the armed forces?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there is no glass ceiling. He brings out two brilliant examples of where women in our armed forces can achieve so much and make such a difference. We all recognise that we need to get more women joining all three services. The contribution and value that they bring is enormous, and the opening up of all roles, including close combat roles, has been vitally important in doing so.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State must know that the British armed services used to be one of the greatest players in encouraging social mobility and equal opportunity. They used to be the greatest trainers in Britain in terms of quality, size and capacity. When will he go back to that mission of having a real training programme in the Army that is big, not tiny?
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Gentleman makes a very strong point about maybe expanding our armed forces. We should feel proud that we are the largest employer of apprentices in this country—19,000 service personnel are currently in an apprenticeship—and that we continue to lead on this. The value that these apprenticeships bring is not just to the services; there is also the contribution to wider society, as service personnel often pursue a second career after they leave.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State once again for retaining 40 Commando in Taunton. It is a momentous decision and great for Taunton. That said, only 9% of British soldiers are female. Does he agree that opening up all combat roles to women will make a real difference to our armed forces? I look forward to the first ones joining the Marines.
Gavin Williamson
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who did so much in campaigning to keep the Royal Marines in Taunton; they play an important role in the local community. I very much look forward to the first female recruits joining the Royal Marines. I am sure they will be welcomed by the whole corps.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
In towns such as St Helens and Newton-le-Willows, the armed forces have always been a driver of social mobility and civic pride, but, like many places, we have lost our armed forces careers office. Would the Secretary of State consider reopening not just ours but others in many working-class communities across the country, upon whom the armed forces rely for their recruitment?
Gavin Williamson
One of the key drivers of recruitment is increasingly online, but we need always to look at how we reach out into local communities. I remember how the Green Howards often used to visit my school in Scarborough sending out the message of what an Army career could deliver. We need to look at how we can get service personnel out into the community recruiting.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)
We take the prosecution of veterans very seriously. Our service personnel are of course subject to the law, but veterans should not have to face repeated investigations many years after the events in question. That is why we have a dedicated defence team looking at this complex issue. A statute of limitations, which presents significant challenges, is the subject of inquiry by the Select Committee on Defence, and we await its report with interest.
Mr Jayawardena
I recently met Field Marshal Lord Bramall, the former head of the armed forces, who is one of my constituents. Since last year when so many of my constituents signed the petition on this issue, how has my right hon. and gallant Friend been ensuring that the political context of the troubles, which Lord Bramall’s book, “The Bramall Papers”, describes, is taken into account in today’s politically motivated witch hunts?
Mark Lancaster
Having served as Chief of the General Staff and then as Chief of the Defence Staff during the height of the troubles, Lord Bramall clearly brings a unique perspective to these difficult issues. The House will understand that prosecutorial decisions in Northern Ireland are taken by the Public Prosecution Service and that the PPS is independent both of the UK Government and of the Northern Ireland Executive. The Government recognise, however, that the current system for dealing with the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past is not working well for anyone, and that is why the Ministry of Defence is working closely with the Northern Ireland Office on new arrangements, including to ensure that our armed forces and police officers are not unfairly treated.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Members of the Defence Committee were very pleased by the way Ministers set up the dedicated unit to look into this question and by the work the Attorney General has been doing. Have the proposals that are apparently to be brought forward in the Queen’s Speech yet been finalised and accepted at Cabinet level?
Mark Lancaster
My right hon. Friend highlights—because he understands them—the complexities of this issue, not the least of which is that it transcends not just Northern Ireland but different judicial systems in the United Kingdom. We are making progress, and we have applied to bring the subject forward in the Queen’s Speech, but we have yet to conclude this work.
Danielle Rowley (Midlothian) (Lab)
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
The armed forces covenant not only obliges Government Departments to recognise their duty to support armed forces personnel and veterans and their families, but encourages organisations and businesses across the country to do the same. I am pleased to say that there are now more than 3,300 signings, and we are signing about 25 companies or organisations each week.
Danielle Rowley
A recent Defence Committee report stated that
“some serving personnel, veterans and their families who need mental health care are still being completely failed by the system.”
We have heard about engagement with charities and mental health support, but a local charity that is doing great work in Midlothian, the Lothians Veterans Centre, has confirmed the sentiment expressed by the Committee, and told me that charities helping veterans are under a huge burden and huge pressures. What are the Government doing to encourage service personnel to report mental health problems without fear of reprisal, and to ensure that there is a greater focus on the provision of mental health care?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Lady has packed a lot into one question, and it is very important indeed. The critical aspect is removing stigma and enabling people to step forward and say “I’m not okay” without feeling that there will be reprisals, and, thanks to the mental health and wellbeing strategy of 2017, we are doing exactly that. It is taking a while to change the culture, but more people are now willing to step forward and say “Let me get checked out, let me get sorted, let me get back into the line” without fearing that doing so might damage their promotion prospects.
Bill Wiggin
Why should commercial organisations take this matter seriously when the Ministry of Defence has not yet managed to change its demand for British meat so that our armed forces can be fed the finest meat in the world?
Mr Ellwood
I understand that this issue dates back to a former armed forces Minister’s time many years ago. When we were back in office a couple of decades ago, we discussed it ourselves. I will certainly look into it, but I encourage all those organisations—despite their issues with meat—to sign the armed forces covenant and support our brave veterans and armed forces personnel.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The acute care for armed forces personnel who have had acquired brain injuries in the course of their duties is second to none—no one would doubt that—but the anxiety is that when they leave the forces, or sometimes even before they enter the forces, an acquired brain injury will go unnoticed and therefore untreated and uncared for, which is why so many veterans end up homeless and living on the street. What are we going to do about that?
Mr Ellwood
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the personal interest that he takes in this issue. He is absolutely right: people need signposts so that they know where to go. We are working far more closely with NHS England and the devolved Administrations to understand where the complex treatment services are, and to ensure that when people make the transition, they are handed across to the civilian agency that will look after them.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
It is wonderful for me, as the founder of the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces covenant, to see an Order Paper that is full of those three words, which did not exist a few years ago. This is a conversation that is critical to the House. Will the Minister meet me to move forward the discussion about the creation of an armed forces covenant ombudsman, so that when the issues raised by colleagues get stuck and we cannot find a solution, we have a real authority to fix things?
Mr Ellwood
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that she has done on this issue as chair of the APPG. I should be more than delighted to meet her. It is important that we carry out the necessary scrutiny and are seen to be doing so, and that we do what is best for our veterans.
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to the Minister for his answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Danielle Rowley), but does he not agree that when 0.01% of the NHS budget is spent on veterans’ mental health care, we have a great deal further to go? Will he at least endorse fully the recommendations of the Defence Committee on the issue?
Mr Ellwood
I was delighted to address the Committee on this matter only the other day, and to discuss it. It is absolutely true that we need to follow the money. We know that £21 billion has been given to the NHS to cover the next 10 years, of which a proportion will go to mental health. The Prime Minister herself wants to see parity between mental and physical health and wellbeing, so let us make sure that we can identify where those funds are. I hope that I, or the Defence Secretary, will have a meeting with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care as soon as possible to see what more can be done.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)
The Army continues to work closely with Capita with multiple interventions now in place and the delivery of improvements. Regular soldier applications remain at a five-year high with this year’s “Your Army needs you” advertising campaign seeing over 15,000 applications in January alone. It will take longer to see increases to trained strengths due to the length of the recruitment and training pipeline.
Liz Twist
The Secretary of State has said he might re-examine the Capita contract in the next financial year, meaning we will have to wait another 12 months before any action is taken. All the while Capita is failing abysmally, with Army numbers falling year after year. Instead of endlessly kicking the can down the road, why do the Government not deal with the problem now: strip Capita of the contract and bring the service back in-house?
Mark Lancaster
I answered that question earlier and, with respect to the hon. Lady, she clearly did not listen to the answer I just gave her. Applications are up; there is the start of a process. One of the confusions the House has is that we talk about trained strength, which is the number—93% manned in respect of the Army—but that is after a very long process of going through not only basic training but, for example, for Royal Engineers also combat engineer training and then trade training. So this can take up to 18 months from the first time somebody puts a uniform on and considers themselves to be part of the Army. Those in training do not go home and say “I’m not in the Army because I am not fully trade trained yet.” There are some 5,000 soldiers now in that process who are wearing a uniform but are not included in the numbers; in time they will join the Army and we are seeing that uplift. It is the time lag that this House is not fully understanding, but I understand why.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
In terms of the effectiveness of recruitment, my right hon. Friend will know that we recruit many armed forces servicemen and women from the Commonwealth, but is he aware of the Royal British Legion campaign to eliminate the current high costs of their applications for indefinite leave to remain, to which they are eligible after four years’ service? This can cost almost £10,000 for a family of four; does my right hon. Friend agree it is time that this issue was tackled in order that we recruit more from the Commonwealth?
Mark Lancaster
My hon. Friend raises a very important issue and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is engaging with the Home Office in an attempt to solve it.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Gavin Williamson)
The security situation on the Korean peninsula has improved since North Korea adopted a self-imposed moratorium on missile launches. North Korea almost certainly wishes to avoid conflict; however the balance of hard military power on the peninsula has not altered substantively recently. North Korea needs to engage in meaningful negotiations with the United States and take concrete steps towards complete denuclearisation.
Kevin Foster
The failure of recent talks aimed at securing denuclearisation in North Korea was disappointing, although I welcome South Korea’s attempt to revive them. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that UK Government support for any agreement reached in future would be dependent on a commitment by North Korea to complete denuclearisation?
Gavin Williamson
We have been absolutely consistent that there must be complete denuclearisation, and while it is disappointing as to where talks have gone we must remain hopeful that pressure can be applied for North Korea to come back to the table in order to be able to reinvigorate these discussions going forward.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Ind)
Will the Government make it clear that North Korea cannot play games, as it has done for more than 20 years, just wanting to get sanctions lifted or get economic support from outside and then reverting to its old policies, and that there will be consequences internationally if it does that?
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I remember visiting South Korea with him back in, I think, 2010 or 2011 where we looked at this. It is vital that Britain stands shoulder to shoulder with our UN friends in terms of the imposition and enforcement of sanctions, which the Royal Navy has been leading on with our other UN partners.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Is or is not North Korea degrading its nuclear capability?
Gavin Williamson
We continue to monitor what is happening in North Korea. It is vitally important that we work with other allies, including the People’s Republic of China, to put pressure on North Korea in order to reduce the amount of nuclear testing it has in the past been conducting.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Stuart Andrew)
The Ministry of Defence’s first priority is always to guarantee that the UK is able to meet its national security obligations, which include ensuring that our air defence radar systems can operate effectively. The Ministry is supportive of the offshore wind sector deal, and we remain keen to work closely across Government and with the industry to support this.
Melanie Onn
Over half the new offshore wind sites that the Government have announced they will build will affect aviation radar systems. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), responded to a written question of mine on 20 February, saying that the solution is
“challenging and requires upgraded or new technologies, which are not currently part of the equipment programme.”
Does that not simply mean that the Government’s ability to deliver on that sector deal is going to be hampered?
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Lady raises an important point because the scale and size of the proposed wind farms are significant. I have been speaking to officials about how we might use the innovation fund, for example, to work closely with the industry to find a solution to this problem.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Stuart Andrew)
In 2017, the UK won defence orders worth £9 billion, making us the second largest global defence exporter. We work actively with the Department for International Trade to support industry, and recent successes include the export of the Type 26 to Canada and Australia, and the US Department of Defence awarding a further £500 million-worth of support work for the F-35 programme in north Wales.
Neil Parish
Supacat, the leading specialist in the design and development of high-mobility defence vehicles, is located in my constituency. If it wins a contract in Denmark, it has to offset 60% of that work in Denmark with supplying those vehicles to the Danish Government, yet that is not something that we do here. Will the Minister meet Supacat to discuss what more could be done to ensure that we secure high-skilled defence jobs in this country when defence contracts are lost to foreign companies?
Stuart Andrew
Of course I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend and the company in his constituency. The UK and many of our closest international defence partners do not use offset because it can distort the market and lead to reduced value for money, but we look at alternative ways to encourage more inward investment. That is why we are working closely with Boeing and Lockheed Martin, and we are aiming for 60% of the Boxer programme to be undertaken in the UK.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
Stuart Andrew
It was a pleasure to see the hon. Gentleman in Glasgow. That was a great event and I was happy to be there. He will know that we are trying to make UK industry as competitive as possible. That is why we are putting this out to international competition; it is not described as a warship. That said, I am delighted that there is a team UK, a consortium of UK shipbuilders, bidding into that competition. There will also be lots of opportunities for the supply chain, which has benefited from other competitions that went international, such as that for the military afloat reach and sustainability—MARS—ships.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Stuart Andrew)
When defence equipment becomes surplus to requirements, the Defence Equipment Sales Authority disposes of it using compliant contractors or by direct sale to other Governments. Contractors who process or dispose of sensitive defence equipment are subject to a strict ongoing security assurance programme.
Norman Lamb
The Minister will be aware of the serious allegations relating to the transportation and storage of defence technology from Leonardo by Used Equipment Surplus and Storage Ltd—UES&S—in my constituency. Ministry of Defence police visited my constituents and told them that prosecutions were likely to follow and that they would receive a copy of the investigation report. My constituents are still waiting. Every request I have made for a meeting with Ministers has been turned down for more than a year. Will the Minister meet me and will he give me a copy of the report, because there are serious concerns that there is a cover-up going on here?
Stuart Andrew
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that there have been inspections at those premises and that nothing was seen to be of concern. However, I understand the issues that the situation is causing his constituents, so I would be more than happy to meet with him and them.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is imploring me and has been sitting patiently in his usual statesmanlike fashion, so I want to hear from him.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Stuart Andrew)
The Ministry of Defence spent £18.9 billion with UK industry in 2017-18, directly supporting 115,000 jobs across the country.
Mr Robertson
I thank the Minister for that response. He will be aware that Dowty Propellers, one of the world’s largest propeller manufacturers, had an unfortunate fire in my constituency four years ago. Owned by an American company, GE Aviation, it could have rebuilt the factory anywhere, but it has chosen to build it in my constituency, thereby securing 350 jobs. I thank the Government for their contribution through the digital propulsion scheme, which will contribute to the success of the company.
Stuart Andrew
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work in this area and welcome the fact that GE Aviation’s investment is creating this new propeller facility. It will form part of the defence industry’s massive contribution to the south-west and provides the jobs on which many people rely.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Gavin Williamson)
In this, the 50th year of the continuous at sea nuclear deterrent, the MOD is proud to continue to protect the security and stability not only of our nation, but of our allies. I will be attending the commemoration service at Westminster Abbey on 3 May, and I hope that many colleagues from both sides of the House will also be able to commemorate this important milestone.
Wes Streeting
In response to the Defence Secretary’s speech to RUSI on 11 February, particularly his remarks about the deployment of HMS Queen Elizabeth to the South China sea, George Osborne described it as a throwback to an era of “gunboat diplomacy” and Lord Dannatt described the Defence Secretary as wanting to
“use defence as a platform to develop his own career”.
Will the Defence Secretary therefore take this opportunity to explain exactly what he means by that deployment and to say whether he has managed to have discussions with the Chancellor about the finer points of international diplomacy and trade?
Gavin Williamson
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, we are the second-largest investor in south-east Asia. We have strong and deep links with many allies, including Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia and, of course, the United States. It is therefore perfectly natural and expected to continue to operate and exercise alongside our allies.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
My right hon. Friend is right that we need to release land that is surplus to requirements. The MOD owns 2% of Britain, and it is important to have a programme of disposal that works with local communities to free up land for important housing.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I am sure that the entire House was distraught yesterday to hear press reports of injuries sustained by UK special forces in Yemen and will join me in wishing a speedy recovery to those affected. I appreciate that the MOD does not comment on special forces operations, but the news certainly illustrates the engagement of UK forces in that part of the Arabian peninsula. Will the Secretary of State make a statement to the House to ensure that we and our constituents can know more about the UK’s ongoing role in that desperate, devastating conflict?
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we neither confirm nor deny the use of our special forces.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Gavin Williamson
As was touched upon earlier, we are very much showing and leading by example with the promotion of many women into some of the highest roles within the Army, the Navy and, of course, the Royal Air Force. We have been looking at how we do our advertising and how we reach out to encourage more women to understand there is a very positive career in our armed forces.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Normally it takes three years to train an RAF pilot. Will the Minister explain why it is now taking up to seven years?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Stuart Andrew)
We accept there have been issues with this contract, but we are working very closely with industry to try to resolve it and to make sure there are the training facilities needed for the people who want to take up that career.
Wayne David
That is a very interesting response, but is it not the case that there is this problem because there are shortages of planes and instructors, and that things are so bad that the MOD is paying a private contractor for phantom courses that never take place? On current estimates, it will take another 20 years before the RAF has enough pilots, so how does the Minister propose to remedy this totally unacceptable situation?
Stuart Andrew
As I said a moment ago, I recently met industry and spoke to, for example, the chief executive of BAE Systems. I want those industries to work together to come up with a solution, which is the challenge we are giving them.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Mark Lancaster
Of course, the reality is that NATO is the cornerstone of our defence. Although in the past we have participated in EU missions such as Operation Atalanta and Operation Althea, we will only do so in future if it is in our national interest.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and that is exactly what we are doing. I was very pleased to host an SME forum in Belfast, and the next one will be in Wales. We have officials all over the country engaging with SMEs, because we recognise the massive contribution they can make to the defence needs of this country.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend touches on such an important issue. If we are to retain people in the armed forces, we need to provide the necessary support on mental health issues. The Prime Minister herself has said that she wants to see parity between mental and physical health, which is exactly what the 2017 mental health strategy seeks to secure.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
Gavin Williamson
We have long-established rules on military assistance to civilian authorities, and local authorities, police authorities and all Government Departments understand that. We always respond in any way we can to support and help.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
If RAF Scampton is to close, which everyone in Lincolnshire naturally opposes, in deciding where the Red Arrows should go, will the Secretary of State bear in mind that we have three excellent airfields—Waddington, Coningsby and Cranwell—and, above all, wonderful airspace, and that we should not move the Red Arrows to an inferior county like Yorkshire?
Gavin Williamson
I very much appreciate the strong campaigning that my right hon. Friend has been undertaking to keep the Red Arrows in Lincolnshire. We will certainly be listening closely to all arguments.
Mr Speaker
Order. I understand the air of excitement and anticipation of important matters, but the question from the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) is important and must be heard.
Mary Glindon
Thank you, Mr Speaker. As satisfaction with pay and pension benefits is at its lowest level ever recorded, does the Minister accept that seven years of below-inflation pay rises have had a severe effect on the morale of our armed forces?
Mr Ellwood
We take the continuous attitude survey very seriously. We are concerned that there has been a fall in morale. I am pleased to see that the Chancellor is in his place, as I hope he will recognise that when the spending review comes around for allocation.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
In our spend on defence, it is important that our armed forces get the best, and in respect of naval propulsion systems that means the low-vibration motors produced by GE Energy in Rugby. Does the Minister agree that it is important to maintain that capability in the UK?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend has raised this issue a number of times. I, along with the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who has responsibility for defence procurement, have also met him on this. We are working closely with GE to do everything we can to support the business going forward and this includes the enormous work that has been put into securing export orders as well.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Ind)
No one in Broxtowe wants the British Army to leave the Chetwynd barracks, especially as we are so proud of our association with the Sappers—the Royal Engineers—but we understand that the land must be sold off. What we are concerned about is the delay in the sale. I would be grateful if the Minister would be agreeable to a meeting so that we can see how we can best dispose of the land for housing.
Mr Ellwood
I would be delighted to meet my right hon. Friend in order to discuss this. I know she has been passionate about this issue and we will see whether we can resolve the matter.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We must now move on to the statement from the Prime Minister.
European Council
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on last week’s European Council. Before the Council, I wrote to President Tusk to seek formal approval for the legally binding assurances on the Northern Ireland backstop and alternative arrangements agreed in Strasbourg on 11 March. I reported your statement, Mr Speaker, which made it clear that for a further meaningful vote to take place, the deal would have to be
“fundamentally different—not different in terms of wording, but different in terms of substance”.—[Official Report, 18 March 2019; Vol. 656, c. 782.]
I explained that, as a result, some right hon. and hon. Members were seeking further changes to the withdrawal agreement, and I requested a short extension to the article 50 process, to 30 June. I regret having to do so—I wanted to deliver Brexit on 29 March—but I am conscious of my duties as Prime Minister to all parts of our United Kingdom and of the damage to that Union that leaving without a deal could do when one part of it is without devolved government and unable, therefore, to prepare properly.
The Council formally endorsed the legal instrument relating to the withdrawal agreement and the joint statement supplementing the political declaration. This should increase the confidence of the House that the backstop is unlikely ever to be used, and would only be temporary if it is. But the Council also reiterated, once again, its long-standing position that there could be no reopening of the withdrawal agreement. So however the House decides to proceed this week, everyone should be absolutely clear that changing the withdrawal agreement is simply not an option.
Turning to extending article 50, this has always required the unanimous agreement of the other 27 member states. As I have made clear before, it was never guaranteed that the EU would agree to an extension—or the terms on which we requested it—and it did not. Instead, the Council agreed that if the House approves the withdrawal agreement this week, our departure will be extended to 11 pm on 22 May. This will allow time for Parliament to pass the withdrawal agreement Bill, which is legally necessary for the deal to be ratified. But if the House does not approve the withdrawal agreement this week, our departure will instead be extended only to 11 pm on 12 April. At this point, we would either leave with no deal, or we would
“indicate a way forward before this date for consideration by the European Council”.
If that involved a further extension, it would certainly mean participation in the European parliamentary elections.
The Council’s conclusions were subsequently turned into a legal decision, with which the UK agreed and which came into force last Friday. So although the Government have today laid a statutory instrument, which will be debated later this week, to reflect that decision in our own domestic legislation, the date for our departure from the EU has now changed in international law. Were the House not to pass the statutory instrument, it would cause legal confusion and damaging uncertainty, but it would not have any effect on the date of our exit.
I continue to believe that the right path forward is for the United Kingdom to leave the EU with a deal as soon as possible, which is now on 22 May, but it is with great regret that I have had to conclude that, as things stand, there is still not sufficient support in the House to bring back the deal for a third meaningful vote. I continue to have discussions with colleagues across the House to build support, so that we can bring the vote forward this week and guarantee Brexit. If we cannot, the Government have made a commitment that we would work across the House to find a majority on a way forward.
The amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) seeks to provide for that process by taking control of the Order Paper. I continue to believe that doing so would set an unwelcome precedent, which would overturn the balance between our democratic institutions, so the Government will oppose the amendment this evening. But in order to fulfil our commitments to the House, we would seek to provide Government time in order for the process to proceed. It would be for the House to put forward options for consideration and to determine the procedure by which it wished to do so.
I must confess that I am sceptical about such a process of indicative votes. When we have tried this kind of thing in the past, it has produced contradictory outcomes or no outcome at all. There is a further risk when it comes to Brexit, as the UK is only one half of the equation and the votes could lead to an outcome that is unnegotiable with the EU. No Government could give a blank cheque to commit to an outcome without knowing what it is, so I cannot commit the Government to delivering the outcome of any votes held by the House, but I do commit to engaging constructively with the process.
There are many different views on the way forward, but I want to explain the options as I understand them. The default outcome continues to be to leave with no deal, but the House has previously expressed its opposition to that path, and may very well do so again this week. The alternative is to pursue a different form of Brexit or a second referendum, but the bottom line remains that if the House does not approve the withdrawal agreement this week and is not prepared to countenance leaving without a deal, we will have to seek a longer extension. This would entail the UK having to hold European elections, and it would mean that we will not have been able to guarantee Brexit. These are now choices that the House will have the opportunity to express its view on.
This is the first chance I have had to address the House since my remarks last Wednesday evening—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The House must calm itself. The Prime Minister is addressing the House and must be heard. Colleagues know, from the record, that they will have a full opportunity to question the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister
I expressed my frustration with our collective failure to take a decision, but I know that many Members across the House are frustrated too, and we all have difficult jobs to do. People on all sides of the debate hold passionate views, and I respect those differences. I thank all those colleagues who have supported the deal so far, and those who have taken the time to meet with me to discuss their concerns.
I hope we can all agree that we are now at the moment of decision, and in doing so we must confront the reality of the hard choices before us: unless this House agrees to it, no deal will not happen; no Brexit must not happen; and a slow Brexit that extends article 50 beyond 22 May, forces the British people to take part in European elections, and gives up control of any of our borders, laws, money or trade is not a Brexit that will bring the British people together. I know that the deal I have put forward is a compromise—it seeks to deliver on the referendum and retain trust in our democracy, while also respecting the concerns of those who voted to remain—but if this House can back it, we could be out of the European Union in less than two months. There would no further extensions, no threat to Brexit and no risk of a no deal. That, I believe, is the way to deliver the Brexit that the British people voted for. I commend this statement to the House.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for the advance copy of her statement and for the meetings that we have had in recent days.
The Government’s approach to Brexit has now become a national embarrassment. After two years of failure and broken promises after broken promises, the Prime Minister finally accepted the inevitable last week, voted to extend article 50 and went to Brussels to negotiate. Last week’s summit represented another negotiating failure for the Prime Minister. Her proposals were rejected and new terms were imposed on her. We now have an extension until mid-April, or 22 May, but despite the clearly expressed will of this House, we still face the prospect of a disastrous no-deal Brexit. This is even more remarkable given that the Minister for the Cabinet Office told this very Chamber that
“seeking such a short and, critically, one-off extension would be downright reckless”.—[Official Report, 14 March 2019; Vol. 656, c. 566.]
This failure has been compounded by the Prime Minister’s attempts last week to pin the blame for this debacle on others. It was wholly inappropriate, last Wednesday, for her to try to pit the people against MPs—elected MPs doing their duty to hold the Government of the day to account, which is what Parliament exists for. In a climate of heightened emotions where MPs from all parts of the House have received threats and intimidation, I hope that she will further reflect and think again about making what I believe to be such dangerous and irresponsible statements.
Every step of the way along this process the Government have refused to reach out, refused to listen and refused to find a consensus that can represent the views of the whole country, not just those of the Conservative party. Large parts of our country continue to be ignored by this Government. It is no wonder that so many people felt compelled to march on the streets or to sign petitions over the weekend. Even the most ardent of leavers think that this Government have failed. It is easy to understand the frustration at this chaos—it exists in this House, in Brussels, and across the country.
The Government have no plan. For them, it is all about putting the Conservative party before the country. Given that the Prime Minister has admitted that she does not have the numbers for her deal, will she accept today that her deal is dead and that the House should not have to waste its time giving the same answer for a third time?
The Prime Minister has succeeded in unifying two sides against her deal. The CBI and TUC’s unprecedented joint statement last week demanded a plan B that protects jobs, workers, industry and communities. Does the Prime Minister have a plan B? The Government have failed, and they have let the people down whether they voted leave or remain. The country cannot afford to continue in this Tory crisis. It is time for Parliament to take control, which is why, later today, we will be backing the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin).
You made it clear last week, Mr Speaker, that, for the Prime Minister to bring back her deal, there must be significant changes. There are none. Rather than trying to engineer a way to bring back the same twice-rejected deal, will she instead allow plans—rather than fight plans—for indicative votes? She cannot accept that her deal does not have the numbers and also stand in the way of finding an alternative that may have the numbers. It is ridiculous to suggest that Parliament taking control is “overturning democratic institutions”. It is not; it is Parliament doing its democratic job of holding Government to account. Will the Prime Minister agree to abide by the outcome of these indicative votes, if they take place on Wednesday?
The Labour party will continue cross-party discussions to find a way forward, and I thank Members who have met colleagues of mine and me to have those discussions. I believe that there is support in this House for a deal—one that is based on an alternative that protects jobs and the economy through a customs union, provides full single market access, and allows us to continue to benefit from participation in vital agencies and security measures. If the Government refuse to accept this, we will support measures for a public vote to stop no deal or a chaotic Tory deal.
The Government have had more than two years to find a solution, and they have failed. It is time that we put an end to this, move on from the chaos and failure, and begin to clean up the mess. It is time for Parliament to work together and agree on a plan B. If the Prime Minister is brave, she will help to facilitate this. If not, Parliament must send a clear message in the coming days. I hope that where the Government have failed, this House can and will succeed.
The Prime Minister
Once again, the right hon. Gentleman said that we still face the prospect of no deal. As I said earlier, the House has rejected no deal twice now and could very well continue to reject it, but the only way of actually putting that into practice is to support a deal. He also talks about reaching out. I have reached out to party leaders and other Members across the House, and my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union have held a number of meetings with Members across the House and with party leaders.
The right hon. Gentleman ended by saying that it is now time for the House to decide. The point is that, up to now, the House has not decided. [Interruption.] Yet again, Opposition Members say that they have not had a chance. The House has had many chances to table amendments. The House has voted twice on the right hon. Gentleman’s plans for the future and rejected them, it has voted to reject no deal and it has also voted to reject a second referendum. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government would commit to abide by the indicative votes. As he accepted, I gave him advance notice of my statement and I then read that statement, in which I clearly said:
“I cannot commit the Government to delivering the outcome of any votes held by this House.”
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
That’s not good enough.
The Prime Minister
The shadow Foreign Secretary shouts, “That’s not good enough.” Let us just think about this for a moment. First, we do not know which options will be tabled. Secondly, we do not know which amendments will be selected. But there is another important point: no one would want to support an option that contradicted the manifesto on which they stood for election to this House. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be opening the debate this afternoon, and will refer to the processes of the House that will be involved.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said that it was important that MPs were elected here to take responsibility and make decisions. But the MPs elected to the House at this time have a duty to respect the result of the referendum that took place in 2016. Attempts to stop the result of that referendum being put in place or to change the result of that referendum are not respecting the voters and they are not respecting our democracy.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the fact that a number of people had marched on the question of a second referendum. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The House is in a very agitated state, but we are at an early stage in the proceedings—calm.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that a march for a second referendum took place. It is, in fact, the right hon. Gentleman’s policy, and I noticed that his deputy went on the march. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman normally jumped at any opportunity to go on a march, but he was not actually there on this occasion; I can only assume that he was involved but not present.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
What would the Prime Minister say to a leave voter who wants us to leave on 29 March and thinks that indicative votes are a waste of time because, as she rightly says, the options on offer have already been rejected once or twice in this Parliament?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that the options that appear to be on offer have already been rejected by this Parliament. I would have to point out, of course, that for reasons that I explained in my statement—in relation, particularly, to the Governments of parts of the United Kingdom—we have requested the extension to article 50, so the 29 March date is no longer there. But I would say to a leave voter: we can guarantee Brexit and leaving on 22 May, as the Council conclusion suggests, by supporting the deal that has been put forward. That is the way to guarantee Brexit; anything else does not guarantee Brexit.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of her statement.
We are in a crisis, but one of the Prime Minister’s own making. Her ill-judged speech before she departed for Brussels concluded that everyone is to blame but herself, trying to put herself on the side of the people and blaming parliamentarians. It was Trumpesque. We do not need such raw populism at a time like this—it is truly flabbergasting. Will she now apologise for blaming parliamentarians in the way that she did?
The Prime Minister needs to be reminded: she is supposed to be leading a country. No one on these Opposition Benches thinks she can deliver. Her Back Benchers do not think she can deliver. People right across the United Kingdom do not think she can deliver. Prime Minister, time is up. Today is about parliamentarians taking back control. People at home are watching, and they are ashamed of this Parliament, ashamed of this Government, ashamed of the embarrassment that British politics has become. Today, Parliament must move to find a consensus. We must come together and protect the interests of citizens across Scotland and all other parts of the United Kingdom. I say to Members: we still have a choice.
I want to ask the Prime Minister now, with all sincerity—will she respect the will of Parliament and reject no deal? While she is telling us that our votes do not count, Privy Counsellors are being given briefings by her Government, and those briefings are talking about catastrophe and the real risks that there are to the United Kingdom. It is the Prime Minister who is threatening the people of the United Kingdom with no deal, and a no-deal exit that this Parliament has already rejected. What is the point of us all sitting in this Chamber and voting in debates when the Prime Minister thinks she can ignore parliamentary sovereignty? What a disgrace—what an insult to this place; if our votes do not count, then frankly we may as well just go home.
If this Prime Minister is telling the people of Scotland that our votes did not count when we voted to remain, well, we know what the answer is: the day is coming when the people of Scotland will vote for independence and we will be an independent country in the European Union. So will the Prime Minister tell us, do our votes count? Are they binding on the Government or is this just a puppet show? If that is the case, this is the greatest assault on democracy inflicted by any Prime Minister. If Members of Parliament are prepared to tolerate that, then shame on them—shame on them. Scotland will not be dragged out of the European Union by this Prime Minister. From the very beginning of this process, Scotland has been ignored, and now we learn that Parliament will once again be ignored.
At the weekend, I was proud and privileged to take part in a historic march in London. I was proud to stand with the people, alongside Scotland’s First Minister, and demand that the Government listen to the people. Let me tell the Prime Minister this: she said that no deal is the alternative; well, we on these Benches will move to revoke, because Scottish parliamentarians have made sure that we have that power, and we will stop her driving us off a cliff edge. Over 1 million people marched to have the chance to vote again to stop this chaos. Prime Minister, why are you not listening? The Prime Minister must end this madness. Put it to the people—let us have a people’s vote.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman put forward a number of proposals for the way forward in the speech that he has just given in response to my statement. There was one point at which he said Scotland would vote to become an independent country in the European Union. Of course, what was perfectly clear in the independence referendum in 2014, when Scotland rejected independence and decided to stay—
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman says, “Give it a rest!” He stands up here proclaiming the benefits of democracy and yet tells me to give it a rest when I point out that the people of Scotland voted to remain part of the United Kingdom. He talks about coming together. This House has a duty to deliver Brexit. That means, I believe, delivering a Brexit with a deal that enables that smooth and orderly exit. He asks whether his vote counts and votes in this House count. Of course votes in this House count, but so do the votes of 17.4 million people who voted to leave the European Union.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The statutory instrument for the extension of time was laid one hour ago. There is grave concern that there was no lawful UK authority for the decision on 22 March to extend the exit date. Did the Prime Minister seek the Attorney General’s advice beforehand, as clearly required by both the ministerial code and the Cabinet manual, and will she publish that advice? Why did she not invoke the commencement order for section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, repealing the European Communities Act 1972?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend talks about the decision to extend article 50. This House had supported an extension of article 50. Yes, the Council took a different decision in relation to the length of time that that extension could take place for, but the House was clear—people are saying to me, “Listen to the House and respect the House”—that an extension of article 50 should be sought, and an extension was agreed.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has told the House that if her withdrawal agreement is not approved by this Friday, the extension we have been granted will last only until 12 April. If the Prime Minister currently does not intend to bring her deal back for another vote, she will then be faced with only two choices: doing nothing, in which case we will leave with no deal on 12 April, or applying for a further extension. Given the crisis that is facing our country, the public have a right to know which of those two options the Prime Minister intends to choose. Prime Minister, could you please tell us?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is right that I said that, as things stand, I did not believe there was support for bringing back a meaningful vote, but I also indicated that I was continuing to talk to colleagues across this House. I would hope to be able to bring back a vote in this House that enables us to guarantee Brexit, because the one way of guaranteeing Brexit is to abide by the decision that was taken last week and ensure that we leave on 22 May.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister welcome the comments of the Taoiseach over the weekend that he believes that there are special arrangements that could be put in place to maintain an invisible border on the island of Ireland, even in the event that the UK leaves without a deal?
The Prime Minister
We have, as my right hon. Friend knows—she has been involved in some of these discussions—been looking at the alternative arrangements that could be put in place, and further work is required, but I would also draw her attention to, I believe, a release by the European Commission today, in which it makes clear that, in all circumstances, all EU laws would have to be abided by.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
Those of us who were among the 1 million on Saturday naturally regret that both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition were too busy to join us. Does she agree with the observation of her Chancellor that such a referendum is a “perfectly coherent proposition”?
The Prime Minister
Virtually every time the right hon. Gentleman stands up when I have made a statement or am opening a debate in the House on this subject, he asks me about a second referendum. My view about a second referendum is very simple. I was not on the march not because I was too busy, as he says, but because he and I hold a different opinion about a second referendum. I believe it is important that this House, rather than talking about and wanting to pass the decision back to the British people again, says to them, “We will abide by the instruction you gave us in the referendum in 2016.”
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
The cost to the British people and the amount of money that will be payable under the deal that the Prime Minister has put forward is between £34 billion and £39 billion. What do the Government estimate is the cost to the United Kingdom of no deal?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend asks an important question. We have published economic analysis that shows the impact of no deal. Over £4 billion is being spent by the Government on preparations for leaving the European Union with or without a deal. As I say, there is economic analysis that shows the impact of no deal over the coming months. My own view is that, over time, we would be able to address the issues that arose, but there would be an immediate impact on the economy.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister said that she is prepared to provide for indicative votes and to engage constructively with the process, but she has also many times—she appeared to again today—ruled out supporting a customs union. If a customs union is supported in indicative votes, is she ruling out the Government attempting to negotiate a customs union with the European Union?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady has asked me on a number of occasions about a customs union, and I have made my view on a customs union very clear. A number of alternative ways forward in relation to a deal have been suggested over time in this House, but there are a number of questions that Members need to ask themselves. When she talks about a customs union, what rules would she see us abiding by? Would it involve abiding by state aid rules? In some of the proposals, there is a real question whether free movement would continue to be abided by. I stood on a manifesto that made reference to a customs union because I and the Labour party both believed we should be able to have an independent trade policy. It continues to be my view that we should have an independent trade policy in the future.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
The European Commission said today that all preparations for no deal had been completed, and last week the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), made it clear in response to the urgent question that good progress had been made by the UK on preparations for no deal. So it is a bit surprising to hear from the Prime Minister that Northern Ireland is “unable” to “prepare properly” because it does not have devolved government. Which areas of Government activity present a problem, and when will they be resolved?
The Prime Minister
The Northern Ireland civil service does not have the powers to take the decisions that would be needed if the UK left the European Union with no deal. It is possible to address those issues, but had that not been done by 29 March, the question about the impact on Northern Ireland, where there is no devolved government, would be an important one. It is absolutely right that the Government took the view that it was not appropriate to allow no deal to go ahead at a time when the powers were not in place to ensure proper exercise of the decision making necessary in a no-deal situation.
Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
On that last point, the Prime Minister and the House have known for some considerable time that 29 March was the target date, so why have appropriate preparations not been made? Why do we need another two weeks? What will happen in another two weeks that could not have happened up to now? This is a fundamental lack of preparation, and the Government are entirely responsible for that if it is the case. This is an entirely new argument that we are hearing for the first time about why we need an extension.
The former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers)—who has great experience, having served for four years in Northern Ireland—has pointed out that Leo Varadkar has made it clear that, in terms of no deal, he is very confident that there will be no border checks. [Interruption.] The Prime Minister shakes her head, but that is what he said. Michel Barnier and Angela Merkel have said the same. The reality is that this backstop problem has been elevated. I would like the Prime Minister’s views on this: why does the EU insist on it when, in the case of no deal, there do not need to be any checks? Why did the Prime Minister ever agree to this backstop in the first place when it is the thing that bedevils her agreement?
The Prime Minister
Today is not the first time that the position of Governments about Northern Ireland in a no-deal situation has been raised. It was raised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the debate on no deal, which took place nearly two weeks ago. I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that a number of statements are made and have been made by individuals about the situation in relation to the border in Northern Ireland. If we look at the detail of what the European Union has said, we see that it has made it clear that European Union law would need to be adhered to in any circumstance in which there was no deal. We ourselves have said, and the right hon. Gentleman is aware of this, that we would ensure that we were moving towards a period of time—because of the legal situation it could only be for a temporary period—of minimal checks with exceptions, but the legal position is different, given the necessity to be able to have certain checks taking place. The European Union has been clear that EU law would need to be applied in all of these circumstances.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Further to that point, is the Prime Minister suggesting that in order for Northern Ireland to be ready to leave with no deal, there would need to be some form of direct decision making by us in this House in the absence of a Stormont Government?
The Prime Minister
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. If there is no Stormont Government and if powers and ministerial direction, which are not currently available to the civil servants, are needed, that would require some form of direct application of powers from Westminster.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Prime Minister appears to have ruled out bringing back her deal for an indefinite length of time, and yet we have only two weeks before we crash out without a deal. She has said that she will not necessarily take notice of this House’s indicative vote process, and she has also said that she will not continue as Prime Minister if we remain in the EU beyond 30 June. The situation seems to be pointing directly to a prime ministerial dash for no deal. Will she say that that is not what she wants and tell us when she is going to abandon her deal rather than keep postponing the vote on it?
The Prime Minister
I have always been clear that I want us to leave the European Union. My preference is for us to leave the European Union with a deal. But I have also always been clear—it is a very simple, logical fact—that it is not possible for hon. Members simply to say that they do not want no deal. If they are going to leave the European Union, we have to have a deal if we are not going to leave without a deal.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Given that the deal that is on offer now is exactly the same as the deal that was on offer a week ago, why does the Prime Minister think that you, Mr Speaker, would allow it to be voted upon in this Session?
The Prime Minister
I am very clear about the strictures that Mr Speaker gave when he made his statement last week, and were we to bring forward a further motion to this House, we would of course ensure that it met the requirements he made.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Sometimes it is hard to believe what one hears in this House these days, but we have it written in black and white that the Prime Minister said this afternoon that she cannot commit to delivering the outcome of any votes held by the House. Does she realise that that makes a mockery of parliamentary democracy? Will she reconsider, and commit to holding a binding vote to avoid a no-deal Brexit?
The Prime Minister
It is a very simple position—an indicative vote is exactly that: an indicative vote. Members of this House cannot expect the Government simply to give a blank cheque to any vote that came through. For example, the SNP position is that they would like to see the House voting to revoke article 50; the Government’s position is that we should deliver on the referendum result of 2016 and deliver Brexit.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Prime Minister, you have told us from the Dispatch Box on 108 separate occasions that we would leave the EU on 29 March. You have told the House that the date is now 12 April, but you have not changed your mind about ruling out a second referendum, unlike your Chancellor, who on “Sophy Ridge on Sunday” yesterday, effectively opened the door to it. Have you said anything to the Chancellor about this, or has collective responsibility on your watch completely collapsed?
The Prime Minister
I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the point that this was one of the propositions. It is indeed one of the propositions that has been put forward. Members from across the House have referenced that already, but I assure my right hon. Friend that I have not changed my view about it. As I indicated earlier, I believe we should deliver on the result of the first referendum.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister speaks of the frustration felt by MPs. Does she accept that it is born out of her intransigence, which is the greatest barrier to getting a deal? Following on from the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), if we do not get a deal through Parliament by this Friday, in 18 days—by 12 April—we will have to decide whether we want a longer extension or to crash out without a deal. Given that Parliament has voted twice already not to leave without a deal, will the Prime Minister confirm that, by 12 April, she will seek that longer extension and abide by Parliament’s wishes?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is right about the result of the Council meeting that took place last week. If we can guarantee Brexit by agreeing a deal this week, we will leave on 22 May, and we have been clear about the commitment to facilitate seeing whether there is a majority in the House for anything. However, the Government cannot be expected simply to say that we will accept anything that comes through. We all stood on manifestos; we all have positions in relation to our duty to deliver on the referendum. I think that that is important and we should keep it in our minds.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
The Prime Minister has accepted that the House will have so-called indicative votes to try to find whether there is a majority for a way forward, but she has twice declined to commit the Government to giving effect to a majority in the House, citing the fact that she stood on a manifesto, which she thinks should guide things. May I remind her that that manifesto appeared only halfway through the election campaign? I do not think that it was discussed in Cabinet. It was not circulated to the candidates, who were already fighting their campaigns, and nothing on Europe in that manifesto played any part in the general election. We are all being asked to show pragmatism and flexibility and to put the national interest first. May I ask my right hon. Friend to be prepared to bend from her commitment to the manifesto, apart from the one proposal that she dropped fairly promptly when it first appeared?
The Prime Minister
First, I do not accept the entire description that my right hon. and learned Friend set out. I say to him that, during the whole process of negotiation, there has been compromise. He was a respected and long-standing member of previous Governments. If he were standing at the Dispatch Box, prior to the possibility of indicative votes—and we will have to see; the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will give a further explanation of the Government’s position later this afternoon, but if the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) passes, those indicative votes will take place—I do not think he would give a blank cheque. I think he is indicating his assent to what I am saying.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has said once again that the European Union is not going to, under any circumstances, look again at the withdrawal agreement, so I agree with her that indicative votes are a nonsense, because, in the end, they are talking about the future relationship and not the withdrawal agreement. Why will she not start to prepare properly for what I do not call a “no deal”? It is not a no deal; it is a different type of deal that would take us out. [Interruption.] It is a World Trade Organisation deal. Why will she not continue to prepare for that, and to ensure that, in the end, what really matters is the people’s vote, not what this Parliament says?
The Prime Minister
I think and hope I have expressed my belief that we should be delivering on the result of the 2016 referendum. We continue to prepare for no deal. Those preparations are being continued.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I have heard many colleagues on the Opposition Benches say that they oppose the deal not because they do not support the terms of the withdrawal agreement—in fact, many of them are at pains to say they do support the terms of the withdrawal agreement—but because they have problems with the political declaration. Has the Prime Minister considered providing the House with the opportunity to have votes on the terms of the withdrawal agreement and then on the political declaration, to enable us to come to a view on whether the terms of our departure are acceptable to a majority of the House?
The Prime Minister
Throughout the debates we have had, one of the concerns that many people across the House have raised relates to the political declaration and the fact that it was not legal text. They were concerned to, if you like, tie it down further, which is what we did in our discussion with the European Union. I am sure my right hon. Friend has also seen the terms of the Council conclusions, but we have always worked to ensure that the political declaration could be firmed up—if one likes to describe it as such—to give greater confidence in that sort of future relationship.
Mr Speaker
It is very good indeed to see the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) back in his place and manifestly in rude health.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Pitching Parliament against the people undermines parliamentary democracy and feeds the far right. Does the Prime Minister regret her use of words last Wednesday?
The Prime Minister
First, may I echo Mr Speaker’s comments and say how good it is to see the right hon. Gentleman back in his place?
I was trying to make a very simple point last week, which is that this is a moment of decision for Parliament. We gave the people the choice. The people gave their decision. Parliament needs to deliver on that decision. The time has come for Parliament to decide.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I very much agree with my right hon. Friend that this is the moment for Parliament to decide. While I would very happily vote for the withdrawal agreement and the future declaration for a third time, other colleagues will not. Will my right hon. Friend give us a bit more information about how the Government are going to enable the House to come to a solution for a plan B, so that she can go back to the EU and make sure that we deliver on what all of us in this House said we would do—what the main political parties said they would do—and deliver Brexit with a deal?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. The opportunity will come for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in the debate that follows this statement, to set out in a little more detail how the Government see the processes going forward over the next few days. It is of course the case that the European Union Council has made it clear that the withdrawal agreement remains closed and will not be reopened. It is against that background that Parliament would look at any options it brought forward.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Ind)
I can say on behalf of a lot of right hon. and hon. Members that I was proud to march with the People’s Vote—the 1 million people from all over the United Kingdom, of all backgrounds and all generations, who came to London on a precious Saturday because they want this matter to go back to the people. The people of this country are crying out for leadership and businesses are crying out for certainty, but in this Prime Minister they are not getting either of those things. She has been asked twice now by hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House: come 12 April, if her withdrawal agreement has not been passed by this House, what is her plan B? She still has not told us. Is it going to be no deal or a lengthy extension? Prime Minister, just answer the question.
The Prime Minister
I point out to the right hon. Lady that she talks about the response of business, and business was very clear that it wanted the House to support the deal—[Interruption.] Yes, business was very clear that it wanted the House to support the deal. When we get to the point—[Interruption.] Some right hon. and hon. Members are saying to me, “The Government should say now what you will do on 11 April”. Others are saying, “Listen to the House and do whatever the House says on 11 April.” These two are not entirely compatible.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Has the Prime Minister noted the fourth section of the European Council conclusions, which states:
“Any unilateral commitment, statement or other act should be compatible with the letter and the spirit of the Withdrawal Agreement”?
In noting the words “any” and “should” and the tense of this conclusion, does the Prime Minister conclude with me that it would be legally enforceable and allowable for the United Kingdom to give further interpretation on a unilateral declaration to reassure colleagues on our ability to exit the backstop?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that conclusion. There are certain unilateral commitments that we have made—unilateral commitments in relation to Northern Ireland. We have indicated that we are prepared to make those unilateral commitments. He has raised before the question of the application of international law, and we are looking again at how we can reflect that properly in any papers that are brought forward.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
The Prime Minister’s deal has been rejected twice and no deal has been rejected twice by this Parliament, yet she stands here today threatening that we leave with no deal on 12 April if her deal is not approved this week, and saying that she will whip her colleagues tonight to vote against the very process for which the EU has granted that extension. We are now in the levels of the theatre of the absurd. A million people stood in Parliament Square demanding their right to be heard. If MPs can have three votes in three months, why can the people not have two votes in three years?
The Prime Minister
There are two ways in which the extension has been granted by the European Union Council. The first, of course, is for us to exit on 22 May with a deal, if this House were to agree a deal this week. The second is to provide for a possibility of the United Kingdom going forward to the European Union with some plan to take forward if the deal has not been agreed. I indicated in my statement why the Government will be whipping against the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). There are elements about this issue of Brexit, but there are also elements about the precedent that that sets for the future—for the relationship between this House and the Executive.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I have voted for the withdrawal agreement before and I will willingly back the Prime Minister and vote for it again, but I owe it to my constituents, if that should not pass, to have the opportunity to debate in full the alternatives. The Prime Minister urges us against the so-called Letwin proposal tonight, but says that the Government will make time for alternatives to be considered. Can I press her again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) did, to say if that is to be the case, when?
The Prime Minister
I hope my hon. Friend will have a little more patience, because the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will soon set out more detail on this, but we stand by the commitment he gave in the House: if we do not get a deal through, the Government will, in the two weeks after the EU Council, facilitate that opportunity for people to consider other options.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
The Prime Minister accused MPs of wasting time and playing games. Can I remind her that it was not MPs who made her sign article 50 before she was ready for the negotiations, that it was not MPs who made her call a general election in the middle of the article 50 process, that it was not MPs who made her burn through three Brexit Secretaries in two years, and that it was not MPs who made her set red lines that could never pass this House? She has spoken consistently about compromise, but what she has really meant is capitulation. If she is now really in the mood for compromise, can I urge her to meet with those of us truly trying to find a compromise that can work for her and this place?
The Prime Minister
As I have said in the House before, I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and other Members—[Interruption.] I have been meeting them. As the Leader of the Opposition indicated, I met him earlier this afternoon. I also remind the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I have indicated that I am happy to meet Members to discuss these issues, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the House voted to trigger article 50 and for the general election.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Can the Prime Minister confirm that it is not the Government’s intention to hold European parliamentary elections? My constituents in Redditch, who voted to leave the EU nearly three years ago, would find that completely unacceptable.
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. People would ask what on earth we were doing if, having voted to leave the EU nearly three years ago, they then found themselves electing Members to the European Parliament. The way to ensure that we do not have to do that, however, is to ensure that we leave the EU by 22 May, and that is only possible if a deal is agreed this week.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Like many other Members, I was proud to walk alongside the more than 1 million people on the streets on Saturday. At one point, I walked alongside two youngsters and their family carrying a banner that said: “Votes: PM—three; people—one”. This is a fundamental point. Can the Prime Minister explain to the millions of young people up and down the country why she gets to have multiple votes on a deal that has been rejected by the House and is not supported by the country, but the people do not get a chance to say whether they want to go ahead with a deal that the House can agree on?
The Prime Minister
The House votes many times on many different issues. It voted on whether to ask the people of this country whether we should leave the EU. The people made that decision. At the time, the Government said they would abide by it—that it was not an advisory decision but effectively an instruction to the House—and that it was the duty of the House to abide by it. That is what we should do.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister understand that, by taking no deal off the table at the behest of this remainer Parliament, she has just put the final torpedo into her own deal and any real prospect of Brexit, and that her statement will represent the most shameful surrender by a British leader since Singapore in 1942?
The Prime Minister
I said in my statement that the House had voted twice to reject no deal and may very well continue to vote to reject no deal and attempt to ensure that no deal cannot take place. The SNP has already indicated that it will be moving a vote to revoke article 50, which would reverse the referendum result. I might point out to my right hon. Friend that Opposition Members have been complaining that I have refused in my answers to take no deal off the table. The reality is that the House has shown its intention to do everything it can to take no deal off the table. If we are to deliver Brexit, we all need to recognise that situation.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Prime Minister, the current difficulty that you face hangs around the withdrawal agreement and the way in which Northern Ireland has been pulled into these discussions. This weekend the Irish Government made it clear that the whole premise of the withdrawal agreement is based on a foundation of sand. There will be no checks along the Irish border; therefore there will be no threat to peace in Northern Ireland; therefore there will be no disruption to the island of Ireland. Today we are told that this is because Northern Ireland is not prepared, yet all the preparations that are made by central Government apply to Northern Ireland. When are you going to stop using Northern Ireland as an excuse, and do you realise that the importance of this agreement to delivering Brexit, and also to the Union of the United Kingdom, is such that we will not be used in any scare tactics to push this through?
The Prime Minister
What I have genuinely been trying to achieve through everything that I have been doing is ensuring that we respect the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, and that we respect Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom. It is the case, as I have said, that the remarks about the border have been made—I think I am right in saying—by the Taoiseach and others previously, and have then been contradicted by the European Commission in terms of what might be necessary. I merely say that the situation in relation to the European Union’s proposal is that it has been very clear about EU laws and the necessity of those laws being applied.
Mr Speaker
Order. I have no wish to distract Members from the importance of these matters, but there has been quite a lot of naughty behaviour this afternoon, including the behaviour of the right hon. Members for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) in repeatedly using the word “you”, which is unparliamentary. I am looking to a custodian of our fine traditions of parliamentary courtesy, and I need look no further than Victoria Prentis.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
Well, Mr Speaker, I do not know about you—[Laughter]—but I think that the 2017 Conservative manifesto is possibly not bedtime reading in many households, so let me remind the House of it briefly.
“We want to agree a deep and special partnership with the European Union. This partnership will benefit both the European Union and the United Kingdom: while we are leaving the European Union, we are not leaving Europe, and we want to remain committed partners and allies to our friends”.
Does the Prime Minister think that any of the indicative votes that we may be able to cast on Wednesday—aside from the meaningful vote on the withdrawal agreement—will be covered by that manifesto? If so, will she whip us to vote in any particular way?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is tempting me to indicate what we might do. We do not know what the options are. We do not know which options will be chosen, or the sequence in which they will be chosen. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that we stood on a particular manifesto. We stood on a manifesto to honour the result of the referendum, and the Labour party stood on a manifesto to honour the result of the referendum. I think that there is a way to honour the result of the referendum, and it is a pity that we have not been able to agree that.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister talks of frustration with Parliament. She has also said today, on a number of occasions, that today is decision time. But given that she is not putting her deal to another vote, and she is preventing the House from having indicative votes, will she advise us on how we are to express our decision?
The Prime Minister
Actually, what I said was that “as things stand”, I was not bringing back the meaningful vote, but
“I continue to have discussions with colleagues across the House to build support, so that we can bring the vote forward this week and guarantee Brexit.”
The process that will take place in the absence of a meaningful vote and in the absence of agreeing the deal this week will be referred to by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the debate that will take place after this statement, and, of course, there is the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), which gives an indication and a timetable that would operate were that amendment to be passed. I will be whipping against the amendment, for the reasons that I set out earlier.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
If we go to indicative votes and we look at other options, the issue of free movement is likely to feature. I strongly agree with the Prime Minister that the public want us to end free movement, but must we not recognise that immigration into this country from outside the EU is now running at a 15-year high of 261,000? That is more than the population of Ipswich and Colchester combined. Should we not therefore have some candour and say to the public that if we end free movement immigration is unlikely to fall but will simply come from much further afield?
The Prime Minister
Over time, the Government have taken a number of actions to ensure that we can deal with introducing more control into our immigration system. One of the advantages of ending free movement is that we can put an entirely new immigration system in place that enables it to be skills-based rather than based on the country somebody comes from. But I also believe that for many people what underpinned their vote and decision to leave the EU was a desire to see free movement end and that is why it is absolutely right that the proposals the Government have put forward would indeed do that.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
The fact that the Prime Minister had to ask EU leaders for an article 50 extension last week was a highly predictable outcome from an inflexible Prime Minister who has consistently sought to sideline Parliament and the country over the last two years. So further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), if through indicative votes this House votes, for example, in favour of a Norway-based deal or a customs union, will the Prime Minister shift her red lines in line with the will of this House, or will we come out of this process and her “constructive” engagement to find that nothing has changed?
The Prime Minister
In my statement, I set out the Government’s position in relation to the indicative votes and that remains the Government’s position.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), does the Prime Minister agree that there is perhaps a majority across this House for the withdrawal agreement on its own, given that there needs to be a bit more work on the terms of the backstop, and that the political declaration is very close to the manifestos of both the Conservative and the Labour parties in 2017 and, again, with a bit more work there should be a majority, with good will across this House, for the agreement?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right that there are those across this House who obviously have continuing concerns with the withdrawal agreement, but there are many across the House who do not have those concerns in relation to the withdrawal agreement but who do have concerns about the certainty of the future in the political declaration. The political declaration provides for a spectrum of options in relation to our trading relationship. We certainly stood on a manifesto commitment to have that independent trade policy. We want to see that delivered in the agreement we have with the EU, but others in this House also stood on a basis of having that independent trade policy, and moving into a permanent customs union does not deliver on that independent trade policy.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Ind)
May I press the Prime Minister a little further on this notion that she may scuttle any outcome of indicative votes because perhaps they are not negotiable with the EU? She knows, because the Chancellor told her so yesterday, that a confirmatory referendum—a people’s vote—is a perfectly viable proposition. I want to know, and I do not wish to interrupt her while she is on her phone, but if she wouldn’t mind—[Interruption.] Well, she was on the phone, Mr Speaker. I would like her to answer specifically: if this House agreed a confirmatory referendum, would she also not abide by that particular outcome? Yes or no?
The Prime Minister
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman; just a bit of female multitasking was trying to take place there. In terms of the concept of the confirmatory vote, that is often attached not just to being a confirmatory vote but to having remain on the ballot paper, so that it is effectively a second referendum on whether or not we should leave the EU. As I indicated earlier, I believe we should be leaving the EU because that is what people voted for in the first referendum.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
We must leave the EU, but to do so without a deal would decimate agriculture in North Dorset, which is why I have supported the Prime Minister’s deal on both occasions and will do so again whenever she asks me to. She has indicated that the statutory instrument to confirm the extension of the withdrawal period has been laid before the House. Can she advise me when it will be debated and voted upon?
The Prime Minister
It will be debated and voted upon later this week. I would be happy to inform my hon. Friend outside this statement when I have checked which day it is, but it will be one day later this week.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister said in her statement that she could not commit the Government to delivering the outcome of any votes in this House. So, if her deal again fails to get through and if we hold indicative votes and a majority of MPs vote for an alternative to her deal, is she really saying that she is going to ignore the democratic will of this House? Would she prefer to crash out without a deal rather than respect the will of the House?
The Prime Minister
First, if the hon. Lady will permit me, I have just checked and I can say that the statutory instrument will be debated on Wednesday. In answer to her question, the House has passed motions saying that it does not want no deal, and it may very well pass more motions saying that, but if it is going to deliver on ensuring that we do not have no deal, it will have to agree a deal. That is very simple; it is not enough simply to say that the House does not want no deal.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
The Prime Minister inadvertently failed to answer the second part of the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). Will she please tell us when the commencement order will be made under the provisions of section 25(4) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018? As she will know, this is a matter of particular importance.
The Prime Minister
I apologise for not answering my hon. Friend the Member for Stone’s question. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) will permit me, I will confirm that point and come back to them both when I am able to do so.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
In the light of the political crisis that the Prime Minister faces, does she think it might be better if the Cabinet met in public, given that all the details are being diligently leaked to the media on every single occasion? Does that not suggest that the Cabinet is also in deadlock and that the only ways to break the impasse are either a second referendum or a general election?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman has heard my answers to the question on a second referendum on many occasions, and I continue to believe that it is not in the best interests of this House. It is in the best interests of the House to agree for us to deliver on Brexit, to do it in a smooth and orderly way and not to go down the route of either a second referendum or a general election.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
I voted for the withdrawal agreement twice before, and I would do so again, but I welcome my right hon. Friend’s move towards indicative votes, because I think that they will be helpful. Can she confirm that there will be a full range of workable options, including the European Free Trade Association, so that we can debate and decide on them in this House?
The Prime Minister
The purpose of any such votes is to determine the views of this House, and I think it is appropriate for this House to bring the options forward that it wishes to be debated.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
It is time we recognised that, beyond those in this place and outside who are polarised, the overwhelming number of Members across the House and members of the British public want us to come to some sort of compromise and to move on and move forward. For some people, no deal will ever be good enough: those who want to crash out with no deal and those who want to overturn the referendum. It has already been said that, in many parts, there is agreement with the withdrawal agreement but concerns about the future relationship in regard to trade and security. Can the Prime Minister assure the House today that, if we agree to the withdrawal agreement—I have voted for it once because I think it is the right thing for my constituents and the country to move on—in the next stage, when we get into the detailed discussions on trade and other matters, this House will be able to explore those options in detail, debate them and vote on them?
The Prime Minister
First, I agree with the sentiment expressed by the right hon. Lady that most members of the public want to see this situation resolved and want us to be able to move on. In relation to the future relationship, there are differences of opinion around the House about the nature of the future trade relationship, but I have already indicated that there will be greater involvement for Members in the next stage of the negotiations than there was in the first stage.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I have not yet met a constituent who envies the Prime Minister’s task of trying to deliver our leaving the EU responsibly. However, quite apart from the concerns of manufacturing and farming and the clear view of this House, does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the absence of a political agreement between the parties of Northern Ireland to govern that country, it would be irresponsible for any Government to push ahead with no deal? If she does agree, is that absolutely clear to all Members of this House, especially those on the Government Benches, so that we can focus on the advantages of her proposals?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is about the responsibility to ensure that we do have appropriate governance in a no-deal situation, where significant decisions would need to be made, and it is entirely right and proper that the Government have taken the position that they have in relation to that matter.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Prime Minister has told this House on numerous occasions that she is committed to delivering on the will of the people as it was expressed almost three years ago. However, given that 1 million people took to the streets at the weekend, that more than 5 million have signed a petition, and that anyone who has ever sat on these Benches knows that the will of the British people can change, does the Prime Minister not agree the time has come to check whether the will of the people has in fact changed and whether they want something different from what they wanted two and a half years ago?
The Prime Minister
I have now answered that question on a number of occasions, so I refer the hon. Lady to the answers I gave earlier.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
If the Prime Minister’s deal is not to come back before the House, it is vital that this House has the opportunity to consider what it can agree on a cross-party basis. The Prime Minister kindly indicated that parliamentary time will be given over for that process but, notwithstanding that we will be getting a statement from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, will she as Prime Minister indicate by when those votes will take place?
The Prime Minister
Although I have indicated that we would whip against the amendment from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), if it were to pass it would lead to some votes taking place on Wednesday. The commitment that the Government have made is that there would be opportunities over this week and next week. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster indicated that we would facilitate the opportunity for the House to make those decisions in the two weeks following last week’s European Council.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
As someone who is not a member of the DUP or the ERG or from a leave-voting seat, I thank the Prime Minister for the “Dear colleague” letter she sent me, which includes the offer of a meeting. When she came to Ealing Central and Acton in 2017, my majority was 200 and she had hopes of taking the constituency back. Today, in that same seat, more people have signed a petition to rescind article 50—never mind supporting a people’s vote—than voted Conservative in that same election. If she is serious, will she meet me to thrash out a way forward so that London is not lost forever? If not, it will seem that she just listens to the same old voices all the time.
The Prime Minister
As I indicated in answer to an earlier question, I have been meeting Members from across the House and am very happy to do so to discuss such matters.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Having spent time in my constituency over the weekend speaking to constituents, I need to tell the Prime Minister that many of them took her at her word when she said that we would be leaving the EU at the end of March and now feel disappointed, disillusioned and even betrayed that that is not happening. Will she reassure my constituents that she is absolutely determined to do everything in her power to ensure that we leave the EU as soon as possible?
The Prime Minister
I regret not being able to deliver Brexit on 29 March. I had genuinely wanted to be able to do that. I can confirm that it is important that we do deliver Brexit and that we deliver on the vote that people took. I want to see that. Obviously, if we are going to do that with a withdrawal agreement that has been put into legislation, that takes time, which is why the extension to 22 May was agreed at the European Council. I want to ensure that we do leave and that we do deliver on the wishes of the people.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister has yet to explain why she expects MPs to change their mind after two weeks but does not expect the people of this country to change their mind after three years. Can she explain that to the House?
The Prime Minister
Members have been expressing their views in a whole variety of ways, and they will continue to do so over the coming weeks. I indicated this to Members earlier, so they will not be surprised by my position: I think it is important that we deliver on the vote that took place in 2016. If a second referendum took place and came to a different decision, presumably some Members would say that that decision should be held to, regardless of whether people subsequently said they had changed their mind. Actually, many people would ask why we have failed to do what the British people asked us to do.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
I would like to be able to support the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement, but I continue to have concerns about the backstop and our lack of control of it should it kick in. When the Prime Minister brings it back for a third vote, I very much hope there will be enough changes for me to be able to support it.
In the meantime, will the Prime Minister confirm that she will indeed table the commencement order so that we can, if we need to, have 12 April as a no-deal departure date? If we do not replace 29 March, we will have no pressure point with which to encourage colleagues to support the withdrawal agreement when it comes back.
The Prime Minister
As I have said in response to earlier questions from hon. and right hon. Friends, I will come back to my hon. Friend on this specific point about the commencement order.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Would the Prime Minister think it constructive were we able to secure a single majority view from the indicative votes process, or would she prefer further indecision?
The Prime Minister
I indicated earlier that the Government are not giving a blank cheque to the indicative votes process, which is important. It is perfectly possible that the House might come to a decision, to contradictory decisions or to no decision at all. We will obviously have to engage constructively with whatever comes out of those votes.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I share the Prime Minister’s scepticism about the indicative votes procedure. Indeed, I would go further and say it is a complete waste of time. I am sure some who propose it are genuine in their desire to find a way through but, in actual fact, I think the majority want to thwart the result of the referendum.
I was out in my constituency over the weekend and, as the Prime Minister knows, it is a 70% Brexit-supporting area. Like me most of my constituents are prepared to back her deal when I explain it, imperfect though it is, but fear that there may yet be further concessions. Can she give an absolute assurance that she and the whole Government will not agree to anything that further delays Brexit beyond a few weeks?
The Prime Minister
I want to be able to deliver Brexit, and to do it within the extension we have been given to 22 May. Any further extension would require us to stand in European parliamentary elections. As I said earlier, I think people would ask what on earth we were doing if, having voted nearly three years ago to leave the European Union, they were then asked to elect Members to the European Parliament. I think they would say that we were failing to deliver on their vote, and I believe we have a duty to do that.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
I genuinely believe that people have the right to compare any Brexit deal with the promises that were made in 2016. It is their right to want the final say in this process. I know how much work the Prime Minister is doing to get her deal across the line and, in the spirit of compromise, I would help to facilitate the passage of her deal, indeed any deal, so long as it goes back to the British people. May I ask her to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) to discuss the compromise we think is the way out of this? Whatever the result of that ballot, we will not bring this country together until we hold it.
The Prime Minister
I say to the hon. Gentleman, as I have indicated to the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and others, that I am happy to meet Members of the House to discuss these matters. I know that the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has already met him and talked about this issue. I continue to have the reservations and concerns I have expressed previously in relation to these matters of a confirmatory vote, but, as I have said, I am happy to meet hon. Members.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Almost three years ago, every household in my constituency, like the rest of the country, was sent a leaflet from the Government, paid for by the taxpayer, advocating that we remain and, crucially, saying that the result would be honoured. Three years on, following a general election in which 589 Members of Parliament were elected on a promise to deliver Brexit and with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 now law, is it not within the Prime Minister’s power to now deliver Brexit? The message that I clearly get from my constituents is that they want that now achieved.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for reminding the House that that Government leaflet did indeed say that we would abide by the result of the referendum and that some 80% of Members of this House were elected on the basis that they would honour the result of the referendum. I think that is absolutely what we should be doing. The point I was making earlier in relation to a number of matters is that of course this House has already indicated ways in which it does not want to see Brexit being delivered—by voting against no deal—and may continue to do so. We could very well see the House trying to ensure that that solution is not delivered. I am very clear that we need to deliver Brexit—we need to deliver it because we promised people we would.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Why is the Prime Minister incapable of accepting the principle that democracy is a process, not a single, one-off event? For nearly three years, opinion poll after opinion poll has shown that people do want to have a final say on whatever deal comes out of this place. Before she answers by saying that that might lead to a third or a fourth referendum, let me say that she knows perfectly well that the beauty of the Kyle-Wilson amendment is that whatever the result of going back to the people on the deal that comes out of this place, it will go straight into law, so that it will be an end of it. So why will she not accept that?
The Prime Minister
I have answered it on a number of occasions. I think that when I met the hon. Lady she indicated that she would want to see remain on the ballot paper as well as the deal. She is not asking for confirmation of the deal in relation to leaving the European Union; she is questioning people, by going back and saying, “We asked you the question and you gave us an answer, but actually we are not sure that is the right one. Have another go.”
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
If decisions and powers have to be taken here in order to remedy the current unreadiness of Northern Ireland, is there a plan to deal with that in good time for 12 April?
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I think I might surprise the Prime Minister by saying that there is something I welcome in her statement. She said in her statement that
“unless this House agrees to it, no deal will not happen.”
So can she confirm that if this House continues, as it has so far, to vote against no deal, she will not seek to take us out of the European Union on 12 April without a deal?
The Prime Minister
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that if we are not going to leave the European Union without a deal, we clearly need to have a deal that enables us to leave the European Union. It is very simple. I have made the point on a number of occasions and I will continue to make it.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I gently remind the Prime Minister that this House has expressed a view in law: to leave on 29 March, with or without a deal. Given the constant assurances we have had about no-deal preparations, including in answer to my urgent question last week, may I urge her now to face down this remain-dominated Westminster bubble and support leaving on no-deal, World Trade Organisation terms, in order to honour not just the referendum result and the triggering of article 50 but our own manifesto?
The Prime Minister
I do want to deliver Brexit; I do want to make sure that we leave. I continue to believe that leaving with a deal is the best route for the United Kingdom. We are continuing with the no-deal preparations. My hon. Friend will be aware of the Council conclusions in relation to the extensions. I continue to believe that if it is possible to do so, we should leave on 22 May, and that is the way to guarantee Brexit.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Ind)
Does the Prime Minister realise that when she so flippantly dismisses calls for a confirmatory public vote or second referendum, she is—just like that—dismissing the million-odd people who marched on Saturday and the 5.5 million and rising who have signed the petition to revoke article 50? She says it would undermine democracy, but does she realise that democracy is not indefinitely owned by the people who voted that day in the referendum? It is not owned by the Government, it is certainly not owned by the Conservative party, and it is most definitely no longer owned by the Prime Minister. Our country’s future is owned by the people. Does she not realise that it is no longer her decision to make? It is now Parliament’s turn—it is our turn—and following that, this decision absolutely must go back to the British people.
The Prime Minister
I remind the hon. Lady that Parliament has already had a vote on a second referendum, and in that vote Parliament rejected the concept of a second referendum.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
For two years we have heard the opinions of MPs in this place, of whom the majority sadly do not want to leave the EU or want our leaving watered down to the extent that in fact we really have not left. That is the problem that the Prime Minister is dealing with. Prime Minister, what about the people of this country who voted overwhelmingly to leave—L-E-A-V-E—the EU? Can she assure me that that is what we will do—that if it takes till 12 April, so be it, but if a deal cannot be agreed, we will leave the EU, as we promised the people of this country, on that date?
The Prime Minister
I want to deliver on the vote of those 17.4 million people to leave the European Union. I continue to believe that it is better to do so with a deal. We have the extension to 22 May. We can guarantee Brexit by agreeing a deal and leaving on 22 May.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Does the Prime Minister have a plan B, and if so, what is it?
The Prime Minister
Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, and to many other Members of this House, that on the one hand people are asking me to listen to the House of Commons and to abide by its decision, but on the other hand they are asking me to have a plan B, which could very well be different from that decision of the House of Commons. You cannot have it both ways.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I am not recommending this to the Prime Minister, but has she got so fed up with this House of Commons and the way it is behaving that she just wants to pop over to Brussels and sign the withdrawal agreement anyway?
The Prime Minister
Being an experienced Member of this House, my hon. Friend will know that in order to ratify the deal we need to pass legislation through this House, so it is not quite as simple as he might like to think it would be.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Does not everything the Prime Minister has said today indicate that she still believes that no deal is better than any deal other than her own? Does she understand that this House will not permit her to allow this country to crash over the edge into a no deal? Why does not she just state that clearly so that we can get on with the indicative votes?
The Prime Minister
I have dealt with the issue of indicative votes, and I have said that no deal is better than a bad deal. I happen to continue to believe that we negotiated a good deal with the European Union. I repeat to the hon. Gentleman the point I have made to others: it is all very well the House wanting to say that it does not want to leave with no deal, but the House then has to agree something to put in its place.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The Prime Minister refuses to support a people’s vote, and she also refuses to support a second referendum on Scottish independence, despite the fact that there has been a fundamental material change in circumstances. If she is so sure of her position, why is she scared of trusting the people and putting it to a democratic vote?
The Prime Minister
If the hon. Lady believes in trusting the people, she should trust the result of the 2014 Scottish referendum.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Ind)
I implore the Prime Minister not to believe that she can run down the clock to the extent that she puts her deal back to the Commons with days to go and think that Members across the House will vote differently. If she takes it to the wire and makes it a choice between her deal or no deal, she will usher in a period of economic chaos and political damage that will give succour to the extreme fringes of our politics on the left and the right.
The Prime Minister
I want us to be able to leave the European Union in an orderly way. I want us to recognise the vote, to deliver on that Brexit and to do it in an orderly way, which, as I have said before, protects not only our Union, but jobs and livelihoods for people and our security. That is what I will continue to work for.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In a previous question to the Prime Minister, I stated clearly that Northern Ireland would never be the sacrifice for the withdrawal agreement. I felt the sacrifice then, as I feel it now, and I refuse to play that role. Does she understand our determination to be treated as an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? The failure to deliver the legally binding assurances and the time-limited backstop continues to be the stumbling block and obstacle and we must not—and we will not, Prime Minister—be treated differently from the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Prime Minister
We have, of course, been working with the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to look at the ways in which we can ensure that there is that commitment to the people of Northern Ireland that there will not be that different treatment. We were very clear with the European Union on the need to have a UK-wide customs territory in the backstop, not Northern Ireland-only customs territory. We continue to maintain our commitment to ensure that Northern Ireland is treated as an integral part of the United Kingdom.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
The Prime Minister may recall that, just a little over a week ago, I spoke to her at the door of this Chamber and begged her to dial down the hate not only because of the incessant abuse and threats that I receive, but for the millions of people in our country who are fearful. She responded on Wednesday evening with a despicable statement that, frankly, many of us felt put more of us and more of the public at risk. Being Prime Minister is a huge privilege, but with that privilege comes responsibility. Will she tell me today how she will use her responsibility to dial down the hatred?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady and I did indeed have a very serious conversation just outside this Chamber just over a week ago. As I said in my statement, I was expressing my frustration. Others have their frustrations—[Interruption.] Everybody has their frustration in relation to this issue. I do not want to see anybody—[Interruption.] I genuinely do not. She may recall that, following our conversation, I took action to ensure that some of the things that she had said to me were properly looked into.
The Prime Minister
I did indeed do that. I want to see the people of this country feeling that this Parliament has been able to deliver for them—that is important for us—and that is what we will do. I continue to believe that, as we carry this debate forward, we should indeed take care with the language that we use, and I will take care with the language that I use.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Prime Minister, I am a former Member of the European Parliament. I was a proud Member of that Parliament. I am ashamed of the way that our Parliament has been behaving towards the European Parliament and the whole European community. If any kind of deal goes ahead and we come out of the EU, my constituency will be poorer. The people there know that. One of my constituents has just sent me a message saying that the Prime Minister is doing deals with all kinds of people. “Why do you not ask her,” they said, “for the money that we need in our area and that we have been deprived of? We just want to clear up 126 acres of contaminated land. It will cost £12 million.” Is the deal still open?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady will be aware that we have made some extra funding commitments for places across the country. We have also indicated our recognition that funds have been available from the European Union for different parts of the country, and our shared prosperity fund will be available to different parts of the country to deal with their needs and the various issues that they face.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Following on from the question asked by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff), in the past week the Prime Minister has shown that there is not a word too harsh that she will not say it, that there is not a dog whistle too shrill that she will not blow it and that she is prepared to take the UK to the brink of catastrophe to get her own way. When she reflects on the past seven days, does she do so with a sense of pride or with a deep sense of regret and shame?
The Prime Minister
What I want to ensure—what I am working for and what I hope that we will be able to achieve in this House—is that we deliver Brexit, and that we do so in a way that enables us to protect our Union, jobs and livelihoods, and our security. That should be the aim of everybody across the House, and I hope that everybody will be able to come together to deliver that.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Since October, there has been extensive no-deal planning in the United Kingdom and the European Union. This has been acknowledged not only by those in the UK and the EU, but also by the Governor of the Bank of England. I therefore simply say to the Prime Minister: have faith in our officials. Let us try to get a deal by all means, but, if we cannot, let us not be frightened of no deal. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is a quite a lot of noise on the Opposition Benches. I assumed that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) had been present throughout the statement.
Mr Speaker
In that case, the hon. Gentleman’s question is perfectly orderly.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right that the no-deal preparations have been, and are continuing to be, put in place. He expressed a wish for us to leave with a deal, and I want us to leave with a deal. The point that I made in my statement is that this House has already shown on a number of occasions that it wants to try to ensure that we do not leave without a deal. The best route is to leave with a deal, and I think my hon. Friend indicated that he agreed with that position.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Today, I went to an excellent cross-party briefing organised by the Cabinet Office on the subject of no deal—something that I would recommend that those who advocate no deal attend. It set out the extensive damage that no deal would do to the United Kingdom, so will the Prime Minister finally allow this House to pass a binding motion that rules out no deal?
The Prime Minister
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the House has already passed, I think, two motions saying that it does not want to leave without a deal, and it will have further opportunities to look at the options that lie ahead. The right hon. Gentleman talks about a binding motion to ensure that we do not leave without a deal, but if we are going to leave—which the right hon. Gentleman does not want to do, but I believe we should be doing because that is what people voted for—and if we are not going to leave without a deal, we need to leave with a deal and we need to agree the deal that we can leave with.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Does not this statement show the completely incoherent approach from the Prime Minister? She has just answered a question from the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) regarding no deal, saying that the only way to prevent no deal is to back a deal, yet her statement from the Dispatch Box said:
“Unless this House agrees to it, no deal will not happen.”
So what did she mean by that?
The Prime Minister
That is a statement that I have made not just today, but previously. I have been very clear that this House may very well try to ensure that we do not leave without a deal, but that the question to Members—if they wish to do that—is, what do they then want to do? Do they want to leave with a deal, or do some Members of this House not want to leave at all? We need to leave.
Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Ind)
This is a parliamentary democracy and it is quite clear that this Parliament will not approve the Prime Minister’s deal. If, through an indicative vote process, a majority forms behind an alternative way forward and she does not then implement it, will not any remaining shred of authority or credibility she has with our EU partners completely disappear? How on earth could she remain in office in those circumstances?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman heard the response I gave earlier in relation to the Government’s position on indicative votes. We will engage constructively with those votes. It is possible that those votes will decide contradictory things; it is possible that they will not decide anything at all. We will engage constructively.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I do not know who advises the Prime Minister, but she says she will engage in this constructively, yet she is whipping against the idea of having it and she will not make any of it binding. Just as an observer, that does not seem very constructive to me at all. But what did seem constructive was all the meetings that she had over the weekend and the people—sorry, men—that she invited to those meetings. What comes out this morning shows without any doubt to anyone, if anyone even had any left, that this is just some psychodrama in the Tory party. Every time I think that she does actually have a sense of duty, she totally disappoints me. This is about whether the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) can become the Prime Minister, and it is writ for all to see. This has got to end. So the question I ask the Prime Minister is: if we have indicative votes and we come up with a new way for the political declaration, how can she guarantee that any of that will happen, because it will not be up to her?
The Prime Minister
We are working to find a way to ensure that we can leave in a smooth and orderly way and we can deliver Brexit for the British people. I think that that delivery of Brexit is what should be at the forefront of all our minds.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
May I start by paying tribute to the bravery of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) and the many other hon. Members who have suffered lots of attacks over the past few months? In her statement, the Prime Minister said about what she said on Wednesday:
“I expressed my frustration with our collective failure to take a decision”.
I do not think that it is actually correct—it was an attack on Members of Parliament doing their job scrutinising the Government at a time when tensions in the country are already heightened and MPs are accused of being traitors. In my constituency, the majority of people who have asked me about this do not want me to vote for the Prime Minister’s deal. So will she now do the right thing and apologise to Members of Parliament for what she said on Wednesday evening?
The Prime Minister
It was never my intention that what I said should have the sort of impact that the hon. Lady is talking about, and I regret if it did have that impact, because the point that I was trying to make was a very simple one, which is that we stand at a moment of decision for this House. It is an important moment. People have talked about responsibility. We all have the responsibility as Members of this House to make the decision that enables us to deliver Brexit for the British people.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
Does the Prime Minister intend to lead the next phase of Brexit negotiations?
The Prime Minister
I have always made it clear that there is a job to be done, and I am continuing to do that job.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
Prime Minister, on your watch your deal has failed. The UK has seen austerity rise and food bank use rise, and now we hear that the Government will delay the repeal of the Swedish derogation, leaving thousands of agency staff financially worse off. So will plan B include any resignations?
The Prime Minister
May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that we have employment at a record high, our debt is falling, our deficit is falling, and we have seen the strongest period of quarterly growth of any country in the G7?
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Ind)
Two years ago, after the triggering of article 50, the Prime Minister went on a walking holiday during the Easter recess. Does she have any plans to go on a walking holiday in April? If so, will it begin at the end of next week, when the recess is supposed to happen, or after 12 April?
The Prime Minister
I always look forward to the prospect of a walking holiday, but, obviously, with matters as they stand at the moment, my focus is on trying to ensure that we deliver on Brexit and do that with a deal and by getting the legislation through.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer described the proposal to hold a ratification vote on the Government’s deal as perfectly coherent and worthy of consideration. Given that there have been efforts across the House to build consensus around this idea, will the Prime Minister at least agree that it is worthy of consideration and that it is coherent, reflecting the model of the Good Friday agreement?
The Prime Minister
The Chancellor did indicate that this was one of the proposals that has come forward. I have indicated on a number of occasions—I have done it in answer to a number of questions in this House—that I continue to believe that we should deliver on the result of the first referendum.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Was not the great irony of the Prime Minister’s dictatorial Downing Street speech that, because she failed to accept her own responsibility for the mess we are in, we are unlikely to make any progress?
The Prime Minister
As I said earlier, I recognise the collective responsibility we have across this House in relation to the failure so far to get an agreement for a deal. I continue to believe that it is important to get agreement to a deal so that we can deliver Brexit in time.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has still not answered the question that was put to her quite a long time ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). She was not asked whether she approved of Britain being part of a customs union with the EU after Brexit. What she was asked was whether, if this House agreed through indicative votes to go for that option, she would abide by that decision and seek to negotiate that with the European Union. Will she now answer that question?
The Prime Minister
I answered the question about the Government’s position in relation to a commitment on the indicative votes in the statement that I gave and in the questions that followed.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I would like to take the Prime Minister to the beautiful, misty highlands. In particular, I would like to take her to the Glen Mhor hotel by Loch Ness, which, by the way, is one of the best places to see the Loch Ness monster. The Glen Mhor hotel is having enormous trouble hiring EU seasonal workers this year; they are not particularly encouraged to apply for jobs, because of where we are right now in our history and because the unemployment rate in Inverness is considerably lower than in the rest of the UK. We have a huge problem that is hitting the highland economy right now—even before we know what we are doing. How do the Government intend to tackle this massive issue?
The Prime Minister
I think that is the first time in this House that any hon. Member has invited me to a hotel to spend some time with them—but we perhaps will not go there. I recognise the issues, but we do have high employment rates—the hon. Gentleman referenced the high employment rate and the low unemployment rate in Inverness—and that is something to be celebrated. We are making sure, through the policy that we are producing in relation to the future immigration system, that we will enable people to come into this country based on their skills, not the country they come from. Of course, at the moment, we are still a member of the European Union, and we have guaranteed the rights of those EU citizens who come here and abide here.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I voted against the Prime Minister’s deal twice; she voted against a people’s vote. I never thought I would contemplate voting for any Brexit deal, because I am a passionate believer in staying in the European Union, and the nearly 50% of people who voted to stay in the European Union would not expect me to do anything else. However, I am prepared to vote for her deal if she is prepared to support a people’s vote. Is that not a true compromise?
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave earlier to a similar question.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Can the Prime Minister explain the mechanism by which a meaningful vote suddenly becomes a meaningless vote? Ignoring indicative votes on motions to take note in this House is one thing, but when she ignores a meaningful vote, it shows a level of bad faith that is frankly matched only by her grotesque speech last week in Downing Street.
The Prime Minister
The House was very clear after the first meaningful vote that it wanted to see change in a certain area, and the one thing the House positively voted for was to leave with a deal, with some changes to the withdrawal agreement. We negotiated changes to the withdrawal agreement—we negotiated legally binding changes to the withdrawal agreement. The House has not accepted those changes. I continue to talk to colleagues, because I continue to believe that it is better for this country to leave the European Union with a good deal.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has often said that she considers the withdrawal agreement to be in the national interest. If she concluded that the only way she could get support for her deal in this House was to offer her resignation, would she do so in the national interest?
The Prime Minister
This is about making sure that we leave the European Union and do it in the way that is best for this country, and that is what the deal is about.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
People are very concerned and alarmed by this Brexit chaos, in North Ayrshire and Arran and the UK as a whole. This is a time of crisis, and people in Scotland and across the UK are represented in these Brexit talks by a Prime Minister and a Government whom EU leaders at the weekend described as “evasive” and “confused”, in the final days before Brexit. Does she think that that description by EU leaders inspires confidence in those across the UK who are worried about Brexit?
The Prime Minister
What I hope people across the UK who are worried about Brexit will see is a Government who are trying to ensure that we deliver on the vote of the British people but in a way that protects their jobs, protects our Union and protects their security.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Yet again the Prime Minister displays a lack of self-awareness and a complete irony bypass. In her statement, she said that if she cannot get her vote through, she will work across the House to find a solution, except then she tells us that she will block Parliament taking control and will not bind the Government to accepting votes, and she dismisses all alternatives but is keeping no deal on the table. The truth is that she had no strategy when she triggered article 50, she has negotiated a bad deal, and when the wheels have come off the bogie, her idea of seeking consensus is threatening Parliament. When will she recognise her own failures, do the right thing and walk?
The Prime Minister
We have indeed engaged with others across the House. I have engaged with the leader of the Scottish National party, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), and leaders of other parties. There are different views across the House. I do not agree with revoking article 50. I think we should deliver on the Brexit vote. That is a difference of opinion between us, but we have reached out to see whether we can find a way to ensure that we leave the European Union with a deal that delivers for people and delivers to protect their jobs, their security and our Union.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Ind)
The Prime Minister has tested to destruction the possibility of getting the DUP and the right-wing ERG to get her deal through the House. She could, however, get it through if she agreed to check that it still is genuinely the will of the people. Instead of listening to the 14 men in fast cars who came to Chequers, will she listen to the 1 million people who walked past her door? Considering that she spoke earlier about “female multi-tasking”, will she agree to meet a delegation of 14 women parliamentarians from across the House, so that we can really get things done?
The Prime Minister
As I have indicated to others—and as she knows, because we have previously sat down and discussed these matters—I am always happy to reach out and talk to Members across the House. I have a different opinion from the hon. Lady on a second referendum, because I believe we should deliver on the first.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
In 2002, the then newly elected chairperson of the Conservative party said:
“Twice we went to the country unchanged, unrepentant, just plain unattractive. And twice we got slaughtered.”
That chairperson is now the Prime Minister. Has the prospect of bringing her rotten deal back a third time made her reflect on those comments?
The Prime Minister
What I reflect on is the need to ensure that we deliver Brexit and that we do it in a good way for the United Kingdom.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
On seven occasions the Prime Minister has referred to the result of the 2014 Scottish referendum and correctly observed that a majority of people voted to remain in the United Kingdom. She will know, however, that a great many of those people believed the promises made by her party and her Government that by doing so they would, first, retain their European citizenship and, secondly, that their views would be respected within the United Kingdom. Given how things have turned out, does she understand that many of those people are now reconsidering that decision?
The Prime Minister
We went into the European Union as one United Kingdom and we will leave the European Union as one United Kingdom. Many people who voted remain in the 2016 referendum say to me that they believe that we should be delivering on the vote. Although they took a different decision, they believe that it is important that the decision is respected and that we deliver on it.
Points of Order
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last year the Department for Education published a myth-busting document advising local authorities that they could dispense with statutory guidance that is in place to protect our most vulnerable children. I have raised the issue in this House on two occasions with the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi). On 10 September he said that there would be no changes to legislation, and on 17 January he denied the very substance of the document. Fifty children’s charities also wrote to him asking for this dangerous document to be withdrawn. Following a legal challenge from the children’s rights charity Article 39, it appears, according to the press, that the document has been withdrawn.
This dangerous DFE and ministerial-approved guidance was in circulation for a number of months. Can you advise me, Mr Speaker, on whether it is incumbent on the hon. Gentleman to outline what steps have been taken to disseminate information about the U-turn to local authorities, and whether any redress is available to children and families who may well have been harmed by this guidance? Finally, can you advise, Mr Speaker, on what safeguards are in place to stop Ministers acting in such a reckless manner?
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice that she wished to raise this matter. I rather assume that she has notified the Minister of her intention to bring it up on the Floor of the House this afternoon. She has made her concerns clear and it is on the record. Moreover, those concerns will have been heard on the Treasury Bench, including at a very senior and cerebral level. I rather imagine that the point she has made will be conveyed to the relevant Minister before very long.
In so far as the hon. Lady asks about redress and what the Minister concerned might do, that really is a matter for the Minister rather than for the Chair, but what I would say to her is that if she does not receive a satisfactory response from the Minister, there is a range of options that she might pursue involving airing the issue through the Order Paper or, indeed, in debate in the Chamber. My advice to her would be to consult the Table Office—which, for the benefit of those observing our proceedings, is a very short distance from here—and the dedicated and outstanding staff of that office will be happy to advise her as to what courses of action are open to her.
My basic advice, which I know can sometimes jar somewhat, but it does have the advantage of being valid, is persist, persist, persist. Go to the Table Office and do not take no for an answer in terms of the right to question members of the Treasury Bench. Of course, if the hon. Lady wishes to seek a debate on the matter on the Adjournment, who knows? She may be fortunate.
Peter Grant
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The ministerial code requires any Minister carrying out official business in the constituency of another Member of Parliament to give that Member of Parliament advance notice in good time of the proposed visit. On Friday, the pensions Minister, whom I have notified of my intention to raise this matter today, carried out an official visit in my constituency. My constituency office was notified about it at two minutes to 12 on Friday. Can you advise me, Mr Speaker, at what point such short, inadequate notice constitutes contempt as opposed to courtesy? What options, other than continually raising points of order, which are heard and then ignored by Members on the Treasury Bench, are available to ensure that Ministers comply with the ministerial code?
Mr Speaker
The convention of notifying a Member of a prospective visit to his or her constituency is strong. It is not in the Standing Orders of the House; it is just that: a convention. Moreover, the merits of the case one way or the other are not justiciable by the Chair. However, the convention is there for a reason. It is about that basic concept of courtesy and respect for each other.
So what do I advise the hon. Gentleman? He can take the matter up directly with the Minister in the form of correspondence or a request for a meeting. Secondly, he could take it up with the Leader of the House, who I know will accept, in common with her predecessor, that she has a responsibility for ensuring Ministers’ compliance with important conventions, including that of providing timely and substantive answers to questions. When that does not happen, traditionally Leaders of the House have accepted their responsibility to remind Ministers of their duty. The other option open to the hon. Gentleman is to ask the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who performs with élan at business questions every week, to raise the matter with the Leader of the House at business questions.
I am concerned that this rather important convention is being quite regularly dishonoured. That seems to me to be wrong. There is no precise time beforehand for notification, but the presumption is that of courtesy. Simply notifying a Member or his or her office minutes or an hour before a visit does not cohere with the spirit of the convention. The hon. Gentleman has reason to be irritated and I hope that that irritation can soon be overcome by a satisfactory explanation, apology and commitment not to repeat the offence.
Ms Eagle
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have not given you notice of this point of order because it comes out of the proceedings that we have just witnessed. I wonder whether you might give us some advice about the fact that it became clear during the Prime Minister’s statement that she has no intention of listening or responding positively to the results of an indicative vote process, which rather renders the whole thing pointless.
I remember when we went through a similar process on the future of the other place, the then Government made it absolutely clear that should that process come up with one way forward, which had been carried by the House, they would effect it. Yet today we have heard the exact opposite from the Prime Minister.
Mr Speaker sir, could you give us some view of how, as Members of Parliament, we can take this forward in a reasonable way and not see the convention that Parliament and its votes matter disappear before our very eyes at this difficult time for our country?
Mr Speaker
I do not think it is for me to rule on the matter at this time. The hon. Lady has raised an extremely important point, but in the course of making it, and in a spirit of some frustration and almost despair, she said that unless it was guaranteed that the process or its results would be honoured, it rendered the exercise pointless. May I politely suggest that that is not the right mindset? I have the highest regard for the hon. Lady, who is a more experienced parliamentarian than me—she has served as shadow Leader of the House and as a Minister in important roles. I say that it would be better to proceed with the process and support amendments as she sees fit and, if there are subsequent votes—I believe that the intention of the authors of this exercise is that such votes should happen on Wednesday—colleagues’ wholehearted participation in them is to be recommended. They should see the outcome and then the hon. Lady can repeat her demand that those results be observed. I do not think there is much point in having the votes on a half-hearted basis. One has to go into it with full-hearted enthusiasm and commitment and see how events play out over the next 48 hours.
But process does matter and the hon. Lady might have noticed—though I would not blame her if she had not—that since the publication of the withdrawal agreement last November, I have sat in the Chamber for every single minute of the debates on this subject. I do so out of respect for the House. That principle of respect for the House and what it says is extremely important. I thank the hon. Lady for what she said and I hope that my reply is at least helpful.
Business of the House (TODAY)
Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion in the name of the Prime Minister tabled under section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 not later than 10.00pm; such questions shall include the questions on any amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; the questions may be put after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents) and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Michelle Donelan.)
European Union (Withdrawal) Act
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:57 - The House divided: - Ayes: 329 / Noes: 302 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 311 / Noes: 314 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:33 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 327 / Noes: 300 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that I have provisionally selected amendments (d) in the name of the Leader of the Opposition; (a) in the name of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin); and (f) for Freddie in the name of the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett). I remind the House that, under the terms of the business motion just agreed to, the debate may continue until 10 pm, at which time the questions shall be put on any amendments which may then be moved. To move the main motion, I call the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr David Lidington)
I beg to move,
That this House, in accordance with the provisions of section 13(6)(a) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, has considered the Written Statement titled “Statement under Section 13(4) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018” and made on Friday 15 March 2019.
This debate follows as a result of requirements of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and as a consequence of the decision taken by this House on 12 March. Since that date, the House has spoken on two further occasions: on 13 March, the House expressed its opposition to leaving the European Union without a deal; and on 14 March, the House agreed that the Government should seek an extension to article 50. I might add that, in respect of both those votes in this House, neither was legally binding on the Government, but that in each case the Government have honoured the wishes of the House in response to the resolution. I hope that that might provide at least a modicum of reassurance that in this Government we have not been, and we do not intend to be, dismissive in the least of how this House decides or votes.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I am very grateful to the Prime Minister-elect for giving way. He rightly just said that on 13 March this House agreed not to leave the European Union without a deal. In the statement the Prime Minister has just given the House, she said that, unless this House agrees to it, no deal will not happen. Could he explain what she meant by that statement?
Mr Lidington
I thought that what the Prime Minister said was quite clear. The Government believe in the case that we have frequently brought to this House for the deal that we believe is in the interests of the United Kingdom, which both those who supported leave and those who voted remain should be able to rally behind and move forward. We know that the legal default position must remain no deal because, from now on, any decision about this is contingent not only upon the view that this House or the Government might take, but on decisions by the European Council as to whether or not it wishes to extend—
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Lidington
If colleagues will forgive me, I want to reply to one intervention before I move on to others. It was by no means a given that an extension would have been granted at last week’s European Council.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) makes a very important point. As we embark on another very important debate and a number of serious, important debates over the next few days, may I raise with the Minister my concern about the Prime Minister’s speech last Wednesday night? She has apologised—[Interruption.] Well, maybe it was not as clear an apology as we would have liked, but she has given some recognition that perhaps her words were not appropriate. However, I was particularly concerned to see that the clips from her speech were being pumped out across Facebook with targeted advertising, paid for by taxpayers’ money—paid for by the Cabinet Office—into different MPs’ inboxes. Does the Minister agree that, at this time, it is not appropriate to be raising the heat in this debate, and that what we need is an atmosphere of compromise, concern and respect for all the different views across this House, bringing people together, not dividing them further?
Mr Lidington
I do not think anybody in the House would disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments at the end of his intervention, and certainly not my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We are all deeply aware and, looking up at the memorial shield to our former colleague, Jo Cox, I am very sharply reminded of the fact that many Members of this House have been subjected to the most appalling threats, intimidation and online trolling. Every one of us in our individual or representative capacities has a responsibility to ensure that no encouragement or succour is given to those wicked people who seek to act and intimidate in that way.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I return to the point that was made in the first intervention that the Minister took—that is, the Prime Minister’s categorical statement, which I have to say I welcomed today, that unless this House agrees to it, no deal will not happen. That could not be clearer. Given what the Minister rightly said about the need for the European Union then to take decisions that facilitate this, is not the inevitable consequence of what the Prime Minister has told the House today that, unless she gets her deal through, she will have to apply for an extension prior to 12 April?
Mr Lidington
That depends, of course, on what this House decides to do this week. That is the logic, certainly, of the right hon. Gentleman’s argument about my right hon. Friend’s remarks, if we start from the premise that the House were not to approve the withdrawal agreement this week. I hope we will and it is the Government’s intention to persuade the House to approve the withdrawal agreement during this week, in which case the deadline moves forward automatically to 22 May. I repeat the comment that I made earlier in response to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray): the United Kingdom can make a request, but it is not ever a certainty that the European Council will agree to it.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I am very grateful to the putative Prime Minister—I say to him that he could not possibly do a worse job than what we have seen in the past few years. Has the right hon. Gentleman paid attention to the petition that has now been signed by 5.5 million people right across the UK, including over 10% of his constituency? Would he now concur that revocation—just ending this madness once and for all—remains a real-life possibility for this country?
Mr Lidington
No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. In my constituency, the votes were pretty finely balanced in 2016 between the two sides in the referendum. It would not surprise me that 10% of my constituents felt strongly in favour of revocation in the way that he suggests. Obviously, one takes seriously not only the scale and strength of the opinion expressed in the demonstration at the weekend but the number of signatories attracted to the petition, but that does not mean that one can simply ignore or set aside the fact that 17.4 million people voted to leave the EU in 2016.
Mr Lidington
I will give way to my hon. Friend, but then I will try to make some progress.
Mrs Main
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has mentioned the 17.4 million people, many of whom had never voted before, who took the trouble to vote leave in the referendum. Given the recent votes in the House—on no deal, the withdrawal agreement and the second vote—and given that the Prime Minister now seems to have taken no deal off the table, for some of us there are different options to think about. It is vital that the withdrawal agreement comes back before the House, because, if no deal is off the table, much worse deals might well be put forward by this remainer House, and those of us who do not wish to see those happen will feel we have a very bad situation.
Mr Lidington
I certainly hope that we have the opportunity to vote again on the withdrawal agreement this week.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
The Minister has said very clearly that the Government have responded to and honoured two of the motions passed in the last couple of weeks, but what about that huge majority for the withdrawal legislation and leaving on 29 March, which is still on the statute book? Now, because of some agreement stitched up between the Prime Minister and the EU, we will not have the chance to decide or look at that. Is that not constitutionally incorrect—apart from being legally incorrect?
Mr Lidington
I will say a bit more about the statutory instrument in a few minutes, if the hon. Lady will bear with me.
Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con)
I support the Prime Minister’s deal—I think it is a good deal—and I welcome the news that we will be voting on it again, but will my right hon. Friend look closely at the important proposals from my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) to amend the unilateral declaration to provide more certainty, clarity and reassurance to those not yet ready to vote for the deal?
Mr Lidington
I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Government have taken very seriously the comments from our right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and continue to have a dialogue with him and others to find the best way forward.
Mr Lidington
I will give way to my right hon. and learned Friend, then to the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), and then I will make some progress.
Mr Clarke
On the Government’s commitment to avoid no deal, in line with the votes, my right hon. Friend has acceded that the Government do accept last week’s votes, which is in line with the constitutional convention that the Government do not proceed with policies that are rejected by this House of Commons. He has agreed that. Then he said that we therefore either pass the withdrawal agreement, which I have voted for, or ask for an extension, that being the only remedy presumably, but, as he rightly says, we cannot guarantee the Europeans would accept that. However, in line with the wishes of the House and what is now Government policy, if we are driven by the more hard-line people in this House to that circumstance, obviously the Government must revoke, in the hope that we start the whole process again once the House and everybody else has come back to their senses and found a consensus on how to proceed on the question of our future relations with the rest of the world.
Mr Lidington
With all respect, I disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend. I think he underestimates quite how severe the damage would be to already fragile public confidence in our democratic processes if the House voted to revoke the implementation of a decision that the majority of Members gave to the electorate in 2016, saying they would abide by their decision.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Lidington
I will give way to the hon. Member for Cardiff West, then the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and, then, if the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) will forgive me, I will make some progress.
Mr Lidington
I will make some progress, but I will happily give way to my right hon. and learned Friend later.
Kevin Brennan
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman; he is being extremely generous. I cannot see how any deal can proceed without a public vote at the end of the process, given the circumstances. On the question of today’s business, the Prime Minister said earlier that the Government were prepared to seek to provide time—I think those were her words—to discuss indicative options. Will he clarify what exactly she meant by that? When are the Government prepared to do it and for how long, and can he confirm that what the options are would be in the hands of the House?
Mr Lidington
I will gladly do so, but I ask colleagues to bear with me and permit me to complete page 1 of my speech and move to subsequent sections. Then I might be able to throw a bit more light on some of the questions being posed to me. I will give way to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, but then I am going to make some progress.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
My assessment of where we are is that a majority does exist for the withdrawal agreement—the technical aspect of our leaving the EU—but the differences and difficulty are on the political declaration and where that may take us, where we may end up in that situation and what support and clarity the House will have in that process. Can the Minister give some assurances that the House will have a clear role in the next stage of the negotiations, so that we can avoid this merry-go-round at the next stage?
Mr Lidington
Yes, indeed. It is something to which the Government have been giving a lot of thought and has featured in conversations that Ministers have been having with Members across the House not just in the last few days but in the last several weeks. Various models could be adopted. In particular, there would be the question of the role of Select Committees—the Brexit Select Committee and other relevant departmental Select Committees—in the different aspects of that very wide-ranging negotiation. One lesson I have drawn from the experience of the last couple of years is that the House will insist on having a say and will find ways to express its view, including some novel initiatives. The reality is that the House is going to have a say and influence as the negotiations proceed, and I would hope that the agreement that I believe the Government will eventually succeed in striking will command widespread public support.
Mr Lidington
All right, I will break my rule, but then I hope that the House will allow me to move on.
Mr Grieve
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his characteristic courtesy. May I take him back to his answer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who raised the issue of revocation? I rather share my right hon. Friend’s view that revocation would be a drastic act, but the fact that so many people are signing up to advocate it is probably a reflection of a growing level of exasperation. Is it not the case that the better course of action, rather than unilateral revocation, is to go back and ask the public whether they want the Prime Minister’s deal, with the alternative being remain? That would show respect for the 2016 referendum result. My anxiety is this: the Government boxed themselves in with red lines in their negotiations with the EU; now they are boxing themselves in with red lines in relation to the options available to the House to resolve the current crisis. I also worry, if the stories about the Cabinet minutes are correct, that some of the reasons appear to be very narrow and partisan, at a time when a national crisis should be requiring us to look more widely. Those of us who try to do that get vilified, but I am quite prepared to put up with that because I think it is where the national interest lies.
Mr Lidington
One thing I can say with great confidence is that, above all, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, according to all my observation of her approach to these negotiations and the subsequent parliamentary proceedings, has been motivated entirely by what is right for the national interest. Judging the national interest certainly involves looking at the content and terms of the arrangements for our departure, but it also means taking account of the fact of the referendum result in 2016, and the political and democratic reality that it represents.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Lidington
I am going to make some progress.
During its meeting last week, the European Council approved the legally binding assurances in relation to the Northern Ireland backstop that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had negotiated with President Juncker a fortnight ago. As my right hon. Friend has explained, that should give additional assurance to Members that in the unlikely event that the backstop were ever used it would be only temporary, and that the United Kingdom and the European Union would begin work immediately to replace it with alternative arrangements by the end of December 2020. The Council also agreed—subject to a vote in this House—to approve the withdrawal agreement this week. The date of our departure from the EU would be extended to 22 May to provide time for the House to agree and ratify a Brexit deal, and to pass the necessary legislation to make that possible.
However, the Council agreed that in the event that the House did not approve the withdrawal agreement this week, article 50 should be extended only until 12 April. At that point, we would have two options: we could leave without a deal, or we would need to have agreed an alternative plan for a longer extension with the European Union, and the EU would have to have accepted that. It is very clear from what EU leaders and the EU institutions have said that that a longer extension would require elections to the European Parliament to be held in the United Kingdom.
On 14 March, I told the House that in the event that Members had not approved a meaningful vote by 20 March and agreed a timetable for the withdrawal agreement Bill, the Government would recognise that the House would require time to consider the potential ways forward. The Government stand by the commitment that I set out that day that in such a scenario, having consulted the usual channels at that time, they would facilitate a process, in the two weeks after the March European Council, to allow the House to seek a majority on the way forward. Since then my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have acted on that commitment, and have engaged constructively with Members on both sides of the House in recent days. Between us we have met leaders of all parties as well as other senior parliamentarians, and that process is ongoing; my right hon. Friend met the Leader of the Opposition earlier today. Those discussions will continue.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
There are reports today that, in those discussions with the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister put forward a proposal to decouple the withdrawal agreement from the political declaration as a way of seeking compromise. Are those reports correct, and, if so, what was the response of the Labour Front Bench?
Mr Lidington
The European Council conclusions specify that it is approval of the withdrawal agreement that counts in respect of whether there is an extension to 22 May. Of course, the requirements in the European Council conclusions are different in scope from what is required under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to constitute a meaningful vote.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
My right hon. Friend may know what I am going to ask, because I asked the Prime Minister this question and she suggested that I ask him. I do so as someone who, as he knows, voted to support the agreement last time, and will vote to do so again.
My right hon. Friend has just said that the Government will facilitate the discussion of alternative arrangements in the two weeks following the European Council should the deal not, for whatever reason, succeed. We are already eating into those two weeks. He urges us to resist the so-called Letwin amendment for various reasons, which I understand to some degree, but he has not yet specified a timetable for when the Government will present their own means and terms of facilitation. Let me ask my him what I asked the Prime Minister: when?
Mr Lidington
As I said a moment ago, the discussions with other parties and Members on both sides of the House will continue, but I can confirm that the Government would seek to provide Government time in order for the process to proceed. If the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) is not passed tonight, we will set aside time for a first day of debate later this week, and after that day’s debate has been concluded, we will consider and consult on what further time, if any, might be needed. If, on the other hand, my right hon. Friend’s amendment is carried, the consequence for the control of the Order Paper will be that the decisions will be very much a matter for my right hon. Friend and the House more generally, given the terms in which the amendment has been drafted.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be free votes on the Government side of the House if that situation arises?
Mr Lidington
I think it would be premature to say anything about whipping at this stage, because we do not currently know exactly what the content of any options might be, what amendments to them might conceivably be tabled, or which of those amendments the Chair might be willing to accept. However, I know that my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip will have heard my hon. Friend’s representations.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
The reason the Prime Minister’s statement last Wednesday was so disappointing—and we are hearing it today—is that this is not about the 17 million any more than it is about the 16 million; it is about everyone who lives in this country and has a stake in its future. People are looking at what is happening and feeling absolute frustration and despair, because the people whom they elected to make decisions and make this work have not found a way through the difficulties. Now, with the indicative votes that are coming, we have an opportunity to make a breakthrough and find some common ground, but it would require the Prime Minister to depart from the red lines and learn to compromise. What advice would the Minister offer to her in this circumstance?
Mr Lidington
I am afraid that one thing about which I am very clear indeed is that I am very willing to—and do—offer advice to my right hon. Friend, but I talk about that advice to her in private, not in the House.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Many of my constituents are emailing me asking me to vote for amendment (a) tonight. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that even if that amendment is not passed, if we have not passed the withdrawal agreement, the Government will make time for indicative votes? Will those votes happen this week or next week?
Mr Lidington
As I said a moment ago, if amendment (a) is not passed, we will make available a first day this week for the process to which we have committed ourselves to proceed. It may be that further time would be needed, but that would be a matter for consideration after the first day had concluded.
Mr Lidington
I will give way first to the hon. Member for Leicester West and then to the right hon. Member for Broxtowe, but after that—I hope that the House will forgive me—I will try to move on.
Liz Kendall
The right hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way.
If amendment (a) is voted down and the Government do indeed propose their own slot, will they determine the options on which the House will vote, or will Members of Parliament do so?
Mr Lidington
The hon. Lady has pre-empted my next paragraph. I was about to say that we do not think it is for the Government to tell the House what options it should and should not consider—that should be a matter for the House—but that, in turn, does not mean that the Government will be silent about the options that might be debated. We will certainly continue to be strong advocates for the deal that we have negotiated, and we will continue to urge Members in all parts of the House to be realistic.
Anna Soubry
The right hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time, but can he help us with this? Is it the Government’s plan that those votes will relate to the withdrawal agreement, or will they deal only with the political declaration? As he knows, there is a profound difference between the two: if the former, the withdrawal agreement, passes it will be a treaty and go into international law, but the political declaration is non-binding.
Mr Lidington
If the right hon. Lady will bear with me, I want to come on to that shortly.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
My right hon. Friend has said that the Government are going to reject, or try to reject, the so-called Letwin amendment this evening but will then make Government time available for roughly the same thing. So as far as I can see, the only objection to the amendment is that it has been tabled by a Back Bencher and not by the Government. Would this not all be resolved if my right hon. Friend confirmed that the Government will make this Wednesday available for the purpose, since we do not have much time? It seems to me that we would then all be in total agreement and be able to proceed to the indicative votes.
Mr Lidington
Until we have had the Division this evening, assuming there is one, on the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), we will not know whether Wednesday is available for the Government’s disposal or whether it will fall to other means of consideration.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I am genuinely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but this is hopeless: he cannot argue against a perfectly sensible amendment, which is reasonable in the circumstances, in the name of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) on the basis that the Government are going to propose something similar without at this stage saying on what day, for how long, on what conditions, and on what range of motions. If he is saying that Parliament should not be in control because the Government ought to be in control, then surely it is reasonable to expect the Government to actually be in control, to have some sense of what the process is, and to provide some clarity now, otherwise we might as well troop through the Lobby to vote for the amendment.
Mr Lidington
There is a matter of constitutional principle here. We are saying that it is for the Government to control the Order Paper, as is normal, but in this case we would devote our time to consideration of the measures that the House wanted to see debated and decided.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Is it not the case that it is common practice in a debate for the Government to welcome an amendment proposed by Members on the Back Benches or representing Opposition parties? From what I have heard, my right hon. Friend is going to do on Wednesday exactly what amendment (a) says, so would not the easiest thing to do be just to accept amendment (a) tonight?
Mr Lidington
The difference between me and my hon. Friend on this occasion is that I take the view, and the Government take the view, that amendment (a) would upset the balance between legislature and Executive in a way that would set an unwelcome precedent, and it is for that reason that we are not supporting it.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be grateful for your guidance on the whole question of Standing Order No. 14, given that we operate a system of parliamentary Government, not government by Parliament. That is for a good reason: in a nutshell, Government business takes precedence under Standing Order No. 14 because it is the wish of the majority of Members of Parliament, who form the Government, and therefore the wishes of the electorate are at stake. Would you be kind enough to answer my question, Mr Speaker, since I regard this to be a matter of fundamental constitutional importance?
Mr Speaker
I very much look forward to listening to the speech that the hon. Gentleman might make in the course of the debate, and he knows that he can always look to me and very much expect to catch my eye. So far as the Standing Order is concerned, the fact of its presence is well known to everybody, but the House is the owner of the Standing Orders, and if a proposition is put to the House for a change in those arrangements, including in a particular case the suspension of a Standing Order or more than one Standing Order, it is perfectly credible and reasonable that that should be put to the House. I did announce my provisional selection of amendments earlier, and I do not think—although I accept that the hon. Gentleman objects to this amendment—that it came as any great surprise that the cross-party amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) was selected. As to whether it is acceptable to the House, that remains to be seen. It is obviously not acceptable to the hon. Gentleman, and we will hear further and better particulars of his objection in due course.
Mr Lidington
I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and I promise him that I had not intended to intervene in his speech, unlike almost everybody else sitting in the Chamber today, but he does force me to do so because I wonder whether he can clarify the following slightly different point. Given that his objection to our amendment is ostensibly simply the constitutional one, and given that that could be entirely resolved by the Government accepting the amendment—or indeed could have been resolved on Thursday or Friday, when it was tabled, by the Government signing it and turning it into a Government amendment, in which case a Minister’s name would have been at the top of the list—could my right hon. Friend simply tell us whether on Wednesday, if our amendment fails, the Government intend to operate exactly the same principles as are contained within that amendment, or whether the Government have some other plan about how to construct the day?
Mr Lidington
I cannot give a commitment immediately for that or of that level of detail, but I will have further discussions, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union might be able to respond to the point in greater detail in his winding-up speech.
Mr Lidington
I am always over-tempted to give way to interventions, and I am deeply conscious that on the last two occasions that I came to this Dispatch Box I spoke for over an hour in total because of the number of interventions I permitted, so I will try to make some progress as I am sure many Members in all parts of the House want to catch your eye, Mr Speaker, and contribute to the debate.
Whatever options are put forward—this starts to address the issue raised by the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry)—will need to be negotiable with the EU, and in particular any deal will require the withdrawal agreement that not only we but the 27 other Governments of the EU member states have negotiated. The conclusions of the European Council last week could not have been clearer: EU member states are not prepared to consider any reopening of the terms of the withdrawal agreement which for them, as well as for us, represented the outcome of a lengthy period of negotiation and compromise on both sides. And this is one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was clear earlier this afternoon that the Government cannot simply pre-commit to accepting whatever might come out of this process. It is entirely possible that this House votes for something that is neither realistic nor negotiable; for example, it could vote to seek further changes to the withdrawal agreement, which the EU has been clear is simply not possible. Equally, the House could vote to maintain all the benefits of the single market without agreeing to the obligations, such as alignment with state aid rules or the free movement of people, but the EU has been clear that the four freedoms are indivisible.
Of course we will engage constructively with Members across the House on whatever the outcome of this process is, but we continue to believe that the amendment tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset would be an unwelcome precedent to set, in that it would overturn the balance between Parliament and the Government. In the event that his amendment were carried tonight, we would obviously want to have a dialogue with him and his co-sponsors about how he proposed to take those measures forward.
I want to add a few words to what the Prime Minister said about the statutory instrument that has been published today on the extension of article 50. Now that the United Kingdom and the European Union have agreed an extension to article 50 and it has been embodied in a legal decision of the European Council, the date needs to be amended to reflect in our domestic law the new point at which the EU treaties will cease to apply in the United Kingdom. The Government have therefore tabled today a draft statutory instrument under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 that provides for both of the possible extensions: 12 March and 22 May.
Mr Lidington
Did I misspeak? I meant 12 April. This will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure so that it will be debated in each House, and it must come into force by 11 pm on 29 March. The purpose of this is to ensure that our statute book reflects the extension of article 50, which is legally binding in international law. Without this instrument, there would be a clash in domestic law because contrary provisions would apply both EU rules and new domestic rules simultaneously.
Sir William Cash
As I said earlier to the Prime Minister, the commencement order has not yet been brought into force, so will my right hon. Friend give me the lawful authority whereby the decision endorsed by the authority of Sir Tim Barrow was consistent with the vires of the original enactment under section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018?
Mr Lidington
I will try to give my hon. Friend a brief answer now, but the best thing would be for me or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to write swiftly and formally to him in his capacity as Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee to set out the answer for him.
Mr Lidington
No, I will not give way, because I want to try to give my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) the short answer that I promised him a second ago.
The purpose of the statutory instrument is to reflect the extension agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union. The Government will now therefore delay the commencement of the repeal of the European Communities Act. A commencement order is required under section 25(4) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act to give effect to this repeal. The timing of that commencement order will depend on the date on which we leave the European Union. As a matter of both EU and international law, the effect of the European Council decision is that we are not leaving the European Union on 29 March. It would therefore be wrong to commence the repeal contained in section 1 of the withdrawal Act on that date. In making that change, having sought an extension, the Government have acted on the basis of the resolutions that were passed by this House. The House did not want to leave on 29 March without a deal, and it explicitly voted in favour of the Government seeking an extension to article 50.
Mr Speaker
As a matter of general practice, it is well established that EU law trumps UK national law. I am not saying anything controversial there. As to the particular circumstances here, the answer is that I might well pronounce upon it but I would be extremely foolish to do so off the top of my head. I may be able to sate the curiosity of the hon. Lady, which will be widely shared across the House, but I am afraid that it is not within my gift to do so now. It is better to give a valid and informative answer later than to give an invalid, uninformative and potentially misleading answer now.
Mr Lidington
Without the statutory instrument, there would be a clash in domestic law because contradictory provisions would apply both EU rules and new domestic rules simultaneously. It is therefore important that the instrument be approved by Parliament so that we can ensure that our statute book accurately reflects the fact that the UK will now remain a member state until at least 11 pm on 12 April.
I should like to turn briefly to the amendments that you have selected, Mr Speaker, other than amendment (a), which we have already debated at some length. Turning to amendment (d), the Prime Minister and I have had constructive meetings with hon. Members from the main Opposition party in recent days, and the Prime Minister met the Leader of the Opposition earlier this afternoon. On that basis, I would say to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) that the amendment is not necessary. I would also say that the official Opposition’s amendment demonstrates one thing very clearly—namely, that none of the changes that it seeks to secure are changes to the withdrawal agreement. The inference I draw from that is that the official Opposition now support the withdrawal agreement, and I hope that when the right hon. and learned Gentleman comes to speak, he will be able to confirm that he and his party accept that all possible deals with the European Union should include this withdrawal agreement and that that is also the clear will of the European Council.
I understand completely the motive behind amendment (f), tabled in the name of the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett). It instructs the Government to report by 9 April on how we would ensure that the United Kingdom did not leave without a deal if the deal had not been approved by that point. Consistently throughout this process, the Government have accepted that we would need to come back to the Dispatch Box if the House had not supported the withdrawal agreement by the end of this week.
I recognise that the House has now voted twice against leaving the European Union without a deal. However, I have to say to the right hon. Lady and her co-sponsors there would be only two options before the House in the circumstances envisaged in her amendment. There would be the option, called for earlier by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), of the revocation of article 50, but that is not a temporary measure; it would not result in a mere stay in the proceedings. The Court of Justice of the European Union has made it clear that revocation would have to be permanent and a decision taken in good faith. The other option would be for us to ask for a long extension, but that would mean running elections for the European Parliament nearly three years after the vote of the British public to leave. Of course, it would also rely on the EU agreeing to such a long extension, which would by no means be assured.
Unless the House were prepared to support one of those two options, the legal default under European law would be that the treaties would cease to apply, whatever the right hon. Member for Derby South might wish, and we would have to leave without a deal. The way forward is for the House to accept the deal, particularly this week, to approve the withdrawal agreement and to secure the extension to 22 May.
If Parliament comes together and backs the Brexit deal, we will leave the European Union by 22 May. We can then end three years of divisive debate and uncertainty, allow the country to move on towards a new future outside the European Union and devote ourselves to the important work of negotiating a deep and special partnership with our European friends and neighbours, which the Conservative party promised in our election manifesto. The Government will make every effort to ensure that we are able to leave with a deal and move our country forward to allow those who voted leave and those who voted remain to come together in looking to the future. It is in that spirit that I commend this motion to the House.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has got herself and the Government into a hopeless position. Having disregarded views from across this House for the best part of two years, the Government now find themselves with a deal that they just cannot get through this House, and time has almost run out. Today, we see that they sort of agree with an initiative to break the impasse, but they also do not agree with it.
All that must be seen in the context of the Prime Minister losing control of the meaningful vote. In truth, we have no idea when or if it will be put again or whether it is winnable. I listened carefully to the Prime Minister’s statement this afternoon, and she said that she had gauged that there was “still not sufficient support” for the deal, but she would continue discussions so that she could bring forward a vote this week. We have been in that loop since 10 December. She says, “I don’t think there’s enough support. I am going to have further discussions, and I am going to put the vote again.” She has lost control of that process.
The Prime Minister has also lost control of the negotiations. That much is clear from the European Council’s decision last Thursday. When the Government were asked, “What happens if the meaningful vote fails?” there was no answer. That created a real anxiety that we could crash out this Friday without a deal. It was in those circumstances that the EU acted as it did in putting forward the dates of 12 April and 22 May, so the Government have lost control of the very negotiations.
The Prime Minister also appears to have lost control of the Conservative party. There have already been too many jokes about whether the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is the Deputy Prime Minister or the putative Prime Minister, so I will scratch them from my speech, but it is clear that control of the party is gone. Tonight, it is likely that the Prime Minister and the Government are going to lose control of Parliament and of the process in circumstances in which, arguably, they do not need to, because they could have acted last week. The sense that we have to move forward was in the debate last week. It is not new today, because it was clear that many Members want to find a way forward and feel a duty to break the deadlock. That was the subject matter of last week’s debate, but instead of a constructive discussion about how we do it, we will probably divide on this motion.
Kevin Brennan
On breaking the impasse, the Conservative manifesto has been cited, but is it not the case that manifestos need to win a mandate in order to be implementable? The Conservative party did not win a mandate at the last general election, because a mandate would mean having an overall majority in this House. Contrary to what the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has said, does that not provide room for the Government to be more flexible on this matter?
Keir Starmer
I agree with that sentiment. I have stood here and been critical of the red lines that the Prime Minister put in place at the beginning of the protest, and I have always seen them as the cause of the problem, but today is not really about an inquisition into that—although there will have to be one—because it is about whether we can find a way forward. I honestly think that many Members want to find a way forward and have been working to that end.
Gareth Snell
The Prime Minister was rightly questioned by Labour Members earlier as to whether she would honour and be bound by the result if the House were to come together on indicative votes and find a way forward, but the Prime Minister was unwilling to say that she would be. If this House comes forward and finds a majority for a deal that is different from Labour party policy, would we be bound by that and would we whip in favour of it?
Keir Starmer
I listened carefully to what the Prime Minister said, and I will say something about that in a minute. I think she was saying that she would not say in advance whether she would be bound, and we need to probe that, because it is an important point. However, we are getting slightly ahead of ourselves. The process that is envisaged, in the first instance, is to test whether there is a majority among different propositions, and we need to get to that stage.
Sir William Cash
I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman understands that although amendment (a) is in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), in reality there are only 14 or 15 Conservative names on that amendment so, to all intents and purposes, it is the number of Opposition Members who would carry it. How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer the charge that that is inconsistent with our constitutionally accountable Government under Standing Order No. 14? How does he answer the point that an attempt to do so would effectively seek to reverse both the referendum result and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 itself?
Keir Starmer
I honestly cannot see how exploring whether there is a majority for a different approach is inconsistent with anything that we have done so far. It is actually what we should have done two years ago, because the referendum answered just one question, which was whether more people would rather be in or out of the EU. It did not answer the next huge question, which was, “If we vote out, what sort of future relationship should there be?” That required serious and considered discussion, and really should have been discussed in this House to see whether we could reach an agreement.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) asked a serious question a moment ago about whether the Labour party would regard itself as bound to give support to any majority that emerges—the same question that we were putting to the Government. The whole thing is pointless if the Labour party is going to whip on all these indicative votes and then whip against a majority if that is not consistent with its manifesto, which also did not get the majority support of the public at the last election. We resolved all this in 1972—I apologise, because I do not normally go back into the depths of history—by having free votes on each side, because it would have been fatuous for the Front Benches to go as part of the process. Will the Labour party have free votes? Will it be bound by whatever majorities might emerge from the indicative voting?
Keir Starmer
If amendment (a) is passed tonight there will be an intense discussion about how the process will take place and what the options will be. When we see those options, the Labour party will take decisions about how to whip—[Interruption.] Let me complete the point. If one of the options is no deal, we will of course whip against it. If that is the outcome, we will reject it. Of course, we need to see the options.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I am glad to hear my right hon. and learned Friend say that the Labour party will whip against no deal, because we are talking about my constituents’ jobs. Does he agree that these questions about the constitution are not new? By definition under our constitution the thing that wins votes in this House is the Government, and it was hardly Back-Benchers who broke that convention.
Keir Starmer
I agree with my hon. Friend. In a sense, we are in this place only because there is no other way to break the deadlock or the impasse.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if the Prime Minister had not tried to exclude Parliament completely from having a say—she had to be dragged kicking and screaming by the Supreme Court to allow us to legislate on triggering article 50—and if she had had a proper cross-party process and a national debate with a Green Paper and a proper White Paper, instead of springing things already decided on this House at the last possible minute, she would have considerably more good will in this place and there would have been a chance for us to do what should be done to get the withdrawal agreement through Parliament because it would have been done properly? We are now scrambling at the last possible minute simply because she has not done the job properly.
Keir Starmer
I could not agree more. It is a matter of record that the Prime Minister did not want a vote even on triggering article 50, on which we got a vote only because of a Supreme Court decision. She did not want a meaningful vote, which we got, in the teeth of the Government whipping against it, only because we won a vote. It is true that, every time, the Government have whipped strongly against any amendments about objectives, including a very controversial whipping exercise in the summer that threw up a debate about maternity leave. The idea that the Government have been genuinely open to debate, and have been willing to listen to where the House is, is just not true. We really should have gone through this exercise two years ago, but I understand the argument that we are where we are and we now have to find a way forward, which is why we support amendment (a).
If we are to find a way forward, we need to be clear about what we are not prepared to do. There is no way forward that includes blaming Members of this House for the mess we are in. There is no way forward that includes whipping up a sense of the people versus MPs. There is no way forward based on the notion that Members on either side of the House who persistently and forcefully advance their views, whatever those views may be, are indulging in some kind of illegitimate exercise—they are not. They are making important points on behalf of their constituents and in the national interest. They are doing their job.
I heard the Prime Minister say earlier that she did not intend her comments last week to have that effect, and I am not sure what I am more concerned about: that she made the comments, or that she did not appreciate how they would be heard in the environment in which we live. Nor can we find a way forward based simply on the proposition of putting and reputting the same meaningful vote. The fact that we are even discussing meaningful vote 3, or even meaningful vote 4, only has to be said to be seen to be absurd. The deal has been roundly rejected twice. We now need to move on, and I hope we can begin that process tonight.
Anna Soubry
The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have listened with great care to what the Minister for the Cabinet Office said about the Government’s alternative if amendment (a) fails to win a majority. Does he share my concern that the Government would, in effect, only allow indicative votes on the political declaration? The assumption would be that the withdrawal agreement will go through and cannot be touched or amended. In that event, is this nothing more than a Government ruse to get the withdrawal agreement through via some back-door method?
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s intervention. I listened carefully to what the Minister for the Cabinet Office said in relation to the withdrawal agreement. This is no disrespect to him, because I do respect him, but trust in the Government is not where it should be. This is not to disrespect anyone sitting on the Government Front Bench, but when we voted to take a no deal off the table, and when we voted on an extension, we were voting on the basis of what he said from that Dispatch Box about a short extension, in the event that the meaningful vote failed, being reckless.
When the letter to President Tusk was written last week, some of us were therefore taken aback and did not think it reflected what this House had decided. That is now one of the problems in relation to this exercise, because there is a lack of trust. If amendment (a) is not passed this evening, we may find that we are not where we thought we would be when we get to Wednesday, Thursday and Friday—it would not be the first time.
The decision of the European Council to grant an extension to article 50 was a necessity and, in truth, the only way to prevent our leaving without a deal on 29 March, but, as I have said, any extension must be for a purpose, which is why we need to come together to decide that purpose. The Minister for the Cabinet Office said two weeks ago, and he elaborated on it today, that the Government would consult the other parties through the usual channels and work to provide a process by which the House could form a majority to take things forward. It seems that the Government agree with what amendment (a) intends to achieve. If it is passed, MPs will decide the options, which is right. The Government say that would give too much control to MPs, but then they say, “If it doesn’t go through, we will provide the time. As for the options, that should be for MPs.” If the Government are true to what they say, MPs will decide the options in any event, so the easiest thing would be for the Government simply to signal that they accept the amendment. We could then foreshorten the debate, move forward and start the discussion on how the process will actually work.
Amendment (d), in the name of the Opposition, seeks to achieve that purpose, and amendment (a), in the name of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and others, does so, too. We will be supporting both amendments this evening.
Liz Kendall
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree it is important that MPs should determine not just the options but how those options are voted on? Many hon. Members would be concerned if we voted on one option after another, rather than voting on all at the same time. The benefit of amendment (a) is that it allows precisely that, for MPs to vote on all options at the same time, as well as determining what those options are.
Keir Starmer
My hon. Friend anticipates my next sentence, which is that we recognise that Members will have different views on how the process should go forward. There will have to be intensive discussions over the next couple of days as to how that operates, but it needs to be a process that allows us to arrive at a sustainable majority view.
Ian Murray
My right hon. and learned Friend and his team have done a fantastic job on this issue. Will he try to answer my question, which the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster failed to answer twice this afternoon? The Prime Minister said in her statement that, unless this House agrees to it, a no deal will not happen. What does my right hon. and learned Friend surmise that means? What does he think the Government are trying to achieve?
Keir Starmer
I think it is a version of what has gone before, which is to say that the Government accept there is no majority in this House for a no deal—there certainly is not, and I do not think there ever has been—but, at the same time, to leave the threat of a no deal dangling by some kind of legal default. If the Prime Minister’s comment has meaning, and I hope it does, it ought to commit the Government to take whatever steps are necessary in order to avoid a no deal, otherwise it is meaningless. It is really important that that is established.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Is this not another example of the doublespeak we have come to expect from the Government? Our concern this evening is that we are witnessing another example of doublespeak and, potentially, double dealing. The implication of the Government accepting both the spirit and effect of the Letwin proposal while saying they will not be bound by it and not telling us whether they will do precisely what it says makes us all suspect it is another piece of trickery designed to get this taken off the table tonight, only for us to find that we are no further forward tomorrow.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I do think there is a trust issue. I hope that that can improve. The letter to President Tusk was an example of that because, having supposedly taken no deal off the table, the only extension that was asked for was one in the event that the meaningful vote failed, rather than if it went through. That left the prospect, but for what the European Council decided last Thursday, of no deal this Friday going back on the table, just a week after we thought we had taken it off the table.
So we do need to get into Wednesday. We need to have an intense discussion about how the votes on Wednesday are to be taken and see whether we can reach a consensus about that, reach a majority and find where that lies. We need to consider the credible options. Labour has long advocated a close economic relationship, including a customs union and single market alignment, but we have also made clear our support for a public vote as a lock on any deal that the Prime Minister passes. The Leader of the Opposition and I have met colleagues to discuss these proposals and the other ideas that have been put forward by other colleagues. What we need to do now is to agree the process for having a proper debate and to look at those and other credible options.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is a difference between the people’s vote/public vote option and the others? The others relate to a substantive route forward on Brexit. A public vote is a way of ensuring that there is a broad consensus and the public are behind whatever consensus this House may find favour with.
Keir Starmer
That is a very important intervention. Obviously, discussions will take place in the next two days, but the basic proposition that the House needs to decide the substance of any deal it might be able to support—and, arguably, to look at the process around it separately—is important, because some of these options are not like-for-like options, in that some are about substance and some are about process. It would be perfectly possible to make the argument that, if there is to be a deal, it ought to be what we consider to be the least damaging deal. We could have an argument about what that looks like. Equally, it would be possible to say that, whatever deal there was at the end of that exercise, it ought to be subject to the lock or safeguard of some sort of confirmation vote. I do not know. I am not anticipating how the votes would go, but I can see that one of those decisions is about the substance of the issue and the second is about the process. We are going to have to grapple with that before Wednesday.
Mr Grieve
I agree entirely with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said, as indeed I agree with the question to him from my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening). He may also agree that it is going to be important, in the course of this debate and how we structure it, that we make sure we can provide reassurance that Members can vote for what they see as preferred outcomes without in any way having the sense that they might be forfeiting the right also to the insistence that that has to go to the public, whatever it might be.
Keir Starmer
I agree with that because otherwise we inhibit the likelihood of finding a majority. Therefore, that will require careful thought going into Wednesday.
Let us assume, for the moment, that we can find a process that most Members are content with and that we can then move towards a majority view. It may take some time. I, for one, am troubled by the idea that, in one afternoon, all of this can be solved. It may be that all we can do is start down a process of finding a majority. It would be wrong to rush at this at this stage of the exercise. But assuming that can be done, it raises the million-dollar question: if the House does find a majority, will the Government accept the result?
I understand and respect the position of the Prime Minister, who says, “I need to know what the options are and what the result is before I can answer that question.” I understand the logic of that and it is a fair point, but what I do not want is—wrapped up in that perfectly reasonable, logical answer—to find, in a week or two, or whenever it may be, that whatever outcome is agreed upon by a majority it will never be accepted by the Government and we are back to where we started. That is my concern about the exercise. So when the Government say they will go into it in good faith, that has to mean that, if there is a majority, the Government will look very seriously at supporting where that majority view is and not simply rule it out. The red lines are the very thing we are trying to break. If the Government apply their own red lines to any outcome and say, “It does not fit our red lines”, there is not much point going through the exercise in the first place because it is precisely to remove those red lines that we are going forward.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. and learned Friend is making a powerful point about the absurdity of an ill-designed referendum that asked for a simplistic answer to a very complex question. Nobody can really understand what that 52% who voted leave wanted because it was so ill-defined and so massive. The Government have arrogantly assumed that they have a monopoly of wisdom on what that leave vote meant and hold Parliament in contempt in pursuit of it. Is it not the reality that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, something like a confirmatory public vote would be entirely logically coherent, and that it is bizarre that the Prime Minister, despite not having a mandate or a majority, seems so pig-headed in not actually reaching out to the House of Commons to pursue that sort of consensus-building approach?
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that intervention. On this question of the Government accepting the outcome, if they simply reject whatever is the outcome of this exercise, they will be doubling down on one of the big mistakes of the past two years, which is to push Parliament away and not let Parliament express its view as to where the majority is. That is one reason we are in this mess. For two and a half years the Government have pushed Parliament away at every turn and we need now to find a mechanism, albeit a constitutionally innovative one, to break through that.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Does my right hon. and learned Friend not recognise that, in some areas, there is huge opposition among the electorate to having European elections, but there is the opportunity, through the withdrawal agreement Bill, should it ever be reached, for every single option being potentially proposed on Wednesday to be put as amendments, including the customs union? Has he considered that as an option?
Keir Starmer
I have, not least because my hon. Friend raised it with me last week. The difficulty is that the EU argues that, once the withdrawal agreement and political declaration are agreed, we cannot, through domestic legislation, change the terms of those documents. Therefore, whatever amendment is put down to the legislation, it could not alter the terms of the political declaration. So it is not accurate to say that all of this could be swept up with the implementation Bill, because the words in the document that we are seeking to implement have to be the ones that the House is happy with and thus has agreed before we get to that stage. Some things could be dealt with in the implementation Bill—I do not quarrel with that—but the EU will not countenance this House changing the terms of the EU’s agreement through amendments to the Bill. That was one of the concerns the Government rightly put in relation to the meaningful vote. When we were saying that there should be amendments to the meaningful vote, the Government’s position was that we cannot really have amendments because this House cannot amend the substance of the document.
Keir Starmer
I will give way, but then I am going to make some progress because I realise how long I have been talking.
John Mann
Would my right hon. and learned Friend not also accept, on the proposal put to him this afternoon of having separate votes on the political declaration and the withdrawal agreement, that it is the political declaration that is up for steering what happens in the next phase, whereas the EU has made it clear that the withdrawal agreement itself is not for renegotiation with anyone, at any time?
Keir Starmer
I certainly accept the proposition that the EU has said that the withdrawal agreement is not for reopening at any stage, and it has resisted that for month after month from the Government. But I remind myself and the House that in the letter that Presidents Tusk and Juncker wrote to the Prime Minister in January they were clear that the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration are part of the “same negotiated package”. I believe those were their words. I also remind myself and the House that under section 13 the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration go together. That does not mean that there are not different views on the agreement and on the declaration, but they are part of the same negotiated package.
Keir Starmer
I am going to make some progress now, because I wish to indicate that we would have supported amendment (c) and that we do support amendment (f), tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett). Amendment (f) addresses a different point, which is how to prevent a no-deal outcome and ensure that the House can shape the extension process. We thought we had cleared up those matters some weeks ago, but it is important that we come back to my right hon. Friend’s amendment so that we can reassert the position going forward.
Tonight really is about the opportunity to bring to an end the Government’s failed approach. For two years, they have not put forward a credible plan, or really listened to other alternatives. I used to say that the Prime Minister was surviving by the week, but I changed that to saying she was surviving by the day; now, she appears to be surviving by the hour to get through to Wednesday. Enough is enough. We cannot go on like this. The country deserves better. Parliament must take back control. We have the chance to do that tonight and we should do it.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
Amendment (a) has already been much discussed in the course of this debate, and I do not want to detain the House long. First, though, I wish to say what it is trying to do and what it is not trying to do. It is not some kind of massive constitutional revolution, although I know that some of my hon. Friends and others have suggested that it is. The truth is that, as you said yourself earlier in the debate, Mr Speaker, the House has since its inception owned its Standing Orders. In fact, under the principle of comity—one of the most fundamental principles of our constitution—the courts have never sought to intervene in the proceedings of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and have recognised that the House in each case controls its own proceedings.
As a matter of fact, the idea that it is an ancient constitutional principle that the Government should control the Order Paper is slightly anhistorical, if that is the right word, because the practice started in 1906, so it is not, as far as I am aware, part of our ancient constitution. For about 400 or 500 years, things that either were the House of Commons or were very much like it controlled their own Order Papers. That changed at the beginning of the 20th century, but what did not change was the fundamental point that the way that Standing Orders are decided is by a majority vote in the House of Commons, and therefore they can be adjusted by such a vote and, if so adjusted, the adjusted version is what applies.
Every time there is a private Members Bill Friday, astonishingly, the Government do something that we are apparently now entreated to regard as utterly revolutionary—they hand over to private Members the opportunity to put forward Bills. According to this soi-disant constitutional theory that has been invented, that must be a kind of revolution, because it is not the Government putting forward a Bill, but in fact we have been doing it perfectly happily for years. So there is no revolutionary intent behind the amendment at all.
The second point I wish to make is about what the amendment does do. It does exactly what has been described in the debate; namely, it provides an opportunity, simply and nothing more, for the House of Commons to begin—I stress, to begin—the process of working its way towards identifying a way forward that can command a majority in this House.
I wish to reflect for a second on my own personal history in this matter. I find sometimes from the communications, not always utterly polite, that I receive from various quarters on my iPhone, that it is supposed that I have from the beginning attempted to destroy the Government’s efforts to carry out an orderly Brexit. That is obviously a more amusing story than the real one, but the real one is very sad and ordinary. I started as an entirely loyal member of the Conservative party. I had never voted against the Conservative Whip in my entire parliamentary career—not once. What is more, although I voted remain in the referendum, I was absolutely determined that we should continue our proceedings by ensuring that we fulfilled the mandate of the British people and left the European Union.
For a long while, although I personally thought from the very beginning that the Prime Minister was unwise to set out her red lines, I swallowed my concerns about them and utterly supported her in her endeavour to get her version of leave across the line. Indeed, on frequent occasions, as several of my right hon. and hon. Friends will recall, I acted as a kind of broker to try to bring together my European Research Group colleagues with other colleagues who now sit in various parts of the House, to produce results—some of which are now encoded, as a matter of fact, in section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. It was my endeavour to make this a process that enabled the Prime Minister to get to the end of the road successfully.
I have fulfilled that endeavour by trying to vote with the Prime Minister on every occasion on which she has brought a section 13 motion to the House. I apologise to Opposition Members for saying that I will do that again if the Prime Minister brings forward a meaningful vote 3, or 4, or infinity. I will go on voting for the Prime Minister’s deal, because I happen to think that it is perfectly okay. I am very conscious that many Members do not agree with me.
The problem we have faced—all 650 of us can agree on this—is that we have not been able to get a majority for the Prime Minister’s deal. That is the fact, and it is a problem, because if there is no majority for that deal and we want to leave the EU, we are forced down only one of two possible tracks, one of which is to find an alternative and the other of which is to have no deal. It was at the point a few months back when I surmised that there was a real possibility that the Prime Minister, I think by mistake rather than on purpose, was going to end up taking us out without a deal and without having adequately prepared for that, that I became so concerned that I started to work on a cross-party basis with many colleagues on both sides of the House to try to find a solution. This modest attempt to provide the House with an opportunity to vote in the majority in favour of an alternative way forward is simply part of that process.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
There is a sentiment in the House that we need somehow to compromise. Earlier, I said to the Prime Minister that it was previously unthinkable for me ever to vote for a Brexit deal. Why is it so unthinkable for Government Members to agree to support a people’s vote on whatever Brexit deal we come together for?
Sir Oliver Letwin
If we go through the process that I hope we can inaugurate this evening, one thing we will all have to do is seek compromise. We almost know that if we all vote for our first preference, we will never get to a majority solution. I do not believe there is a majority in favour of the first preferences of any person in this House.
Gareth Snell
We have heard today from the Prime Minister and from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) that there is no immediate guarantee that whatever majority we find in the House will become the established policy of either of the two main political parties. Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that we may end up in a situation in which we manifest a majority for a deal that is not quite right for the Conservative party and not quite right for the Labour party, and then the Whip system will kick in and there will suddenly be no majority in Parliament at all? In my mind, that makes no deal very dangerous and real.
Sir Oliver Letwin
The danger that the hon. Gentleman speaks of is real—we all face it—but there is a solution to it, which is to ensure that as we approach a majority we sufficiently discuss that issue, not only among Back Benchers but with those on the two Front Benches, to ensure that there is what the shadow Secretary of State rightly referred to a few moments ago as a “sustainable majority”. We need not just a majority for something but a majority for something that will continue to persist as the various stages have to be carried through. That must be our aim.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
I have agreed with my right hon. Friend’s every word so far. He has just reached the key moment. As his amendment does not set out precisely the form that the indicative votes will take, there is a real danger that if everybody votes for their first preference, we will not produce a majority for anything. His amendment does not set out the basis on which the indicative vote motions are to be tabled. How are we to resolve the method by which we table them? The opinion of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and myself is that the single transferable vote is the best way to steer people to one conclusion. It will force compromise, except from those who will vote only for their first preference. Unless my right hon. Friend has a better alternative, how does he guard against the danger of nothing getting a majority?
Sir Oliver Letwin
My right hon. and learned Friend is asking what is clearly one of the right questions. I give him two answers. The first is that, if this amendment is passed, we will need to think very seriously over the next 24 hours about the shape of the business of the House motion to determine the process for Wednesday, and indeed about how the process will carry forward beyond that. My own view is that, at least to begin with, it may be wiser simply to disclose where the votes lie on a plain vanilla basis—this point was made very forcefully a few moments ago—with all the voting going on at once, with pink slips in the Lobby at the end of the debate and not sequentially so that we do not have the gaming of sequence. On that basis we could discover which propositions that have been put forward commanded significant support and which did not. We should do so in the hope that, as politicians—we should remind ourselves that we are not just an ordinary electorate, but politicians who have spent our lives in this business—we can, in the succeeding few days, having observed the lie of the land, zero in on a compromise that could get a majority.
My second answer is that I do not at all discount the possibility that, at a later stage—I am sure that there will have to be a later stage, and indeed I hope that the business of the House motion will book a slot for a later stage—we should resort to some other method to crystallise the majority if we find that it is otherwise difficult to do.
Mr Clarke
Given that the process could take a few days more, as my right hon. Friend clearly explains, does that not underline that we had better crack on with this on Wednesday? If the Government will not, for some peculiar unknown reason, commit to Wednesday in their wind-up tonight, it is absolutely essential that we pass his amendment.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I find myself in the very odd position of being slightly more hard-line than my right hon. and learned Friend on this. I am afraid that we have to press this amendment tonight, because I do not believe that the Government have a clear view of how they would conduct this process. The terms of the amendment, which have been very carefully considered over quite a long time, are structured in a way that maximises our flexibility and our capacity as a House to work together. We should work with Members on both Front Benches on formulating Wednesday in the best possible way and producing a business of the House motion that, if possible, is a matter of consensus. That is best done under the framework of this amendment, and we should press it tonight.
Stephen Doughty
I will support the right hon. Gentleman’s amendment tonight, and I am happy to have put my name to it. What he said about not rushing through this all in one day is a very important point. We need time. There are reasonable concerns that people do not want suddenly to be deciding on the future relationship of the country, potentially for the next 40 years, in a couple of hours in here. I was pleased to hear what he said about this being the start of a process. Does he agree that in getting together and setting that business of the House motion, we must ensure that it is a fair, balanced process that enjoys the confidence of Members in all parts of the House—all parties and all persuasions—and that it is not seen as loaded in one direction or the other, or indeed in favour of the Government’s policy?
Sir Oliver Letwin
I thoroughly agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is possible—and, above all, it should be possible for us at this juncture—to ensure that the neutrality of the process is guaranteed. Of course we will have conflicting views about the ideal outcome, but if we are to come together on an outcome that all of us can tolerate, and that will consequently achieve a sustainable majority, we will have to ensure that everybody recognises the process by which we get to it as being fair and neutral as between the various options.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Of course I shall give way, but if the right hon. Members will allow me, I did indicate earlier that I would give way to the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry).
Anna Soubry
I just wish to confirm everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said about how he started off believing in the delivery of Brexit, and indeed continues to do so. His description of his journey is accurate. My question was whether he would push his amendment to a vote, and if so, why. I think he has made that very clear to the House.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am delighted to give way next to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper).
Yvette Cooper
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. As he knows, I strongly support his amendment, and he is making an extremely important speech. Does he agree that, as the Government have effectively taken two years to get to this point, it is not unreasonable for the House, in this unusual and difficult situation, to recognise that it is likely to take us more than one day to attempt to do what the Government should have done quite a long time ago? Can I therefore urge him, when he is thinking about further steps, to highlight the importance of our identifying a further day next week when we can have similar debates and discussions if we need to, so that we can come to a conclusion? I also urge the Government to think about what they should be doing to provide for these further votes so that we can come to a consensus, and to recognise that there may need to be further binding votes in this process as well.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Unsurprisingly, given the close co-operation that there has been between us, I entirely agree with everything that the right hon. Lady has just said. It is of the utmost importance that the business of the House motion on Wednesday should also provide for a further day, or days, in which to take forward the process that will begin on Wednesday so that it can reach a successful conclusion. We will also have to attend to the question that has been discussed this evening and that began to be aired when the Prime Minister was answering questions on her statement: what the Government will do if the House reaches a majority—not for some unicorn or some ludicrous proposition that utterly contradicts common sense, but for a sensible way forward—and how we will persuade the Government at that stage to allow that majority view to be implemented. That will be a major issue.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I support his amendment and will vote for it tonight. I am delighted that he has agreed that we need to move to paper ballots and to end some of the gamesmanship that has been going on. The Father of the House raised the issue of the voting system, so I shall not repeat that point, but there are two other points that we need to bear in mind. One is whether the votes are indicative or definitive. Perhaps we will move from one to the other, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said. The other point is how an option gets on to the ballot paper. That is also an extremely tricky, nice issue. What I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman is whether he thinks we might need time to amend the business of the House motion. The way we do that will also be a subject for discussion, as will actually going on to do it.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I was with the hon. Lady nearly to the end, but not quite to the end. I am conscious that although the point that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford made a minute or two ago is right—we should allow ourselves a couple of days to do what should have been done over a couple of years—we are also under very considerable time pressure. There is a reality in the situation, which is that on 11 April, we will hit the buffers. Therefore, we should not spend too much time debating the process. We should, if possible, move forward on the basis that there is sufficient consensus about the process not to have to debate it, and get on with the substance. To that end, it would be sensible if we began this process by allowing Members who wish to put forward alternatives to do so. There are groups of people who support, for example, a people’s vote as a confirmatory process or otherwise, Norway plus, or the propositions hitherto put forward by the Opposition. We need to let those Members formulate their propositions in their own terms, in the ordinary way.
You have a long record, Mr Speaker—previous Speakers have also had a long record—of finding a way of selecting for debate amendments that carry sufficient weight in terms of numbers, cross-party support and so on. That is a perfectly proper process to use. It does not involve any one of us tilting the playing field, and it enables us to proceed without too much further debate about process.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I will give way, but once I have done so I am going to conclude.
Stewart Hosie
The right hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. The Scottish National party will be delighted to support his amendment because if the House controls the process, it is likely that all the options can be considered, including revocation, which is the only thing that we can do unilaterally. I say that publicly now partly as a pitch for revocation to be on the options paper, but mainly to say that I rather lack the trust in the Government that they would include all the valid options if they were in control of the timetable.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am glad that I did give way to the hon. Gentleman—first, because I am obviously very grateful that he and his colleagues will be supporting the amendment, and secondly, because I wholeheartedly endorse what he says. Personally, I am utterly opposed to revocation and I am also actually wholly unpersuaded of the merits of a people’s vote at the moment, but both are obviously serious options to consider. Incidentally, I am also radically opposed to a no-deal exit, but if some of my colleagues wish to put that forward as a serious proposition, it is a serious proposition that would need to be debated. Yes, it is essential that we should be able to look at all the serious options—not wild unicorns, but things that we could actually do to carry this process forward in one direction or another. I feel confident, Mr Speaker, that when you look at sensibly phrased motions of very different kinds, you will choose for debate all those that are serious possibilities that the House needs to consider; that is in the interests of the House and in the interests of the nation.
I will end my remarks by mentioning something that comes from personal experience. Liberal Democrat colleagues may recall this, as well as some of my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches. There was a time, in 2010, when this nation faced another cliff edge. We were within days of the Bank of England discovering that our creditors would not finance the UK any more. It was just after the 2010 election, which no one had won, and it was clear that nobody could form a Government except by coalition. We were very heavily indebted due to what had happened in 2008, and we were told by the Governor of the Bank of England that if a coalition was not formed pretty quickly, he personally felt that the lenders would go on strike and we would have a meltdown.
Of course, there were then discussions between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party, and between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party. I was a part of the Conservative party team on that occasion and I was informed, when we had finished those negotiations and had brought them to a successful conclusion, that the cleverest and most experienced people in the civil service—incidentally, I do not wish to demean the civil service, and I hardly can because my wife was a senior civil servant—had put their collective minds to the task and formed teams to find out whether it was possible to have a coalition agreement, either between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats or between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party. They had worked the situation through in awesome detail and had convinced themselves that it was absolutely impossible to form a coalition—that it could not be done.
We sat down, and four days later there was a coalition agreement. And why did that come about? It came about because politicians sat down and were not concerned with the kinds of things that people are concerned with when they are very brilliant administrators, but were concerned with trying to find out how to accommodate the essential requirements of the other side. This is, of course, the process that should have happened two years back in this connection—but we have the opportunity to do it now. I hope and pray that if the House does vote for this amendment, it will not see this approach simply as a set of votes in the abstract, but as the beginning of a process in which, by discovery of where the land lies, we can then come together, find a consensus, get a majority and carry on forward in a sensible way.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
This morning, I left my home, not far from the town of St Andrews in my constituency, to set off on my regular commute. Like other Members of this House from different parts of the United Kingdom, I travelled quite literally by plane, train and automobile. Like most weeks, I had no idea when I would be going home to my family and my constituents, but unlike most weeks, my family, my constituents and I had no idea whether, by the time I got home, I would still be afforded the rights and privileges that EU citizens take as their own. What a state to be in, all these years on. That is why I thank the right hon. Members for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), and their colleagues, for the work that they have put into their amendments, which the SNP will obviously back this evening.
We are here for no other reason than an attempt to offset a Tory civil war. This disaster is years in the making, and we are only in this situation because once upon a time David Cameron decided to call an EU referendum so that he could avoid a full-blown Tory civil war. There are many people in the House who will disagree with me.
Stephen Gethins
But I am not sure that there are many who will disagree with me when I say that it is not working very well, is it? How is that attempt to avoid a Tory civil war going? Does the Minister want to intervene now? No, I did not think so, because there is a full-blown civil war in his party. And this is a Tory party determined to take the rest of us down as well, but today’s amendments give us the chance—for the moment—to stave off that opportunity that the Tories are trying to give us.
The Prime Minister continues to appeal to the hardliners in her own party, rather than to face up to the reality of minority government, but this is a lost cause. The Brexiteers who campaigned without any sort of plan are the ones who got us into this mess. And, frankly, the message to the Prime Minister must be that they are unlikely to get us out of it. Now, it is not for me to judge Conservative party management—the voters will have their opportunity to do that in due course—but what strikes me is just how in thrall this Conservative Prime Minister is to the extremists in her own party. With that, I want to praise some Conservative Members, because there are Members who I disagree with and who disagree with me, but who have stuck their necks out, and look at the way they have been treated.
The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who is in his place, and I disagree over plenty, including Brexit; he wants us to leave the European Union and I do not. Some Members have tried to make positive proposals, although we do not always agree on them. But even when one of those proposals is accepted by the Government—as was the case with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa)—we are now in a situation whereby the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford finds himself deselected and the hon. Member for South Leicestershire finds himself sacked, yet all along—I disagree with them over this—they have backed the Prime Minister’s deal. What does that tell us about trying to find some kind of consensus or trying to reach across? This is a Government who are in thrall to the very extremes, and this House cannot put up with that any longer. Just look at the invitation list of those who were treated to lunch at Chequers: the very people voting against the Prime Minister. This tells us everything about a Prime Minister who has lost control of her own party and who has dragged us into this folly.
Stephen Gethins
I will give way to the right hon. Lady because she has some experience in this.
Anna Soubry
I do indeed. Does it strike the hon. Gentleman as being quite perverse that the very people invited to Chequers were the very people who, in December, sought a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister as leader of the Conservative party and plotted against her? Is he also aware that a lot of Conservative associations hold their annual general meetings at the end of this week, and does he share my concern that too many right hon. and hon. Conservative Members will be more concerned about the outcome of those AGMs than about the effect of a no-deal Brexit—or, indeed, any Brexit—on their constituents?
Stephen Gethins
The right hon. Lady knows the Conservative party much, much better than I do, and it shows. She makes a very valid point. The small, elitist group of Conservative MPs—all men, incidentally—who were invited to Chequers have failed, and failed spectacularly, on their pet, lifelong political project. I would not let that lot anywhere the TV remote in my house, never mind the most important decision that we have had to make for generations.
Wera Hobhouse
Would the hon. Gentleman extend that to listening to a mob of people who will apparently rebel if we ever do not deliver on this vote of the people? Nobody listens to the peaceful 1 million people and 5 million people who want to revoke article 50. They are not giving us death threats or mobbing us; they are just peaceful people. Yet we are worried about the keyboard warriors who threaten us from the security of their homes. Is that not also wrong?
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Lady makes a very powerful point about the way that millions protested peacefully on Saturday. I am delighted that our First Minister joined them, as did the leader of the Liberal Democrats, colleagues in the Labour party and even some Conservative colleagues. They were right to have done so.
The Prime Minister is effectively out of power, and we need to move on. Her deal has been rejected twice, overwhelmingly, which means that it becomes more and more pointless to debate it with every passing hour. The Opposition spokesperson was right to point that out. The House of Commons must seize control of this process tonight so that we can hold those indicative votes and start—start—to find a way out of this mess. We know from the UK Government’s own warnings that her deal is not in the best interests of anybody in the UK, and we know that no deal is not in anybody’s best interests either. This Parliament has come together and comprehensively rejected both her deal and no deal. Having wasted almost three years, the Government have run out of options and run out of ideas, and we need to step up.
Where we are today is not a farce: it is a tragedy, and a tragedy that is taking us all down with it. I assure colleagues that, as somebody who fundamentally wants Scotland to be an independent state, it really gives me no pleasure when I speak to colleagues overseas and find that the UK’s international reputation is broken. That hurts us all. When I was working in the European institutions, I saw that overall in the EU, the UK could be a real force for good. Although I did not always agree with everything that it did, I acknowledge many of the positive contributions made by UK citizens to the EU project. It is right that we all acknowledge that.
What was more striking, however, was the way in which the UK and Ireland worked as the closest possible allies and partners in the European Union. For the first time in that troubled history, there was truly a working as a partnership of equals alongside other European states. Now—again, this gives me no pleasure, nor, I suspect, the Irish either—the boot that has historically been on the foot of the UK is now on the other foot. As Robert Cooper wrote in the Financial Times:
“The smallest insiders (Dublin in the case of Brexit) matter more than the biggest outsider (us).”
That tells us everything about solidarity in the workings of the European Union. Yet even on this, the Irish do not crow but have been honest brokers. The best friends any of us can have are our most critical friends—the ones who tell us the truth when we want to see it the least. I have heard, when these matters of truth have come out, Brexiteers getting enraged and annoyed at the truth that people dare speak from Dublin.
Let me remind all Members that Ireland is independent and is not coming back—and it is not difficult to see why. Independent states thrive in the European Union. That is a means of strengthening democracy and sovereignty. The EU is a partnership of equals in a way that the UK simply is not. I want to see Scotland as a full and independent member state of the EU. That would be healthier in our relationship as a modern outward-looking nation in the same way that it has been healthy for the Anglo-Irish relationship.
Here in the UK, people are seeing through this mess. At the weekend, as we have heard, hundreds of thousands of people from the length and breadth of the UK marched for our collective future. Since then, at the last look, the revocation of article 50 petition has been signed by 5.5 million people, including 17% of the electorate in my own constituency—and that is not even the highest figure in Scotland. Millions of people can see what this Government cannot. What this Government clearly cannot see, but these people can, is that when you are careering towards the cliffs you slam on the brakes—that is what they are there for. Let us not forget that Parliament has that power, as was recognised by the courts, because the UK Parliament throughout this has retained, and always will retain in these circumstances, sovereignty in a way that the Scottish Parliament does not. Spot the difference, everybody: the UK Parliament, as a member of the EU, retains sovereignty; the Scottish Parliament, as this process has shown us, does not. This may provide a mechanism to stop doing untold damage to those we all represent.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. I want to ask him about something that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said earlier—that revoking article 50 could only ever be done once, and it would be permanent and could never be reversed. Has he, like me, read the decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice? Does he agree that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has got that wrong and that if this House chose to revoke article 50, it would be possible at some point in the future to resubmit the article 50 notice, provided that it was done in good faith?
Stephen Gethins
As usual, my hon. and learned Friend makes a very powerful point. I know that she tried to intervene on the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, but those on the Treasury Bench will have been listening to and taking note as well.
We are told that the biggest problem with this is the European elections. Let me tell the Government something: the biggest problem is not the European elections—not people taking part in a democratic election to elect parliamentarians—but the jobs that the Government’s plans are going to cost, the public services that will be hit by Brexit and the opportunities that we have all had being denied to future generations. Each and every Member of the European Parliament is elected. That Parliament sits at the heart of the European project. We sit in a Parliament where not even half the parliamentarians who serve here are elected. It is a disgrace—it really is. We will be caused a huge amount of damage just because the Government want to avoid the democracy and scrutiny that comes with a European Parliament election. However, I am not that surprised when we have a Prime Minister who, as we have heard today, not only opposes a referendum and giving people a say in this momentous decision but is even opposed to respecting the will of Parliament.
If the Brexit debate has done anything, it has shown that the UK and the way in which it operates is no longer fit for purpose, as the example of the House of Lords amply illustrates. The EU is not perfect—no union involving 28 sovereign and independent member states ever can be—but, critically, it has the checks and balances to protect the smallest members from the largest. Within the UK, we have a constitutional set-up that is somewhat outdated and has not caught up with the momentous decisions that we are having to make now, but in the EU there is a modern and up-to-date relationship between member states—a true partnership of equals. I say this to a Government who have failed to respect devolution throughout this process: the EU would not be allowed to do that; indeed, it cannot be allowed to do that. To the people of Scotland, our message is this: there is a better way to do this that our friends and neighbours—our nearest neighbours in places like Ireland and Denmark—are pursuing successfully. This is not as good as it gets. In the meantime, and until we reach that point, it is up to each and every one of us to continue to work as constructively as we can.
I do not want to see our friends and neighbours south of the border dragged over a cliff edge by an out of touch and irresponsible group of Tory anti-EU ultras—no country deserves that. The easiest thing for us in Scotland would be to say, “We voted against this. It’s not our problem,” but actually it is our problem. We cannot just say, “The Tories made this mess. It’s for them to clear it up,” because it is clear that they are incapable of clearing up the mess they have made. The damage these plans would do to everyone across these islands would be devastating and felt for decades to come.
I again thank Members who have worked constructively. Today’s motion provides a start, but it is only that—a start on undoing this devastating Brexit, which has been brought to us by a Tory party that is out of control.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
Mr Speaker, I will not long delay the House. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) on making some very interesting points, many of which I find myself in agreement with. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) on his absolutely formidable speech, which renders anything I can say in support pretty nugatory.
I will be voting for amendment (a) tonight, but I want to make some general points. It is of the greatest importance for our country that we should now move to a conclusion on what is merely the beginning of a tortuous road that will eventually lead to our departure from the European Union. Like my right hon. Friend, l voted to trigger article 50, despite serious reservations on the timing. I have voted with the Government in every single Division on the withdrawal Act and on every other piece of legislation to advance the delivery of Brexit. I have voted to leave and to honour the referendum many more times than my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) and many others. I find it ironic that those who apparently wish most fervently to leave are those who have most consistently voted against the withdrawal agreement and thus inhibited any real progress.
I should make it clear that there are no circumstances in which I will vote for a no deal, and nor will I back what would be a deeply divisive second referendum. Both are a recipe for further chaos and division, which should be unacceptable to those on all sides of this argument, for whom it is surely time for logic and common sense to prevail.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), I still believe in sanity. This is a country with a profound tradition of moderation and common sense. Our democratic institutions are elastic enough to be capable of compromise and of moving from the rhetoric of rejection to the painful necessity of an actual deal. It grieves me very much to see our influence abroad being so degraded, as the hon. Member for North East Fife said, as allies and partners who are close friends watch from afar with dismay as we burn up our reservoirs of good will and our reputation for common sense, most especially in the European Union.
Although it does not feel like it at the moment, this ancient country, in which we are so very privileged to live, is in general marked apart from many others by the tolerance, good nature and generally civilised manner of its democracy and institutions. These qualities are envied the world over; they need careful nurturing, but are currently entirely absent from the field. What on earth has happened to our pragmatism, self-restraint and common sense? It grieves me that our reputation is now under such extreme pressure at home and abroad; indeed, our reputation has been gravely diminished.
I greatly regret having to speak in this way in our Parliament; indeed, I cannot believe that I should need to do so. However, like many others, I find myself truly distraught at the painful, difficult and intractable position in which our country finds itself. What I really want, as, I am sure, do most Members of this House, is that the Government should be able to get on with the work of creating a more confident and hope-filled country that really cares for the weakest among us and for those who find their lives complicated and difficult; that encourages opportunity, enterprise and life chances; and that most especially keeps its vision of global service and influence, as a long-standing force for humanity and the general good.
Sir Nicholas Soames
I will not, because many others want to speak. I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
All of us know that many of our constituents are understandably extremely angry that Brexit has so distracted the Government from the serious issues we face—the NHS, education, crime, the reform of social care, housing, the environment and climate change, and all the other great issues that have inevitably had to be neglected as Brexit has gradually sucked the life blood out of the Government. As you very well know, Mr Speaker, the public believe that we have collectively let them down badly, and this is leading inevitably and very seriously to the fraying of the bonds between Parliament and the nation. The national interest clearly dictates that we have to get this done and that we must get on with the vital work of establishing our future relationships with our most important economic partners and allies.
At the beginning of the business of the House every day, the Speaker’s Chaplain reads the prayer that enjoins Members most especially to
“never lead the nation wrongly through love of power, desire to please, or unworthy ideals but laying aside all private interests and prejudices keep in mind their responsibility to seek to improve the condition of all mankind”.
All of us need to pay a little more attention to those wise, profound and humane words, which have guided and succoured this House through thick and thin down the years and in worse days than these. It is now time that Parliament did its duty by the country, for the national interest and for national unity, and regardless of party or inclination, to bring these matters to a belated conclusion.
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
It is, as ever, a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), although I should perhaps place on record that I totally disagree with what he and the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) said on one issue, because I feel that the only way we will resolve this situation peacefully and in a way that brings people together is by going back to the people for confirmation of whatever decision this House makes. Otherwise, I fear we will be seen as engaging in an establishment stitch-up, thinking of something that we will then foist on the people. It is essential to seek their view.
I am very conscious that today’s is a crowded agenda. Amendment (f), standing in my name and those of others on both sides of the House, is so straightforward that it practically speaks for itself, so I intend to be brief. I am also mindful of how many others want to speak.
I recognise, of course, that the House has voted on more than one occasion against the UK leaving the EU without a deal; indeed, the Prime Minister has acknowledged that. I am also well aware that there are nevertheless Members who feel that, whatever the evidence to the contrary, leaving with no deal would not cause us major problems, and that there are even some who actively support our leaving without a deal or at least regard it as a desirable outcome. Surely, however, few if any believe it would be desirable that the UK should not make such a decision but drift or fall into it by inadvertence—almost by accident. That would be the very definition of irresponsibility.
We still have a very tight timetable, which presently encompasses, in addition, a potential recess period. As I said, my amendment is extremely simple and straightforward. It seeks to ensure that the UK can leave the EU without a deal only with the explicit consent of the House of Commons.
Yvette Cooper
My right hon. Friend is making a very important speech about the risks of no deal. The Prime Minister said today:
“Unless this House agrees to it, no deal will not happen.”
However, she has not provided for any process to ensure that those safeguards are in place. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we therefore need her amendment, otherwise there is a danger that we will drift by accident into the kind of chaotic, damaging no deal that both the CBI and the TUC have warned against?
Margaret Beckett
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, in line with the many contributions she has made on this issue. I will come to that in a moment.
The amendment guards against a no-deal withdrawal that lacks the clear and evident consent of the House. It also allows for the possibility of the House being in recess when such a danger arises and provides for the seeking of any necessary extension of the leaving deadline. I was originally very encouraged by the Prime Minister’s statement today, as my right hon. Friend said, that
“Unless this House agrees to it, no deal will not happen.”
That is what the amendment says, so my hope was that the Government might be prepared simply to accept it. That would seem the logical thing to do—I am giving the vehicle by which they can give effect to the statement that the Prime Minister made today.
I listened with care to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I think he said that, despite the fact that the Government are not taking any steps, as my right hon. Friend just pointed out, to prevent us from simply running out of time, the amendment was not necessary. He said the problem with my proposal was that there would be only two options left before the House, and the legal default would be that we leave without a deal. That is the point—that is why I tabled the amendment. Although I appreciated the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s explanation, I know that otherwise, we would leave by legal default without a deal. He agreed that the Government will need to come back to the Dispatch Box to deal with these issues. I suggest that the Ministers on the Front Bench pass on to their right hon. Friend that the very simple thing to do—it need take no time at all—is to accept this amendment and ensure that the House does not run the indefensible risk of stumbling out of the EU without a deal.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to participate in this debate and to follow the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett). I can tell her now that I shall be voting for her amendment if it is put to the vote at the end of the evening, as I hope it will be. I shall return to that in a moment.
I am the second signatory to amendment (a), and I want briefly to outline my thoughts on its necessity and why it may help the House. I have obviously approached this in a slightly different way from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). As the House will be perfectly well aware, I continue to believe that Brexit is a historic mistake of very great proportions, and I am afraid that at no time since the referendum took place have I felt, despite efforts on my part to do so, that we are moving towards a position where I could ever take the view that the future outside the EU was going to better than remaining in it.
But I certainly voted to trigger article 50. I did it in deference to the result of the referendum and in the full knowledge that we could not even start negotiations unless we did so. Although I have occasionally been characterised as trying to obstruct Brexit, the truth is that, throughout 2017 and 2018, most of the work I did was to try to improve the process because of the concerns I had that it was being shortcut, thereby making mistaken outcomes all the more likely. I think there were only two occasions when I voted on substantive motions about alternatives, but that was because I was rather worried about the extent to which the Government seemed to be self-imposing red lines, and on neither occasion did it come anywhere close to success. I accepted that, and I accepted also that I should reserve my position on what the Government were negotiating and indicated that on a number of occasions in debates.
Where I disagree with or differ from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset is that, when I finally came to look at the Government’s deal as negotiated in December, I thought it was a deal that was going to condemn us to a third-rate future. That is the basis on which I have been unwilling to support it. In saying that, I am entirely mindful of the fact that it has been negotiated in good faith by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I believe that every Member on the Front Bench has exercised as much diligence as possible to get the best possible outcome. Of course, that raises another question. If the outcome secured in December was so unsatisfactory that it was defeated by 220 votes in this House, and defeated because the examination of it from differing directions by Members on both sides of the House found it wanting, that calls into question whether in fact a fundamental error has been made and the entire process has inherent flaws.
A tendency that has crept in ever since the referendum result has been to close down debate on the basis that it is not proper to pursue it, because the referendum result must act as a diktat that prevents such debate from taking place. I have been long enough in this House to have experienced that sort of argument before, sometimes when Governments get very large majorities in general elections. I even remember on one occasion a Member of this House arguing that, because the then Labour Government had such a big majority, there was no real need any more to have the Second Reading debate of Bills, and the matter should be just put through on the nod and we should move on to the detail.
The one thing I am absolutely persuaded of is that we cannot have a working democracy where we close down debates. Democracy is all about the permanent shifting of tectonic plates. It goes on every second of every day, all the time. Just because somebody is defeated on one matter, it does not mean that they have to give up. They can keep going at it—and heaven knows, we have watched Members do just that in this House. In the same way, to argue that the referendum result imposes a permanency that cannot be challenged is, in my judgment, entirely wrong. When I look at the mess into which we have got ourselves, it appears to be at least in part the consequence of pushing that argument and thereby preventing the democratic process from working.
We get criticism that this House is not functioning properly or that democracy is not working. I think that this House has an exceptional capacity to reach sensible outcomes, but, I have to say to my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, it has been consistently prevented from doing its ordinary job by the straitjacket that has been imposed on the extent of what is acceptable to debate.
Stephen Doughty
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, just as our activities in this place are a crucial part of democracy, so too are marches on the street with 1 million people, or 5.5 million people signing a petition? They are all part of our democracy and should all be treated with respect.
Mr Grieve
They should indeed, particularly when anybody who participated in Saturday’s march, as I did, will have seen people who were optimistic, tolerant and filled with good humour and benevolence, even towards those with whom they disagree. It was very noticeable. I contrast that with some of the rabidity of the comments of which I have been on the receiving end from those who write to me and insist that, in some extraordinary way, the referendum has closed down areas of debate and made them illegitimate. My hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench really need to ponder that when they consider why things are not working properly for us at present.
I do not want to take up too much of the House’s time, but it is for that reason that I have supported the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset and worked with him and others on amendment (a). Given that the Government have run into the sand and had their deal rejected, we have to find an alternative. I acknowledge that my right hon. Friend and I may differ in part on that alternative, but where we do not differ is in our willingness to have an open debate. I was greatly helped by the way in which he approached, in his characteristic and tolerant fashion, the examination of alternatives, just as I was by what the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), said about the breadth of the approach that might be adopted. It is clear that, if we are going to make progress, there should be nothing that is forbidden to be discussed. It is equally clear that we have to create an environment in which individual Members of this House do not feel that by supporting one option they thereby close the opportunity to express a view on another.
I will say no more about process at the moment, except to point out that I think it most unlikely that, if this motion is passed, we will come to a conclusion on Wednesday. It is part of a process. It certainly must not be dragged out, because we are so short of time. Equally, however, we have to take it at a sensible pace. Given that we have taken two and a half years to get ourselves into a complete dead end, it is worth taking a few weeks to ensure that we can get ourselves out of it, and that is what we ought to do.
I am the first to accept that the outcome may not be my preferred one, which remains the same: whichever option we take, I happen to believe that the evidence is now very clear that the public would like a final say and an opportunity to express a completely alternative view, which might even be to remain in the EU. I think that is their right and that we should be aiming to achieve that. Whatever the outcome may be, amendment (a) offers, for the first time, an opportunity to do it. I entirely disagree with my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that this is some desperate constitutional novelty. It is the House doing its job. I am afraid that the Government have only themselves to blame—through their intransigence over many months of signals being given right across the House—if on this occasion they have lost the leadership to the House itself. They could have had that leadership.
I will finish with a request. The Prime Minister is indeed the leader—the leading Minister—in this country. She is in post. Will she please provide that leadership? If she does that, participates fully in this process and is prepared to open her mind to the variety of options we are going to discuss and debate, and to close her mind to none of them, I believe she will find the solution to this problem and that the House will be able to support her. But that needs a change in mindset, both by her and by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, to get out of this narrow focus.
I said earlier that I would find it disgraceful if the Cabinet minutes reflect putting party political advantage ahead of the national interest. I do not know whether that is true or not, but it has been very widely reported. We have to put the national interest first and listen to what people are saying to us. It seems to me there is a consistent pattern of wanting to bring this unhappy episode to a conclusion and to do so in a way that reflects majority opinion in this country. We can do that by identifying the options and then putting it back to the public.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). The right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) reminded us of the prayers that start each day. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman set out with a desire to please, but I think his speech certainly did please many of us in the House.
I rise to support amendments (a) and (f), which were moved in compelling speeches by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) and, in this context, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). We need to remember that we have this opportunity to debate those two amendments for two reasons and two reasons only. First, the Government’s deal was defeated for a second time. We are discussing a motion in neutral terms, and we would not have had the chance to do that had it not been for the efforts of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield and many other people last summer. Secondly, the European Union decided to give us an additional two weeks.
The fundamental problem, however, has not changed, which is the Government’s inability to get their deal through. Indeed, they are so lacking in confidence about their ability to win a third time that we are not entirely sure whether and when they will bring it back before the House. That means that, if nothing changes in 17 days’ time, either we will leave with no deal or the Government will have to apply for—and be granted by the European Union—an extension. The moment of danger has been delayed briefly, but it has not passed.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The right hon. Gentleman mentions the moment of danger. Would it not be prudent to put in place steps to revoke so that we do not go headlong over the cliff? The European Union’s deal has been rejected twice. We are now staring down the barrel of no deal, and further extension is probably unlikely. We have to get our heads around it: revoke is coming down the line and we have to make a decision quickly.
Hilary Benn
I hear the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but for the reasons I am about to advance I think the Prime Minister made a very significant statement today, to which many others have drawn attention. What she said bears repeating:
“Unless this House agrees to it, no deal will not happen.”
I take that to be a solemn and binding commitment from the Prime Minister, and the inevitable consequence, which she did not want to acknowledge in her statement, is that, unless she gets her deal through, she will have to apply for an extension prior to 12 April.
Why has amendment (a) been tabled? We are discussing it because the Government’s deal has been defeated twice, no deal has been defeated twice, and the Prime Minister has said twice and more, “We know what Parliament is against; what is Parliament for?” The purpose of the amendment is extremely simple: it is to give us the chance to show what we might be in favour of. If the Government were doing their job, the amendment would not be necessary; it is because the Government are not doing their job that it is required.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office is a very charming man, but his arguments against the amendment were, frankly, hopelessly confused. I will summarise the Government’s position. They are opposed to the amendment, but they want there to be a process. If the amendment is defeated they promise their own process, but that appears to consist of a debate later in the week and then something later on, the precise form of which we do not yet know. They seem to want Parliament to agree on something, but they cannot promise to accept any consensus that might emerge out of this process. They castigate us for not having reached an agreement, but oppose tonight the very proposal that is intended to enable us to do precisely that. The situation is frankly absurd. If I may say so in his absence, I do not think that the Minister’s heart was really in his argument tonight, because the Government seem to be saying, in effect, “Well, if it passes, we’ll get on with it.” Let us break out of the circular argument—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) expressed it brilliantly—and get on with it.
I simply want to encourage every Member who has a realistic proposition to put it forward on Wednesday if the amendment is carried. In the report that the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union published the very day after the first defeat of the Government’s plan, it set out the broad options. This is not about the withdrawal agreement, because the Prime Minister could not have been clearer today when she said:
“Everyone should be absolutely clear that changing the withdrawal agreement is simply not an option. This is about the political declaration.”
There was an exchange across the Chamber about that, and there is a fundamental flaw in the suggestion that the withdrawal agreement alone—not the political declaration—might somehow be passed this week. If that happened and the EU responded by saying, “Ah! You have passed the withdrawal agreement alone this week. Okay, we will give you till 22 May”, what would happen if we then asked the EU in the week leading up to 22 May whether we could have a bit more time? The EU would say, “No, you can’t, because you didn’t take part in the European elections.” I am afraid that the proposition of a separate vote on the withdrawal agreement as a way out of the crisis falls at the first hurdle.
On Wednesday, when our pink slips are distributed, I am looking forward to voting Aye to remaining in a customs union with the EU; Aye to a Norway plus-type arrangement, which could embrace Common Market 2.0; and Aye to a confirmatory referendum. Other Members may be looking forward to voting for things that they would be prepared to consider.
My final point is that the word “indicative” is important. This Wednesday is about indicating a direction of travel that Members might be prepared to support. It is not definitive. We may well need to get to that point in the next stage of the process. So Wednesday is not the end, merely the beginning. It is long overdue, and I hope that the House will enable it to happen by carrying amendment (a) tonight.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The situation is perfectly manageable, but a significant number of hon. Members are still seeking to catch my eye. As a guide, although I am not imposing a time limit, if each Member spoke for approximately seven minutes, everybody would be accommodated. To speak for significantly longer than that would be a notable discourtesy, of which I know that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), for one, would not wish to be guilty.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
It is novel for me not to have a time limit, so I am used to those strictures.
It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the Chairman of the Brexit Committee. He made the clear point that we have shown what we are against, but at some point, we as a House will have to show what we are in favour of. Speaking personally, I still think that the best deal on the table is the Prime Minister’s deal. It respects the referendum result, which is critical, and it deals with the complex problem of how on earth a country that has such integrated supply chains, with thousands of lorries coming through Dover, can maintain frictionless trade as far as possible, yet take back sovereignty in the key areas of the single market and the customs union. It is very difficult, but that circle has been squared in the Prime Minister’s proposal and I would like to vote for it again. However, I have to accept that it may not come back, and that so far it has been defeated very heavily indeed.
Although procedure is important—the amendments before us are about how Parliament brings forward the next stage of the debate—I do not want to focus on it. I believe that we must focus on first principles—the underlying principles of how we will deliver on the referendum result.
The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) said that we should consider a second referendum, a single market plus customs union and so on. However, there is one fundamental problem with all those proposals, which my constituents who voted to leave would raise. It is an issue that we all have to grapple with—free movement. I want to focus on two principles: free movement and free trade. Free movement is not an easy one, because it forces us to discuss immigration, to which we have so far failed to give anything like enough attention.
I feel strongly about the subject. In justifying a second referendum, it has been said that the facts have changed since the 2016 referendum and that therefore there should be another vote. We must consider what has changed, and whether, if it had been known in the referendum campaign of 2016, it would have led to a different result. I suggest that the single fact, if it had been known in advance, that would have had the most impact—whether we like it or not—is that Brexit has directly led to an unprecedented increase in immigration into this country from outside the EU.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Free movement is of course a double-sided coin. The hon. Gentleman mentioned immigration, but there is also emigration. We have seen on the television some people who voted for Brexit and then decided to retire to Spain now ruing the day of their rash action when they followed some of the crasser tabloid newspapers. When we talk about freedom of movement, we must remember that we are talking about rights that the hon. Gentleman enjoys, which he is perhaps trying to take away from everybody else and himself.
James Cartlidge
It is fair to say that freedom of movement works both ways. Of course, if we end free movement for those coming to this country, there will be an impact on our rights when we go to our nearest neighbours. We must ask ourselves a profound question in the context of the EU debate: would our country still vote to leave on the basis of concerns about immigration if people knew that the result of ending free movement would be that immigration would not decrease, but that we as citizens would face reduced rights in going to other countries in Europe, such as having to pay charges and fill in visa applications, at least for work and reasons other than tourism?
Let us look at the facts. The latest figures show that net migration into this country from the EU is down to 57,000. Net immigration into this country from outside the EU is up to 261,000. A year ago, the two top countries in the list were Poland and Romania, and they are now India and China. We are not talking Liechtenstein in population terms here. That is a serious point.
I remember the referendum campaign, in which I took an active part. I did home and away debates with my neighbour my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin). To anyone who claims that immigration was not a reason for the vote, I say that, yes, there are many people who for many years believed in leaving the EU for reasons of sovereignty—I strongly respect that view, which is based on a noble principle of democracy—but I know that what swung many undecided people in my constituency was house building in the countryside. Why? Because they believed that if we left the EU, there would be no immigration and we would not need those houses. It sounds crazy, but I have got the emails to prove it, and colleagues will know it.
Immigration was front and centre of the leave campaign. We remember Nigel Farage standing in front of a poster of the new Untermenschen. Mr Speaker, you know the meaning of that word—it has a very serious meaning. The poster showed a whole column of people and the implication was that if we left, what it depicted would not happen. We know that that campaign played with fire. It opened Pandora’s box, and somehow we have to put the lid back on. When I raise the matter, I do not do it happily. I am personally relaxed about immigration to this country because I recognise the huge contribution immigrants have made and will continue to make.
However, we must now be honest and say to the country that in the coming days, options will come before us in which free movement is back on the table. What if it is the case that keeping free movement will enable us to control immigration in future by having the strictest possible rules on immigration from 90% of the world population?
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I come from a nation that is positive about the benefits of immigration. Indeed, my constituents embrace immigrants in their communities. The hon. Gentleman makes a point about immigration about China and India, but he has not mentioned that those people are generally international students, who leave at the end of their degrees. Those students should be taken out of net migration figures.
James Cartlidge
That is a perfectly fair point, but of course the reason they are in there is that many do choose to remain. [Interruption.] I take the figures as they are. I remember your time strictures, Mr Speaker, so I will move on to my second point, which is on free trade.
The reason we have the situation with immigration is that it is a discriminatory system. We allow free movement from the EU, but not from non-EU countries. The reason it is discriminatory is that we have a trade deal with the EU called the single market. Of course, it was in the Lancaster House speech that the red line on the single market was first stated, but I want to return to a Lancaster House speech in which the Prime Minister was addressing an audience of business leaders. She said:
“Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers—visible or invisible—giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the world's wealthiest and most prosperous people. Bigger than Japan. Bigger than the United States. On your doorstep. And with the Channel Tunnel to give you direct access to it. It’s not a dream. It’s not a vision. It’s not some bureaucrat’s plan. It’s for real. And it’s only five years away.”
That was the Lancaster House speech of Mrs Thatcher in 1988. There are only three MPs left in the House who voted against the Single European Act. One is the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell), one is the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), and the third one is the Leader of the Opposition. The single market is not some socialist conspiracy; it is capitalism and it is free trade, and I believe fundamentally in free trade.
In the days to come, we will have to look at other issues. We will have to be prepared to flex our red lines, to be blunt, to deliver on the referendum result in a way that preserves free trade and gives us the best possible deal for our constituents.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
As a member of the Procedure Committee, I have been thinking for about six months about the voting system. In autumn, the then Brexit Secretary came with proposals to change how we were going to run the meaningful vote. Since Christmas, however, it has been evident that we need a new system. The simple binary yes-no choice does not work very well in a situation like Brexit, where there are multiple options. We ran into problems on House of Lords reform, and the Prime Minister has found similar difficulties in the past six months. Partly, that is due to the way she has handled the situation, but it is also partly because it is very easy, with a yes-no approach, to build coalitions against things and quite a lot harder to build consensus and coalitions for options.
A month ago, the Father of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), and I proposed using preference votes as we do for Select Committee Chairs. We were probably a bit premature with that idea, and I am extremely pleased to be able to support the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) tonight. It is clear that the Prime Minister’s brinkmanship has brought us to this self-inflicted crisis. It is now essential that Parliament takes control and uses a new process. I am also pleased that the right hon. Member for West Dorset has agreed that we should be moving to paper ballots, voting on all the options in parallel. That will reduce considerably the scope for the gamesmanship that is bedevilling this process.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The hon. Lady makes a very good argument. We were discussing this earlier. Parliament is quite inefficient at making certain decisions, as we are finding out. Just as an analogy, if we sent Parliament off to buy a gin and tonic the questions would be what sort of gin? What sort of tonic? Would there be ice or no ice? Would there be lemon or lime? The paralysis from that one decision would probably be something akin to what we have with Brexit at the moment. Her suggested approach makes eminent sense in a Parliament that cannot decide any more than yes or no.
Helen Goodman
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I was going to say that the benefit of a new system is that it would enable us to find out where the consensus actually lies. It is absolutely obvious that not everyone in this situation will get their first choice, but we need to make a distinction between those things that Members and the public are very worried about and find totally unacceptable, such as no deal, and those things that, while they may not be a person’s first choice, they can live with and can go along with. The process we need to move into needs to institutionalise that.
It is also obvious that building consensus will be painful, because it inevitably involves compromise. That, however, is essential on a major national project such as Brexit. It is much better for us to acknowledge those difficulties and take a calmer approach to reconcile Parliament and the public than to be driven into a high-conflict situation with the rising tone of anger that we see at the moment.
The one thing that the right hon. Member for West Dorset said that surprised me a bit was that the business motion on how we are going to do this will, in his schema, be on the same day as the first round of indicative votes. I had not planned to speak today, but I thought that I had better set out what factors I would like to be taken into account in the drawing up of the process and the design of the system.
The first issue is the status of the votes: are they indicative or definitive? Indicative is good, because it allows people to feel flexible and more open-minded. However, we will move to definitive at some stage, to bind the Government, because we cannot continue with the situation where the Government defy the will of the House.
The second point we need to be clear about is that this vote may be on paper, but it is not a secret ballot. We want transparency. We want to be accountable to the public and to our constituents. And, of course, the Whips need to be able to do their job as well. That, too, requires some transparency.
The third issue is how to get on the ballot. I was slightly concerned in the middle of the day when I was hearing that the Government were planning to draft up for every Member what their view of other Members’ options would be. That seems to me to be completely inappropriate. Groups of hon. Members must be allowed to say for themselves what their options should be. I appeal to Mr Speaker to allow more, rather than less, on to any ballot paper, if we get to that.
The fourth point we need to think about is how to vote: preferences or standard crosses. I think the right hon. Member for West Dorset is considering a traditional cross by the side of the option or options we like, rather than preferences. I am happy for us to embark on that, but, as he acknowledged, we may need to move to preferences as time goes on.
There are two other points that we need to bear in mind. First, how many votes are we going to have? How many preferences can we expect to be allowed to use—two or three? We need to consider explicitly whether people could use the same number of preferences, or whether that could be something that people would want to flex. My feeling is that everybody probably ought to have the same number of votes. Connected to that is how many voting rounds we go through. We know we have to do this in a fairly speedy way, because of the 11 April deadline. We may need more than one, but we cannot have a completely open-ended process going on ad infinitum. We need to bring it to closure at some point.
If people think that this is highly innovative, they should not be quite so alarmed. We vote on paper regularly. We have done indicative voting before. We have given preferences before. What we are proposing to do on this occasion is bring them all together. [Interruption.] The most important thing, as I can hear the Minister saying, is that we have some speed, not just for the political process but to end the uncertainty facing businesses up and down the country. To be three weeks out and still to have no deal, a soft Brexit or a public vote to remain on the table is shameful.
Our international reputation has taken the worst hammering in living memory. The Confederation of British Industry said that it has lost confidence in the political process. The TUC has specifically asked us to look for a new parliamentary mechanism. MPs are always telling other people to change and adapt. Now, perhaps it is time for us to do the same. Confidence in our parliamentary process will be restored only when we show that we can act constructively and creatively.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I came to this debate as much to listen as to contribute, and I am very glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who, in a very rare way in these debates over the past few years, has set out a way in which we might move forward. That may not be comfortable for her and these may not all be her preferred options, but it shows a willingness to listen, to compromise and to move, which has been pretty absent, if we are honest, from this debate so far.
The attitudes out there in the country are hardening. Constituents of mine who told me three years ago that they voted leave and that they were happy to leave on whatever terms Parliament deemed necessary, as long as we respected the result, are now telling me daily that they want to cut all ties and leave with no deal at all. Constituents who voted to remain and who said that we had had the debate, that the other side had won fair and square and that we just had to get on with it are now telling me that they want to halt the process altogether and remain in the EU. Having spent a lot of time with colleagues trying to find a way through this in here and behind the scenes over the past few weeks, I feel that exactly the same thing is happening in Parliament. If we do not start to move, they will not start to move and there is absolutely no prospect of repairing this country.
That is why I very much welcome what the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) has done with the amendment, particularly the way in which he presented it. He is not seeking to control the outcome of this process. He is not seeking to do what many of his colleagues on each extreme of this debate have done for several years, which is to knock out any preferred option that is not theirs and undermine any of us who are trying to find a solution by questioning our good faith, intentions and motives.
As somebody who represents a constituency where two thirds of people voted to leave—they did so largely in full knowledge of what they were doing and still feel strongly about it—but where a third of people also voted to remain and have every bit as much of a stake in the future of this country as the rest, I have to say that that bad faith is operating on both sides of this debate. Those threats and the abuse are coming from both sides. I and many hon. Members face them daily, and to seek to pretend, as some Members just did in this debate, that it comes only from one side is quite simply not true. It is insulting and it will not stick.
I am very dismayed today about the Government’s position. I do not think that Ministers understand how little trust there is left. As we stand here in this Chamber, right now—according to lobby journalists who are briefing things out over social media—the Government are sitting in closed rooms trying to persuade Members on their own side to vote down this amendment in favour of guarantees. We have been here before. Time and again, they come to the Dispatch Box and they tell us they are serious. They tell us they are listening and that the House must make a decision, and then, when we get up and speak with one voice about what we want, they say, “Okay, we will go away and think about it.” They make some promises and pick off Members on their own side, and then, lo and behold, where are those promises when they most count? They are nowhere to be seen.
Given the mess that has been created in this country, what is wrong, honestly, with giving Parliament the right to consider the options that we want to put forward? We speak for very different communities in this country. When the Government seek to deny us a voice, they are not denying me a voice—who cares whether I have a voice?—they are denying the 75,000 people I represent in Wigan a voice and all other hon. Members besides.
I say to both Front-Bench teams that if we are to consider the options in good faith, given the very different needs and priorities of constituencies, a free vote has to be offered on those options. I understand the discomfort. I have served in the shadow Cabinet. It is not an easy thing to do, but when we have this strength of feeling and these very divergent views and experiences across the country, all those have to be heard if we are going to find a way through this.
I say to Ministers, too, that almost entirely absent now is not just the trust, but the good will. Last week, I could not believe what I was seeing when the Prime Minister took to the steps of Downing Street and tried to pit the people against Parliament. The public follow our lead. When we stand in here using language such as “betrayal” and “traitors”, is it any surprise that we step outside and find that same language levelled back at us? If she wants to restore good will, the first thing that she must do is apologise to Members of this House, who are all, in our very different ways and positions, trying to find a way through this in good faith. She must rule out no deal.
We will not believe that the Prime Minister is serious about the interests of the country if she is not—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) is asking me why. Last week, I had a constituent on the phone whose son was in line for a clinical trial in the European Union that could save his life. They do not know now whether he will get it. This is a child who has no certainty about what is going to happen next. I have a constituent who is on dialysis, who rang me to say that she has been told to expect some disruption in the event of no deal. When I went to a Minister to ask what the advice was, he said, “We are doing our best, but we cannot make any guarantees.” My sister is diabetic and has not slept for months because she does not know whether she will be able to access insulin. People can accuse me of scaremongering all they like, but the Government’s technical notice cannot tell us what will happen in the event of a no-deal Brexit. What sort of Government cannot guarantee access to medicines in just a week’s time?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Chris Heaton-Harris)
I make the point gently that there was a written ministerial statement that did make those guarantees only three weeks ago.
Lisa Nandy
And I can tell the Minister that I was here on Monday when we were debating plans to allow pharmacists to limit access to medication in the event of no deal in just a few weeks’ time. I went to my local pharmacist and had a conversation with him a couple of days later and he had never heard anything about it, so to pretend that this is a responsible course of action is, frankly, a disgrace. The Minister can roll his eyes at me all he likes, but this is an absolute disgrace. The Government have driven this country to the brink and they are not learning. Every Member sitting in this House right now will look at that Minister sitting on that Bench and realise that this is a Government who are not serious about safeguarding the welfare of their citizens.
I will finish with this point, because I know that many Members are desperate to speak. In the next stages, if we get to them—if this shabby Government somehow manage to cobble together a majority for the withdrawal agreement and get us into the next stages—I would just say to hon. Members: look at what we have just witnessed in this House. Do not trust that they are acting with the interests of the whole country in mind. This House has no guaranteed role in those next stages of negotiations. If we do not insist on that right now, we will not get it.
For four months, I have been talking to the Prime Minister and to Government Members about giving Parliament the right to set out the terms of the negotiating mandate in the next stages and to guarantee a vote about the future relationship at the end of that process. They have resisted that. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and I will be bringing forward an amendment on that when the meaningful vote materialises, because we have to have a reset. If we are going to get to the next stages of those discussions, that discussion has to involve every single part of this House. We cannot allow the Prime Minister, whoever he or she may be by that point, to go off and negotiate away our rights, freedoms and protections that have been hard fought for for 100 years without any say in it.
This has become a tug of war between two groups of people who I know, from speaking to them every day in my constituency, are quite reasonable people who want this resolved. We are breaking our democracy. I commend the right hon. Member for West Dorset for tabling amendment (a) because he is seeking a way to bring the House together, to compromise and to find a way through this impasse. We as a House have to rise to the occasion, because, my God, I have just seen a perfect example from the Government Benches of why they are not capable of doing it.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
I also rise to support amendments (a), (d) and (f), and it is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy). She spent much of her speech talking about the atmosphere within which this debate is happening, and I, too, would like to spend a few moments on that.
Like others, I have been bombarded in recent weeks with emails and other communications telling me to vote in diametrically opposed directions. Many insist that if I vote differently from the way they wish, I will be acting against the will of the people. I have not had the same level of aggression from all quarters, but some of it has been pretty extreme. I have been compared to a range of bodily parts of both the female and the male variety. Some have called me a traitor. A few have gone further. One email I read yesterday expressed the hope that this place would be burned to the ground with me and other hon. Members in it. I know that several hon. Members have received worse and in far greater quantities. There is no excuse for such threats and abuse. Neither I nor other hon. Members will be intimidated, but we have to face up to what is happening.
This kind of toxic atmosphere in politics is not unique to the UK—it is happening in other countries—but Brexit gives it a focus, and it can lead to violence against people regarded as believing the wrong things or simply because of who they are. My plea is that all of us who have the privilege to speak from public platforms, which can create headlines, think carefully about how we conduct ourselves and the way we frame political debates and take care not to contribute to that atmosphere of toxicity and intolerance, which undermines democracy and can lead to violence.
There is a deeper problem here. All too often people feel the political debate in this place happens at a level that does not speak to them and bypasses their concerns. They look aghast at how we have got stuck in a logjam over Brexit. Yes, the Prime Minister has made that worse, not better—her attempt last Wednesday to shift the blame on to everyone other than herself was unworthy of her office—but we need to look at ourselves too and understand that too often we appear to embody the stereotype of an institution that talks only to itself, not to the outside world. We need to learn from that, not only in relation to Brexit, but more generally.
What does that mean for the decisions we face tonight? The bottom line is that no deal cannot be allowed to happen by accident any more than by design. As chair of the all-party motor group, I know that all the warnings—from BMW, JLR, Nissan, Toyota, Vauxhall, and Aston Martin—could not have been clearer. Investment decisions are on hold now and our reputation in the international community is being trashed before our eyes. A no-deal Brexit would jeopardise the future of the plants of several of those car manufacturers and many thousands of jobs, and similar warnings are coming from other sectors, as others have said.
The priority has to be avoiding the nightmare of no deal, and that means agreeing a procedure that allows us not so much to vote for or against our perfect or worst options, but to do as the right hon. Member for West Dorset has urged and express preferences for ways forward we can live with. The idea of doing that through paper ballots is exactly right because it would allow people to express preferences and vote for several different options. This cannot be a zero-sum game. The objective has to be to find a centre of gravity through which we can move forward.
The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) are right that, as we move through that process, which may take some time, some kind of preference balloting is likely to be necessary. I suspect that, if we find that centre of gravity, it will involve jettisoning some of the Prime Minister’s red lines, so there is a question for her there, and a decision for her to make. If the centre of gravity in this House becomes a place that is beyond and different from her red lines, she must answer that question. Will she abide by the will of the House, and will she take that forward in negotiations with the European Union? Unless she is prepared to do so, the sustainable majority to which the right hon. Member for West Dorset referred will not be allowed to have its voice, and if it is not allowed to have its voice, democracy will be the poorer, the House will be the poorer, and the debate about Brexit will be set back.
In the few moments that I have left, I want to say a few words about the idea of a second referendum. It seems to me that when a million people take to the streets, that is not something we should ignore. In my view, arguing for a final say on any deal eventually arrived at, or against the possibility that the House is unable to achieve a way forward, has a logic to it, but let us not kid ourselves that the passions aroused in favour of a second referendum—or a people’s vote—are not also aroused in other directions. The risk that a referendum will be conducted in a divisive atmosphere is a real risk, and we must recognise and address it. To me, that does not mean moving away from, or rejecting, the idea of a second referendum, but it does constitute a further indication and a further reminder to us that we must at least approach the coming weeks and months in a way that makes clear the kind of politics that we want to develop in this country. It must be clear that this process is about resolving differences, not about exacerbating them,
Richard Burden
I am afraid that I am very short of time.
Our approach must demonstrate our commitment to equal respect for all our citizens, irrespective of their background, and our determination to ensure that whatever else happens, democracy wins through.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I was taken by the speech of the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), who talked about the diminished place of the United Kingdom after Brexit and during the Brexit process. When Opposition Members mention that, Conservative Members often say we are talking rubbish, but I think the right hon. Gentleman’s belief has a degree of support from his Government. Today we saw the naval process and the EU military complex and engagement process start to unravel, with the naval piracy taskforce moving from the United Kingdom to Cadiz, so I think the right hon. Gentleman was right about that diminished role.
Earlier today, during Defence questions, Ministers could not recognise the element of diminution in defence and security, but I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree that it exists. The Secretary of State for Defence rightly has a lot to say about Russia and China, but seems to have very little to say about our future defence and security engagement with our closest ally, with which we will have a land border: the European Union.
Last week, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who has just left the Chamber, gave a clear analysis of the process so far. I hope he will forgive me for saying that only one slight element was missing from it: history. Another Member on the other side of the House—I believe it was the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who has also left the Chamber—seemed to exclude history in a more robust fashion, expressing utter disgust at the way in which the Government had brought them to this position.
I think both Members would probably agree, as would many other Members, that that is nothing new in this place. The civil war at the heart of the Conservative party is certainly nothing new, especially when it comes to the last 40 years of membership of the European Economic Community, the European Community or the European Union. In many ways, the discourse at the heart of the Conservative and Unionist party is fundamentally exposed by what it has done in walking through the doors with the Democratic Unionist party. Now of course the DUP are not here to defend themselves, but I think we would all agree that they have played a blinder when it comes to Brexit, because the history of the Conservative party with the ancestors of the DUP more or less has made the Prime Minister a modern-day Pitt the Younger, and we all know what happened in 1800 with Pitt the Younger and the utter disgrace that unfolded in Unionist history. So if the Conservative and Unionist party wishes to pin its hopes on doing deals with the DUP it should learn a lesson from its own political history. It is one it has clearly forgotten; it has no collective or institutional memory of its own history, and it is extraordinary to see it unfold before it.
The two main parties, both the Government and the official Opposition, had a commitment in their manifestos in 2017 to deliver Brexit, and the Prime Minister keeps coming back to that, but what was not in the Prime Minister’s party’s manifesto was giving a £1 billion bung to the DUP. That was hidden; there was nothing about that. No one wanted to talk about it, but that is where they are.
There is another issue that has gone about the nation. As you know, Mr Speaker, when I first stood in this House I made it clear that I was neither a Unionist nor a Home Ruler and I think that is self-explanatory, but I do have regard for both the Unionist Members and the Home Rulers in this Parliament and their position. So when it comes to a people’s vote, for example, I am utterly delighted to support it. My party has been supportive of it, and the First Minister was at the march as well as our leader here in the parliamentary group in Westminster. I hope that when push comes to shove in respect of the mandate that already exists in Scotland in its own Parliament where there is a majority that a section 30 order—of the Scotland Act 1998—is requested, those on all sides recognise any hypocrisy if they would not support a second referendum on Scotland’s constitutional position, whether they agree with that change or not.
Mention has also been made in this debate of the constitution. What constitution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? There is no constitution of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I have heard about precedent; that precedent comes from the Parliament of England pre-1707. Before 1707 I would be a shire commissioner in the Parliament of Scotland sitting in the ancient Parliament that sits there, probably the oldest parliamentary building in these islands, and a member of the three estates. But I am not; I am here in this place. So although I support the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), who is not in his place, I am hopeful that if there is a second referendum all those calling for it will be supportive of the mandate in the Scottish Parliament, and not just from my own party as there is a wider majority in the Scottish Parliament, calling if we are dragged against our will out of the EU for a referendum on our being again an independent sovereign nation state within the family of European nations.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
May I share with the House a fact that is sometimes overlooked? In the European referendum far more people voted to leave in Scotland than voted for the SNP at the 2017 election. That is a fact that some people do not understand; it is as though the hon. Gentleman thinks he speaks for all of the people of Scotland when he does not.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I am actually quite affronted —to use an old-fashioned term—by that type of question, because I do not stand here to speak for the people of Scotland; I stand here to speak for my constituents, those who voted for me and those who voted for other candidates of other political parties. But I am also mindful that some of the hon. Gentleman’s own fellow Back Benchers have said that a true democracy is based on tectonic plates that shift, and if we cannot change our mind in a modern liberal democracy then we are in no democracy at all.
The hon. Gentleman was also in the House when we had the claim of right debate, and his own Members were cheering on when I was saying that Scotland was a nation. I did not hear him disregard that ability to be an independent sovereign nation. So I find his question bizarre, because I am not standing up to speak for Scotland; I am standing up to speak for my constituents who not only voted for their country to be an independent sovereign nation but also voted for the UK to remain within the EU. We were told by the first Brexit Secretary in his first speech that the industrial working class of this political state voted to leave the European Union. I took great delight in reminding him then, as I remind the House today, that the industrial working class of West Dunbartonshire voted overwhelmingly to remain. They also voted overwhelmingly for their country to be an independent sovereign state.
I hope that Members understand that in a modern democracy, we can change our mind. How can so many people be affronted by the proposition that mature adults who are able to go to a ballot box and vote can change their mind? I know that my country will do so, and that it will be an independent one at that.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Sorry seems to be the hardest word for the Prime Minister. After her Mini-Me Trump act last week, it would have been appropriate for her to come to the House today—or indeed last week—to apologise for the words she used. She has chosen not to do so, however, and I really do regret that. I also regret the fact that clarity does not seem to be her strong point. She said in her statement that, unless this House agreed to it, no deal would not happen. That seemed to be a fairly clear statement, but when I intervened on her to ask her whether she could give us a categorical assurance that we would be allowed to pass a binding motion in this House ruling out no deal, she was unable to answer me positively. I am therefore left none the wiser about whether she has or has not ruled out no deal.
Amendments (g) and (e) have been tabled in support of a people’s vote. Amendment (g) was tabled by the Liberal Democrats with the support of the Independent Group; amendment (e) was tabled by the Independent Group with the support of the Liberal Democrats. It is important to continue to maintain the profile of a people’s vote, if only because absolutely nothing is predictable when it comes to what takes place in this House and whether votes will take place at the agreed time. It is also important because the 1 million people who marched on Saturday will be confused that no amendment relating to a people’s vote has been selected this evening. Others have mentioned the passion, enthusiasm and energy represented on the march, which was attended by people from all over the country and all walks of life. They came from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England and they were really representative of the United Kingdom as a whole. It was a fantastic occasion. I guess we have to apologise for the fact that a few stickers were left on the Cabinet Office front door, but they had been cleared by the time I attended the no-deal briefing there earlier today.
I am happy to support amendment (a), which has been tabled by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) to facilitate indicative votes. I hope that it will enable the House to find a way forward because the Prime Minister and the Government are clearly incapable of doing so. Once the Prime Minister had set out her red lines, it became impossible for her to come up with an outcome that the House could support. That was made even harder when she blamed the House for her failure to find a way forward. It is regrettable that, when the deputy Prime Minister opened the debate today, he did not simply accept amendment (a). From what he said, it seems to represent what the Government want to do. He will know as well as anyone else that it is perfectly in order for the Government to commandeer an amendment put forward by the Opposition if they find it attractive, and that Governments normally do this. Despite opposition from his own Benches, he had the option today to grab that amendment and put his own name to it. Given that it would deliver what he says he wants to do, that would have been in order. I am also happy to support amendment (f), tabled by the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett). It would give the House some certainty about what would happen in a no-deal scenario.
On the indicative votes, we need to ensure that the Prime Minister is not able to claim at the end of the process that Parliament has come no closer to securing a way forward than she has. The process must enable a strong option to emerge. The Liberal Democrats, like the SNP, would like not only an option to revoke article 50, but something that would ensure a people’s vote as a lock—something that would apply in relation to any proposals that come forward.
To conclude—hopefully well within your time constraints, Mr Speaker—the Prime Minister has lost not only legitimacy and credibility, but support both within and outside her party. She clearly cannot lead this process, so Parliament must now grasp the reins and lever the UK out of the quagmire into which we are gradually sliding. We are up to our necks and we will be in over our heads in a matter of days. We are very much in the last-chance saloon tonight, and shortly after the votes at 10 pm we will know whether we have come out of it alive.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), and I want to put on the record how impressed I have been with the calibre and quality of the speeches this afternoon and evening. It has been quite overwhelming and they have done this place some credit. At a time when the House is being vilified—even being disrespected and undermined by the Prime Minister—I have heard Members speak with passion and commitment. There have been different views and perspectives, but everyone has tried to navigate their way through things and to do what is best for their constituents and the country.
I rise to support amendments (d), (f) and, in particular, (a). Finally, Parliament is taking control of the process; the Government should have set that in train two years ago. We are finally about to decide what Brexit actually is. The fundamental dilemma of the 2016 referendum was that it allowed everybody to project all their fears, anger, hopes and fantasies on to a simply binary question, and the result has been interpreted by many different people to mean many different things. As a consequence —we will have to get used to this—whatever option the House supports will be met with cries of “Betrayal” from those who do not get the version of Brexit that was in their mind when they voted, or even the version that they have developed over the past two and a half years.
The narrative of betrayal, which the Prime Minister stoked up last week, is toxic and needs to be confronted with honesty and courage. Whatever version of Brexit comes out the other side of the parliamentary mangle, MPs need to acknowledge that people will be disappointed, upset and even angered. Whatever we do risks losing votes, and possibly even seats, for all parties. That is why we need to be brave and vote in the country’s best interests.
Those who bandy around the word “betrayal” must be honest that the betrayal of the British people has already happened. The betrayal was to ask people to make a vague and over-simplistic decision, with insufficient information that was not honest about the real choices facing our country or the complexity of our economic integration with the European Union. The betrayal was rooted in the lies and fantasy promises that were told without any intention of being kept—like those on the side of the bus. The betrayal was the exploitation for personal and political ends of the justifiable and understandable grievances of left-behind areas and working-class communities such as mine. The betrayal was the legitimatisation of prejudice, hatred and division that we saw during that debate and have seen since. The betrayal was not to be honest that major constitutional changes should not be put forward to the public unless the work had been done to prepare for them. All that comes even before we have a proper inquiry into the potential law breaking.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I am impressed with the hon. Lady’s points. Does she agree that the way to overcome the sense of betrayal that the vote was misleading, or that the work had not been done and the people did not get what they bargained for is to go back to the people once we have decided on something and ask, “Is this what you wanted?”
Anna Turley
I concur completely. I was building up to a crescendo, but I agree that being honest and having a conversation with the people about the reality of Brexit is the way forward. This place owes the public an apology for the referendum—not just David Cameron, but all of us—but instead of an apology the betrayal has continued. Rather than being honest with the public, confronting the mistakes and admitting that the referendum was flawed, we have sought to continue it rather than face up to our historic error. The public are wiser than many in this place give them credit for. They can see that the process over the past two and a half years has been an absolute shambles. They can see that Brexit is nothing like what was promised to them. We should all have the humility to say we know much more now than we did then.
Why is the Prime Minister continuing to drive people to a destination that is not where they were told they were going? We do not even know whether many of them still want to go. She continues to talk about the will of the people, but she ignores not just the 48% but those who did not vote because they did not feel strongly enough to want to change the situation. Some 29 million people either voted to remain or did not feel they wanted to change things. None of them asked to get where we are.
No wonder the public call it betrayal when they are not getting the things they were promised, or when responsible politicians step up to try to stop this carnage. This is the ultimate Brexit paradox. The further we are from Europe and the more abrupt our break, the worse it is for our economy, particularly for areas like mine that voted most strongly to leave. Yet the closer we remain to the EU, with Norway-plus or a soft Brexit option, the more we concede British sovereignty and dilute the so-called will of the people, which is now hardening among many leavers for a no deal.
No one will be getting what they were promised and I believe it is a deceit to vote for Brexit in name only in the hope that people will not notice or to try to get them off our backs. All we would be doing is continuing to reinforce the lie to the public and failing to be honest with them about the reality of our situation. Worse, I hear the Prime Minister patronising them and telling them there is nothing that can be done to prevent it because this is what they wanted two and a half years ago. Denying them the right to change their mind or to have their say on the outcome now that the evidence is clearer is a real betrayal, both of them and of future generations.
Record numbers have marched and signed petitions in the past few days. They, too, are the people, and they, too, deserve to have their voice heard. A new referendum or a vote to ratify a deal that comes through our range of options must be put to the people in the cold light of day. We must be brave enough to ignore the calls of betrayal and do the right thing, and not continue the deceit that we will be able to please everyone with our Brexit outcome. We must do what is in the best interest of our constituents’ jobs and livelihoods and in the national interest of our country. Parliament needs to come clean that we have made a catastrophic mess. We must give the public the chance to help us clean it up.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Ind)
It is a genuine honour to follow the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley). I have previously praised her and many of her Labour colleagues who represent seats that voted leave, yet who, through their leadership in engaging with their constituents, being courageous and forthright in many instances, and listening and engaging in the debate, have now come to the conclusion that the only way through this crisis is for this matter to go back to the British people. It is an unprecedented crisis, and nobody but nobody in Broxtowe or anywhere in our country voted for the incredible and appalling mess we are now in.
Tom Brake
I commend the right hon. Lady for the position she has adopted, which I know has come at some personal expense. Equally, I commend the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley).
Is the right hon. Lady as angry as I am that the advocates of hard Brexit—those who led the campaigns that were fined many tens of thousands of pounds for lying and cheating during the referendum—are very rarely here to defend their views but are quite happy to defend their views from the safety of a newspaper column?
Anna Soubry
I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I observe that many of them held the most senior positions in government but, when the going got tough, found life was much easier by leaving those positions, failing to deliver and failing to live up to the responsibility placed on them by their leadership of the leave campaign.
My constituents who are watching at home, reading the reports or, in any event, aware of the current situation are aghast, and I know I am not alone. Other right hon. and hon. Members have received emails and letters from constituents who are worried, and we have already heard about the availability, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, of medicines or, in one instance, of special food for a child with a particular allergy. Yet there are Conservative Members who actually look forward to and welcome a no-deal Brexit. It has to be said yet again that, in the words of the Business Secretary, that would be the most “ruinous” of outcomes for our country.
On that lack of certainty for businesses, let us consider a pharmaceutical company in Broxtowe. It is just in my constituency, although the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) might want to claim it as well—it is all about a line that goes through a car park. However, I know that she shares my concern for this real-life business that employs real people. At the moment, such is the crisis that it does not know what to print on its boxes, because it does not know what the outcome is going to be. That may sound minor, but it shows the problem, because too many Conservative Members do not understand the real crisis facing businesses. [Interruption.] One Conservative Member seems to find this amusing. I think this is the problem: some hon. Members actually think that a company of that scale, with 850 workers—one can imagine the huge amount of pharmaceutical products that they produce every day—can go down to Prontaprint on a Friday and order all these boxes with all the right markings on, and they will be ready on a Monday. I gently say to Conservative Members—
Anna Soubry
The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I can tell him for a fact that British business will never forgive the Conservative party for what it has done to business throughout the whole of this Brexit process. Many of us have said this all before, but it is absolutely the case that people like me voted to trigger article 50—the majority of us did. The majority of us voted for the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and the majority of us accepted that we were leaving the European Union. As the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) has explained, we then reached out to find a way of reuniting our country and a way in which we could deliver on the result but do the right thing by British business, by minimising the effect on it, and of course avoid a hard border in Northern Ireland.
In our efforts, we made direct pleas to the Prime Minister in meetings with her and offered her a solution, knowing, for example, that the Scottish National party would have voted for the single market and the customs union, as would Plaid Cymru and many Labour Back Benchers. We would have won a consensus, but she point-blank refused to engage in that. Instead, this Prime Minister has led us—it is the only thing on which she has led—to this terrible situation. She was dogmatic in laying down her red lines, and at every twist and turn when she had the opportunity to change those red lines or just rub them out a little she refused.
I say to Conservative Members that what almost all of them have also spectacularly forgotten is that when we had the general election in June 2017, more than 30 Conservative Members of Parliament in England and Wales lost their seats. The Conservative party lost its majority; there is no mandate for hard Brexit. That was the perfect opportunity for the Prime Minister to abandon the red lines and seek to form the consensus that the country was crying out for, but, yet again, she absolutely refused to do it. It ended up with people, not just those like me, leaving the Conservative party. I represent many sensible, moderate, pragmatic, one nation Tories who are leaving the Conservative party as they see it moving to the right, no longer the party of business and enterprise, and no longer having the one nation Conservatism that so many of us held so near to us. Having failed to persuade the Prime Minister to reach out and build a consensus, we ended up in a position where the only way out that we could see for our great nation was to have a people’s vote.
Others have spoken about what happened on Saturday. It was a real honour and privilege to be here in London and go on that march with people from all over the UK. These were not, as one Conservative Member described them, just fans of the Glyndebourne opera; they were real people from not only my constituency—and of all backgrounds and all ages—but from, for example, the constituency of the hon. Member for Redcar. I know she was heartbroken that she had another engagement and so she could not be here. We know that workers came down from the north-east. The really striking thing was not only people’s background, but to see children with their parents and grandparents, all of them marching in a spirit of hope and happiness, even though they were upset about the referendum result.
Bill Grant
We have to pay attention to the million on the street and the 5.4 million who have signed the petition, but that falls short of the 17.4 million people who voted to leave. That is a simple fact. There are many people in this Chamber today who are here through democracy—a democracy similar to that of the referendum—with wafer-thin margins, and they intend still to sit here.
Anna Soubry
Yes, but the hon. Gentleman forgets two things. The majority of people in this country did not vote to leave the European Union. As somebody who represents a marginal seat with one of the smallest majorities—I do not know what the hon. Gentleman’s is, but we can have that competition—let me tell him that I am not interested in my majority. I am not interested in just coming back to this place to take the money and sit and enjoy all the privileges of being a Member of Parliament. I will put my country and my constituents first and foremost, and I do not care what that costs me, even if that means that I cannot go home of a weekend because of death threats, that I have to get a taxi instead of doing a 10-minute walk, and that I have to be frightened for my wellbeing and for that of my partner and children, which cannot be right, and I feel sorry for them. This is the biggest decision that this country has made since the second world war. We come to this place to represent our constituents and do the right thing by our country. It is not about us and it is not about the Conservative party; it is about doing the right thing. In this instance, the right thing is to get this decision back to the British people. There is no way out.
Anna Soubry
I am not taking any more interventions, or you will be even more cross with me, Mr Speaker.
I am going to vote for amendment (f), tabled by the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), and amendment (a), tabled by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). I gently say to Members how important it is that, here and now, we take control of this process and do the right thing. The other thing we need to do is heal the huge division that this ghastly Brexit has created. That is another huge priority of ours, as well as taking it back to the people, which is the only way forward.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Speeches of six to seven minutes are in order and would be helpful.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I will of course follow your instructions, Mr Speaker.
It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). I agree with everything she said, especially about Saturday’s march. It was a huge privilege for us all to be here in London to march alongside a million people. In our case, there were huge numbers of Labour members and Labour MPs, marching for what we believe is right for our country and our constituents. We have had a great debate this evening, but that has been most missing from today’s speeches, and the debate has been marked by its absence. Perhaps it is a function of the extraordinary times in which we live that there has been so little mention of the fact that a million people, some of whom travelled for many hours to get to London, came from every corner of Great Britain to take part in the march. It ought to have been given much greater attention. I put on record my personal thanks, and the thanks of many of us in the Labour party, to the People’s Vote team who organised the march and who have performed a great service to our country by keeping alive the democratic dream of a people’s vote. I hope they will continue to do so.
I first spoke in favour of a people’s vote two and a half years ago, when I contested the Labour party leadership with the leader of the Labour party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). Unfortunately, he defeated me, but he did not defeat the democratic dream of a second referendum. I am absolutely convinced by the volume of people who turned out on Saturday that all of us who have kept alive that flame of democracy over the past two and a half years have been entirely right. What people were marching for on Saturday—people who voted leave, people who voted remain and people who may not have voted at all—was nothing less than that. It was a chance to exercise their democratic right, having started Brexit, to end Brexit; and having given the Government a mandate to pursue Brexit, to then have a say at the end of the process when we know what the Brexit reality looks like.
I fear that, marching on the streets on Saturday, what I encountered was a huge amount of frustration and a huge amount of anger gently expressed but powerfully felt. There was a massive degree of despair at the dysfunction of our Parliament and our politics and, frankly, at the breakdown that many people see and feel in our very democracy. I fear that they are to be denied a chance to have their say on the outturn of Brexit, as they had their say on the starting of Brexit. If those people—some of those 1 million people on the march or the 5.5 million people who have signed the petition to revoke Brexit—were listening to today’s statement from the Prime Minister, I fear that they will have been doubly disappointed and despairing, because what they would have heard is more doublespeak. I fear that what they are likely to see tonight is more double dealing, with promises being made to Conservative Back Benchers to try to get them to back off supporting amendment (a) in return for a nebulous promise from those on the Government Treasury Bench that they will offer something similar. The truth is that we have been here before. We have seen countless false promises made from the Dispatch Box, but when it comes to the crunch, we see not just hon. Members but the country let down.
I want to say a few things before I close about the process that we are debating in respect of amendment (a)—the idea of indicative votes. The truth is that we have got to this point far too late in the process. It strikes me as extraordinary that the Government are effectively, in a rushed and desperate fashion, seemingly set to concede at the very last minute a demand that has been made by many on these Benches and across the House for several years, let alone months. I suspect, too, that this will be done in a fairly cack-handed and haphazard fashion. We do not know when it will be debated or what the process will be. The Government say that they cannot lose control of the process, but they are going to afford Members the opportunity to determine what that process is and what the options are. It seems to be an utterly shambolic state of affairs and entirely reflects the way in which the Government have handled—or rather mishandled—this for more than two years.
Worst of all, the most likely scenario and outturn will be a lowest common denominator, second-rate proposal that the Government will not even be bound to follow. Earlier on, we had the extraordinary statement that we were going to have these indicative votes, but then we heard that the Prime Minister was not necessarily going to pay any attention to them at the end of it. Again, that strikes me as entirely reflective of the shambolic way in which the Government have managed this process. If we get to the point where we have a second-rate compromise Brexit deal on the table, it will make with absolute eloquence the point of the 1 million people who marched on Saturday—that if there is a poor Brexit arrived at in this House, the only way in which the Government can honour democracy and honour the will of the people is to give them a chance to cast their vote as to its merit. I hope and anticipate that the people, in their wisdom, will reject such a deal, but they do at the very least need to be given a chance to reject it.
I have one final point on the process. One of the ways in which the Government will, I fear, try to bamboozle Members of Parliament in the coming days is to present a smörgåsbord of options: Canada plus; no deal; Norway; and a customs union. All these things will potentially come alongside options such as revoke and a people’s vote. That is no way to honour the will of this House or to properly conduct the democratic business of this House. We need to be absolutely clear that a people’s vote—a vote on the Brexit deal—is entirely separate from any of the options that we might vote on in this series of indicative votes. It would be completely tricksy and deceitful of the Government to try to confuse those two things in the public’s mind or in Parliament’s mind. The democratic, principled thing to do is to afford the people a say on whatever sort of Brexit deal is agreed on by this House, and certainly not to present an alternative between a referendum and one of those Brexit deals. That would be the wrong way to proceed, Mr Speaker, and I am sure that you will make sure that that does not happen.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
In opening this debate, the deputy Prime Minister cautioned against voting for amendment (a) because he said that it would alter the relationship between the Executive and the Parliament. That is exactly why we need to vote for amendment (a). We must alter that relationship because we are now in a situation whereby the level of dysfunction and inertia in our political system is without parallel. We are in the midst of a political crisis that is mirrored only by our inability to do anything about it through the normal processes of government, so we must now take back control of the agenda.
We are in a bizarre situation whereby the Government have brought their proposals twice to this Parliament, and twice they have been roundly rejected. Now, not only do the Government say that they will not bring their proposals back for a third time—they are taking their ball home with them, it seems—but they say that they refuse to change their mind and vary those proposals so that there might be a route to a majority. In those circumstances, there is no option left but for people other than those in the Government to take control of the situation.
Make no mistake, if amendment (a) is passed, it will most definitely be an indictment and a censure of this Government and the way in which they have conducted themselves over the last two and a half years. What we need to know from the Government is whether they are prepared to try to win back our trust—whether they will enter into this process with good faith in the attempt to see whether there is a majority in this House that they can be part of, or whether they just want us to exhaust ourselves running around in circles, so that they can come along two weeks later and bring plan A back again to be defeated.
As others have remarked, we should have been engaged in this process two and a half years ago, rather than leaving it to this last moment, but the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) put his finger on the button when he said that the problem is that, from the word go, the result of the 2016 referendum was hijacked by the winning side and used to close down any debate about how the mandate should be interpreted or what it actually meant. Therefore, for the past two years, there has been a dialogue that has involved only the Government, the ERG and the Democratic Unionist party. Thankfully, we are not yet in a situation whereby that political axis commands a majority either in this House or in the country. I appeal to the Government for the umpteenth time to reach out beyond their own narrow political confines and see whether it is possible to build a political consensus in this country that can put our fractured politics back together.
Time and again, we have heard the mantra of 17.4 million, and we really need to confront this point. In a democratic society, people do not just get one vote; they get a series of votes. In a democratic society, each vote qualifies and updates the ones that came before. What we need to know is what the views of the people are now, not what they were three years ago. I firmly believe that, although 17.4 million people voted for us to leave the European Union, they did not vote to endorse the prospectus that the Government have brought to this House, and they did not vote for the Government’s harsh interpretation of that decision. For example, I do not think that 17.4 million people voted to deny themselves and their children the ability to move freely around the European Union. I just do not believe it; I think that was part of the hijack.
Most importantly, however, it is clear to anyone who wants to see that many of those people have changed their minds. In a democratic society, people have the right to do that, so we need to test the decision again, and that means we will have to put this matter back to the people. We do not need a short break in this process—a short extension—to tweak what is already there; we need a fundamental rethink. We need to go back to the drawing board. We need to scrap the phoney red lines that were imposed by this Government and see if it is possible to come up with a new proposal. To do that, and to give time for that to be put before the people, we will need a serious extension to this process.
Thankfully, the European Union—President Tusk and others—has indicated that it would be happy to look at a much longer extension and at going back to negotiations if the Government change their red lines: their restrictive insistence on what the agreement had to do. So that option is there, but if there are complications in getting that level of extension, the answer is quite simple, and the power lies with us. All we need to do is to revoke article 50—not as a means of getting closure on the whole process but to take back control of it and give ourselves whatever time we need to formulate proposals and to democratically put them before the people.
Of course, we will go beyond 22 May and will therefore get into having the opportunity to elect representatives to represent us in the European Union, of which we are still part. What is wrong with that? How can it be that a bunch of people elected in a democratic election are so scared of having one in two months’ time? Let us put this back to the people in an election. That will give us the opportunity to begin to redefine the narrative in this country—to try to explain to people that we gain most by common endeavour. We need to put hope in front of hate and to put hope back where there is currently despair. We can take a positive message to the people in those elections. My party stands ready to do that, and I do not see why others are not ready to contest them, too.
When we get the opportunity to run these elections in Scotland, you can bet, for sure, that we will also be taking the opportunity to explain to the people of Scotland that this process could have been avoided for them and they did not need to go through this if they had had the confidence to take the power for themselves, take back control and become a normal independent country like the others in this world.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) are two extremely difficult acts to follow, but I will do my best in the limited time that I have.
We are now fractionally under 98 hours away from leaving the European Union without a deal. On Friday night, we are out without a deal unless the Government do something. When the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who is not in her place just now, listed some of the catastrophic impacts of a no-deal Brexit, the Minister, true to form, was sitting there mouthing across to her, “Thanks to you. Thanks to you. Thanks to you.” Even at this late stage, it is the fault of the hon. Lady, the fault of the Opposition, the fault of the Supreme Court: the fault of everybody apart from the Government, who claim that they have a mandate from the people from the referendum in 2016 and who have failed dismally to bring forward a credible, workable, sensible, rational or even sane way to implement that mandate.
Today, I heard an avid Brexiteer describe the withdrawal agreement as a stitch-up between the Prime Minister and the European Union. Well, that may be the case, because from day one she has sought to exclude anybody who might have been able to help in those negotiations who wanted anything different from her calamitous red lines. The Government still try to put forward the line that her deal is the only one the European Union was prepared to offer, but that is not true: it was the only one it could possibly offer within the confines of the red lines that she had used to paint herself and us all into a corner.
It has become quite clear that those red lines stand in the way of any deal being acceptable to anything close to a majority of those in this House and stand in the way of a deal that comes anywhere close to commanding a majority of support among the citizens of these nations. The red lines have to go. If that means the Prime Minister has to go, then she has to go. It is not only the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) who has to be prepared to say that this is much more important than one person’s political career.
The Prime Minister promised herself a free vote, whipped herself to vote against it and then lost. Government Whips have been giving contradictory advice to different Ministers about whether the Whip existed and whether it was one, two or three lines. Good luck to them trying to count whether they have 325 votes for tonight if they sometimes struggle to count up to three.
The Prime Minister cannot control her own party, but she now cannot even control her own Cabinet. She cannot go in one direction, because half the Cabinet will quit, and she cannot go in the other direction, because the other half will quit. Well, perhaps it is time the whole lot of them quit, so that we can take this issue back to the people. In any other democracy, if the Government failed to get their flagship policy through Parliament, the Head of State would have two options: a new Parliament or a new Government. Of course, in this democracy—or supposed democracy—when we have a chance to have a new Parliament, we also have a chance to have a new Government.
I find it astonishing that growing numbers of Conservative Members are saying they should be allowed a third chance at the meaningful vote because they did not understand that no deal might be taken off the table. They say that the circumstances have changed and that if they had known that the second vote was the last chance they would get, they might have voted differently. Is that the case? Is it the case that if people realise that circumstances have changed and that they had not understood what they were voting for, they should be allowed another chance? That is a good idea, and if it is okay for a few hundred Tory MPs, it sure as heck is good enough for the 60 million citizens who put all those MPs in place in the first place.
We hear Members talking about the number of people who took part in the referendum. I remind Members that the referendum did not ask what people wanted. Three years on from the referendum, with fewer than 100 hours left before we crash out without a deal, none of us can claim to know what any of those 17.5 million people were voting for. We know that they were voting to leave, but none of them was asked to vote on where they wanted to go. That is why we have to come up with a solution that commands the respect of the House and then put it to the people. It may not be the solution that I think is preferable—it may not be my first choice—but those who voted to leave, those who voted to remain and those who did not vote at all have to be given a choice.
I finish by saying that I have been reluctant to endorse wholeheartedly the campaign to revoke article 50, but if it becomes a choice between my nation being dragged out against the wishes of 62% of our people, and two other nations having to revoke article 50, with the option of coming back for another go later on, then article 50 has to be revoked. If we do not do this, in future another treaty will be revoked, thanks to the sovereign will of the people of my nation.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant). I rise to speak in favour of amendments (f), (a) and (d). This country, and indeed this House, now face a very serious situation and a very substantial challenge. At this crucial time, with just a few days to settle the issue of Brexit—an issue that, as we all know, the Government have been unable to resolve for the last two years—we have to find a way through the impasse.
We have had months of delay, with the Government kicking the can down the road, putting off the inevitable, delaying reality and trying to pretend that their shabby deal was the only way of resolving Brexit. That is even though the proposed deal would have resolved only the withdrawal agreement with the EU and, indeed, offered only 22 pages of non-legally binding text to outline the whole of our future relationship with the EU. In other words, it set up several years—possibly six or even 10 years—of further botched negotiations, when the UK would have been in a very weak negotiating position.
Given the weakness of the Prime Minister’s deal, it was not surprising that it was rejected by both ardent leavers and those with deep concerns about Brexit. I sincerely hope that we have now moved on beyond the charade of this Government trying to put the same deal back to Parliament again and again. That is why it is time for Parliament to take control of this process.
As you know only too well, Mr Speaker, in a parliamentary democracy, when a Government lose the good will and support of a majority in Parliament, they should rethink their approach. That is what I hope will happen tonight. It is my sincere hope and belief that we have a real opportunity to break this dreadful impasse. It is now incumbent on the Government to listen to MPs and the millions of people who marched on Saturday. I urge Ministers to listen and consider the very real merits of thinking again. It is time for indicative votes, including on a confirmatory referendum. We have to put this serious matter back to the people, and the Government have to fundamentally rethink their approach.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
It is an honour to close for Her Majesty’s Opposition in such an important debate on our nation’s future and to follow the brilliant speeches made by Members who have risen to the occasion, including my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) and for Reading East (Matt Rodda), the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), who made a particularly thoughtful speech, and my good and hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), who spoke with passion and conviction.
Tonight the House must make an important decision: to take the reins from the hands of the Prime Minister and find a way out of this Brexit impasse. I know that that is not an easy decision for many Members, particularly those on the Government Benches, but we have seen how the Prime Minister has responded to losing two meaningful votes by two historic margins. First she hoped to push through the same deal again without meaningful changes, no matter the rules of the House or the obvious hopelessness of her strategy. Next she tried to pitch the people against MPs, with all the consequences that that has for parliamentary democracy. Then she went to the European Council without a viable strategy and had to have a plan to extend article 50 and avert no deal written for her and for the United Kingdom. Finally, when she should have been seeking consensus across the House, she spent the weekend further trying to placate the very people manoeuvring against her. At every turn, she has made a crisis of her own making even worse.
Well, enough is enough. There is a void where coherent leadership ought to be, exemplified by the Prime Minister’s statement earlier today. Tonight Parliament must step into that void to find a consensus on the best way through. That is what amendment (a) from the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and amendment (d) from the Leader of the Opposition seek to achieve. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said, if the Government were doing their job, those amendments would not be necessary. The European Council’s decision to grant the UK an extension to the article 50 process was a necessity—it was the only way to prevent leaving without a deal on Friday—but any extension must be for a purpose.
Parliament must rapidly decide how we wish to proceed if we are not going to face the cliff edge again on 12 April. Indicative votes are not ideal, but these are extraordinary circumstances, and indicative votes would allow MPs an opportunity to express their view on a way forward. Labour recognises that Members across the House have different views on how the process for indicative votes should be carried out. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) outlined her view based on her distinguished service on the Procedure Committee. Finding a consensus will not be easy. Different processes have different strengths and weaknesses, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) said, a key merit of amendments (a) and (d) is that they do not close off options for how we conduct that process.
Labour will be supporting both amendments, and I encourage Government Members to stop giving the Prime Minister, who is so evidently out of control, the benefit of the doubt. This is a chance to put the country before party.
However any indicative process is conducted, this House must reach a decision on the substance of the matter. What future relationship with the EU do we want, and how do we want to get there? We must start by eliminating the bad options and the unicorns. Labour and the House are clear that we cannot accept the Prime Minister’s blind Brexit. Nor will we sign up to a distant and arm’s-length economic relationship along the lines of Canada. The Brady amendment, which proposed replacing the backstop with alternative arrangements, was an irresponsible, Government-sponsored unicorn. Neither we nor the House will countenance no deal, described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) as the very definition of irresponsibility. How right she is.
As far as Labour can see, that leaves two credible options. The first is a close economic partnership based on a customs union and single market alignment, with dynamic alignment for rights and protections. The second is a public vote between remain and a credible leave option. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Brexit Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), have met colleagues to discuss those ideas. They are engaged in good-faith discussions to find where a majority lies in this House—a majority that I hope will be expressed through the indicative votes process.
Let me finish by saying this: today the Prime Minister said that even if a majority for a way forward is found through the indicative votes process, she cannot commit to implementing it. How characteristic and typical that is of a Prime Minister who confuses the vices of blinkeredness and intransigence with the virtue of steadfast determination, whose first instinct is to ignore and push away the views of others, and who seems incapable of accepting that in our parliamentary democracy the Prime Minister must bring a majority of the House of Commons with her. It is an approach that has brought about a national crisis and brought us to a point where Parliament must now step in and take control of this process.
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen Barclay)
The central question before the House this evening, as reflected in amendment (a) in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), is: who controls the Order Paper? Should control be passed to Back-Bench Members in a process that is still to be fully defined and that would have constitutional implications, or do Members across this House accept the assurances given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when opening this debate that the Government will make time available this week for Members to express their preference on the way forward? That would follow consultation, through the usual channels, to enable the House to come to that view.
Stephen Gethins
Before the Secretary of State proceeds, it might be helpful for the House if he could outline whether he will vote in favour of his argument, or vote differently?
Stephen Barclay
If the hon. Gentleman had kept up with my speech last time, he would realise that I spoke to the three amendments, all of which were defeated last time. I hope that the same will happen tonight and that all the amendments will be defeated. That is the purpose of my speech once again. This is not the first time that SNP Members have not been awake during speeches.
The House has also been asked to consider amendment (f) in the name of the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) regarding the recalling of the House in the event of a no-deal exit being imminent. The House has been further asked to vote on amendment (d) in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, which calls on the Government to provide sufficient time this week for a series of votes, including on the Opposition’s plan. The Government have committed to providing that time, but that does not change the fact that the plan from Her Majesty’s Opposition has already been rejected by this House and the EU has suggested that key aspects are not negotiable.
Stephen Barclay
The hon. Gentleman is correct. That is referenced in the amendment tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, but he is silent on the fact that his own proposed deal has also been rejected. That points to the lack of consistency that we see so often in his approach.
Let me turn to amendment (a). My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said that his proposal was little different from established practice on a Friday in respect of private Members’ Bills. I gently suggest to my right hon. Friend, who is an experienced and senior Member of the House, that there is a difference between the Government choosing to make time available to Members for private Members’ Bills and Members taking time from the Government to control the very business of the House.
Sir Oliver Letwin
If that is a problem constitutionally for the Government, what about their simply accepting the amendment, thereby turning it into a Government amendment?
Stephen Barclay
My right hon. Friend had that exchange at the beginning of the debate with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who in his usual skilful way addressed the point by saying that the Government will make time available this week to take the matter forward.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
As my right hon. Friend has just indicated that the Government have something different in mind from the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), will he give us a little more detail than just “will make time available”? When will that time be? Will Members be able to table the motions that are intended for an indicative vote? Will the Government take any notice of the majorities that are achieved for any amendments?
Stephen Barclay
We are in danger of rerunning the opening of the debate. Indeed, the shadow Brexit Secretary asked whether the Government would give a binding commitment to respect and adopt whatever was passed, even though the Opposition, who made that request, were not willing to give that commitment. We cannot give a blank cheque when we do not know exactly what those votes will be—I am sure that, when the Father of the House was a Minister, he would have taken the same line.
The real issue is the constitutional significance of amendment (a) because it is unprecedented in its nature. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has already addressed the kernel of the matter, which is whether the Government will make time available this week. Indeed, he set out at the beginning of the debate that, in good faith, we will have discussions with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, Opposition Front Benchers and Members from across the House on how the process should look. Amendment (a) does not set that out in detail, so the Government have undertaken to have that process and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster addressed that in his opening remarks.
On amendment (f), I reassure the right hon. Member for Derby South that the Government will return to the Dispatch Box in the event that the withdrawal agreement is not approved this week. We will also return to the House to consider plans for the week of 5 April after any indicative voting. As the right hon. Lady will know as a senior Member of the House, the decision on whether to enter recess is in the control of the House. Although we do not think it is sensible to try to set the Order Paper now for a date in two weeks’ time without knowing what will happen in the interim, I hope that she is content that the House will certainly have a say on the matter.
Margaret Beckett
I will not detain the Secretary of State. If what I have suggested is acceptable, why does he not just accept the amendment?
Stephen Barclay
As I said, we cannot anticipate the business in two weeks’ time, but we have given a signal from the Dispatch Box on behalf of the Government about our position.
Let me turn to amendment (d) in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. The shadow Brexit Secretary said that many Members want to break the current deadlock, yet his amendment raises no objection to the withdrawal agreement and, as he well knows, it is the withdrawal agreement, not the political declaration, that needs to be approved to meet the tests that the European Council set for an extension to 22 May. He went on to criticise the Government for not giving a commitment to be bound by any indicative votes, yet, as I pointed out earlier, when the Father of the House challenged the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras on that very issue, he was unable to give such a commitment for Her Majesty’s Opposition to be bound in that way. Indeed, despite many of his own Members pressing for free votes from the Government in respect of those votes, he was again unwilling to give such a commitment on behalf of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition’s amendment notes that the Government’s deal has been defeated, but it is silent on the fact that his own deal has also been rejected by the House.
Regardless of any other votes, if the House does not approve the withdrawal agreement this week, it risks a longer extension, potentially resulting in Brexit being revoked, at odds with the Government’s manifesto. The uncertainty of any longer extension would be bad for business confidence and investments. It would also have lasting implications for our democracy, including our reputation around the world as a country that respects the votes of its citizens.
If this House can find the resolve, we could be out of the European Union in a matter of weeks. This is the ultimate mandate: the one handed to us by the British people; the one that reflects the manifestos that the Labour party, as well as the Conservative party, stood on. The Prime Minister’s deal is the way to deliver what the people voted for in 2016 and 2017. That is why it is right that the Government maintain control of the Order Paper, in line with constitutional convention, and why the amendments this evening should be defeated.
Mr Speaker
I invite the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), to move amendment (d), which stands in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Not moved.
Amendment proposed: (a), At end, add
“and, given the need for the House to debate and vote on alternative ways forward, with a view to the Government putting forward a plan for the House to debate and vote on, orders that –
(a) Standing Order No. 14(1) (which provides that government business shall have precedence at every sitting save as provided in that order) shall not apply on Wednesday 27 March;
(b) precedence on that day shall be given to a motion relating to the Business of the House in connection with matters relating to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union other than any Business of the House motion relating to the consideration by the House of a motion under Section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and then to motions relating to that withdrawal and the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union other than any motion moved under Section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018;
(c) if more than one motion related to the Business of the House is tabled, the Speaker shall decide which motion shall have precedence;
(d) the Speaker shall interrupt proceedings on any business before the Business of the House motion having precedence at 2.00 pm on Wednesday 27 March and call a Member to move that motion;
(e) debate on that motion may continue until 3.00 pm on Wednesday 27 March at which time the Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion including the questions on amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved;
(f) when those proceedings have been concluded, the Speaker shall call a Member to move one of the other motions having precedence;
(g) any proceedings interrupted or superseded by this order or an order arising from the Business of the House motion may be resumed or (as the case may be) entered upon and proceeded with after the moment of interruption on Wednesday 27 March.”—(Sir Oliver Letwin.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr Speaker
We are waiting for the result of the Division but, in a cordial spirit, I am sure colleagues across the House will want to congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on his birthday.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to congratulate the House on taking control. The Government’s approach has been an abject failure, and this House must now find a solution. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and others who have worked to achieve tonight’s result.
The Government must take this process seriously. We do not know what the House will decide on Wednesday, but I know that there are many Members of this House who have been working on alternative solutions, and we must debate them to find a consensus. This House must also consider whether any deal should be put to the people for a confirmatory vote. Where this Government have failed, this House must—and I believe will—succeed.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not wish to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), but since he now seems to have installed himself as a kind of jobbing Prime Minister, could you tell me how we can hold him to account in this House?
Mr Speaker
I have known the hon. Gentleman for a long time, and he is not disorderly, but there is something to be said for observing the precepts of “Erskine May” in terms of moderation and good humour in parliamentary debate, and the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) is always unfailingly courteous in his dealings with others. I think that the question was largely rhetorical, but in so far as the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) is seeking a response, what I would say in all seriousness is that the effect of—[Interruption.] Order. I do not require any help from the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), who would not have the foggiest idea where to start. He was once a Whip; he wasn’t a very good Whip. It would be better if he could keep quiet. That is the reality of the matter. [Interruption.] No, it is not outrageous at all. [Interruption.] Members can shout as much as they like, it will not make any difference. The right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham is perfectly capable of looking after himself. If he wants to chunter noisily from a sedentary position, he has to expect that there will be a response. I say to the hon. Member for Monmouth that these matters will be aired further in debate on Wednesday, and if he wants to subject the right hon. Member for West Dorset to appropriate scrutiny, the opportunity is there for him to do so.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Tonight’s is an important decision for the House, and let me commend Members from across the House who have given us the opportunity to have indicative votes on Wednesday. This House is seeking a way forward when the Government have failed to provide leadership. In the event that the House does come to a determination on Wednesday evening, what can we do to ensure that the Government and the Prime Minister listen to the determination of this House?
Mr Speaker
It is for the right hon. Gentleman—I think he knows this—to probe Ministers who will be on the Treasury Bench during the course of the debate, to air the issues and to ask, “If x, y or z happens, what will the Minister do?” These are not matters that can be adjudicated by the Chair, but they are matters of debate that I am sure will be ventilated, and the right hon. Gentleman will be at the forefront of ensuring that that ventilation takes place.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. A few weeks ago, you sent out a message and a letter to all Members of Parliament, asking them to treat each other with respect. Do you think that your comments to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) reflected that?
Mr Speaker
If I have caused offence, I will very happily apologise. I have no difficulty with that. I have no difficulty in apologising to the right hon. Gentleman. I did not think he was a person of tender sensibilities, but if I have caused offence I am very—[Interruption.] If people would let me speak, I will happily do so. I am very happy to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. It does not cause me a problem. He is normally a most genial character, and most of our exchanges are in that vein. I am very happy to tender that apology. It does not cause me any difficulty whatsoever. [Interruption.] Well, opinions can differ about qualities—[Interruption.] Yes, but I do not need to adjudicate on that. I have said what I have said, and there is nothing that requires to be added.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It may not cause you any great trouble, but it causes us a certain degree of trouble. You, Sir, have just congratulated my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) on treating everybody with courtesy. You, Sir, are the invigilator of this place, and if you insult other Members of Parliament, we have no comeback. Is that not—
Mr Speaker
Order. Resume your seat. What I say to the right hon. Gentleman is this: the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), from a sedentary position, was disorderly. The point was raised by the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin). I have given an apology. I said sorry to the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham and nothing further requires to be added. I thank the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) for underlining his concern, but I said sorry to the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham and it does not need to be said again.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This evening the House has made a major constitutional innovation. In order that it can be a success and that Wednesday is both orderly and meaningful, would you now establish a business committee of the main parties and those who brought forward these proposals in order to organise these events?
Mr Speaker
I think that everybody would hope, or certainly it is to be reasonably assumed that they do, that the process on Wednesday, in the interests of Parliament, is a success. It is my absolute expectation that the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) will communicate with others—and, indeed, quite possibly with the usual channels—about the process to be followed on Wednesday to facilitate the House and try to secure a satisfactory outcome. I do not think in the first instance it is to be expected that I would take the lead on the matter, but the right hon. Gentleman can be expected to do so, and I feel sure that, with others, that is what he will do.
Anna Soubry
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would be in order to record that the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) was actually a rather good Whip; and, arguably more importantly, as a member of Her Majesty’s Government —as a Minister—resigned on a point of principle?
Mr Speaker
That is absolutely true. Indeed, if memory serves me correctly, I remember having a conversation with the right hon. Gentleman at the Chair at the time, and more recently. He was an exceptionally capable Minister—I do not doubt that. I cannot comment on how good a Whip he was beyond apologising for the offence that I might have caused. He certainly was an immensely capable Minister at the Dispatch Box. I do not dispute that for one moment. I thank the right hon. Lady for what she has said.
Sir William Cash
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) just said that this was a constitutional innovation. I think he may have rather underestimated the fact that it is in fact a constitutional revolution, and the House will come to regret it.
Mr Speaker
I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand if I say that he has made his point and he does not need a response from me. As he knows, I respect his integrity 100%. His view is on the record, and let us see how events play out, but I would always want to acknowledge the force and sincerity of his views.
Ms Angela Eagle
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that the House has now voted to have this process, yet the Government Front Bench was promising it anyway, does it not make sense for both Front Benches to work with those who sponsored the amendment so that we can move forward in an orderly manner on Wednesday with the agreement of the House?
Mr Speaker
That might seem eminently reasonable. Nothing is to be taken for granted, but I can certainly see, and many Members might note, the force and logic of what the hon. Lady has said.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Tonight’s vote is obviously about the House taking control due to a lack of leadership by the Government. In that vein, we have usually had a point of order or a statement from the Prime Minister after such votes. Have you had any indication of where the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House are hiding and of what the Leader of the House is planning to do about Government business on Wednesday, which needs to be rescheduled? We have not had a statement.
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. In fairness, and speaking off the top of my head without the opportunity to consult and without advance knowledge of what the hon. Gentleman would say, I am not sure that that is quite right in procedural terms, because the effect of tonight’s vote on the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for West Dorset and then in support of the main motion, as amended, is that what the right hon. Gentleman has commended to the House will have precedence on Wednesday. It does not, however, knock out other Government business of itself; I think that other Government business would follow. So although the hon. Gentleman might want a business statement by the Leader of the House or a response from the Prime Minister, in procedural terms neither of those things is required tonight—he might want it, but neither is required tonight. Perhaps I can leave it there.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that, these days, extensions are in vogue, if the 24 hours of Wednesday are not enough to sort out what the mind of this House is—work that probably should have happened two and a half years ago—will it be possible to extend the work that should be happening on Wednesday into further days so that we do find out definitively what the heck they think in here?
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, but I think the best answer to that is, let us take one step at a time; let us see where things go in the consideration by the House of the business. I think I should leave it there. I thank colleagues for their interest and participation in this series of exchanges.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Mr Speaker
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 3 to 12 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Social Security)
That the draft Social Security Coordination (Regulation (EC) No 987/2009) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.
That the draft Social Security Coordination (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Council Regulation (EC) No 859/2003) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.
That the draft Social Security Coordination (Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.
That the draft Social Security Coordination (Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, EEA Agreement and Swiss Agreement) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Financial Services and Markets)
That the draft Electronic Commerce and Solvency 2 (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 25 February, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)
That the draft Food and Drink, Veterinary Medicines and Residues (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 13 February, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Companies)
That the draft International Accounting Standards and European Public Limited-Liability Company (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Animals)
That the draft Zoonotic Disease Eradication and Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 14 February, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)
That the draft European Structural and Investment Funds Common Provisions (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 12 February, be approved.
That the draft European Structural and Investment Funds Common Provisions Rules etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 12 February, be approved.—(Mike Freer.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)
That the draft Rural Development (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 13 February, be approved.—(Mike Freer.)
The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 27 March (Standing Order No. 41A).
Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)
That the draft Rural Development (Rules and Decisions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 13 February, be approved.—(Mike Freer.)
The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 27 March (Standing Order No. 41A).
International Trade
Policing: Somerset
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
For many reasons, I am pleased to have secured this debate, even though some of what I have to say may be distressing to hear because crime, unfortunately, knows no boundaries.
It will come as no surprise that policing in Somerset is a matter of enormous concern to my constituents and to hundreds of thousands of others across the county. To an outsider, Somerset conjures up the image of a peaceful backwater, full of cider orchards and friendly folk with old-fashioned values. Unfortunately, as in so many other parts of our nation, life is no longer like that. Rather alarmingly, the National Crime Agency says that there are 90 organised crime groups operating in the Avon and Somerset area. It is no longer a few light-fingered thieves we have to worry about; it is big-time crooks. Organised crime in the United Kingdom costs £37 billion every year—that is almost as much as the Brexit divorce bill to Brussels. Organised crime causes more deaths than terrorism, wars and natural disasters put together, and there are 90 organised crime groups in my county alone. Frankly, it does not bear thinking about.
The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction has just named Bristol the cocaine capital of Europe. That is not an accolade that any of us locally are proud of. The city has shot up the international cocaine leader board. Twelve months ago, Bristol was No. 5 in the charts; now it is No. 1. There is widespread drug misuse in so many corners of Somerset, which the police confess is way beyond their capacity to handle, let alone solve. Users frequently get off with a caution if they are caught at all. Dealers have to be major players to warrant anything approaching a crackdown. The force simply does not have the manpower to do anything other than cherry-pick at a huge, disastrous and growing problem.
Just a fortnight ago, the Avon and Somerset chief constable admitted that his force was “losing the war” against drugs. That is a very scary public statement to make. I have enormous respect for the foot soldiers of our overworked police force. I have watched them do their jobs in difficult circumstances. I have joined them in civvies on patrol and see them risk life and limb in action. The men and women in the ranks perform miracles, and they defy the odds, but I fear the odds are stacked against them. They are not always well led, and they suffer from the slings and arrows of erratic decision making by the office of the police and crime commissioner.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service will probably know that I have had several bitter spats with the Avon and Somerset police and crime commissioner, Mrs Sue Mountstevens, who has the uncanny knack of opening her mouth and inserting both feet into it—a remarkable achievement. On her first day on the job, she fired the chief constable. A few months later, she fired his successor—the very candidate she had hand-picked as a replacement. The present chief constable must consider himself lucky to have survived a couple of years.
Nobody can relax when the commissioner starts talking. Last week, she offered the benefit of her wisdom on the subject of drug smuggling—“Don’t risk Dover,” she told her audience, “because you might easily get caught.” She added that if anybody was smuggling drugs, her personal recommendation was somewhere safer, like Lyme Regis in Dorset. I am sure that Members representing Dorset are pleased.
The local town exploded with justifiable anger. They call Lyme Regis the pearl of the Jurassic coast, which it is, but Mrs Mountstevens has now renamed it Dope-on-Sea. Bang go her chances of getting a glittering career with the Lyme Regis tourist board. Mrs Mountstevens used to run the famous Mountstevens family bakery. I suspect that it will not come as a great surprise to the Minister that the bakery went bust when she was running it. Last week, after the Lyme Regis booboo, she baked an incredible humble pie and was forced to eat the lot.
Frankly, anyone would find it a bit of a challenge trying to run an effective police force with Sue Mountstevens permanently peering over their shoulder, especially when the arithmetic of crime is rising against her. Everything seems to be going up. Knife crime is up 52% in a single year. That amounts to 634 additional crimes in Avon and Somerset in which knives were used. The police response was to organise Operation Spectre, a campaign aimed at educating young people, targeting hotspots and putting out knife surrender bins. That may sound like the sort of thing that officers should be doing all the time, but Operation Spectre lasted for only seven days, which is nothing like enough to make a difference.
I do not believe that these major problems can be tackled with tokenism. Serious crime demands serious answers. Avon and Somerset police and its commissioner have been trumpeting Operation Remedy, which claims to make 100 extra officers available to fight drug dealers. It certainly looks like the first significant increase in manpower in Somerset for several years and will be paid for by a £24 average council tax rise, but I doubt whether Operation Remedy can ever provide an effective remedy, because it only lasts for three months. The chief constable promised that it would make a “big splash”. Really? Operation Remedy comes to an end in June. Unfortunately, as we all know, whether one is a northern or a southern MP, drug barons never stop.
We should remember that the operation is being paid for entirely out of a hefty hike in council tax. The Somerset County Council police panel has given Mrs Mountstevens a hard time, demanding justification for the spending. It wants to ensure that it is not a waste of money, and I think it has very good reason to be cautious.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I spoke to him beforehand and he will understand where I am coming from. A great benefit of community policing in my constituency, and perhaps in his as well, is having police officers in the community—in the estates, on the streets and in the rural communities—bringing in the intelligence on drugs and other things across the constituency. Does he think that the police force in his constituency could do more of that? If so, what would he like the Minister to do to ensure that it happens?
Mr Liddell-Grainger
I welcome that intervention. This debate is about policing in Somerset, but the issue applies to the whole country. It does not matter whether it is Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland or England: we are all suffering in the same way. There is an epidemic and we are not yet controlling it. I am not blaming the Government, because the issue goes back over the 18 years I have been in Parliament. I think knife crime has gone up, but the rest has not greatly changed. The hon. Gentleman’s point is that this is about frontline services and frontline officers. I have spoken to the Minister, who has championed the issue during his time in office, and I welcome his commitment to continue to fight at every level. This has to be about the community, as the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, but it also has to be led from the centre so that it ripples out, even to bad police and crime commissioners, as in my case. That was a great intervention.
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
South Gloucestershire, of course, falls under the Avon and Somerset constabulary. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are unable to get a handle on bigger issues such as knife crime and drug-related organised crime, it is much more difficult to tackle low-level antisocial behaviour issues, which are the ones most raised by constituents in South Gloucestershire?
Mr Liddell-Grainger
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We cover very similar areas and he makes a valid point. I will come on to that, because the Somerset area has some exciting news and I hope we will be able to reach across the border into South Gloucestershire. I know that his area suffers the same problems as we do: crime takes place up and down the motorway, and he will also find that Bristol sucks in loads of resources.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Bath also falls under the Avon and Somerset constabulary. I do not share entirely the hon. Gentleman’s criticism of the police and crime commissioner. Bath experienced a problem when our police station was completely shut, but fortunately, we will get it back. Does he agree that it is important that it is open 24/7 because that is what makes people feel safe and looked after by the police?
Mr Liddell-Grainger
That is an interesting comment. I do not know the situation in Bath, so I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I know the feeling that she is experiencing. We lost the police station in Minehead and then in Bridgwater, but a purpose-built police station has been built in Bridgwater. It has been highly successful and that is where the custody suite for Somerset is located. The hon. Lady is right to highlight the fact that we need local policing in our areas, no matter whether it is Bath, South Gloucestershire or elsewhere. I agree with her about that, but I cannot agree with her about Sue Mountstevens. I think she is quite appalling, but that is a personal view.
Of course this is not, and should not be, just a matter of policing. Clearly, as I have said, many agencies need to be involved if the root causes of rising crime are ever going to be tackled. I therefore welcome the approach that the Home Office is pushing.
Sedgemoor, which is part of my constituency, has been selected as one of five national pilot projects to help combat the threat of serious and organised crime. That is no great surprise to me; it is just another justified feather in the cap for Sedgemoor District Council, which works incredibly closely with the police. As I said in response to the hon. Lady, that is where the police headquarters are located.
The project will tackle the impact of organised drug networks, including the recruitment of vulnerable local youths to push drugs supplied by national dealers—a relatively new threat known by the catchphrase “country lines”.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
I hesitate to correct my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, but the phrase is “county lines”. We share a border along constituencies and counties and therefore constabularies: Avon and Somerset police and Devon and Cornwall police. Will my hon. Friend briefly reflect on two things? First, it is vital to tackle the county lines drug running that he mentioned across borders. Secondly, will he join me in thanking the rank and file officers who do such hard work in my constabulary and in his to try to counter that crime?
Mr Liddell-Grainger
My hon. Friend and I share the beauty of Exmoor. He is absolutely right. It is a remote area and there are too many rogues. We know that it is not just drugs, but sheep and cattle and other things. I am grateful for his correction—I meant “county lines”.
The project will also work with health partners to combat the illicit sale of alcohol and cigarettes and review the impact of rural crime. That is a good idea, particularly the rural crime review. Rural crime has become a forgotten crisis in many parts of Somerset. Some people feel that it is forgotten and ignored. Believe it or not, sleepy-sounding places such as Stogumber and Crowcombe have some of the highest crime rates outside Taunton, and they are tiny. I invite hon. Members to listen to what one farmer’s wife said when she wrote to me about life in rural Somerset:
“The countryside is under siege. We’ve been subjected to threats, physical and verbal assault, trespass and criminal damage sometimes on a daily basis, but the response to 999 call outs is absolutely dismal. My husband was tending his livestock when he came across two individuals. He was punched severely in the face, but despite ringing 999 no officer showed up for three hours. How much do we have to be injured before rural crime is taken seriously?”
I assure my right hon. Friend the Minister that, unfortunately, that was by no means an isolated example.
Crime has scarred the beautiful countryside and invaded the respectable areas too, including the county town of Taunton. I have achieved some notoriety in this House for my strident criticisms of Taunton and the way it has been ineptly run by an incompetent council. I recently cited crime figures for parts of Taunton which, without doubt, are shocking. However, tonight, I have come armed with an excellent report and offer a great deal of praise to its cross-party authors. It was compiled by five Taunton Deane borough councillors—two are Conservative, two are Labour and the committee was chaired by an Independent councillor. It throws a harsh spotlight on the way crime is being handled or, in some cases, mishandled.
The councillors were given the task of assessing the impact of crime on the town and recommending action. They took the trouble to obtain evidence from residents and shopkeepers. One shop in Taunton town centre has been broken into twice by the same man in the last two months, costing £1,000 a time. The shopkeeper said:
“I have had to update security because the insurance people aren’t happy. The security fitter said it was absurd because the only place you’d find this kind of security is a bank.”
A retired policeman, who had served for 23 years, said:
“I feel that it is unsafe to take my young family into the town given the presence of aggressive beggars, street drinking and drunkenness.”
One branch of a big name national clothing store in Taunton reckons that it loses £100,000-worth of goods every year through aggressive shoplifting. Many people related their stories of abuse, assault and harassment from drug pushers, rough sleepers and vandals. It happens even in broad daylight, right in the historic heart of a once proud town.
The evidence in the report is grim and depressing. The council committee’s conclusions are equally blunt:
“Neither the council—as the elected custodians of Taunton’s town centre—or the Police are taking the lead to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour. Both need to take robust and expedient action”.
Taunton Deane Borough Council rightly introduced public space protection orders three years ago to get a grip on that. But guess what? There is still no shortage of louts in the town but there has not been a single prosecution. That affects us all.
The committee calls the situation “woeful”. It is appalling. Those Taunton councillors concluded that the police lack presence and do not respond to crimes as they should. There is also criticism of Ms Mountstevens. As for the partnership between Taunton council and the police, the report states:
“It lacks leadership, strategy, and accountability”.
The councillors deliberately grilled Taunton council’s antisocial behaviour team. That was an eye opener. The report concludes:
“The team lacked credibility due to their lack of knowledge and understanding of the issues. Taunton’s antisocial behaviour team suffers from a skillset deficit and poor management.”
I do not blame the council for that. I did not make this stuff up. It is one of the very few decent pieces of work to come out of Taunton council for years and for that reason alone, I wonder if anyone in a position of leadership will take it seriously.
Taunton has many more rough sleepers than anywhere else in Somerset. Taunton has a town centre full of boarded up shops and derelict building sites. No wonder travellers invade with their caravans and no wonder drug dealers congregate there. It is such a shame, because big problems should have simple solutions, but they are not being done.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am a little bit concerned. I have the greatest respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I am a bit worried that he is discussing somebody else’s constituency and the Member is not here. I understand that it is a part of what is being said, but I do feel it is a little bit unfair to the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow).
Mr Liddell-Grainger
Mr Deputy Speaker, I wrote to my hon. Friend this afternoon to say that I would speak about this. I also made it clear that I would talk about other areas. The report is very good because it reflects on my area, as well my hon. Friend’s. It shows that all of us have a problem. It is the only report I have seen in 18 years as an MP that has taken this issue in our county to this level. The report is cross-party and I therefore think I have the right to talk about it, but I have made it clear to my hon. Friend in writing. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because Mr Speaker has had his concerns about that as well. I will conclude and allow my right hon. Friend the Minister a couple of minutes to respond.
The same council hired street wardens in 2014, but only for a month. The committee report says it would cost less than £114,000 to employ a proper team for a whole year. Taunton Deane Council wants to spend almost £1 million on fences to hide a very nasty site. I do not disagree with that, but it wants to borrow £16 million to build a hotel. Surely it helps my area and all of us to find the money for town wardens.
Policing in Somerset is not cheap: it costs the whole county £284 million a year. I believe it could do more with officers and money. Perhaps they could do that without too much interference from police and crime commissioners. We need much more than a token operation. A one-week clampdown on knife crime does not cut any mustard with anybody. Sticking plasters are not enough. There is a clear role to be played by local authorities. Some are doing it well, but others are lagging way behind. I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will agree with what I have said.
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) has been in this place for 18 years and we know him to be a tireless champion of the interests of his constituents, as well as the interests of rural areas and the need for, as he put it, a fair share for the shires. I congratulate him on securing the debate.
My hon. Friend asks me where I agree with him. I certainly agree with him and my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones) in expressing admiration for the work of frontline officers. They are extremely stretched at the moment. We ask a lot of them. They have to do difficult work under difficult circumstances. It is good to hear local Members of Parliament stand up to express their admiration and thanks for their work. I also thank my hon. Friend for recognising the importance of serious organised crime in the fundamental shift in the threat to public security that we are trying to police and protect our constituents from. He understands that, and I thank him for reflecting it in his comments. I hope he will welcome the updated Government serious organised crime strategy and the increased resources going into that area. They are necessary for exactly the reasons he sets out.
My hon. Friend left the House in no doubt about his view on the police and crime commissioner. All I would say is that she was elected. I hope that he agrees with me that the introduction of police and crime commissioners has sharpened the local accountability of the police. The bottom line is that the police and crime commissioner for Avon and Somerset has a job to do. She is accountable to the public and if the public of Somerset do not like what she does they can vote her out. That is the strength of the system we have introduced.
My hon. Friend talked about the task and finish group, and the report on Taunton. I very much take on board your point, Mr Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) is not in her place. I also accept, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset is clear that there are ramifications for his constituents. There are clearly mixed views about the accuracy of the report. I have read it and it raises important questions, both for the police and crime commissioner and the local borough council, about how resources are allocated across the county, the effectiveness of the local crime partnership and the efficacy of the response to 999 calls in rural areas. I am sure that they will be responsive to that report.
My hon. Friend is passionate about the need for proper attention to be paid to rural crime. I hope that he takes some satisfaction from the fact that the National Police Chiefs’ Council, which, in my experience, is an extremely powerful body for driving change across the police system, published a rural affairs strategy last July that reflects operational and policing priorities on rural crime. There are six priority themes: farm, machinery, plant and vehicle theft—I know my hon. Friend will welcome that—livestock offences, fuel theft, equine crime, fly-tipping and poaching. I know that the police chiefs are very aware of the need to give appropriate priority to rural crime.
On the specific report, as the House would expect, these are local decisions in a local debate on which it is not for me to opine. In response to my hon. Friend I can say what central Government are doing to support the battle against crime and disorder in Somerset and South Gloucestershire. My hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) is entirely right: the research is very clear about the importance of bearing down on what is sometimes misleadingly called low-level crime, because all the evidence says that if we do not get on top of that, it can escalate to bigger problems.
Since being police Minister, my priority has been to get more resources into policing, because I recognised from a very early stage that the system is too stretched. The reality is that as a result of the actions that we have taken, as a country we will be investing almost £2 billion more next year in our police system than we were three years ago. Police forces up and down the country are recruiting additional officers and staff—almost 3,000, including at least 100 in Avon and Somerset—so we are heading in the right direction. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset and other colleagues who are concerned about this issue that this is a stepping stone towards the spending review, which is the next major event in shaping the resources available to our policing. I have given the undertaking, as has the Home Secretary, that police funding is an absolute priority for us in the spending review. Within that, I have also undertaken to look again at the issue of fair funding. I note, for example, that Avon and Somerset has fewer police officers per head of population than the national average. These are issues that we need to address through the comprehensive spending review.
In the meantime, the Government are investing money to support the police in better co-ordinating their efforts on county lines—that point was raised in the debate— because of course this crosses borders. We are already seeing the impact of additional investment through increased arrests and increased safeguarding of vulnerable children. Our support for the police—not just Avon and Somerset, but the whole system—goes further than that in terms of additional powers for the police, as they have requested, whether those are knife crime protection orders or the Offensive Weapons Bill, which is moving through Parliament and will make it even harder to buy and possess the most dangerous weapons. I know that the theft of vehicles is an issue particularly on farms and in rural areas. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are disturbed by the increase in vehicle crime. In fact, I have convened a taskforce to look specifically at it. The taskforce brings together industry, including the insurance industry, and all stakeholders to bear down on the problem.
Finally on our support for our police and our ability to hold them to account for their performance, we continue to attach enormous importance to the system of accountability we have set up, not just with police and crime commissioners but with independent inspection, which means that we can identify what good looks like, where it is and where things need to improve.
Finally, I would point out that Avon and Somerset police, stretched though they are, are rated by Her Majesty’s independent inspectorate as good for efficiency, legitimacy and effectiveness. They are also probably best in class across the system for their work in exploring how the police can better manage and use data to predict demand on them, which will be a large part of the future of policing, and we are supporting them actively in that, with significant investment over recent years. I congratulate the leadership of the force and its officers on their leadership in that area and their achievement in being rated good across all pillars of Her Majesty’s independent inspection regime.
I acknowledge the points that my hon. Friend has made, which will have been noted in Somerset at the top of the force and by the police and crime commissioner, and I close, as he did, by commending the work of frontline officers across Avon and Somerset for the excellent work they do under extremely demanding circumstances.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Trade etc. in Dual-Use items and Firearms etc. (amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Trade etc. in Dual-Use Items and Firearms etc. (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
I am pleased to open this debate on the draft regulations; they may not have a very catchy title, but I assure the Committee that they do a very serious job. Without these amending regulations, existing European Union law would not be effective in UK domestic law on the day we exit the European Union. Addressing that issue has been a vital part of our long-term planning since the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 received Royal Assent.
The draft regulations include amendments that will allow the UK to maintain the EU laws that control exports of dual-use items—items that have both civil and military uses. They will also control the export of civilian firearms of the type used by hunters and sports shooters. If we do not retain and amend the relevant legislation, we will no longer control the export of such potentially dangerous items. That would put the United Kingdom in breach of international agreements that require us to impose such controls, which prevent military equipment from falling into the hands of those who intend this country harm.
Exit-related legislation provides the necessary legislative building blocks to ensure our readiness as a nation on exit day. The 2018 Act provides the Government with the tools to deal with deficiencies in domestic law that would arise as a result of our exit from the European Union, so it is right and proper that we use it for matters such as export controls. By making the draft regulations and the associated Export Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, my Department will have completed much of the legislative part of controlling the export of strategic goods in preparation for a no-deal scenario. If the draft regulations are no longer required on exit day, we expect to revoke or amend them; alternatively, commencement could be deferred to the end of an implementation period.
Broadly, all the provisions that today apply to exports from the EU customs territory will instead apply to exports from the UK. However, our leaving the European Union will mean that the rules will have to change, and we cannot guarantee that all the export licensing requirements with which UK exporters are familiar will remain the same. The Government have therefore made every effort to provide certainty for businesses and the public, wherever possible. We have published a new general export licence that provides for the export of dual-use items to all European Union member states and the Channel Islands. In August, we published a technical notice on export controls, which explained our plans for post-EU exit export control licensing. We have also included EU exit advice in the export control training programme and at the annual export control symposium, as well as giving extensive advice to key sector trade associations.
Hon. Members should be aware that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has reported the draft regulations
“on the grounds that they require elucidation in one respect and are defectively drafted in three respects.”
On the first point, we have provided the Joint Committee with an explanation of why the transfer of technology by electronic means to the Isle of Man is considered to be an export, whereas the physical movement of goods is not: it is a consequence of our customs arrangements with the Isle of Man and is consistent with our controls on military goods and technology. The other three points we acknowledge as drafting errors, which we will correct in the near future, but none of which will affect the proper functioning of the regulations.
I hope that the House will work in the interests of our nation to ensure the passage of this legislation, which is essential to ensuring that we are prepared for EU exit. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. The sifting Committee has drawn the draft regulations to the special attention of both Houses on the basis that their drafting is defective and that particular points require further elucidation. The Department has acknowledged the legislation’s flaws, but we are still considering the defective draft, as the Government have not withdrawn it or laid before the House a draft with the defective wording amended, so the wording of the draft before the Committee may not be the wording of the final statutory instrument. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government intend to amend the regulations in the light of the sifting Committee’s comments?
That Committee referred specifically to regulation 3(5)(f), which amends the final paragraph of article 4 of the dual-use regulation so that it reads: “This Regulation is without prejudice to the right of Member States to take national measures under Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2015/479”. In its minutes, the sifting Committee noted that it was
“puzzled as to how domestic UK legislation could, after exit day, prejudice the right of member States to take national measures under EU law”,
and that
“the Department acknowledges that this is an error and undertakes to correct it.”
Regulation 3(22) amends annex I of the dual-use regulation, which lists dual-use items for which export authorisation is required. Category 9 lists items related to aerospace and propulsion, including assemblies and components that incorporate technologies for turbine engines
“whose design or production origins are either non-EU Member States or Wassenaar Arrangement Participating States; or unknown to the manufacturer.”
Regulation 3(22)(h)(ii) amends that provision by removing
“either non-EU Member states or”.
The sifting Committee noted that that amendment would require authorisation only when the design or publication of those items originated from such places as Norway, Canada, Japan, Australia or EU member states, or when their origin was unknown. The Department acknowledged that that was an error, and gave the Committee assurances that it would seek to amend the drafting.
The sifting Committee also asked the Department to explain why the words
“This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States”
had not been omitted by regulations 3 or 4. Can the Minister clarify what steps have been taken to amend the defective drafting of this legislation to correct those errors?
The regulations are intended to ensure that the existing approach to export controls applied to dual-use items and firearms is continued once we have withdrawn from the European Union. For the most part, the draft regulations proposed by the Government seek to ensure that references to “the European Union” or “the Community” are replaced, where appropriate, by references to the United Kingdom, our customs territory or the Secretary of State. To that end, we recognise that the United Kingdom must seek to ensure that we maintain an export control regime that is effective immediately after we leave the EU. That must happen with minimal disruption to ensure that the regime is operable and that controlled goods are not inadvertently exported inappropriately.
We recognise the considerable contribution that a responsible, world-leading defence and security industry makes to the UK economy. We believe that strong export controls have a vital role to play in sustaining a legitimate trade in arms while protecting UK jobs and research and development. We want to ensure that a robust and rigorous control system is in place for dual-use items, firearms and other sensitive material. We have called for a tighter approach to our export controls regime and for the cessation of exports to countries where there is a concern that they will be used to violate international humanitarian law. Will the Minister set out how the Government intend to ensure that export restrictions can be imposed when the ultimate user may be applying that item to or in a jurisdiction where there are concerns about public security or human rights?
Regulation 3(8) provides for the deletion of article 8 of Council regulation (EC) No. 428/2009. That article covers member states of the European Union where they impose restrictions on exports not otherwise included on the EU’s military list. Although it may be necessary to omit that article given that we will no longer be members of the EU, we would welcome clarity on whether the Government believe that such measures are covered in the revised regulations.
The Minister will perhaps also clarify what the basis will be for determining what constitutes a human rights violation for these purposes, given that regulation 3(27)(d)(iv) amends Annex IIe of the European regulation to omit the reference to the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union. How, then, do the Government intend to define such a violation?
Will existing licences that have been granted under the current EU regime continue to apply once the UK has left the EU, or will exporters be required to seek new licences under the UK’s stand-alone regime?
The draft regulations will impose obligations on British exporters to obtain licences and demonstrate import permission in respect of goods or services to be exported to the EU27 once we leave the EU. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government have conducted any analysis of the impact on British businesses? It is quite possible that there will be a substantial increase in the administrative burden on the British companies that service customers in those markets and the European suppliers that feed into the supply chain of those businesses—let alone the re-papering exercise that may be required for compliance with the UK’s regime.
I would also be grateful if the Minister clarified the intent of regulation 3(3)(d), which will amend the definition of “broker” to include
“any United Kingdom person who carries out brokering services from a country within the European Union into the territory of another third country”,
and will place an obligation on
“any European Union national who carries out brokering services from the United Kingdom”.
How will that provision interact with obligations that might be imposed on those people by the EU? How do the Government intend to work with European counterparts in administering such licences?
Regulation 3(7) will omit the article of the European regulation that relates to the transit through the EU customs territory of a non-Community good that would otherwise constitute a controlled good. Omitting that article leaves a question about the UK’s handling of controlled goods that are transported through the UK and intended for a destination outside the UK. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed how the draft regulations will capture such goods.
Finally, the underlying EU regulation makes numerous provisions for procedural harmonisation, dialogue and co-operation between EU member states, including a dual-use co-ordination group chaired by a representative of the European Commission. The draft regulations would omit those obligations, which are set out under articles 11, 14, 16, 19, 22 and 23, among others. I would be grateful if the Minister advised us whether the Government intend to continue a formal dialogue with our European counterparts to ensure a common approach to restricted exports.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gale. The Minister’s answers to the admirably and forensically prepared questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South will clearly be important, but I want to ask something slightly more overarching.
The draft regulations relate to complex but important EU regulations on export controls for all kinds of goods, including firearms and technology, that we would not want in the hands of non-democratic state actors. They will disentangle us from an EU regime of long standing. My hon. Friend asked important questions about how we intend to continue working with our EU partners, despite being disentangled, to ensure that we do not become a conduit for dubious activities as a result of loopholes in our systems.
With reference to the regulation that addresses the UN protocol on ammunition, I assume that the Minister can tell us a little about how his Department deals with the issues in non-EU contexts. I hope he will reassure us that if we are disentangled from the EU’s structures, his Department will have enough people and resources in place to ensure, first, that we have a regime robust enough to guarantee that we do not create loopholes that might attract prospective smugglers, and secondly that the Department can deal with what will undoubtedly be an increased workload in an appropriate way that does not put us at risk.
Graham Stuart
I thank Opposition Members for their contributions. We have discussed the importance of maintaining robust strategic export controls, and a number of questions have come up. I thank the hon. Member for Bradford South for her forensic questioning, as the hon. Member for Wallasey rightly described it, on the important issue of maintaining effective controls after we have left the European Union, and will pick up on a few of the points that she raised.
Existing licences will still be valid; however, exporters from the UK who have a licence from the EU will need to seek new licences from the EU. The hon. Member for Bradford South rightly raised the impact on business. The export control joint unit has minimised additional administrative burdens for business by making available an open general export licence—OGEL—for exports to the EU. Exporters can register for one easily through our SPIRE online platform. Our assessment is that that will not have a significant impact on exporters.
Both hon. Members who spoke raised the question of future co-operation with the EU. The form of dialogue with the EU will be a matter for negotiations on our future economic partnership with the EU. We will continue to maintain robust controls on brokering. Transit is controlled under the Export Control (Amendment) Order 2018.
I have been clear that the Government remain committed to using the draft regulations to maintain the high-quality controls that we have discussed. We have a responsibility to ensure the safety and security of our people, and the legislation supports that objective. On that basis, I call on my fellow hon. Members to support the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Customs Safety and Security Procedures (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Customs Safety and Security Procedures (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
May I say at the outset what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry? The Government’s priority is to leave the EU with a deal that works for citizens and businesses, as set out in the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. That would, of course, avoid a no-deal outcome. However, as a responsible Government, we have a duty to plan for all scenarios, to minimise the disruption to businesses and individuals.
We are here to consider a statutory instrument that is part of the Government’s package to prepare for the possibly of the UK leaving the EU without a deal. The instrument relates to the safety and security of goods entering and leaving the European Union. By way of background, the Union customs code provides the current legal framework for implementing safety and security policy across the EU. The legislation sets out that the movement of goods into and out of the EU requires entry summary and exit summary declarations, also known as safety and security declarations. For example, shipments from the US or China require a safety and security declaration before entering the European Union.
In the event of the UK leaving the EU without a deal, UK importers and exporters will be required to complete safety and security declarations for goods to and from the EU, as well as the rest of the world. The information in the declarations will be used as part of the overall risk assessment conducted by our border agencies to detect threats to our security. The Union customs code as it exists immediately before exit day will form part of domestic law from the day that we leave, and it will continue to apply to the UK as retained EU law by virtue of the provisions of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
However, the code was drafted to apply to EU member states and will not work as effective legislation for the UK without amendment. Amendments are required to replace references and terminology that will no longer be valid in the event of leaving without a deal. It is vital that we make those amendments, so that the UK has safety and security legislation in place after we leave the EU. That will ensure that we are able to protect our borders by requiring safety and security declarations on goods coming from the rest of the world just as now.
We have engaged with industry on the introduction of the new requirement for imports from the EU. Industry was clear that it would be challenging, if not impossible, to be ready for that new obligation on day one. We also considered the risk from goods from the EU if we leave at the end of this month without a deal. Given that the EU’s rules and standards are not changing, our view is that the risk to the UK after we exit the EU will not increase on day one. As such, the instrument also introduces a provision to phase in the requirement for entry summary declarations on EU goods after 29 March, or on such date as we may leave the European Union. Therefore, until at least 1 October 2019, we will not require entry summary declarations on goods imported into the UK from the EU, and other territories where we do not currently require them—for example, Switzerland and Norway. That will give traders a transitional period of six months from the day the UK leaves the EU. Carriers will be legally required to submit safety and security declarations after that transitional period.
When the UK leaves the EU, a separate customs union will be created between the UK and the Crown dependencies—the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. The instrument includes a provision to ensure that the movements of goods between the UK and the Crown dependencies do not require safety and security declarations.
I should also be clear about the effect of the SI on the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. The UK Government have committed to avoiding a hard border, and we will do everything in our power to ensure that no physical infrastructure or related checks and controls are introduced at the border in the event of no deal. Safety and security declarations will not be required for goods moving between Northern Ireland and Ireland. However, they will be required for goods being imported to and exported from Northern Ireland from other territories, unless the movement is covered by the transitional period introduced by the safety and security instrument, which applies to all of the United Kingdom.
To conclude, the instrument ensures that the UK will continue to have a robust and operable safety and security regime in place after its departure. It also allows businesses more time to cope with their additional responsibilities in meeting safety and security requirements, and ensures that the UK-Crown dependency trade flow is facilitated without compromising safety and security. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. Once again, we are here to discuss a statutory instrument that makes provision for a regulatory framework after Brexit in the event that we crash out without a deal. On each occasion, I and my Front-Bench colleagues have spelled out our objections to the Government’s approach to using secondary legislation to enable the process.
An issue raised repeatedly by Opposition Members is the impact of a no-deal exit on our ports system. I thank the Minister for his introductory explanation of the SI. My understanding is that, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, goods coming into the UK from the EU, Norway and Switzerland would be able to enter without having to submit safety and security information for a period of six months. I assume that the measure is designed to prevent gridlock at the ports, but the Opposition are troubled by the potential chaos that could occur if we do not get some resolution by the end of this week.
Paragraph 3.4 of the explanatory memorandum to the SI effectively admits that ports, hauliers and ferry operators are not ready. There has been unbelievably poor planning by the Government and it is something we have warned about since the passage of the customs Bill a year ago. The explanatory memorandum explicitly states:
“There is a strong possibility that businesses, such as hauliers and ferry operators, will suffer immediate hardship if the UK leaves the EU without a negotiated deal. They do not have the systems in place in readiness for exit day.”
How have the Minister and the Government allowed that to happen? How is it that restitution of a temporary way forward is being proposed only four days away from our proposed exit date?
The Opposition are concerned about how the exemption could increase the level of smuggled goods and undermine security, particularly at a time when threats to national security are rising. What safeguards do the Government propose to protect against both those risks? Furthermore, what are the implications for the collection of taxation if we are to forgo collecting taxes at the border simply because we do not have the capacity to do so? That is the Government’s stated approach, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury himself gave evidence to the Treasury Committee last summer, admitting that keeping the ports open would take priority over collecting tax. But how long is such chaos expected to be justified? What assessment has the Treasury made of the potential loss to taxation?
Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is already struggling against the weight of the cuts already sustained and the new burdens placed upon it as we leave the EU. We seem to be contemplating potential chaos at our borders. As the Opposition have previously warned, it will be worsened by the serious issues concerning the roll-out of the customs declaration service. The Office for Budget Responsibility stated in its economic and fiscal outlook, published at the spring statement, that the Government’s new customs declaration service has processed just 500 declarations from four traders in seven months, since its launch last August. Yet it was built to handle 300 million import and export declarations. That is extremely worrying. One way to prevent the short-term chaos that we seem to be talking about is to consider staying in a customs union with the EU, as Labour has consistently argued.
I also want to ask the Minister what checks and balances will be placed on the powers. What is to stop us reaching the end of the six-month period and simply extending the process once again by statutory instrument? We would therefore effectively be in a de facto customs union, but without the wider scrutiny of Parliament and the wider benefits that such an active decision would bring. A sunset clause on the extension of the powers would have been an important component in preventing that.
To conclude, this seems an extraordinary statutory instrument to be discussing this week. I have huge concerns about whether this is the right way forward, and I very much want to hear the Minister’s further justification of these measures.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
I have sat on numerous Delegated Legislation Committees—I am sure that most of us have—but most of them tend to be a nod through and we understand why. However, I have real concerns about this SI. The chaos of the plans will reflect across the economies of these islands. It demonstrates why a no-deal Brexit should be ruled out. I consoled myself that we are trying to cover all potential outcomes, which is a responsible thing to do, requiring a belt-and-braces, “ball of string in your pocket” attitude. However, after further scrutiny, I see that the legislation applies to England, Wales and Scotland, and it will sort out Ireland in a few weeks.
The Government have already admitted that border operations will be less than optimal on day one in any no-deal scenario. Even in six months’ time, when the border issue has been magically solved, it will take years to hire, train and equip the necessary personnel to enforce the customs and excise regulations, collect taxes and tariffs, enforce immigration legislation and provide veterinary checks. HMRC will need systems to track goods, and Border Force will need space and facilities to examine people and goods physically, but we cannot start building that infrastructure because ports and airports need certainty about the future arrangements before they can invest in the bricks and mortar.
This legislation delineates Northern Ireland’s regulatory regime from the rest of the United Kingdom—exactly the opposite of what the Prime Minister has promised her allies in the Democratic Unionist party. The explanatory memorandum notes that:
“Further details on the arrangements for trade between Northern Ireland and Ireland will be published as soon as possible.”
We cannot go on this way. It will not be all right on the night. There is no solution to the Irish border issue that will allow the UK to leave the single market and the customs union with Northern Ireland retaining regulatory alignment with the rest of the UK. The legislation is premised on a false promise that there will be a solution to the border issue in a few weeks’ time. I was born and raised in the west of Scotland, which has a very strong link with Ireland and its politics. It is clear to me that Westminster does not. I shall be opposing this SI.
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Members for Stalybridge and Hyde and for Inverclyde for their contributions, which I will address in turn. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde talked about his dissatisfaction that this matter is being dealt with via a statutory instrument. Of course, the primary legislation under which these powers are being made was debated at considerable length in both Houses of Parliament, and the matters he raised were debated at length at that time. He said that he is concerned about the six-month delay in introducing these measures. As I explained, that is in order to address and ameliorate the concerns that businesses, hauliers and the ports themselves raised in our discussions with them. I should point out that the status quo does not require the safety and security regime between us and the EU27.
The hon. Gentleman rightly spoke about the challenges to businesses in a day one no-deal scenario, and he raised the issue of potential friction and problems at the border. He used an expression that I have used myself on many occasions: he said that this would all be suboptimal if we leave on a day one no-deal basis. That is, of course, the very reason why we are taking the responsible and measured approach of allowing a six-month delay to bring in this requirement for the traders and businesses whose trading arrangements with the EU27 he quite rightly seeks to protect.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Am I right that the EU requires declarations on the import of goods into the EU and the export of goods out of the EU? Does the Minister have any indication of whether the EU will reciprocate in not requiring declarations for six months? Will we merely just not have the UK side of a declaration? Either way, the thing will have to be made anyway, so we will not achieve quite the work saving that we are hoping for.
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend is right in the sense that, as is the case for our exports to and imports from the rest of the world—in other words, outside the EU’s customs union—there are safety and security requirements. What the European Union will do in the event of a day one no-deal situation is for it to determine; clearly, exactly what happens is not within our control. In exactly the same way, the arrangements that it may or may not put in place at its ports across the short channel straits, in relation to customs declarations, duties and tariffs, will be for it to decide. We can focus on what we can do to make sure that the day one no-deal scenario is as comfortable as possible for businesses impacted and that, wherever possible, trade flow is prioritised across our borders.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde drifted to some degree into the issue of taxation raised, by which I think he meant the customs duties on trade with the EU27 that may be applicable at our border in a day one no-deal scenario. We have always made it clear that trade flow will be our priority. There will still be arrangements in place to collect customs duties, but those customs duties are new duties—they are not levied at the moment. In terms of revenues forgone, this is the forgoing of revenues that we are not entitled to under existing arrangements.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the customs declaration service would be ready for the increased trading volumes that would be involved in a day one no-deal scenario. He is right to raise the issue of increased activity; we estimate that there are 145,000 VAT-registered businesses who trade solely intra-EU at the moment, and probably another 100,000 who are below the VAT threshold, making almost a quarter of a million in total. That will mean an increase in the requirement for CDS, but we have made it clear that in parallel with CDS we have upgraded and maintained the ability of the CHIEF—customs handling of import and export freight—system to keep up with those increased volumes.
The hon. Gentleman then asked what will happen at the end of the six-month phasing in of those measures, and what is to stop Parliament deciding to go for a further period of delay in bringing in the measures. As I am sure he knows full well, there is nothing to stop Parliament doing virtually anything it wants when it comes to legislation, but it will have to do that via due process, coming back to a Committee of the House in order to do so. On that basis, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the Minister for, as ever, batting solidly for the Government about the proposed measures. I was struck by two things he said. First, a no-deal situation is the purest form of Brexit, in the sense that it is the minimum level of co-ordination with our European colleagues and the strongest articulation of sovereignty over prosperity available of the options. Even under that scenario, what the Government are offering is essentially our being a supplicant to the European Union. For the reasons of keeping the country open, we would be forced to forgo the checks and balances that we could wish to impose, while not having any assurances from the European side that that would be reciprocated.
Secondly, it is a year since we had the customs Bill. The one thing we knew about Brexit was that it would increase friction at the ports; it would make the need for more capacity in the UK more evident. To be in this position in the final week of March is extraordinary. It is extraordinary to have an explanatory memorandum for a key statutory instrument that tells us we are not ready for the one thing that we knew was a distinct possibility. On that basis, I recommend that we divide the Committee.
Mel Stride
I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s point about no deal, because it would be a suboptimal arrangement to end up with, but an option will perhaps come before Parliament shortly to ensure that we can avoid that. I suggest that Opposition Members think carefully about that particular point when they file through the Lobby.
Draft Agriculture (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Draft Common Agricultural Policy (Financing, Management and Monitoring) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Draft Common Agricultural Policy (Financing, Management and Monitoring Supplementary Provisions) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Draft Common Agricultural Policy and Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Agriculture (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the draft Common Agricultural Policy (Financing, Management and Monitoring) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, the draft Common Agricultural Policy (Financing, Management and Monitoring Supplementary Provisions) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the draft Common Agricultural Policy and Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Mr Goodwill
We are all keen to get on today, are we not? I welcome a star-studded cast of Members on both sides of the Committee, especially my immediate predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth. For any particularly difficult questions that I cannot answer, and my officials cannot enlighten me on, I am sure that we can rely on him.
As a farmer myself, and given the family business’s participation in an agri-environment scheme, I mention my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The matters in the four draft statutory instruments are closely related, and I thank the Committee for taking the logical and sensible step of considering all four together. With a number of small exceptions, which I will explain shortly, the regulations will make purely technical amendments. The amendments are necessary to address European laws being brought on to the UK statute books in a partially inoperable form and to enable the common agricultural policy and the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board legislation to continue to function as it does today.
The instruments are not solely required in a no-deal scenario and, in the event of an agreement, they will ensure that the current legislation remains operable at the end of any implementation period. The statutory instruments will ensure that the UK Government are able to meet their commitments to funding in the agricultural sector. The Government have pledged to continue to commit the same cash total in funds for farm support until the end of this Parliament, which is expected in 2022, and that includes all funding provided for farm support under both pillar one and pillar two of the current CAP. That commitment applies to the whole of the United Kingdom.
The UK Government have guaranteed that the existing level of agricultural funding under CAP pillar one will be upheld until 2020 as part of the transition to new domestic arrangements. The UK Government have also guaranteed that any rural development projects for which funding has been agreed before the end of 2020 will be funded for their full lifetime.
As the Committee is well aware, agriculture and fisheries are devolved policy areas, and are of special importance for all parts of the UK. We have worked closely with the devolved Administrations to produce the draft instruments, and they place great importance on them. They have given their consent to the instruments.
I will outline the three CAP draft statutory instruments in turn. They will enable regulations to continue to operate effectively. They do not introduce new policy, and they preserve the regime for supporting CAP beneficiaries. Amendments in the instruments include omitting redundant references to the “European Commission” and “member states”, and amending references to “Union law” throughout, so that the retained European Union regulations continue to operate effectively as part of national law.
One purpose of the modifications is to ensure continuity and clarity as to who is responsible for the implementation and administration of the CAP schemes. The obligations and discretions currently placed on member states will continue to be exercised after exit by relevant authorities in the United Kingdom. In that context, a “relevant authority” is the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland.
The draft Agriculture (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 amend five different EU regulations that give the European Commission powers to change existing legislation relating to the financing, managing and monitoring of the CAP, direct payments, the rural development programmes and the fisheries programme funded by the EMFF, the European maritime and fisheries fund. The five regulations work together to provide the necessary powers to ensure the smooth functioning of the CAP and EMFF-funded fisheries schemes in the light of economic, scientific and environmental changes. For example, the Commission is currently empowered to make legislation adding to a list of practices equivalent to crop diversification in the light of developments in the sector. The regulations also provide powers to, for instance, update the model used to estimate the net revenue of an EMFF or rural development project if a more accurate model becomes available.
As its title suggests, the instrument makes amendments to confer existing legislative powers on the appropriate authorities, which as I have mentioned are either the Secretary of State or the relevant Administration of each constituent nation. The amendments largely consist of replacing references to “the Commission” with “the appropriate authority” or “the Secretary of State.” The instrument also contains operability changes relating to the EU financial discipline mechanism. That mechanism ensures that the pillar one budget, which is the budget for direct payments and agricultural market measures, is not exceeded. It works by reducing the value of direct payments if forecast expenditure on pillar one exceeds a predetermined budget.
The SI makes changes to prevent the financial discipline mechanism becoming inoperable. As agriculture is devolved, the Administrations have each assessed what amendment is appropriate to remedy that inoperability. Devolved Administrations have chosen to omit the financial discipline mechanism, whereas England has chosen to use the powers contained in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to make financial discipline operable on an England-only basis. For England, operability amendments are made to financial discipline provisions, to ensure that the mechanism is compatible with existing EU domestic funding practices. That does not constitute a new policy, as that mechanism currently applies in the EU.
The draft Common Agricultural Policy (Financing, Management and Monitoring) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 amend the retained EU law that sets out the overarching framework for how the CAP schemes function, governing the financing, managing and monitoring arrangements that underpin schemes. They remove the EU audit and accounting regimes, which would clearly no longer be appropriate for Exchequer-funded payments. Those regimes will be replaced by the domestic system that currently operates in parallel to the EU system, to provide equivalent assurances to our Parliament. Under that domestic system, current levels of checks and scrutiny regarding CAP payments will be retained.
The draft Common Agricultural Policy (Financing, Management and Monitoring Supplementary Provisions) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 make technical amendments to the supplementary regulations, which set out detail about the financing, management and monitoring arrangements for the CAP schemes. This instrument ensures the operability of five different pieces of EU law, making sure that the management and monitoring aspects of the retained EU legislation maintain current standards after exit. That includes setting out further detail about how checks to beneficiaries should be carried out, and how penalties should be applied to those found to be in breach of the legislation. The instrument also pertains to five other pieces of retained EU law. Four of those are implicitly tied to EU audit and accounting systems, which as I say will be replaced with the existing domestic equivalent. The final revoked piece of EU law relates to the EU policy monitoring system, which again will be replaced by our existing domestic policy evaluation process.
Finally, the draft Common Agricultural Policy and Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 make operability amendments to domestic regulations made under the European Communities Act 1972, and implement certain provisions of the EU common agricultural policy. I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that we re-laid the explanatory memorandum for this instrument on Thursday last.
In the memorandum that was withdrawn, paragraph 4 —which deals with the instrument’s extent and territorial application—stated that the amendments to the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board Order 2008 apply to the UK. In fact, although parts of that order apply to the UK, the amendments proposed in relation to horticulture in this instrument apply to Great Britain, and those that relate to the red meat levy apply to England only. That reflects the territorial coverage that the levy body, the AHDB, has for specific sectors, which is now presented correctly in the explanatory memorandum. That correction has no impact, other than to align that memorandum with the instrument we are debating. I apologise for any inconvenience it has caused, although I am sure that most Members present had spotted that issue when preparing for today’s Committee.
As well as operability changes to domestic regulations under the European Communities Act 1972, the SI also amends one order concerning the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board to address two operability issues arising from the United Kingdom leaving the European Union. In one case, that has required us to make a small policy change. Currently, a minor levy exemption applies to livestock imported from another member state and slaughtered in England within two or three months of being imported. For continuity, we retain the exemption. To ensure that we are then in line with World Trade Organisation rules and are not favouring the EU, we are extending the exemption to cover any such livestock imported from the rest of the world. We expect that minor policy change to have little or no impact on the ground, given the very low levels of live imports from beyond the EU. Indeed, officials were hard-pressed to give me an example. One that came to my mind was a stock bull imported for breeding purposes that became infertile or injured and was then slaughtered here in the UK.
An alternative would have been to scrap the exemption altogether, but in the interests of continuity, we have left the situation changed. When we have left the EU, a UK Government could of course reverse the decision, taking advantage of the freedom people opted for in the referendum. DEFRA and the devolved Administrations have liaised with stakeholders regarding plans to make CAP retained EU law and existing domestic legislation operable at the point of EU exit. We have kept them informed of the SI’s progress. With regards to financial discipline, DEFRA is liaising with stakeholders through a targeted engagement exercise to discuss the proposed new guidance, which will set out how pillar one spend should be apportioned towards England. Because the minor policy change to the AHDB order is expected to have little or no impact on the ground, as we believe the relevant circumstances rarely arise, we have consulted the levy board, but not other stakeholders.
The statutory instruments provide important and necessary continuity for stakeholders and beneficiaries. They will help to ensure that farmers, fishermen and land managers continue to receive payments that support their vital work. I urge Members to agree to the amendments proposed in the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson, and to welcome the Minister and the former Minister to their places. We are going to get doubled-barrelled explanations of everything that is going on.
I thought that last week I was getting to the nadir of my understanding of things, but these SIs are complex. In many respects, they are not controversial, but then, as the Minister rightly touched on, we get to the red meat levy. Those of us who were on the Committee in question spent a lot of time arguing whether it was appropriate, and the devolved Administrations do not necessarily agree with England on the issue. It would be interesting to know whether that has been properly worked through.
I refer back to the European Statutory Instruments Committee, which looked at the issue on 4 December. Its report quoted the instrument, which explains:
“Removing this levy will ensure that, following EU Exit, there will be equal treatment between the EU and the rest of the world for animals imported for slaughter. Defra’s estimate of the maximum financial impact to the AHDB caused by this change is a loss of c. £1,000 per year in levy, although it is believed that the amount actually collected by the AHDB in relation to the rest of the world imports are far lower than this and are probably nil.”
The Minister touched on that. The moneys exchanged seem very limited. I do not know why we have any regulation relating to that, if it is so unimportant. Can he enlighten us a little?
I will start with some general questions, because some points need to be brought out early on. I hope the Minister will get some help from somewhere to answer them. I am always willing to accept written contributions, although I have not received any yet. We have had rather a lot of SI Committees, and so far I am yet to have anyone write to me saying, “You should look at this to understand that,” or, “The Government intend to do this to move to that.” It would be useful to get some contributions so that I at least know that I am along the right lines, or that the Government have done it in the right way.
Under the common agricultural policy, there are payment windows. We have a lot of arguments over them, because they are often breached, and farmers or landowners do not get the money that they should currently get within those windows. Do these regulations in any way change those payment windows? It would be interesting to know what the Government’s contingency is if we were to crash out of the EU. Much of this is predicated on our having an Agriculture Bill in place. Sadly, it does not appear that there will be such a Bill in place, which has caused some consternation among the Opposition—let alone among Government Members—about what will happen if we are no further forward.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
On that point, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The Agriculture Bill is all about developing a future policy; these regulations, in common with all such regulations under the EU withdrawal Act, are about ensuring that the current EU scheme and retained EU law—including the common agricultural policy and all its provisions—are operable in the interim period.
Dr Drew
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but there was supposed to be a seamless move from one to the other. It does not seem very seamless anymore; it seems rather senseless that we are unclear about where we are today—let alone where we will be in a week’s time—in relation to where we would possibly be going in terms of the Agriculture Bill, of which we have heard nothing. We suppose that it will crash out of the Government’s programme this year and we will have to revisit it again next year. We are not really going forward at a rate of knots.
Those who criticise the common agricultural policy—no doubt there are many in this room today—will question the fitness of the legislation as it stands and as it will stand tomorrow should these regulations go through. Farmers are calling for improved systems, so was this not the opportunity—notwithstanding what I said about payment windows—to look at how the system would be improved? Throughout the Agriculture Bill, I have called for the scrapping of the Rural Payments Agency and for its replacement with a new, purpose-built body. Unfortunately, we do not seem to have got any further with that.
My next question is about the limited consultation. Yes, it is true that farming organisations were consulted. However, given that we are moving towards environmental payments, it was really quite a narrow consultation. What about the different environmental organisations that have contributed, largely through the Green Alliance? As the Minister knows, they are very critical of this process and how it has been taken forward. Why were they not directly consulted about these statutory instruments? That would at least have been commensurate with the direction of travel.
I will make two more general points, before I comment on specific bits of legislation. Given our learned experience from having been a member of the CAP for 43 years, it would be useful to know why these SIs could not take account of some of the direction of change.
My last general point is about what the Minister said about there being a series of technical amendments. But this involves direct payments, which is one of the more controversial areas—as we know, through the Agriculture Bill—between the four home countries. When I talked to the Ulster Farmers Union and said, “Of course, we will be removing direct payments,” its representatives basically intimated: “Over our dead bodies!” They believe that direct payments have a strong and continuing role to play in keeping people on the land in Northern Ireland. Since we debated the issue during the Agriculture Bill, have we got any further forward on how we intend to deal with a very different approach? [Interruption.] If the Minister wants to intervene—
Dr Drew
Sorry, the former Minister; I am still getting used to all the different roles being played.
I am intrigued about where we are with those four different approaches: Scotland has its own approach and did not want to make its statement through the Agriculture Bill; Wales is largely in common with England, but has made its own contribution to the changes; and, because there is no Administration in Belfast, we are not at all sure what Northern Ireland is doing. But let us go on to the three bits of legislation.
The draft Common Agricultural Policy (Financing, Management and Monitoring) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 again come down to money. I am interested to know whether the Government, through the SIs, will commit to exactly the same moneys being available today and tomorrow, regardless of what happens next week. It would be useful to know whether the Government are prepared to make that commitment of the £3.1 billion or £3.2 billion, which would work its way through to the system. As I said, the Ulster Farmers Union in particular is very clear about wishing to continue with direct payments. How does that impact on the way in which the other parts of the UK will respond?
The Soil Association, although not part of the direct consultation, looked at the issue. It is clear about welcoming the Government’s direction of travel but, again, questions whether the draft SI makes any difference to the programme under which, starting in 2021, we gradually run down direct payments. That would be interesting to know in connection with the draft SIs, given that we have no Agriculture Bill coming through. We are only talking about 18 months away now, so it is not way in the future—this is in the foreseeable future, and farmers are already making calculations about their investments.
The National Farmers Union brought up the point, which the Minister did not mention, that there are now criminal offences for breaching financial assistance schemes. Will he say something about that? The NFU is unhappy about it. Will these SIs mean that obstruction of a person acting in pursuance of the regulations could result in the farmer or landowner facing a financial penalty or worse? Again, some of the conflicts that arise out there are difficult to resolve without clarity of thinking and a much clearer explanation of the impact of these SIs.
The draft Common Agricultural Policy (Financing, Management and Monitoring Supplementary Provisions) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 largely concern the budget and the income-support system. One presumes that in the short run we will carry on with the existing structure, because we have no Agriculture Bill and because unless we give farmers the moneys that they thought they were getting, they would be at a distinct disadvantage in competing with other parts of the European Union—in particular in Ireland; Northern Ireland would not want to be at any disadvantage.
We laid down some pretty strong targets in the Agriculture Bill, but how does that relate to the draft statutory instruments? The Nature Friendly Farming Network, for example, wants much longer-term commitments on moves towards soil management, protection of water and the rest of it. Again, that is all wrapped up in the environmental management schemes, which are not part of these SIs, but unless we get things right, farmers will be at a disadvantage in the meantime.
The last instrument is the draft Common Agricultural Policy and Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. This has been mapped out and spoken about on many occasions by the Secretary of State, but the real issue is how to move from direct payments to environmental payments. Sustain in particular was worried about whether the new shared prosperity fund—the Minister will say that it is not affected by the SI, but that is contingent on the Government’s direction of travel—will be administered by DEFRA or go to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, as Sustain fears it might. Where will the moneys for environmental payments be set aside in the interim?
The Ramblers’ Association has made some points about how cross-compliance will essentially alter things, come what may, because of how the Rural Payments Agency has itself been reformed. We know that there is a problem with countryside stewardship for various landowners—the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth talked about that on the Agriculture Bill Committee, when he was the Minister. It would be interesting to know how that cross-compliance will operate not only through the new Bill, but with respect to the regulations before the Committee. They constitute the interim policy; if we do not get that right, farmers, landowners and environmentalists will be disadvantaged.
George Eustice
I welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby to his post. I offered to take part in these Committees specifically because I am largely to blame for some of their content and have signed some of the statements.
I pay tribute to the DEFRA officials, who have had to work incredibly hard on this and all other similar SIs. Hon. Members who read those SIs will quickly establish that to fillet through every piece of EU legislation, literally exchanging the words “Member States” for “relevant authority”—that is predominantly what these statutory instruments do—is not the most attractive of jobs. It requires somebody to go through a huge amount of legislative text. A huge amount of work has gone into all those instruments and it is important to recognise that their purpose is simply to make retained EU law operable.
The shadow Minister made the point that as we are not changing policies, we should surely have drafted the regulations to make them a bridge to the direction of future policy. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 was explicitly clear that that should not be done. The purpose of that Act was simply to allow for retained EU law to continue to function as closely as possible to the way that it does currently. It was clear that any future changes in policy should, as a general rule, require future legislation. Of course, we have the Agriculture Bill for that.
It is also worthy of note that section 2(2) of European Communities Act 1972 is probably the most pernicious Henry VIII power in this country in modern history. It is used, particularly by a Department such as DEFRA, to drive a coach and horses through all sorts of pieces of domestic legislation, often without much more than passing a statutory instrument via the negative procedure. The irony with all these SIs is that we expend a great deal of effort to judge whether we are happy to swap the words “Member State” for “relevant authority”, but those powers were simply imposed on us, generally by delegated legislation or by Acts implementing European Union legislation.
When we looked at the AHDB levy—particularly the exemption from the levy for EU animals, which was raised by the shadow Minister—we had two things to consider. The first was whether we should go for a strict interpretation, seeking legislative continuity, in which case we might have said, strictly speaking, that the EU was now a third country and should therefore be treated as such. The second was whether we should adopt an approach to provide continuity for producers in the closest way possible. Had we taken the former approach, we would have required abattoirs up and down the country to suddenly start trying to design and implement systems so that they knew when they were dealing with an animal that might have come from the European Union and could apply a levy to it. As the shadow Minister noted, we apply a levy to animals from outside the EU, but not those within the EU. We concluded that the best way to provide continuity was simply to extend that exemption to everyone in the world, which meant that operators could carry on broadly as they do now.
I do not have a lot of affection for the horizontal regulation in the EU, which one of the SIs relates to. It led to lots of administrative problems for DEFRA to do with how we had to interpret penalties and implement audit processes. It is far from perfect, but the Agriculture Bill has a sweeping power to modify it once we leave the European Union. But for now, in keeping with the ethos of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, we should retain it, which is what the regulation does. On financial discipline, in England we decided that we wanted to retain the power to make use of some of the pillar one payments for a crisis reserve, so there would be funds to support agriculture at times of great need in the year ahead before we have introduced our own crisis measures through the Agriculture Bill.
Finally, the shadow Minister mentioned a couple of points about criminal proceedings. We debated that during the Agriculture Bill, and I gave an undertaking to look at the issue. My understanding is that we have never used that power; it has been in our enforcement powers for the EU regulations—that is why it is retained for now, although obviously it can be looked at in the context of the future Bill. As he knows full well, because we debated it at length in Committee, the budget will stay the same in cash terms until 2022. I predict that will cover the timescale for these regulations under retained EU law, because long before that I hope we will have our Agriculture Bill in place.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mr Hanson. I welcome the Minister back to Government, although how long that Government will last is up for debate given events outside this room. As I find myself saying fairly often, it is regrettable that this legislation has been rushed through without proper scrutiny. That is rather unhealthy for parliamentary democracy, but we are where we are.
As the Minister outlined, the Scottish Government have consented to the statutory instruments—for pragmatic reasons, rather than because they fully support them. There was concern about the Government’s approach to many of the matters. The Agriculture Bill completely failed to deliver on promises made to Scotland during the EU referendum campaign. As the hon. Member for Stroud indicated, we plan to do things rather differently.
The Scottish Government have set out a five-year plan that will give farmers and crofters the stability, certainty and funding they need for the next five years. They will act to address Brexit risks, such as announcing a loan scheme in which payments start earlier than in any other part of the UK, directly helping vulnerable farmers and crofters. We have serious concerns that the UK Government might impose unwanted policies and rules on Scottish farmers in areas that should be devolved competencies.
The Scottish Government published clear proposals for the next five years in their “Stability and Simplicity” consultation paper, aimed at providing farmers with financial certainty in the face of Brexit. In January, MSPs debated future rural support, and the Scottish Government announced that, due to the inadequacies of the UK’s Agriculture Bill, they would bring forward a Scottish rural financial support Bill to implement the proposals set out in the consultation.
We welcome the review of agriculture funding allocations, but are disappointed that our concerns on the remit of the review have not been addressed, particularly for the convergence uplift money. The Conservative party does not generally support redistribution—unless the money should be going to Scottish farmers, in which case it redistributes it elsewhere. I ask the Minister, who is relatively new in the Department, to change tack, ensure that there is an adequate review and look at the remit and at future and previous payments.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will be pleased to know that I have just a small number of technical questions. Before I turn to agriculture, I briefly want to mention fisheries. The explanatory memorandum for the Agriculture (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 talks at the bottom of page 3 about the EMFF funding. It was asked during the passage of the Fisheries Bill what happens in the event that the powers jointly exercised by the Secretary of State and the devolved Administrations cannot be exercised with complete unanimity because one of the devolved Administrations object to the Secretary of State’s policy. That is referred to on page 3 of the explanatory memorandum. Page 16 states:
“Any changes as a result of the use of powers after EU Exit will only be carried out with the consent of the devolved administrations.”
The Opposition proposed an amendment that would have created a dispute mechanism to ensure that, if that happens, there will be a plan in place to resolve it. The Government disagreed with that dispute mechanism, but I note that there is no method of dealing with the issue in this instrument. I will be grateful if the Minister sets out how he intends to deal with it.
On the Agriculture (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, I would be grateful if the Minister set out, in relation to financial discipline in England, the different thresholds specified in the regulations. I have two questions about the regulations. First, the SI suggests that the threshold for the financial year ending 31 March 2020 is £2.093 billion, and the financial threshold for the year ending 31 March 2021 is £2.095 billion. That is an increase of only £2 million. What calculation and rationale was there for that £2 million? Why is there no reference to any retail prices index or consumer prices index calculations?
Secondly, I want to press the Minister on the exchange rate used. Throughout the document, euros, rather than pounds, are used for financial payments. I could not see anything about the exchange rate. Any big fluctuations, such as the fall in the value of the pound after the 2016 referendum, could have a substantial effect on the exchange rate. Is there a mechanism to adjust that to ensure that our farmers do not lose out?
I am grateful that the Minister set out the gremlins that he discovered in the explanatory note. In a previous SI Committee, I asked him to assure us that there were no gremlins in the explanatory notes or the SIs, but one was pointed out in the very next SI Committee. I am glad that he spotted that one, but I wonder how many other gremlins in these SIs have not been spotted. I do not anticipate that the Minister has a list of how many have not been spotted; the point is that there could be others.
Finally, I want to ask the Minister about the agriculture support. The Government have committed to continue funding until the end of the Parliament, rather than a certain date. What happens to the funding if the Parliament ends before 2022, especially if there is a shortfall? My understanding from Ministers’ statements is that the post-CAP funding settlement is expected to lead to an above 40% reduction in the total value of agricultural support. If the Parliament ends before 2022, what measures are in place to provide the same timeframe for farmers and others in the agricultural sector, so they can adjust to what could be quite a substantial difference in agricultural subsidies?
Mr Goodwill
I thank all hon. Members who contributed to the debate and asked interesting questions. These regulations ensure that we are able to make amendments to the CAP legislation in the same way as the EU does currently, to respond to changing circumstances in the agriculture sector and have the flexibility to manage the pillar one budget through the financial discipline mechanism.
They will ensure the continued operation of the financing, management and monitoring arrangements that underpin the common agricultural policy in the United Kingdom and will provide the AHDB with an operable legal framework. Although these are very complex matters, as the hon. Member for Stroud noted, the changes that we are making are simple and straightforward. In most cases, we are merely substituting EU bodies with UK bodies, which will help us to take back control of our own legislation.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I hope that the Minister is getting used to my cheekily taking my position as the Whip but then asking questions about process—although this question is about content. He says that the changes being made are quite straightforward, yet he also talks about the devolved Administrations. I am concerned about what will happen to the democratic oversight of decisions that relate to Northern Ireland, where there is currently no Assembly.
Mr Goodwill
To put it simply, officials went through the regulations, and every time they saw a reference to an EU body, they changed it to a reference to a UK relevant body, whether that was in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales. I share the disappointment felt by many people that we have not had an agreement in Northern Ireland and a return to devolved administration; at the moment, civil servants are making the decisions, based on decisions taken in the past. As a former member of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, I know how tough the job of those civil servants is; the longer it is since there was a devolved Administration in Northern Ireland, the more difficult it is to make decisions based on political policies that were decided at that time. I hope that all the political parties in Northern Ireland will get together to participate fully in the democratic process and give the people of Northern Ireland their voice once again through the devolved settlement, delivering on the Good Friday agreement—the Belfast agreement.
The hon. Member for Stroud asked some general questions about payment windows. There will be no changes to the scheme, but given the performance of the last Labour Government, I have to say that people in glass houses should not throw too many stones. The Labour party must take some responsibility for the complexity of the system introduced in England, which contrasts with the much more workable system in Scotland. We are often critical of European legislation, but if we gold-plate it ourselves, we must take some of the blame.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about new schemes. Obviously, under the new policies that we will introduce once the Agriculture Bill is on the statute book, we will be in a position to facilitate new schemes. We will have an improved system that will allow us to base our agriculture policy and agricultural support on UK priorities, rather than on the often compromised priorities that emerge when we negotiate within the European Union.
The hon. Gentleman talked about consultation. In a debate on a previous statutory instrument, I gave a long list of those whom we have spoken to and who have not expressed concerns. There are no concrete changes; as I have said already, in most cases we are substituting EU bodies with UK bodies.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we should make modifications at this stage to take account of the directions of change that we discussed in debates on the Agriculture Bill. The answer is no; this is a “business as usual” measure. If he wants to make changes, the first thing he needs to do is vote for the deal, so that we can actually leave the European Union. The Agriculture Bill will create those opportunities, but that will be possible only with a deal. I hope that we can work closely with the devolved Administrations as well.
The hon. Gentleman asked a question about the red meat levy. The exemption that we are concerned with relates only to livestock imported into the UK and slaughtered in England within two to three months of arrival. There are believed to be very few cases, if any, in that category. The overall red meat levy is payable on all livestock slaughtered in England for the human food chain and raises approximately £26 million a year. Extending the exemption to imports from beyond the EU might affect the KPA. No exemptions were sought for such imports last year.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Soil Association. I can reassure the association that we are maintaining the status quo. As I say, the Agriculture Bill will give us great opportunities in the delivery of organic production, for example.
I was asked about future funding arrangements: as agriculture is devolved, who will pay for what? I reassure the Committee that the Government have pledged to continue to commit the same cash total in funds to farm support until the end of this Parliament, which is expected to be in 2022.
Mr Goodwill
I know what the hon. Gentleman is going to ask, and I will try to cover it.
That includes all funding provided for farm support under both pillar one and pillar two of the current CAP. Obviously, if there were an early election—of course, under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, that is not as straightforward as it used to be—since no Government can tie the hands of a future Government, it would be up to the parties standing in that election to put their plans in their manifesto and then deliver on that when elected.
Gavin Newlands
I am not sure whether there are any Scottish Tories here, but I am sure that, given their rural constituencies, they would be keen to learn whether the Conservative party manifesto will commit to giving Scottish farmers back the money that was stolen from the convergence uplift.
Mr Goodwill
I am certainly not going to rush my fences and write the next manifesto on the hoof, particularly as we do not expect to go to the people again until 2022. The last time we consulted the people on what we should do was in the referendum, and we have not delivered on that one yet, so perhaps we should get on with the work in hand.
Mr Goodwill
I will make a point about the Barnett formula before I give way. We have also committed that the Barnett formula will not simply be applied to DEFRA’s agriculture budget in 2022. That means that farmers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will not just be allocated funding according to the population of each nation. Each is significantly smaller than England, but they have large areas of agricultural interest. In October 2018, the Government announced an intra-UK allocations review, which will look into the factors that should inform the allocation of convergence funding from 2020 to 2022. The review will report ahead of the 2019 spending review, and its recommendations will be available to Treasury Ministers when future funding decisions are made.
Did I answer the hon. Gentleman’s point? I thought I had.
Dr Drew
I was actually going to make another point. Since I think we must assume that the Agriculture Bill will be delayed, these SIs are quite important. The starting point for the reduction of direct payments is 2021—that is in the plan, not in the Bill itself. Will the Minister assure me that if there is a delay, the seven-year transition period will move with it? Or are we going to try to reduce that transition period? Obviously, that would cause those who need direct payments even more difficulty.
Mr Goodwill
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. We are keen to make progress on the Agriculture Bill. We will get it on the statute book as soon as possible, and it will certainly be on the statute book as and when it is required.
I was asked about cross-compliance. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 does not give us the power to make wholesale policy changes, and we do not think it would be appropriate to use the powers in the Act to omit cross-compliance from retained CAP legislation. Instead, we have the flexibility to amend cross-compliance within the confines of the current legislative framework. Further substantive changes to cross-compliance will be able to be made through the Agriculture Bill.
I was also asked why the devolved Administrations have taken a different approach to agriculture. Agriculture is a devolved policy area, and the devolved Administrations are currently able to operate CAP schemes within the legislative framework. It is for each Administration to decide how these EU regulations should be made operable.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport raised issues to do with EMFF funding and the Fisheries Bill. I had been doing so well, but that is one that I will need to write to him about, as it is quite a technical issue and I do not want to get it wrong—similarly with the dispute mechanism, although of course that is one of the things for the future. As I said, at the moment, we are keeping measures in place as they are; there is no change.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the exchange rate. The exchange rate for payments is fixed in September. That has been the case for some time. He also mentioned fixed-term Parliaments. As I said, no Government can tie the hands of a future Government, and it will be up to the parties what they put in their manifestos.
Luke Pollard
On the technicalities of the two threshold levels, I would be grateful if, when the Minister prepares his note to me, he set out the thinking behind the €2 million mark, whether that is RPI or CPI-related, and what formula created those two levels.
Mr Goodwill
I will ’fess up: I was not aware of that difference. There may be a perfectly logical explanation that is not policy related.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
I notice that there is an article in the regulations entitled, “Financial Discipline in England”, which sets out how that would work. Am I right that the other nations would not have to have any financial discipline, or would they make their own arrangements?
Mr Goodwill
The other nations have chosen not to opt into the financial discipline mechanism, which we use—I was going to say “to top-slice”, but that is too emotive—to ensure that we have provision for emergency payments and other such measures. That is in no way to suggest that the Scottish Administration are behaving recklessly; it is just how they are choosing to deliver that policy. I hope my right hon. and learned Friend is reassured. Indeed, I met with the DAs this morning, and Mr Ewing was very keen to talk about how we move forward constructively, respecting the powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament and Administration.
These draft statutory instruments are required to ensure our continued ability to pay UK beneficiaries of the CAP and the common fisheries policy as now. They will help to ensure compliance with the rules set out in the retained CAP legislation and to ensure that public money is spent appropriately. On that basis, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Agriculture (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
draft Common Agricultural Policy (Financing, Management and Monitoring) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Common Agricultural Policy (Financing, Management and Monitoring) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(Mr Goodwill.)
draft Common Agricultural Policy (Financing, Management and Monitoring Supplementary Provisions) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Common Agricultural Policy (Financing, Management and Monitoring Supplementary Provisions) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(Mr Goodwill.)
draft Common Agricultural Policy and Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Resolved,
The Committee has considered the draft Common Agricultural Policy and Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(Mr Goodwill.)
Draft Common Rules for Access to the International Market for Coach and Bus Services (amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Common Rules for Access to the International Market for Coach and Bus Services (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. The draft regulations that we are considering will be made under powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and will be needed in the event of no deal. The instrument amends the retained European Union legislation governing access to the international passenger transport market and associated domestic implementing legislation, to deal with deficiencies that would otherwise exist when the UK leaves the EU.
EU regulation 1073/2009 establishes the conditions for the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus within the EU and cabotage within member states by non-resident EU operators. It covers regular timetabled services, and occasional services such as those for holidays and tours. It establishes for this purpose a system of Community licences, which act as the international bus and coach licences used within the EU, to be issued by the competent authorities of member states. Section 3 of the withdrawal Act will preserve EU regulation 1073/2009 in domestic law, and—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. I understand that the hon. Member for Glasgow South West is finding it difficult to hear the Minister because of the conversation that is taking place. I hope hon. Members will enable those who wish to listen to so do.
Ms Ghani
I will perhaps speak a little bit louder, Mr Chairman. Section 2 will preserve implementing domestic legislation, including the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 and the Road Transport (International Passenger Services) Regulations 2018. The statutory instrument adjusts the language and references in those pieces of retained legislation and five others to recognise that the UK is no longer a member state.
The SI amends the retained UK version of regulation 1073/2009, and allows EU-based operators to continue to access the UK market in a no-deal scenario on a unilateral basis by recognising Community licences and control documents issued by EU authorities under EU legislation. Existing authorisations for international regular services to the UK will continue to be recognised to avoid any additional administrative burden for operators.
In respect of the retained EU legislation, this SI covers Northern Ireland, too, but that devolved Administration will need to make consequential changes to their legislation; that is the subject of a separate instrument. The retained regulation 1073/2009 will apply only to EU-based operators. In the event of no deal, UK operators will be able to continue to access the EU market through the UK’s accession to the Interbus agreement, an EU multilateral agreement that allows bus and coach operators to run occasional services between participating countries. The UK is currently party to the agreement through its EU membership. As part of contingency planning for no deal, the Government have deposited the UK’s instrument of accession to the Interbus agreement, meaning that the UK will become a member of the agreement in its own right. Due to the wording of the agreement, it may only enter into force on the first of the month.
The Government have made a commitment to reducing the adverse impact of EU exit on businesses and citizens, and that applies to people’s ability to make international journeys by bus or coach. Coach travel provides a safe and environmentally friendly choice of travel, and its low cost is particularly valued by individuals on low incomes. Coaches from continental Europe bring in some 1.6 million visitors each year, and in Northern Ireland travel across the border is a commonplace daily activity, with 900,000 journeys across the border per annum. These draft regulations are essential to support our tourism industry, and to ensure that international services that are, in effect, cross-border local bus services on the island of Ireland can continue to run.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. These regulations seek to establish common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus operators from the EU, so that they can operate in the UK and continue to function in a similar way after the proposed, and changing, exit day, and to minimise any potential disruption to services for passengers in a no-deal scenario. Of the 1.6 million annual coach journeys to the UK, 83% are from the EU, so there are widespread implications.
For reciprocal arrangements, it is expected that the Interbus agreement will be brought into force, and I wonder whether the Minister could update the Committee on the position, including the expected date of implementation. I heard her mention the beginning of the month, but she did not say which month. Given an exit day of no earlier than 12 April, it would be helpful to know whether that meant the beginning of April or a later date.
In the light of the importance of the regulations, it is astounding that the Government have left them until fewer than four days before the date when the UK was due to leave the European Union. That could have had a serious impact on the coach and bus sector and the tourist sector, and it shows just how ill prepared the Government are for leaving the European Union. The regulations establish the conditions—whether for regular, scheduled coach services or occasional, non-scheduled services such as holiday and tour services between the UK and EU—for the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus within the EU, and for cabotage arrangements. They also cover the licensing arrangements within the EU, if we move out of the Community licence arrangements.
The regulations would move powers from the European Union to the Secretary of State for Transport and the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment, to enable coach and bus operators from the EU who were in the Community licence scheme to operate in the UK as they do now. I note that EU operators who wish to obtain a new authorisation for a regular scheduled coach service to the UK will in future need to apply for new authorisation from the appropriate authority in the UK, instead of in their home member state. If a new operator were to apply from 30 March—the relevant date might now be 13 April—assuming that the UK had left the EU, would the UK be ready to issue a new licence? How much is already in place for the transition? What would happen to cabotage arrangements?
Will the Minister explain how licensing will differ for current European economic area operators? Those issues are particularly acute for Ireland, north and south, where there is a gap between leaving the EU and the coming into force of the Interbus agreement. That is my understanding, although I have asked for clarity. Why is that the case when there are 900,000 journeys across the border? What risk has the Minister uncovered, through having such a gap, and how will she address that?
With the transfer of powers from the EU to the International Road Freight Office, should the UK leave the EU, how much additional work will be created? How many operators are expected to require licensing, in the light of a no-deal scenario, by 12 April, and what will the cost be? I note that in proceedings on previous regulations, various Ministers have stated that costs would be minimal, but an accumulation of many minimal costs soon adds up. What is the total cost?
For those who hold a personal service vehicle operator’s licence and those who are part of the EU Community licence regime, no friction must be built into the transition of powers. Can the Minister assure operators of that?
In the light of the crisis that we face as a nation, the regulations are critical in reducing risk to coach and bus companies. Labour will therefore not oppose them this evening.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I shall be brief. A key thing was missing from what the Minister said, and it comes down to the issue of passenger rights. Even though the UK is leaving the EU, consumers and passengers across the UK must be given clear and unequivocal assurances and guarantees that their rights and safety will not be compromised. Under EU directives, UK passengers are entitled to a huge number of benefits if a journey is cancelled or delayed. That gives some protection and assurances to consumers, and provides passengers with peace of mind. Will the Minister say something about passenger rights and whether the Government intend them to be protected, as they are under the directives in question?
Ms Ghani
I thank hon. Members for their consideration of the regulations. Let me turn to some of the points made. Apologies for having been a little remiss; the proposal comes into play on 1 April. The UK will have completed formal accession to the Interbus agreement by the end of March, and it comes in on the first Monday after that, which is 1 April. My apologies for not mentioning that earlier. Engagement is ongoing with the Interbus depository to ensure alignment between the end of the formal accession period for Interbus and the short extension to article 50.
The other question was about cabotage and Northern Ireland. Under the agreement, cabotage can continue between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Should we leave with no deal, we will continue to work with the European Commission and the Republic of Ireland to ensure that any long-term transport arrangements between the UK and the EU take into account the unique transport demands on the island of Ireland.
There was also some conversation about the impact that the agreement has on the sector, and potentially on the cost. I place on record the fact that my officials have been working with the Confederation of Passenger Transport, which is the main industry representative body, and the Federation of Passenger Transport Northern Ireland, to ensure that stakeholder consultation has taken place, and to understand the impact of this statutory instrument. All stakeholders support the UK’s decision to join the Interbus agreement independently. Any costs are noted as minimal, and any certification or passporting to allow this business to continue tends to be over a five-year period; the authorisations last for five years. Work has taken place to see how much work that would involve going forward.
Rachael Maskell
Could the Minister give some clarity on the impact on EEA countries? What will happen to their operations?
Ms Ghani
The Interbus agreement works with countries beyond the EU. There are another six countries that it is working with. My officials are working closely with them to put in place bilateral agreements to allow processes and practices that are in place to continue.
I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow South West for his question about passenger rights. We have worked to ensure that passenger rights will be as they are today; we are taking on board any part of EU legislation that we can adopt into UK legislation. As maritime Minister as well, I must say that we have gone above and beyond what is expected; we are working to international guidelines, not just EU guidelines, in this area.
I believe that the Committee is in agreement that these are serious regulations that we need to take forward to ensure that tourism, which is incredibly important business between the UK and the EU, can continue. I hope that hon. Members will support this instrument, so that we can ensure international coach travel access, and particularly regular services, to the UK for EU bus and coach operators, in much the same manner as before, in the interest of passengers. That is the reason why they will be supporting these regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Cash Controls (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Draft Customs (Economic Operators Registration and Identification) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Cash Controls (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Customs (Economic Operators Registration and Identification) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Mel Stride
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe, and I reassure the Committee that we are now in safe hands—it is business as usual. I welcome our Clerk. When the Clerks are here, they are of course so seamlessly efficient that we do not notice them, but when they are not here, apparently we do notice that they are not. There was a slight delay, but I have none the less moved the first of the draft statutory instruments and I will speak to both the SIs before us.
The Government’s priority is to leave the European Union with a deal that works for citizens and businesses, as is set out in the withdrawal agreement and political declaration. That would avoid a no-deal outcome. As a responsible Government, however, we have a duty to plan for all scenarios to minimise disruption for businesses and individuals. We are in Committee to consider two statutory instruments that are part of the Government’s package to prepare for the possibility of the UK leaving the EU without a deal.
The first set of draft regulations relates to cash controls. The European Union monitors the international movement of cash by requiring individuals who enter or leave the EU carrying more than €10,000 in cash to make a declaration. That cash control declaration must be made to the customs authority of the member state into which they are arriving or from which they are departing. The UK is committed to continuing that practice. The declaration is one measure that assists the fight against money laundering, organised crime and the funding of terrorism.
If the UK leaves the EU without a deal, the draft instrument will require cash control declarations at the UK border, including the borders between the UK and the EU. That does not apply to the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. The current practice, which requires those declarations between the UK and non-EU countries, will continue. The draft regulations extend those requirements to movements between the UK and the EU. The instrument makes a small change in so far as we will require declarations on amounts of £10,000 or more, rather than €10,000.
The second draft statutory instrument under consideration relates to economic operator registration and identification, or EORI. An EORI is a unique registration number given to businesses that are involved in matters covered by customs legislation, so that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs can identify them effectively. Registering for an EORI is a requirement under EU law. As those registration numbers allow HMRC to identify traders effectively, it is necessary for traders to use them when applying for customs simplifications or facilitations, making declarations or exchanging information with the customs authority.
The Union customs code, as it exists immediately before exit day, will form part of domestic law on exit day and continue to apply to the UK as retained EU law, by virtue of the provisions of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The code was drafted to apply to EU member states and will therefore not work as effective legislation for the UK without amendment. The second set of draft regulations amends those retained provisions to ensure that they are suitable for an independent UK customs regime. The instrument mirrors current EU provisions to ensure that traders and systems are faced with as little change as possible.
All existing EORIs issued by the UK, known as UK EORIs, will continue to remain valid for use in UK customs processes in the event of a no-deal EU exit. Following the UK’s departure from the EU, UK individuals and businesses that want to trade with the EU and do not already have a UK EORI will need to obtain one. In addition, persons who are not established in the UK but are entitled to lodge a UK declaration will first require a UK EORI.
I will now comment on the effect of the two draft SIs at the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. The UK Government have committed to avoiding a hard border and will do everything in their power to ensure that no new physical infrastructure or related checks and controls are introduced at the border in the event of no deal. As such, the two SIs will not apply to movements between Northern Ireland and Ireland, but they will apply for movements between Northern Ireland and other territories. Cash control declarations will not be required for movements of cash between Northern Ireland and Ireland, but will be required for movements of cash between Northern Ireland and other territories.
Likewise, traders whose only international trade is between Northern Ireland and Ireland will not be required to register for a UK EORI, but a UK EORI will be required by Northern Ireland traders trading with other territories. Finally, an EORI is not needed by UK traders with only domestic trade. The instruments are important in helping to ensure that our trade and cash controls continue to function in a day one no-deal scenario. I commend the first set of regulations to the House.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr McCabe, and to hear the explanatory remarks from the Minister. A huge volume of such legislation has obviously been passing through Parliament. When my shadow Treasury colleagues and I have been considering it, we have been determined to spell out our objections to the Government’s approach to EU exit secondary legislation, the volume of which has been deeply concerning in respect of accountability and proper scrutiny.
The Government have assured the Opposition that no policy decisions are being taken, but establishing a regulatory framework inevitably involves matters of judgment and raises questions about resourcing and capacity. Intrinsic decisions are being made about supervisory arrangements, and we are worried that mission creep is happening, which goes beyond what was outlined in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
Secondary legislation should be used only for technical, non-partisan and non-controversial changes, because of the limited accountability it allows. Instead, the Government continue to push through far-reaching legislation via these vehicles. As legislators, we have to get them right. They could represent real and substantive changes to the statute book, so they need proper in-depth scrutiny.
We are only four days away from our original EU exit date. The legislation still stands, at least in the UK’s case, but it is unclear whether much of it will be used. Obviously, we are considering two instruments that amend our customs regulations to account for our exit from the EU, but there is a lack of clarity about whether they are no-deal SIs.
The impact assessment that relates to both instruments is entitled “HMRC impact assessment for the movement of goods if the UK leaves the EU without a deal”, but some of the associated explanatory notes suggest that they are not no-deal instruments, but pertain to all kinds of exit. In my opinion, the second set of regulations would be needed only if we shifted away from the EU’s customs code, as the Minister mentioned, which is not a condition of leaving the EU per se. It is therefore peculiar that we have information not about the impact that the instruments would have in all possible scenarios, but only about a no-deal scenario.
On the cash controls regulations, I want to probe why the Treasury has decided to make the threshold £10,000. That is higher than the previous €10,000 threshold, which converts to about £8,500. I hope that the Minister can explain why it is set at £10,000, apart from the fact that that is a nice round number—that may well be the reason, but surely we need more information if that is the case. I find it peculiar given that, as I understand it, the cash controls system currently applies to €10,000-worth of other currencies brought in or out of the country, rather than a different value being set—it does not refer to 10,000 rupees or $10,000 or whatever. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us about that and whether I have the wrong end of the stick.
On the issues relating to the Irish border in the cash controls regulations, I hope the Minister can give us more information than is provided in the papers we have been given. The Irish border is mentioned only fleetingly in the instrument. The citation, commencement and effect section states:
“The amendments made by these Regulations do not have effect in relation to any person entering Northern Ireland from the Republic of Ireland or exiting Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland.”
The instrument omits articles 6 and 7 of regulation (EC) No. 1889/2005, which relate to information sharing. Some might say that that is understandable, given that the obligations will not stand after exit day, but surely we as parliamentarians need to know a lot more about what controls will be maintained than we are provided with. What discussions, for example, have the UK Government had with the Irish Government to ensure that there will be proper scrutiny of individuals who might try to exploit this situation to launder or otherwise hide cash?
I appreciate that the Government might respond by saying that we have the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which means that police or border officials are able to seize cash if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that it is either itself stolen or laundered, or is intended to be used in illegal ways in unlawful conduct, and that that applies from £1,000 upwards. However, I find it a bit strange that the Government suggest that we have to have a separate approach to cash controls as a condition of leaving the EU, yet that seems to be no issue at all when it applies between Northern Ireland and Ireland. Maybe they are just saying that security considerations trump that, which they may well do, but surely we need more meat on the bones here.
That is particularly true given that the impact assessment states:
“Compliance with the SI…gives HMRC information on the movement of cash, which feeds into the risk profiles of individuals and their associates where they are acting on behalf of others.”
That suggests that it is pretty important information, so we need more detail on why the Government are saying that we will not seek it here. It may well be justified in the overall cost-benefit analysis, but we really do not have that information.
Moving on to the economic operators registration and identification SI, again we are informed:
“The amendments to the retained EU law contained in this instrument will not have effect in relation to economic operators whose only customs activities consist of the trade of goods between Northern Ireland and Ireland.”
That seems a reasonable measure to prevent a hard border while maintaining existing regulations, but it would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether the Treasury has calculated how many operators of this type only trade in goods across the Irish border. That would be useful to know.
Generally, the context of this SI is a worrying lack of certainty for Northern Irish companies provided by the current situation. We did not have any indication until 13 March that the Government would take a temporary approach to avoid new checks and controls on goods at the Northern Ireland land border if the UK leaves the EU without a deal, and we do not yet have those arrangements set out in detail—we have the aspiration, but we do not have the detail. The Government’s own “EU Exit” paper from last year said that,
“WTO terms would not meet the Government’s commitments to ensure no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.”
This surely needs much more work.
Finally, the EORI SI sets up the requirements, as the Minister mentioned, for a UK-run economic operator and registration identification system. I am grateful to the Minister for being willing to confer with me about the extent of use of that system before this Committee sitting. I wrote to him about this matter in February, because as at the end of that month, HMRC itself admitted that less than one fifth of the businesses that were estimated to need an EORI number had one, meaning that four fifths did not. HMRC said at that stage that it takes up to three days for an EORI number to be sent out, and longer than three days if there are “high volumes” of applications.
HMRC maintained that it had the capacity to process 11,000 EORI applications a day. Perhaps it is a strange coincidence that when we multiply that by the number of working days that were left when HMRC’s press release was issued, it sums perfectly to 29 March—it is quite amazing that its systems mapped on so precisely. However—and I am sure the Minister will talk about this—it appears that in practice perhaps only about a quarter of the companies that will need an EORI number have one. If companies do not have one, what are they going to do? Will they literally not be able to trade if they are not provided with one of these numbers? That is surely quite concerning for them.
I asked at the time for the Treasury to provide more information on what it was doing to promote the need for people to get an EORI number. I also highlighted the fact that there are con merchants—perhaps I need to be careful legally what I say here, and I would not describe them as doing anything illegal, but there are certain companies that advertise themselves as enabling other companies to get such numbers and apply a charge for doing so, when it is actually free to get one. They seem to be trying to profit from this situation. As I said, there is potentially nothing illegal about that, but surely it is unfortunate, at the very least, if companies believe as a result that they have to pay to get an EORI number. It would be helpful to have an update on that.
Finally, what proportion of eligible businesses have signed up for the new transitional simplified procedures? HMRC acknowledges that there has been an underspend on training funds for that scheme. It would be helpful to have an update on that too, because it is meant to speed up some of the processes related to the EORI SI.
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions, which, as usual, were very thorough and detailed. I will do my best to answer them all. The first related to the whole issue of why we are using secondary legislation. In general terms, I hope the hon. Lady recognises that, given the kind of detail involved in some of this secondary legislation, the sheer practicalities of setting all that out in advance in primary legislation would have been prohibitive, not least because the relevant Bill went through some time ago and we are now considering these matters nearer to the event of our potential departure from the EU without a deal—although that is certainly not our desired departure. She will also have noticed that both instruments were considered by the European Statutory Instruments Committee and, on its recommendation, turned from negative instruments into affirmative instruments.
The hon. Lady asked very specifically whether these instruments relate to a no-deal scenario. Indeed they do. Of course, if we have a deal—the current deal, which has been negotiated with the European Union—we will go into an implementation period until the end of 2020. Under those terms, we would continue to trade with the EU27 on broadly the same basis as we do today.
The hon. Lady asked specifically why £10,000 was used, rather than the sterling equivalent of €10,000, that being—I will take her figure at face value—about £8,500. She suggested that it might be because it is a nice round number, and I guess perhaps it is. It certainly maintains the figure 10,000, albeit there is a relatively marginal change in value at today’s exchange rate; as we know, that may change over time.
The hon. Lady made some very important points about the Northern Ireland border and, with regard to the cash controls instrument, the level of security that may or may not be in place as a result of no deal. In the case of the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, the instrument really would maintain the status quo. Of course, as a member of the European Union at the moment, we do not have cash controls between ourselves and other member states, including between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. We have a variety of intelligence-based arrangements in place to track down those who may be moving cash for the wrong reasons across any of our borders with any member state, and we have always had very close co-operation with the Irish Government and the Garda in respect of such matters.
I turn to EORI. The hon. Lady asked how many operators trade only across the Northern Ireland-Republic of Ireland border and, because they do not already trade with a country outside the EU27, have not already been registered for an EORI number. I do not have a precise figure, but we estimate that about 245,000 businesses in the UK as a whole—145,000 that we can identify as being above the £85,000 VAT registration threshold, and an estimated 100,000 further that are below that threshold—trade solely intra-EU, so it will be a fraction of that number.
The hon. Lady touched on whether the arrangements relating to Northern Ireland in both statutory instruments would be compliant under WTO arrangements. Our belief is that they would be, albeit that they would be exceptional arrangements. In the case of both instruments, we would hope to be in constructive discussions with the Irish Government about how to move forward if we end up in a no-deal situation.
The hon. Lady asked some specific questions about EORI registration and referred to her letter. I am grateful to her for having raised that with me before this Committee. The answer to her question is that approximately 60,000 EORI registrations have now been made in the group we are targeting. That is 24.8% of those that we believe are in the scope of requiring an EORI. She asked what happens if a business turns up in the UK without the relevant EORI registration, and I point her to the transitional simplified procedures that we have set out.
The hon. Lady’s final point was about businesses that might provide a service to facilitate EORI registration. Quite rightly, she pointed out that is a free-of-charge service that can be completed very quickly, and it is not that complicated to do it online. If she has any specific examples that she would like to bring to my attention, where she believes that anybody is in any way misrepresenting the complexity of this process simply in order to profit from the interaction with the business concerned, I will look at them very closely.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for those clarifications, which are enormously helpful. I mentioned in my letter the name of one outfit that operates in that direction, but I will have another look and send it on. On his penultimate point about how companies would cope with not having an EORI, it was my understanding that, in order to participate in the new transitional simplified procedures scheme, businesses had to have signed up for that, and we do not know how many have. They could be in a double bind if they are not in either scheme. I know that the Government say they will completely suspend many of the normal reporting requirements, which opens up many concerning questions, but unless I am misunderstanding the transitional simplified procedures scheme, it is not clear that those who do not have an EORI would drop into that other scheme. Perhaps he can explain that further.
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady poses a fair question. Although what happens going the other way will be in the control of the EU27, in the event that a business came into the United Kingdom, arrived without an EORI number, was not in the TSP arrangements and was not in transit with the various suspensions that go with that, we would take a proportioned, flexible approach at the border under those circumstances. We would make sure, as we have always said, that we prioritise flow over other aspects, while in no way compromising on security.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Customs (Economic Operators Registration and Identification) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Customs (Economic Operators Registration and Identification) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(Mel Stride.)
Draft Social Security Coordination (Reciprocal Healthcare) (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Draft National Health Service (Cross-Border Healthcare and Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Draft Health Services (Cross-Border Health Care and Miscellaneous Amendments) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 1 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 1 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Health (Stephen Hammond)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Social Security Coordination (Reciprocal Healthcare) (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft National Health Service (Cross-Border Healthcare and Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the draft Health Services (Cross-Border Health Care and Miscellaneous Amendments) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Stephen Hammond
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I am grateful to the Committee for agreeing to discuss these regulations together, which seems logical to me. I welcome the hon. Member for Dewsbury, who is debating with me. I want to put on record at the start that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), who is no longer on the Labour Front Bench, conducted himself in a helpful and constructive way in this particular part of our discussions about EU exit, which is about reciprocal healthcare and the good of all our constituents.
I would also like to put on record my thanks to the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly, and the Labour Government there, for their help with the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill, on which we have had legislative consent motions. That is a record, because it is the only piece of EU exit legislation to which we have a legislative consent motion. It will mean, hopefully, that some of the things that we are discussing tonight will be easier to implement when that Bill comes through, either tomorrow or some other time.
Mr Sheerman
Before the Minister gets into full flow, I would like to say that I have been to lots of these Committees—I do not know if someone up there loves me or the Whips have a grudge—but I have never come across one that is such a rag-bag of things. As a Member of Parliament, I am supposed to give parliamentary scrutiny to this whole rag-bag of very important pieces of delegated legislation. Is that just because the Minister is in a hurry? This disaster of Brexit is coming and we are throwing everything at it. Up until now, we have had one statutory instrument, debated it in some detail and, by and large, felt that we have led some accountability. This looks like a total mess. How can we do our job properly with this large number of documents in front of us?
Stephen Hammond
The hon. Gentleman has been in the House much longer than I have. He will know that it is not unusual to have statutory instruments grouped together. In fact, last week a number of SIs from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs were grouped together and discussed on the Floor of the House, and then voted on individually.
The rationale for this evening’s grouping is simple: they are all to do with reciprocal healthcare, ensuring that our citizens—in either a deal or, particularly, a no-deal situation—have the potential to have the rights that they currently enjoy, which is the Government’s aim. That is why I have asked for them to be grouped together. I am grateful to the Committee for allowing that. Had the hon. Gentleman chosen to do so, we could have discussed them individually. If he allows me the time to progress with my speech, I hope he will see the logic of why we have grouped them this evening.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I have a slightly different question for the Minister. He just spoke about his gratitude to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly Government for their work on the legislative consent motions that these statutory instruments require. I note that in the explanatory memorandum it says that consent has also been sought from Northern Ireland. For the record, I would like the process by which consent has been sought from Northern Ireland on the measures to be set out.
Stephen Hammond
If the hon. Lady will allow me, I will tackle that in my speech. I will set out the arrangements that are in place with the Northern Ireland Executive, and if she is then not happy I will try to answer any questions at the end.
Mr Sheerman
I have to explain this accountability and scrutiny work I am doing to my constituents, so before the Minister sets sail—I wish him a really nice journey, with no problems—will he be putting the SIs into layman’s language, carefully going through them and saying what they really mean in the sort of language his constituents, along with mine and yours, Sir David, could understand?
Stephen Hammond
The hon. Gentleman can only test that and prove whether he has done his work on accountability after he has heard what I have to say, so I hope he will allow me to say it. I read this speech last week and it went back for re-writing, so I hope that it is now in the sort of language that both he and I and, importantly, our constituents will be able to understand.
Stephen Hammond
Here we go.
The Government are introducing these three statutory instruments under section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, to correct deficiencies in retained EU law relating to reciprocal and cross-border healthcare, and to ensure that the law is operable on exit day. When the UK leaves the EU, that Act will automatically retain the relevant EU legislation and the domestic implementing legislation in UK law. In a no-deal scenario, however, if we did not legislate further, the regulations would be incoherent and unworkable without reciprocity from member states. There would be a lack of clarity about patients’ rights to UK-funded healthcare in EU and European Free Trade Association countries.
Current EU reciprocal healthcare arrangements enable people to access healthcare when they live, study, work or travel in EU and EFTA countries, and in the UK. They give people retiring abroad more security, they support tourism and business, and they facilitate healthcare co-operation. The Government intend to continue those reciprocal and cross-border healthcare arrangements, as they are now, in any exit scenario until at least December 2020.
In a deal scenario, the in principle agreement we have reached with the EU under the withdrawal agreement is that during the implementation period—until 31 December 2020—all reciprocal and cross-border healthcare entitlements will continue. There will be no changes to healthcare for UK pensioners, workers, students, tourists and other visitors, and the European health insurance card scheme and planned treatment will continue. That would all be legislated for in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill. The Government want to secure a wider reciprocal healthcare agreement with EU and EFTA states following the end of the implementation period, which will support a broad range of people. We will negotiate that with our European partners during phase 2 of the talks on our future relationship.
In a no-deal scenario, our proposal to all EU and EFTA countries is to maintain the current reciprocal healthcare arrangements for at least a transitional period lasting until December 2020, to ensure that UK nationals can continue to access affordable healthcare when in the EU.
Mr Sheerman
When we get our EHIC card and go across to anywhere in Europe, we are sure that if we need medical attention it is covered by those reciprocal agreements. Is the Minister saying that for a short transitional period the continuity of that process will be maintained but that it will all end when we leave the European Union?
Stephen Hammond
No, that is not at all what I am saying. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was listening carefully. I was saying that in a deal scenario all current arrangements will continue and in a no-deal scenario we are seeking to put in place interim arrangements. In both scenarios we seek to have an arrangement that will continue reciprocal healthcare after the implementation period. Were he to vote for the withdrawal agreement, the EHIC card he was talking about would continue to be used, certainly until December 2020 and possibly much later depending upon what we negotiate. These regulations seek to ensure that UK law is consistent, so that the arrangements that are in place in a potential no-deal scenario can allow reciprocal healthcare arrangements to continue.
Mr Sheerman
When I discussed the subject with a junior Transport Minister, who is a good colleague of the Minister’s, he said that the green card—which ensures that UK drivers who are hit by an uninsured driver when driving in Europe, whether they are in their own car which they have taken to the EU or one they have hired there, are insured—will disappear as we leave the European Union and it will no longer work. He was very final about that. The hon. Gentleman is now saying that he is not sure if that is final. It is the end of a reciprocal relationship and after 2020 everyone will be uninsured when they travel abroad.
Stephen Hammond
The hon. Gentleman is putting words into my mouth that I did not say. What I said was that in a deal scenario all reciprocal arrangements will continue as per now until 31 December 2020. As I have pointed out, during that period clearly the Government will seek to negotiate an EU and EFTA states-wide continuing reciprocal arrangement. Everything we have now will immediately go into that transitional period when we negotiate. If there were a no-deal scenario, we would have to put in place interim arrangements to ensure that the current arrangements pertain. Again, during the transitional period it is the Government’s intention to seek to negotiate an EU and EFTA states-wide continuing reciprocal healthcare arrangement. However, we might also have to do that on a bilateral basis with individual states. There is no intention or expectation from the Government—or from the EU or EFTA states—that 31 December 2020 is a break point. I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Gentleman on that point.
Stephen Hammond
I am not going to respond to the chuntering from the floor, other than to note very clearly what—
Stephen Hammond
The Government want to secure a wider reciprocal healthcare agreement with EU and EFTA states following the end of the implementation period, which supports a broad range of people. That is what I have just explained. In a no-deal scenario, our proposal to all EU and EFTA countries is to maintain the current reciprocal healthcare arrangements for at least a transitional period to ensure that UK nationals can continue to access affordable healthcare when they are in the EU.
The statutory instruments we consider today will support us to do that with the countries we are able to negotiate those agreements with. However, our proposal depends on reciprocity from other European countries and we are in advanced discussions with member states to ensure continuity. In the event that an agreement cannot be reached, healthcare cover for those nationals may change.
We have approached and are in discussion with other member states and are prioritising those that are the major pensioner, worker and tourist destinations. The UK and Irish Governments are committed to continuing access to healthcare arrangements within the common travel area and both Governments are taking legislative steps to ensure we can implement the arrangements in time for exit day.
The Government welcome the action by EU member states who have prepared their own legislation for a no-deal scenario, including, but not limited to, Spain, France, Portugal, and Belgium. Depending on the decisions by other member states, it is important to acknowledge that access to healthcare could change.
Mr Sheerman
Did I hear the Minister right? Forgive me for another intervention, Sir David. Did the Minister say that he thanks those other European states, because they are negotiating this? It is not final, is it? As I said earlier, this is a “coming home on a wing and a prayer” policy. Our constituents should know the position, surely. We are Members of Parliament; we are paid to come here and represent our constituents. The Minister is telling me that this legislation will mean that after 2020 they will not be insured for their healthcare when they travel abroad. That is what he is saying, because there is no certainty in what he says.
Stephen Hammond
The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong: that is not what I am saying. I will say this once again for him. If the withdrawal agreement is signed—I urge him to vote for it, because that would provide certainty for his constituents—the current arrangements will continue, and it is the Government’s intention, during the transitional period, the implementation period, to negotiate an EU and EFTA states continuing arrangement. In a no-deal scenario, we will have to put in place interim arrangements, and that is what we are discussing now. It would still be the intention—it is a very clear expectation of the Government and is very clear from the stated ambitions and comments of the EU—that reciprocal healthcare would be the subject of a negotiation, either on an EU-wide basis or by individual member states.
I accept that there is some element of uncertainty, but I hope that I can now reassure the hon. Gentleman. Each of the 27 EU member states is a country with universal healthcare, and in general people have good options for obtaining healthcare, provided that they take the appropriate steps. Depending on the country, it will be possible to access healthcare through legal residency, current or previous employment, or by joining a social insurance scheme. Less frequently, people may need to purchase private insurance. It is always the advice when people travel overseas, including to Europe, that they should purchase appropriate travel insurance. People have always been encouraged to do that. However, I appreciate that it can be difficult for some people with long-term conditions, and it is important that people make the best decisions for their circumstances when choosing to travel.
As is the case now, UK nationals who return to live permanently in the UK will be able to access NHS care. UK nationals who currently have their healthcare funded by the UK and are resident in the EU on exit day can use NHS services in England without charge when they temporarily visit England. We recognise that that might mean change, and in some circumstances additional expense, for UK nationals living abroad. It is to avoid that that we are bringing forward these statutory instruments.
I would like to reassure the Committee that the Government have issued advice, via Government and NHS websites, to UK nationals living in and travelling to EU and EFTA states and to EU citizens living in the UK. The advice to UK nationals explains how the UK is working to maintain reciprocal healthcare arrangements, but that their continuation depends on decisions by member states. It also sets out what options people might have to access healthcare under local laws in the country that they live in if we do not have bilateral arrangements in place, and what people can do to prepare.
Mr Sheerman
The Minister has lifted the lid on this. It is horrific news for our constituents—for people who live in Huddersfield and Dewsbury and all the constituents we represent. It is, in stark terms, the end of the assurance that people can travel around Europe. We all had our little card and we knew that we did not have to go out and get private health insurance; we would be covered. We had that peace of mind. What the Minister is saying today, in plain language, is that that peace of mind will end. He has just read that out. It will end unless by luck, some wing and a prayer policy that arrives from this incompetent Government actually delivers something that they cannot promise and cannot deliver.
Stephen Hammond
The hon. Gentleman is a noble exponent of the art of opposition, but he is sensationalising and misunderstanding what I say. I have not said that the arrangements are not going to continue; what I have said is that in a no-deal scenario there may be some circumstances where people have to consider different arrangements from what they have already. It is the Government’s intention, in both a deal and a no-deal scenario, that these arrangements should continue, and that is what we will put in place this afternoon, if we ever get there.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
The hon. Member for Huddersfield seems to be trying to imply that if someone goes on holiday in the EU area at the moment, they do not need to have travel insurance. Now, from my experience of travelling to the EU area, it has always been advisable to have travel insurance, because in my experience, when I have had to access services, the first thing that the hospital in an EU country has asked is, “Where is your health insurance? Where is your credit card?” So it is not necessarily just a given that the card that people can obtain covers them in all eventualities.
Stephen Hammond
Where my hon. Friend is absolutely right is that, of course, it has always been the advice that people should purchase travel insurance when they travel, wherever they travel, including within the EU. The EHIC card is clearly in place. If the withdrawal agreement is signed, that arrangement will continue, but it has always been the Government’s advice that people should take out the appropriate travel insurance when travelling abroad, and he is absolutely right to make that point.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous in doing so. There are particular British expatriates living in other countries. As he said, some people have long-term conditions, including skin conditions that are temperature-sensitive and lung issues, for example. Just to be absolutely clear, he has said that there may be circumstances in which some of those people with long-term conditions may have to make other arrangements. So there is a direct disadvantage for disabled British people who are supported under the current framework who may not be supported, even under the Government’s plan. Is that correct?
Stephen Hammond
It is correct only in the unlikely circumstance of a no-deal scenario, and only in that there may not be interim arrangements put in place immediately after exit in a no-deal scenario. That is why I am setting out what the possibility might be, but I stressed that this is not what the Government hope for. Neither is it something that the Government expect or that is the Government’s ambition. What I have said is that, in the unlikely circumstance of a no-deal scenario, there may be some changes that some people need to make.
Mr Sheerman
On a point of order, Sir David. I know this Minister to be a very honest man, but I think he is in danger of misleading the Committee, only in this sense—that he keeps saying “only if we crash out without a deal”. I am sorry, but as I read the documents and listen to him when he reads from them, that does not appear to be the case. It seems to me that, whatever happens when we leave the EU, the security of being insured as people travel around Europe will disappear, whether we crash out or whether we achieve a deal.
The Chair
As a Member of 40 years’ standing, the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that no one can be accused of misleading anyone, so I am sure that he did not mean to say that. And as far as the point of order is concerned, it was not a point of order; it was a point of exasperation.
Stephen Hammond
Exasperation is something that many of us feel, Sir David. However, in some circumstances these instruments enable the Government to protect individuals irrespective of reciprocity with other countries. The issue was raised during the Lords’ consideration of the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill and has been misreported in the press.
I want to be absolutely clear, or at least I will try to be absolutely clear, and hopefully the hon. Member for Huddersfield will accept what I say. Through these instruments, we can finish funding healthcare for people in a transitional situation. That would cover those who are in the middle of a treatment on exit day, those who have already had treatment and are receiving post-treatment care, and those who have applied for or been given authorisation for the treatment before exit day. That will apply for a year, or for the period of authorisation, whichever is later. That, of course, assumes that the member state is willing to provide the treatment and accept reimbursement from the United Kingdom. The offer that the Government are making through these instruments is to continue to fund healthcare through the current reciprocal and cross-border healthcare arrangements until 31 December 2020 in those member states that agree to reciprocate. It is not feasible to directly fund healthcare for hundreds of thousands of people living in, or visiting, the EU without the cooperation of the member states.
Many hon. Members will know that the Government have also brought forward a Bill focused on reciprocal healthcare arrangements, the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill. That Bill will ensure that the UK can respond to all exit scenarios, and complements the approach we are taking in these instruments. It provides powers to give effect to comprehensive healthcare arrangements that are bespoke, or are different in any way from the current arrangements provided by the EU regulations. That Bill will also provide the legislative framework to implement long-term, complex reciprocal healthcare arrangements with the EU or bilateral agreements with individual member states.
We are also exploring whether there is a need to further fund healthcare for limited numbers of people in exceptional circumstances in which there would otherwise be a very serious risk to their health. The Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill will give us the powers to do that, and to respond to an unpredictable situation. Clearly, we need to prioritise support for those individuals who most need it, and those in countries where there are actual challenges in obtaining healthcare. It is our hope that that will not be necessary at all. I recognise the difficulty of the current situation, and assure the Committee that we are doing all we can to minimise changes in the way that care is accessed. Of course, if the withdrawal agreement is passed, there will be certainty.
I will try to pre-empt a number of questions about why these instruments are subject to the affirmative procedure and regulations under the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill are subject to the negative procedure, although I am sure there will be other questions. As has been explained during the course of debates on that Bill, regulations that are made under it will give effect to healthcare agreements and are most likely to focus on procedural, administrative and technical details, such as the types of documents or forms used to administer the reciprocal healthcare arrangements. The Government therefore believe that the negative procedure offers parliamentary scrutiny and proper checks on the use of delegated powers, and balances those against the appropriate use of parliamentary time. The withdrawal Act statutory instruments that we are debating prevent, remedy or mitigate deficiencies in the retained EU law relating to reciprocal healthcare, and in doing so amend powers to legislate, which is one of the triggers for the affirmative procedure under that Act.
I clarify that the instruments we are considering do not make any changes to welfare benefits policy; the Department for Work and Pensions is bringing forward separate legislation on welfare benefits. I also reassure hon. Members that, as I said at the outset, we have been working closely with our colleagues in the devolved Administrations, who have provided consent for these instruments. I am pleased to acknowledge those Administrations’ co-operation on securing the legislative consent motions, and thank them for it. I also thank colleagues in the Northern Ireland Department of Health and in the Northern Ireland Office for the productive engagement we have had with them. We have amended the Bill to reflect the outcome of those discussions: the Secretary of State must now consult the relevant devolved Authority before making regulations under clause 2(1) containing provisions that are within the legislative competence of a devolved legislature.
Stella Creasy
For the avoidance of doubt, could the Minister set out what he believes to be the relevant devolved Authority for giving consent? He has said that in addition to the legislative consent motion, the Northern Ireland Department of Health and the Northern Ireland Office had been consulted, and had given consent. I do not want to get this wrong, so could the Minister clarify which bits which Departments have given consent to, and which relevant devolved Authority he believes will give consent to this motion at this point in time?
Stephen Hammond
What I actually said was that we have had productive and positive engagement with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Department of Health and the Northern Ireland Office, and Northern Ireland officials have agreed that they are content for the Department of Health and Social Care to lay the draft Health Services (Cross-Border Health Care and Miscellaneous Amendments) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. That follows a decision by UK Ministers that, in the interest of securing legal certainty in Northern Ireland, the UK Government will progress the necessary secondary legislation for Northern Ireland at Westminster, in close consultation with Northern Ireland officials and the relevant Northern Ireland Departments. I hope that satisfies the hon. Lady.
Stella Creasy
I beg the Minister’s indulgence. For the avoidance of doubt, is he saying that consent to the orders will be given in Westminster for the specific Northern Ireland elements of the statutory instrument? Can he confirm that that is what he is telling us about the legislation?
Stephen Hammond
What I am telling the hon. Lady about the specific statutory instrument, the Health Services (Cross-Border Health Care and Miscellaneous Amendments) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, is that consent was sought from the Northern Ireland civil service, and was provided by the permanent secretary for the Department of Health for Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland civil service may make decisions in the public interest under the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018. Again, following decisions by UK Government Ministers, in the interest of securing legal certainty in Northern Ireland, the UK Government will progress the necessary secondary legislation in close consultation. As I have said, consent was sought from the Northern Ireland civil service, and was granted.
Stephen Hammond
It is not a constitutional point. I will not take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
The Chair
Order. We can have only one person on their feet at a time. Is it the case that the Minister is not giving way?
Stephen Hammond
I have given way on a number of occasions. I am bound to say to the hon. Member for Huddersfield that I have been clear about the legal position and the legal certainty. I have given clarity that the Northern Ireland civil service and the Northern Ireland Department of Health are clear and are consenting to what we are doing.
Stephen Hammond
Then the hon. Gentleman does not need to ask me, because I have just answered his question.
In addition, I am pleased to report that we have the legislative consent motions for our Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill. To underpin and facilitate the consultation, we have developed and agreed a memorandum of understanding with the devolved Administrations, which sets out a practical and mutually beneficial working relationship. That will ensure that the devolved Administrations will continue to play a vital role in delivering reciprocal healthcare for the benefit of all United Kingdom nationals.
Mr Sheerman
The Minister is a little grudging, but it is an important issue. He has gone through all the people whom he has consulted in Northern Ireland, and they all sounded like bureaucrats and civil servants to me. I did not hear him once say that he had confronted the facts of what is happening, through the statutory instruments, to our parliamentary colleagues or that he had put it to them. For all these years, their constituents have felt that they could go all over Europe and carry with them an extension or a bubble of the national health service that delivered the NHS promise, even though they were travelling. Did they get the picture? Were they told in blunt terms that that will no longer exist for their constituents? For people who are travelling, it is the old Tory dream of privatising the health service.
Stephen Hammond
I was going to say that I can see why the Speaker regards the hon. Gentleman as a national treasure, but after his final remarks, it is difficult to agree.
In closing, I make it clear that the instruments make miscellaneous amendments to EU references in retained EU law—for example, by removing references to EU concepts. Moreover, together with the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill, the instruments are necessary to ensure that the UK Government are ready to deal with reciprocal and cross-border healthcare in any EU exit scenario. They provide us with an efficient and effective mechanism to ensure that there will be no interruption to people’s healthcare in a no-deal scenario.
I thank members of the Committee for their valuable contributions.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Sir David, to be here discussing the draft regulations. The Opposition have started our speeches on Brexit SIs with a caveat, and I shall do so again this evening, so I apologise for any repetition.
We are now just four days away from Brexit day, as I am sure everyone is well aware. It is deeply concerning that we are still planning for a no-deal scenario when we are so close to the deadline. Once again, we are in Committee to discuss a statutory instrument that would make provision for the regulatory framework after Brexit in the event that we crash out without a deal. On each similar occasion, I and my Labour Front-Bench colleagues have spelled out our objections to the Government’s approach to secondary legislation.
The volume and flow of EU exit secondary legislation is deeply concerning for accountability and proper scrutiny. The Government have assured the Opposition that no policy decisions are being taken. However, establishing a regulatory framework, for example, inevitably involves matters of judgment and raises questions about resourcing and capacity. Secondary legislation should be used for technical, non-partisan, non-controversial changes, because of the limited accountability that it allows. Instead, the Government continue to push through contentious legislation with high policy content via such vehicles. As legislators, we have to get things right. The regulations could represent real and substantive changes to the statute book and they need proper in-depth scrutiny. In the light of that, the Opposition would once again like to put on record our deepest concerns that the process for these regulations is not as accessible and transparent as it should be.
With that out of the way, as always I have some concerns and questions about the statutory instruments. I understand that the three SIs set out provisions for an “orderly wind-down” of UK reciprocal healthcare arrangements with the EU and European economic area in the case of no deal, and that they allow for treatment that is in progress or that was authorised before exit day to be completed on either side of the channel, and—so far as possible acting unilaterally—for reimbursement for those treatments. I also understand that the Department of Health and Social Care regards the regulations as a temporary provision, which, until the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill comes into effect, will allow the current system, including the European healthcare insurance card and S1 form, to be continued until 31 December 2020 with individual countries. The Minister has alluded to that.
The transitional elements allow for all ongoing treatment to continue for a maximum period of one year following exit, and for pre-authorised treatments. Similarly, dedicated regulations deal with the special situation in Northern Ireland, where such arrangements are more frequent owing to the land border with the Republic of Ireland. I know that the Department of Health and Social Care regards the regulations as a temporary provision, but an article in The Guardian this week showed that British nationals in Europe feel that the healthcare plans for pensioners are “sick” and “uncaring”. They feel that they are being thrown under a bus and abandoned. They do not think that the one-year undertaking is at all adequate. The Minister will need to deal with the fact that the measure does not reassure many of our fellow citizens living abroad who access healthcare abroad.
As to the Northern Ireland regulations, people need clear guidance to avert harm in the event of no deal. Health services in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, working separately, often do not have sufficient demand to provide cost-effective, highly specialised medical services. More than €40 million has been invested in cross-border health and social care initiatives via Co-operation and Working Together, a partnership between the health and social care services in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Cross-border service arrangements have been established and are currently providing high-quality, safe care for patients, in a range of areas including primary care, cancer services, and paediatric cardiac surgery. Those vital health services must not be destabilised during, or after, the Brexit process, regardless of the outcome.
It is also vital that patient access to key health services is not jeopardised during the Brexit process. Can the Minister provide assurances on that? Will he also agree to an equality impact assessment to ascertain the number of Brits who may lose access to treatment for long-term conditions if his desire for a deal is not realised? It would also be good to understand what the cost would be of any of those Brits having to return home for treatment, as clearly there might be financial implications.
Lastly, on the Social Security Coordination (Reciprocal Healthcare) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, we are talking about the European health insurance card. Some 27 million of our fellow citizens hold the EHIC and some 190,000 UK pensioners living elsewhere in the EU are registered with the S1 scheme. One week away from Brexit, the NHS England website is still encouraging people to apply for the EHIC, even though it might not be valid in one week’s time, and it is very difficult to see what other advice is available. There is no advice about taking out additional insurance, and no advice whatsoever for those with long-term conditions. That is completely inadequate and it will not do when we are so close to what might be an exit without a deal.
Can the Minister tell me how people will know what to do? How will they go about finding out? When will the NHS website be updated? What will happen to those people, who already feel abandoned, if in just over a week’s time we leave the European Union without a deal and they find that they cannot access clear advice on how to keep themselves and their families safe?
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I will be brief; I agree with much of what has already been said. Brexit clearly threatens the healthcare of millions of people in Scotland, and their healthcare rights when abroad are something that the Scottish people did not vote to have taken away from them.
It will come as no surprise that the House of Commons has overwhelmingly voted to rule out a no-deal Brexit, as have both the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments, yet here we are still discussing no-deal Brexit contingencies. However, I am pleased that there has been agreement with the Scottish Government on a legislative consent motion. We have never been opposed to common frameworks, but we have always believed that they must be agreed with discussion and with the consent of the devolved Administrations, which in this case they have been. I welcome that progress and that respect for the devolution settlement.
It is clear that mechanisms need to be in place to protect those currently making use of reciprocal healthcare arrangements, as they are being put under considerable psychological and, potentially, physical stress as a result of this Government’s decisions. As these measures, should we ever be in the position of having to use them, go some way toward alleviating their situation, I will not be opposing them today.
Stella Creasy
It is always a pleasure to serve under your august chairmanship, Sir David. I rise simply to put on record a concern that many of us have, having heard what the Minister has said about this matter. We recognise that we are hampered by the fact that many SIs are being bundled together. With many of these SIs, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk pointed out, we do not want to be in this situation at all, because many of us have such concerns about Brexit. However, we understand that the necessary legislation needs to be there should the worst happen, and therefore we cannot unbundle these SIs to express our concerns in particular about the SI relating to Northern Ireland.
I want to put on record that the Minister has essentially admitted that, by the process he has set out, we are facing direct rule in Northern Ireland. He talked about the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018 and laying an SI, and he said clearly that consent has been given for this legislation not by elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, as the legislation sought to do under traditional legislative consent motions, but in fact by bureaucrats and by people here in Westminster.
The Minister will know that healthcare is a devolved issue; that is why I asked him all those questions about how the Government are using the 2018 Act. It is clear from this SI that their concept of the national interest is being stretched to cover bureaucrats and people in this place making decisions on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. He may say to me, “Well, there isn’t a functioning Assembly in Northern Ireland”—many of us know that all too well—but he owes the people of Northern Ireland the honesty and decency to admit that, since the Government are using that piece of legislation on measures such as this and claiming a very broad interpretation of the national interest, we now have direct rule in this place for the people of Northern Ireland.
If the motions were unbundled, it might be a different matter, because those of us who believe in democracy believe that the people of Northern Ireland have a right to that truth. Because they are not unbundled, we cannot do that, so I am putting on record the Labour party’s concerns about the way in which the people of Northern Ireland have been treated in this statutory instrument.
Mr Sheerman
I do not want to speak for more than half an hour, but I must make the point about this bundling. I have been on many Delegated Legislation Committees and have become quite an expert on statutory instruments.
Stephen Hammond
If the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Walthamstow did not want the statutory instruments to be bundled, they could have said so at the beginning of the Committee. The Government did nothing other than seek the permission of the Committee to bundle them. Should the Committee have wished, I would have been perfectly happy to unbundle them.
The Chair
Order. We cannot have interventions on interventions. The Minister is intervening on Mr Sheerman.
Stephen Hammond
I recognise the concerns of the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady and I will address their points, but the Government asked the Committee to agree, and the Committee agreed to the bundling of the statutory instruments.
Mr Sheerman
I take that point. There has been honest confusion, because when the Minister introduced the statutory instruments, I did not realise that, because they had all been bundled, I could not have a responsible view and single out the statutory instrument relating to Northern Ireland. I would not want to vote against that, but I want to vote against the others. I did not realise that was what would happen; I thought we would vote on each one.
The Chair
Order. I should clarify that there will be the opportunity to vote against each statutory instrument separately.
Mr Sheerman
That is reassuring. Those of us who have become experienced with statutory instruments in these Committee rooms, with brilliant Chairs who keep the peace, try to do our job as parliamentarians and scrutinise them, but there is a large number of them. We trundle up here; very often the Minister gabbles through his or her speech and gets quite sulky if someone intervenes. This Minister has not —he has given way in good humour and I thank him for it—but many Ministers gabble through and get irritated if Members intervene. This hothouse of Committees churning through this stuff is something of a national scandal. We all know that we do not have the time to scrutinise the legislation.
The Chair
Order. The hon. Gentleman’s remarks are very wide; they are general remarks about the way these matters are dealt with.
Mr Sheerman
Quite right; I just wanted to set the context. I am very unhappy that these statutory instruments are scrambled together, but I thought that we would not be able to vote on each one, so I am reassured.
These statutory instruments look quite innocent, but we have unpicked them and asked the Minister questions, and there will be a dramatic impact on our constituents when they travel. They will no longer have the protection that we have all got used to over many years of going round Europe and knowing that we do not have to take up time with insurance because our insurance from the national health service follows us, with this lovely card that we all carry. Most of my constituents and those of Members here will be shocked when they go on holiday and are told, “You have to get private insurance; you won’t be covered. The green card doesn’t cover you because if an uninsured driver hits you, you’ll be in real trouble.” This is a serious issue. We are taking away from the citizens of this country the health protection that they have got used to after many years. The Minister says, “At some point it will all turn out all right because the negotiations will deliver something.” I cannot, hand on heart, say to my constituents that there will not be an abrupt change to all their holiday and business travel plans.
I only wanted to make that point, but I wanted to make it forcefully. I hope the Minister has not taken umbrage—I hope no other Committee members have, either—but it is our job to scrutinise and unpick some of the things that come before us. The Minister has been generous in taking interventions and, although I am not satisfied and will vote against some of the SIs, I am pleased that we have had some debate rather than sitting here supine, accepting stuff that comes down from the Executive.
Stephen Hammond
Of course I do not take umbrage at the hon. Gentleman’s criticism or scrutiny. After all, that is what he is here to do. I would just say to him, though, that his characterisation of what the Government are putting in place is wrong. He can say to his constituents that if the withdrawal agreement is passed, there will be no interruption to their healthcare. In a no-deal situation, these instruments will allow—
Stephen Hammond
I made it very clear that it is the intention—the expectation—of both the UK Government and the EU and EFTA states that there will be an agreement about reciprocal healthcare.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow raised a number issues about Northern Ireland. As she rightly pointed out, healthcare is fully devolved to Northern Ireland. These statutory instruments would normally be dealt with by the Northern Ireland Assembly. In the absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and in the absence of a Northern Ireland Executive, statutory instruments under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 have to be laid in Westminster to allow for debate and scrutiny. She has heard that that Act was consented to by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland consent for social security regulations was provided by the permanent secretary for the Northern Ireland Department of Health, which is the appropriate place in the absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Her characterisation of direct rule is incorrect.
Stella Creasy
The Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018 explicitly sets out that Ministers must also have regard to representations made by Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. What efforts has the Minister made to seek the views of Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly on these particular statutory instruments? Even if the Assembly is not sitting, it is written into that Act that its Members should be able to make representations. Can he clarify what he has done in that respect, please?
Stephen Hammond
I can clarify that the permanent secretary for the Northern Ireland Department of Health was consulted, as I said.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury asked about arrangements for cancer and paediatric heart surgery. The north-south arrangements provide that services such as paediatric heart surgery on the island of Ireland are not impacted by the UK’s withdrawal from the EU or these statutory instruments. Those arrangements operate under memorandums of understanding and service level agreements between the Irish and Northern Irish health authorities, which will continue to operate after exit day. The UK and Irish Governments are committed to continuing access to healthcare services within the common travel area, and both Governments are taking steps to enable us to implement these arrangements in time for exit day.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Old Bermondsey asked me about—sorry, Old Bermondsey and Southwark—
Stephen Hammond
I’ll get there in the end. The hon. Gentleman asked about a number of chronic conditions. The statutory instruments allow the Government to fund the treatment of UK nationals who are in the middle of treatment on exit day or who have pre-authorised treatment in another member state. That could include the chronic conditions he mentioned.
Finally, I am not sure which part of the website the hon. Member for Dewsbury was looking at, but I am happy to ensure that we guide her to the right place. There is advice on www.gov.uk and www.nhs.uk to UK nationals living in the EU, to UK residents travelling to the EU and to EU nationals living in the UK. That advice explains how the UK is working to maintain reciprocal healthcare arrangements and sets out the options people might have to access healthcare under local laws in member states that they live in. I am happy to ensure that the hon. Member for Dewsbury can see that guidance.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Minister has done an outstanding job in explaining a complex matter fairly concisely and taking innumerable interventions, mostly the same ones. Could we now move to a vote?
Stephen Hammond
I understand my hon. Friend’s entreaty.
These three instruments, together with the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill, give us the best possible opportunity to ensure that there is no loss of reciprocal healthcare arrangements for UK nationals in the EU and EFTA states. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put.
Draft Market Measures (Marketing Standards) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Draft Market Measures Payment Schemes (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Draft Market Measures (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Market Measures (Marketing Standards) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Market Measures Payment Schemes (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the draft Market Measures (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Mr Goodwill
As a farmer, I mention my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The matters in these statutory instruments are closely related, and I thank the Committee for expediting matters by considering them together.
The instruments amend retained EU law and domestic legislation, setting down the detailed rules for the common organisation of the markets in agricultural products, to ensure their smooth transition into a domestic regime. They are distinct from the instruments being debated in the House tomorrow that amend the overarching framework legislation for those detailed rules. The amendments in the instruments will maintain the effectiveness and continuity of retained EU law and domestic legislation that would otherwise be deficient following our exit from the European Union. They will ensure that the transition from a regime governed primarily by EU law to one governed by domestic law causes minimal disruption for businesses and stakeholders.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
The Minister talks about making sure that domestic law and the provisions of the statutory instruments do not make problems for businesses, but the Quality Standards for Green Bananas (England and Wales) Regulations 2012 are one of the measures that the statutory instruments tackle. Can he assure us that he will not allow the example of bendy bananas being ruled out from sale to continue when we have our freedoms, and that the statutory instruments do not lock us into the wrong regulations?
Mr Goodwill
I am tempted to speculate, as some newspapers in this country did, about EU regulations on bendy bananas, but much of that was wide of the mark. Bananas are exported in their green state and turn yellow as they approach the market. If one keeps them for too long, they turn brown. As part of our policy on minimising food waste, if anyone would like Mrs Goodwill’s recipe for banana bread, I would be more than happy to provide it. There are regulations in place to ensure that consumers are not sold produce that is below the standard. The shape of a banana has little relevance to the eating quality, except where some diseases of bananas cause abnormal curvature. I did my banana homework before we started.
This legislation is technical in nature and limited in scope. We are upholding standards and maintaining processes. This instruments make appropriate corrections to ensure that the standards and processes continue to operate in a UK context. Where changes are required, we have endeavoured to ensure that they will have limited impact on businesses and other stakeholders. We have consulted extensively with the devolved Administrations on the instruments to ensure that the legislation on the common organisation of agricultural markets continues to work, while respecting the devolution agreements.
Two of the instruments under debate—the draft Market Measures (Marketing Standards) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the draft Market Measures Payment Schemes (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019—apply across the UK and operate in areas of devolved competence, with powers being transferred to the devolved Ministers. In many cases, the Secretary of State is able to act on behalf of the devolved Administrations, should they give their consent.
However, in some circumstances, that does not apply to Wales. Due to certain provisions specific to the Welsh devolution settlement, allowing the Secretary of State to act on behalf of Wales in certain instances would have implications for Wales’ devolved competences. The Welsh Government have carefully considered whether the Secretary of State should be able to act on their behalf in respect of each of the functions concerned, and the drafting of the instruments reflects the outcome of that consideration.
The draft Market Measures (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 amend a suite of domestic statutory instruments and have the same territorial application as the regulations they amend.
The draft instruments concern the common organisation of agricultural markets, more commonly referred to as the CMO. The CMO sits in pillar 1 of the common agricultural policy alongside direct payments, and was set up as a means of meeting the objectives of the CAP—in particular, to stabilise markets, ensure a fair standard of living for agricultural producers and increase agricultural productivity. Over time, it has broadened out to provide a toolkit that enables the EU to manage market volatility, to incentivise collaboration between, and the competitiveness of, agricultural producers and to facilitate trade.
The three draft instruments relate to the UK’s marketing standards regime, some payment schemes operated under CMO rules and miscellaneous amendments that provide for the enforcement of marketing standards and scheme rules. The draft Market Measures (Marketing Standards) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 amend a suite of EU regulations that lay down marketing standards and related rules for bananas; beef and veal; carcase classification; fruit and vegetables; hops; milk, milk products and spreadable fats; and pigmeat. Marketing standards, as enforced under the CMO, are designed to ensure a stable market for agricultural goods by enforcing even standards for certain agricultural goods, preventing the market from being flooded with cheaper, substandard goods. I hasten to add that that does not prevent the marketing of wonky vegetables, the sale of which I applaud as a way of reducing food waste.
However, I draw one point to the attention of the Committee. It has come to my attention that a small number of provisions in the marketing standards regulations will require minor amendments, as a result of changes made by the EU to regulation (EU) No. 543/2011, which relates to marketing standards for fresh fruit and vegetables. The changes were published in the Official Journal last week and are due to come into force before exit day. We will make a new statutory instrument to amend the draft instrument to reflect the changes and both instruments will be made together. This will ensure that our regulations link correctly to retained EU law as it is on exit day. I stress that that is not due to a mistake on our part; the EU has made changes that we need to catch up with.
The marketing standards regulations aim to minimise disruption to the flow of goods while preserving standards, and to make marketing standards legislation appropriate to the domestic context of the United Kingdom after EU exit. The amendments in the draft instrument are designed to be as minimal as is practicable in order to prevent wastage and reduce the burden on producers, but as robust as required to ensure that UK consumers can be confident that product information is transparent and accurate.
The draft Market Measures (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 amend a suite of domestic statutory instruments that provide for the enforcement of EU marketing standards in beef and veal labelling in England; carcase classification and price reporting in England; the quality of green bananas in England and Wales, as we have touched on; olive oil marketing standards in the UK; marketing of fresh horticultural produce in England, with some general provisions for the whole of the UK; certification of hops in the UK; milk price reporting in England and Northern Ireland; and the school milk scheme in England and Northern Ireland.
As far as is possible, existing requirements have been maintained. Where necessary, changes have been made to correct deficiencies arising as a result of the transfer of EU legislation into domestic law. For example, requirements to report to the EU or to allow a representative of the European Commission to attend inspections have been removed or replaced, as appropriate, with domestic equivalents. Criminal offences relating to the import and export of fresh horticulture and hops have been amended to reflect that the EU will become a third country on our exit.
The draft Market Measures Payment Schemes (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 amend EU regulations that lay down detailed rules for rice processing; information provision and promotion measures; and public intervention and aid for private storage.
The draft statutory instruments make appropriate amendments to existing EU legislation to ensure that the legislation governing the CMO and agri-promotions can operate effectively after EU exit. That includes making technical changes to remove or replace references to EU institutions, as well as omitting certain provisions that will be inoperable once the UK has left the EU.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is talking about several measures that will affect different parts of the United Kingdom. Will he confirm now or later in writing how the measures will overlap with the overall UK framework? Even though certain certifications and marketing standards may be devolved, we want to ensure consistency for consumers, so that they can be confident of getting the same quality of product, whether in Scotland, Wales, England or Northern Ireland.
Mr Goodwill
I reassure my hon. Friend that these measures—I am reluctant to describe them as changes, because nothing is really changing, other than the UK becoming the competent authority, rather than the EU—will have no impact on the devolution settlement; any measures that are devolved at the moment will continue to be devolved. There is no threat to that situation. In fact, we wish to build on our excellent devolution process. Only today, I met the devolved Administrations, with Fergus Ewing representing the Scottish Government.
Mr Jayawardena
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way again. I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong. As well as giving us his wife’s banana bread recipe, which I am sure is excellent, will he inform us when the Department might review the application of the draft instruments? As he said, no changes are proposed today, but it might be right to make changes in the future.
Mr Goodwill
My hon. Friend gets to the absolute crux of why people voted to leave the European Union. With the freedoms given to us, we will be able to review these measures in the future. Indeed, the Agriculture Bill, when it becomes an Act, will give us further powers to modify and innovate across a variety of areas to ensure that we have policies tailor-made for UK situations, rather than the often one-size-fits-all policies on the EU statute book.
Mr Goodwill
The first good step will be to get the withdrawal agreement across the line. Indeed, I encourage all Committee members not to miss their third opportunity—they have had two already—to ensure that we deliver on the result of the referendum.
An example of an omission from the current regulations is the requirement to notify the EU; there seems little utility in mandating the Secretary of State to tell himself what he already knows. To pre-empt a question that I am sure right hon. and hon. Members will wish to ask: yes, the draft instruments will be needed if we agree a deal with the EU, as well as in a no-deal situation. They make operability amendments that will be necessary for retained EU law to function effectively and to maintain the integrity of our statute book, either at the end of an implementation period or sooner, if we leave the EU without a deal. If Opposition Members are worried about the damaging effect of no deal outlined by organisations such as the National Farmers Union, the remedy is to vote for the deal. I know that some Opposition Members have already shown exemplary wisdom in that regard.
The draft instruments make necessary changes to ensure that there will be an operable legal framework for marketing standards; that those marketing standards can be enforced; and that certain CMO payment schemes operate once we have left the European Union. The changes uphold our standards and maintain continuity for businesses and stakeholders.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I sympathise if Committee members feel that they are here for groundhog day, with yet another repetition of the complicated and technical details of statutory instruments designed to replicate in UK law the regulations that we currently enjoy with the EU.
I say enjoy advisedly, because if one good thing comes out of this process, it might be that we begin to realise just how many regulations it takes to create optimum trading relationships. The Minister and his hon. Friends have made much of the wish to reduce regulations—“red tape” they rather pejoratively call them—but when we joined the Common Market it was precisely regulations such as those that helped to bring about the single market which has been so beneficial to the British economy and which we are now so gratuitously throwing away.
The reason that we need market measures at all is that the market does not and cannot regulate itself to the satisfaction of society as a whole. The attempt to replicate those regulations and thereby to maintain what really only works properly as part of our membership of the EU is probably doomed to failure. Without the unanimity of purpose of a large organised bloc, and the role of equal sponsor of the market conditions in Europe that our membership has afforded us, I predict that many of the regulations will be either unworkable or superfluous.
In particular, the likelihood is that we will not be able or willing to adhere to the marketing standards element of the common organisation of markets, and our ability to trade freely with EU countries will therefore be hampered. Whether we have a soft Brexit or a hard Brexit, our agriculture will be seriously damaged. We will have no influence over changes in EU regulations on marketing agricultural produce, but we will have to adhere to them none the less if we are to continue to trade effectively into EU markets. The fundamental problem therefore is not with the wording of the draft SIs, but with the very idea that we can continue with our marketing and relationships with the EU simply by changing “EU” to “UK” and “Commission” to “Secretary of State”.
Is there anything in the draft SIs that I can pick out for particular criticism? No. Can I be sure that nothing in the SIs ought to be changed? No, I cannot be sure. It would not be at all obvious if mistakes had been made in these technical amendments to technical regulations. Normally, we rely on multiple stakeholders going over amendments to regulations such as these and alerting us to any possible dangers, but the absurd timeframe that we now face, having left all these SIs to the last possible moment, makes that impossible.
The Green Alliance, a grouping of most of the major environmental pressure groups for the purpose of engaging with Parliament and the political agenda, has stated:
“For the majority of environmental legislation that has been transferred in this way, there was no prior consultation or engagement with stakeholders.”
The SIs before the Committee are primarily about marketing agriculture and food, rather than environmental protection, but there are environmental consequences to our choices of which foods to eat and the promotion of more sustainable production methods. Did the Minister consult with any environmental stakeholders on the SIs? Did he receive a consultation response from the National Farmers Union on the SIs?
Like Members of Parliament, the independent stakeholders simply do not have the time or energy to scrutinise all the SIs, and that increases the danger of mistakes and omissions. Will the Minister commit to correcting any errors that do turn out to have been made inadvertently? Will there be some sort of “lessons learned” wash-up after this whole sorry episode is behind us, in order to maximise the participation of stakeholders in the setting of regulations in future?
We need regulations to make our society run smoothly and to maintain our agriculture and other production. The EU not only has transformed the fortunes of its member states through the standardisation of regulation, but is on the way to using its economic leverage to make its standards and regulations the standard for the whole world. It is no coincidence that the people who think that we can do without regulations are the people who tend to think that we can do without the EU. I believe that they are about to be proven spectacularly wrong, but there is nothing that we could do with the draft SIs to make any difference to that, so we will not be opposing them.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
I want to check a couple of things with the Minister before he sums up. My understanding of what we are undertaking in Committee and in all the other Committees on which I have sat considering EU-shared parts of regulation being transferred into UK law is that we are ensuring that we do not fall off a cliff edge without any regulations to cover important areas. Whoever was in government, including Labour had it won the 2017 general election, would have had to do exactly the same. In its manifesto, the Labour party made it very clear—it was on all our leaflets—that the British people’s decision to leave the European Union has been settled, or words to that effect. To transpose the legislation into UK law is not a matter of changing any of the regulations, but simply of making sure that they conform to British law, in many respects—and this might seem daft to the public—by inserting “UK” instead of “EU”.
Would the Minister confirm, however, that when we leave the European Union, Parliament will have the opportunity to look at all the regulations covering all areas that this and other Delegated Legislation Committees have discussed, to improve them if we want to, and to set them on a course beyond the EU’s minimum standard for agreement among the 27 member states?
I just wanted to make sure that that is clear for the record. I have found it quite difficult to understand why we have not opposed the statutory instruments in Committee, but we are asked to vote against them on a three-line Whip in deferred Divisions.
The Chair
Just before I call Brendan O’Hara, I will clarify the situation. Apparently, there has been an administrative mix-up. Brendan O’Hara is not a member of the Committee, but he is completely in order to speak and will be recorded as present.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Stringer. I thank you and the Clerks of the House for your forbearance as I am a very late replacement for my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, who could not be here.
I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Ipswich said in his analysis. I absolutely agree—at the risk of repeating myself—that the speed and volume of the SIs passing through Parliament is frightening. I believe that mistakes will inevitably be made—perhaps not with this instrument, but somewhere along the line—and it will be left to those who come after us to clear up the mess. I do not believe that any organisation or Government could sit and sift through every single technical line of every single SI and work out the web of consequences to which they would inevitably lead, without making mistakes. I am extremely concerned about the speed and volume of SIs.
The no-deal tariff regime that was released by the Government in recent weeks, which would almost inevitably be replicated by the EU, would have a devastating impact on our food exports. Quality produce, such as lamb and beef—Scottish exports that rely on provenance—could face potential export tariffs of some 50%. That simply cannot be allowed to happen.
A few weeks ago, Andrew McCornick, the president of the National Farmers Union Scotland, said that
“a no deal Brexit must be permanently taken off the table and a workable solution identified by MPs and government as a matter of urgency to deliver some kind of order out of what is currently chaos.”
He is absolutely right. At this stage, it is inconceivable that we are still debating the idea of a no-deal Brexit. Let us be clear, whether we have a no-deal Brexit or the Prime Minister’s deal, which I am sure the Minister will point me to, neither option will avoid potential catastrophe for Scottish farming.
Again, the Government should listen to the president of the NFUS, who said that the future of Scottish farming depends on friction-free trade and access to skilled labour, and it requires a support package that is designed specifically for the needs of Scottish farmers and access to the single market and the customs union. We have very grave concerns that those things would not be contained either in a no-deal scenario or in the Prime Minister’s deal. We are almost being asked to put a diving board over a cliff—that diving board is the Prime Minister’s deal. Either way, whether we have a no-deal Brexit or accept the Prime Minister’s deal, it will be hugely detrimental to Scottish farmers, particularly those in my constituency of Argyll and Bute, on the west coast of Scotland.As the Minister will know, being a farmer himself, it is a less favoured area, and one that is extremely difficult to farm. Whether we are being offered no deal or the Prime Minister’s deal, it spells a very bleak and difficult future for farmers in our area.
The Scottish Government have done what they can. Despite constant scaremongering that payments will not be made to Scottish farmers if a legislative consent motion is not given, the Cabinet Secretary has confirmed that payments can and will be made, a statement that has been backed up by Michael Clancy of the Law Society of Scotland very recently.
We fear that the deal on offer and the Agriculture Bill completely fail to deliver on the promises made to Scotland, and the promise of the sunlit uplands has been replaced by a very different reality, in which support payments to farmers can be guaranteed only to 2022, and there is no certainly thereafter.
Luke Graham
The hon. Gentleman is talking about providing opportunity to farmers. Perhaps he could provide those opportunities by ensuring that Scotland is included in the UK Agriculture Bill. It is the only part of the United Kingdom to be excluded, and it is excluded at the behest of his party.
Brendan O’Hara
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the National Farmers Union of Scotland, which will tell him about the difficulties and unique challenges in hill farming in the western highlands of Scotland. These are the people who keep the lights on in the glens. They are the people who tend the land day in and day out. If he wishes to argue that the devolution of agriculture is somehow not the way forward, I am happy to give way to him, but—
The Chair
Order. Mr O’Hara, I remind you that we are discussing three very specific instruments. I am trying to be lenient, because I realise that they relate to the general debate, but if you could focus on the three instruments, that would be orderly.
Brendan O’Hara
Thank you, Mr Stringer.
We accept that the changes are relevant and will continue the operability of the existing legislation through the replacement of “the EU” with member state references. We understand that that approach to amending retained EU law has to be kept. Therefore, like the hon. Member for Ipswich, we will not oppose the draft regulations. However, we do so with grave concerns about the future of Scottish agriculture.
Mr Goodwill
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. What will hopefully be clear is how producers and consumers are well served by passing the instruments, which will make operable retained EU law and domestic legislation on the organisation of agriculture markets to protect standards and our vital farming sector.
The draft Market Measures (Marketing Standards) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 make operability changes to a suite of EU regulations laying down marketing standards and related rules for the seven areas: bananas, beef and veal, carcase classification, fruit and vegetables, hops, milk, milk products and spreadable fats, and pigmeat.
The draft Market Measures (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 make the appropriate amendments to ensure operability for a number of domestic statutory instruments that provide for enforcement of EU rules for marketing standards for fresh horticultural produce, beef and veal labelling, carcase classification, green bananas, olive oil, and hops, as well as for enforcement of the rules of the school milk scheme and for reporting prices of milk and milk products.
The draft Market Measures Payment Schemes (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 make appropriate amendments to EU regulations laying down detailed rules for the three areas of public intervention and aid for private storage, measures to promote agricultural products, and conversion rates for rice. The amendments will ensure that the legislation can operate in a domestic context.
A number of points were raised during the debate, which I will refer to briefly where they are relevant to the measures. The hon. Member for Ipswich seems to still be fighting the last referendum campaign. Although leaving with no deal would deliver for the 52% who voted to leave, I believe that the deal that the Prime Minister has produced is a deal that delivers for everybody and that we should all get behind. He mentioned that it was technical in nature, but the changes are simple; they merely take account of the fact that we will be leaving the European Union. Indeed, when we have left the European Union, we will be able to change things if we want, as the right hon. Member for Don Valley said, because we will be an independent nation. It sounds as if the hon. Member for Ipswich would like to stay in the European Union and not be given the freedoms that the British people voted for.
If we choose to align with EU standards, for example on carcase classification, that will be our choice. Indeed, companies in the UK are well used to exporting to markets around the world and can meet the specifications required in a whole range of countries, so there is no reason why we cannot make changes ourselves, should we wish. I repeat, however, that the amendments do not make changes to the regulation.
The hon. Member for Ipswich mentioned consultation. We had some consultation. We carried out targeted stakeholder engagement on the instruments relating to the CMO in November 2018, engaging stakeholders with a particular interest in the areas covered by the instruments. The stakeholders did not raise any significant concerns, and responses were mostly seeking to clarify issues of policy. We acknowledge the responses from stakeholders and thank them for their comments. Some stakeholders asked DEFRA to consider longer transitional periods for proposed labelling changes. We took their comments on board and provided for longer transitional periods.
The right hon. Member for Don Valley said that the measures before us ensure that we do not fall off a cliff edge. The measures will be relevant whether we have a deal or a no-deal situation and will ensure that business can carry on as usual. The hon. Member for Ipswich was talking about how everything that comes out of Europe seems to be fantastic and how we sign up to everything, but I respectfully remind him that the United Kingdom was held back in a number of areas when we moved on animal welfare. We banned dry sow stalls and veal crates and we took a number of measures on battery hens. We legislated ourselves, but we found that our markets were eroded by others not moving in the same direction. We have been held back in some ways by the EU.
To those who say that the Government will not maintain standards, I say that agricultural food standards in England are already very high, as they are consumer and retailer-led. They often go over and above the current standards set by EU legislation. For example, in the hops sector, brewers have the ability to set the standards they require from their suppliers, and those are often above the minimum EU standards. There is no desire for standards to be lowered for domestic or imported products.
Caroline Flint
The Minister makes an important point about standards. I absolutely agree that in many respects, we have been ahead of the European Union. We could go further, particularly in the transport of livestock, which is another area that could be improved. I take this opportunity to say that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have confirmed that we have not objected to as many SIs as I perceived. We have agreed to hundreds and hundreds of SIs and changes. For the most part, Labour has agreed with the transposition of the regulations, and I wanted to correct the record on that.
Mr Goodwill
I thank the right hon. Lady for those comments. In many ways, the Labour party has not stood in the way of such measures as the ones we are considering. However, the Labour party has stood in the way of the big one: the Brexit deal. Many Labour Members have voted against the deal, meaning that we cannot make progress in moving to the situation where we can make those changes, for which the regulations are the preamble.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute raised the sensible and reasonable point of what happens if we make mistakes. Well, we will fix them. As the changes are small and technical, it is unlikely there will be any major mistakes. As I have said, we have already picked up something where the EU had moved and the numbering of particular articles in the schedule had changed because a few were added at the top. He is absolutely right that under a no-deal situation, the tariff regime would be very difficult for the sheep markets. Tariffs in the region of 40% would be difficult for sheep farmers not only in Scotland, but elsewhere in the United Kingdom, given that we export 30% of our lamb. In particular, the carcases that tend to go on to the EU market are the small hill carcases, such as those produced in his constituency. Once again, the message is clear: vote for the deal so that we will not have a no-deal Brexit and so that we can negotiate a long-term farming agreement.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the plight of hill farmers. I am not a hill farmer—we grow grain on some wonderful lowland areas—but I know from my constituency how tough it is being a hill farmer. The measures in the Agriculture Bill seek to switch aid from direct payments for production or for just being a farmer to public goods. I would argue that the public goods that hill farmers are delivering in terms of the wildlife and the environment—the walls, the hedges, and all those other features—are just the sort of things that Scottish farmers would want to grasp with both hands. It is disappointing that the Scottish Administration are perhaps not taking the same line as we are. When British taxpayers’ money goes into agriculture in the future, we will no longer be able to rely on French farmers burning tyres in the road and marching up the Champs-Élysées to protect farmers’ support. Under the Agriculture Bill regime, if Governments were to suggest cutting agricultural support, people would be writing to their MPs asking about the hedgehogs, the badgers, the bumble bees, the hedges and all those other features—those public goods—that the money will support. I hope that Scotland will be late arrivals at the Agriculture Bill ball, and join in on what I believe will be revolutionary changes to how we support agriculture, in a way that the general public as well as farmers will welcome.
The technical and operability amendments made in the regulations will maintain the effectiveness and continuity of the CMO legislation, which would otherwise be inoperable following our exit from the European Union. They will ensure that we can continue to operate schemes under the regulations for our vital farming sector, and maintain the standards they set, which support confidence in our farmed goods on domestic and international markets. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Market Measures (Marketing Standards) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Draft Market Measures Payment Schemes (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Market Measures Payment Schemes (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.— (Mr Goodwill.)
Draft Market Measures (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Market Measures (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(Mr Goodwill.)
Draft Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Draft Common Fisheries Policy and Aquaculture (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Draft Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Debate on each instrument can continue for up to an hour and a half. I remind the Committee that the debate should be confined to the instrument being considered.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The technical amendments made by the draft regulations, which were laid under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, will ensure that retained EU law provides effective and enforceable UK law, as well as continuity to businesses, while protecting the environment. No policy changes are being made to the effect of the retained EU law, and the regulations are not expected to change the way in which the fishing industry conducts its activities.
The draft regulations are complemented by the other fisheries statutory regulations that the Committee will consider today and by the Fisheries Bill, which will deliver our promise to take back control of our waters and decide who may fish in them and on what terms. They will create the powers to allow us to build a sustainable and profitable fishing industry over time.
The draft regulations will extend to, and apply to, the whole United Kingdom. Fisheries management in the UK is largely devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so the regulations have been developed and drafted in close co-operation with the devolved Administrations, who have given their consent. This will ensure a common approach that respects the existing devolution settlements and maintains the existing system of fisheries management, providing certainty to the fishing sector and businesses.
The draft regulations will amend the majority of the retained EU legislation, including the basic regulation, which provides overarching principles for fisheries management; the control regulations, which contain rules on compliance, including inspection and enforcement; the sustainable management of external fishing fleets regulation, which will provide a framework for authorising UK vessels to operate outside UK waters and non-UK vessels to operate in UK waters; and the regulations on illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing, which will allow us to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal fishing activities—by prohibiting the import of fish from vessels or countries that fish illegally, for example.
The draft regulations were considered by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which reported them to the other place because of the public and political interest in fisheries. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments did not report them.
Because the draft regulations make only necessary technical amendments to retained EU law that already applies prior to exit day in the form of directly applicable EU law, a full impact assessment was not required. A 10-week consultation was conducted through the fisheries White Paper, which described future fisheries policy and the legislative approach taken by these statutory instruments. Meetings also took place with key stakeholders from the fisheries sector, the food industry and environmental non-government bodies, which broadly supported our approach. We also received several questions and comments from stakeholders, which we have addressed in explanatory memorandums available to parliamentarians and the public.
I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Mr Davies. It is good to be in Committee for a second time today, albeit not in the same room—this time to debate fisheries.
I begin with the usual health warnings about the speed and the volume of the statutory instruments that are being pushed through. The Opposition believe that there are several glitches and gremlins in them that would have been caught with greater scrutiny and that could have severe consequences when it comes to implementation. We have concerns, which I will set out in turn, about all three instruments that the Committee will consider today.
Combined, the instruments represent about 190 pages of additional regulation. Concerns have been voiced by many of the stakeholders that we on the Opposition side work with about the sheer volume of legislation being pushed through, and about their ability to adequately scrutinise dense legal text and provide good scrutiny from a stakeholder perspective. Some 80% of UK environmental laws come from the EU.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware that when these original regulations came from the EU, drafted by the European Commission, they probably came in the form of delegated Acts or implementing Acts that would have received little or no scrutiny in this House. These regulations, as with others under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, are just about making those powers operable.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for that intervention. It is good to see the former Fisheries Minister, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth, in his place, and good to know that the Government now need not only a Fisheries Minister but a former Fisheries Minister to rebut some of the Opposition’s scrutiny.
The concerns that we are raising sometimes relate to the implementation and drafting of the regulations. As the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth will know from the statutory instrument Committee we sat on earlier today, the Minister himself acknowledged that there was a gremlin in that particular statutory instrument, which we flagged up. Our concern is about what other gremlins are in the statutory instruments we are considering today, and how they will affect future considerations.
Mr Goodwill
I appreciate that it is possible for oversights or mistakes to be made, but the gremlin that the hon. Gentleman describes was something that the EU had changed and that we had not quite caught up with. It was not something that was going to have a massive effect; it was just that there had been a change, which we will now reflect in future.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the Minister for making my point for me. The fact that mistakes have been made in that respect means that other mistakes could be made, which is why enhanced scrutiny is important in making sure that the regulations we are considering today—all 190 pages of them—are dealt with sufficiently robustly. These regulations affect one of our most important sectors, one that is especially important for those Members who represent coastal communities. As Business Green has noted,
“The pace at which draft legislation has been processed has been relentless…Parliamentary scrutiny has been creaking at the seams with MPs and peers often admitting they haven't had enough time to review the legislation thoroughly.”
I will now set out the Opposition’s concerns about these SIs, starting with the draft Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. We have a number of concerns about how the powers provided for in section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 are being used. The drafting in a number of areas appears to be defective: it often fails to adequately correct the provisions of EU law, and makes a number of policy changes to the current provisions. Environmental organisations have got in touch with us to recommend that these common fisheries policy SIs be annulled and updated, because they fall short in a number of areas. I will take the Committee through the areas in which we believe the SIs, and this one in particular, are falling short.
These SIs risk creating a governance gap, placing responsibilities from EU bodies on to organisations that are yet to be created or sufficiently financed. They leave gaping holes in the area of enforcement, leaving fishers less safe and our waters less protected—a concern that the Opposition have raised about previous SIs. There is a risk that these SIs could degrade environmental standards, a point to which I will return when we consider electric pulse trawling. We have specific concerns about the Government’s ban on electric pulse trawling: it is a good example of a policy change hidden within these SIs, notwithstanding the Minister’s statement that there are normally no policy changes in such SIs.
I understand that the Minister will want us to hold our nose and vote these SIs through, because we are at risk of careering towards a no-deal Brexit. In the area of fisheries, unlike in other areas of Government scrutiny, the regulations are not necessarily in place if we do not pass these SIs, so we need to make sure we are using our time properly. However, given the extension from 29 March to 12 April, I suggest to the Minister that some provisions in these SIs should be looked at again and the instruments re-laid, so that they can be comprehensive and fulfil the role they are supposed to.
I am not trying to be difficult or fly a partisan flag, but the concerns about this SI were also highlighted last month by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, on 6 February. Its report states:
“Given the significance of fisheries as a policy issue, the House may wish to explore further the approach the Government have taken with this instrument.”
We also reject these SIs being grouped together. That is one reason why we have asked for them to be taken individually, and why I will focus my remarks on each in turn.
I have mentioned the governance gap, which was raised by a number of stakeholders. That is a common theme that Ministers and Government Members will have heard about from the Opposition when responsibilities, especially oversight responsibilities, are being moved from EU bodies to UK bodies. Several provisions in the first common fisheries policy SI remove functions currently carried out by EU bodies, such as the European Commission, the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, the European Fisheries Control Agency and the Advisory Council, which are not replaced in this particular SI. The loss of monitoring, reporting and other governance requirements will seriously undermine the functioning and effectiveness of the law. I would be grateful if the Minister came back on that point when he gets to his feet.
Obligations to provide assessments from reports to the European Commission and the European Parliament have been removed, including the provision of data on stock quantities. Given the fact that we are leaving the European Union, that might not be an unreasonable assumption, but our concern is that no subsequent scrutiny functions are inserted. The oversight role that we are looking for is no longer there.
George Eustice
Surely when we become an independent coastal state we will re-join other bodies, such as the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. Through those bodies and our membership of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea we will contribute our own scientific evidence. Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that the UK, year in, year out, regularly corrects data from the European Commission, through our Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the former Minister. Our CEFAS scientists are brilliant. He will know our concern that there is insufficient focus on science in creating truly sustainable fisheries with the Fisheries Bill. I take your note, Mr Davies, about not talking about things that are not in these SIs, but these SIs need to fit together with the Fisheries Bill, and that Fisheries Bill has sunk without trace. It is no longer being tabled. I am really concerned that the lack of a Fisheries Bill—indeed, of an Agriculture Bill for the associated one—means that the jigsaw that is being put together with these SIs is incomplete, and the fishers cannot see what type of environment is being created for them after we leave the European Union.
The former Minister is right about one element: after we leave the EU, some of those functions will be carried out by other bodies. However, there is no requirement in these SIs for those other bodies to pick up those requirements, nor is there a home for those scrutiny functions to sit in between leaving those EU bodies and becoming part of any future bodies. That is a concern, because it assumes that we will participate in those bodies in the future. I think some of the examples that the former Minister just raised are fair. However, the situation does not sit easily with me. We need to ensure that there is adequate scrutiny throughout.
George Eustice
Is that not just a product of the fact that we are becoming a self-governing nation again? We do not need to be held to account by an external body, but should hold ourselves to account.
Luke Pollard
Indeed. I suggest that the former Minister lobbies his colleague, the new Minister, to bring forward the Fisheries Bill, because without a Fisheries Bill we have no legal and legislative framework to hold ourselves together. The former Minister proves my point again, because we lack a Fisheries Bill. That may have been a concern of his when he was at the Department.
I return to this SI in particular. The key role that the Commission plays in the control and enforcement of the rules of the CFP has been removed and not replaced by this SI. Regulation 4(43) of this SI removes articles 96 to 118 relating to the European Commission’s control of the application of the CFP and Council regulations 1224/2009 by member states, including the requirement on member states to report on implementation. That reporting requirement is important, because it is about how we have decent scrutiny of any of the implications of this SI and how hon. Members—assuming they fulfil the role of scrutiny of the European Commission, previously performed by the European Parliament—are able to scrutinise the outcome of this SI.
References to “advisory councils” have been removed and not replaced in this SI. The Minister will know that the Opposition tabled amendments to the Fisheries Bill, to include advisory councils in the future fisheries regulation—a proposal that the former Minister encouraged Members on the Government Benches to vote down. The lack of formal stakeholder engagement means that the involvement of the fisheries industry is removed with the direct implementation of this SI, which is a point of concern not just for the Opposition, but many of those stakeholders.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee highlighted in its report that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs argued:
“The oversight function that the Commission currently holds over Member States could, for England at least, be provided by the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP)”.
But in the event of no deal, that will not necessarily be provided. That is where stakeholders have created a governance gap. Indeed, the Office for Environmental Protection is, as hon. Members will be aware, coming down the track—not something that we can implement today. That creates the risk of a governance gap in this particular SI.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
In the Environmental Audit Committee last week, the Secretary of State said that there would be interim arrangements in the event of a no deal, but there would not be an environmental agency until 2021. That creates a huge governance gap.
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend has highlighted my point better than I was doing in my speech. Creating governance gaps in our regulations is deeply worrying. We need certainty. With the absence of a Fisheries Bill—I will return to this time and again—the jigsaw piece of the fisheries regulation is incomplete. If we look at regulations in future, the omission of advisory councils and other types of governance oversight included in the SI is deeply worrying, because it does not provide the same type of oversight as we have currently.
There are concerns around enforcement in the first SI, which was also a weak area in the Fisheries Bill. Provisions remove the requirement to establish
“effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties”.
Why have those penalties not been replaced in this SI? Perhaps the Minister will set that out when he gets to his feet. Regulation 4(10)(c) removes the ability for a member state to share vessel monitoring system, or VMS, data of its flag vessels with another member state where its flag vessel is in that state’s waters. That presents a risk that the UK will not have access to other countries’ data, which risks overfishing. What is replacing that provision? We know that data sharing between the UK and the remainder of the European Union after Brexit has not yet been fully established.
Regulations 4(69), 4(74), 4(78) and 4(81) of this SI again remove the obligation on member states to carry out certain inspections and requirements on what actions should be taken for infringements. Again, what replaces those provisions? We are led to believe that all we are doing is simply swapping out European Commission functions for member state or UK functions, so it is worth asking whether we are removing functions as well as transferring them over. Where does all that sit? We saw tensions flare in last year’s scallops war, but there could be additional risks in future, and enforcement is an important part of ensuring that our fishing sector is able to succeed. We need more protection for our fisheries after we leave the EU, not less.
Finally, I turn to conservation. When it comes to sustainability, certain provisions of the CFP in relation to emergency measures have been removed entirely from this SI. Regulations 4(35), 4(53) and 4(54) remove the ability of the member state or the Commission to close fisheries or prohibit fishing where a stock has been exhausted. Stakeholders have raised concerns with us about the thoroughness of the provisions that replace the ability that is now being removed from this SI. Will the Minister address those concerns?
The Opposition have concerns about these statutory instruments, many of which are comprehensive and detailed and require good legal knowledge if their full implications are to be understood. I am aware that the Minister has opened a DEFRA reading room for some stakeholders, but not all. Indeed, parliamentarians have been explicitly excluded, which means that the time available for scrutiny has been limited.
If we were dealing with only one SI at a time, the issues might be understood, but we are dealing with dozens at the same time. That means that many of the concerns could have been raised at a pre-legislative stage rather than their having to be dealt with as a simple binary yes/no approval in relation to this SI, for example. Will the Minister address those concerns? I am concerned that this first SI fails to deliver the comprehensive governance arrangements that we need for fishing in future. Will the Minister set out a detailed response to those points?
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
The Scottish National party understands that continuity, regardless of our opposition in principle and in its entirety to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, is important and that instruments need to be established that preserve the framework around the status quo. During the Brexit campaign, false promises were made to the Scottish fishing community, which was told that obligations under the CFP would end. It is therefore ironic that the rules of the CFP will apply as part of no-deal planning.
The Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement sold out fishing interests by linking access to waters with trade. No-deal tariffs released by the United Kingdom Government in recent weeks, which would inevitably be replicated by the EU, would devastate our fishing exporters. The Fisheries Bill has been delayed time and time again. Scottish fishing communities have been left in a position of crippling uncertainty. It is essential that the devolved settlement is respected when new powers are returned post Brexit. That should be reflected in the Agriculture Bill and the Fisheries Bill.
The Government could avoid all this administrative burden if they simply ruled out a no-deal Brexit, as instructed by a majority of the House of Commons. Given that these are technical instruments and that the Scottish Government were advised about them and involved in developing them, the Scottish National party will abstain.
Mr Goodwill
The fundamental point that I need to make at the very outset is that this SI is a business-as-usual SI: nothing is changing. It is indeed the case that once the Fisheries Bill is on the statute book, there will be a lot of opportunities to change policy, but this SI maintains the current situation. Many of the concerns the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport raised are possibly ones he might raise in the future when policy changes; indeed, they are ones he might wish to build into his party’s policies to ensure that these issues are addressed. However, this is a business-as-usual matter.
I also have to say, as a former Member of the European Parliament, that I was always struck by the lack of interest in Westminster in legislation that was being passed; indeed, when legislation did arrive in this building, the stable door had generally been well and truly shut after the horse had bolted, and it was generally a case of just rubber-stamping it. There was little engagement with the way legislation was being considered through the conciliation procedures and through the way the Parliament and the Council worked together. Yes, Ministers were engaged, and certainly British MEPs were engaged, but Parliament was pretty much out of the loop. Leaving the European Union will give us a chance to put Parliament back in the loop, and laws will be properly scrutinised as they are enacted.
The hon. Gentleman said that issues had been raised by non-governmental organisations and talked about bodies being funded. I have to say that, to a large extent, the enforcement, scrutiny and management of these schemes are already administered by the UK on behalf of the European Commission; we do not have an army of European Union fisheries inspectors marching up and down our quaysides and going on to our vessels to enforce these schemes, so the issue is something that, in many ways, we already have covered.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned CEFAS and the excellent science that is done by it, and my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth also mentioned the work it does. Science can be the only basis on which the available fish is allocated and we consider our conservation measures. Having been to an EU Fisheries Council with my hon. Friend’s predecessor, I saw first hand the horse-trading whereby countries with no coastline and no fishing industry traded away the interests of fishermen in other member states to gain favours. Being an independent coastal state will give us the opportunity to set our fishing policy in a way that benefits our own economy and our own fishermen, rather than being subject to the horse-trading in smoke-filled rooms in Brussels—or rather rooms that used to be smoke filled.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport talked about sharing vessel monitoring system data. One reason why it is important that we get the deal across the line is that we will then move into the implementation period, when a lot of these things can be hammered out. If we go for a no-deal scenario, then, yes, there could be problems; that is why I have now voted twice to get the deal over the line. If Members of the Committee would really like to avoid even the possibility of a no-deal scenario, they will have a third opportunity to act very soon.
Luke Pollard
I am reading into what the Minister has just said. The criticism I raised about VMS data-sharing is real, and it is a concern. When he gets to his feet, could he confirm that there are no data arrangements about VMS data-sharing? It sounds like he just admitted there were. For the record, it is really important that we are certain: is there data-sharing or is there not in relation to this SI?
Mr Goodwill
As far as I am aware, this is one of the issues that needs to be dealt with during the implementation period.
George Eustice
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with other countries outside the European Union, such as Norway, we have in place framework agreements that set out our approach to joint fisheries management; that those agreements include provisions on data sharing; that the European Union has created a mandate for there to be a continuity agreement for the remainder of this year, which would cover such issues; and, indeed, that the Department already has advance plans for a future framework agreement to cover such matters?
Mr Goodwill
I thank my hon. Friend—having had five years in this job, he is well aware of the intricacies of some of the issues. However, the point that I am making is clear: the Prime Minister negotiated a 20-month implementation period to allow this and other measures to be agreed.
The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw, who speaks for the SNP, said that we want to see continuity. That is precisely what this measure does: it ensures continuity. The measures agreed at the Fisheries Council before Christmas will continue past the date on which we leave the European Union. It has always been clear that that will be the case. I have to say to her, however, that members of the Scottish fishing industry—those to whom I spoke, anyway—are fully behind Brexit. They relish the opportunity we have to be an independent coastal state and to exploit the resource available to us.
Marion Fellows
Which group of fishermen did the Minister meet? Were they east coast fishermen, as opposed to the guys on the west coast, who are very much against Brexit?
Mr Goodwill
The guy I spoke to was on the east coast and very keen to exploit the opportunity. However, I am aware of some of the west coast issues as well, and they would need to be addressed. East coast fishing is big business, and its fishermen are concerned for us to move ahead. In that regard, fishermen on the east coast are absolutely out of step with the SNP’s view.
The Labour Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, asked why we had removed the requirement to enforce compliance with the rules effectively and proportionately. Under common law, the UK Government are already required to act in that way, and that is well established.
The hon. Gentleman talked about why the draft SI might result in a lack of regulatory oversight, which follows on from my previous point. It is not possible to create equivalent bodies through these SIs. Instead, the Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill will create the office for environmental protection and introduce other measures.
Luke Pollard
The Minister is making a good fist of this, but I worry that he is placing much of the key emphasis—the foundation of his arguments—on Bills that might appear in the future. As we know from the Fisheries Bill, however, Bills can go missing—that Bill has gone missing without any date set for it to come back. We are placing hope in a Fisheries Bill that does not exist in the current parliamentary schedule—it stands no chance of coming back—and in an environmental protection Bill that might face a similar fate if introduced in the next Session of Parliament. We need to look at the protections in this piece of legislation, within our existing regulatory framework. Doing that reveals a governance gap, because we do not have the primary legislation in place. Does the Minister agree with that concern?
Mr Goodwill
I am as keen as anyone to make progress on not only the environment Bill but the Fisheries Bill and the Agriculture Bill. It would certainly help if we can clear the decks for them, and one way to do so is to get the withdrawal agreement through so that we can move forward into the new phase and have new legislation from which the UK would benefit as an independent coastal state in terms of fisheries.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport talked about pulse trawling, which is very much at the forefront of my mind. Article 31 of Council regulation 850/98 contains a prohibition on fishing with beam trawl using electrical pulse current in specified areas in most of the southern North sea. Part of that area falls in UK waters, and article 31a contains a limited derogation from the prohibition. That derogation has been amended so as to apply only to UK fishing vessels after EU exit—in other words, non-UK vessels will not be able to take advantage of it in our waters.
Third-country vessels cannot be authorised in UK waters when we leave the EU. The UK currently has three authorisations linked to pulse use, which are in the process of being reviewed with a view to withdrawing them, irrespective of the proposed EU time line to implement a pulse trawling ban effective from July 2021. Once again, the UK is moving ahead of our European partners on that method of fishing, which is deemed unacceptable by many and particularly members of the public.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I know we are going to move on to pulse fishing, but the Minister will recall that it is allegedly so cruel that it breaks the backs of fish. He will also recall that the number of vessels in the UK is pretty limited, and that other countries, such as the Netherlands, have much bigger fleets. Given that the EU has voted to completely ban pulse fishing by 2021, should we not be following the same lead?
Mr Goodwill
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the question; Hartlepool is an important port just up the coast from my constituency. As I said, only three authorisations are in place for UK vessels. We are proposing to review that, with a view to withdrawing them. I am confident that we may well be in a position to be ahead of the EU in getting that ban in place.
George Eustice
Does the Minister agree that the UK has led the calls in the EU for that change? Far from responding and reacting to what the EU is doing, we will implement, through the changes he outlines, a ban on the majority of pulse trawling in our waters far sooner than the European Union.
Mr Goodwill
My hon. Friend is absolutely right—I can think of several instances where the UK has wanted to move ahead on environmental or animal welfare legislation. I am digressing slightly, but we are looking at dry sow stalls, battery cage legislation and veal crates. The UK moved ahead of, and faster than, the rest of the EU—it was not moving at the same speed as us. Although people say that leaving the EU will result in a degradation of our environmental and animal welfare legislation, that has no regard to our track record as a nation. Both parties have been keen to promote those topics and to move faster than the rest, so leaving the European Union will give us the opportunity to do that, rather than dragging behind.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
On the point about the environment, can the Minister outline the limitations on the voltage and frequency? On top of that, what are the penalties if people go above them?
Mr Goodwill
I am not aware of the limitations on the voltage used, but we want to move to a situation where we have banned the practice altogether. As I say, when we have left the European Union, foreign vessels will not be allowed to operate it in our waters. We are also aiming to make progress on the three remaining UK vessels that are operating it. Every piece of advice that I have received indicates that it is an unacceptable way to fish.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport asked why we had removed articles 11, 12 and 13. They will be replaced by schedule 7 to the Fisheries Bill. Together with the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, that will allow us to go much further to protect the marine environment.
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. The amendments made by the instrument are essential to ensure that retained EU fisheries law is effective and enforceable after the UK leaves the EU. The instrument marks an important step towards having a cohesive statute book for exit day, and provides us with a solid foundation on which to build our future fisheries policy as an independent coastal state. I thank hon. Members for their points, and I hope the Committee will approve the measure.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Draft Common Fisheries Policy and Aquaculture (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Mr Goodwill
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Common Fisheries Policy and Aquaculture (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The instrument was laid under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The technical amendments made by the instrument will ensure that retained EU law concerning international agreements, technical conservation measures and the management of certain North sea stocks provides effective and enforceable UK law, as well as continuity for businesses, while protecting the environment. The draft instrument will also transfer powers from EU entities to UK fisheries administrations.
No policy changes are made to the effect of the retained EU law, and no change is expected in the way that the fishing industry conducts activities as a result of the draft instrument. The instrument is complemented by the Fisheries Bill, which will deliver on our promise to take back control of our waters and to decide who may fish in them and on what terms. It will create the powers to allow us, over time, to build a sustainable and profitable fishing industry.
The amendments extend and apply to the United Kingdom. Fisheries management in the UK is largely devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The instrument has been developed and drafted in close co-operation with the devolved Administrations, who have given their consent, ensuring a common approach that represents existing devolution settlements, and maintains existing systems of fisheries management, providing certainty for the fishing sector and businesses.
The instrument amends regulations concerning regional fisheries management organisations. Having these in place when we leave the EU will mean that we are fully compliant with international agreements, allowing us to join key conventions in our own right. The instrument also amends the technical conservation measures that fishing vessels must adhere to. These regulations are essential for the management of the fisheries activities of UK vessels, wherever they are, and of non-UK vessels in UK waters.
Furthermore, amendments are made to the North sea multi-annual plan, which establishes long-term plans for the recovery, preservation and sustainable management of mixed fisheries in the North sea. The instrument also transfers powers contained in 15 of the regulations amended by the other two statutory instruments, as well as one aquaculture regulation.
These powers to make legislation or to exercise legislative decisions were previously conferred on EU entities but will now be enacted by UK Administrations, and parliamentarians will be able to scrutinise them in a way not possible when the powers were exercised by the EU—a point I made during the debate on the last instrument. There are also minor, consequential changes to domestic legislation. The instrument has been considered by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, neither of which reported it.
Because the instrument makes only necessary technical amendments to retained EU law that—prior to exit day—already applies in the form of directly applicable EU law, a full impact assessment was not required. A 10-week consultation was conducted through the fisheries White Paper, which described future fisheries policy, as well as the legislative approach taken by these SIs.
Alongside that, meetings took place with key stakeholders from the fisheries sector, the food industry and environmental non-government bodies. Stakeholders were broadly supportive of the approach taken. We also received several questions and comments from stakeholders, which we have addressed in the explanatory memorandum, which is available to parliamentarians and the public. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Luke Pollard
This draft instrument bears the brunt of my concern and the Opposition’s concerns about electric-pulse beam fishing. I am grateful to the Minister for doing my job for me by saying that there will be no changes in behaviour because of the draft instrument, and then in the next sentence saying that changes over time will build a more sustainable fisheries industry. Both cannot be true.
My concern relates mainly to the electro-pulse beam fishing method. There is widespread, cross-party condemnation of this method, as was raised in the Fisheries Bill Committee. I will spend a bit of time talking about those concerns in relation to the draft instrument.
The explanatory notes to the draft Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 say:
“The technical changes made by this instrument are necessary to ensure that the rules contained in the CFP continue to operate effectively, so that fishing within UK waters continues to be regulated in a sustainable manner.”
However, our concern is that how sustainability will be provided is open to broad interpretation.
Provisions of the draft Common Fisheries Policy and Aquaculture (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 replace certain duties on authorities to take action with powers. This is not only a legal change, but also potentially undermines the effectiveness of the law. The main concerns around this raised by stakeholders—some environmental and some from the industry—relate to conservation. Regulation 25(7) removes reference to article 7(3) of Council regulation 2018/973, which provides that emergency measures under the CFP should form part of remedial measures to restore stocks above maximum sustainable yield. That sounds very technical, but what it effectively says is that we must ensure there are sufficient fish in the sea for our fishing industry to fish, and the changes to that could be quite considerable. Provisions on conservation measures have also been removed and not replaced; regulation 3(5) of this statutory instrument removes articles 6, 7 and 8 on types of conservation measures and the establishment of fish stock recovery areas. That is a concern to a number of stakeholders who have got in touch.
Certain provisions of this SI, such as regulation 25(11), remove requirements for the UK to co-operate with other countries when taking measures to protect fish stocks. That presents a risk that the important role that other countries and European functions play in ensuring that fish stocks are maintained will be lost and not replaced. Further to the concerns raised about the first SI, the question is how we ensure that we have a functioning fisheries regulatory environment, especially when it comes to sustainability, as soon as we leave the European Union.
George Eustice
Is the hon. Gentleman not just alighting on the simple fact that after we leave the European Union, it will no longer be the role of the European Commission to enforce these things? Instead, it will be for us to enforce them ourselves. He is referring to the removal of a function from the European Commission, which is absolutely right and proper in the context of our leaving the European Union.
Luke Pollard
I like to think that scrutiny is a bit like energy. We cannot destroy it; it can only be moved from one function to another. If we are taking scrutiny away from the European Commission, it must be placed somewhere else, and that is not what this SI does.
Our main concern with this SI relates to the phony ban on electric pulse beam trawling. Crucially for us, this SI had the potential to create commonality—a common bond between the Opposition and the Government on the need to ban this cruel fishing method. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool said, this fishing method is cruel. The voltage used by some fishers can be so high that it breaks the vertebrae of the fish they are dealing with. Given how strong a fish is, a considerable amount of force is needed to break those vertebrae, and that involves a level of cruelty that I think the people who sent us to this place would find completely unacceptable.
The Minister will know that the Opposition have significant concerns about this ban. It does not go far enough, it is open to abuse and it fails to make good on the promises that I believe were made by his predecessor in the Fisheries Bill Committee, where the Opposition tabled amendments that, by my rough arithmetic, would have passed if we had not withdrawn them.
Luke Pollard
I have not even got to my main point, but I am happy to give way.
George Eustice
As the Minister at the time who made that offer, I completely refute the hon. Gentleman’s allegation that this does not live up to what was offered. It was made clear in Committee that the derogation that applied particularly to the 87 or so Dutch vessels would not be carried into domestic law, but it was also made clear that the small number of Scottish vessels—I think there are three or four—that practise that method would still be subject to that derogation, but obviously it would be open to the current Minister, or indeed a future Minister, to change that through licensing regulations.
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to move ahead with my speech; I will run through the first bits, and then, if that does not address the point, I am happy to come back to it.
This controversial form of fishing in UK waters is done mainly by Dutch trawlers operating under a phony scientific derogation. They have effectively built a commercial fishery in electric pulse beam fishing—a fishing method that has caused excessive harm to our marine life. British fishers and conservationists warn that it is wreaking havoc on our sea bed, and there are reports that large parts of our sea bed have been turned into graveyards after this method has been used in the waters above them. It is powerful enough to break the vertebrae of large cod, and it is thought that similar damage and suffering is being inflicted on other sea life.
The previous Minister and I were corresponding on this issue before he resigned from the Government. I thank him for responding to my feedback, but it was unfortunate that he decided not to accept it. The Opposition were trying to create a comprehensive ban that would have ensured that this fishing method was not seen in our waters. In Committee, we withdrew an amendment that would have put a ban in the Bill. Following the Minister’s response to the amendment, I was more than happy to grant him the opportunity to correct the situation.
Although we welcome the idea of introducing a provision in the SI to ban electric pulse beam fishing, we do not believe that this one goes far enough, because, as the explanatory notes state, far from removing the ability for any boats to fish with this method, it includes a derogation. Page 16 of the explanatory notes—hon. Members may wish to read this for themselves—states:
“The derogation will therefore permit the authorisation of up to 5% of all the beam trawlers in the United Kingdom fleet to use the electric pulse trawl, along with certain other conditions that remain the same as before EU Exit.”
To me, a ban on a fishing method means that no one can use it. Allowing 5% of beam trawlers to use that method sounds like authorising a large number of fishing boats to use it.
George Eustice
Is that not simply a product of the fact that the EU withdrawal Act says that we should not change policy? We should simply bring across EU policy, and the 5% the hon. Gentleman mentions is EU policy. The best that we could do with this SI is remove the derogation for the Dutch vessels that make up the vast majority of those using this technique.
Luke Pollard
The former Minister hits on the problem. The SI does not do what it needs to. The commitment given when the Committee amendment was withdrawn was that an SI would come forward that would comprehensively ban electric pulse beam trawling. That is not what the SI does. It opens the window for up to 5% of all beam trawlers in the UK to use electric pulse trawl, and certain other conditions remain the same as before. That is not the ban that we need.
Hugh Gaffney
On that 5%, we need an agreement that sustainable fishing is an important goal for the industry. Does electric pulse fishing not put sustainable fishing at risk?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is right. If we are to create sustainable fisheries, we need them to be sustainable, both environmentally, by dealing with climate change and its effects, and economically. The temptation to use this method is a real concern, which is why I want to see it banned comprehensively, with no provision for an opt-out.
Mr Goodwill
My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth is absolutely right: under the withdrawal Act, we cannot move further than this legislation does, because that would be a policy change. We have clearly announced that we will review the three UK boats that pulse fish, with a view to stopping that activity. I cannot see owners of other vessels considering it to be a worthwhile investment to engage in that type of fishing and investing in the equipment, given the message that we have sent out.
Luke Pollard
When the Minister got to his feet, I was looking to him to commit to removing that 5% derogation and ban the practice completely. That is what the Opposition are looking for and what hon. Members on the Government Benches, who have fishing communities that have been trimmed from the SI, also want.
If we are to have truly sustainable fisheries, which is the ambition set out in the fisheries White Paper, we must not allow a loophole through which up to 5% of beam trawlers can use this method. Conditions might change; we need to ensure that fishing regulations are future-proofed. Otherwise, all we are doing is simply allowing a loophole that will need to be addressed in future.
We are very concerned about the 5% figure. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how he intends to remove any loopholes from future regulations. Potentially allowing 200 boats—5% of beam trawlers—to use this fishing method in future opens the opportunity for considerable pain.
I would also like the Minister to edit this part of the SI to include additional protections. The former Minister set out the need for occasional scientific derogations, to investigate whether elements of technological change in pulse beaming could be more sustainable, but clear parameters should be set around that.
The Minister missed a trick with regard to public consultation, and when he said there was no prohibition on this type of fishing activity in marine protected areas, or within 12 nautical miles of the shore. We believe there should be strict punishments and proper enforcement.
I am conscious that hon. Members wish to return to the main Chamber, so I will not keep us on this point much longer. Our concern is that the SI creates a loophole in law and does not set out a clear enough vision or certainty that this method will be banned. I would like to see the SI brought forward again with that loophole removed, in which case the Opposition would be happy to support the Minister.
George Eustice
Does not what the hon. Gentleman is asking for violate the essential principle of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act? It is not there to change policy. What he is asking for should be delivered through the Fisheries Bill, which, as he knows, has passed its Committee stage and will, we all hope, return to the House shortly.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the former Minister for that comment. As he will recall, in a room very similar to this one, he made the commitment that an SI would be brought forward before we left the European Union that would comprehensively ban electric pulse trawling.
George Eustice
That is not what I said. I said that we would not bring across the derogation for non-UK vessels, and that is what the SI delivers.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the former Minister for seeking to clarify his words. The fact is that the SI provides a 5% loophole for this cruel and unsustainable fishing methodology to be used in UK waters. It does not provide a ban as soon as we leave the European Union—the Opposition withdrew the amendment to the Fisheries Bill because we thought it would—nor does it seek to close loopholes that could be used in the future.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
The shadow Minister is criticising the deficiencies of the EU law that we are transposing into UK law via this SI, so will he join me in voting to leave the European Union at every opportunity?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. The appropriate place to turn one’s fire on this would be the Minister, who said that this cruel fishing method needs to be banned. I believe that the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire sometimes makes the argument that we could have a more sustainable future after we leave the European Union. Although I disagree with him in some respects, if we are to have that more sustainable future, we need a commitment from the Minister that the 5% loophole will be closed and that a subsequent SI—outside the realms of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, if the Minister so chooses—will be brought forward without delay to remove that 5% from our regulations. The SI creates a loophole that allows the cruel and unsustainable fishing method that is electric pulse trawling to continue. We are deeply concerned that that possibility remains through the SI, and that there is no commitment to there being no place for it in the future. The Minister may say that the place for that commitment is the Fisheries Bill; that suggestion does not stand much scrutiny, as the Fisheries Bill is missing in action and is probably not going to make a comeback.
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. I have given him assurances that the SI is merely updating EU legislation to take account of the fact that the UK will be an independent coastal state with control of its own fisheries, and we will be leaving the European Union. At the same time, he is tempting us to add additional measures. This is a business-as-usual measure that will reassure the industry that things are not going to change. When the Fisheries Act, as it will become, is on the statute book, we will have the opportunity to make changes.
The hon. Gentleman can be assured that on the day that we leave the European Union, none of the 87 Dutch-registered vessels using this fishing method will be able to fish in our seas. We will review the three UK boats, with a view to stopping that activity; it would then be banned.
Mike Hill
Earlier, the Minister was talking about making improvements. I understand that improvements can be made further down the line, but some matters are simple. Marine protected areas are protected for a reason—they are vulnerable or important ecosystems. Why is there no protection for them against pulse fishing? Why is pulse fishing not kept away from marine protected areas?
Mr Goodwill
Marine protected areas are there to allow habitats to build, and fishing can be limited or banned altogether in those areas. One of the big conversations I have with the charter boats in my constituency is whether they should be allowed to fish using conventional rod-and-line methods in those areas. The Fisheries Bill gives us the opportunity to make further changes unilaterally, without having to get the agreement of 27 other nations, many of whom do not have a coastline and have no real interests in fisheries, but do have votes in the Council.
Listening to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, one would assume that the common fisheries policy had been an unqualified success, and that we were being dragged kicking and screaming from its clutches. I do not need to remind the Committee of, for example, the effect of discards on fish supposedly being conserved and having their stocks improved; it has been very destructive. It is only in recent years that we have brought in the landing obligation and more reasonable methods. We can build on that as an independent coastal state without waiting for the others. When we come to the annual fisheries negotiations, we will be there in the same way that Norway and the Faroes are there. I hope we will have close links with them so that we can work together with the EU as another part of the process to ensure that we continue to build stocks in the North sea and have fewer stocks under threat.
Luke Pollard
I am sure the Minister knows, having read back on fisheries debates in this House over the past year, that it is not my view that the CFP is a field of gold. Despite my being fond of Europe in many respects, the CFP is an example of where it went wrong. I am grateful to set the record straight. Improvements can be made, and banning electric pulse beam fishing is something that we could and should do now. If it is not to be banned in this SI, will the Minister commit to introduce a dedicated, tiny SI to remove the 5% so that when we leave the European Union—if that happens—a cruel fishing method will be banned in its entirety?
Mr Goodwill
I have made it clear twice that we will review the remaining three vessels. There are only three UK boats that are doing this and, following the review, we will consider how we can stop such activity. When we have left the European Union, none of the 87 Dutch vessels will be able to fish in our waters.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned why we have revoked emergency powers on recovery of stocks. I remind him that each UK fisheries administration already has existing powers to do that through licensing of fishing vessels under the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967.
I think I have covered the points made during the debate. Once again I reassure the Committee that this is a business-as-usual statutory instrument. It reassures the industry, environmentalists and others that when we leave the European Union, as I am convinced we must and should if we are to deliver on the momentous decision made by the British people, we can do so in a way that is orderly. If Members are concerned about how that will happen, I have only one message for them: vote for the withdrawal agreement. Their third chance is coming up. We need to move into the implementation period where many of the issues raised can be sorted out. It seems nobody wants a hard Brexit. I do not look at anyone in particular, but if we can just get over the line we can move into a situation where we can resolve the issues.
We have had a constructive and useful debate and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put.
Mr Goodwill
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019.
The technical amendments made by this instrument will ensure that regulations concerning fishing opportunities and the landing obligation continue to operate effectively as retained EU law after the UK leaves the EU. They will provide continuity to businesses while protecting the environment. No policy changes are made to the effect of the retained EU law, and no change is expected in the way the fishing industry conducts its activities as a result of the SI.
The instrument is complemented by the Fisheries Bill, which will deliver our promise to take back control of our waters, and decide who may fish in our waters and on what terms. It creates powers that will allow us over time to build a sustainable and profitable fishing industry. The amendments apply to the United Kingdom. Fisheries management in the UK is largely devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. These instruments were developed and drafted in close co-operation with the devolved Administrations, who have given their consent, ensuring a common approach that represents the devolution settlement and maintains the existing system of fisheries management. They provide certainty to the fishing sector and businesses.
This instrument amends three regulations that set out exemptions from the landing obligation for certain fisheries in north-western waters and the North sea. The minor technical amendments to these provisions enable the UK to facilitate the full implementation of the scheme from January 2019. That will ensure that the UK continues to abide by the same conservation measures.
The instrument also amends two regulations that set fishing opportunities. One sets total allowable catch and quota for fish stocks for 2019, and the second sets total allowable catch and quota for certain deep-sea stocks for 2019 and 2020. In those two regulations, the prohibitions on fishing for certain species in certain areas will be amended so they continue to apply. However, provisions that put into law the TAC and quota set by the EU will be revoked, because it will not be appropriate for them to apply to the UK when we become an independent coastal state.
This instrument has been considered by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, neither of which reported it. Because it makes only necessary technical amendments to retained EU law prior to exit day, which already applies in the form of directly applicable EU law, a full impact assessment was not required. As I say, it is another business-as-usual SI.
A 10-week consultation was conducted through the fisheries White Paper, which described future fisheries policy and the legislative approaches taken by these SIs. Alongside that, meetings took place with key stakeholders from the fisheries sector, the food industry and environmental non-governmental bodies. The stakeholders were broadly supportive of the approach. We have also received several questions and comments from stakeholders, and we have addressed them in the explanatory memorandum that is available to parliamentarians and the general public. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Luke Pollard
The Minister will be unsurprised to know that I have similar concerns about the governance gap in these regulations, and about how they fit with the Fisheries Bill. I appreciate that the Minister may want to call it a Fisheries Act, wishing that it had gone through its parliamentary stages, but it is a Fisheries Bill—at the moment, it is a missing Fisheries Bill—and we need to ensure that it fits with this SI so everything works together.
The Minister talked about the removal of TACs, and I will return to that concern in a moment. More broadly, our concerns about this SI relate to conservation and governance gaps. They are similar to the concerns we set out in relation to the previous two SIs. The requirement to report certain catches against gear type has been removed—that is regulation 6(10)(c)(ii), for people following this closely—but it has not been replaced by an obligation to report that anywhere else instead. The Minister may say that that will be in the Fisheries Bill, but the Fisheries Bill does not exist in the way we want. It is not going through its parliamentary process, so that level of oversight and governance has been lost. The Minister says it is business as usual, but it is business as usual with only minor scrutiny. We have concerns about that. The provision stating that total allowable catches should be set in line with the principle of sustainable exploitation and consistent with maximum sustainable yield have been removed in this SI.
Regulation 6(7) omits article 6 of Council regulation 2019/124, which states that total allowable catches should be set in line with the principle of sustainable exploitation and should be consistent with maximum sustainable yield. The Opposition have raised concerns throughout the fisheries SI process, and during the Fisheries Bill, that if we remove the requirements to fish at a sustainable level and do not replace them with robust requirements to ensure our seas are fished sustainably, there is a risk that our fishing may be at unsustainable levels in future. When the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth was the Minister, I had great confidence that he would not set catches above sustainable levels, although I recognise that they have been set in some cases leading up to this point. I hope that the current Minister would not do such a thing either, but that is not to say that any future Minister, buoyed by political concerns or otherwise, may not be tempted to do that.
George Eustice
Is it not the case that in doing so they would be in breach of other international fisheries obligations that we have?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for the former Minister setting that out, but we know that there is fishing above sustainable levels today. Mackerel losing its sustainable status just a few weeks ago shows that all our fisheries in the UK are not being fished at sustainable levels at the moment, but they need to be. Given the risk of fishing populations changing due to climate change, we need to ensure that there is an adequately responsive deal on fisheries.
George Eustice
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the UK has no right to represent itself in the mackerel negotiations with countries such as Norway and the Faroe Islands? That is done by the European Union. Insofar as there is a problem, it is literally the fault of the European Union.
Luke Pollard
The lack of fish in the sea is also about overfishing and the regulatory environment that deals with overfishing. The solution to restoring mackerel stocks to sustainable levels will not be about pinning blame on whichever body, but about making sure that fishing levels are set at a sustainable rate, so we are not overfishing stocks, especially those on the decline due to poor recruitment or overfishing. We have to be clear about that.
I have been through most of my concerns about the governance gaps in the statutory instruments, so I will not keep the Committee any longer. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out where our total allowable catches lie, and his vision for the Fisheries Bill. Perhaps he could say when he expects the Fisheries Bill to return, so we can see how this statutory instrument would fit in with any provisions the Government propose in future.
Mr Goodwill
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He asked why we removed a reference to maximum sustainable yield; setting stocks at maximum sustainable levels is the key to building stocks, particularly for declining or flatlining species. That is a key element of the way we measure stocks and control fishing. A target to achieve maximum sustainable yield appears in a number of provisions in EU retained law. The statutory instruments have required different approaches for each target until we can set the UK future approach using the Fisheries Bill, which I have said I would like to get on the statute book as soon as possible, to make it a Fisheries Act.
With regards to article 2 of the basic regulation, we cannot make the maximum sustainable yield target in this provision operable because it depends on mutual access across member state waters. The Secretary of State would be unable to achieve it unilaterally. Article 6 of the TACs and quota regulation is concerned with TACs to be determined by member states. It has been omitted because the Secretary of State will determine TACs under the powers in the Bill and common law powers, along with the criteria for setting quota. On the North sea multi-annual plan, the draft regulations detail specific targets that relate to certain species in certain areas. Amending the targets would be beyond the scope of the powers provided by the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as the MSY target has already been implemented and we are staying in the multi-annual plan.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned article 6 of the TAC and quota regulation; that is to be determined by member states because we are still in the European Union. He mentioned that the SI removes article 15 of regulation 2019/124, which is about the submission of data to the Commission, and asked whether we will still record the quantity of stocks. That will continue to be collected. Article 33 of the control regulation, which is referred to in article 15 of EU regulation 2019/124, is amended by the third instrument to ensure that fisheries administrations must record all relevant data on fishing opportunities, as referred to in that regulation. However, it would be inappropriate to report the data to the Commission once the UK is no longer a member state.
The hon. Gentleman raised similar concerns to the ones he raised in the two preceding statutory instruments. I reassure him similarly that this is a business-as-usual measure and that further exciting changes to the way we manage our fisheries will be available to us when we are an independent coastal state, using the Fisheries Bill when it becomes an Act to do that. I look forward to debating the remaining stages of that Bill as soon as we can.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
International Development
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alistair Burt
The hon. Gentleman asked about the situation of the Kurdish community on the north-western border.
[Official Report, 11 March 2019, Vol. 656, c. 62.]
In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell):
Alistair Burt
In relation to the extent of aid, I absolutely agree—the £2.81 billion has been an extraordinary contribution. Last year in Brussels, we made the third largest pledge of £750 million, and the £2.81 billion that has been spent by the United Kingdom is indeed, I believe, a stronger sum than that provided by the European Union altogether over this period.
[Official Report, 11 March 2019, Vol. 656, c. 63.]
In response to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg):
Alistair Burt
However, in the camps, where the women and children of foreign fighters are concerned, there are no cash transfers. The Secretary of State has taken the view that that would not be appropriate. Cash transfers are extremely valuable in many circumstances. They provide some flexibility for refugees and those who are dependent on them and help people to make easier choices. There is little evidence of any abuse, and it can be a most practical way of delivering aid. But in the particular circumstances of the women and children of foreign fighters, in order to ensure that there was no risk of divergence to terrorist sources, my right hon. Friend took the decision that cash transfers would not be used.
[Official Report, 11 March 2019, Vol. 656, c. 66.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for the Middle East.
Errors have been identified in the responses I gave to questions on the statement on Syria.
The correct responses should have been:
In response to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden):
Alistair Burt
The hon. Gentleman asked about the situation of the Kurdish community on the north-eastern border.
In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell):
Alistair Burt
In relation to the extent of aid, I absolutely agree—the £2.81 billion has been an extraordinary contribution. Last year in Brussels, we made the third largest pledge of £750 million, and the £2.81 billion that has been pledged by the United Kingdom is indeed, I believe, a stronger sum than that provided by the European Union altogether over this period.
In response to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg):
Alistair Burt
However, in the camps, where the women and children of foreign fighters are concerned, there are no current plans for new cash programming by DFID. The Secretary of State has taken the view that that would not be appropriate. Cash transfers are extremely valuable in many circumstances. They provide some flexibility for refugees and those who are dependent on them and help people to make easier choices. There is little evidence of any abuse, and it can be a most practical way of delivering aid. But in the particular circumstances of the women and children of foreign fighters, in order to ensure that there was no risk of divergence to terrorist sources, my right hon. Friend took the decision that for the moment, new cash programming would not be used.
Petition
Bedfordia Farms planning application for a high intensity chicken farm should be refused
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
Knife Crime
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 233926 relating to knife crime.
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. The petition, which was created by Mr John Perrins, has attracted 104,271 signatures and specifically calls for people
“found with a knife to get 10 years and using a knife 25 years in prison.”
At the outset, I would like to pay my respects to all the victims of knife crime and their grieving families. As we know from the tragic murders of 17-year-old Jodie Chesney in London and 17-year-old Yousef Makki in Manchester, the victims more often than not are younger people, and knife crime is often associated with that demographic. I would also like to take this opportunity to pay my respects to the family of Kelly Franklin, who was stabbed to death aged just 29 on 3 August last year in Hartlepool.
The Government responded to the petition on 14 March, stating in particular:
“Conviction of a knife or offensive weapon offence—threatening or possession—is now more likely to result in some form of custodial sentence, and for longer than at any point in the last ten years.”
They went on:
“In 2015, we introduced minimum custodial sentences for repeat knife possession and offences that involve threatening with a weapon. Adults face a minimum of 6 months’ imprisonment whilst young people aged 16 or 17 face a minimum 4 month Detention and Training Order. Since the introduction of the minimum custodial term people caught carrying a knife or offensive weapon for a second time are now more likely than ever before to go to prison—in the year ending September 2018, 82% of offenders received a custodial sentence for repeat possession offences. These offences carry maximum terms of 4 years’ imprisonment.”
The knife crime statistics for this year alone speak volumes. We are only in March, yet those statistics show there have been 39 fatal stabbings in Britain since the beginning of the year. Since last Friday there have been three more, including of another 17-year-old.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for introducing the debate and I congratulate John Perrins on organising the petition, as well as all those who signed it. A 17-year-old died in my constituency on Friday night after a spike in violent attacks in Isleworth. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although there may be a place for stronger sentences, there is a lot that all agencies can do, and funding is needed for schools, youth provision, police support and so on?
Mike Hill
I absolutely agree, and I will come to those points later.
Ministry of Justice figures released recently show that 21,484 people, including 4,686 here in the capital, were prosecuted or cautioned for knife offences in England and Wales last year. That is 2,000 up on 2016, 5,000 more than in 2013, and the highest number of arrests and prosecutions since 2009. No wonder people are beginning to describe the situation as an epidemic.
Whether or not they agree with that description, the Government have had to concede that there is a problem. Less than two weeks ago, in his spring statement, the Chancellor announced that the Government will award police forces an extra £100 million over the next year to pay for overtime and to support reductions in knife crime and violent crime.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he is making a significant start to the debate. Does he agree that, although investment in the police is good and well meaning, we need investment in other areas, such as youth services, schools and councils? We also need to invest in building relationships with parents and in working with them and their young people.
Mike Hill
I absolutely agree. In fact, part of the Petitions Committee system is outreach work, and on Friday last we went to a school in Hartlepool, where the young people repeated much of that argument.
Many will agree that that £100 million is too little, too late and compare it with the £2.7 billion that has been taken out of the policing system since 2010, but any money targeted at tackling and preventing knife crime is welcome. For the record, my police force, Cleveland police, has had its number of police officers reduced by 500-a 37% reduction in staffing, following cuts of £25.5 million since 2010. The Prime Minister may be of the opinion that there is no correlation between police cuts and knife crime, but senior figures in the policing community, such as Cressida Dick, disagree. Considering that officer ranks have depleted by 20,000 across England, small wonder that people make that link.
The net effect of policing cuts was writ large when my constituency became the focus of a BBC film, which was broadcast on the national news, exposing that, in a town with a population of 92,028 at the last census, only 10 police officers were on duty on a Saturday night. Such a lack of visible police on the streets has resulted in our communities feeling less safe and more under threat. There is a real perception that crime will rise unless the police are better resourced. Cleveland police saw an increase in cautions and convictions for knife crime last year, and there has been a 4% rise since 2015. The police and crime commissioner, Barry Coppinger, is doing excellent work on crime prevention and intervention, but without the necessary resources he is swimming against the tide.
There truly is an argument not only for resourcing the police better but for increasing the tariff on custodial sentences. Clearly, in the mind of the public, current tariffs are not sufficient to act as a deterrent to criminals. The petition reflects that. The fact that the maximum penalty of four years applies only to reoffenders and not to first offenders is deeply worrying.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing the debate so well. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. Families in my constituency who have suffered the tragedy of losing a loved one to knife crime say witnesses have not come forward as a direct result of their lack of confidence that those who committed the crime will receive lengthy convictions. Does my hon. Friend agree that the aims behind the petition would help address that concern by delivering longer sentences, encouraging witnesses to come forward and increasing the chances of securing prosecutions overall?
Mike Hill
I absolutely agree. If anything, the petition opens up a debate about that whole subject, including prevention.
The petitioners’ call for mandatory tariffs of 10 years for possession and 25 years for the use of a knife may be seen as excessive, but there can be no doubt that, in the mind of the general public, the courts need to play their part in preventing the proliferation of knife-related criminal activity and, frankly, the murders that occur on our streets day in, day out.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his very good speech. I completely understand the public’s feeling that there should be longer sentences—I have heard that many times—but in 2015 the Government introduced a two-strikes policy, which means anyone over 18 who is caught twice gets a minimum six-month jail term. Despite that change, knife crime has rocketed. The number of people who are imprisoned for knife offences has increased at exactly the same rate as the number of people who commit knife offences, so that has had no deterrent impact at all.
Mike Hill
I agree and I thank my hon. Friend for her contributions as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime. She is correct that we need to find some real solutions. To go back to my earlier point, the demographic of those involved in the increase in knife crime tends to be those who are under 18. There needs to be a rethink about custodial and preventive measures.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend—you are making an incredible and impactful speech. We are talking about harsher sentences, but does he agree that they do not always act as a deterrent? We need to focus on more of the drivers that lead our young people into a life of crime, including sheer desperation, pressure or other factors. Prevention is key when we look at those drivers.
Mike Hill
I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution and again I thank the young students at English Martyrs School in Hartlepool. They came out with exactly the same argument, mentioning the lack of youth services and poor mental health support. Young girls, two of whom had witnessed the display of knives in Hartlepool, were concerned about sexual assault as well as the use of weapons. Yes, you are absolutely right that we need to focus on those areas of prevention and gain an understanding of exactly where this problem has arisen.
I pay tribute to the staff of the Petitions Committee, who have engaged in educational and outreach work around the subject. As I have mentioned twice already, I also thank the students from the English Martyrs School in Hartlepool for their input and for adding their voices and opinions to the debate.
Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)
May I remind Members that they should address each other in the third person? Anybody who says “you” is talking to me, and I do not think that was what was intended.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I commend the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. All of us here, but particularly those from Greater London, are affected in some way by what seems to be an epidemic of knife crime. I share the horror that others will express in this debate and which the hon. Gentleman articulated so well.
Everyone in the House will be united in grief by the tragic events we have recently seen, particularly the devastating murder of 17-year-old Jodie Chesney, which took place in Harold Hill, in the London Borough of Havering and in the constituency of Hornchurch and Upminster, represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez). Although it is in my neighbouring constituency, Harold Hill is considered by most people to be part of Romford. Therefore, my hon. Friend and I are working together, united in fighting against this horrendous attack on an innocent young girl and in bringing the community together. The whole community has unified to work together to eradicate such awful attacks. An innocent young girl, who was sitting in a park with friends and had done nothing wrong, was brutally murdered, which has had a huge effect on our community.
My heart, and those of everyone in the Chamber, goes out to Jodie’s family and friends today and in the future. I am wearing a purple ribbon in her memory. Purple was her favourite colour, and any hon. Members passing through the London Borough of Havering will notice such ribbons tied to trees, lampposts and fences, which is a mark of how hugely this has affected our community. I say to the hon. Member for Hartlepool that today’s debate means a great deal to the people of Havering, who have gone through a terrible trauma in the last few weeks.
While the debate was secured by worried citizens all over the country, it is telling that the biggest proportion of those signing the petition came from the three constituencies in the London Borough of Havering: Romford, Hornchurch and Upminster, and Dagenham and Rainham. When I raised the issue with the Prime Minister recently in a private meeting in her office here in the House of Commons, she rightly highlighted that the law already provides for mandatory prison sentencing for a second offence of carrying a knife, and that conviction for a knife or offensive weapon offence is now more likely to result in some form of custodial sentence than in recent years. The hon. Member for Hartlepool also made that point.
However, the figures reveal why the public still have little or no faith in our justice system. As it stands, two thirds of those carrying a knife escape a custodial sentence, and one in five repeat offenders avoid prison. People are frankly fed up with soft sentencing, and it is quite clear why. In Havering, knife offences have doubled since 2014, with 339 recorded cases last year alone. Although we are a Greater London borough, we are really in Essex, on the outer edges of London. We hear about this kind of crime in city centres, but in areas like ours we are not used to it. It has come as a terrible shock that these crimes are coming out as far as areas like ours, and indeed further afield.
Such is the desperation felt that people from across Havering have established a community group called Take a Knife, Save a Life. They are a completely independent group of local people who are now patrolling the streets and local parks, talking to young people, spending time with them, trying to understand what is in their minds and giving them the opportunity to anonymously hand over any knives or offensive weapons. That shows how people are desperate to do something. There is not the police cover that we want or expect, so people are taking things into their own hands in a law abiding way.
Some people may think this is dangerous, but it is no longer sufficient to merely request that the public be more vigilant. More work must be done to tackle these criminals, who simply have no respect for the law, authority or the communities in which they live. It is an issue not just of funding and numbers, but of police policy. Most people in my constituency favour a much more robust approach to dealing with violent criminals. We now have gang culture and youths coming from outside Havering, causing fear on the streets. It has got to the point where the Metropolitan police violence reduction unit will have to come to Havering, as confirmed by my recent meeting with Sophie Linden, the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime.
I am glad that the Government’s push for knife crime prevention orders is taking place and I believe that the serious violence strategy is a step in the right direction, but we need a collective effort across London. It is no good just blaming the Mayor of London—I can criticise him, but I am not going to do so today, because this is too serious—or just criticising the Government. I criticise them because I disagree with comments the Prime Minister made about cutting police having had no effect on crime. Nobody out there believes that. It is no good making the subject a political football. It effects all our constituencies and our communities, and we have to work together with local communities to find solutions.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I like the points that my hon. Friend is making. He may have heard my urgent question about knife crime. Does he feel that MPs have a positive role to play in this situation rather than being just observers? Does he agree that my request to the Minister to give us information to help us to take action on the streets, such as setting up community groups as he described, is useful?
Andrew Rosindell
I thank my hon. Friend for that comment, because we all have a duty to our communities—we are community leaders. I am working with local groups to fight crime. We do not have a magic wand or a direct solution, but we can play a part. I commend the youth organisations, church groups and faith organisations that are taking a lead, including the Street Pastors and Scouts. Jodie herself was an Explorer Scout—something that has been highlighted about what was a tragic, terrible crime. Community and MPs have a leadership role and it is not just down to the police and social and youth workers. We all have a part to play.
The crime prevention orders were requested directly by the police. They favour a dual approach of tough measures and positive early interventions. I often stress the importance of community policing, with police based in communities, which they know and understand like the back of their hand, as I am sure we know from our constituencies. More importantly, with that kind of policing, the community get to know the police and become familiar with them. With familiar faces of policemen in the community every day of the week, trust and recognition are built, which grow in the locality. That brings people together, with trust in their local police, and it helps to halt or at least curtail crime.
I want to make a serious point that is particularly relevant to Greater London: neighbourhood police are the ones best placed to make interventions to protect residents, when the issue is community-based. I have attempted over and over to make that point in my 18 years as Member of Parliament for Romford, yet models of policing and resources are still outdated. Instead of being based around real communities as they should be, they are based around bureaucratic electoral ward boundaries on a map that bear no relation to actual communities. They are based on electoral numbers, which is crazy and does not make sense. Communities are divided up between police teams. Instead of policing based on true, natural communities, there are lines in a road, and one police team goes to one side but not the other because it is in a different ward. Wards are not the way to fight crime. Criminals do not base their crimes on ward boundaries. They can act anywhere, and the police should police communities on that basis.
Ruth Cadbury
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about the rigidity of ward boundaries, which is why, certainly in west London, we welcome the fact that the new basic command unit set-up has grouped the neighbourhood teams into a town base, bringing several wards together in a more logical way under a single sergeant. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance and value of neighbourhood teams. Does he agree that the number of people in them is important? In Hounslow, their strength has been roughly halved, from five per ward to three and a bit per ward. Is not that regrettable, and a result of the cuts imposed by the Government on the Metropolitan police?
Andrew Rosindell
I agree. I made it clear a moment ago that I do not agree with what the Prime Minister said about cuts in police having no link to crime. However, I do not want to get into a battle today about resources from Government, or whether Sadiq Khan has not allocated as much as he should and the rest of it. We can argue about that but today is not the day. I hope we can agree that both the Government and the Mayor have a duty to allocate as many resources as they can to fighting crime, particularly in inner city areas, but also in outer London areas where crime has recently been rising. We should work together, because the public are losing patience. If we turn the matter into a political football they will not thank us. They want all of us to work together.
The week before last I raised with Sophie Linden my idea of getting rid of bureaucratic, inflexible ward boundaries and creating proper community police, with understanding. Unfortunately she did not say she would go down that route. I said, “Well, can Havering be an experiment, at least?” She did not agree, so I am disappointed, but we need to look at ways to channel resources to the best possible effect.
Sarah Jones
I agree that we need to look across politics to find the solutions. I just want to ask the hon. Gentleman to consider what organisations say about knife crime prevention orders. There is great concern among magistrates, lawyers, youth offending teams and a lot of charities. In fact, I have not found a single organisation that thinks the orders are a good thing—that they could be a replacement for antisocial behaviour orders, which the Prime Minister got rid of when she was Home Secretary. Actually, they will not work, and we could end up putting 12-year-olds who had committed no crime in prison. I agree with the intent, but will the hon. Gentleman look at the detail, and at the question whether more work is needed before the orders are brought to our streets?
Andrew Rosindell
Absolutely. I will certainly do that, but I am sure that the Minister could respond in his closing remarks. It is important that whatever mechanism we use is effective, not counterproductive. We all need to consider that.
I want to highlight the great success of the Police Scotland violence reduction unit, which has halved the murder rate in a 10-year period. Members will know that it worked closely with partners such as the NHS, education and social workers. However, its work went ahead in conjunction with a no-nonsense approach to those who crossed the line. I think that is what we need. I hope that we can replicate that in Greater London.
Low-level offences must be policed proactively, to challenge the culture of criminality and antisocial behaviour. That is why supporting the police is not just about resourcing. It is also about making sure they have the powers to get on with the job and be effective on the ground. I get deeply worried, as I am sure other hon. Members do, when I hear from constituents that they believe low-level crime such as shoplifting and burglary no longer gets taken as seriously as it should by the police. The Offensive Weapons Bill, which was introduced last year, will make it harder for young people to buy knives and acid online, and that is good. However, the public are wary of legislation that gives a tough narrative but leads to minimal action against violent offenders who will simply be more innovative about getting access to dangerous weapons.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) for their positive conduct of the debate. I am sure that the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) is right to concentrate for much of his speech on police resources, how the police are organised, and sentencing. He touched a moment ago on what happened in Glasgow. Does he agree that in addition to proper police resourcing and sentencing, it is necessary to interrupt the activities of organised crime, which often, through the drugs industry, sit behind the rise in knife crime? At the same time, should there be diversionary activities for the young people who are vulnerable to falling into the trap? All that takes resources.
Andrew Rosindell
I could not agree more. That is the route into much of the crime. There is a drug and gang culture. We see that across London, and although the right hon. Gentleman is not a London MP, I am sure similar cultures are building up in other parts of the country. As I said on the London section of “Daily Politics”, we have to crush that culture, no matter what community, town or borough we come from. If young people get into that culture, that leads to violence and ruins lives. We need to get underneath the problem and ensure that it is curtailed and stopped.
Although I hope that the serious violence strategy will deliver on its promise to provide more funds for such activities, we must provide legal powers to tackle this issue. The policies we put in place for knife crime prevention must not simply paper over the cracks.
I frequently request updates from my local police on Operation Venice, the operation launched to tackle moped-related crime. Naturally, I sought clarification on whether it was true that police were not giving chase to suspects on two-wheeled vehicles. I received countless reports from my constituents that the police were not being allowed to do their job and apprehend those hooligans.
I must tell the Minister that I was dumbfounded by the blame game that ensued. The Government said that guidance is provided by the College of Policing, yet police on the ground simply did not have comfort in the protections given to them. Eventually sense prevailed, and last November saw a massive crackdown on moped thieves, who were regularly threatening innocent people. Alongside the new confidence given to the police in using tactical contacts, the media covered the new approach widely. The result is that we have now seen moped-enabled crimes in the capital fall by 47% in the space of a few months.
A strategy such as that shows that we can tackle crime; where it is evolving and getting out of control, a strategy can be put in place and crime can be knocked on the head. A similar, much more radical strategy is needed to tackle knife crime in London.
Janet Daby
When we talk about knife crime among young people, we are talking about people who are often quite vulnerable. One of the things the hon. Gentleman mentioned was getting underneath the problem. In some cases, the problem is due to coercion, bullying and threats, which lead some young people to get involved in carrying knives. Does he agree?
Andrew Rosindell
I agree. There needs to be a restoration of police in schools; there are still police going into schools, but nothing like so many as there used to be. That has been reduced. Stop and search is also something that my constituents and I fully support. I do not think that any law-abiding person need fear. We all get stopped and searched at the airport, and members of the public are stopped and searched when they come in here. When we are seeing knife crime in our communities I think that, provided the police show respect and do it in a way that does not offend people—I am sure they are able to—knives can be found and confiscated, which will make our communities safer.
Neil Coyle
I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman’s support for Operation Venice, which has had incredible results in my constituency as well, and I totally support his call for greater action on this issue across the board. The Prime Minister suggested last week that Brexit was blocking Parliament from taking action on NHS, education and knife crime issues. Does he agree that that premise is unacceptable? It is not an either/or for any Government; knife crime must be acted on. Having met with the Prime Minister, as he has already outlined, when does he expect further action?
Andrew Rosindell
I cannot speak for the Prime Minister, although I am sure the Minister will be able to speak for the Government later, but whatever is going on with Brexit cannot be an excuse for doing nothing on knife crime. It does not necessarily require legislation; it requires strategies, more resources and communities working together, so a lot can be done without necessarily having to pass new laws. However, in this instance, we are talking about increasing the penalties for carrying and using a knife, and I am totally in favour of that.
I can tell hon. Members that there is not a single constituent in my area—I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster will have had the same experience—who feels the current penalties are sufficient. They want to see much tougher action, much stricter penalties and a real deterrent, so that people fear being caught, apprehended and imprisoned for a long time if they carry and use a knife.
Returning to my comments, stopping low-level disorder and petty crime helps to curtail the invitation to more serious crime, which is why I hope that knife crime prevention orders will help. Yet we must not turn away from difficult questions. My constituents are particularly fortunate that Havering starts from a base of historically low crime, and they want to keep it that way. As legislators, we cannot throw money at a problem and expect that that will solve everything, that no questions need be asked and no reforms are required. That is simply not the answer; more needs to be done.
We must smash the myth on some estates that carrying a knife is a normal thing to do, and we should take a long hard look at compulsory custodial sentences for knife crimes. I hope the Minister will address that later. Law-abiding citizens, fearful for their children when they walk home from school or simply relax in a park with their friends, are sick of seeing soft sentencing for knife offenders.
I therefore call on the Government urgently to consider a minimum custodial sentence for a knife or offensive weapon offence. What do we say to the parent of a victim who is in despair at the cautions handed down to the perpetrators of these horrifying crimes? How have we arrived at the stage where a man who tries to smash a car window and attack an individual with a huge zombie knife in broad daylight is given a suspended sentence? The Minister needs to ask himself how that kind of sentence can be justified. The decision was only overturned after public outrage, when appeal judges replaced that notoriously lenient sentence with jail time.
Legislators and the courts are at real risk of becoming detached from public opinion on what is fast becoming a national crisis. We in this place have a duty to ensure that an effective deterrent exists to combat this evil culture, and to do everything in our power to prevent more young people from being slaughtered in our communities. We must now take action and, in so doing, honour the memory of Jodie Chesney.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) on his introduction to the debate.
I will start with this and get it out of the way: there is an issue with police resources and numbers of police, and there is an issue with the cuts there have been to local authority services and youth services. We will leave that for another day, but I do not want people to forget it, because there is a debate to be had. On neighbourhood policing, I say gently to the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) that there used to be huge numbers of neighbourhood and community police officers, backed by police staff, and that that made a huge difference.
In order to try to take this forward from where we are, and as my hon. Friends and other hon. Members will have heard me say countless times over the past few months, I say to the Minister that this is a national crisis. It is a national emergency. If it were any other type of national emergency, irrespective of what else was going on, the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Justice would be in the House of Commons at the Dispatch Box day after day after day, outlining what had happened and what the Government were doing about it.
That is why I called a few weeks ago for knife crime to be treated like terrorism—not to underestimate terrorism or decry the importance of dealing with it, but to give that sense of urgency. Instead, frankly, we drift on. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) alluded to, the Prime Minister promised a knife crime summit nearly three weeks ago at the Dispatch Box. We are now told that one will take place sometime next week. I say to every hon. Member present that, in the face of a national emergency, a month’s delay—as it will be by then—is simply and utterly unacceptable and will be bewildering to the people of this country.
Virtually certainly, three or four times a week, not just in London but across the country, people are killed, horrifically, and we have to do something about it. We have to speak up and speak out about it more. It is absolutely astonishing that the House of Commons Chamber does not reverberate with the roar of MPs demanding action from the Government. The Government will say, “We are doing this, we are doing that,” but—as was certainly said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool and I think by the hon. Member for Romford—where is the urgency? Where is the passion? Where is the anger? Where is the desire to get a hold of this? The public do not see that, and I do not feel it.
People say it is ridiculous, but I have said, as did former Prime Minister Tony Blair this morning, that Cobra should meet because, irrespective of resources, cross-Government co-ordination is lacking. I will say something about sentencing in a minute to illustrate what I mean. Solving this is not only about police numbers—that is ridiculous—but a long-term public health plan will not prevent somebody from being stabbed tonight. Increased police resources and an increased police presence on the ground will stop that. That is not the overall answer of course, but that is where we have to go in the short term—the increase that the Chancellor announced will help.
The Government’s evidence in the serious violence strategy and the leaked Home Office memo—I know that the Minister is a Justice Minister—show that hotspot policing reduces knife crime. That is evidentially based. It also does not displace that crime to nearby areas; it stops the crime, because it tackles the people who commit those offences. Am I saying, “Lock them up and throw the key away?” Of course not. All I am saying is that we have lost control and there is no short-term alternative. Where are the intervention and prevention measures that were there before? Where have the youth clubs gone? Where are the street workers?
The hon. Member for Romford is right: when I was the Policing Minister, the most effective people on the street, alongside police officers, were street pastors, and particularly the older ones. There are countless examples. They stop stupid incidents outside shops or in precincts, when there are issues between stupid kids and their stupid gangs. Somebody might look at somebody else, or bump into their bike—for Christ’s sake—and get stabbed. The street pastors get involved and prevent that. That sounds almost pathetic in the face of the huge rises in knife crime, but it actually works and makes a difference.
I will come to sentencing, but I would love the Minister to say that he and the Justice Department recognise that the Government have to more effectively co-ordinate what happens across Government rather than there being individual, compartmentalised elements. I hope the Minister brings the urgency I have seen in his reflecting on other things to dealing with this problem.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent series of points. I was hoping that we would cover that the break- down of the fabric of society is part of this. We cannot point to only one thing such as the 21,000 reduction in police officers. There are also schools exclusions, including unofficial exclusions. Kids are out on the streets, and there is a lack of youth provision and other preventive stuff. All that should be looked at in the round. Does he agree that austerity has had an effect, and that this issue could be a consequence of it?
Vernon Coaker
I absolutely agree. I am making the point that it is not only about policing. However, in the short term, that is where we have to go. That is all I am saying. It should never have got to this point, with the breakdown of all that.
The system—this is true of Justice or whatever—does not look at what works. For example, on youth crime, exclusions and kids not being in school have an impact. That is a no-brainer. We do not need a research project on that costing millions of pounds. Everybody knows it. People on the street know it, every Member knows it and everybody watching our proceedings will know that it has an effect. We have a problem in how we deal with those young people. There are brilliant examples of pupil referral units and activity with young people excluded from school, but many of those young people disappear. Everybody is responsible but nobody is.
That has to change, otherwise those young people just drift into a twilight zone where they are exploited by criminals or associate with people who parade around estates saying, “Do you want to make some money? I’ll show you how to make some money. Don’t listen to them.” We know that that goes on. We have to take that culture on, but we cannot do it without being honest. My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) is absolutely right: proper provision for excluded young people is fundamental. Some of it works, and some of it does not. We have to find a way of ensuring that good practice is spread much more widely.
Mr Howarth
My hon. Friend speaks with his normal passion and insight. He is right on exclusions from school and young people disappearing, but there is another problem. When some youngsters are sent to alternative provision because they are too much of a nuisance in school, some of it is very good, but some of it is nothing more than poor childminding. We need to urgently look at alternative provision.
Vernon Coaker
I absolutely agree. The Minister will know, because his Department will report to him, that some of the alternatives to prison or custodial sentences are rubbish, but other alternatives are brilliant. If we know what works, why are we not replicating it instead of the Justice Department funding alternative provision outside some schools or inside others? Why do we not replicate those things that work and that prevent young people who have been excluded from school from getting involved? I know that this is not a fashionable thing to say in a time of localism. Localism is absolutely right, but sometimes the Government have to pick it up and drive it. This is one area in which they should drive it forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool and the hon. Member for Romford made the point, as I am sure will others, that the Minister has a tough job. The public will say that anybody carrying a knife—I am not talking about the use of a knife—is completely unacceptable, and that they should be jailed straight away. They will also say that people should not have a second chance when it comes to something as serious as that.
All Governments, including the last Labour Government, write into every bit of legislation that courts have discretion to look at circumstances, but that is the bit of the mandatory sentencing guidelines that nobody reads. I am appalled by repeat cautioning and the fact that the courts seem in many instances to fail to act on persistent offending. However, even I can see that, if somebody stuffs a knife in the pocket of an idiotic 12-year-old lad but he cannot prove it, we have to let the court try to find out whether he deliberately carried the knife or whether somebody had put it on him, or had threated to beat him up unless he took it. We have to be careful about saying that, in every single circumstance and in every single case, the first time a pathetic girl or boy—that is what they are—carries a knife, they should be jailed forever and the key should be thrown away. I do not accept the inability of the state or the Government to explain that to people. Everybody says, “We’re going to be tough. We’re going to have mandatory sentencing. We’re going to lock all of them up.” Of course, that does not happen, because rightly in a democracy we have the legal system and the independence of the judiciary. The judiciary, including any of us if we were magistrates, would look at the circumstances of an individual case and say that in that instance they do not want to send the person to a place like that described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), because they deserve a chance.
There are not many people in our Parliament who would not allow the courts discretion, but I say to the Minister—again, the Government should be shouting this—that he should explain that and tell people. He should not hide behind harsh rhetoric. He should do what I have just done and explain that, even in a national emergency—a knife crime epidemic—there will be circumstances in which the courts will want to exercise discretion. The Minister no doubt has that in the notes for his speech at the conclusion of the debate.
The legislation talks about mandatory sentencing except in exceptional circumstances. What does that mean? The Minister is brandishing the guidelines at us, but they are not interpreted across the judicial system in a fair and consistent way. That drives people mad—it drives me mad—and undermines the system. Alongside all the things that I have discussed, the sentencing by the courts is crucial. There has to be an expectation that people are jailed, whether they be young children, older children or adults, but there has to be more consistency. Figures were given by the hon. Member for Romford. It cannot be right that huge numbers of people are being cautioned again and again. It cannot be right that between different courts some people are going to jail and others are not. It cannot be right that nobody among the public properly understands what “exceptional circumstances” means—no Minister has properly gone out there to articulate and explain it. This Minister will have an opportunity to do that when he winds up the debate.
Mrs Hodgson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. When I was chair of the all-party parliamentary group on basketball, we did an inquiry into how basketball could be harnessed as a sport that appeals to certain demographics. It attracts a high number of inner-city and black, Asian and minority ethnic participants. Basketball could be used as a sentencing tool. That might seem a crazy idea, but evidence was given by police and crime commissioners in Leicester and in one of the London boroughs—I think it was Newham—which were using things such as basketball to sentence some of the young people who were at risk of being the ones to get into knife crime. They were looking for alternative provision, and basketball was one of the things that it was deemed would work, so much so that, in the London Borough of Newham there is an initiative called “Carry a Ball, not a Blade”. Does my hon. Friend think that more initiatives such as that should be looked at as a means of prevention in sentencing?
Vernon Coaker
I absolutely do think that more initiatives such as that should be introduced.
Let me finish with a personal account. I have been an MP for nearly 22 years. Before becoming an MP, I taught for 20 years, mainly in inner-city schools in Nottingham. They had the challenges that anybody here could recount. Much of the time, when I started teaching, it was possible for somebody to choose where they went. It was possible to say, “I would like to go here,” and I always said that I wanted to teach in an inner-city school. Some people stereotype me—for good reason or not—but talking in the way I do helped in Nottingham. This is a point for the Government. When we went there to raise standards—without being arrogant, in all the schools I worked at, we raised standards—we did certain things. Among the things that we put in place was certainty that, if someone broke the rules, there would be a consequence. It was not a case of locking somebody up and throwing away the key, but people knew that there would be a consequence.
There was a lot of the alternative provision to which my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West has referred. I was the harshest disciplinarian in the school. I was not going to have people coming in who were not in uniform. People may laugh about it, but the truth is that out on our streets the police need to ensure the same certainty. Alongside that we need the sort of provision that my hon. Friend has talked about and opportunities for young people to get work, to have social mobility and to prosper. That is what will stop knife crime. I say again to the Minister that this is a national crisis and a national emergency, and the Government simply have to treat it as such by co-ordinating and driving forward change, rather than just making a series of compartmentalised, well-intentioned announcements that do not have the passion, drive and enthusiasm needed to effect change in the country.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this vital debate, which was secured by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) and which is derived from the public outrage and utter despair about what is happening to young people on our streets and the intense worry felt by parents. I entirely echo the passionate view expressed by the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) that this is nothing short of a national emergency.
It is perhaps no surprise that my constituency topped the signature count for this petition, with the other two Havering constituencies not far behind. Three weeks ago, Hornchurch and Upminster saw the brutal and utterly senseless murder of 17-year-old Jodie Chesney in a Harold Hill park. We have heard this afternoon from my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) just how badly that has affected the community. The community response to Jodie’s murder has been profound, with marches and memorials, purple ribbons tied to trees, railings and lampposts in tribute to her, and a community vigil in Harold Hill. There has also been practical action, whether through support for a stronger Harold Hill street watch team or new initiatives such as the “Take a Knife, Save a Life” campaign, which seeks to collect weapons from the streets.
Havering remains, as we have heard, a comparatively low-crime borough. That partly explains the shock and utter outrage at Jodie’s murder. However, that kind of incident feeds into concerns that the kind of crime that we may once have associated with inner boroughs is seeping into the capital’s further reaches. I know that we were all hugely disheartened and worried by the fact that only last week in the Harold Hill area a young man was chased down a road and stabbed.
If young people begin to feel unsafe, the temptation only increases for them to carry a weapon too, so it is important not to let such perceptions escalate. On Friday, I met Rachel Grimwood, who works on alternative provision in schools. She showed me photographs of the kinds of weapon that children are bringing into local schools; many are concealed as pens, hairbrushes and so on. That is creating such fear among the local school community. She also talked to me about how young people are being coerced into crime, which feeds into the whole idea of whether it is right immediately to issue a sentence when a lot of young people are finding themselves in very frightening situations in which they are being threatened with violence if they do not also engage in criminal activity.
It is no use quoting statistics at communities about comparatively low crime rates. These kinds of incident reverberate because of their severity and they lead to a particularly rapid loss of confidence in law and order in suburban areas. I think it is a tragedy that the Conservative party is losing people’s confidence in that respect.
I have been an MP not much longer than 18 months, but I have already met two parents who have lost a child to knife violence. Jamil Sarki from Hornchurch was murdered in January 2018. He suffered a fatal stab wound to his heart after accompanying a friend to recover money lost from a scam. He was a beautiful young man, an engineering graduate from a good family, with so much promise and so much life unlived. Jamil lost his life not in our borough but in Welwyn Garden City, and his case highlights the issue of the support levels available to families who are not connected into the community and systems of the area in which their child’s murder took place.
Today’s debate is fundamentally about the sentencing for carrying knives, however, and new sentencing guidelines brought in over the summer are expected to lead to more people going to jail for carrying knives, even though average sentences for such a crime have already been going up. There is a mandatory minimum sentence of six months’ imprisonment for an adult or four months for a young person if someone is convicted of a second bladed article offence, but if an offender is convicted of threatening with a bladed article, there is a prison sentence straightaway even if it is a first offence. The jail sentence can go up to a maximum of four years. As we have heard, the Government are bringing in new knife crime prevention orders, which are meant to give the police more tools in the fight, such as curfews, geographical restrictions and mandatory knife crime courses. However, I accept the need for caution as the orders are rolled out to ensure that they are a new solution rather than a new problem.
Many of my constituents want a far tougher regime, because they have lost confidence in the deterrent effect of the existing sentences. I appreciate that the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice may have concerns about getting the balance right, to give people a last chance to step away from crime and the criminal justice system. I would appreciate it if the Minister told us what has been done to review that balance, given that knife crime statistics are going in the wrong direction, and what intensive work is being carried out with young people who are caught for the first time carrying a blade.
In a previous debate on knife crime, I raised my concerns about referrals to youth offending teams—I have written to the Minister about that as well—and whether the young criminals who are sent down that route have any fear of it. I am keen to get the Minister’s comments on whether the effectiveness of YOTs is under review. I know from shopkeepers across my constituency that all too many young people are now going into their stores with a complete sense of omnipotence when it comes to intimidating people, shoplifting and then mugging people on the streets.
Beyond sentencing, we must accept that there is an issue of resource and attitude, which is why I have focused on trying to secure additional police funding for the Met. Policing has become a much more complex activity over the past decade, with officers asked to carry out a much broader range of activities, as gangs’ business models adapt rapidly with technological change. Following private meetings with the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, we have secured extra money for the Met, and the Chancellor has recently added an extra £100 million for knife crime since Jodie’s murder. That resource is welcome, and it is already making an impact, but we now need to see much more consistency in that funding, so that officers can plan much further into the future.
Constituents will always want more bobbies on the beat, and they are absolutely vital in gathering critical intelligence through the building of trust. However, we also need to ensure that the resource is going into the right places. I see it as equally important that we have officers who can work on collecting evidence and securing safe convictions. I note the important intervention by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) in that regard. Witnesses need to be confident that trials in which they testify will lead to convictions.
We also need to ensure that we are building robust cases against criminals much higher up the food chain who are ruthlessly exploiting young people as an expendable resource. Similarly, the police cannot be expected to plug gaps in other services, so the resourcing of social and children’s services is critical in stemming a young person’s descent into crime. However, as I have said before in this House, that resource must be accompanied by leadership at every level, to ensure that extra cash is directed in the right way and bolstered by a sense of political focus, which gives the police and all other agencies the confidence to use the full range of their powers. I asked about that directly in Prime Minister’s questions recently. I would be grateful for an update from the Minister on the knife crime summit that was committed to.
I do not seek to be partisan, so I will ask the same of the Mayor of London. The mayoral system was designed, in part, to bring greater democratic accountability to issues such as policing, and to provide drive, co-ordination and focus on performance when required. I appreciate that the Mayor is concerned about policing budgets, but I would also like to hear from him how he is articulating to Londoners what he is doing with his budget, and what his strategy is to change the weather on these issues.
When it comes to leadership and attitude, the police need to know that they are supported. In Havering, we are deploying greater use of stop and search, as well as facial recognition technology in our urban centres. However, there also needs to be a political focus on pulling all parts of the system together and making them talk to one another. From my work in the borough, it is clear that councillors, policing teams, charities, community members and churchgoers are all doing fantastic work on school exclusions, family breakdowns and flagging at-risk youngsters.
Most recently, I met Hornchurch-based charities Say It With Your Chest and You and Me Counselling, which focus respectively on excluded children, and on parents who feel at a loss as to how to best handle their disruptive children. We need to ensure that such work is directed into a broader local strategy to ensure that it is not just piecemeal or overlapping with existing initiatives. Council consultation on youth violence, for instance, will carry much less weight if it is not engaging with the right people and the right young people in the area who are most affected by it. Those charities with a presence on the ground are much more likely to be able to identify and relate to those children.
When I carry out school visits I am struck by the consistency with which mental health is brought up as an issue. Young people are struggling to understand their purpose, worth and value. That is often derived from a negative family and home environment, and fuelled by a lack of belonging or greater community around them. That is why they are so often vulnerable to a gang structure, where they get sucked into a spiral of negative activity. I recently met one of our Harold Hill councillors, who herself experienced that sense of dislocation during her school years. She highlighted to me the need for engagement programmes that are relevant to the particular communities that they are trying to plug into. For instance, she was British-Nigerian, and she said that it is much more effective if people from those communities are talking to those communities, rather than having that sense of somebody trying to interfere from the outside.
Nobody should pretend that these issues are easy to solve, because they are not. After all, the perverse sense of entitlement that allows someone to see it as their right to take someone’s life in a brutal way, such as with the murder of Jodie Chesney, betrays a complete absence of values, decency and human empathy. However, we have been here before when it comes to knife crime and we know what works. Criminals need to know that our attempts to understand their path to violence will be complemented with a hard-nosed intolerance of the mindless destruction they mete out.
One reason my constituents support tougher knife sentencing is that people believe it is time we showed that communities are back within our control, and a key part of that will be taking criminals off the streets, but that is not solution enough. I would be grateful for the Minister’s assurances that knife crime will be the subject of relentless political focus, so that in criminal justice, education, policing and community outreach, we get the system firing on every cylinder.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Ind)
I thank the Petitions Committee and the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) for bringing this debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) and to hear what she had to say. Ryan Passey, Christina Edkins and Jaskaran Kang, young people from Dudley, were tragically murdered with knives. Last year, Yasir Hussain and Christopher Harm both lost their lives. Elsewhere in the Black Country last year, Reagan Asbury and James Brindley were both tragically killed on nights out. Our hearts go out to their families and friends.
People in Dudley are furious about the increase in knife crime. They want tougher action and more police on the streets to deal with it. The responsibility obviously lies with the people who go out with a knife and then use it, but we would not have needed a crystal ball to predict that cutting the number of police officers, huge cuts to neighbourhood policing teams, the closure of youth centres, sports projects, community centres and other organisations that keep young people off the streets, and sending fewer people to prison would mean that crime—tragically, violent crime—would increase.
It is shocking to read the results of an investigation in today’s Express and Star:
“Less than one in three criminals arrested with a knife in the West Midlands are sent to prison”.
The paper is completely right to describe the situation in the west midlands as a knife crime epidemic, with the number of cases up 20% over the last year. The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) are completely right, of course, but how can it be the case that criminals are being spared jail despite committing dozens of offences? According to media reports this weekend, one dangerous offender was convicted 21 times for possession of a knife without being sent to prison and another committed 33 assaults before eventually being jailed for the 34th.
West Midlands Chief Constable Dave Thompson has declared knife crime across the region an “emergency”. He has implemented extensive stop-and-search powers in Birmingham following a spate of fatal stabbings. The force said that it had stopped and searched 408 people using its new powers over four days earlier this month, arresting 24 people and seizing 14 weapons.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is highlighting the situation in the west midlands. Does he agree that the proportion of people who are being sent to prison for knife offences had doubled in recent years? We lock up more people than any other European country. About 400 children are serving life sentences or sentences of more than 14 years in this country, compared with just two children serving life sentences in the rest of the EU combined. Although I absolutely understand my hon. Friend’s point and his frustration, at a national level we need to accept that we put a lot of people in prison and so should carefully consider whether we increase that number.
Ian Austin
I commend my hon. Friend for her work with the all-party group. I understand her point but, in the end, if someone has been caught with a knife 21 times, or has been convicted of 33 assaults, I think they should be in prison. Frankly, as I will talk more about in a minute, there should be strong sentences and tough deterrents. Of course, we also have to have all those other things going on in society to prevent people from being sucked into crime, as she has talked about in the all-party group and I will go on to talk about as well.
When people use knives and behave violently there should be tough sentences. Society needs to send out a strong message that that is completely unacceptable. Although the number of people being imprisoned might have gone up recently, it is fair to say that it certainly fell in the previous few years under this Government.
According to Ministry of Justice figures, 1,182 people were cautioned or convicted by the West Midlands police for the possession of a knife or offensive weapon in 2018, but just 347—29%—went to prison. That represents a 7% drop on the previous year and is under the national average. Across the region, 326 knife criminals were handed a community order, 256 were given a suspended sentence and a further 99 were fined or discharged from court without a sentence.
One in four criminals cautioned or convicted were children. It is a tragedy that children are going out with knives.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)
For the record, we have gone from approximately 40,000 people in prison in 1995 to 82,000 people in prison now. In that period, the British population grew by about 15%, but the number of people in prison doubled. We have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, so we have to be cautious about the idea that we are somehow soft on justice in this country.
Ian Austin
I am sure the Minister will quote all sorts of figures as to why the knife crime epidemic is not the Government’s fault, is not the result of not sending enough people to prison, and is not because they have not kept the promises they made before they were elected eight or nine years ago—I will come to that. It is all well and good for the Government to claim that people caught with a knife are more likely to be jailed now than at any time in the last 10 years, but that is because the number of people being jailed fell after they came to power almost 10 years ago, despite all the promises they made so loudly and frequently in when they were in opposition. The promise was clear: anyone caught carrying a knife would go to jail.
In 2008, the then leader of the Conservative party gave an interview to The Sun, which said that:
“anyone caught carrying a knife will be jailed under a Tory Government, David Cameron vows today. The Conservative leader declares automatic jail terms for carrying a dangerous knife is the only way of smashing the current epidemic gripping broken Britain”.
He repeated the pledge to relatives of high-profile victims, such as the father of Damilola Taylor and the former EastEnders star, Brooke Kinsella, whose brother was tragically murdered. The police and crime commissioner for the west midlands says that the courts are still failing to hand out sentences that reflect the public’s demands for justice after criminals have been arrested and charged.
Despite a lengthy police investigation and a court case, nobody has been convicted for the death of Ryan Passey, the young man I mentioned earlier who was tragically killed on a night out in Stourbridge. That is a source of huge public concern in Dudley and the Black Country, and there has been a big campaign by his family and friends. Will the Minister meet me and the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), with whom I have been working, and the people campaigning about that case, so he can examine it in detail?
Of course we need schools, youth services, police support and more opportunities for young people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling said, but people in Dudley also want to see more police on the streets, tougher sentences and proper punishments to prevent people from going out with a knife in the first place.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I thank the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) for introducing the debate. I begin where I was going to end, by reinforcing to the Minister that, in this cross-party debate, we are taking the issue seriously, there is a huge amount of commitment to it, and there is an enormous strength of feeling in favour of dealing with it. If he has listened to all the contributions, he will understand that that is the feeling of the Chamber.
Depending on how one looks at the situation in my constituency, it is either not very good or too good. I recently looked at the neighbourhood policing reports for the Henley area and for a number of areas around Thame. In the Henley area, the neighbourhood report gave no examples of knife crime, and in the areas around Thame, there were two examples, so hon. Members may think that I am unable to talk about the issue. My constituency is in the middle of the wide Thames Valley police area, however, which includes Oxford, Abingdon, Reading and Slough. The Minister will be aware of a recent knife attack in Oxford, which brought the issue home to people there and in the surrounding area.
The figures show that the number of knife attacks in the Thames valley was marginally short of 1,300 in 2017-18, which is the highest figure since 2010. That is about a 50% increase on the number of knife crimes committed in 2012-13, which is a number that keeps on coming up in the areas that we are looking at. The Thames Valley police area is the largest area of knife crime in the south-east and far outstrips counties such as Kent, Sussex and Surrey. That stands in marked contrast to the calm and peaceful nature of the area as a whole.
Knife crime has played a part in seven murders, 40 rapes, 10 sexual attacks and 86 threats to kill, so it is not gang warfare, but a much greater set of crimes that involves us all. I agree with the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) that it is not a simple task to overcome that, because in the Thames valley, recruitment is up and a tremendous amount of work is being done to look at intakes. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) that numbers will always make a difference to this situation, but we are asking, “Do they make the difference?” I agree with the hon. Member for Gedling that they do not, because we need to take into account a number of other things.
What the police want above all to tackle this problem is the certainty that the increase in numbers that they are seeing at the moment, which allows them to address recruitment, will continue. At the moment, they do not know that and they need certainty.
An equally big role that the police play—I think it has been mentioned—is in partnership with a number of other organisations. The agencies and organisations that the police are in partnership with include the NHS and others, but the one that I have the most sympathy for is the relationship that the police have set up with schools. There, they have a chance of breaking the link of knife crime to drugs, and as our deputy police and crime commissioner has said, “Once a young person has a knife, it’s almost too late.” However, working with schools is a way of breaking that link.
We have also heard a lot about stop and search, which has increased dramatically in my area by just over 50%. I have a mixed feeling about stop and search. I have participated in a group that included police and crime commissioners, the police and other politicians. There was a tremendous backlash among the group, including the police, against just carrying on with stop and search as it was. They did not see that that would create a favourable climate in which to tackle this issue because of all the things that are associated with the history of stop and search. We agreed that any stop and search operation needed to be intelligence led, proportionate and appropriate, and I am very pleased that the Thames Valley police initiatives have all been intelligence led and are having great effect.
Yes, we can and should increase sentences, and we have a unique position in this House to be able to comment on new sentencing guidelines—the Justice Committee always comments on them. After what I have heard today, I will certainly take back to that Committee a determination to make a more concentrated effort to ensure that we are as blunt as we can be in giving that information to judges.
As I said in my intervention, we all have a role to play. That is why in my urgent question I asked what role we as MPs can play, because I have noticed that currently many MPs are very much in the role of observers and have not yet found a way to become participants in this. The Minister thought that I had uncovered a pot of gold in saying that. I wish I had and I wish there was a pot of gold. However, if he knows what has happened to that initiative, on which I think there has been some progress, it would be very nice if he told us.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon under your chairmanship, Sir Graham.
We were here just a few weeks ago debating this subject, and indeed knife crime has come up regularly—we had the urgent question on Friday in the main Chamber. It is also right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) said in his extraordinarily passionate and persuasive speech, that it is several weeks since we first heard about the knife crime summit, which apparently will happen some time next week. In asking a Minister a question about that on Friday, I said that I sincerely hoped that the summit would not be a talking shop and that we would see resources and action as a consequence of it.
I am glad that we are at last taking this seriously and debating it on a regular basis—I just hope that these debates lead to action—but I cannot help but observe that, since the last knife crime debate in Westminster Hall, and since the knife crime summit was announced, there have been two murders in my borough: one was of a 17-year-old boy, for which offence a 15-year-old has been charged; and the other, just a week ago, was just outside my constituency and was the murder of a 29-year-old man, who was stabbed to death needlessly and pointlessly in an ordinary street. It is often said—this is one reason we are now taking this very seriously—that for every one of these tragic murders, there are a hundred other stabbings and similar incidents. Some are not even reported to the police, and some are known only to the doctors who treat those involved. There could be thousands of instances of young people carrying weapons.
I do not want to exaggerate, because on the whole our constituencies are still safe places and walking around them at night, or at any time, is a perfectly safe and reasonable thing to do, but there is a cultural change and a change in how communities feel about knife crime. They feel that it is not just about one or two people, or gangs, or known criminals. They feel that it is now inculcating the atmosphere of where we live. That is why I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that knife crime is a national emergency or a matter for Cobra—we have to take it extremely seriously.
One of the young people who died in my borough, Ayub Hassan, was 17 years old. He was born and lived in my constituency, and he was killed in my constituency. As his mother told me, he was her best friend. She is inconsolable at his death. Although there is almost a pyramid, of which the killings are at the top, and although we worry about every offence, there is something absolutely significant about young lives being taken in this way, and the opportunity that is lost, and the way that people did not have a chance to live their lives, and about how it affects their siblings, their parents, their wider family and often the whole community where they live. We have to get to grips with knife crime. It is an incredibly complex, multi-layered issue, and will take a number of years to get right. However, it also requires urgent action.
This debate is about sentencing. That is an important aspect but, as we have heard in all the speeches so far, it is only one element. I suspect that my views on sentencing are probably closer to those of the Minister than they are to those of the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin). I am a former shadow Justice spokesman and have looked into this in some detail. I am not a big fan of mandatory sentencing. As has been pointed out, mandatory sentencing itself often has a degree of discretion of which the courts make due and proper use. There are sentencing guidelines, but we have to leave individual cases to the judiciary. We have a very competent judiciary —it is not a soft judiciary—in this country. As we have heard, we have one of the highest incarceration rates. Yes, there should be appropriate sentencing and, yes, people should be locked up for many offences, whether it is for carrying a knife, using a knife, or for any serious violence that results from knife crime. However, we will not solve this problem by sentencing policy.
[Geraint Davies in the Chair]
We need to start with something a number of Members have mentioned: proper community policing. The loss of that in London over the past few years has made a dramatic difference. When it started, it was an experiment —we were told it was about reassurance. Those were times of greater plenty as far as public funds go, and it was felt that, in addition to everything that was supposed to work, including response policing and detection, we could afford the luxury of putting police back on the streets—bobbies on the beat, community officers.
Then the police would have told us, “We’re not going to catch people doing crimes. We’re not going to solve crimes, but it’s an important community role.” Many senior police officers now admit that they were wrong about that, and that community policing has played a valuable role in reducing crime. A dedicated, in both senses of the word, group of police, even a small group—it was typically six per ward—got to know the community and which people were good and bad. The intelligence they collected and their knowledge of what was going on meant that it was not about just reassurance; it was about policing in the way we do best in this country, by consent and with the support of the community. It was resource intensive, and it is impossible for those who agree about that policing, whichever party they come from, not to acknowledge that the resources were just taken away.
The Mayor of London has done a very good job in putting resources back—we were down to one officer per ward at one point. It is a semantic thing to say that ward boundaries are the problem. The resources are the problem, and they need to be increased quickly. If that prevents further serious injury and death, it will go at least some way to turning this juggernaut around—all the indications are that we are going in the wrong direction.
I will make a pact with Government Members if they concede that resources have been cut back too far. Local authorities have lost 50% of their funding, meaning that things that are often discretionary, such as youth centres and youth funding, have been cut by even more than that. Most of the youth clubs in my constituency have closed over time. When they were being closed, it was fashionable for some politicians to say, “How on earth does youth work—diversionary activity—decide whether people will go out with a piece of metal and stab someone?” Such comparisons are crass. The opposite argument is that if young people are given something useful to do, are made to feel they are worth while and are shown that there is investment in them, their neighbourhoods and their communities, they have a different outlook on life. Life does not become hopeless. It does not become just a wasting of time and getting into trouble. If Members on both sides will admit that we must reverse that absolute drain on resources in our local communities, I will not make a party political issue of it. I concede that I think everyone is of goodwill whatever their views on aspects such as sentencing, penal policy or investment. I believe that there is a will across political parties to get this right in response to the horrific things we have seen. Having that intention is a good start, but it is not where we need to go.
The second thing we need to do is engage some of the expertise and knowledge that is out there. Part of that is in our policing and our judiciary, and among our medics and the experts in the field, but part is in the community. I spent half an hour at surgery this morning with the mother of a young boy in my constituency. She had not come to ask me to do anything. In fact, the surgery was almost the other way around—I learned far more from her than she did from me.
We spent half an hour talking about exactly this problem. Her son had a very late diagnosis of special needs, and all the trouble he was having at primary school was put down to bad behaviour. He ended up being excluded from secondary school at an early stage and going into alternative provision, which, his mother said, was dreadful and dire. It was not just that he was not being properly educated and his needs were not being identified and no action taken; before he was a teenager even, he had been cast out—he was now excluded, no longer part of acceptable society.
The second thing that happened, of course, was that he was put with all the other naughty boys, and when naughty boys go around together, perhaps not doing terribly bad things to begin with, after a while one or two of them will get into trouble and get convictions for this, that or the other—a bit of criminal damage perhaps. My constituent’s son now has a conviction for carrying a knife. That comes about either from neglect, bureaucracy or lack of intervention by, or resources from, statutory bodies of all different kinds.
Where does that leave the parents? My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), who is no longer in the room—she tragically had a death in her constituency over the weekend—said to me, “Where is the support for parents of victims but also for parents who have tried to do their best to keep their children out of trouble and who worry every night about where their sons or daughters are?”
Mrs Hodgson
On my hon. Friend’s powerful point about who people come into contact with when they are first getting into trouble, if there was an automatic 10-year sentence on first arrest for carrying a knife, a young person who had not been in trouble at all could find him or herself not just in a young offenders institution but among the prison population, with some very, very bad people who had done much worse things. Turning someone who is carrying a knife because they are scared into a hardened criminal eventually could be an unintended consequence of what we hope to achieve with sentencing.
Andy Slaughter
My hon. Friend shows a lot of compassion and understanding.
I do not advocate a soft approach; on the contrary, we need rigour in the system, but not the knee-jerk reaction that we will suddenly cure this by sentencing. How often have we heard that in relation to every possible offence? Is that not what has driven the prison population to double, and the conditions in prisons and the assistance for those leaving to be so dire in this country that this is an international embarrassment?
I do not want to say much more. I believe not just that we are well-intentioned but that we are resolved to tackle the issue. The expertise is there, and part of that is listening to our communities.
I am almost dreading the summit next week, because I fear it will be a talking shop, a couple of press releases and not much more to get the Government through another week or two. I hope the Minister will tell us that that is not the case. I also hope that we will hear from him before 7 o’clock—I apologise, Mr Davies, that I will not be here after that. If I miss the end of his speech, I will read it diligently, as I always do. I know that it will be worth reading because he shares that view.
I respect what the people who drafted, motivated and signed this petition are trying to achieve, because they are expressing the same frustration as the mother who came to see me today: that Members are standing around, looking powerless—they might think we are uninterested, but we are not—and are not solving problems that are solvable. Those problems are getting worse and worse: they are now affecting not just individuals, but whole communities. This is a national emergency, and we need to act.
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
I invite my successor, Sarah Jones, to make a contribution.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Davies, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) on having secured a really good cross-party debate, in which we are agreeing on a lot of issues. I wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) had been my teacher; I had not realised that he was a teacher for 20 years, and I feel that I would have listened a lot more in school if he had been teaching me.
It is right for us to pay tribute to the family of Jodie Chesney, who Members have spoken about being from their area. I also want us to think about the people who have died in my constituency: Kelva Smith, Andre Aderemi and Jermaine Goupall, three people who lost their lives recently through knife crime. I am not going to talk about the need for funding, because we have established that, and I think we all agree on it. I will just say that there is a need to fund not just youth work and education, but housing. I currently have a mother and her eight-year-old daughter in my office who have been refused housing by everybody, and are completely destitute; we are desperately trying to get them somewhere to sleep tonight. Those wider issues massively impact on the life chances of our children, and we must never forget about them.
I will focus on sentencing, which is what we are debating. This issue is too important for us to not look at the facts about what impact sentencing has. We know that knife crime is at epidemic levels, with over 100 knife offences a day. Fatalities are at the highest level on record, with 285 people dead last year, and knife crime has gone up across virtually every area and police force in the country. Young people are disproportionately affected: 39 young people were killed last year, the highest level for 10 years, and according to NHS figures, there has been more than a 50% increase in stabbings of teenagers. More than 1,000 teenagers were admitted to hospital with stab wounds last year, and we know that many others do not go to A&E because they are scared of what might happen.
People are rightly concerned about this national crisis, but my view is that dramatically increasing sentences for knife offences is not the answer. We cannot enforce our way out of this problem by increasing sentences. We already have a tough regime for knife offenders, which has been getting tougher over the past decade. As I have said, we lock more people up than any EU country, and 400 children are in prison serving life sentences or sentences over 14 years. The proportion of people being sent to prison for knife offences has almost doubled: in 2010, about 40% of people caught with a knife were given a custodial sentence, but today, the proportion of knife possession offences receiving a custodial sentence is closer to 70%. Last year, more than a third of knife offenders received an immediate jail sentence, and in 2015, the Government introduced their two-strikes policy, which I mentioned earlier. That policy means that anyone over 18 who is caught twice gets a minimum six-month jail term. Despite those changes, knife offences have risen from 25,000 to over 40,000 since 2013. Contrary to what might seem to be the case, the evidence shows that tougher sentences do not deter people from committing crime.
Four main factors go into sentencing decisions: punishment, deterrence, public protection and rehabilitation. We are debating all those factors today. To begin with punishment, people who commit knife offences—particularly attacks on other people—absolutely need to receive strict punishments, but those are already available under the law. The types of punishment we are debating are not proportionate or appropriate for the vast majority of knife crime, particularly as those involved are disproportionately young people. The majority of children carrying knives are extremely vulnerable, and it is increasingly evident that many are being criminally exploited, groomed and coerced. Punishing them with punitive sentences risks turning this generation of young people into a generation in prison.
Mrs Hodgson
Will my hon. Friend give some details about why some of those young people are carrying knives—details that she will have picked up through all her work in this area? I know there has been lots of coverage of that point in some of our news media, and fear seems to be the main reason, but I wonder whether my hon. Friend could give some more details.
Sarah Jones
I could, and I could speak for far too long about that issue. It is not possible to say “all young people carry knives for this reason”: everybody has a different story to tell. In many of the tales shared by the young people who I have met, vulnerability is given as a reason, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right that fear is another. We know that knife crime is contagious. It acts like a disease; it spreads. As I have seen in Croydon, if some people in a school are known to be carrying knives, others will start to carry knives. That results in situations in which people are not in gangs and are not dealing drugs, but are carrying knives because they feel that they need to, so when there is a fight, instead of using their fists, they use a knife. There is a raft of issues involved; we have already talked about involvement in drugs and gangs, as well as violence in the home and in the family during a child’s early years. All kinds of things lead to people carrying knives, but fear is definitely a big one.
Turning to deterrence, a large body of research on knife crime over the past few years shows that simply setting longer sentences does not deter crime, as the Minister knows very well; I am sure he will talk about that. Research consistently shows that, if anything, it is the certainty of being caught that acts as a deterrent, not how severe the sentence is. A recent evidence review concluded that lengthy prison sentences and mandatory minimum sentencing cannot be justified on the grounds of deterrence. For sentences to be a factor in deterring crime, people need to know what the punishment for the crime is and then make a rational choice about whether to offend. However, awareness of sentencing is very low, and many people involved in knife crime—particularly young people—do not act rationally. People who have been in and out of prison for carrying knives have attended meetings of the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime, and they say that prison is not a deterrent at all: it is a break from the streets, somewhere they can be safe for a while before they have to go back.
Public protection is very important; we must of course keep the public safe by making sure that dangerous people are not on our streets. Home Office research found that a 15% increase in the use of custody would be required to produce just a 1% decrease in crime, and as we have talked about, our prisons are already overflowing. Surely it would be better for the Government to build on their recent £100 million boost to police funding and set a strong new basis for police funding in the autumn statement, in order to deter people through policing on the streets, rather than funding a huge increase in custodial sentences that would lead to a very small decrease in crime.
When it comes to rehabilitation, we know that dealing with children and young people outside the formal justice system is more effective at reducing offending than punitive responses. Involving a young person in custody makes them more likely to commit crime in the future. Young people who spoke to us at meetings of the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime talked about prison as a training camp, as the things that their colleagues could teach them were likely to increase crime, rather than reduce it. As the Minister also knows, conditions in prisons do not lend themselves to positive rehabilitation. Young people can be locked in their cells for 23 hours a day, and research has found that they face
“hunger, denial of fresh air, cramped and dirty cells, strip-searching, segregation, the authorised infliction of severe pain, uncivilised conditions for suicidal children”
and bullying and intimidation.
Mrs Hodgson
I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend’s excellent speech, but I would have thought that part of the problem with rehabilitation is the recidivism of repeat offenders. Does she have an opinion about the part played by our now poorly functioning privatised probation service, through which offenders are probably not being rehabilitated as well as they should be?
Sarah Jones
I absolutely agree. There is a cycle. Surgeons in King’s College Hospital say that they are seeing the same children coming back again and again. The prison system says that the same children are going back time and again. There is the same cycle of going into prison, coming out of prison, committing a crime and getting stabbed. That is awful, and we need to break that cycle and get children and young people away from the situation they are in.
In terms of the four factors considered in sentencing, the evidence is just not there for harsher sentencing in this area. I will not talk about the public health approach and what we should be doing on prevention, but I want to highlight some work done in my borough of Croydon that paints the picture of where we need to go with our young people. Croydon completed what I think is a landmark report investigating the cases of 60 vulnerable adolescents. Those 60 children had all been involved in serious cases of violence or exploitation. Five had lost their lives. Three had been convicted of murder. One third of the boys had been victims of knife crime and three quarters were involved with gangs. More than half the girls in the cohort had been victims of sexual exploitation.
Of the 60 people who had been deeply involved in violence, half were known to children’s social services before the age of five. We knew who these children were from the very beginning. In all the cases, there were many interventions by the state, but they did not work. The state was involved in crisis management—when something happened, there was an intervention, but the state did not do the right thing to help those children.
Half those 60 children had witnessed or experienced domestic violence. We know that violence breeds violence. It is learned behaviour. If children see it in the home, they do it later on in life. Three quarters of the children had a parental absence on the father’s side, and a quarter had an absence on the mother’s side. There were many parental issues around drug or alcohol misuse and mental health funding. A third of the children had already been excluded by the time they left primary school, and every single child who was later convicted of a crime had been excluded from school.
I will not talk more about what that says, other than to say that they are vulnerable children growing up in difficult situations. That does not excuse the crime at all, but in so many of the cases I have come across, who is the victim and who is the perpetrator is the luck of the fight. It is not right to categorise some children as the evil ones perpetrating the crimes and some as the victims, because there is often crossover. In some cases, people are being harmed when they have absolutely nothing to do with anything, but in other cases, they are all in a difficult situation because they are all vulnerable. I would argue that putting them in prison for longer is not the answer. In Scotland, they are putting far fewer young people in prison and focusing on the ones who are there. In the youth offending prison, they are giving them lots of training, teaching them to read and write and giving them education and skills, and that has to be the right approach for the long term.
This is a national crisis. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling put it correctly when he said that the Government need to come together to tackle the issue. In terms of this debate, sentencing is not the answer; many other things are.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. It is a real delight to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), who has done so much detailed work in this area. I put on record the work of the Youth Violence Commission, which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) has been working on during this Parliament. I also put on record how much I appreciate the passion with which my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) spoke about his personal experience. I remember attending his conference speech in 1999 in Bournemouth when he was Policing Minister. He had people along to talk about young people and positive involvement with the police. He has a wealth of experience in the area, and it is pleasing to hear that he has not lost that passion for young people and social justice.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) for introducing this debate, in which we have had many interesting speeches from both Opposition and Government Members. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for her interventions and her expert knowledge, particularly about young children, nutrition and all the elements that go to make up positive primary schools, which we hear make such a difference for people’s long-term outcomes and whether they are caught up in the criminal justice system.
The debate is about sentencing, but I want to talk about enforcement and prevention, just to set the scene. There can be no more difficult thing for a Member of Parliament than to meet the grieving family of a youngster lost to knife crime. On 22 February this year, Kamali Gabbidon-Lynck was stabbed multiple times and lost his life. That was a real tragedy. I have been very involved, going to the gold groups with the police and working with the council and the Wood Green business improvement district to talk about our high street and how we can use its physical surrounds to improve our environment.
At its heart, this is a tragedy not only for the young man’s family—his mother is grieving and his son has lost a father—but for all the youngsters who knew him and loved him. The hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) has met relatives, too, and brings it home to us just how many more people are affected now compared with perhaps 10 years ago. Those of us who have been involved with public policy for 10 or 15 years remember when it was perhaps one terrible thing over a three or four-year period. Now, it seems far too regular. The number of people now facing the impacts of knife crime make this the national emergency we all agree it to be.
In the terrible case of Kamali Gabbidon-Lynck, he passed away from loss of blood, in a hair salon. There were a number of children having their hair cut or whose parents were having their hair cut, and they witnessed this dreadful loss of life and heard the young man’s last words. Those people just getting their hair cut—an eight-year-old, a four-year-old, a mother with a tiny baby—will never forget that. That points to this feeling that it has become the wild west, and we need to bear in mind the number of people now affected.
Our victim support works according to a rigid model. Those people were considered to be witnesses to a crime, but in actual fact they were victims of that crime, too, because they suffered trauma and stress. It took an intervention by me at a roundtable at my advice surgery to gain expert counselling support for those families. If I had not intervened, I do not believe they would be receiving the expertise and counselling that they need. Our victim support needs to be much more holistic in its approach and to look at who is affected by knife crime.
We have been through the statistics on the lack of police. As other Members have said, because we are in a national emergency, we need to look at the enforcement side and talk about sentencing, police numbers and the lack of police in our schools. In London schools, we always used to have a full-time police officer in the school who the children knew. That developed a great relationship of trust. Those officers are now spread much more thinly, and often it is not the same police officer in the same school all the time. We need to put that right. For what it is worth, my view on funding is that if we can spend £800 million a week on Brexit, we can spend more on the safety of our families and young people.
I want to briefly talk about the work being done throughout the rest of the criminal justice system. Like many Members who have spoken today, I believe the legislation is probably right. Given their expertise in this area, I trust their views. As it is the Prisons Minister who is with us, will he say what he thinks constitutes a positive prison experience? I am one of the Members involved in the MPs scheme to visit prisons. I look forward to my first visit to HMP and YOI Isis next Friday. What does the Minister feel is the key to a positive prison experience? Some people say a short experience in prison is worse than a longer one, because some of the excellent prison officers working in our prison system have a really positive impact on many of our young people, particularly in our youth offender institutions. I am interested in hearing the Minister’s views on that.
To expand on the view put by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central, we know that literacy rates in our prison system are low. What is being done during sentences to push up the rates? Are there proper college courses? What are we doing so that when young people come out of prison they are ready to go into jobs and employment?
I cannot mention prisons without mentioning the use of drugs and how they have a negative effect on the staff inside prisons. Drug use can lead to attacks on staff, and staff themselves can become high as a result of Spice and other drugs being used in the prison system. The hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) mentioned that the Express has called for longer sentences. If longer sentences mean more low-quality experience with more drug use and attacks on staff, low morale and a lack of skills training, literacy or other meaningful, purposeful activities, I cannot support more and more and longer and longer sentences if they do not address the problem.
The National Audit Office has commented on the privatised service; it is poor value for money and is not leading to the outcomes that we want to see. We have very high rates of recidivism, as my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West mentioned earlier, and, unfortunately, a revolving-door system. I want to make a brief point about the prevention strategy. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central mentioned social services’ involvement with young people, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and I work closely in the London Borough of Haringey. We met the Home Secretary several months ago and he promised to look at the resources and the interconnection between the numbers of police, the probation service and the prison experience, yet we still have a crisis on our hands. It is an absolute tragedy that we are not able to get a grip on the situation.
There is the bigger picture on funding when it comes to what local authorities can do. However, specifically on the point that has been made about even primary school children beginning a journey into a life of crime at the end of primary and the beginning of secondary school, I have sought a meeting with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to discuss Haringey. Incidentally, Haringey has the highest level of police resource of any London borough because of our problems. I want to ask him for a special fund for a buddying and mentoring scheme for the families described by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central. Rather than a social services punitive approach, we need a friendly approach so that when the first letters come home from school saying that the youngster is not coping, the buddying and mentoring scheme can help the family and perhaps help with other siblings or whatever it is that stops that youngster thriving in school. We need to keep young people in school for as long as possible. We know that many of the prison population have been expelled or excluded from school from an early age.
Although it is tempting to jump on the bandwagon of longer sentences, I think the Minister has realised that what is important is the quality of rehabilitation in prisons and that we have to look much more closely at resources in schools and early intervention. We need also to look at what local strategies there are. A lot of good practice is carried out in Glasgow, which is certainly worth considering for other local authority areas. I want to emphasise that with Brexit costing £800 million a week, there must be more that we can spend on such a crucial situation.
I want to re-emphasise how pleased I am to see Members of all parties joining together to look at the problem as a national emergency. There is excellent police work in parts, but we must improve and increase that and bring together the passion that some Members have for this crucial area. We must not lose hope because that would be giving in. We must redouble our efforts to concentrate on the crucial question of young people and knife violence.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank the petitioners and the Petitions Committee for bringing this urgent issue to our attention. I also thank the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) for his very able and comprehensive introduction to the subject, and I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful and thought-provoking speeches. As others have done, I want to start by reflecting on the horror and the personal tragedy that each instance of knife crime represents. Our thoughts and our hearts go out to all who have been impacted, including whole communities such as Havering, Dudley, Hammersmith, Croydon, Wood Green and many others across the country.
The petition—like the debates that we might have tomorrow on the Offensive Weapons Bill—asks where the balance should lie between different policy responses to knife crime. The petitioners have placed their focus on sentencing, and that is entirely understandable, particularly for those who have experienced or been affected by knife crime. Of course, there must be proper and appropriate punishment of offenders. In Scotland, sentencing has been a small part of the response, as the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) mentioned earlier. Maximum sentences for possession have been increased to five years, and the average length of custodial sentences for knife possession and offences has increased, too, albeit without the introduction of mandatory prison sentences, about which I share the scepticism of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter).
The key point is that sentencing policy in Scotland is broadly in the same ballpark as that in England and Wales. I do not agree that the upsurge in knife crime in too many areas of England and Wales is down to a lack of appropriate sanctions. There is no evidence for that. As the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) said, there is little or no evidence that increasing the length of sentences will have any significant deterrent effect.
I share the views of the hon. Member for Hammersmith. We tend to put far too much faith in sentencing and harsh sentences to fix all of society’s ills, whereas prison often causes more problems than it solves. Short sentences in particular often operate almost as a training camp, as the hon. Member for Croydon Central said. The focus should be on other policy areas, many of which were touched on during the debate and which I will refer to briefly now.
Policing numbers are also relevant, despite the Prime Minister’s protestations. Hon. Members have been almost unanimous about that today, and senior officers have said the same thing. Although I am always reluctant to compare apples and oranges—it can be a crude way to do things—I was struck when I read the other day that in September 2018 there were roughly 32 officers per 10,000 of the population in Scotland, compared with around 21 officers per 10,000 in England and Wales. That is a hugely significant difference. There might be other explanations for it, but if I were an MP in England and Wales, I would ask questions about how that gap had arisen. Members referred to the need for local policing or hotspot policing. That is necessary and we need to see resources invested in it.
I turn to austerity and resources more generally. Last week, witnesses before the Home Affairs Committee were clear that austerity and cuts to services were having a significant impact. The witnesses said that safe spaces, youth clubs and council-funded sports facilities and teams have faced the brunt of the cuts. Those are places where young people find diversion and meet role models, and the cuts undoubtedly have an impact. Services such as social work, employability and mental health are all buckling under the strain, and all those services count in the battle to stem the tide of knife crime.
Some hon. Members referred to stop and search. I agree that that can play a role, but it is far from an answer in itself, and it must be used extremely carefully and in a way that does not risk undermining trust in the role of police. It must be done on the basis of reasonable suspicion. “Intelligence led” and “proportionate” were the words that the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) wisely used.
Tomorrow, or soon, we will debate knife crime prevention orders. We heard some differing views on that subject today. We do not have them in Scotland, and based on what I have heard so far I severely doubt that I would like them to be introduced. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Croydon Central for all the work that she does with the all-party group on knife crime, and for the event that she organised this lunchtime at which we heard from a range of actors about why knife crime prevention orders appear to be filling a gap that does not really exist and that lacks an evidence base. Instead, they risk seriously counterproductive unintended consequences.
Putting that aside, more generally I welcome most of the provisions in the Offensive Weapons Bill. However, it is a small piece of a much bigger picture, and the area where we can make a significant long-term difference is away from purely criminal justice measures. That is where Scotland has already seen some success, if only because we experienced horrendous levels of violence not so long ago that required an urgent response. It is important to remember just how bad the position was. As recently as 2005, the UN talked of Scotland as among the most violent countries in the developed world, and the World Health Organisation referred to Glasgow as one of the murder capitals of the world. Although we still have a long way to go, the evidence points to significant success in reducing violence, as the hon. Member for Romford pointed out.
Recorded violent crime in Scotland came down by 49% over the decade to 2016-17. The homicide rate halved over the decade from 2008 to 2018. Offending by young people has halved since 2008, and various other dramatic statistics show that a long-term public health approach can make a difference. Although other policies have undoubtedly played a part, including those related to sentencing, I think we all know that that public health approach has been responsible for turning the tide.
Such an approach is about addressing the underlying risk factors that increase the likelihood that people will become a victim or a perpetrator of violence. It means an evidence-based, whole-of-Government approach that seeks to tackle the causes of violence, rather than just the symptoms. It is about prevention and early intervention, rather than action after tragic events.
Members know about the work of the violence reduction unit, together with organisations and campaigns such as No Knives, Better Lives and Mentors in Violence Prevention. On the ground, it is about seeking opportunities to divert from prosecution, community alternatives to secure care and custody, and improving reintegration back into the community. That means improving life chances, promoting school inclusions, strengthening relationships and engagement, building life skills, improving health and wellbeing, and trying to improve employability.
None of that is new, much of it is common sense, and all of it has been learned from other cities such as New York and Chicago, and tweaked and honed to work in Glasgow and other parts of Scotland. I hope that the same thing can work over the longer term in parts of England. It is about not directly copying what has gone on elsewhere, but learning what works and what can work, and tailoring it to local circumstances. I welcome, for example, the fact that Mayor Khan has established a violence reduction unit in London.
The UK Government have published their serious violence strategy, which includes a move towards a public health approach. Whether that is a modest change of emphasis or a full-scale rethink, only time will tell; however, to save lives there should be a genuine and cross-Government commitment to pursue that approach, making available the funds that are needed.
I support what the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) said when he raised what seems almost to be a lack of urgency in the response to this national crisis—or epidemic, as hon. Members have described it. The problem has been getting worse for the best part of two years, but until now the response has largely been local and operational, rather than strategic and at a national level. If not through Cobra, there has to be another type of serious, cross-Government co-ordination. This matter needs national direction, and it needs it urgently.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I too thank the petitioners and the Petitions Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) for opening the debate and making very important points, along with the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who rightly set a measured tone across the Floor. Some broader political points need ironing out, but today may not be the day for that. I will refer to them briefly, but in the light of what the hon. Gentleman said I have altered huge parts of my speech—I thought he made a good point about that.
I join many of my hon. Friends in remembering all the tragic victims of knife crime—those who have been mentioned, and those who have not.
Mrs Hodgson
It would be remiss of me not to mention two young people from Sunderland who were also victims. In the north-east, we do not have an epidemic of knife crime. There is a regional element to it, but none the less 31-year-old father Gavin Moon from my constituency was a victim, as was 18-year-old Connor Brown, from the neighbouring constituency of Sunderland Central. As my hon. Friend was talking about victims, I thought I should mention those two.
This has been an excellent debate. I did not intend to stay for long, but it has been so good I have stayed for the wind-ups.
Imran Hussain
I join my hon. Friend in remembering the victims she refers to, and all other victims. Our thoughts and hearts go out to the grieving families. These are tragedies beyond words.
We have heard moving accounts from hon. Members from their constituencies—from communities coming together to deal with the issues to the broader impact and trauma, which is sometimes not acknowledged, on society as a whole and on communities. All those things happen in the aftermath, and are sometimes not given as much thought as they should be. I thank all hon. Members for their valuable contributions.
The rise in knife crime and the number of young people who have been killed should keep us all awake at night. This is deeply complex. Although we support robust sentencing, the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), made pertinent and persuasive points. I do not wish to repeat them, but I believe that she set the tone regarding the broader impacts by giving some hard facts. In particular, she referred to the record numbers of offenders sentenced for knife crime, with more people being given an immediate custodial sentence. She rightly pointed out that we must realise that we cannot achieve lower levels of crime through sentencing alone. We need an approach that is rooted in effectiveness. Only then can we begin to stop the rise in violent crime.
In taking such an approach, we need to understand what is driving knife crime. Although, as we have seen today, there is little consensus on what has been the trigger for the marked increase in knife crime, the drivers and issues that have created the conditions in which this epidemic has been able to grow are difficult to dispute. The clearest is that, with such a dramatic rise in knife crime, young people are now more scared of becoming victims than ever. They have seen friends wounded or killed and fear that the same will happen to them. They even feel ignored by authorities when they raise that fear, particularly since those who are most likely to be victims live in high-crime neighbourhoods where police are sometimes seen as unable to protect them. That is compounded by a rise in violence and a fall in the proportion of crimes for which an offender is identified.
We cannot get away from the fact that police numbers have been slashed: there are 20,000 fewer police officers than there were in 2010, and police community support officers, who are so vital to building relations, have also been lost. At the same time, there are serious issues in our schools: as schools face significant funding pressures, interventions for vulnerable children are being cut and there has been a marked increase in exclusions and illegal off-rolling. We know that vulnerable children are more likely to be off-rolled or excluded, and the Children’s Commissioner has reported that those who are excluded are 200 times more likely to be involved in gangs, which demonstrates that we simply cannot ignore the correlation between the rise in exclusions and the rise in knife crime.
There have also been huge reductions in the services available for young people. Again, I am not making a political point out of this but just giving the hard facts. Some 3,500 youth service jobs have been lost and 600 centres have closed, with 130,000 places lost. There have been sweeping cuts to education, and teachers and vital early intervention services have been lost as councils face unprecedented funding cuts. Youth offending team budgets have been cut in half, curbing interventions and degrading services that help to prevent young people from becoming victims and offenders in the first place. All those services assist people who are already disaffected and vulnerable. It is no coincidence that victims and offenders are from areas of huge social disadvantage.
We cannot address the drivers of offending with more sentencing alone. We can address them only with an interdepartmental approach, because sentencing is a downstream solution that is applied when it is already too late. We need an upstream solution that identifies the root causes of crime, brings together organisations across central Government, local government, the police and the community sector, and is built on the well-documented public health approach that many hon. Members have referred to, which involves collecting data, identifying the factors at play, implementing solutions and rolling out the ones that work.
More broadly, solving the issue requires the stimulation of housing, employment opportunities and community facilities, as the Association of Directors of Children’s Services suggests. It also requires investment in young people, who are overwhelmingly the most affected, and a cross-departmental approach like that of Police Scotland’s violence reduction unit in Scotland, with close co-operation among partners in the NHS, education and social work. That will help to give young people the future they deserve and lift them out of the dire situations in which they find themselves, which all too often lead them to fall into a life of crime.
Such an approach is far from being soft on crime but, as the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) says, it gets results. The considerable success of the approach taken in Scotland, with homicide rates halving between 2004-05 and 2016-17, has led the Youth Violence Commission, the Select Committee on Home Affairs and the head of Scotland Yard to call for it to be implemented in England. Even the Home Secretary has said that we need to treat knife crime “like a disease”. Unfortunately, he has offered to tackle the symptoms—stabbings and possessions—but not the causes.
We need to do more. We need to shift the focus of our model away from purely specific interventions for high-risk individuals and cast the net wider, to focus on low and medium-risk offenders, from whom most of the cases arise, and avoid a prevention paradox. We need joint ownership to be taken of the problems that lead to knife crime, because responsibility does not lie just with police—we have to be clear about that. Ultimately, we need to adopt an approach that recognises violence as preventable, not inevitable. We need a meaningful public health approach that can address knife crime and its causes.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) for introducing the debate and to the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for the compassion and empathy of his speech. In a debate that has lasted for two and a half hours now, I cannot help but reflect on how committed all hon. Members are to the issue. As a Justice Minister, I have learned an enormous amount, from many different angles. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for the extraordinary passion with which he spoke about victims in his area, and to the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), who is a real firecracker—he made a great speech with huge energy and passion, and I am sure that the issues can only ever be gripped in the way that he described.
I have picked up the sense of frustration around this Chamber. The situation is very disturbing and has been getting steadily worse, so I completely understand why people feel infuriated and frustrated and want more action more quickly. I can reassure hon. Members on one particular question by confirming that the Prime Minister will hold the summit at Chequers next week. In her defence, there is a reason that in the past two weeks she has found it difficult to organise a meeting there: Brexit has not stopped everything else happening in the Government, but it has stopped many of the things that might otherwise be in her diary.
To get a grip on the situation, we have set up an inter-ministerial group on serious violence, which meets regularly and is chaired by the Home Secretary. I am a member of that group and we are making a lot of rapid progress; as the hon. Member for Gedling implied, such a Cobra-style approach is vital to bringing everybody together. In thinking about the problem, we need to be realistic and, above all, practical. The Government’s serious violence strategy contains any number of ideas—probably 200 or 300, all of which are good and all of which make a difference.
Sarah Jones
Interestingly, knife crime prevention orders are not part of that strategy. A lot of the organisations that I have spoken to suspect that the orders were partly a knee-jerk response to show that the Government were acting, and that they were never part of the strategy that the Minister is talking about, which is comprehensive in its diagnosis—if not in setting out a solution.
Rory Stewart
I will come back to knife crime prevention orders. The interesting thing about this debate is that although we all share a horror of knife crime, not everybody in this Chamber agrees on the particulars, such as knife crime prevention orders, sentence lengths or whether courts should have discretion. In a sense, the debate in this Chamber is a reflection of the debate among the public.
The core question is which of the dozens of suggestions in the serious violence strategy will make most difference as quickly as possible and be most effective. There may be many individual initiatives that are fantastic at a community level, but others may be even better, and those are the ones that we need to focus on. I want to focus on four areas in particular. The first is sentencing—this is a debate on sentencing, and I am here as a representative of the Ministry of Justice to talk about sentencing. It is true to say that following on from the 2015 two-strike rule, more people are now going to jail for knife possession offences, and they are going there for longer. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) raised the question whether we have got that balance right, and it is a difficult balance.
The hon. Member for Gedling, a very experienced ex-Policing Minister, asked exactly how these exceptions are defined. They are defined quite closely. Some 82% of people found in a double possession will find their way towards a sentence. Who are the 18% who are not getting sentences? The guidelines stipulate very clearly what the mitigating factors are and lay them out. In extreme cases, it could be somebody with learning difficulties, mental health problems or a serious medical problem, or it could be somebody who has co-operated with the police—all these things are mitigating factors that might lead to someone not receiving such a sentence.
Vernon Coaker
The Minister talks about 82% of people being given a sentence by the court. Does he mean suspended sentences as well as custodial sentences?
Rory Stewart
I am including suspended sentences as well as immediate custodial sentences. In the case of a suspended sentence, if somebody breaks their licence conditions, they will be recalled to court for the remainder of their custodial sentence.
Ian Austin
What proportion of the 82% get suspended sentences, and what proportion receive immediate custodial sentences?
Rory Stewart
Out of that 82%, approximately 22% of the cohort do not receive a full custodial sentence. All that goes to the core of what the mitigating and aggravating factors in the judge’s hands are. As the hon. Member for Gedling pointed out, this is absolutely standard in any legislation that we bring forward—we leave some discretion for the judges.
One of the questions at the core of this issue has been raised again and again by the hon. Members for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) and for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova): deterrence. In order to be practical, we need to focus on the fact that the main thing that the evidence suggests makes a difference to somebody who is considering committing a crime is their chance of being caught. Their receiving a six-month, nine-month or 12-month sentence, or even a five-year sentence, is much less likely to motivate their behaviour than the chance of being caught. In burglary, for example, it is almost certainly the very low rate of conviction, rather than the length of sentence, which has made the difference. If someone feels that they have a 3% chance of being caught, it does not really matter how long the sentence is, which is why most of our focus is now going into putting another £100 million behind the police to focus on knife crime, rather than on increasing this form of sentence length.
There is another reason that we have to be cautious in response to the suggestions for a 25-year sentence for using a knife and a 10-year sentence for possessing a knife: any sentencing needs to balance with other forms of sentencing, otherwise victims and their families will feel that justice has not been done. What do I mean by that? If someone gets a 25-year sentence for using a knife in any way—cutting somebody with a knife—while the minimum custodial sentence for murder is 15 years, it would be very understandable that a family would look at somebody getting 15 years for murder and wonder why somebody else was getting 25 years for using a knife. The same would be true if someone got 25 years for using a knife and another person got 25 years for killing somebody with a knife; the family would understandably ask, “How come this person is getting 25 years for using a knife to wound, when here is another person getting 25 years for committing murder with a knife?”
It is a fundamental principle of our law that we look at the consequence of the crime and the culpability of the criminal; we do not look at the weapon used. We do not determine whether somebody used a crossbow, a gun or a knife; we look at whether it was murder or grievous bodily harm. What form of offence was committed? That is really important, because if we start introducing offences based purely on the type of weapon that is used, we will end up with injustice being felt all the way through our legal system. That does not mean that we cannot look at sentencing, but this particular proposal does not make sense.
Let me address the proposed 10-year sentence for possessing a knife. Currently the minimum sentence for possessing a firearm is five years. The public would feel a deep injustice if someone were to get 10 years for a knife and another person got five years for a firearm—it simply does not make sense. In thinking about sentencing, we cannot think about just one type of offence; we have to think about the effect on the whole system.
I shall move on quickly, because I am aware that we have trespassed on your patience for a very long time, Mr Davies. I want to discuss early intervention and prevention, supporting communities, and effective law enforcement, which are the three central planks of any response to knife crime. On early intervention and prevention, the hon. Members for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and for Croydon Central made very eloquent interventions and speeches. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) for—given Scotland’s extraordinary success in this area—a very modest and charming speech. I thought it was a very intelligent speech, which demonstrated that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution and that we can learn from Scotland without replicating their approach. I pay tribute to what Scotland has done and the spirit with which the hon. Gentleman approached this debate.
Clearly we have to look at risk factors. The key risk factor in an individual involved in knife crime is the individual themselves. As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has pointed out, that could mean an acquired brain injury, or neglect, or abuse in the home. The second factor is the family context, which is central. In a recent study, 47% of people who had committed homicide had been in care—almost half of them. The third factor is the community context in which people operate. Living in a deprived neighbourhood makes someone much more likely to commit knife crime.
Another important factor is the school that someone attends. Serious risk factors include an individual being caught up in bullying at school or playing truant, and we need to do more to work with schools. Schools are quite good at picking up on children who are victims of domestic abuse, but are they good enough at identifying people who are being sucked into knife crime? Should we be working with Ofsted to try to assess schools on how good they are at identifying people who are being sucked into knife crime?
Someone’s peer group—the people with whom they spend their time—is the fifth biggest risk factor in determining whether they get sucked into knife crime. We can respond; this is not just touchy-feely nonsense. We can prove that a targeted approach, not a universal approach, is most effective. It is about being really smart with public money. The answer is not to lecture every child in the country on knife crime, but to ensure that we target those who are most at risk with the most serious support. The likelihood of a child going on to commit a violent offence can be reduced by 25% by bringing in a therapist with a case load of five or six children and ensuring that the therapist spends time with the family once a week. That one thing makes a huge difference. As we begin to build up these different things, we can begin to address some of the underlying causes of knife crime.
The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East spoke eloquently about supporting communities. We need a multi-agency public protection arrangement-style approach, which is something that, again, the hon. Member for Gedling referred to. We need to think about comms and how we get a proper media approach. We need to think about how that could be a digital media approach. How do we communicate to people the dangers of knife crime? We need to think about what we do with retailers who sell knives, which involves bringing in trading standards. If we are going to wrap up different bits of Government, we need trading standards to get under-18-year-olds to try to buy knives online. We need under-18-year-olds to go into shops—even small retailers—to try to buy knives and then report back to the retailer if somebody on the shop floor has sold a knife to someone who is under age.
We need to think about victim support, as the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) said. The answer to her specific question is that anybody who witnessed the attack is entitled to victim support. They do not need to be related to the victim. I am very pleased that she champions that issue.
Catherine West
Does the Minister agree that victim support is inconsistent? It is very good in some places but not so good in others. What measures are the Government putting in place to monitor where it is not good, and what are they doing about it?
Rory Stewart
The answer is that we have just published a victims strategy, and we are investing more in victim support—more than £90 million a year—as part of a broader spectrum of support. We now have £200 million going into a youth endowment fund, which is directly driven by the strategy and responds to the public health approach pioneered in Scotland. We have another £22 million going into an early intervention fund to respond to the stuff that we have been talking about in relation to schools and families.
That brings me to effective law enforcement, where my hon. Friend the Member for Romford is pushing us. He makes a very interesting point about the way in which community policing does or does not overlap with ward boundaries. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) also spoke in some detail about community policing. We need to balance that with very specific stuff on knife crime, which means ensuring that there are plain clothes officers in hot spot areas. Hot spot areas are central. In Peterborough, we discovered that taking a hot spot approach, getting the right data and finding where the problems are coming from reduced violence by 37% without displacing it to any other area, so hot spot policing is central.
Sarah Jones
The Minister is making a very thoughtful speech. Although we do not agree on everything, he is talking a lot of sense. A piece of work on that has just been done in Croydon. There are 10 areas in Croydon where most violence outside occurs. It is in the places we would expect, such as outside the supermarkets. He is absolutely right that targeting them with effective policing would be an incredibly sensible way to spend public money.
Rory Stewart
The answer to everyone in the Chamber who spoke about law enforcement is that community policing plays a part. There is a 10 am meeting of the violent crime taskforce every day in Lambeth, where it gets the intelligence from the previous 12 hours about where people have gathered and where the weapons are moving. It then targets its intervention for the day. It has its own team of uniformed officers who back up the plain clothes officers on the ground. They go in and do weapons sweeps and community weapons sweeps. They use section 1 orders to go after individuals and section 60 orders to go after geographical areas. They go after habitual knife carriers. They conduct searches with search warrants, based on drug suspicion in houses. By doing that, and through Operation Sceptre, through which we have 42 police forces across the country doing this at the same time for week-long periods, we are able to hoover up astonishing quantities of knives.
The community part is the real key to that, because it is the local community leader, the head of the local boxing club or somebody who wants to speak for the community who is out there doing the community sweep, finding the knives concealed in hedges and cars. That is far more effective than police officers just doing it on their own.
Julia Lopez
I am curious to know, in the light of those kinds of activities in boroughs such as Lambeth, whether the Minister has seen any displacement activity. Does he see people move into neighbouring boroughs, or does it have a real impact on knife crime over a much wider area?
Rory Stewart
Strangely, the experience is that there has not been displacement activity. We have looked at that very carefully, and it seems that, by targeting those areas, we grab it and do not push it on to neighbouring areas. There are different theories about that. One is that some of this is gang-related, and some gangs are geographically limited, so it is not likely to be displaced into other areas.
At the core of all this is crack cocaine and crack cocaine gangs, although the innocent victims have nothing to do with crack cocaine. Although drug use in general is coming down, crack cocaine use is going up. It went up 18% between 2016-17 and 2017-18. County lines, which are an incredibly important part of this, are also contributing. The same gangs are involved in both. That means that we have to get on top of mobile phones. We have had to bring in new ways of intercepting mobiles, which are central to the way that county lines gangs operate. We have set up a new National Crime Agency taskforce to focus on county lines, and we have had to be much smarter about data. In partial response to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), who made a very good speech about that, one of the things we are learning is that our data has not been good enough. For example, we have not been coding knife crimes properly. Setting up smart software that allows us to pick out as knife crime something that was simply registered as grievous bodily harm makes a huge difference to our ability to target hotspot areas.
All the stuff that I have been talking about so far is about preventing somebody from being dragged into these gangs from early childhood onward. Then it is about the violent crime taskforce moving into an area to make sure that if somebody picks up a knife, we get them as soon as possible, particularly on possession. Then—God forbid—if somebody is convicted or uses a knife, we move on to the question of what happens in the courts, prisons and probation. There, too, we have to look at all these other issues. We have to take on board the fact that the real protection for the public is ensuring that the person who has offended once does not reoffend.
Statistically, we are doing a bit better on knife crime than on other crimes. Generally, short-term offenders reoffend at a rate of nearly 60%. Knife crime offenders reoffend at about half that rate. Half that rate is still too high, so we need to address addiction issues, get them jobs and help them into accommodation.
Catherine West
I thank the Minister for giving way a second time. Does he agree that the current approach to drug rehabilitation services in prison is not robust enough? Not enough people have access to those crucial treatments and are cured of drug and alcohol issues.
Rory Stewart
Yes, that is absolutely right. We should do much, much more on addiction. Shoplifting is a big problem. We have a lot of shoplifting, and the majority of people get short sentences of less than six months. The highest single offence is shoplifting by a very large margin. Of those offenders, 76% are crack cocaine or heroin addicts. The real way of dealing with the problem is to deal with their crack cocaine or heroin addiction.
Vernon Coaker
The Minister has given a very thoughtful, measured and informed response, and people listening to it will say, “That’s great. How will the Government and Parliament make that happen?” As part of that, will he tell the House that he will go back, wake up the people who need waking up and introduce regular statements to Parliament, every single week at least, about what is happening, what progress is being made and what is or is not being done? It should be a regular statement to Parliament, not a response to an urgent question.
Rory Stewart
I have enormous admiration for the hon. Gentleman, and I would be very proud to have him as part of our team dealing with this. I am sure he would deal with it very well. I am not in the business of committing colleagues in the Home Office to making statements, but I assure him that we take this very seriously. I have not spoken enough to the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), but we are putting another £100 million into policing, particularly driven by violent crime and knife crime, in addition to our investment in the youth endowment fund.
Action is not just what happens in Parliament. It is not just about the inter-ministerial group that has been set up and the meeting that the Prime Minister is holding next week. It is about setting up the violent crime taskforce and that 10 am meeting every morning in Lambeth, and about ensuring the money and resources begin to flow in behind this. I believe that this will make a significant difference, but I absolutely agree to sit down with the hon. Member for Gedling. The only way of doing this or anything in Government is with urgency, grip, imagination and passion. Above all, it should be rooted in realism. I thank the hon. Member for Hartlepool very much indeed for this incredibly informative debate.
Mike Hill
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), and the hon. Members for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), for Dudley North (Ian Austin) and for Henley (John Howell) for contributing to this important debate. I also thank those who made important interventions—not least my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson)—and the Front-Bench representatives, who all made incredible contributions.
I am sure that many more people would have been in this Chamber were it not for the business in the main Chamber. The subject areas that we covered were important and diverse: deterrence, prevention ,and cause and effect, as well as the sentencing element of the petition. I could not end this debate without paying homage to one of our own: PC Keith Palmer, who was a victim of knife crime only a couple of yards outside this very building.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 233926 relating to knife crime.
Written Statements
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Convergence Programme
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)
Article 121 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU) requires the UK to send an annual convergence programme to the European Commission reporting upon its fiscal situation and policies. The United Kingdom will continue to apply the acquis so long as it remains a member state and, as set out in the withdrawal agreement, for the duration of the implementation period, if the withdrawal agreement is ratified by both the UK and EU.
The UK’s convergence programme will be sent to the European Commission by 30 April. This deadline was set in accordance with the European semester timetable for both convergence and national reform programmes.
Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 requires that the content of the convergence programme must be drawn from an assessment of the UK’s economic and budgetary position which has been presented to Parliament by the Government for its approval. This assessment is based on the autumn Budget 2018 report and the most recent Office for Budget Responsibility’s “Economic and Fiscal Outlook” and it is this content, not the convergence programme itself, which requires the approval of the House for the purposes of the Act.
Article 121, along with article 126 of the TFEU, is the legal basis for the stability and growth pact, which is the co-ordination mechanism for EU fiscal policies and requires member states to avoid excessive Government deficits. Although the UK participates in the stability and growth pact, by virtue of its protocol to the treaty opting out of the euro, it is only required to “endeavour to avoid” excessive deficits. Unlike the euro area member states, the UK is not subject to sanctions at any stage of the European semester process.
Subject to the progress of parliamentary business, debates will be held soon in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, in order for both Houses to approve this assessment before the convergence programme is sent to the Commission. I will deposit a copy of a document to inform these debates in the Libraries of both Houses and copies will be available through the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office in advance of the debates.
The UK’s convergence programme will be available electronically via HM Treasury’s website prior to it being sent to the European Commission.
[HCWS1444]
FCA: Retained Provisions of the Consumer Credit Act
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
In 2014, the Government fundamentally reformed the consumer credit market, by transferring regulation from the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). This more robust regulatory system is helping to deliver the Government’s vision for a well-functioning and sustainable consumer credit market which is able to meet consumers’ needs.
As part of the transfer, the FCA was required in regulation 20 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2014 to undertake a review of the “retained provisions” of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
In February 2016 the FCA published a Call for Input setting out its approach and seeking responses from stakeholders. In August 2018, the FCA published an interim report, which set out initial views and invited feedback. The FCA has now completed this review, and the Treasury has laid the final report before Parliament. Copies of the document are available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.
The Government welcome the FCA’s report, and the significant analysis undertaken by the FCA during the course of the review. The Government will consider the report and whether further reform of the consumer credit regulatory regime is needed.
[HCWS1442]
Asset Sales Disclosure Guidance
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)
The Treasury is today publishing new technical guidance concerning the disclosure to Parliament of Government asset sales.
The guidance is a further output of the Government’s balance sheet review and responds to issues raised in the Office for Budget responsibility’s 2017 fiscal risks report, as well as recommendations from the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee about improving transparency and accountability for major assets sales. The guidance fulfils the commitment to fiscal transparency and accountability made in the Treasury’s 2018 managing fiscal risks to require Departments to disclose the impact of major assets sales on their balance sheets and the public finances as a whole.
The disclosure will take the form of a written ministerial statement (WMS) made to Parliament following the sale of an asset. The WMS will include the rationale for the sale, a justification of its timing and format, whether the sale was above, within, or below the retention value range, and the impacts of the sale on public sector net borrowing (PSNB), public sector net debt (PSND), public sector net financial liabilities (PSNFL) and public sector net liabilities (PSNL—the accounting impact).
A copy of the guidance can be found at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/asset-sale-disclosures-guidance-for-government.
[HCWS1446]
EU Withdrawal Joint Committee: Oversight
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Kwasi Kwarteng)
In my response to an urgent question on Wednesday 20 March, I stated that during the implementation period, we will “technically be a member state [of the European Union]”, that “payments or penalties [for non-compliance with the withdrawal agreement] would be imposed only by mutual consent”, and that “the CJEU will have some role in interpreting EU law, but we will be outside its jurisdiction”.
The correct position is that, first, during the implementation period, the UK will no longer be a member state of the European Union, but market access will continue on current terms.
Secondly, my statement that the Joint Committee cannot unilaterally impose financial penalties was correct: all decisions of the Joint Committee are mutual and, under the withdrawal agreement, neither party is allowed to impose financial penalties on the other, whether through the Joint Committee or not. However, for clarity I wish to confirm that the independent arbitration panel set up under article 171—which was referred to by right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Owen Paterson)—can impose a financial penalty where a party has failed to comply with a ruling made against it.
This is not a unilateral imposition of a penalty by one party against the other, as it would be done by the arbitration panel, which is independent of both parties and made up of experts in both international and EU law, qualified for high judicial office. It could only occur under certain conditions as set out in the WA, and after all other stages of dispute resolution and crucially must be proportionate to the continuing breach that has been identified by the arbitration panel.
Thirdly, I also said that we would be “outside [the] jurisdiction [of the CJEU] ” after the end of the implementation period. While that is of course very largely the case, I should also remind the House that, in bringing the CJEU’s jurisdiction to an orderly end, there are a small number of limited areas where we have agreed we will continue to accept rulings for a time-limited period in order to facilitate legal certainty.
[HCWS1447]
Mental capacity )Amendment) Bill: EVEL and Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Caroline Dinenage)
I am today placing in the Library of the House the Department’s analysis on the application of Standing Order No. 83L in respect of the Government amendments tabled for Commons consideration of Lords amendments for the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill.
[HCWS1441]
Thames Estuary 2050 Growth Commission
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
At autumn Budget 2016, the Government asked the Thames Estuary 2050 Growth Commission to develop an ambitious vision and delivery plan for North Kent, South Essex and East London up to 2050. In June 2018, the commission, led originally by Lord Heseltine and concluded by Sir John Armitt, announced their vision for the estuary. I sincerely thank Sir John and all the members of the commission for their expertise and scrutiny across the duration of the commission.
Comparable in scale to the midlands engine, northern powerhouse and Oxford-Cambridge arc, the Thames estuary has the potential to deliver growth to support the success of the whole of the UK economy. The Commission envisioned that by 2050 the
Thames estuary will be a tapestry of productive places along a global river. The estuary will create 1.3 million new jobs and generate £190 billion additional gross value added.
The Thames estuary has long been a gateway to the wider UK economy but there remain pockets of entrenched deprivation within the region. And this area is not yet fully delivering on its great potential.
I welcome the vision for growth that the commission has set out. I am pleased to announce further commitments from this Government to support the delivery of the commission’s vision, including: £1 million to support a new Thames estuary growth board; appointing a Cabinet-level ministerial champion; £4.85 million to support local partners to develop low-cost proposals for enhancing transport services between Abbey Wood and Ebbsfleet, subject to suitable housing ambition; exploring the potential for at least two new locally-led development corporations; launching a strategic communications campaign to promote the Thames estuary as a great place to live, work and do business; funding for the creation of masterplans and feasibility studies on key sites in the Thames estuary creative production corridor; and bringing together relevant authorities to collaborate on the Thames estuary 2100 plan, to make sure that growth in the estuary is sustainable and resilient. My full response is available: www.gov.uk.
Our response to the Thames Estuary 2050 Growth Commission marks this Government’s commitment to this important area of the country. The Thames estuary has great potential to provide well-balanced, inclusive economic growth and will remain vital for the UK economy following Brexit.
[HCWS1445]
Rough Sleeping Initiative
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
I am today announcing the allocation of a further £46 million rough sleeping initiative funding to support those sleeping rough and those at risk of sleeping rough in 246 local authorities.
This funding provides continuity from the £30 million fund for 2018-19, which was aimed at an initial 83 local authorities with the highest levels of rough sleeping in 2017.
The 2018 annual rough sleeping statistics showed a decrease of 639 or 19% in numbers of rough sleepers across these areas. While the programme is still in its infancy, the figures continue to demonstrate that the rough sleeping initiative has had a significant impact on the number of people sleeping rough and is working. Therefore, we are providing a further £34 million to these 83 areas in 2019-20.
I want to go further, and so launched a bidding round in December 2018 for those areas not in the initial 83 and I am pleased to announce that I will be providing an additional £12 million to a further 163 local authorities in 2019-20. This will continue to build on the work we have done so far to make sure we continue to support more people off the streets and into safe and secure accommodation.
This funding will provide for over 750 new staff focused on rough sleeping. This will include more outreach workers to engage with people on the streets, specialist mental health and substance misuse workers and dedicated co-ordinators to drive efforts to reduce rough sleeping in their areas. It will also provide for over 2,650 new bed spaces including both emergency, temporary and settled accommodation. The breadth of this funding will provide coverage of 75% of local authorities across England.
The rough sleeping initiative team, made up of expert advisers with knowledge and experience in areas such as mental health, specialist housing, substance misuse and criminal justice will continue to work closely with local areas to implement the plans and to monitor their progress.
I have deposited a full list of the individual amounts allocated to the 246 local authorities in the House Library.
I am confident this package of support will achieve substantial results across England. It will also build upon the work we have already undertaken. This work includes publishing our cross-Government rough sleeping strategy which sets out an ambitious £100 million package to help people who sleep rough now and puts in place the structures that will end rough sleeping once and for all, piloting the housing first approach, which has an internationally proven evidence base for effectiveness, in Greater Manchester, Liverpool city region and the west midlands, allocating over £1.2 billion in order to prevent homelessness and rough sleeping, including more upfront funding so local authorities can proactively tackle homelessness pressures in their areas, and, additionally, the introduction of the Homelessness Reduction Act which means that more people now get the help they need and at an earlier stage so preventing homelessness from occurring in the first place.
[HCWS1443]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, I give the usual reminder: if there were to be a Division in the House, we should then adjourn for 10 minutes.
Heavy Duty Vehicles (Emissions and Fuel Consumption) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
That the Grand Committee do consider the Heavy Duty Vehicles (Emissions and Fuel Consumption) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
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 required if the UK leaves the European Union without a deal. The regulations correct deficiencies in EU regulation 2018/956, which concerns the monitoring and reporting of CO2 emissions from, and fuel consumption of, HDVs—heavy duty vehicles—such as trucks, buses and coaches.
Emissions from the UK HDV sector made up 16% of CO2 emissions from transport in 2016. At the European level, HDVs account for about a quarter of road transport emissions. To address this, the European Commission introduced three measures. The first was the introduction, through the certification regulations in December 2017, of a new computer based tool, VECTO, which came into effect from 1 January 2019. The second measure is monitoring and reporting regulations, which the statutory instrument we are debating today is based on. The final measure of the package is a legislative proposal to set CO2 emission standards for new HDVs, which was agreed by the Environment Council on 20 December 2018.
The monitoring and reporting EU regulation—the second measure—came into force on 29 July 2018. It requires member states and HDV manufacturers to monitor certain data relating to the CO2 emissions and fuel consumption of new HDVs registered in the EU from 1 January 2019. Manufacturers must report that data to the European Commission from 28 February 2020. The Commission will hold a database, verify data quality and compile and publish an annual report. There are provisions for administrative fines for HDV manufacturers if these data requirements are not met.
The publication of data collected under the regulation will increase the transparency of HDV CO2 emissions and fuel consumption and underpin the new emission reduction targets. It will provide transport operators access to information on the performance of HDVs of different makes with similar characteristics, allowing them to make better-informed purchasing decisions. It also enables vehicle manufacturers to compare their vehicles’ performance with their competitors, providing an increased incentive for innovation. Finally, publication allows the analysis of the data, for example to assess the penetration level of certain technologies and to support the proposed future CO2 emission reduction standards for HDVs.
The regulations that we are discussing today amend the EU regulation to ensure that it continues to function correctly after exit day. Through this SI, all relevant data calculated in line with the certification regulation will be monitored, reported and published. The data will be available to all stakeholders. The main policy content, including the purpose and objectives of the current EU regulation, remains unchanged by this SI. Provisions about the monitoring and reporting timetable, data to be monitored, HDVs in scope, fines and publication of data will also remain unchanged.
The focus of these amendments is on ensuring that the EU regulation will continue to apply to HDVs registered in the UK after exit day, and to transfer responsibilities from the Commission to the Secretary of State. For example, after EU exit manufacturers will need to report data for new HDVs registered in the UK to the Secretary of State and not to the Commission, and any fines would be levied in pounds rather than euros.
Given the minor changes proposed, a formal consultation has not carried out. However, the Government have made stakeholders aware of this instrument and their plan for its introduction into UK law.
Correcting the inoperabilities within the existing EU regulation will ensure that there continues to be a functioning legislative and regulatory regime which allows for the collection and monitoring of HDV emissions data in a no-deal scenario. As set out in the Government’s strategy The Road to Zero, we are committed to,
“a future approach as we leave the European Union that is at least as ambitious as the current arrangements for vehicle emissions regulation”.
This SI supports that commitment. I beg to move.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I presume that when Constantinople or Rome fell, there were still committees sitting somewhere in both cities looking at issues such as drainage and transport. The record should show that the House of Lords has felt it necessary to adjourn at this moment but the Committee looking at statutory instruments for exiting the European Union continues to sit. Of course, this instrument has been introduced by the Minister with her usual clarity and good sense.
We welcome the commitment by the Government to continue with the monitoring of CO2 from heavy goods vehicles. It is important to ensure that the UK is meeting its target in relation to emissions and air quality, and reporting is key to keeping us on track for reducing emissions and air pollution. However, we have to face the fact that, by leaving the European Union, we will lose its valuable oversight in ensuring that the Government comply with air quality legislation.
We have not been the greatest pathfinder in terms of environmental protection. I once worked for the water industry and, following European legislation, that industry was dragged kicking and screaming into what was probably the 19th century at the time, and I think that the same may be true of air quality. I am not sure that we will be as good at this on our own. We need to prioritise the reduction of emissions, given the thousands of deaths being caused every year and the serious impact they can have on health, particularly on that of children.
These regulations were initially conceived in tandem with targets for CO2 reduction that were suggested by the Commission and revised by the European Parliament. Will the targets set by the Government keep in tandem with any standards set by the EU Commission and Parliament?
We welcome the use of the ambitious CO2 reduction targets, but we must ensure that the industry is sufficiently supported to meet them. What are the Government doing to encourage the adoption of ZEV/LEV HDVs—I am pleased to note that, after I inquired earlier, the Minister knows what that means—be that through subsidies or improvements in the infrastructure? How will we help the industry to keep pace with developments of zero and low-emission HDVs? Do the Government envisage that the fines levied against those who fail to comply with the data gathering will be in line with those proposed by the EU, and will they keep pace with the fines to ensure compliance?
The instrument provides for further regulations to be made to set out the procedures by which manufacturers can notify the Secretary of State of errors in data. That will be key to ensuring that we have an effective and transparent system. When will those regulations be brought forward?
These regulations were brought forward by the European Union as part of a wide package of measures to ensure that Europe’s future mobility system is,
“safe, clean and efficient for all EU citizens”.
What impact could our exit from the EU have on our future plans to reduce harmful emissions?
Finally, the Minister mentioned that it was not thought necessary to go through a formal consultation process, but were environmental and health groups consulted in any way during the discussions? Some have made accusations of a lack of transparency while the regulations were considered.
Further, what continuing access will we have to EU-wide data collection and analysis in order to drive up standards and related matters? Are we not cutting ourselves off from the best practice data which helps to drive good standards?
As I say, we welcome the way in which the instrument has been presented and the work done, but it leaves these questions unanswered.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I make my standard statement that I wish I was not here and that we were not preparing for a no-deal scenario. I fear that such a scenario would be every bit as bad as predicted. I think we must all hope and pray that it does not happen.
Turning to the generality of what the statutory instrument does, I think it obviously makes sense within the general theme of developing controls on transport-related CO2 emissions. I have only three real areas of concern, and certainly none which would cause me to oppose the statutory instrument.
First, in paragraph 2.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum, sub-paragraph c) says among other things:
“Some data is commercially sensitive and exempt from publication”.
That seems to me to be completely opposite to the concept of the statutory instrument and the regulation that it modifies. Surely, its whole concept is that all data is available to everybody in the same format, so that even small firms with one or two vehicles would have no problem in comparing manufacturers when they consider purchasing one of these heavy duty vehicles. Having said that the data is commercially sensitive—and I cannot see why that statement is there at all—if it is commercially sensitive, that would require us to be kept in line with the commercially sensitive decisions that the EU made; otherwise, the usefulness of this data-collecting exercise would otherwise be rapidly eroded. Does the department have any plans to somehow consult the European Union on what areas of commercially sensitive data it is going to suppress? I hope that the answer will be none.
I was sufficiently curious about this SI to look at regulation 2018/956. I am amazed to find that its requirements are in fact for the collection of 78 pieces of data without air drag values—which I could not understand at all but which had their own separate table. One thing that struck me was that about a third of the regulation was made up of the preamble, which is 22 paragraphs and four pages long. I think that the Minister has already alluded to some things that it says:
“The Commission’s 2016 European Strategy for low-emission mobility sets the ambition that, by mid-century, greenhouse gas emissions from transport will need to be at least 60 % lower than in 1990, and be firmly on the path towards zero”.
Does this regulation coming into English law mean that we are accepting the Commission’s low-emissions strategy targets? Is it part of our law, or is that covered somewhere in the complexity of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act? After it comes into law, where would one find it? Would that be in the Kew records, as I call them?
Finally, how would the regulation be enforced? The statements in its preamble are really statements that the Government should have regard to in the future.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their consideration of these draft regulations. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, about the importance of addressing the issues around air quality, and of course emissions from transport vehicles are a key part of that. Our aim as a Government is to put the UK at the forefront of the design and manufacture of zero-emission vehicles, with all new cars and vans being effectively zero emission by 2040. We recently published our strategy The Road to Zero, which sets out a clear pathway to zero emissions and an end to the sale of new conventional petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2040, with the aim that by 2050 almost every car and van will be zero emission. The aim is that at least half of new cars will be ultra low emission by 2030.
In respect of HDVs, which we are discussing today, we want to see the development and deployment of zero-emission vehicles. For example, we have agreed an industry-wide voluntary commitment from the freight industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 15% by 2025, and we are working closely with the industry to develop an ultra low emissions standard for trucks and increasing the supply and sustainability of alternative low-carbon fuels. The SI we are considering today supports those aims by maintaining the current CO2 emission monitoring and reporting requirements and underpins the new regulation which is currently being finalised before being brought forward.
The noble Lord asked about fines. The fine levels will remain the same as those set out in the European regulation, albeit having been translated into pounds rather than euros. The powers in the regulation and the SI do not allow for a change to the level of the fines, so they will stay the same.
The noble Lord also asked about consultation. As I said in my opening speech, given the limited impact of this SI on industry and businesses, a formal consultation has not been carried out, but there was a full consultation when the initial EU regulation came into force. That was carried out by the Commission. It was a full, open and public consultation, which received around 100 replies, and of course environmental groups were closely involved in the formation of the regulation. However, as we are keeping things the same, we have not spoken specifically to environmental groups about this SI.
On the new CO2 emission standards regulation, the EU has provisionally agreed targets and incentives for HDVs to 2025 and 2030. They are due to be agreed by the European Parliament later this month and, once agreed, they will come into legal effect via a new European regulation. As that is yet to be finalised and adopted, how its requirements might be implemented in the UK will depend on when that is achieved, but our commitment to tackle climate change remains strong. We know that we must do more to meet our collective commitments on climate change and, indeed, the UK Government was one of those who led the way on increasing our ambition during the recent EU negotiations on emissions reduction as well as on standards for passenger and light commercial vehicles. As I have said, in the strategy The Road to Zero, the Government have committed that, as we leave the EU, we will ensure that we are at least as ambitious as the current arrangements for vehicle emissions regulations.
On data sharing, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, one of the key advantages of the EU regulation is that the data will be published and shared. Currently, the data will be reported by manufacturers in member states of the EU, and the Commission will maintain and manage its publication. It will be published annually from 31 October 2020 and the data will be openly available. Although some of it is commercially sensitive and thus exempt from publication, we expect the vast majority to be published. The commercially sensitive data exemption was agreed at European level and that is set within the regulations. It means that it will be published more in the form of a range rather than exact points. However, only data that is genuinely commercially sensitive will be withheld. We will replicate the data publication for UK-registered vehicles in the event of no deal. The content and the date of the report are set in the original EU regulations and are carried over by the withdrawal Act. That will not change, so it will still be possible to use UK data as a comparison against EU data—aside from the data that will be exempted for commercially sensitive reasons, and that will be the same for the EU and the UK. All the data will be openly available, and the EU 27 plus the UK will be able to be looked at side by side.
The preamble to the EU regulation provides background only and its content is not legally binding. The entire regulation will be carried over into UK law, but the targets set will be met through future regulations. The content and the preamble will stay, but specific targets will be set through future legislation.
I think that I have answered all the questions. I will go through Hansard and check. If I have not answered any questions, I will follow up on them in writing.
This SI is essential to ensuring that we maintain control of HDVs registered to travel on UK roads and that the system to support that continues to function from day one after EU exit. It will help us to reach our climate change goals and ensure that we do all we can to improve air quality.
Food and Farming (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Food and Farming (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, these regulations group elements of four policy regimes: spirit drinks; wines; genetically modified organisms; and agricultural direct payments. The purpose of this statutory instrument is to make purely technical or operability corrections ensuring that these regimes continue to function as intended. These corrections deal with removing or amending references, converting EU procedures to UK procedures and transferring EU functions to the UK. The four policy regimes are dealt with together in a single instrument for the convenience of both Houses. I will cover each in turn.
First, this instrument makes operable the regulation and protection of, and methodology for analysis of, spirit drinks once we exit the EU. The amendments specify protection for the UK’s geographical indications, and this instrument will make the necessary operability amendments to ensure ongoing protection of the US spirit drinks Bourbon whiskey and Tennessee whiskey, following the signing of the UK-US spirit drinks agreement in January. This instrument will also prevent EU 27 spirit drink geographical indications being automatically recognised as protected in the UK after leaving the EU.
With respect to wines, this instrument will amend EU retained law to make it operable from the day of exit. The amendments will allow us to continue to apply or enforce provisions relating to detailed wine-making practices, including the blending and analysis of wine. The absence of these amendments would undermine consumer confidence in wines, damage our trade in and production of wines and impact on the significant contribution the sector makes to the UK economy.
The amendments for spirits, together with those for wine, are part of establishing geographical indication schemes in the UK. These amendments are a component of the wider suite of Defra legislation on geographical indications, including the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, debated on 13 March and approved on 19 March, and the Food and Drink, Veterinary Medicines and Residues (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, debated on 20 March and approved on 21 March.
On genetically modified organisms, the SI makes purely technical changes to keep the retained EU legislation operable on exit from the EU. The amendments will allow us to continue to regulate and enforce the applications process for consent to market genetically modified organisms in the UK. It will also allow us to continue to regulate the export of genetically modified organisms, both those which originate in the UK and those which are merely passing through the UK. It also seeks to correct minor errors in exit statutory instruments which have already been laid.
Finally, on direct payments, this instrument will make minor technical amendments to roll over currently existing provisions in retained EU law relating to: environmentally sensitive permanent grassland; buffer strips, field margins and strips of eligible hectares along forest edges without production; the ratio of permanent grassland; and criteria for ecological focus areas. No policy change is made by these corrections. They address drafting errors in two of Defra’s EU exit statutory instruments relating to direct payments. I apologise to noble Lords for this oversight. The earlier instruments were laid at a time when Defra was preparing a large amount of EU exit secondary legislation, but Defra has sought to rectify the errors at the earliest opportunity.
In seeking only to allow the policy regimes to continue to function as intended, this instrument generates no new enforcement bodies and there is no significant impact expected on the existing enforcement regime.
It is worth noting that this statutory instrument was originally laid under the negative procedure. However, the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee recommended that the regulations be made under the affirmative procedure. The suite of legislation on geographical indications under the EU withdrawal Act confers new duties on the Secretary of State. This is in consequence of the Secretary of State taking on functions from the European Commission as a result of withdrawal. However, it is not this instrument that confers new legislative duties; for example, for spirits drinks it was the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which we debated earlier this month. This instrument confers only administrative functions to the Secretary of State from the European Commission. The Minister at the time the Committee made the recommendation to change this SI to an affirmative instrument, George Eustice, agreed that this instrument should be made subject to the affirmative procedure, and it is a pleasure for me to speak to it before your Lordships today.
Defra has consulted with the devolved Administrations on the amendments contained in this instrument, and they have been consented to. For genetically modified organisms, decisions to release or market GMOs are a devolved matter in Wales and Scotland and a transferred matter in Northern Ireland. However, there are no GM products in the approval pipeline for release in the UK and none is expected in the foreseeable future.
We have engaged extensively and listened to stakeholders’ views on all these policy areas. We have consulted on the issue of geographical indications, which cover both wines and spirit drinks, and continue to stay close to our key stakeholders in those sectors. No consultation was undertaken for direct payments, because the changes are entirely technical and intended to ensure current provisions continue to be available after EU exit.
On GMOs, a technical notice and, more recently, further guidance was published. The changes are entirely technical and intended to ensure currently available provisions continue to be available after exit. This SI makes minor corrections to earlier GMO-specific SIs, on which Defra engaged with parties with an interest in GMOs.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for this instrument, as its purpose is to maintain existing regulatory standards and there is expected to be minimal impact on business. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing these amendments, which are technical and will allow a smooth transition when we leave the EU. As she said, they are technical changes that affect certain aspects. I have a couple of things to raise, and I should declare an interest since our farm receives environmental payments—she referred to grassland, buffers and ecological areas that are included in this SI for which we receive payments.
My question concerns the fact that, as she referred to, the Select Committee selected this for the affirmative procedure. She said that this was not really necessary and that it was due to something that had happened earlier. Was that known before this SI was produced in the way it is? Otherwise, it seems unusual to have it included as an affirmative instrument, although I accept what she said.
I also want to ask her whether there will be changes to any other statutory instruments coming through. It is getting more and more confusing for those of us looking at them to look at something that happened a week or two ago and try to compare it with what is happening now. I hope she is able to tell me that this will be the last of this set of statutory instruments that we shall look at.
So my two questions are: why was it included in this SI if that decision had not been reached before? Will there be some consolidation of any further SIs coming through? That would make life much easier for all of us.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this SI and for her time, and that of the officials, in the briefing last week. This is something of a catch-all statutory instrument, clearing up elements omitted from the previous SIs we have debated on: geographical indications for wines and spirits; minor amendments to GMOs, veterinary medicines and residues; and common agricultural policy direct payments to farmers. Tomorrow, we will debate more SIs related to agriculture. I will not make the obvious comment about the efficacy of debating them all on the same day. I have great sympathy and support for the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. Hopefully, this will be the final SI in the process of tidying up those elements missed out of previous legislation.
There is also relevance to the devolved Administrations: Regulations 9 and 11 apply only to England and Wales, and 10 and 13 to Northern Ireland. I have only a few comments to make, as most of the issues have already been debated at length.
Regulation 3(21)(i) makes amendments in Annexe II of the EU regulation,
“in the section headed ‘Other spirit drinks’”,
where there are references to “Rum-Verschnitt” and “Slivovice”. All this is very interesting, but I cannot see its relevance. I do not know an awful lot about Rum-Verschnitt, but I know that Slivovice is produced in the Balkans, in Bosnia, and I would like to know why these two spirits should get a specific mention. Perhaps the Minister could say.
On page 12, in Regulation 5, we come to the crux of the matter. As the Minister has said, this relates to Tennessee whiskey and bourbon, currently imported from the United States. It also covers spirits produced in Mexico, tequila and mescal, which will be added to the list along with Tennessee whiskey and bourbon. I am pleased that this SI will make it possible for these spirits to continue to be freely available in the UK. While I am not personally a bourbon drinker, my husband—whose relatives all live in the Deep South in the USA—is, and I would not want him to have difficulty getting hold of his favourite tipple.
Such is the nature of this wide-ranging SI that it covers Irish cream and Somerset cider brandy—I have read it, and that is what it says. I had better look in my drinks cupboard to see what I have and whether I will readily be able to purchase further supplies in future. It would have been extremely helpful if the Explanatory Memorandum had listed the drinks covered in annexe III, referred to in the SI.
As the Minister said, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee felt that the regulations went beyond what is required to maintain the operability of the law after EU exit by conferring a new duty on the Secretary of State in respect of GIs which,
“could have a considerable commercial and economic impact”.
I agree with this statement and remain concerned that many of the catch-all SIs that cover such a wider range of topics may have implications for many regional producers.
Defra has indicated that it will bring forward guidance. The Minister has told us that this will be published before exit day and will be on the Defra website from exit day. I hope this guidance has been written and has taken account of the various permutations currently under discussion in the other place. There could be serious implications for some of our most revered wines, spirits and produce if the guidance is not clear and readily available.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, may I add my thanks to the Minister and to her team of officials who met us last week to go through the issues contained in this SI? It was helpful. It may have shortened what I was going to say; it may not have done.
I start with a question about GMOs. The Minister has explained that certain corrections have had to be made to legislation that had already been passed, and that this is a bit of a tidying-up procedure. We accept this, because we know that there has been pressure to produce a lot of these SIs very quickly.
I suppose it is necessary to ask the Minister about impact assessments. These SIs—I am talking about GMOs in particular now—will surely add some existing burden to UK authorities as well as to the devolved Administrations. In Northern Ireland, I assume that the decisions will be made by civil servants, as there is nobody else to make them. Is this right? It does not seem satisfactory but, in the absence of a functioning Administration, the whole situation in Northern Ireland is not satisfactory. I presume this is all that can be done.
Can I ask one specific question? If in future we wanted to tighten up the regulations about GMOs, would it be straightforward? Would there be any implications for trade with the EU? I assume that the reverse would not apply. I hope we would not want to liberalise our regulations but, if we did, it would run counter to EU practices.
I turn to the question of direct payments. I have some sympathy with the Minister here. For a time, I was a junior Minister in Northern Ireland and agriculture was one of my responsibilities. I will not bore the Committee with anecdotes about Agriculture Council meetings in Brussels, amusing as some of them were. Although it is not quite on the same subject, I will say that we consistently had tremendous support from the Irish Government. Whenever an issue came before the Agriculture Council—and there were many—the Irish Government went out of their way to be supportive of the British Government. I should like this to be on the record. I presume that the corrections that had to take place were as a result of oversights. We will move on from there.
Finally, I turn to the question of wines and spirits. In the briefing with the Minister, we spent a little time talking about tequila and mescal. These are two alcoholic drinks which I have never touched. I did my best to find some tequila before today’s Committee, but I failed. I wonder if the Minister would care to buy me a tequila at some time in the future—or allow me to buy one for her. We are talking about retained EU legislation on wine and spirits. I understand that the issue is about the geographical origin of products. We have been talking about Tennessee whiskey and bourbon. I understand that the Mexican drinks will come on the scene at some point in future when further negotiations have taken place. So we are going ahead with some of these drinks and the others will presumably follow.
My understanding is that geographical indications are used to identify a product whose quality, reputation or other characteristics are linked to its geographical origin. This will now be the responsibility of the Secretary of State, having previously been an EU responsibility. I assume that the question of geographical indication will cover many products in addition to those covered by this SI—this is a fairly common thing. It is right and proper that we should continue to co-operate with the EU and retain as many of the existing EU regulations as possible in practice.
I am not quite clear why these regulations would replace the current annexe with a shorter list. I hope I have this right. I understand that only UK spirit drink GIs would be automatically protected in UK law after exit. In contrast, UK GIs for spirit drinks will continue to be recognised by the EU as third-country GIs after exit, including in a no-deal scenario. I am not quite clear if I have understood that, and maybe the Minister will be able to clarify it.
The questions are: how prepared are we to operate our own GI systems? Can the Minister assure the Committee that the department will have the necessary staff and resources, and of course the expertise, to run the new system? The Government have stated that Defra will publish guidance on how to apply to the UK GI scheme in March 2019, which is this month, so can the Minister give an update on the completion of that guidance? Lastly, what consultation has the department undertaken with the devolved authorities over the design and implementation of the new UK GI scheme?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to what has turned out to be a short debate. I expected it to be fairly short, but some very valuable questions have been raised so I will be very pleased to answer as many as I can. If there is more that I can add then I will certainly write.
I turn first to the comments made by my noble friend Lady Byford. It is always a pleasure to have her in the Committee to make sure that we are doing things correctly, and she certainly does that. She referred to the issue of the Select Committee and the instrument being made affirmative. Without wishing to detract at all from the valuable work done by the Select Committee, it is the case that the functions being transferred across in this SI are administrative functions, not legislative. There was a potential slight misunderstanding about exactly which powers were coming across. Other legislative functions have come across in other SIs but not in this one. However, we took the decision that this gives us as a Government the opportunity to explain the position, so we decided that we would accept the Select Committee’s decision to make it affirmative, although there was always the opportunity for us to have gone back and explain that. We felt, “Why not make sure that everyone is completely happy?”, so we decided to stand in front of your Lordships today and explain that these are administrative functions, while those legislative functions came across in other SIs that were affirmative anyway and have already been discussed by the Committee.
My noble friend also asked whether there were further statutory instruments to come. There are a few but not as many as there were, so that is a bonus. Nearly all of them have now been scheduled for debate, so we have a good idea of what is left. Obviously, we are consolidating where possible to ensure that we do not have too many debates. It is vital to ensure that our legislation is up to date for exit day, whenever that comes. We can certainly say that we are in the end game now; we are at the end of the process and we should have everything in place very soon. As my noble friend will know, there are more coming tomorrow, so I hope she will join us then.
Baroness Byford
I thank the Minister for that. The difficulty is that sometimes some people are present in the debates, such as the one that we are having now, who have not had the advantage of hearing the earlier debates that we have had, which makes it quite difficult for all of us—myself included—to pick up on some of them. I am grateful for her clarification. I am well aware that we have quite a lot more to come, but my hope is that they will be complete in themselves so we do not have to go over ground that we have already covered, which I think has been the frustrating bit with some of these instruments.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I completely accept that comment. I recognise that this is sometimes very difficult because we are dealing with the same issues for different products in different SIs. Certainly, the instruments that will be under discussion tomorrow are much more wholesome and complete.
I turn to some of the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, who also made the point, which I will take on the chin, about the efficacy of debating all these separately. As I have said before, that issue is always to be balanced with the danger of having too many issues in one place; we all know of the famous BEIS SI that was over 500 pages long. I recognise that there is a balance to be struck, and both noble Baronesses have made some very good points.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
I just want to comment on the Minister’s assurance that we will not see the introduction of any genetically modified crops in this country that have an impact on the environment and human health. I hope that this will be borne in mind by the Government when they read the terms published by the Americans for future trade agreements with this country.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Obviously, such issues will have an impact on our future trade agreements. I reiterate what I just said about our ambitions for GM crops. We will look at the science; that is the most important thing.
I believe that I have answered all the questions. If I can add anything else later by letter, I certainly will.
Plant Health (Amendment) (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do consider the Plant Health (Amendment) (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. I hope that it will be helpful to your Lordships if I speak also to the Plant Health (Amendment) (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, with which this instrument has been grouped.
These two regulations amend existing domestic legislation implementing the EU’s plant health directive and provide the basis to maintain plant biosecurity when we leave the EU. The plant health directive is implemented in England by the Plant Health (England) Order 2015 and, in relation to forestry matters, by the Plant Health (Forestry) Order 2005, which extends to Great Britain. The existing orders set out obligations for the control and management of plant health risks arising from the import from third countries and movement within the EU single market of plant material, in order to protect biosecurity.
It is our responsibility—particularly mine in my role as Minister for Biosecurity—to protect biosecurity across plant and animal health and the wider ecosystem. It is also important that we have a robust process of ongoing review to strengthen biosecurity protections where this is possible and necessary. The regulations debated today are specifically about protecting plant biosecurity. The amendments address technical deficiencies and inoperability issues relating to retained EU law on plant health that will otherwise arise when we leave.
I should make it clear that although businesses will see some changes to import arrangements, they are risk-focused and avoid unnecessary new burdens while, importantly, preserving the current plant health regime’s overall aim of preventing and managing pest and disease threats. They do not diminish our controls in this important subject area but seek to protect biosecurity while continuing to facilitate trade in plant material.
The main purpose of the Plant Health (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 is to set out the list of harmful pests and plant material that will continue to be regulated in England, Wales and Northern Ireland from exit day. This is the same list of pests and plant material from the EU plant health directive, which we have transposed into our existing legislation, and includes harmful pests that we want to stay free from, such as xylella fastidiosa. The instrument also sets out amendments to deal with technical deficiencies in retained, directly applicable EU legislation to ensure that plant health legislation operates effectively. For example, it provides for the existing derogations to facilitate the import of specified material, such as bonsai plants from Japan, to ensure that this trade can continue under the same stringent quarantine conditions after exit.
Similarly, the instrument sets out the actions required by UK plant health authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to control certain pests in the event of outbreaks. The provisions cover matters such as official surveys and eradication measures that currently apply to competent authorities under EU emergency legislation. For this instrument, the plant health authority is the Secretary of State in relation to England and Welsh Ministers in relation to Wales, with delivery in both countries undertaken by the Animal and Plant Health Agency. In Northern Ireland, authority and delivery currently rests with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. For timber and forest pests in England, the Forestry Commission is the relevant authority.
In addition, plant pest and disease experts in Defra, the Animal and Plant Health Agency and the Forestry Commission, with support from Forest Research and Fera, will continue to work together, providing an exceptional capability to advise Ministers, manage risks and control outbreaks. As part of EU exit planning, we have increased our capability and capacity in the Animal and Plant Health Agency, which is nearly doubling the number of plant health inspectors from 118 to 227. The new inspectors are currently being trained to be ready for when we leave. We continue to keep under review whether we need to strengthen further our capacity in this important area of biosecurity protection.
Plant health is devolved. The devolved Administrations have worked closely together in developing their EU exit legislation to ensure a co-ordinated approach. As a result, these regulations apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scottish Ministers have decided to introduce separate legislation in Scotland, and their equivalent legislation will give effect to UK-wide arrangements. In practice, this means that we have a common list of regulated pests and plant material across the United Kingdom.
One of the main purposes of the Plant Health (Amendment) (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 is to correct technical deficiencies in our domestic legislation after exit. For example, they remove references to EU legislation and revise definitions to be UK-based instead of EU-based. The instrument also transposes provisions in certain Council directives in relation to the control of relevant potato pests, adding to the provisions already transposed in our existing domestic plant health legislation. These additional provisions mainly cover official activities that competent plant health authorities are required to carry out under these directives, such as official surveys and monitoring for the presence of the pests. The aim is to provide clarity to third countries that, following exit, the UK will continue to maintain the same rigorous control over the production of potatoes.
In relation to the changes to import arrangements I highlighted earlier, there are two aspects in this instrument. First, regulated plant material, such as ornamental plants in pots intended for commercial planting and certain trees and shrubs, that currently enters the UK from the EU or Switzerland with an EU or Swiss plant passport will in future require a phytosanitary certificate. This will be issued by the official national plant protection organisation in the EU member state, or Switzerland, in line with international obligations. This applies mainly to plants for planting and will ensure that we maintain the biosecurity assurances currently provided by the EU plant passport regime. Regulated plant material from the EU or Switzerland will not be subject to routine physical checks at the border. This recognises that biosecurity risks from such material do not change immediately on exit. However, we will always be vigilant about such imports and, where necessary, take additional measures to stop the introduction of harmful plant pests into the UK.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for taking these two statutory instruments together. Although they are huge, they are complementary. I am also grateful to him for his explanation. As he said, it is a matter of making sure that we have an operable legal framework when we leave the EU. I have one or two questions.
I am grateful for the detailed Explanatory Memorandum on the first instrument. Paragraph 2.5 talks about “existing fees”. Will we continue with those fees until at some future time they might be changed if that needs to be done? At the moment it just states that the existing fees will continue.
Paragraph 2.7 talks about the new certificates,
“issued in the country of export in accordance with International Plant Protection Convention obligations”.
I was delighted to see that any imports will not be stopped at the border but will be examined and looked at in great detail at the centres to which they eventually go. I understand that physical checks will not be carried out on anything that has come through existing EU member states, and that that will continue into the future—I hope I am correct and that we get clarification on that—but anything coming in from a third country that does not come through the EU will be dealt with in a totally different way. It is hugely important that we control anything coming into this country. We have seen with great sadness ash and oak trees being lost through infections and diseases. These are really important steps we are taking. Are the premises that will need to be authorised by Defra to provide those inspection facilities all over the UK or based around the London area? It is not clear where they will be based.
We have a new offence in relation to non-compliance with import requirements in this statutory instrument; I welcome the opportunity for us to prosecute serious cases. Do the Government anticipate that there might be set fees for anything coming in that fails to live up to the expected standards, or will they come later?
I turn now to the statutory instrument itself. On page 23, Article 22A(3) states:
“The conditions are that—(a) the packaging in which the relevant material is transported and any vehicle which is used to transport the material is free from soil and plant debris and any relevant tree pest”.
I do not know how one can fully guarantee that, even if the material is wrapped and fully secure, there will not be some leakage or mishap during transition. Has thought been given to that? Then on page 29, in Part D of Schedule 13A, paragraph 11(a)(vii)(cc) refers to,
“controls for the disposal of waste, soil and water, as appropriate”.
The two do not seem to sit terribly well together. Why is there different wording in different areas? It may be that I have missed something, but I am not quite clear and I would be grateful for clarification.
Basically I very much welcome these regulations, because—like other noble Lords who will take part in this debate—I have for many years been very conscious of the risks we run. The more plants and shrubs we import, the greater the risk to our native species. Also, the climate is warming here, and therefore we may well, as we are seeing, be able to grow more vines and things, but as we import additional shrubs and other habitats into this country, the risk is even greater than before. It is just a matter of trying to make sure that the system we are establishing here is strong enough and has enough powers. Hence my questions on the way fees will be dealt with and on what regulations there will be about the charges when people do not live up to the standards we are setting in these instruments. They are hugely important. I would not normally speak at such great length, but I am very aware that while we cannot control certain things, such as wind-borne diseases, we certainly can control physical things coming into our country. I want to make sure we have taken enough precautions in these two statutory instruments.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for so clearly outlining the changes. If we enter a no-deal Brexit scenario, we will lose a fully-functioning system that regulates the very important trade in fruit, vegetables, freshly-cut flowers and timber that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, is critical to ensuring our continuing biosecurity.
I have three points. First, I struggled to get a sense from the Explanatory Memorandum of what increase in the inspection rates will be necessary as a result of this new scenario in the event of no deal. As the Minister rightly said at the beginning, the majority of plants and fresh fruit will not have any more inspection, but all the plants and produce coming in by virtue of the EU plant passport regime, which are not subject to inspection now, will be subject to inspection in future. I was grateful for the responses that I had from the staff when I asked them that question: they made it clear that we are looking at a 30% increase in the number of inspections necessary in plants, fruit and cut flowers, and a 50% increase in timber. We are not talking about small numbers here. The figures that they gave me are that at the moment we have about 100,000 consignments per year of regulated goods, so a 30% increase on those figures is not going to be small. There will therefore be considerable on-costs to the public purse as the Animal and Plant Health Agency and the Forestry Commission will have to undertake those inspections.
The staff helpfully made it clear that at the moment the Forestry Commission has 10 inspectors who undertake inspections but, if we have to go forward with this SI because of a no-deal Brexit, it will have to have increase its inspectors by 50%, which means another five. In real terms that does not sound like a very large number, but it is still of 50% more inspectors, not in the London area, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, rightly highlighted, but geographically spread out, so it will not just be a question of staff costs; it will mean resources to get them out and about in the country. There will be significant on-costs to the public purse as a result of the necessary increase in inspections if we leave the EU.
Secondly, I would like to tease out a bit more on the inspections that are going to take place at authorised premises in order to ensure that there are no backlogs at the RORO points. The Explanatory Memorandum is quite clear that the Government want to avoid that, and I think we all wish that. The Minister just said, if I heard him correctly, that 35 businesses have applied to have authorised premises so that these inspections can take place at their facilities around the country. My understanding from the Explanatory Memorandum is that 900 businesses that are presently engaged in this arena. So 35 business have have applied to have their premises authorised and there are potentially 900 businesses that are already within this arena. Again, I am grateful to the staff because when I asked them how many of those 900 businesses had premises that they thought would be suitable—not everyone is going to have premises that are—they very kindly indicated that they thought between 75 to 100 businesses would have suitable premises. So up to 100 of those 900 businesses are potentially able to get their premises licensed, and only 35, so far, have done so. Will the Minister say a bit more about exactly how we will ensure that we do not get delays at the ports? I applaud the desire to have no backlog at the ports but, at the moment, the figures do not quite seem to stack up.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on bringing these two instruments before the Committee this afternoon. I am also grateful to him that Fera will be involved in this, since he will recall that Fera is in the Thirsk and Malton constituency. As a slightly amusing story, I remember seeing a beetle at Fera that had been extracted from a wooden bed. It had been quite scary for a honeymoon couple to have heard its constant scratching. Finally, the morning after their nuptials, they called the hotel staff in and found out that the beetle had been imported within the wood that the furniture was made from. It was obviously more company than they had bargained for. I yield to no one in my admiration for the work that FERA does.
I have a couple of questions for my noble friend the Minister. My noble friend Lady Byford referred to plant health and pests in the air. What shocked me and colleagues on the EFRA Committee in the other place in the midst of the ash tree dieback was the fact that we were exporting seeds to be sown in parts of Europe such as, dare I say, Denmark—I am half Danish, so there was obviously some embarrassment—and Poland, which then grew these ash trees. We then reimported them to the UK as saplings with the Chalara fungus; I will not even try to say its name. We were reintroducing the ash tree saplings to this country with that disease. Can my noble friend give the Committee a reassurance that, under the arrangements set out in the statutory instruments today, that will not happen and that we will continue to update the list of species at risk which fall under these regulations on plant health and biosecurity? As the EU continues to amend that list, in the event of no deal will we share the information on our list as we go forward? Will we update our list with any updates to the EU list as well? I am sure that my noble friend will say that that is a matter for negotiation. Will he please make it a priority for our negotiations?
It is obviously of some concern that the threat is not just from dieback to ash trees. Currently, horse chestnuts, pines and other trees are also threatened. Have we learned nothing from elm disease? Kew Gardens and the arboretum at Castle Howard fulfil a national role in making sure that we continue to have seeds which we hope will be free of these diseases. Can my noble friend reassure the Committee that there will not be any threat in future?
In the Prime Minister’s Statement in the other place, there was a lot of talk about the Irish border and the arrangements in Ireland. At the moment, there is no Northern Ireland Assembly. We understand that this issue was raised for the first time two weeks ago by the Minister’s Defra colleague in the other place, particularly in respect of the arrangements for his department. There are going to be no checks at the borders on plant health, but they will be, as it states, in some internal location. Is this entirely sensible when we are dealing with something as fundamental as plant health and biosecurity? If there is an alert for a particular plant disease, should we not reimpose checks at borders for this purpose to make sure that we keep the national biosecurity safe?
In the smaller regulation as I shall call it—the Plant Health (Amendment) (England) (EU Exit) Regulation—paragraph 2.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum sets out obligations,
“for the control and management of plant health risks”,
for the import of plant material from third countries and the movement of such material,
“within the EU single market”.
Given that our position will be that of a third country, can we clarify what the status will be for plant movements between here and the EU?
On page 21 of the SI, Regulation 19 refers to,
“Prevention of the spread of tree pests: England”.
Again, can we ensure that there will not just be plant passports, as it goes on to say, but physical checks, if there is reason to believe that there is a specific threat? At the moment, we know of threats to three particular tree species. We need to be careful and to understand what our status will be in relation to the EU if we crash out and leave with no deal.
I hope that we can give these instruments a fair wind, but both instruments raise a number of issues of potential concern to the biosecurity and plant health of this country.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, as several noble Lords have pointed out, plant health is a vital issue. I declare an interest as chairman of the Woodland Trust.
Pressure from introduced diseases and pests is serious and growing. Already there has been reference to the publicity surrounding ash dieback, which could kill off 80% of our ash trees and change the nature of our countryside and hedgerows. I am sure that noble Lords—particularly those of my age—will recall the devastation from Dutch elm disease. “You haven’t seen anything yet”, because poised and waiting to come over are killers such as xylella fastidiosa, to which the Minister referred. This is a Darth Vader of plant disease. It could infect a whole range of species of plant and trees. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, talked about three species that are under threat. In reality, it is pretty well true to say that every native tree species is at risk of pest or disease. So plant health needs to be taken very seriously. I thank the Minister for his explanation of these two regulations and for the briefing meeting he set up with himself and senior Defra officials.
The regulations are indeed intended to replicate the current arrangements in Europe, but they contain some differences and illustrate some serious issues. First, as has already been noted, they move the line of defence against the risk of the importation of disease from the port to the importer’s premises in the case of regulated material from third countries. The new process means that the premises of these importers of regulated plants and trees will have to have their process authorised and provide specific inspection facilities, which will then be subjected to a yearly audit. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, Defra has estimated that between 80 and 100 premises may want to be authorised, but authorisations opened before Christmas and only 33 have gone through the process so far. There is a way to go in achieving readiness. Can the Minister tell us what his department is doing to ensure that all those who need to be designated will be designated in time, whenever “in time” might mean?
I must admit that I was concerned that, in the interests of not gumming up the ro-ro ports and creating friction in the trade process, we would no longer stop and check these materials at ports. I was assured by the Defra chief plant health officer that the plants and trees concerned would be transported in bonded conditions so that the disease could not be spread in transit before they had been checked. Can the Minister assure us that such bonding or sealing provisions, as he called them, will work so that there is no risk of trailing pestilence across the country in the interest of simply avoiding embarrassing queues at the post-Brexit ports?
Once the plants and materials are held in authorised premises, they will need to be inspected by the Animal and Plant Health Agency before they can be moved and distributed. As has already been noted, that will require more staff, including additional plant health inspectors. Support staff will also be needed to manage the uplift in the number of phytosanitary certificates required to ensure that exports from the UK to the EU can be handled. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, referred to that. Defra kindly provided us with figures showing that an additional 117 plant health inspectors and support staff, and an additional five Forestry Commission inspectors, will be recruited. This is a virtual doubling of the workforce. Can the Minister tell us the estimated cost of this new regime? It sounds expensive. Simply doing some sums on the back of a fag packet indicated that the staff alone could cost upwards of £3 million. The public are wholly unaware of these sorts of costs when making their minds up about the value, or otherwise, of Brexit and its variants—so much for the Brexit dividend.
Of course, we are only one country, even if we are four nations. Much depends on effective arrangements being in place—particularly in Scotland, which will subject to separate legislation. Can the Minister tell us whether that legislation has been passed in Scotland and, if not, when it will be passed?
The Minister referred to a new criminal offence being created to provide an enforcement mechanism in the event of failure to comply with a notice issued in respect of a demarcated area. Your Lordships will remember that the House expressed concern about the creation of criminal offences by statutory instruments during consideration of the then EU withdrawal Bill. While this new criminal offence does not count as a relevant criminal offence under the Act, can the Minister confirm the maximum penalty for the offence?
Of course, the new regime deals only with legitimate trade, although the Minister is of the view that it will provide more information for traceability should an outbreak take place. The Minister assures me that the Animal and Plant Health Agency is hot on the tracks of any illegal imports, and I assure the Minister that the agency is regularly under-cover as a mystery shopper at car boot sales in car parks.
These SIs basically recreate a slightly less satisfactory UK regime to replace the existing EU regime for plant health. At heart, this is a lipstick-on-a-pig situation—you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. The scale and threat of plant and tree disease is increasing. In general terms, the Government’s policy for all but regulated materials is of surveillance to spot infestations early once introduced to this country and contain them with vigour. This does not keep out pests and diseases and is insufficiently robust to tackle the current and future threat. Brexit has few merits in my book, but one of them would come into play in this instance: as part of reclaiming our borders, we would have a chance to do a New Zealand or an Australia and adopt a policy of no entry for any plants and trees unless they are demonstrably disease and pest free. If that were in conjunction with a major push for plants to be UK sourced and grown, to reduce the need for imports and to give a valuable boost to the UK nursery trade, that would genuinely be in the spirit of Brexit—I never thought that I would use those words.
I look forward to discussions with the Minister on how we can improve the plant health regime in the context of the forthcoming biosecurity strategy.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank all noble Baronesses who have contributed to this debate. I suspect that we are united in every particular of the essentials. I stress again that as the Minister with biosecurity in his remit, I could not place a higher importance on keeping our country safe from pests, disease and invasive non-native species, all of which cause immense damage to our natural ecosystems.
As a farmer in the Vale of Aylesbury I was very scarred myself, as a boy, by the loss of all the elm trees on the farm. Now, having planted ash trees over the years and seeing them depleted, no one could be unhappier about that situation. However, in 2012, when it materialised that all sorts of extraordinary things were happening, whereby ash seeds—I think it was even small saplings as well—were going to other parts of the EU to come back and bring Chalara with them, that precipitated a change in Defra and an understanding that, while animal health had rightly been given a very considerable priority, plant health needed to buck up and become as rigorous and as sharp. I could mention many names, but the appointment of the chief plant health officer, Professor Nicola Spence, was one repercussion of an understanding that we needed to do a lot better.
On the issue of bonding and sealed, or whatever word may be used, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that I was absolutely clear in the early stages of this situation that I too wanted reassurances. I am well aware that pests may arrive at a port and we may find them going all around the country because we have done something utterly stupid. I was assured, and I will go into further detail on the assessments, about why this was a sound and sensible thing for us to do.
I will go through the points in no particular order. My noble friend Lady Byford asked about existing fees and any changes. Existing fees will apply to these import inspections at inland premises, so we will follow the existing fee arrangements.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, asked about the estimated number of consignments and inspections. I want to be clear that by inspection we would mean physical inspection of a consignment of plant material, rather than simply checks of the documents associated with it. In a no-deal scenario the majority of plants and plant products imported from the EU, including fruit, vegetables and cut flowers, will continue to enter the UK freely without physical inspections, as currently. Those goods managed under the EU plant passport regime, such as certain species for planting and shrubs, will require an internationally recognised phytosanitary certificate. There will be no physical inspection of the goods at the border, although our risk-based inland surveillance system will continue. A documentary and identity check will take place remotely, without requiring that goods are stopped either at the border or inland awaiting checks. The importer will be required to pre-notify the Animal and Plant Health Agency about details of a consignment of regulated plant material. At this stage we are, in a sense, keeping what we have for certain regulated plants from within the EU—in other words, the phytosanitary certificate.
The important area—if the Committee does not mind my setting this out, because it is terribly important to establish the sequence—is that material originating in third countries that enters the UK via the EU without being checked in the EU will require a physical inspection in the UK, in the same way as we currently physically inspect material coming directly from third countries. So whether or not the material enters the UK at the ro-ro ports, we will inspect the goods at trade premises inland that have been authorised in line with biosecurity requirements. At this stage we do not have data on the current number of plants and plant products entering the UK from third countries via the EU which will require an inspection, but we estimate that there will be around 14,500 consignments per year.
My noble friend Lady Byford asked about the location of inland premises. They are located across the United Kingdom. We do not have to hand the exact locations of the 33 premises currently being organised but I can provide that information in due course. I should say, and this issue arose in another connection, that a lot of the current facilities are around Heathrow because obviously a lot of the plants from third countries come in there. I know that there have previously been considerations about the fact that it is London-centric; that is because often the bulk of plant material from third countries has come in that way. I have been to the excellent inspection unit alongside Heathrow, where so much of the biosecurity protection takes place with imports directly from third countries.
My noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, asked about the costs. It is the Government’s policy to charge fees for many publicly-provided goods and services. The standard approach is to set fees to recover the full cost of service delivery. This relieves the general taxpayer of the costs so that they are properly borne by users who benefit from the service. Charging for plant health services is consistent with the principle that businesses using these services should bear the cost. The costs incurred in any 12-month period are recovered by fees levied in the following 12 months. For example, fees for 2019-20 will be based on the costs incurred in providing services for the period from April 2018 to March 2019.
My noble friend Lady Byford and, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, raised transporting, moving inland and the biosecurity risk. As I have said, experts both from the APHA and within Defra have made it clear that in their assessment, under the containerised, sealed and bonded arrangements, these materials will be secure until they are inspected.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, asked about the volume of the imports from the EU that would be subject to the new process. We estimate that around 0.75 million tonnes of regulated plant products from the EU, out of around 7 million tonnes of total annual imports, will require a phytosanitary certificate. On the question that she also raised on concerns about blockages at points of entry, we are seeking to do this because the paramount concern is that we keep the country biosecure. Clearly, though, where inland premises have been inspected and are both suitable to the inspectors and secure, we have been advised that there is no biosecurity risk from that.
I want to respond to another point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. She asked about the dangers of spreading pests. It is clear that we must ensure that that does not happen; that is the whole point of our carrying on with the EU system of requiring pre-notification with phytosanitary certificates for certain EU plant products. That is an important pre-notification system to enable APHA to be aware of arrivals. Moreover, part of the regime is that random checks are made of plant materials. We place the greatest importance on this area.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about the risks. She talked about ash dieback; the outbreak has precipitated an enormous amount of research—here I am moving away slightly from the statutory instrument before us. Research now being undertaken into tree health is remarkable for both its public and private funding, through universities. The John Innes Centre has undertaken research into the genome of the ash tree which gives us hope that perhaps 15% to 20% of the trees may have some tolerance. We can ensure the future of the ash tree from them. This is an important area and we will work with evidence to develop a risk-based, proportionate approach to plant health measures.
In the past we have introduced precautionary national measures to protect the UK against threats. For example, the UK produced stronger national legislation against xylella in response to the situation elsewhere in the EU. We have also introduced national legislation to protect against oak processionary moth. In fact, during my early months in this post I am afraid that I made myself unpopular with our very nice Spanish friends when dealing with the Epitrix potato pest by requiring further washing because we were concerned about the arrival of unwashed new potatoes at certain times. Moreover, of course we will work with the devolved Administrations to ensure there is protection across the United Kingdom.
I turn to the question of Northern Ireland. As we have discussed in a number of debates, the island of Ireland is an epidemiological entity for obvious reasons. In fact, when we looked at aquaculture, we found that there are fewer fish pests in the island of Ireland than there are in Great Britain. It is terribly important that the all-Ireland concept is seen in that context because pests and diseases are not respecters of borders. It is intended that a similar SI will be made for Northern Ireland. The specific legislation will align with our own legislation to ensure a consistent approach to plant health. It will be laid before day one.
Lord Deben (Con)
Can my noble friend explain how we will keep that legislation in line with what happens in the south?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
As I said to my noble friend, the whole point in raising the single entity is that is why it is so important that there is close co-operation. If my noble friend had seen our earlier consideration of Northern Ireland matters, he would have heard about the very strong relationship between bodies in the north and the south on almost the whole of the natural ecosystem area. That is tremendously important.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about changes to the list of regulated pests. A plant health risk register is publicly available and I am afraid to say that currently we have 1,000 pests recorded on it. That somewhat bears out what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said. I have regular meetings with Grown in Britain, and which side of the argument on the European Union one might be on is, frankly, irrelevant. We need to be more biosecure within the United Kingdom. We all need to be more biosecure around the world because our laxity in these matters has already caused enormous problems around the world and we need to attend to it.
Baroness Byford
I thank my noble friend for clarifying the extra money that has been allocated. Will that money be clawed back from importers and people who are buying the products, or will the Government put the money up and make no attempt to get recompense? I thought from the conversations we had earlier that there would be a charge.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The fees are for the costs of inspection or whatever. The additional costs for people will partly be borne by the Exchequer. I think I had better have complete clarification on that. As far as I am concerned, the fees cover the cost of inspections and we will have to upscale them. It might be helpful if that £7.4 million is allocated in a way that my noble friend and other noble Lords can appreciate, so that we get it right and I get it on the record right.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Parminter, mentioned the 33 premises. There are obviously other businesses. Officials are engaging with export businesses and encouraging applications. We look forward to being helpful because it is important that these premises are inspected, secure and fit for purpose. Then we can help to ensure that these products come to the inland premises as swiftly as possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, asked about future plans. The policies in regulations are risk-based and proportionate, and will apply temporarily from day one until we develop our future plant health regime. This will include consideration of the extent to which we implement aspects of revived arrangements to be introduced in the EU from December 2019 through its new regulations on plant health and official controls, given their significant influence in shaping these new arrangements. Clearly what we in this country want to do is to have the highest possible standards of biosecurity. We will be looking at the advantage of available technologies to facilitate trade that is as frictionless as possible, but the paramount importance is to have high standards of biosecurity. Defra and the Food Standards Agency are working closely together to develop proposals for this and plan to consult on them this year.
The noble Baroness asked about Scotland. By chance, I met Mairi Gougeon, the Scottish Biosecurity Minister, along with Lesley Griffiths from Wales only about three hours ago as they were in for other meetings at Defra. I requested that the three of us meet, perhaps when this particular hiatus is over, so that we can work positively together. For Scotland, the Plant Health (EU Exit) (Scotland) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2019 were laid in draft on 13 March and were debated and passed scrutiny unchallenged on 14 March, while similar regulations for Wales were laid in draft on 19 February.
I am going to have a close look at Hansard regarding other points. My noble friend Lady Byford mentioned climate change. Obviously, this is an area where we all need to work collaboratively across the world. Because of climate change, plant diseases and pests have, in my view, become much more alarming. The issue of physical and windborne is absolutely the case. I am afraid that we would have got Chalara even if we had not done the unwise things that we did because, as my noble friend Lord Deben and others will know, Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk and such eastern counties are suffering because of it being airborne. That leads to a much wider issue: whatever our arrangements with our friends in the EU 27, this is an area where we all have to collaborate. I am afraid the challenge that I would put back to Europe in this area is that a lot of things are coming here because when they arrived in Europe, there has not been zero tolerance. I mention the oak processionary moth and the Asian hornet as examples of where arrivals in Europe have not been dealt with, so we are having to seek to deal with them here. We do not have enough sea to match the ambition of New Zealand or Australia; it is only 22 miles wide. We all need to do very much more.
On the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about the maximum penalty, I might not have a note from the Box but I think the fine is limitless. All I can say is that if someone transgresses, I hope the fine is substantial because the disasters that can befall our country due to these pests and diseases is very grave. I will study Hansard. I will write if there are embellishments or further details that I can supply.
Plant Health (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do consider the Plant Health (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B).
Criminal Justice (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Criminal Justice (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations form part of the Government’s ongoing work to ensure that there are functioning domestic laws in the event that the United Kingdom leaves the European Union without a deal. They relate solely to the Government’s no-deal exit preparations. Should Parliament approve the withdrawal agreement, which incorporates an implementation period, and pass the legislation necessary to implement that agreement, the commencement of these regulations would be deferred until completion of the implementation period.
The regulations amend or revoke legislation relating to five EU measures; first, the victims of crime compensation directive. That directive established that each EU member state should have a national scheme to provide compensation to victims of violent intentional crime. It also provided for liaison between the relevant authorities of each member state to facilitate the compensation of victims. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority manages the compensation scheme for England, Wales and Scotland. Northern Ireland has a separate scheme; however, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority is the assisting authority for the whole of the United Kingdom and liaises with other member states to help victims apply for compensation from them.
The second matter is the European protection orders. The directive provides a framework to allow certain kinds of protection order made in criminal proceedings in one member state to be transferred to another EU member state where it can be recognised and enforced.
Thirdly, there are the European supervision orders. These enable the transfer of certain supervision measures between EU member states. For example, bail granted subject to conditions issued in criminal proceedings in one member state can be transferred to another EU member state to be recognised and supervised there.
Fourthly, the mutual recognition of financial penalties provided a framework so that certain financial penalties imposed in criminal proceedings in one member state can be forwarded to another EU member state for enforcement.
Fifthly and finally is the matter of taking account of convictions in EU member states in the course of new criminal proceedings in the United Kingdom. This requires known prior convictions in another EU member state to be taken into account—for example, when passing sentence—to the extent that national law requires national convictions to be taken into account. This means that, upon sentencing, the court in any member state can treat convictions from another member state exactly as they would domestic convictions.
The purpose of this instrument is to address the changes necessary in domestic law upon our exit, in the event that we exit without a deal. I will not go into the detail of what the SI does for each EU measure or tool—I hope that the regulations themselves, the Explanatory Memorandum and the provisional impact assessment are already clear on that—but I will briefly draw attention to the main points and to what occurs in the event that we leave without a deal.
For the victims of crime compensation directive, the instrument will revoke the implementing legislation relating to mutual assistance since it provides a system of intra-EU member state co-operation that will not be present in a no-deal scenario. I emphasise that the regulations do not impact on our national compensation scheme; that will continue.
For the European protection order directive, the instrument will revoke the implementing legislation since the scheme can operate only between EU member states, and in this scenario the United Kingdom will not be one. We take the opportunity of these regulations to make transitional provision to ensure that any order made consequent to an incoming request received prior to exit will continue to be enforceable until its conclusion, whenever that is, so that persons will remain protected. I should add that this system is seldom used. My understanding is that only four orders have been made by the courts of England and Wales in respect of such protection orders since it came into operation, while only six applications have been received from EU member states. That is over a period of three years.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I thank the Minister for his clear introduction of this instrument. It seems to be an inevitable consequence of a no-deal scenario but one of its provisions is of great importance: the taking into account of previous convictions. A lot of work was done to try to improve the system across the EU for recording in a standard form the information in relation to previous convictions, which are of considerable importance in the court deciding what to do. Is the Minister able to say what arrangements are being made so that there continues to be the fullest co-operation on obtaining information about those convicted in member states? This is obviously particularly important in cases dealing with paedophiles and other violent offenders, as the courts here would want to take into account all details of prior convictions to ensure that appropriate penalties were passed. If that information was not available, it would obviously be of some considerable detriment to the safety of the general public.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I want to make a couple of points that I have made on previous occasions. I am always unhappy about things that deal with the law being discussed only by lawyers. It seems to me that non-lawyers should sometimes refer to the matters in front of us.
I heard the Minister say, kindly, that we now have the impact assessment. I am always fascinated by how the Government can say that they do not intend to provide guidance because a measure relates mainly to technical changes before they have produced the impact assessment. That seems like a decision before the fact. It is also interesting that the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“No, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen … The impact of this instrument, including on individuals, is negligible”.
That cannot be true if, for example, this information is not available; the noble and learned Lord made the point a moment ago that that will have a considerable impact on individuals.
The point I really want to make to the Minister is that this is another example of trying to deal with Alice in Wonderland. The idea that we would seriously not give the information we have to the rest of the European Union, nor hope that they would give us that information, seems outwith any kind of sense. I am perfectly prepared to accept that we will have to pass these regulations—because, no doubt, if that situation arose when we are not a member of the European Union, many of these provisions would not function in any case—but I wish that Ministers would just admit every time that it is much better to have a system in which you share than not. We are all fixated by the lunacy of the whole business of Brexit but that does not mean that a little humility from Ministers would not be welcome. They could say, “We are sorry to be in this position because it makes things very much worse”, instead of pretending that everything will be the same, that we will just fix things, that everything is perfectly okay and that if we have a no-deal situation, this will just go ahead. That flies in the face of the truth.
Every time we discuss these statutory instruments, we increasingly recognise what a nonsense the whole proposition is. I just want to hear that occasionally from the Government. They do not seem satisfactorily engaged in trying to solve the problem anyway, but it would be nice to hear an occasional ministerial comment that they are sorry to have to put this forward because it is obviously not a sensible situation or better than what we have at the moment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, the regulations deal with the current situation of mutual assistance, not just the passing of information from one country to another. That is what we are concerned with.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, referred to taking account of convictions. As he explained, a lot of work has been done to make sure that convictions are presented mutually in an agreed format, which assists a sentencing judge greatly. The regulations—particularly in Part 6, entitled “Taking account of convictions”—provide that all individuals with prior convictions from outside the UK, whether from the EU or non-EU countries, are treated the same. Clearly, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, there is a developed system of mutual assistance relating to convictions. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the difference between the system developed between EU member states and that developed with non-EU states “outside the UK”. Those are the words used in the impact assessment. What difference in standards can we expect between the two systems?
Perhaps I may turn first to compensation for victims of crime. A significant change has been made because, at the moment, there is an obligation on EU member states not simply to offer advice but to co-operate in providing access to their compensation schemes. It is proposed that that system should go and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will simply offer advice instead. We know from the impact assessment that, for example, it is not known at the moment how many British nationals have applied for compensation from EU compensation schemes because victims can apply directly. I am anxious to know whether the Minister can enlighten us about the nature of the advice that will be given to people injured as a result of criminal activity abroad as compared with the mutual assistance given under the current scheme. It seems that there could be a very considerable difference between the two situations. The Explanatory Memorandum states that there is currently,
“a system of formal communication between the relevant authorities”.
That will go, so what is the advice? If an injured person happens to learn about the scheme covering the offer of advice from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, presumably he or she will have to take the initiative of approaching the CICA to obtain it.
I turn to mutual assistance. Of course, EU protection orders and supervision systems have not been used considerably, as the memorandum makes clear. These are important possibilities that no doubt could have been developed more than they have. For example, if a person has engaged in violent conduct towards their spouse in a European country and the spouse has taken out a protection order, there is great value in that being enforced in this country as well without any further proceedings. However, according to the regulations before us, it seems that separate and additional applications for protection will have to be made to the British courts.
It is a similar case as regards supervision orders. If a person found guilty of criminal conduct abroad to the effect that a supervision order has been made against him moves to this country, unless there is a separate and additional application to a British court, the protection against him that a supervision order provides will no longer exist.
The mutual recognition of financial penalties is another important area. Currently, a fine imposed in one EU country can be enforced in another. What mechanism does the Ministry have in mind following the implementation of this instrument—should that ever come about, which seems highly unlikely—for recovering financial penalties imposed in another EU country? How will that compare with the recovery of financial penalties from non-EU countries at present?
Although these regulations appear complicated and technical, there is an important principle of mutual assistance involved. Among EU members, we have built up systems that protect the people of this country. These are all to be swept away and replaced by separate applications and so on. This seems an undesirable outcome that has not been given the publicity it deserves.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, in all sorts of matters, particularly perhaps in matters Brexit, it is not as fashionable as we might like either to be succinct or fair to one’s opponents. So as not to exacerbate the Alice in Wonderland world described by noble Lords, I would say that the Minister is in an unenviable situation. Surely we all know that the problems are not with this draft instrument but with any possibility of exiting the European Union without a deal. It would be a disaster in all sorts of areas—trade and other aspects of co-operation—but in the context of criminal justice co-operation, we all ought to acknowledge that the idea of no deal is particularly disastrous and dangerous for people in this country and in the European Union, especially for victims of violent crime and survivors of domestic abuse.
Having said that at the outset, I invite the noble and learned Lord the Minister to agree and to do his best with particular questions about the various areas of policy and co-operation covered here. We acknowledge that it is not about the instrument. We are in an unenviable position. The clock is ticking down and we seem to be no closer to a final scheme for what criminal justice co-operation will be. The problem is that the political declaration is vague on matters of security and justice co-operation. As we have heard from noble Lords, access to Europol and European criminal records is essential, as is access to the extensive database system. Perhaps we can all agree on this. I am sure that, in due course, the Minister will do so as well and he will suggest that this instrument and its provisions are not an ideal alternative to having a proper scheme for co-operation after Brexit.
If the Minister is able to do so, I wonder if he might discuss what the total cost to the UK authorities might be from not having, for example, access to the system of formal communication in relation to compensation for victims of violent crime. The Explanatory Memorandum makes a lot of store about the total number of requests in each relevant case. Can he assist on the total amount of compensation that has resulted in the past three years in relation to this request? Thare might give more of a sense of the importance and severity of the matters we are dealing with.
In relation to European protection orders, paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum states,
“the UK will no longer be able to issue requests to other EU Member States and expect them to be acted upon”.
This is predominantly about domestic violence. Can the Minister confirm that this change could make life less safe for the survivors of domestic abuse after exit day? Could the Minister perhaps articulate how travel restrictions would be placed on the perpetrators of domestic abuse in such a scenario—for example, on a man who is an EU citizen with a woman victim who is a UK citizen—without an EPO? Similarly, on financial penalties, does the Minister have any idea what the potential cost would be to the UK authorities for losing access to the framework?
In all this, I am making the point that it is not really fair to impugn the instrument itself but, as there are people beyond this Room who are still advocating a no-deal Brexit, it is none the less important to try to get the Minister’s thoughts on some of these matters.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to noble Lords for their contributions. I begin by observing that my noble friend Lord Deben has misunderstood the purpose of these regulations. They are not concerned with the transfer of data or information or with access to it; they are concerned with what the courts do with it once they have it. I will elaborate on that in a moment.
In light of the observations that have been made, particularly by the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Thomas—this is a bit like a rugby commentary featuring Joneses, but I will not go there—and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, I shall take each of the five relevant regulations’ directives in turn, pick up each of the points that have been raised and then come back to the issue of data and how that is being addressed.
The first is the victims of crime compensation directive. Let us be clear: in the event of a no-deal exit—I am not seeking or advocating that; I am dealing with the situation that arises in that eventuality, as the noble Baroness observed—any EU citizen who is the victim of a violent crime in the UK will still be able to proceed to make an application under the UK scheme in respect of a violent criminal act in the UK. Conversely, even though we no longer have the relevant directive in place, where a UK citizen suffers such an act in a member state that has ratified the European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes, which is the preceding European Council convention, they will also be able to access compensation, and there are 18 EU members that are signatories to that convention. In addition, there are some member states that are not signatories to the convention but whose criminal compensation schemes admit of applications just like the UK’s for any citizen who suffers that violent criminal conduct within their country. There are at least two which fall into that category; I believe that they are Ireland and Latvia. There are in fact a total of 20 existing EU member states where it will be possible to continue applying for compensation under these schemes.
To follow up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the intention is that the CICA will support victims in accessing compensation from those countries where an application can be made—in other words, it will do essentially what it does at present, which is to assist the victim in directing how and where the application should be made in the circumstances. I readily accept that that is not a complete answer to the existing scheme; it is deficient to the extent that at least seven existing EU member states will not facilitate such an application. That said, it is important to put this into context. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, observed, not every application has been notified to the CICA in the UK. In so far as it is notified, though, we are aware that in the past year, 2017-2018 to the end of February, there were 59 requests for assistance, 29 notified unsuccessful applications and only two notified successful applications. I readily accede that not all those who made an application notified that fact and not all those who made a successful application notified that, so the data is limited. As a consequence we do not know the sums that were awarded in these cases because there is no requirement for notification. It is a limited compass and what will be in its place is not as good as what exists at present. Nobody is pretending otherwise, but it is appropriate that we put the statute book into proper form in order that people are not confused when they come to determine what their rights are in this context.
Turning to the European protection order and the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, it is simply not possible to operate that scheme if we leave without a deal because under the terms of the relevant provision only the court of a member state can make a request and under the scheme it can make a request only to the court of another EU member state. In the event that we receive an application before exit, we will process it because it will have been competently made by the other member state and we will be receiving it at a time when we are a member state, but after exit we cannot make such orders because they will not be accepted as competent by the EU 27 states, and we cannot expect to receive any because they cannot competently make such a request of the United Kingdom once it ceases to be a member state. To put this into context, I should emphasise that this order is very rarely used. Four EPOs have been issued by the English and Welsh courts and the Northern Ireland authorities since this provision was implemented in 2015, and only two of those were recognised by the receiving EU state over a period of four years. In the same period, six EPOs were received by the courts from other member states of which four were recognised and two were declined, so we are talking about tiny numbers in this context.
On the European supervision order, I would, with respect, seek to correct the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The supervision order is directed to pre-criminal trial matters such as bail. It does not apply to any post-criminal trial order of the court. The reference to supervision is perhaps a little misleading in that context. It deals essentially with a situation in which somebody is placed on bail under bail conditions and the relevant supervision order can be enforced in another EU member state with the result that a citizen of an EU member state who is subject to bail may move into another EU member state without breaching the relevant conditions of their bail order. That is essentially what it deals with. It has again been very rarely used since implementation in 2015. The number we had received at the time the regulations were laid was four since 2015. Interestingly, a further six have emerged since the regulations were laid, I think five of which have come from Cyprus. I do not know whether they all pertain to the same group, but the numbers are very small. In turn, the courts in England and Wales have issued two such supervision orders, but neither is extant. They have both expired because the relevant parties have been discharged or have gone through the criminal trial process. We do not anticipate that this will have any major impact.
The financial penalties order came into force in 2012, since which time we have received about 3,759 requests for enforcement of civil penalties, most of them from the Netherlands, and we have issued about 3,400 requests for the recovery of financial penalties, most of them to Poland.
We have one point to bear in mind. Where we issue a request for a financial penalty to be recovered, we do not get the money. It is retained by the EU member state that makes the recovery. To that extent we do not get a financial benefit, but where we do benefit is in the event that we are requested to recover a financial penalty; we can then retain it. The sums involved are relatively modest. The average fine is in the region of £300 based on figures collected in 2015. If that is applied to the number of requests we are getting, we are still talking about a sum of approximately £100,000. However, I emphasise that these estimates are approximate. As I say, it is not a case of us recovering the money that has been imposed by a UK court for reasons best known to the European authorities, I am sure; rather, the proceeds go to the jurisdiction that actually recovers the funds in the event that they do so.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd
On the Minister’s last point, the ability of a court to fine someone who is here knowing that it will be enforced of course means that the court considers that a financial penalty might be more desirable than the imposition of a short term of imprisonment. Bearing in mind the desire to get rid of or reduce the number of short terms in prison, has anyone looked at the impact that imposing fines that we know will not be enforced will have on the policy of trying to reduce short terms of imprisonment?
Lord Keen of Elie
I do not believe that any distinct analysis has been made of that issue, but the noble and learned Lord will be well aware that the problem of recovering financial penalties is hardly limited to people who have gone to Poland or the Netherlands. There is a far more fundamental problem with recovering financial penalties within the United Kingdom. That is much greater in its extent and impact on the sentencing policies of the courts than that of the few people who move abroad after a financial penalty has been imposed and not paid. Of course we are looking at the whole area of sentencing policy with regard to the issue of short-term sentences, and we can only encourage the courts to move away from them in circumstances where they have confidence in the imposition of non-custodial sentences, which of course include community orders and financial orders. I would suggest that this is a relatively small aspect of a bigger problem, but I acknowledge the bigger problem. It is one that requires to be analysed fully as we take forward our sentencing policy.
That takes me neatly or otherwise on to the final point, which is the question of taking into account prior convictions. Just to be clear: this regulation addresses the question of what the court does once it has the information and the data. Indeed, the question of data transfer is, I am pleased to say, a matter for Home Office Ministers.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble and learned friend speaks for the Government.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Whip has just reminded me that I speak for the Government. Of course I do—with relish. Be that as it may, Home Office Ministers have in fact already brought forward an SI on plans to deal with the transfer of data under the ECR and that has already been debated and approved. But perhaps it is more important to point out that, with regard to the transfer of data concerning previous convictions, that can be secured under a European Council directive and therefore there remains a mechanism by which we can address the matter. The information flows will remain and travel under the mutual legal assistance convention of the European Council.
I come now to the purpose of the regulation itself. Under the existing European directive, the courts are bound to take account of a previous conviction in another member state. That is implemented by way of Section 143(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. In the event that we are looking at convictions that occurred in a non-EU member state, the courts have a discretion to have regard to that previous conviction pursuant to Section 143(5) of the 2003 Act. The point that this regulation addresses is that, if we cease to be an EU member, we are no longer tied into the scheme for EU member states pursuant to Section 143(2) of the 2003 Act, but of course we will remain in a position to deal with this as a discretionary matter, as we would with other third-party countries.
The point of this regulation is simply that there is no logical reason for treating one set of third-party countries differently from another set: that is why the regulation brings the position with the EU 27 states into line in the event that we leave without a deal. That is what we are seeking to address, but I underline the point I made in my opening speech that this regulation is not to do with the transfer of data or access to information but with how the courts deal with it once they actually have that data or information. I hope that that covers all the points that have been raised by noble Lords.
Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non-Contractual Obligations (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non-Contractual Obligations (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, as before, this instrument forms part of the Government’s ongoing work to ensure that there are functioning domestic laws in the event that the United Kingdom leaves the European Union without a future deal on civil judicial co-operation. Of course, as I have indicated before, the Government’s priority is to secure that we leave the European Union with an agreement that will address these matters. This instrument relates solely to the situation in which we have to accommodate no-deal exit preparations. In the event that we enter an agreement and there is an implementation period, the coming into force of this instrument will be deferred until the end of that implementation period. Of course, its terms and applicability would be considered in the light of any future agreement secured during the implementation period.
The instrument relates to the existing European Union rules that determine which country’s laws apply when citizens have cross-border obligations, such as when they are buying or selling goods and services. They apply to both contractual and non-contractual matters. An example of a cross-border contractual matter would be a contract for the sale of goods by a company in France to a company in England. An example of a non-contractual matter would be the duty of care owed by a party in one EU country to a client based in another—for example, not to give negligent advice that causes financial loss. The rules are known as applicable law or conflict of law rules, and are entirely separate and distinct from the jurisdiction rules that determine which country’s courts should hear a cross-border dispute. They are an important part of the EU civil judicial co-operation framework and they enhance legal certainty, which in turn underpins trade and commerce between member states—and, indeed, between member states and the rest of the world.
The EU applicable law rules are currently found in two main instruments: the Rome I and Rome II regulations. The Rome I regulation on the law applicable to contractual obligations is a directly applicable EU regulation. It applies to contracts formed on and after 17 December 2009. It is the current law in all EU member states other than Denmark, which opted out of this regulation. I should note that the Rome I regulation was preceded by the 1980 Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, a treaty to which the UK and a number of now-EU member states are still contracting parties. That treaty came into force in the United Kingdom on 1 April 1991 and was implemented through the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990. It continues to apply to any contracts entered into between April 1991 and 16 December 2009. Of course, such contracts might conceivably still be in force today; also, it still applies to contracts with Denmark because it opted out of the subsequent regulation. The Rome II regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations is also a directly applicable EU regulation. It commenced on 11 January 2009 and, like Rome I, is the law in all EU member states other than Denmark.
If I may, I will refer simply to the “Rome rules” in addressing this matter. In each case, the Rome rules start from the premise that parties subject at least to certain limitations are entitled to choose the country’s law that applies to their contractual or non-contractual obligations. They operate so that, provided that the requirements of the rules are complied with, their choice of law is valid, will be respected by the courts of a participating EU member state and will be applied to determine any dispute. Where the parties have not chosen a country’s law, the Rome rules lay down a set of default rules to enable parties and the courts to determine which country’s laws will apply.
There are both general and specific default rules. For contractual matters, the general default rule in Rome I is that the applicable law should be the law of the country with which the contract is most closely connected. For non-contractual matters under Rome II, it is the law of the country in which the damage occurs. In addition, special rules apply to particular types of contractual and non-contractual matters. For example, Rome I contains rules specific to insurance contracts, consumer contracts and employment contracts, while Rome II contains rules specific to product liability, unfair competition and environmental damage.
Although part of the EU civil judicial co-operation framework, the Rome rules differ from the other EU rules in that framework in one important respect. The Rome rules do not, for the most part, rely on reciprocity to operate effectively between member states. Participating EU member state courts must apply the applicable law determined by the rules, irrespective of whether that law is the law of an EU member state or a non-EU country. For example, if you are in France, the French courts are obliged to apply those rules even though your choice of law may be Russian, American or that of any other state outwith the EU. That is essentially why we are able to retain these rules in domestic law going forward.
This statutory instrument implements the Rome rules in the event that we leave without a deal by retaining the rules as domestic law, post exit. Of course, a benefit of that is ensuring that UK citizens, businesses and consumers continue to have clear and workable rules on which law applies to cross-border situations they may find themselves in. Consequently, when we leave the EU and in the event that we do so without a deal, the Rome I and II regulations will effectively be retained as domestic law; under the provisions of the withdrawal Act 2018, they will become retained European law.
However, certain amendments are required because there will be some differences in how the Rome rules are applied by courts in the United Kingdom and those in EU member states, post exit. Due to the way in which the EU rules are constructed, EU member states may treat UK cases slightly differently in some specific instances, for example where Rome I and II refer specifically to member states or the European community. We will have to accommodate that when we bring the matter into domestic law; we have therefore amended these references. Our status as a contracting party will alter but we will have those rules in our domestic law as retained European law.
However, the position regarding the Rome convention —the earlier convention—is different because our status as a contracting party to it will terminate as a matter of international law once the UK has left the EU. The convention will no longer be binding on the United Kingdom. The approach taken in this instrument is that the substantive rules of the convention will continue and are brought into domestic law but, as I noted before, they apply only to contracts entered into up to 16 December 2009 and in respect of Denmark. One change to the convention provisions will be that UK courts will no longer be in a position under the convention rules to refer questions of interpretation of the 1980 Rome convention to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I think it very appropriate that the Ministry of Justice should decide as a principle as far as possible to preserve the existing rules as they currently apply in the UK immediately after exit day. The purpose is,
“to provide maximum certainty and stability for businesses and individuals”.
However, I am concerned about the impact on business, even though the impact assessment does not throw up anything in particular. I am always very conscious of the strength of Hong Kong, which built its reputation and financial power on the fact that it uses English common law as the basis of its legal system. That means that contracts are readily made and understood, which has been of great economic benefit to Hong Kong. I notice that the impact assessment refers to the,
“strong international reputation as a centre of legal excellence”,
that this country currently enjoys. Anyone connected with the law knows that our legal profession has a great reputation, English law is frequently the preferred law and English courts are used even though a particular dispute has nothing to do with England, so this is a very profitable part of the legal world.
I shall take as an example one matter referred to in paragraph 7.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which refers to,
“the law applicable to non-contractual obligations arising from infringements of unitary EU intellectual property rights … Trade Marks … Design Rights and … Plant Variety Rights. These unitary EU IP rights will no longer apply in the UK … and UK courts will no longer hear proceedings relating to such rights after exit day”.
It seems to me that there is a whole area of law which may be cut out from the jurisdiction of English courts and the services of English lawyers.
That is compounded by the fact that these regulations remove the ability of UK courts to refer questions of interpretation of the 1980 Rome convention to the Court of Justice of the European Union—to my mind, that is a significant restriction—just as the interpretation of retained EU law generally cannot be decided by that court. We are going from a well understood legal system to something that is much more limited than we have been used to.
On the broad basis, however, the fact that the rights are generally retained is to be welcomed.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, in an attempt once more to be succinct, I can echo the point that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, was making. The concerns from this side are essentially about regulatory diversion. I do not think anybody is going to object to these regulations; the concern is with ongoing regulatory divergence and its potential impact, whether it is on unfair competition cases or IP cases and so on. Perhaps the Minister might consider briefly that risk of regulatory divergence in his reply.
In relation to insurance, the Explanatory Memorandum says:
“The Government engaged with representatives of the insurance industry”,
in relation to “insurance risks”. Can the Minister outline the types of risks identified in that engagement? We are told that banks and insurers are shifting hundreds of billions of pounds in assets out of the UK ahead of exit day to keep their contracts and policies within the EU area. We have learned that Aviva, Britain’s second largest insurer, will transfer around £9 billion in assets to a new Irish company, for example. Does the Minister agree with having that sort of risk to our economy? Does this reflect the concern about different outcomes that could result from insurance contract cases being resolved differently in our courts and those of our EU partners in the future?
As I say, my general proposition is on the risks of regulatory divergence, but one can hardly object to the instrument itself.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Lord and to the noble Baroness for their observations. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, observed, there will no longer be scope for a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union over the construction or interpretation of the convention. Given that the convention has been there since 1980, that may already have happened but we cannot say that it would never have happened again. But I say to the noble Lord—and I address this to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti as well—that, although there is no longer a basis for a reference by a UK court to the Court of Justice, the UK courts may of course have regard to the decisions of the Court of Justice going forward. Quite sensibly, they would have regard to decisions that bore upon the interpretation of the convention, or of Rome I and II as well. That would be of relevance to the incorporation in domestic law of provisions which had their genesis in those European Union provisions.
The immediate matter of insurance is quite narrow and concerns one of the limited derogations from the freedom to choose your own law, as it were. There is a limitation about choice of law where an insurance contract contains provision to cover risks located in the European Union. Essentially, there cannot be an insurance contract that covers risks in an EU member state where the law of Russia is chosen as the relevant law for resolving the contract. The difficulty faced in drafting these regulations was that the reference under the derogation was to a risk in an EU member state. We were going to be concerned not only with a risk in an EU member state but with a risk in the United Kingdom. This is why we have had to move from reference to “member state” to “relevant state”, which is, in turn, defined by reference to member states and the United Kingdom. It is a fairly narrow move, which I do not believe is, of itself, going to impact on the choice or application of law with regard to the type of contract to any material extent. I do not see how it would impact on the transfer of assets such as was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. This is not what this regulation is addressing.
I acknowledge that, if we leave the European Union without a deal—which is not this Government’s preferred option—there will be issues for banks, insurance companies and others with regard to their future arrangements in the European Union. No one would take away from that. That said, this is essentially implementing an existing scheme with just those changes necessary to make sure it operates in domestic law. I do not believe this is going to take away from the attractiveness of English law—or, indeed, Scots law—as a system for the resolution of commercial disputes. English law in particular remains the lingua franca for charter parties, major commercial contracts and so on. Because of the flexibility of common law, it will continue to be used for this reason. I do not see that this is going to result in any major change. No doubt there are options when it comes to choosing a common law system—such as the law of Hong Kong, Singapore or New York, for example. That already exists and we deal with it.
Noting all the observations that have been made, I beg to move.
Motion agreed.
Architects Act 1997 (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the Grand Committee do consider the Architects Act 1997 (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before both Houses on 18 February 2019. They are part of the Government’s programme of legislation to ensure that if the UK leaves the EU without a deal and an implementation period, there continues to be a functioning legislative and regulatory regime.
Leaving the EU with a deal remains the Government’s top priority. This has not changed but the responsible thing to do is to accelerate no-deal preparations to ensure that the country is prepared for every eventuality. These regulations are made using powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to fix legal deficiencies in retained EU law to reflect that the UK will no longer be an EU member state after exit day. Our architectural sector is a global leader and plays a significant role in the British economy, with an export surplus of £437 million in 2015 and involvement in key global projects such as the Neues Museum in Berlin and the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History & Culture in Washington DC.
I trust that noble Lords will allow me to provide a brief overview of how the system works at present. The mutual recognition of professional qualifications directive enables EEA nationals to have certain qualifications recognised in another member state. This includes the recognition of suitably qualified architects. This is a reciprocal arrangement, allowing UK and other EEA nationals the opportunity easily to register to practice across Europe and UK practices to recruit the best European talent. The Architects Act 1997 sets out the specific procedures for registering architects in the United Kingdom. The recognition of qualifications of EEA applicants is carried out by the competent authority, the Architects Registration Board, an arm’s-length body of my department.
There are currently three routes to recognition for an EEA architect wishing to register in the United Kingdom. The main route to recognition in the United Kingdom for an EEA-national architect is through an automatic recognition system. To qualify for automatic recognition, an EEA national needs to meet three criteria. They must have an approved qualification—that is, one listed in Annexe V of the EU’s mutual recognition of professional qualifications directive—access to the profession of architect in an EEA member state and a statement from their home competent authority confirming that they are fit to practice.
A second route, known as general systems, provides recognition for EEA nationals who do not have an approved qualification. General systems allows EEAs national to map their qualification and experience against UK standards with the Architects Registration Board. An applicant is offered compensation measures, that is, the opportunity to undertake additional training to make up any differences in qualification. This is a long and costly process, which on average only four people pursue annually.
The third route facilitates the temporary or occasional provision of service. This allows EEA professionals to work in the United Kingdom in a regulated profession on a temporary basis while remaining established in their home state. Typically, fewer than 20 EEA architects pursue this option at any one time.
If the UK leaves the EU without a deal, the mutual recognition of professional qualifications directive will no longer apply in the United Kingdom. This statutory instrument ensures that UK architect practices can continue to recruit the best European talent and maintain their global reputation as world leaders in the field of architecture.
The policy intention is to provide the sector with confidence that almost all applicants can register in the same way after exit day as they do currently. This is the approach favoured by the sector, which recognises the skills brought by EEA architects as contributing positively to the UK’s reputation as a world leader. The instrument also allows applications made before exit day to be concluded under the current system as far as possible. For future applications after EU exit in a no-deal scenario, an individual holding an approved qualification will be able to join the UK register of architects if they have access to the profession of architect in their home state. The instrument will achieve this by freezing the current list of approved qualifications in the EU’s mutual recognition of professional qualifications directive. This approach will preserve access for UK practices to EEA-qualified architects. This process will be open to anyone with an EEA qualification and access to the profession in the corresponding EEA state, regardless of citizenship. Although temporary, this approach will provide continuity to the sector in the immediate period after we leave the EU with no deal and will be reviewed after exit.
We will remove general systems as a route to registration—noble Lords will recall that this is the currently the second route for qualification, but only four or five people pursue it in any one year—as it is a long and costly process which is not utilised often. It places a significant unnecessary burden on individuals and the Architects Registration Board. Therefore applicants without an approved qualification, including applicants who would have previously qualified for acquired rights, will now be able to pursue the prescribed exam route and undertake further examinations and periods of study to allow registration. This is the route currently utilised by third-country nationals.
We will encourage the regulator, the Architects Registration Board, to maintain its existing effective relationships with other EEA competent authorities. The instrument provides a legal basis for the ARB to continue communicating with other EEA competent authorities to facilitate recognition decisions, ensuring that it can verify that the applicant meets the UK’s high standard of competence.
This instrument places a requirement on the applicant to obtain the relevant information from their home competent authority, should the Architects Registration Board not be able to secure it. This is because currently the Architects Registration Board facilitates information sharing through the EU internal market information system. Without a deal we cannot be confident that the Architects Registration Board will continue to have access to this important information-sharing system. The instrument will remove the right of temporary and occasional provision of services as without guaranteed access to information systems and an agreed process for reciprocation, this route becomes unwieldy and of less value. This will have minimal impact on the sector as only 12 people are currently practising on that basis. Historically, fewer than 20 people have practised as an architect in the UK on a temporary and occasional basis at any one time.
Our overall approach to these amendments is in line with the policy and legal intent of the withdrawal Act and enacts the policy that the Government set out in a guidance document in January 2019. These regulations serve a very specific purpose: to prioritise stability and certainty if the United Kingdom leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period. The regulations will ensure that the UK continues to have access to top European talent after we have left the EU, thereby helping to maintain the UK’s reputation as a global leader in architectural services. Thereafter, they provide a stable basis for Parliament to change the law where it is in the UK’s best interests to do so.
This instrument is necessary to ensure that the Architects Act continues to function appropriately if the UK leaves the EU without a deal and an implementation period. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation. At present, one in six architects in the UK IS from the EU 27. Indeed, the Royal Institute of British Architects estimates that in London and the south-east the proportion is as high as a quarter. Many are employed by large firms with international portfolios of work, particularly on big infrastructure and construction projects such as airports. The contribution of EU 27 architects is not just numerical; it also relates to cultural, language and specialist skills, such as interior design or acoustics, which give high added value to the UK’s capacity to export its architectural services worldwide. Retaining access to EU 27 architects will therefore be very important to the continued prosperity of the architectural services export sector, which depends on having cosmopolitan skills available to deploy in designing schemes that will be built right across the world. One estimate is that this generates around £2 billion of export earnings a year. In addition, there are EU 27 architects resident abroad who are employed on UK building projects. Without them, work would be delayed and the industry’s capacity severely reduced.
This statutory instrument at least recognises that there is a looming problem. It could be said to be making the best of a bad job by attempting to continue ready access for qualified architects from the rest of Europe to the UK. However, paragraph 2.10 of the Explanatory Memorandum relates to individuals’ ability to come to the UK because they will be subject to Her Majesty’s Government’s immigration policy. In other words, first, there will be an income limit; secondly, there will be access only via an employer’s application and payment of an annual fee; and, thirdly, there will be no right to move from job to job. That last point is particularly relevant in this sector, where particular expertise may be needed only for a short time on any one project and it would be routine to move on to another firm with a similar project at the right stage for the exercise of a specialism. There is serious concern within the construction industry that the Government do not acknowledge the importance of the sector in delivering every other policy objective of homes, capital investment in the NHS and capital investment in education, nor do they seem to understand the key role that migrants at every skill level of the industry play in delivering the key outcomes that the Government want.
I have three questions for the Minister. First, does he recognise that no deal puts at risk not just the delivery of key government policy objectives in many fields but will undermine the export potential of a flourishing architectural services sector? Secondly, what assessment have the Government made of the median salary paid to EU 27 architects in the UK, and what is his department’s estimate of the reduction in numbers of architects coming to the UK as a consequence of this imposition of the universal immigration salary cap on this group?
Thirdly, will he look again at why the Government have decided to end the right to an individualised skills assessment for those coming from the EU 27 who may not have fully completed their accreditation? That is known as general systems, as set out in paragraph 2.12 of the Explanatory Memorandum. This has the appearance of pettiness, cutting out a route for a minority of potential employees for no good reason and simply souring the atmosphere further. I hope the Government understand that what may appear to be a short and simple statutory instrument in relation to architects could actually have profound implications for the international status and competitiveness of the architectural industry.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an honorary fellow of the RIBA.
I agree very much with what has just been said. Obviously my noble friend is presenting this as a necessary statutory instrument were we to leave the European Union without a deal, and in that sense no doubt we will have to pass it. However, we have also to say that it is an interesting example of the Government’s amazing ability to recognise that there is a need and produce a way of making sure that everyone who is an architect can come here, so we are not going to shoot ourselves in the foot, without saying the key thing, which is that our architects cannot go there. We are becoming an island that wants all the advantages but wants to carry none of the responsibility.
I know my noble friend will not like this, but I say to him that I am sorry that he, of all people, should be asked to present a measure that is another indication of the sense of decline that this nation now has. Instead of recognising that in so many things co-operation, common views, common standards and common deals are necessary, we are busy trying to pretend that there is an alternative route—a kind of 19th-century protectionist route—keeping the opportunity to gain advantages from other people but not expecting to play our part in common standards and the like. I am sorry he has to do it—I am sure that he finds it as difficult as I would were I in his position—but I remind noble Lords of the seriousness of what this actually means. It means becoming a different kind of country, one which is much less worthy than the country that first entered the European Union.
Lord Deben
Well, if it were consulted, why is it not listed in the Explanatory Memorandum, as far as I can see? Perhaps I have misread it—I apologise to my noble friend if I have—but I think it says that the ARB was consulted, or that officials
“have been in regular contact with ARB”.
The ARB is constantly referred to, not the RIBA. I have declared my interest, but it happens to be true that the RIBA is the body to which most architects would look for advice and to which they have given their concerns.
As this is not going to be a both-ways arrangement and because the Government do not want a no-deal exit from the European Union—although what the blazes they do want is increasingly difficult to understand, and I suspect that the negotiations would have gone much better if people had known in the first place what they wanted, because clearly not until very recently did anybody know anything about what we wanted—can the Minister give me an assurance that one of the things we will be seeking immediately in negotiations for some sort of reasonable exit—which of course would leave us in a worse position than we are in at the moment—but even if that was so, would be to make this a reciprocal arrangement and that that reciprocity would be at least as good as the present reciprocity?
That leads me to my last point, which is on the Immigration Rules. The architectural profession is remarkably badly paid. If you look at the average wage of an architect, it is remarkably low for a member of a professional body. So I am concerned, as was the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that we should not allow the Immigration Rules to interfere with our ability to recruit from the rest of Europe. It seems to me that this is a serious double jeopardy system. Why do we have to have these rules? Surely we could have had, in these regulations, a very simple system which said that if you got a job with a British architect registered with the ARB you would be able to have that job. Why do we have to double-do it? Is there not a much more sensible way, which is merely to do exactly what we do at the moment and say publicly that we would like this to continue to be reciprocal, although we do not have the ability to make it reciprocal ourselves?
I remind my noble friend of the figures that have been quoted: it is likely that one in four of architects in the London area come from the rest of Europe, so this is no minor matter. Therefore, I hope that we can have assurances that the Government will seek, under any agreement, to have reciprocity and, secondly, that the Minister will look again at the idea that we have to insist upon going through our immigration arrangements, when we could have a perfectly simple system, like the one we have at the moment. We should look very carefully at any income limit in any case because it is likely to affect newly-qualified architects from the rest of Europe in a way that would do our profession no good. It would interfere with, and indeed endanger, the very large amount of money that Britain earns through the primacy of our architectural profession. When you are talking about what may be £2 billion, you are talking about a very serious amount of money. If we cannot recruit newly-qualified experts from the rest of Europe to a shockingly underpaid profession, that would do us a great deal of harm.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, not for the first time, Newcastle is united in this Grand Committee. I think we would both welcome the noble Lord, who has characteristically analysed the Government’s proposals in a very effective way.
This instrument will freeze the list of architectural qualifications that are recognised immediately before exit day in the event of a no-deal Brexit. As a result, an individual holding one of those qualifications will be eligible to join the UK register of architects if they have access to the profession of architect in their home state. This will allow access to the workforce of EU-qualified and EEA-qualified architects. The register of qualified architects of the UK held by the Architects Registration Board currently includes 40,650 members, 17% of whom were admitted under EU directive procedures. Given that significant number, it is astonishing that no impact assessment appears to have been prepared for this SI. The UK must of course continue to attract the best talent after Brexit and have an immigration system that responds to the needs of industry, especially in the context of the architectural sector. The London’s Architectural Sector report states that the city’s architecture industry is worth £1.7 billion and is growing at 7% every year. That figure is set against the industry’s total value nationally of £4.8 billion, a significant contribution to the economy nationally.
The SI makes little attempt to make up for the damage that the industry has faced since the referendum, which has caused an alarming amount of uncertainty for businesses in the last two and half years. Since the referendum, projects up and down the country have been postponed as this period of chaos has badly damaged the investment market. An article on Consultancy.uk referred to Global by Design, published in 2018 by the RIBA, which said that 68% of architects have already seen Brexit impact their revenue stream as they have had projects put on hold and moreover, crucially, that 74% of architects regard access to the EU single market as necessary if the industry’s international workload is to grow. Already 40% of practices have had projects in the EU cancelled since the referendum.
The regulations fail to protect the recognition of UK-qualified architects’ qualifications in the EEA in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Those architects will have to rely on the individual registration policies of the 27 member states. The Government must look to establish a new mutual recognition agreement with the EU as soon as possible in order to provide reciprocity, and a date for that would be very welcome. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response on that issue.
The Explanatory Memorandum states:
“The applicant’s ability to establish in the UK will be dependent on Government immigration policies”.
However, the Government’s immigration Bill has stalled and a £30,000 salary requirement for skilled migrants has been suggested. How many architects from EU or EEA countries living in the UK earn more than £30,000 now? How many architects have already registered with the Government’s settled-status scheme? Being a tier 2 sponsor for those earning more than £30,000 is difficult for many architecture firms because the process is lengthy and expensive. Have the Government done any work with the sector and the RIBA to assess exactly how much it will cost and whether the sector can bear the cost? According to the RIBA, the number of EU architects registering to practise in the UK has dropped by 42% since 2016, and 60% of them here at the moment say that they would consider leaving. That would damage architecture as a service both in this country and abroad; it would clearly suffer.
Architectural qualification requirements are frozen during the review period. How long does the Minister expect that period to last? How will architects come and work in the UK with new qualifications during this period? Paragraph 2.14 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“After EU exit, the ARB may lose access to the Internal Market Information (IMI) system. This facilitates communication between competent authorities. As a result, this instrument places the requirement to provide written verification from their home competent authority on the applicant should ARB be unable to secure it directly from the relevant competent authority”.
What assessment have the Government carried out to determine the ease of getting this written verification? Does it differ between authorities? Paragraph 2.12 states:
“This instrument removes the registration route of General Systems, which enables EU and EEA applicants who do not meet the automatic recognition criteria to work with the ARB to map what experience they do have against the UK criteria, and gain the experience necessary”.
Will the ARB offer any additional help to get candidates to work in the UK?
Finally, what estimate have the Government made of Brexit’s impact on UK practices and individuals currently, or potentially, working in Europe? What steps, if any, are they taking to create a new system including a reciprocal system of accepted professional qualifications?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who responded to the SI. I will seek to deal with the various points they have made.
First, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, rightly emphasised the importance of qualified architects from the EU 27. Of course, this measure goes a bit beyond that because it covers EEA-qualified architects from Liechtenstein, Norway and Iceland too. Switzerland is in a similar position but the EU 27 countries make up the most significant part of the regulations. I do not deny that the regulations are important for the United Kingdom—indeed, I would affirm it—because of the impact they would otherwise have on individuals practising here or seeking to do so in future, and because of the importance of this sector to the UK economy. The regulations are therefore important for those positions.
Like other noble Lords, the noble Lord referred to the general immigration position, rather than anything specific to architects as such. Reference has been made to the £30,000 threshold. I should say that as things stand, it is not the defined and final position of the Home Office. Rather, it is a recommendation of the Migration Advisory Committee so we will feed in information regarding different sectors. We are working with our professional business service colleagues in BEIS to collect information from architecture firms around the country on what the threshold should be. I agree with my noble friend about the position of architects as a profession: on the whole—with exceptions, of course—their earnings tend to be on the low side. That will certainly be a relevant factor and one we would wish to pursue.
The noble Lord went on to discuss the recognition of the general systems in a no-deal scenario. He could not understand why we were not pursuing that. I am not sure whether this was grasped, and it may be my fault, but I emphasise that we are seeking to freeze the qualifications that are recognised. This does not mean that those who go on to get those qualifications later on cannot then practise in this country. They can while this remains the legal position, so after this is passed it would not debar anyone with these qualifications from practising in the UK. Indeed, while this remains the law it seeks to facilitate that. It is not those people who already have the qualifications; it is recognising those qualifications. Anyone getting that qualification later on will certainly be able to practise in the United Kingdom. I remind noble Lords that the number of people using the general systems qualification is four or five a year. Of those who make inquiries about it, 96% do not pursue this route because it is very cumbersome and difficult, so it is viewed as better that they qualify in the way we are setting out.
Flags (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Duncan of Springbank
That the Grand Committee do consider the Flags (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of this instrument is to remove the legal requirement for Northern Ireland government buildings and court buildings to observe Europe Day—9 May—as a designated flag-flying day after the UK has left the European Union.
Flag-flying from government buildings and court buildings in Northern Ireland is regulated by the Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000. These regulations provide that on certain designated days the union flag—and, in certain circumstances, other flags—may be flown on government buildings. For the purposes of these regulations, a Northern Ireland government building is defined as a building that is wholly or mainly occupied by members of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. In 2002, the flag-flying requirements in the 2000 regulations were extended to court buildings in Northern Ireland.
The instrument is being made under Section 8(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which makes provisions to deal with arrangements no longer appropriate after the UK leaves the EU. It is worth noting that Europe Day will cease to be a designated flag-flying day across England, Scotland and Wales following the UK’s exit from the EU. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has already amended its guidance to that effect.
When this instrument was first laid, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee recommended that it should be upgraded to the “made affirmative” procedure so that it could be debated carefully. This is why we are here this evening. I also stress that the power to make these amending regulations under the EU withdrawal Act does not come into force until after exit day. Therefore, subject to the will of Parliament, these regulations will not be made until after exit day has passed. There is every possibility that Europe Day will be marked this year. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, the Minister may be disappointed and surprised to learn that we do not support this statutory instrument. We think it undesirable and unnecessary. None of us can deny that flags in Northern Ireland are a very sensitive issue. Our sister party in Northern Ireland suffered the consequences of the dispute in Belfast in 2012 when its offices were burned out.
This is about a specific flag—the Europe flag—and a specific day. I am very concerned that DCMS has issued guidance—which I presume is not legally enforceable—that, if we leave the European Union, we should no longer fly the Europe flag on Europe Day. This seems a total denial of where this flag came from and what it is supposed to celebrate, which is not the European Union. The flag is in fact much older than the European Union, or even the Common Market: it was, in fact, created in 1955 as the flag of the Council of Europe. It remains the flag of the Council of Europe and the UK will continue to be a member of the Council—for ever, I hope—although the Prime Minister gives the impression that she would like to leave that organisation as well. I would absolutely deplore, as that was one organisation of which we were a founder member.
It is also interesting to note, as a matter of design, that the design of the flag—12 stars against a sky background —represents symbols of perfection. It represents the 12 apostles, the 12 tribes of Israel, the 12 labours of Hercules and the 12 months of the year. It is a symbol of peace in Europe and Europe Day represents peace in Europe, originally foreshadowed by the Schuman declaration. I am pleased that the Minister said that, at least this year, the European flag may continue to fly; at least I think that is what he said, because this year is the 70th anniversary of the foundation of the Council of Europe and it would seem very regrettable then to remove the flag from public buildings in Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
I put two questions to the Minister. There is no need whatever for this to be passed, is there not? I am minded—indeed, I intend—to table a Motion to the effect that this statutory instrument should be abandoned and that any such decision as to which flags are flown should be left to the relevant authorities in Northern Ireland as and when they are able to do so. I would also like clarification of what the DCMS guidance means for public buildings in the rest of the United Kingdom where, it seems to me, the Europe flag should fly on Europe Day and other organisations should be allowed to make their own decisions. The only minor detail is whether you fly it on 5 May or 9 May. The European Union chooses to fly it on 9 May, while the Council of Europe flies it on 5 May because that was the date of the foundation of the Council in 1949.
I speak with some passion on this, having been privileged to have been a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for six years. I am a passionate believer that the Council of Europe has contributed hugely to the development of, and the sustaining of peace and democracy in, Europe and that the United Kingdom, which Ministers have consistently said may be leaving the European Union—I say may be—is not leaving Europe. I suggest to the Minister that this is a completely inappropriate statutory instrument, that the DCMS guidelines are also completely inappropriate and that the United Kingdom should continue proudly to fly the flag of Europe, not the European Union, on Europe Day.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I was present in the debate when we discussed the flags issue in the first place. In the House of Commons at that time, we sought to ensure that the union flag was not used as a badge of sectarian difference. I was not only present but spoke in favour of the Government’s move, against the united opposition of the Ulster Unionists at that time: they did not want those restrictions. The purpose was to promote peace and harmony and to recognise the union flag as the flag of all who lived in the north of Ireland and not just of one part. Therefore, this is a very important issue and nothing that I say is meant to suggest that we should not have this rather different regulation for the north of Ireland, because this is about the history of the misuse of the union flag for sectarian purposes.
I take that very seriously, but I also take very seriously what seems to me to be a cheap and nasty statutory instrument. We have had to put up with all sorts of statutory instruments that we would have to have if we were to leave the European Union without a deal, but this one is not necessary. There is no reason for it at all, except a nasty little smack at the European Union and at Europe as a whole.
If the Government were trying to be helpful and to include people who are so deeply upset by all the Brexit shenanigans, they would merely have changed the date from 9 May to 5 May. We would merely have flown this flag on the day of the Council of Europe; that is the day when the council flies it. So there was a perfectly reasonable way in which the Government could have done that and in which DCMS could have provided its guidance. The truth is that this is unnecessary in any case. It is just mean to treat people in this way, particularly in the north of Ireland where there was a significant vote in favour of remaining within the European Union, and among those voters were large numbers of unionists.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Murphy will speak shortly from these Benches. I am reminded as I listen to this debate of the words of his predecessor, Leo Abse, MP for Pontypool and then Torfaen for 30 years and responsible for more social legislation than any individual MP. When he announced his retirement, he said: “I do not know who will succeed me. My only advice is: tolerate everyone, tolerate everything, but never ever tolerate the intolerant”.
This provision is a crass act of intolerance. It is not just silly. Those of us who have served in both Houses—a number of us in the Committee today have served in the Commons and in this House—know that at times Parliament has done some silly things, but this is a stupid and offensive thing. I have the honour to serve on the Council of Europe. Together with parliamentarians from both Houses, I will be going there on 7 April for the next full session of its parliamentary assembly.
This is the 70th anniversary of the Council of Europe —we were its co-founders—which predates the European Union. We have heard Ministers and members of the Government saying time and again, “We are leaving the EU, not leaving Europe”. That point was made earlier in the debate. This is a symbol of us all in Europe. The Council of Europe is larger, older and more united than the European Union. This is the barmiest thing to do, and it is offensive. A leading Conservative, Sir Roger Gale, leads Britain’s representatives in the Council of Europe. He does it with pride and does a good job. Please do not think this is blowing our own trumpet, but I can tell the Committee that the British delegation to the Council of Europe makes a huge contribution. We take part in most of the debates; some very powerful arguments and good ideas are put forward. We are listened to and benefit from being part of this greater, wider assembly.
The symbol of the Council of Europe, of us all within Europe, should be retained. We should use it, we should fly it and—as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has just said—if we have an issue about the date we should move it to 5 May, the date on which the Council of Europe was set up. The Government really ought to think again. As I say, this is not just silly; it is stupid and offensive.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom where under the current legislation there are 18 designated days for flying the flag on government buildings. Usually these discussions are highly contentious back in Northern Ireland; as we have heard, in extreme cases—I am thinking of Belfast City Hall—unfortunately they can lead to civil unrest. This is a delicate matter and has to be discussed in a reasonable fashion.
I take a different point of view. I think it would no longer be appropriate to fly the flag, especially if we leave Europe through Brexit, so I support the instrument before us. On a slightly wider issue, as part of the fresh start agreement negotiated by the Stormont parties in November 2015, a 15-person commission was set up to study a range of long-standing, complex and challenging areas in relation to the expression of mutual and cultural identity in Northern Ireland. One of the issues which was to be addressed in that was the unofficial flying of flags in outdoor spaces such as on lamp-posts and so on. Has that draft report been completed? If so, can its findings be published in the absence of a sitting Executive? Maybe this committee, if it is still sitting, could take up the issue. I support the flag not being flown if indeed we leave Europe.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I think I support the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, on the situation in Northern Ireland itself. I assume the Government consulted on this issue with the Northern Ireland parties—at least, I hope so. If they did not, or indeed if they did, it has to be seen in the context of a very sensitive issue in Northern Ireland, as the Minister and others will know.
Today we have a specific issue in front of us about the European flag. I suspect that this instrument is both spiteful and flawed. The noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Bruce, and my noble friend Lord Touhig have given powerful reasons why it is spiteful, but I do not think the Government have actually thought of the implications of the flag also being the flag of the Council of Europe. There is no indication in the literature we have or in the debate held in the other place. It seems to me that the Government believed this was entirely about the European Union and completely forgot the issue of the Council of Europe and the fact that there are in Europe two separate days to celebrate Europe. Clearly 9 May, the European Union day, will no longer be celebrated in the way it has in the past, but 5 May still would be. Both Ireland and the United Kingdom remain strong members of the Council of Europe.
The other issue affecting the position of Northern Ireland in Europe is equally sensitive Some 56% of the people of Northern Ireland wanted to remain. I was European Minister for two years in Northern Ireland. I actually went to the Council of Europe to explain the Good Friday agreement to all the members and they played a big role, as indeed did the EU itself, not just with the peace money; the support that came to Northern Ireland during that period was immense.
We cannot go back over the issues affecting why it is that we are leaving Europe and the effect on Northern Ireland save to say that while our being members of the EU meant that the border on the island of Ireland was blurred and there was constant contact between Irish and British officials and Ministers because of our joint membership of the same club. Europe has played an enormous part in changing the way that Northern Ireland has operated over the past 20 years, and indeed in the Good Friday agreement. We cannot suddenly wipe away all that history in a few seconds, but this particular instrument seems to be trying to do precisely that. Symbolically, it is trying to say: “The European Union, the Council of Europe and indeed everything European had nothing at all to do with the development of Northern Ireland over the last 20 or 30 years”, when the contrary is the case. That is why it is spiteful.
It seems to me that it is up to the local authorities and the other public bodies in Northern Ireland if they wish to fly the Council of Europe flag on Council of Europe Day. What is wrong with that? No, this is a nasty little statutory instrument. It ignores the past, it forgets about the Council of Europe, and it should really be consigned to a dustbin.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My Lords, this is a more controversial issue than might have been anticipated by those who do not know Northern Ireland well or indeed the passions of noble Lords here gathered; I think that is important to recognise. I shall try to explain why we are where we are, and then the Committee must reflect upon whether that is adequate to address the issues I have raised.
The first issue to stress relates to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie about the notion of what the flag represents—indeed, being the shared flag of the Council of Europe. This is primarily about flying the union flag in Northern Ireland. If there are two flagpoles then the second flagpole may fly the additional EU flag at a lower level, but if there is only one then it will fly the union flag. It is important to stress again, and the noble Lord many wish to inquire further into this, how many government buildings in Northern Ireland have two flagpoles. The answer is precious few. We are talking here about the flying of the union flag in almost every case.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
Would that therefore mean that the union flag could not be flown on 5 May, which is Council of Europe Day, as opposed to 9 May, which is European Union Day?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Lord has pre-empted the question that I was about to answer, so I shall come straight on to that. Under this particular legislation, which of course follows on from the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, we are able to adjust the legislation to remove 9 May from being a flag-flying day. If we wish to switch the day to 5 May, though, we are precluded from doing so under this legislation. That is not available to us under this legislation. Therefore, in order for us to move forward, we have to go back to the original regulation, the Act dating back to the year 2000. In order for us to make any changes to that Act, noble Lords will be aware that there is a three-part process that wholly involves the Assembly in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Assembly is consulted, it reports to the Secretary of State and, on that basis, changes can be made. In the absence of an Assembly there can be no adjustment from 9 May to 5 May, or to any other day, in that regard.
Lord Deben
I am wondering why we do not just leave it on 9 May. If you cannot change it—which I understand—we should leave it on 9 May and announce that this is a reference to our membership of the Council of Europe. If it is the union flag, or the two flags, then that is perfectly all right. Why do we have to take it away? It is much better to leave it. Otherwise, it says something different.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Lord makes a point which he has made on many occasions—I do not doubt it. Earlier in his remarks, he said that we could do it on 9 May, but it would be better to do it on 5 May because the Council of Europe has a day that we could celebrate as well. He is now reverting back to 9 May, thereby reversing the points that he made in his earlier speech, and I will therefore set them aisde.
Importantly, we are recognising that in Northern Ireland—as anywhere else in the UK—flags are a sensitive issue. They are heavily regulated. Failure to do so has led not only to mistrust but to civil unrest. We must treat the reality in Northern Ireland with caution. This is why the adjustment to flying the flags on different days, or recognising—as we have not been able to do in Northern Ireland—the additional members of the Royal Family who are entitled to certain flag flying days, cannot happen without the express involvement of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is absolutely appropriate, given how sensitive this matter is.
We are conflating two issues: Europe and Northern Ireland. When we look back to the period 1998 to 2000 in Northern Ireland, we begin to recognise that the flags issue was not only live, but dangerous. Therefore, we have always tried to move this forward inside Northern Ireland with permission. In this instance, we are making a correction and ensuring that the whole United Kingdom is treated in the same manner.
This brings me to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie. Guidance issued by one of the Whitehall departments is different because it is not bound by regulation, as these regulations apply to Northern Ireland. They are not needed here because they are not as controversial. There will be no restriction on the flying of the flag of Europe in many places at council level, wherever they wish to do so. The actual designation of official flag flying days is heavily regulated in Northern Ireland. We are only correcting for the reality that Europe Day will not be celebrated in Northern Ireland because it is the flag of membership of the EU and that will not be true thereafter.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
I am not clear from the Minister’s initial remarks whether he is saying that the flag may be flown this year. First of all, if the longer departure date occurs, we will still be a member of the European Union on 5 or 9 May. I had the impression he said that, in any case, they could fly this year. If that is true, we can forget about this for another year anyway, by which time we can address all the other issues.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I fear that the noble Lord has misunderstood my points. If I may, I will restate and re-emphasise them. I said that this regulation will come in only after we have exited the European Union. As the noble Lord will be aware, the point at which we exit the European Union is not yet clear. If that date is after 9 May, then the flag will fly this year because that regulation will not be amendable. This order amends it only after the point of exit. That is why for this year—I am being very frank—it is unclear whether the flag will fly as per the regulations within the amended 2000 order. Up until that point, I cannot give any greater clarity. We are doing this now because we are able to do it under the existing legislation in order to correct the situation following the European Union (Withdrawal) Act.
There may come a time when those in Northern Ireland wish to reflect on which flags they fly and when they wish to fly them—I have little doubt about that—but until the Assembly comes together to determine that, it will be unable to that matter forward. I note how important this matter has been and I state again, as carefully as I can, that Northern Ireland is the only part of this kingdom in which we have had to regulate the flying of flags. Nowhere else have we had to do so. Nowhere else at council level would we anticipate anything other than the flying of flags which people wish to fly, whether they be a union flag, a European Union flag or flags for other particular purposes. This will no doubt continue. Here we are talking about a very strict and specific piece of legislation which affects only Northern Ireland.
Lord Deben
I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend. If we changed this, we would have to go through a whole system. I understand that. It was a little unfair of him to complain that I was prepared to say that if he found that difficult, we might do it in a different way. It seems very odd that that we are removing this without going through that system. We have not asked all the people who have to be asked if we going to put something else in but we are unilaterally deciding to take this day out. I find that difficult.
I started off by saying that I have been through those debates and I know them perfectly well. I got into a lot of trouble with my unionist friends because I fought for what the Government wanted. I am perfectly aware of the difficulty in the north of Ireland, but is it acceptable to remove something without that process, when it is not acceptable to add or change something about that process? It seems unacceptable to do this unilaterally.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Lord, sitting as he does in a legislature, will appreciate the difference between making law and interpreting how you fly flags. At present, the difficulty he speaks of is not just a difficulty but an illegality: that we would not be able to move forward by adjusting the dates in Northern Ireland because of the restrictions of the law. What we might wish to do beyond that may be described as a difficulty, but what we seek to do here is to be legally correct in this instance. I am aware that the noble Lord has been passionate in his defence of the union flag and the union flag in Northern Ireland. I am also aware of how controversial that flag has been in Northern Ireland, for many different reasons.
The European Union flag we have flown on the ninth, which is flown across Europe, is primarily a flag of membership of the EU. We do not fly it in recognition of our membership of the Council of Europe because, most of the time—if I am being frank as a former Member of the European Parliament—people were rarely aware of the distinction between the Council of Europe and the European Council and the fact that one preceded the other by several decades. Even today, very few people marching on these streets will necessarily draw that distinction.
One of the great sins, I suspect, of this country—indeed, perhaps of our media—is how often we have been unable to explain in clear terms how the EU works, how our responsibilities within the Council of Europe work and the difference between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. We conflate these things constantly and I am fully aware that people right now will probably be unaware that the Council of Europe and in the EU, one heavily predating the other, have the same flag and, indeed, a shared anthem—and have had for some time, albeit that in the EU it is an unofficial anthem. All these things become conflated. The reality we face is simple: under the EU withdrawal agreement that we moved forward last year, this piece of legislation is uncontentious. It is important to stress that the European statutory instruments committee of this House said that, as a matter of policy, there is nothing contentious in the amendments proposed by this instrument.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
It may be, and the noble Lord may wish to bring that up with that committee. It may well be that he wishes, on this occasion, to determine what flags shall be flown in Northern Ireland, to take that decision and move this in a particular direction. I would counsel against that for many different reasons, not least that, as we have said before, this issue is much more sensitive in Northern Ireland and we must be careful as we look at it in Northern Ireland, particularly as it primarily concerns the union flag. I stress again that it affects the union flag more than the flag nobly described by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie.
The challenges we face are straightforward. We may take this order and move it forward. The noble Lord may decide that is not something he wishes to do and he may wish to debate it further. If we are to debate this further, I suggest that we make sure that there are a number of Members in that debate who hail from Northern Ireland and are able to give their experience on the issue of flags because this is not primarily an issue about European flags but an issue about what flags represent in Northern Ireland. I suspect that he is not liking what I am saying but I fear I am going to have to move forward on that basis.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
I seek guidance from the Chair. I have indicated that I am not happy and I do not wish this to be accepted. I know we cannot vote but I think it should be debated in the Chamber. We have a problem with the Chamber: I am sure that the Irish Members will turn up but we do not have a balanced representation in the Chamber. The second point I want to make is that Europe Day is about peace in Europe, not the European Union.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I am very clear about what Europe Day represents, having been a Member of the European Parliament. I have spent a great deal of my life—10 years—in Europe representing the Scottish Parliament in Europe. I am fully aware of what Europe Day represents. I am also a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, so I know what flags mean in Northern Ireland and I do not think we should be conflating the two in the manner the noble Lord suggests, but if he is minded to do so that is his prerogative and his right. I remind him only that this is a matter primarily about the union flag, not the European flag.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
I clarify for the noble Lord that although we do not vote in Grand Committee, I will take the voices. The Question is that the Grand Committee do consider the Flags (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I must remind the Grand Committee that a single call of “Not content” has the effect of negativing the Motion. With that in mind, I put the Question again.
House of Lords
Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to improve children’s and young people’s access to mental health care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford) (Con)
My Lords, the NHS is on track to meet the Five Year Forward View for Mental Health commitment that 70,000 more children and young people will access treatment each year by 2020-21. Under the NHS Long Term Plan, a further 345,000 children and young people will receive support by 2023-24. Our recent Green Paper sets out our plans to pilot a four-week waiting time for specialist NHS mental health services for children and young people.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her remarks and welcome the commitment to prioritising investment in mental health care for children and young people. However, data published by the NHS in November showed that only one in four young people with a mental health disorder accessed specialist mental health services in the previous year. I welcome plans from the Government to increase this figure to 100% within the decade, but given that three-quarters of children with a diagnosable mental health condition do not currently get access to the support they need, how will the Government act to help this generation of children who will have moved on to adult services before this rollout is complete?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank the right reverend Prelate for her very important question. We are coming from a low base in children’s and young people’s mental health services, and successive Governments have failed to prioritise these services as they should have. That is exactly why the long-term plan sets out our determination to address this—to ensure that all children get the care they need. With more money, more staff and more beds, there will be £2.3 billion a year more for this area by 2023-24, a figure that is growing faster than the rest of the NHS budget. It is why the NHS and HEE are targeting to recruit 8,000 more children’s and young people’s mental health staff, and why we are bringing in the first ever access and waiting services. I accept, however, that the pace at which this is going is frustrating, but it is important to understand the base from which we are coming.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, on pace, will the Minister acknowledge that this Government and their predecessor, the coalition Government, have made any number of promises about investment in and prioritisation of mental health services, particularly for children and young adults, but that when it comes to the decisions made by clinical commissioning groups, the reality is that they have not brought them to fruition? What guarantees do we have that this time clinical commissioning groups will do what they have been asked?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is very experienced in this area and has been involved with local clinical commissioning groups. The NHS has already opened 117 additional new mental health beds, and we have introduced new waiting standards for psychosis and eating disorders among children. Progress is already being made, but we should not dismiss the frustrations of those trying to access services. That is why we have put in place ambitious new targets with the long-term plan: we want to see 100% of children able to access the care they need.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, about two-thirds of children with autism and two-fifths of children with special educational needs experience mental health problems. But the provision of specialist clinical community child learning disabilities services is sparse. What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to ensure that the needs of those vulnerable young people are planned for in the new funding allocation?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Baroness is right: those with particular needs, where autism or learning disabilities cross over into mental illness, must be taken into account. Some distressing figures show that those with learning disabilities do not get the physical health assessments that they need either. This must be taken into account and is in part why the children and young people’s Green Paper puts in place designated senior leads for mental health in schools and mental health support teams in and around schools, so that those needs can be identified as early as possible, and we can prioritise prevention and early identification of mental health needs when they arise.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, the first mental health support teams will be set up in 25 trailblazer areas, of which 12 will also trial a four-week waiting time. Will those teams be in partnership with local authorities and the relevant CCGs, and who will monitor and evaluate the outcomes?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The outcomes will be monitored by NHS England, but also by the CCGs. Of course, they will be taken into account by local authorities as well.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, given the fragmentation and lack of co-ordination on the ground between local mental health services, what assessment have the Government made of the potential benefits of establishing local offers for mental health, mirroring the approach to local offers for special educational needs introduced by the Children and Families Act, to improve access?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Baroness is very expert in this area, and I thank her for that interesting proposal. I should like to take it back to the teams in the department and write to her on that point, if that would be okay.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, I have been told that the Government expect every health body to provide a seven-day specialist multidisciplinary service to prevent people with autism needing in-patient care. That has been government policy since 2015. In the last four years, there has been a 24% increase in autistic people without a learning disability being placed in mental health hospitals. What are the Government doing about this policy failure?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Lord raises an extremely important and difficult area of service. This is exactly why the Government have just launched a review of autism services, which is currently open for consultation. We are trying to improve these services as we speak.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, as a trustee of a mental health service for adolescents—the Brent Centre for Young People—I welcome the additional funding the Government are bringing forward. Is the Minister aware, however, that one of the most effective ways of preventing children having to access mental health care is supporting, for instance, groups of adoptive parents, foster carers or head teachers, with a senior clinician? However, there is concern that many senior experienced clinicians have been lost because of the shortage of funding. Will the Minister look at what she can do to stem that loss, find out what the issue is, and do what she can to invest in that area as well?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank the noble Earl for his question. Obviously, recruitment aims in the mental health service are essential, and the workforce plan sets out an aim for 600 full-time posts in mental health. We have already discussed the Government’s plan in the Green Paper to set up 8,000 new children’s and young people’s posts in mental health. But that is no good if we are not also retaining those staff. NHS Improvement and NHS Employers are now working to ensure that all mental health trusts are given the tools to drive improvements in retention. This is a programme that has seen improved turnover, and we shall keep monitoring it to ensure that we retain the staff we work so hard to recruit.
Devolved Administrations
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what new proposals they are considering to facilitate co-decision making on United Kingdom matters between the Government and the devolved administrations.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the UK Government and devolved Administrations are working together to develop common frameworks in policy areas where powers returning from the EU intersect with devolved competence and where we need to continue working together following EU exit. We are also carrying out a joint review of intergovernmental relations with the devolved Administrations, considering both the principles and machinery that underpin relations and how they can facilitate the best relationships possible for the future.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
I hope that that will have a positive outcome, but will the Minister take note of a publication today by the Institute for Government entitled Ministers Reflect on Devolution? If so, he will note the frustration expressed by Ministers of all parties about the relationship between devolved and UK Ministers. Given that the UK is now in effect a quasi-federal state, is it not time for a more fundamental review of how the devolved Administrations can genuinely be part of UK decision-making, even considering a royal commission and the possible role of qualified majority voting?
Lord Young of Cookham
I understand the frustration to which the noble Lord refers: that was reflected in our debate earlier this year initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. After that, I undertook to communicate with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who wrote back to try to allay those concerns, and a copy has been placed in the Library. The review to which I referred is a joint review and can make progress only if it is agreed by all four parties. The noble Lord suggested the heavy guns of a royal commission; I think some nimble light artillery might be better focused to address the issue.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, when did UK Ministers last meet Welsh Assembly Ministers, and when do the Government intend to reply to the severe criticism made by our Delegated Powers Committee last October of the Agriculture Bill now before Parliament, which sought to bypass the devolved legislatures—or are the Government blind to the fact that the devolved Administrations are now part of our constitution?
Lord Young of Cookham
A top priority for the Government is the constitutional integrity of the UK, and that is secured by a good working relationship between all four Governments. I accept that the intergovernmental architecture underpinning that relationship needs buttressing, and that is why we are undertaking the review that I mentioned. As for meetings, as the noble and learned Lord will know, there is a plenary JMC, a European one, a EU negotiations one and a ministerial forum. They are meeting regularly. The ministerial forum last met in February. The JMC on EU negotiations also met in February. Perhaps I could write to him on the specific issue that he raised about the DPRRC.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that in the context of the current European negotiations, there was considerable dismay in Cardiff—and, I think, in Edinburgh as well—when there were reports that Northern Ireland may be given a special seat at the table when discussions are going on? Will he assure us that all the devolved Governments will be treated on an even-handed basis in such matters?
Lord Young of Cookham
The Prime Minister has made it clear that she wants all the devolved Administrations to have an enhanced role in the next stage of the negotiations with the EU as we move forward, I hope, after exit. I know of no plans to give preferential treatment to one devolved Administration over another.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the devolved Administrations are consulted on both rolled-over and new trade agreements before they are initialled?
Lord Young of Cookham
I refer my noble friend to the answer I gave when she asked me about future trade agreements. The Prime Minister has promised an enhanced role. Official discussions are taking place to bring some definition to that, but I shall certainly take on board my noble friend’s request that they should be involved in trade negotiations, which of course include many of their vital interests—particularly, say, fisheries in Scotland.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned a case for intergovernmental negotiations, but does he see a case for inter-parliamentary negotiations so that parliaments and assemblies get a role, and to find a way of feeding the regions of England into this?
Lord Young of Cookham
The noble Baroness raises a good point. The review I referred to is about intergovernmental relationships, not inter-parliamentary ones. If the parliaments want to take action independently of government to build up closer relationships, I see no reason why they should not.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend and Her Majesty’s Government take particular care in drafting the necessary secondary legislation for the Brexit process, while having particular regard to the Welsh Assembly, which made some complaints on this?
Lord Young of Cookham
I recognise the particular role my noble friend has when it comes to statutory instruments, and I can give him that assurance.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has already been asked about what has happened to the English regions. Now that we have a rather privileged relationship for the three national assemblies, is devolution to the English regions stuck? In Yorkshire we have made very detailed proposals for a One Yorkshire scheme. The Minister for the Northern Powerhouse suggested that we had to accept four city regions for Yorkshire or nothing, in spite of the fact that there is no city in one of those four proposed regions.
Lord Young of Cookham
Devolution is England is not stuck. I spend many hours in the Moses Room dealing with statutory instruments, either setting up combined authorities, where local authorities wish to combine, or local mayors, who will shortly be elected, so we are making good progress in devolving power from Westminster to the local authorities.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, is the notion that Northern Ireland is a special case somehow inevitable as there is no devolved Administration in operation? Is that the rationale that the Minister is pointing to?
Lord Young of Cookham
A priority for the UK Government is to restore the devolved institutions in Stormont. In the absence of Executive Ministers, there is a limit to the decisions which the civil servants in Northern Ireland can take. That is why last November the Secretary of State issued guidance on decision-making for Northern Ireland during the period for Northern Ireland Executive formation. In the meantime, we are taking such steps as we can to develop a common framework, but there does come a point where you cannot make much more progress without prejudicing the freedom of Northern Ireland to do what it wants.
Independent Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to meet representatives of Falsely Accused Individuals for Reform (Fair) to discuss the operation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse; and when they plan for any such meeting to be held.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have no plans to meet representatives of Falsely Accused Individuals for Reform to discuss the operation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. The inquiry operates independently of government and its independence is crucial to its effectiveness.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, Sir Cliff Richard, Sir Edward Heath, Lords Brittan, Bramall and Janner, Paul Gambaccini and former MP Harvey Proctor were all prominent, all accused, and all treated by the media as guilty. They were never tried, but their reputations were trashed. They were never convicted, and therefore innocent in law. Those who are alive received damages; for the dead, there was not even an apology. Do Ministers really believe, in their heart of hearts, that the police invasion of their homes, with worldwide coverage through a lack of anonymity, and IICSA once again dragging their names through the mud of an inquiry—again, being transmitted around the world—is fair and just? Is it not fair to ask that these and many other cases are on an agenda between government and Fair?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I reiterate that the inquiry is not looking into whether Lord Janner or anyone else—the noble Lord mentioned a number of people—was guilty of any crimes, but at how institutions such as the police, which the noble Lord mentioned, responded to the allegations made against these people. The inquiry’s focus is deliberately on the conduct of institutions and how the allegations were dealt with. As noble Lords will know, the police guidance has been updated to make it clear that people should not be named before they are charged unless there is a public interest reason to do so.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Has not enough unfair damage been done to the reputations of the distinguished people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, referred? Should it not be our overriding duty to expunge it?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I totally understand my noble friend’s point, and I know the feelings there are in this House about this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has a Private Member’s Bill going through the House; on some of its substance, HMICFRS will undertake a review, and the Government want to wait until the outcome of that before taking any further action.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, it is clear from the Gatwick Airport drone incident in December that current guidelines—even the updated guidelines that the noble Baroness talked about—are not sufficient to protect those falsely accused of any offence from adverse publicity. How many more innocent people are going to have their lives ruined before the Government legislate?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord comes back to his Private Member’s Bill, in the sense that he is talking about the media. His Bill deals with media reporting before charge and after arrest. Again, I say to him that DCMS is minded to wait until HMICFRS has reviewed police guidance on media relations before considering whether further action should be taken.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords does the noble Baroness agree that we should always remember the victims, those who are raped and abused; recognise that these crimes are underreported; and make every effort to ensure that victims come forward and the perpetrators are brought to justice?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am very glad the noble Lord has asked that question. Quite often in these situations the victims can be overlooked, and thousands of accounts of sexual abuse have now been shared with the Truth Project, which noble Lords and others will have seen on the television. We must not overlook the victims. We must ensure that all the processes are in place in order that perpetrators will be brought to justice. Victims are, therefore, at the heart of what we do.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, am I correct in inferring from what my noble friend said that the Government will give their support to my noble friend Lord Lexden’s Bill?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I will have to consider it in due course.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
Will the Minister advise the House whether victims are getting full therapeutic support to recover from their trauma? What steps are being taken to ensure that all victims get the excellent support they need to recover from their past trauma?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Earl raises a very important question, because of course some victims will never recover from the abuse and trauma they have suffered. The whole approach now of early intervention and putting a package of support around those who are utterly traumatised, and may be for the rest of their life, is absolutely key to any recovery that might be possible.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, the Minister has just told the House that this inquiry will not make findings of fact. Why then are the accusers to be heard in public session, transmitted all around the world, to make their accusations without even a proper interrogation of them?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
It is clear that there will be a mechanism for witnesses’ accounts to be examined and questioned. It will not be a one-sided process at all.
Health: HIV
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Black of Brentwood
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to bring an end to new transmission of HIV infection by 2030.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Bloomsbury Network.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford) (Con)
My Lords, due to increased access to testing and other measures, there has been a welcome 28% decline in new HIV diagnoses since 2015. We are also one of the first countries in the world to meet the UNAIDS 90-90-90 HIV targets. To build on this progress, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has announced the Government’s commitment to end new transmissions of HIV in England by 2030. Work is under way to take this forward.
Lord Black of Brentwood
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I know that noble Lords across the House who have long campaigned for this moment—I am hazarding a guess that I might include the Lord Speaker in view of his exceptional leadership in this area—will applaud the Secretary of State’s commitment to eliminating new HIV transmissions by 2030. In the certain knowledge that those with HIV on effective treatment cannot pass it on, it is now in our power to bring an end to this cruel illness. Does my noble friend agree that what is needed now is a comprehensive national HIV strategy, which brings together all of the steps that we need to take: prevention through both sustainable access to PrEP and effective treatment for those diagnosed; more testing to stop late diagnosis; greater investment in sexual health services; education about HIV in schools; an end to the fragmentation of HIV services; and a commitment to tackle stigma?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank my noble friend for that Question and pay tribute to the work of the Lord Speaker. I agree with the premise of his Question. Public Health England has attributed the success that we have had, with 92% of people with HIV now diagnosed, 98% of patients receiving treatment and 97% virally suppressed to a combination of HIV prevention, including expanded HIV testing, prompt initiation of antiretroviral therapy after diagnosis, condom provision and PrEP, all of which we will need to build on as we develop plans to achieve zero infections by 2030. He is absolutely right that these will all need to go into development of that plan.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, it is greatly to be welcomed that science is now leading us to end new transmissions by 2030. But is the Minister aware that women who are HIV-positive are four to five times more likely to develop cervical cancer? I agree with the noble Lord that there is a need for a new strategy. Will the forward plan and investment in public health recognise the need for investment in prevention and early intervention and a package of care for all women living with HIV, which includes going for regular smear tests?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. She is absolutely right that the key to us making progress is prevention and early intervention and also understanding about any crossover consequences with other illnesses. She is also right that the key is closing the gaps now. In 2017, 43% of diagnoses were made at a late stage of HIV and, although there has been a decline, the largest group diagnosed at late stage were black African heterosexual men and women. It is important that we close those gaps. Some key projects have been working on that through the HIV Innovation Fund so when we bring forward plans for HIV 2030 it is important that we find out how we can close those gaps if we are indeed to get to zero by 2030.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that in order to end HIV by 2030 all children need to understand their own risks through comprehensive relationship and sex education and that schools that refuse to teach it are jeopardising the health of all pupils? Does she agree that that should not happen?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
Knowledge about safer sex and sexual health is essential for young people. They must be equipped to understand and to make safe, informed and healthy choices. That is why we have brought in compulsory SRE for the first time, which all schools should be required to teach.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, as well as the very welcome national strategy that the Minister described, will she accept that this is a global problem? In other parts of the world, progress has not been as great as it has been here. We need to see that progress. In that respect, does she recognise the work that the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria has had on reducing incidence worldwide of these killer diseases? Will she commit for the Government to be active in their leadership in the replenishment of the Global Fund this year?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
We can be incredibly proud that the UK is a world leader in efforts to end the AIDS epidemic, including through our huge investment in the Global Fund, which has provided 17.5 million people with treatment since 2017, and of course through DfID’s research on HIV prevention. That is exactly why DfID has committed to continuing its focus on HIV prevention technologies and I am happy to share that commitment with the noble Baroness.
Lord O'Shaughnessy (Con)
My Lords, may I echo my noble friend Lord Black’s praise for the Secretary of State’s ambition and associate myself with his policy suggestions? My noble friend will be aware that there is a similarly infectious, life-limiting disease that affects similar people, called Hepatitis C. We now have a cure for that disease: we are able not just to eliminate it as a public health risk but actually to cure people. In drawing up any strategy, will the Minister ensure that the department also makes sure that curing Hep C and making that cure available to those people is as big a priority as eliminating HIV?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank my noble friend for his question and also for his leadership on this issue while he was in the department. He knows that the Government are committed to being a world leader in domestic eradication of Hepatitis C. He will know also that a legal challenge by AbbVie delayed the start of contracts on this issue by six months. I am pleased to be able to inform the House, however, that in January the High Court found in NHS England’s favour on all grounds in this matter. We can now go forward with those innovative contracts, which are worth about £1 billion over five years. That will be rapidly put in place over the coming months, which will allow us to make progress on this matter.
Baroness Tonge (Non-Afl)
My Lords, although I congratulate the Government on the progress they have made in the diagnosis and treatment of HIV, does the Minister realise that women in this country have an ever-decreasing service for cervical cytology and, indeed, for having those smear tests read in laboratories, given that the number of laboratories is being decreased? Does she realise also that, because of cuts in local government funding, there are very few family planning clinics now, either for women or young girls? That means that the provision of contraception is very limited, because they have to go to their GPs.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank the noble Baroness for that probing question. The Government have mandated local authorities to commission comprehensive open access sexual services. We have continued the ring-fence around public health services in local authorities at £3 billion a year and they have maintained 3 million attendances in 2017, which is an increase since 2016. What is important is that the long-term plan has also identified sexual health services as an area for review going forward, which is one of the findings from PHE. This is therefore a cause for encouragement, and I hope that the noble Baroness will be reassured.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, it might be useful to the House if I make a brief statement about today’s business.
As the House will be aware, the House of Commons will hear a Statement from my right honourable friend the Prime Minister beginning at 3.30 pm. Following usual channel discussions this morning, I suggest that it will be for the convenience of those taking part in today’s debate in the House if we adjourn during pleasure to await the opening exchanges on the Prime Minister’s Statement. My noble friend the Leader will then repeat the Statement and, following 20 minutes of Back-Bench questions and answers, we will move immediately to the debate. We will seek to ensure that those who are not signed up to speak are given priority when intervening on the repeated Statement. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure and, in moving this Motion, I suggest that we do not reconvene before 4.30 pm.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I just want to be sure that the House will adjourn until 4.30 pm, because the Government Chief Whip did not quite say that. The Lord Speaker did but, if it is not to be exactly 4.30 pm, we will need some alert.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I said not before 4.30 pm. I hope that that is clear. It means that if the exchanges in the House of Commons go on for longer, we will not reconvene until the initial exchanges are over.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, that is not at all satisfactory. If the exchanges drag on—the Speaker has a tendency to allow them to go on and on—we will not know exactly when to reconvene and will be hanging around. Will there be an alert about when we are to reconvene, or will we reconvene at 4.30 pm? We need to know precisely when we have to be back.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
If it helps the noble Lord, I will make sure that we are here at 4.30 pm.
European Council
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on last week’s European Council.
Before the Council, I wrote to President Tusk to seek formal approval for the legally binding assurances on the Northern Ireland backstop and alternative arrangements agreed in Strasbourg on 11 March. I reported your Statement, Mr Speaker, which made it clear that, for a further meaningful vote to take place, the deal would have to be,
‘fundamentally different—not different in terms of wording, but different in terms of substance’.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/3/19; col. 781.]
I explained that, as a result, some honourable and right honourable Members were seeking further changes to the withdrawal agreement, and I requested a short extension to the Article 50 process to 30 June. I regret having to do so. I wanted to deliver Brexit on 29 March, but I am conscious of my duties as Prime Minister to all parts of our United Kingdom and of the damage to that union that leaving without a deal could do when one part of it is without devolved government and unable therefore to prepare properly.
The Council formally endorsed the legal instrument relating to the withdrawal agreement and the joint statement supplementing the political declaration. This should increase the confidence of the House that the backstop is unlikely ever to be used and will be only temporary if it is. But the Council also reiterated, once again, its longstanding position that there could be no reopening of the withdrawal agreement. So, however the House decides to proceed this week, everyone should be absolutely clear that changing the withdrawal agreement is simply not an option.
Turning to extending Article 50, this has always required the unanimous agreement of the other 27 member states. As I have made clear before, it was never guaranteed that the EU would agree to an extension or the terms on which we requested it, and it did not. Instead, the Council agreed that, if the House approves the withdrawal agreement this week, our departure will be extended to 11 pm on 22 May. This will allow time for Parliament to pass the withdrawal agreement Bill, which is legally necessary for the deal to be ratified. But if the House does not approve the withdrawal agreement this week, our departure will instead be extended only to 11 pm on 12 April. At this point, we would either leave with no deal or we would,
‘indicate a way forward before this date for consideration by the European Council’.
If this involved a further extension, it would certainly mean participation in the European parliamentary elections.
The Council’s conclusions were subsequently turned into a legal decision, with which the UK agreed, and which came into force last Friday. So, while the Government have today laid a statutory instrument, which will be debated later this week, to reflect this in domestic legislation, the date for our departure from the EU has now changed in international law. Were the House not to pass the statutory instrument, it would cause legal confusion and damaging uncertainty, but it would not have any effect on the date of our exit.
I continue to believe that the right path forward is for the United Kingdom to leave the EU as soon as possible with a deal—now, on 22 May—but it is with great regret that I have had to conclude that, as things stand, there is still not sufficient support in the House to bring back the deal for a third meaningful vote. I continue to have discussions with colleagues across the House to build support so that we can bring the vote forward this week and guarantee Brexit. If we cannot, the Government made a commitment that we would work across the House to find a majority on a way forward.
The amendment in the name of my right honourable friend the Member for West Dorset seeks to provide for this process by taking control of the Order Paper. I continue to believe that doing so would be an unwelcome precedent to set, which would overturn the balance of our democratic institutions. So the Government will oppose this amendment this evening but, in order to fulfil our commitments to this House, would seek to provide government time in order for this process to proceed. It would be for this House to put forward options for consideration, and to determine the procedure by which they wished to do so.
But I must confess that I am sceptical about such a process of indicative votes. When we have tried this kind of thing in the past, it has produced contradictory outcomes or no outcome at all. There is a further risk when it comes to Brexit, as the UK is only one half of the equation and the votes could lead to an outcome that is unnegotiable with the EU. No Government could give a blank cheque to commit to an outcome without knowing what it is. So I cannot commit the Government to delivering the outcome of any votes held by this House, but I do commit to engaging constructively with this process.
There are many different views on the way forward, but I want to explain the options as I understand them. The default outcome continues to be to leave with no deal. But this House has previously expressed its opposition to that path, and may very well do so again this week. The alternative is to pursue a different form of Brexit or a second referendum. But the bottom line remains: if the House does not approve the withdrawal agreement this week and is not prepared to countenance leaving without a deal, we will have to seek a longer extension. This would entail the UK having to hold European elections, and it would mean that we will not have been able to guarantee Brexit. These are now choices that the House will have the opportunity to express its view on.
Mr Speaker, this is the first chance I have had to address the House since my remarks last Wednesday evening. I expressed my frustration with our collective failure to take a decision, but I know that many Members across this House are frustrated too. We all have difficult jobs to do. People on all sides of the debate hold passionate views and I respect those differences. I would also like to thank all those colleagues who have supported the deal so far, and those who have taken the time to meet with me to discuss their concerns.
I hope we can all agree that we are now at the moment of decision. In doing so, we must confront the reality of the hard choices before us. Unless this House agrees to it, no deal will not happen. No Brexit must not happen. And a slow Brexit that extends Article 50 beyond 22 May, forces the British people to take part in European elections and gives up control of any of our borders, laws, money or trade is not a Brexit that will bring the British people together.
I know that the deal I have put forward is a compromise. It seeks to deliver on the referendum and retain trust in our democracy, while also respecting the concerns of those who voted to remain. But if this House can back it, we would be out of the European Union in less than two months. There would no further extensions, no threat to Brexit and no risk of a no deal. I believe it is the way to deliver the Brexit that the British people voted for. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, as we are about to have a debate, I think it would be useful for me to keep my comments for when I speak in that debate.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, the European Council says in its conclusions—I have a copy in front of me—that it,
“expects the United Kingdom to indicate a way forward”,
before 12 April 2019. This cannot simply mean that there is a contradiction with the sentence that follows, which says:
“The European Council reiterates that there can be no re-opening of the Withdrawal Agreement that was agreed … in November 2018”.
Therefore, can the Minister confirm that the European Council would be ready to look at an alternative set of proposals that could be put forward by this Parliament?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The noble Lord is right that there are two elements to the extension that has been agreed. If the deal is passed this week, there will be an extension to 22 May to get the legislation through. If the deal is not passed this week, the extension is to 12 April, at which point we will either leave with no deal, because that remains the legal default even post the SI, or a plan will be put forward for alternative arrangements. Those are the two options that we have in front of us, which is why we are hoping to be able to bring the vote forward again.
Lord Robathan (Con)
Perhaps I am being a bit slow, but could my noble friend explain something to me? She said that the Council’s decision, accepted by this Government, trumps the withdrawal Act which this Parliament passed. Will she confirm that? Therefore, whatever happens, there is no question that the departure date of 29 March has been put back, because it has been overruled by the European Council’s decision. Is that correct?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The agreement of the UK Government and the European Union for this extension is now international law, which takes precedence. We have laid the SI to extend Article 50 in those two ways and, indeed, that now trumps domestic law.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, there is one point I would like to clarify. The noble Baroness and the Prime Minister referred to taking a decision on the agreement this week. My understanding was that we had until 12 April to take that decision. Is the reference to “this week” part of the European Council’s decision?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Yes, it is. Conclusions 9 and 10 from the European Council make it clear that approval of the deal this week will lead to the 22 May extension for the Bill. If there is no agreement on the deal this week, we have until 12 April. Under those circumstances, we either have to put another plan forward or we leave with no deal on 12 April. Therefore, there is a link between having a vote on the deal this week and the 22 May extension.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD)
In her Statement, the Prime Minister clearly said that we would leave with no deal only if that was supported by the other House. Is that now the Government’s position?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The Government’s position is that we will work towards a deal which is in the best interests of the UK and the EU. That is why we will continue to try to ensure that we get that vote, and get the deal through, so that we can leave in an orderly fashion.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
Would the noble Baroness help me here, with a process of elimination? I am slightly confused. Since the Prime Minister says that there is no chance of any change to the withdrawal deal, and since the Speaker in the other place says that there is no chance of a Motion being brought back without fundamental changes to its substance, and therefore the deal, that would seem to preclude bringing the same Motion back for the third time. First, could the noble Baroness explain why the Prime Minister thinks she can bring that Motion back without the substantial changes which, as she says, would be utterly opposed by the European Union? Secondly, irrespective of what the House of Commons votes for this or next week, since there is no chance of substantial changes to the deal, that is not a substantial platform for moving forward between now and April. Does everything not point to the conclusion that there either has to be a revocation or a very long extension of the present timeframe, to allow for something substantial, such as a general election or another referendum?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The Council formally endorsed the legal instrument relating to the withdrawal agreement and the joint statement supplementing the political declaration. There was further movement at the Council with this formal approval, so that is a change to the withdrawal agreement since the last vote.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
Given the ever deepening Brexit crisis, why do the Government not stand well back, take a deep breath and a clean sheet of paper, and make the most obvious of offers to Brussels? I ask again why the Government do not offer EU citizens continuing reciprocal residence for, say, a couple of years, and offer continuing free trade, but under the WTO, which gets rid of the Irish problem. We could talk about how much money we may give the EU when that has been accepted. Are the Government making such a mess of Brexit because they do not want us to leave the EU? Is that the underlying truth?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
No, over the past two-and-a-half years, the Government have worked extremely hard to get a deal that is in the best interests of the UK and the EU and to deliver on the result of the referendum. The Prime Minister has been categorically clear on that. That remains our position, and that is why we will be working very hard to try to bring a vote back this week so that we can leave in an orderly way and in a way that we believe is best for the British people.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, if the duty of the Government is to keep their people secure, does this includes health security? The noble Baroness has just said that we might have to leave without a deal. There is strong opposition to this, partly because we have not prepared in the long term for no deal. I am absolutely convinced that the health and social care services are not ready for no deal, in terms of both the supply of medicine and staff. Can you assure the House that we will not leave with a no deal and put health security at risk?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I think I and a number of Front-Bench colleagues have said, we have been preparing for no deal. We have contingency plans in place, particularly in relation to healthcare. Noble Lords have rightly raised this issue on a number of occasions. We have consistently said that we do not believe that no deal is the best outcome. That is why we have a deal on the table and that is what we continue to work for. I entirely agree that leaving with the deal the Prime Minister has negotiated is a far, far better outcome.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, now that the Government have abandoned the conventions of confidentiality and collective Cabinet responsibility, can the Leader of the House tell us whether any of the proposals under consideration carry majority support in the Cabinet?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I think the noble Lord will recognise that I have never breached that convention, and I will not be doing it now.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, will the noble Baroness clarify the constitutional issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan? Is it not the case that, under the terms of the EU withdrawal Act, if Parliament does not approve the statutory instrument, we leave on 29 March? Is she none the less saying to us that EU law does not permit the Parliament of the United Kingdom even to determine the date of Brexit? If that is so, does it not illustrate powerfully why a majority of voters in the referendum who cherish our parliamentary democracy believe passionately that it is right for us to leave the EU?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am afraid I can only restate that 29 March is no longer a date on which we can leave the EU. The agreement made is a matter of international law. It has always been the case that agreements at an international level take precedence. The House of Commons voted to seek an extension to Article 50, which is what has been done. Rejecting the SI would not stop the extension being agreed or coming into force because it is a matter of international law.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Leader of the House answer this question? From the Statement that she read out, it seems that the Prime Minister has accepted that, this evening, she will not succeed in persuading the House of Commons not to have the indicative vote. The indicative votes will go ahead, and the Prime Minister has said that the Government will facilitate that. Has she given any thought to giving this House a say on indicative votes? When will she programme that?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Obviously, the House of Commons has not yet voted, so it is somewhat difficult for us to plan business on a hypothetical. I hope, however, noble Lords will also recognise that, through the usual channels, we have given this House ample opportunities to express its view and will. Obviously, we will have to see what happens in the House of Commons tonight, and we will then have discussions in the usual way to see what we can facilitate for the House. We will certainly attempt to do that.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, could the noble Baroness explain her statement that international law trumps domestic law? The received wisdom of the past 50 years, as far as I am aware, is that international law does not apply here unless it is specifically adopted by domestic law. If she cannot answer that one, maybe noble and learned Lords in the House can, but it is news to me that international law which has not been enacted trumps our own law.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
It is because this is an international agreement. It has always been the case that agreements at an international level take precedence.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that many people outside will be amazed that the Prime Minister paid no attention to the events in London on Saturday, or to the unprecedented numbers signing a petition to Parliament about revocation. The Prime Minister acknowledges in the Statement that she needs to compromise. She has a compromise on the table: enough people will back her deal if she agrees to a confirmatory vote following a vote in Parliament. This would get all of us through the impasse, embarrassment and humiliation we are now in. Will the noble Baroness the Leader please put this position to the Prime Minister in Cabinet?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The Prime Minister has been very clear. Her priority is delivering the result of the referendum that we have. That is why she has worked so hard to negotiate a deal and that is why we believe this deal is the best option. But, as we have said, if the amendment in the other place passes, there will be the opportunity for indicative votes to happen, but we remain of the view that we should respect the result of the first referendum, and indeed the result of the election, during which both major parties said that they would respect the referendum result.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Have we got things quite straight about this week and next week? The Prime Minister has concluded that as things stand there is still insufficient support in the House to bring back the deal for a third meaningful vote, but she has also said that,
“if the House does not approve the withdrawal agreement this week”—
that is, the meaningful vote again—
“our departure will instead be extended only to 11 pm on 12 April”.
So 12 April it is. Is that right?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The Statement makes it clear that at this point the Prime Minister does not believe that she has support for the deal, but we still have several days of this week left. Anything can happen, as noble Lords know.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, the Irish Republic’s Prime Minister is reported to have said that, in the event of no deal, he does not anticipate checks at the border. If there is substance to that report and it is accurate, will somebody please explain what on earth we have been at war for in this country over the past few months?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
A press release has indeed been put out about the EU completing preparations for a possible no-deal scenario, but it states:
“The EU will be required to immediately apply its rules and tariffs at its borders with the UK. This includes checks and controls”.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness has now told us more than once in the context of the Statement that the Government’s priority has been the delivery of a deal. Is it not the case that in yesterday’s Sunday Times the political editor revealed, with the help of one of the noble Baroness’s Cabinet colleagues, the content of a Cabinet minute that showed that the discussion in the Cabinet was about the preservation of the unity of the Conservative Party? This is recorded in a Cabinet minute. Was not something else exercising the mind of the Prime Minister and her Cabinet when they were discussing what to do about Brexit?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
No, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet have been entirely clear: we want to deliver what is best for the country. That is why we have been working so hard to get a deal that does.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister’s Statement said that the EU was not prepared to reopen the agreement, but surely it could have been possible, if there had been agreement within the EU 27, to have a codicil to the agreement that would have given us a guarantee on the Irish backstop. Is it not true that the EU 27 were split on this issue and thought that the risk of no deal had been removed, so they could face the Government down?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The Council formally endorsed the legal instrument relating to the withdrawal agreement. Three new legally binding commitments were agreed, but the Council reiterated—it is in its conclusions—that there could be no reopening of the withdrawal agreement.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend accept that while many of us who voted to remain have accepted that we must accept the result of the referendum and work towards an orderly exit from the European Union, the Government have now had three years in which to do that, but have not shown themselves capable of resolving this issue? Does that not mean—as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, and others—that we should now also think about whether the mandate that the referendum and the election represented is wearing rather thin, and that the time is coming to consider whether the million people who marched and the four million who signed the petition have a point?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I said, if the amendment for a series of indicative votes passes, we will fulfil our commitment to the House of Commons to provide government time for the process to proceed. It will be for the Commons to put forward options for consideration and to determine the procedure by which it wishes to do so.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness might clarify one point for me. She has told us that the Prime Minister does not believe it is worth putting the current deal to the House of Commons this week.
Lord Harris of Haringey
The implication is that she does not think it will be passed. However, she has also told us that only if it is passed this week will the extension to 22 May apply. Presumably, the Prime Minister is optimistic that at some point this deal will pass, but what happens if the deal is passed next week or the week after? On which date would we leave the EU in those circumstances?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I said, we hope to work towards bringing the deal back this week. Under the terms of the EU conclusions, the agreement was that the deal had to pass this week for us to get the extension to 22 May. Our hope is that we get the deal through this week. Obviously, if we do not, the next crunch point will be 12 April. I suppose we could ask the EU if we could bring the deal back next week but, under the current terms, we need to bring it back this week. That is why we will be working hard to ensure that we can get a majority for it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, may I clarify the business for this week? I have spent my career in international relations, although I am not a lawyer. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, is entirely correct in saying that we need to carry an international agreement into domestic law for it to happen; this House and the other House will be doing so this week. Then, at some very urgent point within the next 10 days at the latest, the withdrawal agreement, however modified, again must be put before both Houses. If it is not, we will still be stuck with the date of 12 April.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
We have laid the statutory instrument to which the noble Lord refers, and our intention is to debate it on Wednesday.
Brexit
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That this House, in accordance with the provisions of section 13(6)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, takes note of the Written Statement titled “Statement under Section 13(4) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018”, made on 15 March 2019.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, in repeating my right honourable friend the Prime Minister’s Statement, I have already given the Government’s position on next steps. Therefore, to avoid repetition and detaining the House further, I propose that we move straight on to the speakers’ list for the Motion standing in my name. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I thank the Leader for repeating the Statement. My guess is that it was through gritted teeth, given that we are not leaving this Friday. However, that Statement leaves us no wiser, no more confident and no less ashamed to be led by a Government and a Cabinet unable to lead, to unite, to listen or to put the national interest first.
But first, a confession: 10 days ago, when we were debating the Private Member’s Bill of my noble friend Lord Grocott to end by-elections for hereditary Peers, I noted that I was not here by virtue of the achievements or wisdom of my father. Perhaps I misled the House, because I learned from my much-loved father—and maybe it was his wisdom that, in one way or another, got me here—a tale he told me when I was eight or nine, which has stayed with me. It was about a passing-out parade—he was in the military—where one proud mother, viewing the march, sighed, “What a shame that my son is the only one in step, and all the others have got it wrong”. It does not take much imagination to hear the remaining supporters of our Prime Minister echoing the same: “What a shame that only she is right and all the others have got it wrong”.
Who are the others? They are the Church, business, the CBI, the TUC, the Government of Wales, the people of Northern Ireland, your Lordships’ House and, significantly, the EU, its Commission and 27 leaders of member states. That is quite a roll call to dismiss. The 27 Prime Ministers or Presidents from across the continent are experienced in governing, politics, negotiating and consensus-building. The Archbishop of Canterbury—whose task of uniting 85 million Christians worldwide the Prime Minister has made look like a walk in the park—has launched five days of prayer as we approach Brexit. Business—the people importing and exporting—knows the cold reality of tariffs, non-tariff barriers, checks, delays, transport and handling costs, and also the need for legal, banking and contract certainty. The TUC and the CBI, which we normally call two sides of industry, have quite exceptionally joined together in the light of the “national emergency”, in their words, to warn that a no-deal,
“shock to our economy would be felt by generations to come”.
The First Minister of Wales is imploring the Prime Minister to work on a cross-party basis to amend the political declaration, not the withdrawal agreement, and then to negotiate with the EU to adapt the framework. Gibraltar and UK citizens abroad will feel the reality of a no-deal exit in hours or weeks of departure. Your Lordships’ House is staunchly against no deal and repeatedly in favour of a customs union. The Opposition have spelled out our alternative approach and are open to continued EU trade via a customs union and single market alignment. The Commons—the elected Members steeped in their own communities, their businesses, people, trading and academia—are knowledgeable about the realities of a chaotic or ill-designed Brexit. The Prime Minister’s senior colleague Philip Hammond says that a no-deal Brexit,
“would cause catastrophic economic dislocation in the short term and in the longer term it would leave us with a smaller economy, poorer as a nation relative to our neighbours in the European Union”.
But the Prime Minister ignores all these. She continues to threaten no deal and, instead of talking to them, invites to Chequers Jacob Rees-Mogg, Steve Baker, Dominic Raab, David Davis and Iain Duncan Smith—the very people who have been writing her script for two years and now will not support her deal. Oh, and I forgot Boris Johnson, who seems to think we have an implementation period without a deal. No, ex-Foreign Secretary, no deal means no transition period. He does not even understand that—and these are the people who our Prime Minister heeds.
Now, to avoid no deal, we need the Prime Minister to listen to those she has ignored and to amend the future framework, even at this late stage. The FT’s Jim Pickard commented today:
“It’s March 25, 2019 and MPs are about to have multiple votes on what kind of Brexit we might have. If you’d told people this two years ago they’d have thought you were out of your mind”.
We do, however, have a breathing space, the Prime Minister having been thrown a lifeline—albeit just 14 days—by the European Council. It will be only a breathing space, and not a suffocating pause, if we open a fresh approach to our future relationships with the EU, an approach shorn of the Prime Minister’s disastrous red lines. We know that this is possible: Michel Barnier said that the political declaration that sets out the framework for our future relations could be made more ambitious in the coming days, if a majority in the House of Commons so wishes.
The Prime Minister, however, appears bent—we have heard it again just now—on trying to flog her very dead horse. For some of us her deal, which has been overwhelmingly rejected twice by MPs, is the Monty Python parrot. Here we are, however, in the last chance saloon, so our MPs must be heard and their preferences set out. This is in the national interest and is the democratic way forward. Despite the most extraordinary view of the ERG’s Steve Baker, who claimed that “national humiliation is imminent” through these indicative votes—his way of listening to elected politicians—
Lord Dykes (CB)
I am very grateful to the Front Bench, particularly as the noble Baroness forwent her speech in the earlier business. Does she not also very strongly commend the extremely important utterance, promise and suggestion by the Labour deputy leader, Tom Watson, at Saturday’s huge march, that no deal, or Mrs May’s deal, should be linked to a people’s vote later on, which would meet the wishes of the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, and other noble Lords who want that to happen?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
The noble Lord used the words “later on”, so perhaps he could wait until I am later on in what I am going to say.
It is extraordinary that a former Minister could use the words “national humiliation” about listening to elected politicians, and Mr Fox said today that the Government could ignore MPs’ indicative votes if Parliament’s stated choice went against the Conservative manifesto. So there we have it: the Conservative manifesto—that of a Government who failed to win an outright majority—is more important than anything else. Furthermore, the Statement that has just been repeated uses the excuse that, “Well, perhaps the EU will not accept it”, to fail to promise to heed the decisions and the views of MPs. Of course, the Prime Minister may not be able to deliver on what is asked, but surely she should have committed to making that her new objective—either her negotiating aim, or, if it was something else, to do that. It is shameful that the Government refuse to heed the elected House.
We know the dangers of no deal, and so do the Government: that is why that nuclear bunker under the MoD has been reopened, so that the Armed Forces are prepared, while the Cabinet Office is readying itself by working with local authorities, airports and businesses for what will be a calamity, and briefing privy counsellors accordingly. The Government know the risk of that.
I had been about to say that today’s political chaos is completely unprecedented. However, as I see that the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy—our national treasure of a historian—is here and about to speak, I will leave it to him to judge whether this is really the worst political mess that this country has found itself in.
We hear about this best from the people—up to 1 million of them on Saturday’s magnificent march. When I last looked, there were 5.5 million signatures to a petition to revoke, and dissatisfaction with the Government is at an all-time high: just 11% “satisfied”, and 86% “dissatisfied”, a net minus 75% dissatisfaction with this rudderless Government, headed by a Prime Minister with no authority.
We have to find a way forward. There are probably five ways out of this. The Prime Minister could try to get her own party behind the deal—I wish her well with that, because it does not look as if she has succeeded so far. She could get the deal changed in the way that I have outlined. It could be that Parliament takes over. It could be that the people take over with a new referendum—or perhaps the people could take over with a general election. However, the Prime Minister’s Statement gave me no confidence that she was willing to rise to this challenge, that she is in charge, that she is willing at all costs to avoid no deal or that she is willing to move to encompass the national interest. We have to wish our colleagues in the other place strength and determination, because it is they who must now grasp the situation and act accordingly.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, this is now the 13th opportunity that we have had to debate the Government’s withdrawal agreement. I am sure that all Members of your Lordships’ House hope, like me, that it will be the last.
Since we had our previous debate on the subject, some things at least have changed. The first is that the EU has agreed to an extension of Article 50, which will be widely supported across the House. The way in which this happened, though, is a telling foretaste of how life would be were we to leave the EU. The Prime Minister was allowed into the Council to petition other member states and was subject to lengthy and sceptical questioning. Then, like a prisoner in the dock, she was led from the room to a windowless cell, where she was kept until the verdict on her proposals had been reached. A modest meal was brought in. After a number of hours, the verdict was read out to her and she was allowed to leave. This is the reality of “taking back control”; this is what it would be like, week in, week out, were we ever to leave the EU.
Before leaving for Brussels, the Prime Minister had made her petulant and ill-judged address to the nation. Many in the Commons were angered by her attack on them. What really rankled with me was the statement:
“I am on your side”—
by which she meant the side of the people. But this weekend has demonstrated that she is not on the side of the people.
Noble Lords on the Government Front Bench will no doubt argue that a million people from across the UK on the streets of London, and 5.5 million people signing a petition, are only a fraction of the people. They are technically right. But how many people could the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, summon on to streets in support of the Government’s deal? How many people could the extreme Brexiteers summon up in support of crashing out? We know that Nigel Farage can summon up 200 in a pub car park—hardly the will of the people. We also know that every poll shows a large majority in favour of a people’s vote, and a large majority of them now want to remain rather than supporting either the Government’s deal or leaving without a deal. So when the Prime Minister says that she is on the people’s side, she is, as with so many other things, completely at odds with reality.
Until today, however improbable this may seem, the Prime Minister seemed to be a disciple of Samuel Beckett. When it came to her deal, she was following his injunction:
“Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better”.
Today’s Statement signals the end of that strategy, and the end of any attempt by the Government to stay in charge of the Brexit process.
The Prime Minister says that she is no longer willing to fail better, and will not bring forward her deal again until it succeeds. If—as she tacitly accepts—this is unlikely ever to happen, she has said that she will provide government time for other options to be considered. But what is unclear is when she will conclude that her deal is dead. Will it be this week? Will it be next week? Will it perhaps be 11 April? Perhaps the Minister will tell us.
It is therefore hardly surprising that Members of another place will vote on an amendment later today that would give them early votes on other options. The Government say that if this amendment succeeds it will upset the balance between the Government and the Commons. But surely her proposal does the same. The Prime Minister accepts that it is for the House of Commons, not the Government, to put forward options for consideration and to determine the procedure by which it wishes to do so. The only difference between the Government’s position and that of Sir Oliver Letwin is one of timing, not substance. The truth is that the Government have thrown up their hands in despair and effectively said to the Commons, “Over to you”. It is the most humiliating abrogation of leadership and government in our lifetimes—but it is long overdue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, referred to the phrase in the Prime Minister’s Statement that,
“I cannot commit the Government to delivering the outcome of any votes held by this House”.
In response to a question from the right honourable gentleman the leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister—if I heard her correctly—said that the Government would not feel obliged to follow any decision of the House of Commons that would cut across the commitments made in the Conservative Party manifesto. This seemed to me an extraordinary, dangerous and wholly unacceptable statement, and it is quite possible that I misheard it.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps he also heard the phrase in the Statement:
“Unless this House agrees to it, no deal will not happen”.
Does he share my view that that means the Prime Minister is saying that, in the absence of an affirmative decision by the Commons, no deal is now impossible?
Lord Newby
That appears to be what the Prime Minister is saying, but it is quite difficult to be certain on that because she does not always—as in this case—speak with absolute clarity, assurance and consistency.
To revert to my previous point, could the Minister in his winding-up statement commit the Government to aim in good faith to implement any decision taken by the Commons? I accept that the Government cannot guarantee the success of every proposal, because some at least would involve negotiations with the EU—but the House would be very grateful to get that assurance.
Your Lordships’ House knows that we on these Benches believe that the only way forward is for a referendum to give the people the chance to decide their future. This is not the cry of a metropolitan elite. It is now the cry of the country. The teenager who got up at 2 am on Saturday morning to travel to London by car and bus from Berwick on the Scottish Borders was marching next to me to protect his life chances from the consequences of a squabble in the Tory party. He spoke for his generation and we must not let him down.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I have tried in previous debates to introduce some element of light-heartedness at this stage of proceedings, but it has not been easy, and I am afraid I have rather given up on Aylesbury. I feel rather like the unfortunate passengers who, on a flight today from London Heathrow to Dusseldorf, found themselves in Edinburgh instead. The lack of direction and uncertainty with which we are proceeding makes it extremely difficult for me to feel light-hearted—or, indeed, to say anything useful in this speech.
I am at least in the happy position of speaking in this debate only for myself. I represent no party; I do not speak on behalf of the members of the Cross-Bench group; and to preserve my independence, I do not discuss my views with any of them, and do not try to form any alliances. I am of course aware from previous debates that the views I shall express are not shared across the group. That will certainly become clear as others, much more qualified than I am to speak on this subject, follow me from these Benches. But I know that I am not entirely alone in the view that I have expressed several times in this prolonged series of debates. That is, that the least unsatisfactory way out of the predicament in which we find ourselves is—however hopeless it may seem now—to approve the deal. I believe that the benefits that it offers, in security and so many other fields, far outweigh the disadvantages of that agreement, which are mainly the inevitable consequences of leaving the EU. The political declaration is a different matter. But, unlike the withdrawal agreement, it is a declaration only. It is not intended to be binding, as an agreement is. It is there for discussion, and—with some change of mind, some greater flexibility—perhaps for manipulation, as we move forward.
As of this moment, awaiting what happens in the other place, the position, as I see it, is—looking at the alternatives—quite simple. With the greatest respect to all those many people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred, who came to London and marched through the city last Saturday—some of them came from as far away as the Western Isles, I believe—I really do not want us to have to undergo another referendum, whatever the question might be, thinking of the delay and the ill feeling that would inevitably be generated. Any meaningful renegotiation of the withdrawal agreement could not be achieved without a long delay. The EU has made it quite clear that it is not open for quick negotiation any more. The alternative would be to have what I think the Prime Minister referred to today as a slow Brexit, which would result in our having to hold elections for the European Parliament. I think the public would find that very difficult to accept, in view of the result of the referendum.
There is also the option of a no-deal Brexit. I agree entirely with all the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, about that. It is simply not acceptable, as has been made clear by the other place, and by us too, in a series of votes. Everything must be done to avoid that. The risk is still there. However, the EU, which to our eternal shame has been ahead of us at every stage through this misguided process, has injected some discipline into the shambles at our end. It has thrown us a lifeline. We have been given extra time—but there are conditions attached. Surely everything must be done to ensure that we meet the deadlines that have, in one way or another, been left for us. We must not miss the new deadline, or we will indeed have a no-deal Brexit.
As one looks back, it is remarkable how, every so often in moments of crisis, somebody on the world stage says something that captures our imagination. We can all remember Donald Rumsfeld, shortly before the start of the second Gulf War, and the puzzling images he conjured up with his reference to “unknown unknowns”—things that we do not know that we do not know. Noble Lords may remember Saddam Hussein’s absurdly comical Minister of Information, always in military uniform, who, as the Americans were on the point of entering Baghdad, assured us that it was they who were running away, and that the Iraqi forces had won a famous victory.
Now, surely the prize must go to Donald Tusk. There was his clever reply when asked by an enterprising Irish journalist at the end of last Thursday’s press conference whether that special place should be enlarged to accommodate Members of the other place. Your Lordships will recall his words:
“According to our Pope, hell is still empty—
that must have surprised some people—
“it means that there is a lot of space”.
He ended by saying that, as we know, hope is the last to die. Those words reveal what he is really thinking. Your Lordships may remember that that is a chilling reminder of how people fought off despair during the Holocaust. He might perhaps have chosen another phrase, which your Lordships can find on Google:
“Hope is a dangerous thing”.
Those are the opening words of a lyric by an American songwriter Lana Del Rey. She said,
“Hope is a dangerous thing for … me”,
but let us leave that aside. It is a dangerous thing for us too.
Donald Tusk was right, of course. It seems that all we can do now is hope for the best, as the Prime Minister seems to be doing, but the danger is that if that is all we do as we thrash about searching for something that will command a majority, we will fail to meet the next deadline. His words should act as a warning that this really is our last chance.
My hope is that the other place will back the only deal that is on offer in sufficient time, so that we can leave in an orderly manner on 22 May. If that is not possible, one has to look for the next best alternative, and I am driven to the conclusion that it would have to be to ask for a long extension—with all the consequences. Sadly, that would, in the end, be my position.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, following the Prime Minister’s Statement in the other place this afternoon, it is clear that we remain in a place of deep uncertainty. We are still asked to note the two dates of 12 April and 22 May, signifying that there are at least two, probably more, very different directions we might still take as a country.
I shall not focus on the choices before us, but I note that, whether by intention or default, we will make a choice—a choice will be made—and, beyond that choice, we have to live together. We are experiencing a time of extraordinary turbulence and toxicity in our political life, and it is how we navigate and respond to that turbulence and toxicity now and in future that I shall address in the remainder of the time available to me this afternoon.
Since taking up the office of the Bishop of Newcastle, I have had many conversations with MPs from the diocese, who range right across the political spectrum. Without exception, I have been encouraged and moved by their sense of public service and their compassion for those whom they serve. They work extraordinarily hard, and they care.
It is deeply disturbing, then, to see that a routine part of the daily working life of an MP is that they and their staff endure verbal assaults, attacks and threats. It cannot be right that carrying a panic alarm is now a necessity for some MPs and that constituency offices and homes are considered as places of risk for them.
It is just under three years since June 2016, when Jo Cox was murdered. As a nation, we were horrified and united in believing that this must never happen again. Yet over the past few months, intimidation and death threats against Members of Parliament, including MPs from my diocese, have become so commonplace that they struggle to secure space in newspapers and on news websites. MPs on both sides of the conversation have been labelled as traitors, as being engaged in acts of betrayal. Anyone coming in or out of this building will have seen the placards and heard the shouting, and often it is women parliamentarians who receive the worst of it.
Whatever the outcome of this week’s events, and whatever choice we make about our future relationship with the European Union, the even more important question is: what kind of democracy and society will we be left with? The former Archbishop of Canterbury —my right reverend friend Lord Williams of Oystermouth —reflected on this with characteristic thoughtfulness in a recent article in the New Statesman. He wrote that,
“two salient aspects of a consistent democracy are that we go on arguing, and that our freedom to do so is protected. The law defends us from coercion and forcible silencing. Without these, we have naked populism, a reversion to the situation where the powerful (in numbers, wealth or status) determine what is ‘right’. Genuine politics gives way to suppressed or threatened violence”.
This is the chasm into which we are staring. Whatever happens next, approximately half of us will be unhappy and angry. We will need the kind of democracy that protects our freedoms and the values we hold dear. For democracy to be exercised, the space where it is practised—whether in the real world or online—must be kept safe, and those who are called to serve must be protected. This is not someone else’s job: it falls to all of us to call out hatred, abuse, intimidation and threat wherever we see it happening.
The Church is in all communities and has learned how important it is to work across divides with others, of all faiths and none. We understand that reconciliation must be placed at the centre of our life together. Across the diocese of Newcastle we will gather to share our hopes and fears for the coming months, and to pray together. I am encouraging people to light three candles: “One for me, one for my neighbour, and one for our shared future together”.
My friend the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has challenged the Church to ponder how our actions will look a century from now. Will we have stoked tension and hostility, or worked to defuse it? Will we have demonised others with whom we deeply disagree, or called for civility and respect in how we speak about and treat each other? The challenge is to the Church, but all of us could do worse than to ponder these words. Three years ago, it was our privilege, at the request of our local MPs, to open Newcastle Cathedral for a time of prayer for Jo Cox immediately following her death. The huge response from members of the general public was deeply moving, but let that be both the first and the last such occasion.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, here we go again, debating the same arguments for the umpteenth time—I think the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said the thirteenth—for some very simple reasons, which we may be able to all agree on. But they may be worth repeating, simply because they may shed some light on where we go from here.
Brexit, as we now know all too well, is the biggest political and social challenge that this country has faced since the Second World War. The complexity of the issues and the enormity of what leaving the EU entails means that Brexit is a process that will take much longer than many envisaged and some promised. It has divided our nation from top to toe: the Cabinet, the two main political parties, communities, families. To leave the EU smoothly, we needed to be honest about the scale of that challenge from day one and build a consensus as to the way ahead. The Government needed to negotiate knowing they had the support of Parliament and that they could deliver on what is agreed in the negotiations. Obviously, since the referendum none of this has happened. In part, that is because the UK’s relationship with the European Union has been poisoning the well of Conservative Party politics for decades, and it has fallen to this Prime Minister to make that fateful choice: what matters more to the United Kingdom—trade and access to EU markets, or control and parliamentary sovereignty? Fear of splitting the Conservative Party totally asunder has meant that, years after the referendum, we still do not know the answer to that basic question.
On Brexit, the biggest issue of the day, we do not have a Government to speak of. Instead, we have a collection of individuals grouped into factions; there is no collective responsibility. To say that we have a Prime Minister would, sadly, bestow on Mrs May a level of authority she clearly does not have. I have been saying for months that the Prime Minister is in office, not in power—the last week has proven that beyond doubt—so once again I wearily ask: where do we go from here? Sadly, the options are exactly the same as those we faced 1,006 days ago: we leave with a deal, we leave without a deal or we do not leave. The final option, revoking Article 50, is what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—I am sorry he is not in his place—is calling for in his Motion. Although I totally disagree with him on this point, I respect and pay tribute to his tenacity and principled stand. Parliament voted to hold the referendum; the public voted to leave; Parliament voted to trigger Article 50; the public voted for Labour and Conservative MPs who promised to honour the result of the referendum. We need to fulfil that pledge.
Putting that to one side, I cannot see how a Conservative Government could possibly revoke Article 50. To do that we would need a general election; or it would require a referendum, which, as things stand, is also impossible to deliver without a general election. The next option is leaving without a deal, which the Prime Minister said continues to be the default outcome. Ever since the last general election, it has been obvious that Parliament opposes no deal. The Government may try to ignore Parliament, but if they do Parliament would surely vote “no confidence” in the Government on an issue such as this. Therefore, no deal likewise requires a general election. The final option is leaving with a deal. The only deal on offer is the withdrawal agreement. That agreement will not now change. The EU’s position is clear: take it or leave it.
In the days ahead, Parliament might agree, via indicative votes, that it wishes to join a customs union or the EEA. But even if Parliament reaches a consensus, I sense the very best that might happen is for this to be reflected in the political declaration, which, unlike the withdrawal agreement, is not legally binding. Parliament will still have to vote for the withdrawal agreement and put it into law. Furthermore, if the other place votes in favour of a Motion that the United Kingdom should join a customs union, and possibly the single market as well, to implement it would break Conservative manifesto commitments and would appear to require the support of Labour MPs. Is the Prime Minister willing to do that? Are she and her Cabinet willing, as I have urged before, to bridge the party divide to deliver Brexit?
Such a prospect may seem fanciful, until one remembers the point I began with: Brexit poses the biggest political and social challenge this country has faced since it fought a world war. Put like that, is it so peculiar to consider that we should come together, put party interests to one side and work together to leave the EU? At what point does the need to end the uncertainty and to leave the EU with a common approach trump party allegiance and manifesto commitments? To me, it is clear that, after 1,006 days, if we are to leave the European Union, we cannot and must not go on as we are.
If this withdrawal agreement is rejected again, and if, like me, you believe we should leave the EU—as 17.4 million people voted to do—then the Government and Parliament must build a consensus regarding what we want to achieve. If we cannot do that, we need a new Parliament. We cannot continue to debate these issues with extension after extension to the negotiations.
Let me end by saying this. Even if the withdrawal agreement is passed this week, we will still need to build that consensus as to our future relationship; otherwise, we will spend the foreseeable future trapped in the agony of this interminable debate, which is corroding trust in Parliament and undermining confidence in the economy. On an issue of such enormity as our leaving the European Union—an issue which will shape our nation’s future for generations to come—a House divided cannot stand.
Lord Soley (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, whose views I have known for some time; I agree with very many of them, and he gives this matter great thought. I agree with him absolutely that this is a real political and economic crisis for the United Kingdom.
I ask Members to bear in mind that those of us on the European Union Select Committees meet representatives of European countries on this issue. A few weeks ago, I was in Bucharest, Romania, which currently holds the presidency of the European Union, to talk about Europol and the future of the security relationship; that includes, of course, the relationship between the EU and the UK. The general feeling there is one of wanting the British to stay but recognising that it has gone beyond that, for many of the reasons set out by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. What they want now is for us to make a decision and move on, and to start building a relationship between the EU and the UK, which we all know will be necessary.
This Sunday, I am going again to Bucharest, together with my noble friend Lord Whitty, where we will be speaking about the future of the European Union. Interestingly, we will be there not just as observers but as participants. But I ask Members to bear in mind that, when I go to such meetings, for the first time in my political career it is very difficult for me to answer questions about what is happening in the British political system—a system they have always assumed was among the best and most stable in the world. I can only reply, as I do at times, that we have not quite cracked it yet; I then like to tell them that that is a classic example of British understatement. It is terribly difficult to talk to Europeans about where we are in this country.
The reality is that the country is divided, the political parties are divided and organisations are divided, but we have to follow the referendum—a referendum which should never have been held, frankly. Britain works best when it has representative democracy; it has worked really well for this country for several hundred years and we forgo it at our peril. Tragically, what one never does is hold a referendum without knowing what you will do if you do not get the result you want. That is why we are in the mess we are in today.
It is with some sadness I say that the other issue to be addressed is this: as a number of noble Lords have said, we are debating this partly because of the state of the Tory party. I do not normally go around calling on Ministers or Prime Ministers to resign for the hell of it—there is not much future in that. But the present Prime Minister has lost control. I was brought up politically on the idea of Cabinet responsibility and unity. There is no Cabinet unity—arguably, there is no Cabinet. That is a terrible state for Parliament and Britain to be in. We have to crack that problem.
Over time, I have come to the conclusion that we need to accept this withdrawal agreement and to do so fairly soon. But there are caveats to that. It has always been my view—not just in recent years but for a long time—that the British public were supportive of a European common market but never very supportive of the European state. In other words, the British public tended to see it as a supermarket, not a superstate. That has been the problem that runs through the core of British thinking. It explains the power of the Brexiteers’ strapline, “Take back control”. It was about not just immigration but a variety of things: making our own laws, being able to sack the Government and so on. That difference has never been resolved among the British public in the way it was in Europe, which had a far greater need for political unity because of the horror of two world wars, defeat, occupation and having borders changed by force.
Where do we go from here? I urge—as far as I am able to these days, which is not so much in the other place—that the withdrawal agreement must go through. Probably the best way of doing it is that put forward by Tom Watson MP, my colleague in the House of Commons. We have the withdrawal agreement and we must get it through soon, and then—I say this very reluctantly and regretfully—we probably have to have some sort of referendum at the end of it. I do not want that—as I have said, I do not like referendums—but I am not sure how you avoid the trap otherwise.
We need to face the fact that the British public are so deeply divided. The divisions are not just between parties and organisations, or business and trade unions; there is division within families. Young people in particular are arguing to stay in, and the older generation is arguing to get out. This is of such importance and we cannot go on like this much longer.
I suggest there is a case for the Prime Minister to step aside so that we can have a more conciliatory approach from a new Prime Minister. I would love to see a Government of national unity for a time, to get us out of the hole we are in. Believe me, if you talk to people abroad about this, they cannot understand what has happened to Britain. It is tragic.
I end with a plug for the report we have just produced in the European Union Select Committee, called Beyond Brexit; noble Lords might find its subtitle slightly facetious: How to Win Friends and Influence People. We will certainly need to do that. We had so many friends and supporters throughout the European Union until this business happened. Now, we have very few. They want us to go but they want a good relationship, and they wish we had not decided to go in the first place.
In both Houses, we have a duty to try to get this moving. We must accept the withdrawal agreement and then start working on the political declaration. Had we started on that two years ago, it would have formed the basis of a realistic and proper relationship between the UK and the EU. That is still a possibility but we are coming to it very late. However, we need to do it and we need to do it fast.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, the part of the United Kingdom that I come from is still geographically peripheral, but it is not politically peripheral at the moment, because of the backstop and border questions.
When we were living through difficult and much more dangerous times, we looked for places where we could find encouragement and inspiration. The European project was one of those places. We could see that those who had been at war, twice in a generation, had been able to find a new way of engaging with each other—a way of moving forward with different arrangements, with creativity and flexibility, to make something new and different and rather unprecedented. For me, that was tremendously encouraging. The ideas in many of the practical arrangements of the European project were incorporated into our negotiations and our way of thinking about things.
I was also encouraged and inspired by your Lordships’ House. I came here in 1996 and found a preparedness to engage reflectively, thoughtfully and creatively with difficult problems. Subsequent to 1998, as Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, I found myself coming backwards and forwards to your Lordships’ House and finding it a restorative experience. I could return to the Northern Ireland Assembly with ways of working and engaging that were thoughtful, creative and reflective, and brought people together to find new ways of resolving problems.
So for me it is a personally painful business to see what has happened to the European Union and both Houses of Parliament here. A deep division has opened up in the European Union itself, not just between people in this country but between Governments and people and different sections of the community in almost every country in Europe. Some come out on to the streets to express their dissatisfaction with government and Europe. Europe has for some people remained a model, but for others it has become the cause of division rather than a healing project.
Even in your Lordships’ House, my sense of the past couple of years has been that people have held to positions and tried to defend and promote them rather than understand that the deep divisions that have opened up in our country and our continent are extremely dangerous and that we must find a way of resolving them. That is why I identify strongly with a number of the comments that have been made but perhaps most particularly with the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle.
I remember when John Hume was trying to engage with the IRA and he asked it what it wanted. The IRA said, “A united Ireland”. He said, “Look at the map. It is one island”. It said, “There’s a border”. He said, “That’s because the people of Ireland are divided about how to share the island”. I well remember Dr Ian Paisley, known to us in latter days as Lord Bannside before he passed away. He would speak about the fact that he represented the people of Northern Ireland, because he clearly had the largest vote in repeated elections. But nationalists and republicans said that they represented the majority of the people of the island of Ireland.
I hear the same kind of thing going on. People speak about how they represent the majority and the views of the people, but the people are deeply divided. Neither side seems prepared to recognise that the job of political leaders is to find a way for our people can live together, not agreeing on everything all the time—of course not. There are different perspectives and that is not only legitimate but healthy. Whatever happens, we will all have to continue to live together in Britain and Ireland, within Britain itself, and in Europe. We have to find a way of living together. One difficulty is that if one is so convinced of the rectitude of one’s own position and policy, one spends all the time attacking the other and promoting one’s own approach. We would not have been able to deliver the Good Friday agreement if there had not been serious efforts by all those negotiating, in advance of reaching an agreement, to indicate to people that there would have to be compromise, a coming together and a giving up of some cherished aspects so that we could find not an agreement but a way of living together.
The time for us to do this is short. No vote, referendum or election will bring our people together to find a way of agreeing a compromise. That requires political leadership. The truth is that all our parties have contributed to the division, either by themselves being divided or by taking one side or the other of the argument. That is the road to no town and a disaster. I appeal to Members of your Lordships’ House to return to what has been our tradition, our strength and our contribution to the country. By not having to be elected, we can afford to be more thoughtful, creative and reflective and engage with each other across party boundaries to find an accommodation that our people can live with so that we can not only live together on this island and in relation to the other island but in this continent of Europe. Without that, the future is gloomy for all of us, whichever side wins the argument in a referendum or an election. We have to find a way of living together.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I warmly applaud what was just said by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice.
I shall shock the Government Front Bench by saying that I rather like the Prime Minister’s Statement. I found three things in it that seem to be the beginning of wisdom. The Prime Minister says that,
“as things stand, there is still not sufficient support … for a third meaningful vote”.
She said that the House has “expressed its opposition” to no deal and,
“may very well do so again”,
and she said that,
“the bottom line remains, if the House does not approve the withdrawal agreement this week, and is not prepared to countenance leaving without a deal we will have to seek a longer extension”.
Those three propositions are all true and one should welcome this dose of reality.
If I were going to be pompous, I would say that what has gone wrong in the past three years—I hope everybody has rejected the idea of my being pompous—is that we have forgotten that the Executive are responsible to Parliament. It has been the rule down the years that a Government who cannot sell their principal policies to Parliament change the policies or make way for another Government. Since Walpole’s time, the principle of Cabinet solidarity has been that if you do not agree with the policy of the majority in the Cabinet, you leave the Cabinet and you shut up. The third principle is that at times of national crisis, the national interest overrides the party interest. A Narvik brings out a Churchill, a Churchill brings in an Attlee and a national consensus is sought. We come together. None of those three principles has been applied in full in the past three years. Indeed, they seem to have been flouted.
It is a pity that there was no national debate, or at least a debate with Parliament or within the Cabinet, about what Brexit meant—and what form of Brexit one should be aiming for and how. To set out those red lines at a party conference with no prior discussion in this House or the other place was a mistake. Keeping Parliament in the dark during the negotiations was a mistake. The Minister had to tell us again and again that he was not allowed to give us a running commentary. I am sure he found that painful; I found it painful to hear it. It would have been better to have a discussion about the process; the product might not then have come as such a surprise. It was then a mistake to pull the product out of the House of Commons for two months, not allowing the meaningful vote, and it was probably a mistake to go on pressing it after the massive failure of the first meaningful vote.
On Cabinet solidarity, it was a mistake to make the deal the Prime Minister’s deal and not the Cabinet’s deal or the Government’s deal. That was not wise. Letting the principle of collective responsibility lapse has proved self-defeating. Threatening hard leavers with no Brexit and soft leavers or remainers with no deal has produced the effect of isolating the Prime Minister in a very worrying way.
What about country before party and reaching out? I was on the march. We marched past Downing Street and we called on the Prime Minister to think again. How did she react? As has been said, she summoned the ERG to Chequers. I do not know why she always moves right at a moment of decision. This morning, we see what I suppose must be the ERG manifesto, in Mr Johnson’s column in the Telegraph, which has some rather odd aspects to it, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said. Mr Johnson says two things. First, we must,
“come out of the EU now—without the backstop”.
So it is no deal: a customs frontier across Ireland, forget about the Belfast agreement and forget about the peace process. I think that is irresponsible.
Secondly, he says:
“Extend the implementation period to the end of 2021 if necessary; use it to negotiate a free-trade deal”.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said, no agreement —no deal—means no implementation period. It means also that our trade with our biggest market is instantly no longer free, and rollovers of existing EU trade deals with third countries become hugely more difficult and rather unlikely. This is instant economic disruption. This is what the Chancellor calls catastrophic. Avoiding this is now paramount, as the CBI and the TUC rightly said, last week. They believe that an Article 50 extension and a new approach are required. No more “my way or the highway”. Some 85% of CBI member companies apparently think that an Article 50 extension is better than no deal. I am not surprised, given the Government’s own economic analysis of no deal.
Those views of the CBI and the TUC were pretty well represented at the European Council by President Tusk and Chancellor Merkel. They do not want no deal; they know how damaging no deal would be to them and how much more damaging such an outcome would be to us. It seems that our Prime Minister was still arguing then—though today’s Statement is a little different—that there was only a binary choice for the United Kingdom: her deal or no deal. It seems that she was evasive when pressed on the chances of her deal being approved. She seems to me to be honest today in her Statement. She refused to countenance any plan B, and I think the European Council concluded that she did not have one. It was her counterparts in the European Council who ensured that the conclusions mean that, as President Tusk said afterwards,
“anything is possible: a deal, a long extension if the United Kingdom decided to rethink its strategy, or revoking Article 50, which is a prerogative of the UK government”.
The ball is now in our court and we have, at last, to rise to the level of events. What we need is time to stop and think. I do not believe that the European Council would have difficulty agreeing to a substantial Article 50 extension, provided we satisfy the Council’s only condition, which was that we should be able to “indicate a way forward”. I do not believe that that way forward need be very detailed or specific—indeed, it would not be. After 1,000 days of no national debate, it would be crazy suddenly to try to produce a new answer in a fortnight. What we need to indicate—I think this would be sufficient—is that, at long last, a process to decide the future is being set in train. Here, I echo the noble Lord, Lord Bridges: if Brexit is to go ahead, we need a process to decide the best balance of autarkic sovereignty and common purpose, and of independent action and identifying mutual interest. I think the noble Lord put it better than I have, but that is the dilemma: finding that balance, and a process to determine whether, after at long last a genuine, and genuinely informed, national debate, Brexit should go ahead or whether our Article 50 notification should be withdrawn—in either case, with full democratic authorisation. The broken, blindfold Brexit that we have blundered into results from a flawed process, which broke with our basic constitutional principles—but it is not too late to put that right.
The spectacle of the European Council last week was shaming. We saw a Prime Minister lurking in an empty room while 27 colleagues tried to help her find a way out of the corner she had painted herself into; we saw a haggard Prime Minister, unable to stay on to participate in the Council’s debate on probably the most significant issue of our time: western democracy’s relationship with China. For Britain to be silent—for Britain to be absent from such a debate—is shocking. A good test, at moments of difficult decisions, is to ask oneself what Peter Carrington would have thought and done, supposing he were in the Cabinet today. When, on the last day of January, we remembered him in the Abbey— with the help of the noble Lords, Lord Luce and Lord Carrington; with the Grenadiers’ “Slow March” and “Nimrod”; with memories of Nijmegen; with memories of Carrington alongside Kissinger and Schmidt; and memories of Carrington as Secretary-General of NATO—we remembered someone who deeply believed in the European Union, for precisely the reasons so brilliantly explained in Parliament Square on Saturday by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine. He believed deeply that this country mattered, that we had a vocation and that we should make sure our voice was heard. He was someone whose voice certainly was heard, who understood parliamentary democracy and the need to put country before party and honour before ambition, and who knew what to do when something went wrong.
Our friends in 27 countries have thrown us a lifeline, provided that we can “indicate a way forward”—the phrase in the Commission’s text—which could, and I hope will, mean ourselves by 12 April to a process to seek a national consensus on a negotiable outcome. I hope we will: better late than never.
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. There are very few in your Lordships’ House who have greater experience in these matters than the noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is one other, if I may say so. I say to my noble friends that I associate myself very strongly with what the noble Lord said. I say, too, that I hope the Government have heeded his advice. In anticipation, given that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is to follow after my few remarks, I will say that it is not insignificant that he and I, who have been in the Chamber on opposite sides for over 30 years, on this matter happen to agree. On this issue there is tremendous cross-party consensus.
The decision of last week’s European Council obliges Parliament and the country to make a decisive decision, and we must do so. We have three choices: to approve the Prime Minister’s deal; to leave without a deal; or to seek a lengthy extension, during which the country and Parliament can reconsider their options. Without hesitation, I support the latter option. I am not a Europhile and never have been, but believe strongly and on pragmatic grounds that staying in the European Union offers by far the best future for the United Kingdom, Europe and the wider world. I believe that Brexit defies both reason and all credible evidence.
Contrary to the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Bridges of Headley, with whom I almost always agree—he is a very old friend—I do not think the 2016 referendum is an authority for leaving the European Union, whatever the outcome of the negotiations. I believe it was an instruction to the Government to negotiate the best terms that could be achieved, leaving over the issue of who decides whether the terms are acceptable. In my view, that final decision is one to be made by Parliament, and perhaps by the country in a further referendum. I agree with the view oft expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and others that there can be no objection in principle to holding a further referendum, although personally I would prefer it to be held on the ultimate agreement rather than on Mrs May’s deal, which, by its nature, is interim and transitional.
As regards participating in the coming European elections, I acknowledge that there are practical difficulties to be confronted, but I do not believe that it is respectable to argue that participation in a democratic process is offensive in principle. Indeed, I can see great advantages in having a vigorous election debate and seeing the United Kingdom represented—I hope sensibly—in the European Parliament in what I also hope will be for an extended period. I support participation in those elections to secure a lengthy extension.
I turn directly to the choices that now have to be made. In my view, to crash out of the European Union without any deal would be a national calamity. I do not believe that there is or ever was a national desire for such an outcome. Last Saturday’s march and the petition now signed by over 5 million people speak to this. Moreover, no deal was decisively rejected in the House of Commons by 413 votes to 202. For government or parliamentarians to disregard such a vote would be to display a contempt for Parliament of the grossest kind. I hope I can gain some reassurance from today’s Statement, where I see that the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons:
“Unless this House agrees to it, no deal will not happen”.
The proper interpretation of that is that, unless there is an affirmative vote in the House of Commons, no deal will not happen. It means nothing else, and I very much hope that when my noble friend Lord Callanan winds up this debate, he will confirm that interpretation.
As to Mrs May’s deal, I would support it only if nothing else were on offer. However, I do not accept Mrs May’s oft-repeated statement that her deal is the only deal available. That is simply not true. It is clear that the European Council has given us an opportunity to think again—to discard the red lines which the Prime Minister so unwisely drew. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that the House of Commons will support the Prime Minister’s deal. I therefore hope that the Commons will vote to secure a lengthy extension to the deadline. If—I hope, when—that occurs, Britain should reconsider whether it wishes to leave the European Union. It may be that, as a result of those discussions, modified terms of membership will become available. In any event, the red lines should be discarded. If they are discarded, a variety of alternatives will become available, and, if the Commons thinks it appropriate, a further referendum will become part of the deliberative process.
I doubt that Mrs May can or should preside over those discussions. As the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, implied and as the noble Lord, Lord Soley, said, whoever is the Prime Minister must be a person who commands respect in the House of Commons, across the political divide and in the country as a whole. He or she must also be credible in Europe and on the international stage. In the conduct of the talks, in the formulation of policy and in taking the consequential legislation through Parliament, the Prime Minister will have to seek support from all sides of the House.
Although such considerations might not definitively identify who should be the next Prime Minister, they most certainly will identify the unsuitable. Now is not the time and No. 10 is not the place for clowns or for those who indulge in fantasies. In the wake of their policies would come economic damage, international isolation and considerable humiliation. I hope that in the coming votes the House of Commons will take full advantage of the opportunity that has been afforded to it. Parliament and the country can and must think again.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is indeed a great pleasure to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham—an old adversary of mine in the other place. As noble Lords have heard, he is a very powerful advocate, and it is much better to be on the same side as him. I agree with almost everything that he has said today but I want to make it clear that I totally support the Motion to revoke Article 50 in the name of my noble friend Lord Adonis.
I need to explain why I have adjusted my view since the last time I spoke, which was some time ago. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Newby, I have not spoken in all 13 of the debates—mind you, he gets better as he goes along. When I last spoke, I said that, although revoking was my preferred option, I reluctantly agreed that we needed a referendum to finish the job because it started with a referendum. However, that brings me back to June 2016, when I was against having a referendum. I have always been against that. Indeed, the nicest thing that Gisela Stuart ever said about me was that I was against a referendum. In fact, that is the only nice thing she has ever said about me.
One reason I was against it was that in referenda people vote for reasons other than the question on the ballot paper. I remember that in 1979 we did not get a Scottish Assembly because the Callaghan Government were unpopular after the winter of discontent, and there has been no less popular Government than the Cameron Government when we went into the referendum in 2016. My view is that that is why a lot of people voted in the way that they did.
This referendum was corrupted and there was cheating in it. There was overspending, as the Electoral Commission has said. Indeed, as I understand it, the High Court has said that, if it had been a mandatory referendum, it would have been illegal. However, it was only an advisory referendum, so it did not matter that all those mistakes were made. However, that reminds us that it was an advisory referendum, so it should not be taken by the Government as an instruction.
One might challenge me that the same applied the last time I spoke about the referendum, and indeed I said much the same about it then. What has changed? What has tipped the balance? Above all, as the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, rightly said, there has been a sea change in public opinion since then. Now, all the implications of Brexit are known—people are made aware of the reality. It may be okay for Farage with his wealth, or for Rees-Mogg with his trust in Ireland, but ordinary people are beginning to realise that it is a disaster. This is being shown, first, in opinion polls. An analysis of 200 opinion polls showed that a majority of between 6% and 12% are now in favour of remain, whereas in June 2016 it was a majority of about 3% or 4% for leave. A second indication is the march on Saturday of over a million people from every part of the United Kingdom—not the metropolitan elite, as some say. They came from every corner of the United Kingdom and tramped through London to express their view. That shows strength; coming to London to express that view takes a lot more than just going to the ballot box.
Thirdly, the petition is astonishing, the biggest there has ever been: to date, over five and a half million people and rising at the rate of a few hundred thousand every hour. The petition is not for a referendum: it is to revoke and stay. I am glad to say that it was started by a 77 year-old lady, as my noble friend Lady Bakewell and I—I declare an interest as chair of Age Scotland—do a lot to promote the advantages of older people taking initiative. The fact that Margaret Anne Georgiadou took this initiative is very encouraging and the fact that five and a half million people have already followed her is even more so.
It is still possible to argue that we should nevertheless have a people’s vote—a second referendum—to prove the case. Leavers are not keen on a second referendum; does this indicate that they are not confident they would win again? Perhaps it does. However, one of the strong arguments against having a second referendum now, and for asking Parliament—urging the other place, in particular—to agree to revoke Article 50, is that the period of time needed for a referendum would continue the uncertainty; we might also end up with more lies and cheating unless we tightened up the rules. For a variety of reasons, I am not in favour, as I have said. There would be more jobs lost, just as we are losing jobs in every part of the United Kingdom at the moment, because of the threat and uncertainty.
Parliament now needs to step in, take up responsibility and accept that no Brexit is good for Britain. The best option is for us to remain part of the European Union—but remain and reform. Not just in Britain but in other countries of Europe, people think that the European Union needs reform. Every institution needs reform, including even—some people think—the institution that we are in now. Britain could be leading in Europe, not leaving Europe; that should be our slogan. So I hope we can send a message to the other place to revoke withdrawal.
Finally, having followed my old adversary, the noble Viscount, it is a great pleasure for me to hand the baton over to the person described by my noble friend on the Front Bench—
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I hand the baton to the person described by my noble friend Lady Hayter as a national treasure: that is, the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy.
Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield (CB)
My Lords, I am rendered almost speechless, but I shall try. I have no desire to add to the reservoir of recrimination into which so many words have been poured because of Brexit. But, despite the kind words of my noble friend Lord Foulkes and my cherished former research student, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, I must confess that I am still struggling to absorb quite how a formidably resourceful country with a deeply mature parliamentary system, and which nurtures a real pride in its gift for international statecraft, could have come to such a pass as a destabiliser among the constellation of nations in Europe and the wider world—a nation that other countries can no longer read. What have we done to ourselves? What will become of us?
In that context, it dawned on me earlier this month that the number one target for British intelligence surely now is us. Since, nearly three years ago, we moved temporarily into a strange new country—let us call it “Brexitland”—we have become a mystery even unto ourselves; so much so that in a column in last Friday’s Tablet, I respectfully suggested to the chairman of the Cabinet Office’s Joint Intelligence Committee that he commission a special assessment under the heading, “Brexitland: Questions Facing the UK”.
Such an assessment might touch on a range of themes that are in play: future relationships with the EU, obviously; Britain’s wider place in the world after withdrawal; the sustainability of the very union of the UK and the prospects for a Scottish separation in the early 2020s; the social, economic and regional inequalities within the UK; the stress testing of UK institutions, including Parliament, the party-political structure and the Civil Service; the durability of the UK’s international alliances, including the special nuclear and intelligence relationships with the United States; prospects for the UK economy, research, innovation and technical education; and the enhancement of UK soft power, the transmission of values abroad and the restoration of a relatively rancour-free national political conversation at home. Perhaps the Minister, when he gets back to the department, could get on the phone to the Cabinet Office’s joint intelligence people and tell them what I have just said.
When it comes to my own future assessment—as a remainer but not a second referendum man—I carry an optimism about the longer-term prospects for the UK, provided that the cumulative effects of living in Brexitland do not leave us wallowing in a resentful torpor blighted by mutual scapegoating. Every generation needs a flag to which it can rally, a banner upon which it embroiders its shared aspirations. The banner under which my own, early post-war generation lived, for example, was particularly lustrous, very much woven by the great collective experience of the Second World War. What went into its embroidery? The answer is: the Beveridge report on welfare of 1942; the Education Act 1944; the full employment White Paper of 1944; the formation of the National Health Service in 1948; the placing of a collective security roof over all of this with the creation of NATO in 1949; and, from the late 1940s onwards, the transition from Empire to Commonwealth.
What we need now, especially in these highly polarised times, is another shared banner. We would all have our individual aspirations, but there are three I would embroider as a priority, for which I think there might—just might—be a new consensus once we are through Brexit. These would be: to do for social care what 1948 did for health; a very substantial building programme of social housing based on a public/private mix; and to get technical education right for the first time—after all, we have been trying to do this since the late 19th century.
If we can rally to a new banner, we might take not only ourselves pleasantly by surprise but our European neighbours and the rest of the world, in our ability to bounce back and cohere once more. In the meantime, I hope that the Prime Minister gets her deal through the House of Commons and that Friday 12 April does not go down as one of the bleakest days in our history. We have most definitely not been living through a finest hour, but a finest hour just might be there for the living if only we can get across the Brexit barrier and plant that shining flag on the other side. My Lords, I live in hope.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, suggested that now is not the time for clowns. But one thing I was musing about over the weekend was how both David Cameron and the current Prime Minister, Theresa May, seem to have had problems with timings. David Cameron thought that he had worked out the perfect timing for his referendum—May 2017—to give himself two years to negotiate the reforms that he wanted in order to have his 60:40 vote to remain in the European Union. But then he decided to bring the referendum forward, boxed himself into a corner, got a damp little squib of a deal, and the referendum, as we all know, went the wrong way for him.
Theresa May has spent the last two years telling us that exit day is 29 March 2019. I thought I would check the lyrics of the song that includes the words:
“Isn’t it rich?
Isn’t it queer?
Losing my timing this late in my career”.
It goes on to say:
“But where are the clowns?
There ought to be clowns
Well, maybe next year”.
We are in very difficult times. The Prime Minister has led us to a point where we now do not even know whether we will leave the European Union, with or without a deal, on 12 April. We spent 15 to 20 minutes earlier trying to work out whether international law trumps domestic law on the date of possibly leaving the European Union. Many of us believe that, unless we change our domestic law, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 still means we are due to leave on 29 March—this Friday. We are in a position that nobody sought to be in and to which I do not believe the Prime Minister intended to lead us.
Unlike my noble friend Lord Newby, I have not spoken in all 13 debates. This is the first time I have spoken in a Brexit debate since 5 December, on the very first day of the very first debate ahead of the first meaningful vote, which was pulled and did not happen. I have not felt the need to speak on the grounds that absolutely nothing changed between the Prime Minister proposing her withdrawal agreement in the autumn and last week. Even with the negotiations in Brussels last week, I might not have felt the need to speak this afternoon. I might have felt that the deal the Prime Minister had agreed in November was not adequate then and remains inadequate. It is a sign of how far the Prime Minister has managed to divide her own party, Parliament and the country that, whereas sh thinks that her deal is the will of the people, Parliament has defeated it comprehensively on every possible occasion.
I did not need to stand up and say that, but I wanted to stand up and speak after listening to the Prime Minister’s speech to the United Kingdom last Wednesday evening. It was a disgrace that she felt she should say to the people, “I’ve understood you. Take no notice of Parliament, I know what you all want. I am speaking for you, but those other politicians aren’t”. There is nobody in your Lordships’ House or the other place who is not trying to do their best for this country, whether we agree or disagree with her deal, and whether we are remainers, leavers, remoaners or born-again leavers. We are all trying to do our best and most of us are trying to work in the national interest. The idea that the Prime Minister should try to pit herself and the people against Parliament is not helpful to our democracy. It will not help us come together as a country. It will not lead to the sort of United Kingdom that we should all be seeking, whether or not we leave the European Union on Friday.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out earlier that a referendum is, in many ways, an alien device, which is not the norm in this country. Certainly, when we entered the Common Market, Edward Heath, the then Prime Minister, was very clear that a referendum was not appropriate. Both Clement Attlee and Margaret Thatcher used the idea that referendums were the devices of dictators and demagogues. That language of referendums as dangerous devices is often used in the literature. However, I am speaking from the Liberal Democrat Benches. My former leader, Mr Clegg, came out in favour of a referendum ahead of the Lisbon treaty, so my party has form in supporting referendums.
In the 1970s, Edward Heath was very clear that the people’s view should be listened to, and that it would be, through a parliamentary vote. That was how we entered the Common Market. However, times have changed. The 1975 referendum on whether to stay in the Common Market set a precedent, which caused opinion to change fundamentally. I should perhaps declare an interest in that I am editing a handbook on European referendums—possibly as some sort of sadomasochistic activity—in my spare time. At a workshop for the book which I hosted in Cambridge last year, John Curtice pointed out that referendums are now in the British DNA. The 1975 referendum was the first, but the referendum in 2016 will almost certainly not be the last.
I was very clear that I did not support a referendum but, speaking from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench at the time of the European Union Referendum Act 2015, it was pointed out to me that I had jolly well better get behind my party’s position to support it. We did; we all campaigned in the referendum. However, I was very clear throughout, on every platform that I spoke on, that if the vote was to leave, that was not an opportunity to simply keep rerunning referendums. I said that before 23 June 2016 and I have said it from these Benches since.
Referendums are dangerous devices, but there is one thing that is potentially more dangerous than having another referendum, and that is Parliament saying it will revoke Article 50 without any further reference to the citizens of the United Kingdom. More than 5 million people may have signed a petition and 1 million people may have demonstrated on Saturday, and I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, that there is a sense that the 2016 mandate is becoming dated. There may well be a case for asking the people, “Theresa May is sure her deal represents your will. Does it really?”. If the Prime Minister is so sure that she understands the will of the people then surely there is no difficulty in asking them again.
I did not march on Saturday because I had a pre-existing commitment to speak in a debate in Cambridge, which your Lordships might expect to be the metropolitan heart of remain. However, the debate was in fact full of leavers, who were saying, “Democracy is about us. We made our views very clear”. That even included former remainers who said they respected the result of the referendum. In a democracy, people have the right to change their mind. I fundamentally believe, as I always have, that Britain is better in the European Union. I ought to declare an interest that, in my capacity as reader in European Politics at Cambridge, I receive European funding. That might not come as a surprise to anyone who has read any of my writing. However, I am also a democrat and I fundamentally believe that if we change the outcome of the referendum and end up in a different place, it has to be because the citizens of the United Kingdom say that that is what they want.
We need this country to come together. At the moment, Parliament is deeply divided, which is a perfect reflection of the country. A general election will not get around that. Maybe, just maybe, another referendum would. However, the idea of taking part in European Parliament elections should not be used as a weapon to try to stifle debate. Whatever people think about the European Parliament, it is directly elected and a form of democracy, and it should not be used as a way to try to silence opposition to the Prime Minister.
Baroness Deech (CB)
I feel in a very lonely position this evening. I have tried hard to be persuaded by the arguments of the remainers, but my head and my heart will not go that way.
What has been the role of this House in the Brexit process for the past two years? I think the history books will not look upon us favourably. It is true that we have played our traditional constructive part in amending legislation, but our collective wisdom should have offered more inclusive solutions than has been the case. Instead, the great majority of our members have tried to belittle the sentiments of those who voted leave. Repeatedly, we have been told that people did not vote to make themselves poorer. That sentiment reveals nothing about the leavers, but it does show that remainers see the issues through an economic perspective only, and that retaining and protecting one’s investments are the only possible values. This should not be so.
It is not only in this country that voters have seen the profound failings of the EU, and are trying to stem the flow of those failures into their own lives. Right across Europe the populist and nationalist movements are on the rise. Southern states are left to stagnate, with recession and youth unemployment. The former Communist states are rejecting the orders from Brussels about borders, environment and migrants. Minorities are in fear for their lives. Germany alone benefits economically, although even that is stalling.
The wealthier EU states do not help the poorer: they leave them to flounder. There are no shared values anymore. On the contrary, human rights are being devalued as never before since the end of the Second World War. The central Government in Brussels grow ever more distant from those they purport to govern. France is in the grip of riots. The German AfD has representatives in the Reichstag. Hungary, Italy, Austria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Sweden, the Netherlands and Poland now have the far right well represented in government. No wonder the EU is fearful for the elections in May, which are likely to increase the representation of extremists.
Leavers have rejected, in a once-in-a-generation opportunity, the failings of past empires, whether Austro-Hungarian, British, Roman, the Soviet Union’s, Yugoslavian, American, French or Ottoman. Starting with the best of intentions of bringing security and peace to disparate peoples, they inevitably brought repression and diktats as soon as local preferences were expressed. The EU is simply a return to Europe’s imperial past, and it is not even able to defend itself but is reliant on NATO and in thrall to Russia.
This top-down governance lacks the elements of loyalty and shared burdens that characterise national states. Over the decades since 1945, these states have spent more and more of their budgets on helping their own citizens in times of hardship, and yet somehow those who benefit from the EU have managed to create a mindset that sees the union of European states as the only legitimate liberal opinion that one may hold. Voting leave was described as an unforgivable act of dissent. It had to be described as a protest vote, a vote by the uneducated and aged and a vote that has to be repressed.
What is going on now to stop leave is another manifestation of the intolerance that faces political and religious speech regarded as deviating from the acceptable view. This is where the hatred and bigotry arise again, against those who do not accept the universalist ideologies, or as a reaction to legitimate national expression being put down. Individual freedom throughout history has been better protected in independent states than in conglomerations. In short, as the EU undermines national loyalty, it creates a fertile soil for extremism and hatred. Democracy cannot flourish eventually in a superstate, as history has shown. It is therefore legitimate and far sighted to seek to retain our independent democracy and not risk further exposure to the forces that may yet bring an end to the latest dream of empire.
What advice can we give our colleagues in the other place? Certainly not to take control themselves. Not only is that a constitutional outrage and a very dangerous precedent for future majority governments, but there is no clear majority in the Commons for any particular path. It is not possible for the EU 27 to deal with the Commons—or will they be represented by Speaker Bercow? One begins to see why there is sense in the royal prerogative in dealing with foreign affairs, as was almost universally understood until the Supreme Court judgment in Miller concerning Article 50. Moreover, one can be sure that were MPs to come up with one solution commanding a majority and present it to Brussels, it would be turned down, for the clear aim of the EU has been from the outset to prevent our leaving, or make it so unpleasant that no other state will ever dare to rebel against the centralised powers. We did not vote to be humiliated, but that is what has happened, and we should never again entrust our sovereignty to other states. That is the lesson.
We are left with three outcomes: revoking Article 50 and/or a second referendum, no deal and the May deal. Revocation would have no democratic basis. On the contrary, it would be a betrayal of the universal franchise and especially the democratic rights of the public. It would be a disfranchisement by those who consider themselves best able to govern of those for whom they are expressing contempt, an attitude that should have ended more than 100 years ago. A second referendum would quite likely, in my view, be won by leave again, on the basis of not wanting to be bullied. Moreover, given the accusations of ignorance last time, are we certain that all the electorate are on top of the backstop and all the other provisions of the agreement? If leave won again, we would have the same practical problems. If remain won, that result would be rejected with the same strength as leave is rejected now.
What about no deal? Despite the Prime Minister’s statement, I maintain that legally it is still on the table. Unless Parliament changes primary legislation, it is still there. None the less, despite the allegations of chaos, I believe we are more prepared for the logic of no deal than is generally put about. No deal—that is, trading under WTO terms—is what we may well get on 29 March. It has advantages, it has disadvantages. It is not popular, but it is feasible and logical. It would jump-start the EU 27 into proper negotiation.
What, then, of the Prime Minister’s deal? The withdrawal agreement is not a treaty for all time. The weight of legal opinion, which is at least sufficient to defend a legal challenge, is that Articles 60 and 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties allow termination of a treaty for a material breach by one side of its obligations or a fundamental change of circumstances. For once, I have my pupil, more brilliant than I, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on my side. Should the UK come to the conclusion that the EU was keeping it locked in a backstop unreasonably, it could claim a material breach of the withdrawal agreement. Both parties will be obliged to work towards a specific result— namely, to conclude an agreement that supersedes the protocol by the end of 2020. Unreasonable delays by the EU, or negotiating in a manner that does not take account of the objectives of the UK would be a breach of the principle of good faith.
A permanent backstop would undermine the Good Friday agreement. If the EU threatened that, it would be inconsistent with its best endeavours and good-faith duties. If the backstop became permanent by default, without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, this would amount to a fundamental change of circumstances under Article 62. Article 1(4) of the protocol expressly states that the withdrawal agreement is meant to be temporary. If it became permanent, this would be a fundamental change, and the longer it continues, and the worse the consequences for Northern Ireland, the stronger the legal argument that Article 62 would apply. The UK has withdrawn unilaterally from 52 treaties since 1988. All these were multilateral treaties. We cannot, therefore, be bound permanently in international law by an agreement if one of its terms is that it does not establish a permanent relationship and is meant to be temporary. The fears surrounding this are ill founded.
Bad though the May agreement is, if I were an MP I would probably hold my nose and vote for it. I urge the other House to pass this deal. If it does not, the plans of the venal and the apparatchiks in Brussels are to delay Brexit for year after year until it vanishes, and there will be no escape from the downward spiral of the EU. Brexit is within our grasp—just a few more votes, and we have it. Otherwise, it is gone for ever, with our sovereignty and our respect for individual freedoms.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who speaks with such clarity and authority. Although I do not agree with everything she said, I agree with much of it.
These occasions have begun to acquire a sort of ritualistic quality. Time after time, there is always the noble Lord, Lord Newby, pronouncing the obituary of the withdrawal treaty, although somehow it goes on. Its death is somewhat exaggerated. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, tries to cheer us all up with his attempt at light-heartedness. The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, puts it all in a wonderful historical perspective. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, tells us that everything on offer is unacceptable, although in this case I think her lovely story about everyone being out of step did not quite add up, because all the people she mentioned, or most of them, want to be in step with the Prime Minister in agreeing the withdrawal treaty. It seemed she drew the wrong conclusion from her story, but never mind. We have to say these things and no doubt they will all be said again by all parties.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Newby, I have considerable sympathy for the Prime Minister and her frustration about the membership of the House of Commons. Of course, there are many hard-working MPs of great integrity. Some of us spent decades in the House of Commons and we did our best, but of course there are also some—and there always were—who really do try anybody’s patience, like Disraeli’s flies in amber. One wonders how the devil some of them got there.
I have been astonished at the cavalier disregard of some MPs for the facts or the truth, especially in commenting on the so-called Prime Minister’s deal. Actually, of course, it is a carefully worked out 585-page treaty, drawn up painstakingly between EU and British representatives over a long period. Thus from certain MPs, journalists, academics and lawyers who should know better come statements that, “The withdrawal agreement binds us permanently into subjugation”. That is nonsense. Another one says that we “remain for ever under ECJ rules”. That is not true. Another says that we pay billions “for nothing”, which is nonsense again, or that we remain trapped, et cetera. Others have talked idiotically about penal servitude, the EU torture chamber, putting us at the mercy of our competitors, or being plunged by the Treasury into a spiral downwards into oblivion. These views have come from both sides, from the hard-line Brexiteers and the hard-line Europhiles.
Others keep insisting that the referendum is being undermined, when in obvious fact the treaty reflects the referendum result. What it undermines is the totally antidemocratic view that the majority takes all and the minority can be ignored. That is the deadly straight road not to democracy, but to majoritarianism and demagoguery. It is the point—I am afraid we are getting quite near it—where populism hijacks democracy.
As to the backstop mentioned by so many, the doom-mongers and our dear lawyers again keep saying—here is their latest—that there is,
“a long-term risk to … the integrity of the United Kingdom”.
This is nonsense. All sides insist that it should be only temporary. There it is again in the Prime Minister’s latest letter, as in her Statement, that,
“the backstop is unlikely ever to be used, and would only be temporary if it is”.
That cannot be reconciled with the statements that some prominent MPs and columnists consistently make, ignoring the facts, referring to bondage and eternal entrapment. Such statements are utterly twisted and distorted. The withdrawal agreement does none of these things. It is a transition document—a necessary first step on a long journey. It is an exit, as ordained by the referendum, but an orderly one. It takes us decisively out of the European Union and opens the way decisively to new trade relations in a changed world and to catching up with Asia, which is rapidly moving ahead of the western world in almost every respect. After transition we are free of the EU’s worst overcentralising and outdated features, but we remain good and close neighbours—possibly even closer neighbours than we have been—and not all that far, ironically, from what the rest of Europe is increasingly arguing for and what the prospective next German Chancellor is arguing for herself. Portraying the treaty otherwise is malign and mischievous, or the product of narrow legalistic contortions by the lawyers. I should not say this, but I sometimes agree with what Shakespeare had to say about lawyers.
As for all the talk about Mrs May going, this really is a mad time to be suggesting such a thing. The chairman of the 1922 committee has apparently been to see her about resigning. The late Lord Whitelaw, with whom I worked very closely, had a wise adage about parliamentary life at Westminster: never take any notice at all of the 1922 committee’s view. It was always wrong. That is what he said, more than once.
I have urged the Prime Minister, and I urge her again, to make the next meaningful vote on the withdrawal treaty a matter of confidence in Her Majesty’s Government. I am convinced that that is possible under the 2011 Act. Of course, it is a gamble and a risk, but no greater than the risk she is taking at present. It would have a powerful effect on all but the most myopic hardliners, as well as on a good many sensible social democrats in the Labour Party—not, of course, the leadership, but that is a different story. If she won we could move on to the task of working out modern commercial arrangements with the EU and the rest the world. If she lost—and that is the gamble—under the 2011 Act there would be a fortnight of limbo and then a general election, for which the European Union would certainly grant any further time necessary. In fact, it has indicated as much. It would take about seven weeks to get a general election under way and organised. It could therefore take place in mid-May. It is certainly not what I want and it would be really messy, with the vote split in every direction in various constituencies between official party candidates and breakaways, between Conservatives and independent Tories, between Corbynite Labourites and more sensible social democrats. But a new Parliament would have a good chance—a better chance than the present one—of being less paralysed. It could well have an ad-hoc majority for the withdrawal treaty and for meeting the overwhelming wish of the British people for settling withdrawal and moving on.
But, of course, none of this needs to happen. Why? Because a confidence vote would be a smack of firm government and would bring over further sensible ERG doubters, and there are quite a few of those. Of course, the deepest diehards in my party will remain outside because, sadly, they are now beyond reason, beyond conservatism and, when one examines their pronouncements, beyond truth. Calling a linked confidence vote—the bold, high-risk course—could now deliver the majority needed and the great issues of our times would be decided in Parliament, in line with our model of democracy, and not in the streets, where democracy does not belong and never did.
The Duke of Somerset (CB)
My Lords, “I’m 16 … Your Vote, My Future”. That was a placard photographed on the front of the Evening Standard and published on Friday. One headline said that 1 million people “marched to stop” the Brexit “madness”; another one said that over 5.5 million people had signed the petition to revoke Article 50. I do not imagine that Mrs May even noticed these headlines, or looked out of the window. So caught up is she in saving her position and her deal for her party that she ignores any other opinion.
The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, joked at the start of the last debate about the need to find something fresh to say—but he is only partially correct. Most of what noble Lords have suggested in these debates has been ignored or rejected in the Prime Minister’s single-minded pursuit of her deal—a deal unacceptable to right or left, remain or leave; a deal that leaves us in chaos; and a deal compromised by premature, unachievable red lines and a determination not to yield to any other point of view. Even now, days before our scheduled exit, it appears that she would prefer to plunge the country over the cliff in a no deal, if and when her plan is rejected.
The fate of the Prime Minister is irrelevant to most of the public. They crave a statesman, which the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, alluded to; a leader to take control and acknowledge that most voters in the referendum, whether they voted leave or remain, did not know the cost or the implications of leaving. They certainly did not vote to become poorer. I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Deech—the economy is most important to them. Nor did they vote to make this country a laughing stock—which it is rapidly becoming in the foreign press—to devalue the pound, to see the Treasury spend millions on stockpiling essentials or to turn Kent into a huge lorry park.
The Prime Minister has not done much to bring the country together, but has instead alienated Members of Parliament in an attempt to blame them, rather than herself, for this chaos. We need a statesman to put country before party, to explain to voters why the Brexit promises of 2016 are not on offer or available, and to show that it is impossible to leave without damaging the UK economically and culturally. I refer again to the wonderful Erasmus programme, which has provided so many of our young university students with invaluable experience of studying abroad.
It is, above all, our young people who are going to be most damaged by a hard Brexit—hence the placard that the young boy was carrying, to which I alluded at the beginning of my remarks. They are the ones, mostly disenfranchised in 2016, who see their prospects and horizons narrowed by this insane desire to stop our citizens moving around and working throughout Europe. Indeed, the inward migration pressure from eastern European countries is diminishing, as wages rise rapidly in those countries and their people see the “Not Welcome Here” signs illuminated at Dover and Heathrow.
We have rehearsed endlessly the threat to our businesses and industries, and the incipient dearth of labour to service our agriculture, our hospitality and health industries, to name a few—but to no avail. It is that mantra again: the will of the people. Somehow it is democratic to ask the House of Commons to vote three times on the same Motion, but undemocratic to ask the nation to reconfirm its opinion of three years ago. However the next vote goes this week—if it happens at all—we have generously been given some extra time by the EU to make up our minds, to stand on the edge of the cliff, to come to our senses and to realise that this agony, this disruption, this cost and this division are not worth it.
One of the main failures of Mrs May’s deal is the lack of detail over our future trading arrangements with the bloc in the political declaration paper. This is a vital part on which our prosperity will depend. It leaves our economy at the mercy of negotiations over the next few years. I agree with the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. Let us revoke Article 50 and admit that we were wrong, perhaps confirming it by a people’s vote. Too much to hope for, perhaps, but then history will judge those who get it wrong.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, the most precious commodity in political life is trust, and trust depends on keeping your promises. We saw what happened to what was once a major party in our country when it broke its solemn pledge on tuition fees: it was reduced to a rump, and even now, nine years later, with both major parties in disarray, it is unable to regain its position. Both major parties were elected in 2017 on a pledge to implement the referendum decision, and the Conservative Party was specific: that meant leaving the customs union and the single market. If we do not keep those pledges, we do not just put our party fortunes at risk. We undermine trust in our whole political system.
When, on 7 March last year and again on 4 October, President Tusk offered the United Kingdom a Canada-style free trade deal, he correctly stated that it was the only type of trading arrangement between the United Kingdom and the EU compatible with our promises to leave the customs union and the single market. That is why I greatly regret that the Government did not take up that offer. If I were in the other House, I might, with extreme reluctance, vote for the withdrawal agreement, since the alternatives being offered are even worse. However, if it is defeated, I hope the Government, Parliament and our political system will look again at President Tusk’s offer. Most certainly, in the time available, we will not be able to secure it before we leave, in which case we must be prepared to leave on WTO terms.
A year ago, it was quite reasonable to be worried about what leaving on WTO terms, with no withdrawal agreement, would mean. People had specific and concrete concerns. The planes were not going to fly. There were not enough licences for drivers and hauliers to operate on the continent. Trains would not be able to find a platform in Paris, apparently. Problems with the electricity supply in Ireland were threatened. Derivatives would cease to be valid, which would lead to the collapse of the whole banking system. I could go on. There were worries, too, about shortages and congestion at Dover. Now nearly all those concrete and specific concerns have been resolved by a series of mini-deals, reciprocal arrangements and pragmatic measures taken by us, by the European Union and by individual countries such as France, Belgium and Holland.
The opposition spokesperson began her speech in December by raising that concrete threat that planes would not fly. Planes will fly, however, because—although news of it did not reach this House—on 13 November last year, the EU said that it would introduce legislation to allow our planes to fly over, land in and return from the EU, if the UK reciprocated. We have: deal done.
There were concerns that if we became a third country to the EU and it to us, there would be only 1,638 licences available for all our lorries. The EU has said that it will create licences for our lorries to operate over the next year. It has also backed British membership of the common transit convention, to which we now belong, and has promised to work with us in the European Transport Ministers’ committee, which covers 48 states and will provide licences for our lorries to operate throughout all 48 states in and around Europe. Trains will run. Electricity will operate in Ireland, because of the measures and changes the Irish Government have made. Derivatives have been sorted. Visas will be available to our citizens to travel on the continent, as long as we make reciprocal arrangements for continentals to come here, which we will: another deal done. All these mini-deals have been done, and it is to the Government’s credit that they have made them, although they are rather coy about it, because they are still trying to frighten my colleagues in my former House into voting for their deal.
Most of the concerns about shortages, of everything from food and medicines to Mars bars and water, were due to fear of congestion at Dover and Calais, because additional checks might be needed. But Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has said it will not need to carry out any additional checks at Dover in the event of no deal or a free trade agreement because, even if there are tariffs, they will not be collected at the border. As the chairman of HMRC said, they are paid computer to computer, not by someone handing over a cheque through the window of a lorry as they pass through Dover. That is true of duties at present. The checks made are based on intelligence, where there is reason to believe that there is tobacco or alcohol—dutiable goods—or drugs or illegal immigrants, and officers therefore have to stop vehicles to look for those things. But they are few and most are carried out away from the port. Their frequency is not expected to change, because those risks will not change after Brexit, so traffic will flow freely through Dover.
Concerns were then raised and focused on what would happen in Calais. Most of the problems that caused us to operate Operation Stack for 211 days over the last 20 years—10 days a year on average—arose from problems in Calais, when there were strikes, immigrants blocked access to ports or trains, and so on. People feared that, if the French were not ready, it would create congestion at Calais, backing up across the channel and leading to congestion in Dover. But the French have moved with commendable speed and efficiency. I recommend that colleagues and noble Lords who have not already done so look at the website of Douane Française. They will see the smart border arrangements that will be put in place in Calais, which it is believed will ensure that trade flows freely through that port. The French are worried, and make it explicit, that if they do not enable trade to continue uninterrupted through Calais, they will lose that trade to Zeebrugge, Rotterdam and Amsterdam, which are well-prepared and eager to take the trade from them. So there will be no congestion at Calais either.
All these scares about shortages of food and so on are absurd. One that really worries people is the idea that there will be a shortage of medicines. I hear it repeated all the time, even though, on 25 February, the Government put out a Statement listing everything they have done to ensure that medicines get through. Even if there are hold-ups somewhere, there are stockpiles in this country and the Government said that,
“the supply of medicines and medical products should be uninterrupted in the event of exiting the EU without a deal”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/19; col. 3WS.]
They urge people not to stockpile, because the one thing that could create a shortage is panic buying, as it could of any commodity at any time.
The result of all this has shown up in the debate today, where noble Lord after noble Lord has threatened us with calamity, catastrophe and disaster if there is no deal, but none has mentioned any specific calamities, catastrophes and disasters, because they know, in their heart of hearts, that they have been resolved and prepared for. Problems you prepare for do not happen, as we discovered with the millennium bug. If you have additional capacity for ferries as back-up in the event that something goes wrong, it means you have resolved the risk and we should recognise that.
It is essential, however, for those who want us to prolong the whole process to demonise the possibility of our leaving without a withdrawal agreement, hence the resort to this lexicon of lurid adjectives about calamity, catastrophe and disaster, previously used by the same people in reference only to the calamity that faced us if we did not go into the ERM, the catastrophe that faced us if we left the ERM, the disaster that faced us if we did not join the euro and the appalling situation that would result, according to 365 economists, if Geoffrey Howe’s Budget went ahead in 1981. That was followed by eight years’ growth, just as our departure from the ERM was followed by eight years’ continuing growth. We should not believe these abstract concerns that people have now that the concrete worries have largely been resolved.
The remaining fears are much more concrete and concern the certain application of tariffs if we leave and there is no free trade deal. Then, our exporters would face EU tariffs. They average 3% or 4% on our goods. Our exporters have gained 15% in competitiveness through the movement of the pound since 2016, so most are better placed now than they would have been, even with those tariffs. Some will face higher tariffs, but we will be in a position to help them. The total bill for this tariff of 3% or 4% on our exports will be £5 billion to £6 billion, but we will be saving £10 billion to £12 billion every year in our net annual contribution to the EU. So we will be well placed to help farmers and the car industry—those facing the highest tariffs—to cope with those tariffs and adjust to them.
We should not just look at the negatives. There are positives, too, if we leave without a withdrawal agreement. First, we will not have conceded £39 billion with nothing in return, which we would under the withdrawal agreement. We should be prepared to go to international arbitration confident in the advice that this House gave, concluding:
“Article 50 allows the UK to leave the EU without being liable for outstanding financial obligations”.
The second advantage is that it will truncate uncertainty, which, under the withdrawal agreement or a prolonged extension of Article 50, will continue for between 21 and 45 months. We will put that to bed, not necessarily to everybody’s liking, but it is better to end uncertainty and enable business to plan and get on with life.
Finally, it will force a resolution of the Irish border issue. As recently as last month, Simon Coveney, the Irish Foreign Minister, said that, in the event of no deal:
“There is an obligation on the Irish and British governments, and the EU to try and work together to find a way of avoiding physical border infrastructure on this island”.
It can be done. It will be done if we leave with no withdrawal agreement, and that will open the way for us to have a free trade arrangement between Britain and Europe, covering the whole UK, which I hope will enable us to trade profitably and amicably in the future.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, if there is one thing I agree with the noble Lord about, in his interesting speech, it is the importance of trust in our political system. We are in a major crisis. Historically, that will be true for many years to come. What worries me is that the public have lost confidence in our political institutions and the way they work in the context of the Brexit debate, and that confidence will take a very long time to rebuild, because it goes beyond the Brexit debate itself.
The paradox of our situation is that just as the young—look at the schoolchildren who are showing us how they see their priorities—are discovering that the world is totally interdependent, and that we have to stand together in the interest of humanity, so many people in Britain want to march in the opposite direction. I find that—not to overuse the word—a tragedy. If political leadership, at a juncture like this, is about anything, it is about enabling people and helping them to understand the realities of the world in which we live, to meet the challenges inherent in that and to rise to the values that are essential if we are to meet those challenges.
When we talk of values, one other thing that has come out clearly from the Brexit story is that we talk about British values but it is not at all clear what British values are. There are people in Britain—as was demonstrated by the million people marching on Saturday, and the petition with five and a half million names—who want to belong to the world and want us to be an embracing, inclusive society. But there is also a political trend in our society—we are not alone in Europe in this respect—that positively rejects that concept and sees a xenophobic, exclusive future for our nation. If I am allowed to use a word not often used in our debates, love is absent and hate prevails.
We have a tremendous challenge to leadership here—I was very struck by how well that was spelled out by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle earlier in our debate. But there are other issues. For example, in the age of globalisation there is a distinct sense of insecurity among many ordinary people; they yearn for a sense of identity in society. What may come out of the Brexit saga, therefore, is a realisation that we have to re-examine our political institutions pretty fundamentally if we are to face the future.
This comes in the context of devolution and related issues. It is a shame that we have not had the political vision to go for a federal, or at least confederal, United Kingdom, in which the Scots could feel Scottish, the Irish could feel Irish, the Welsh could feel Welsh—and even the English could come to feel that it is good to be English. People would also see, however, that to meet the world’s challenges it is essential—not just an option—to co-operate. If that is true of the United Kingdom, it is true of worldwide society as a whole.
Having said all that, I have just one other fundamental point to make. There is a deep anxiety—we all encounter it in our relationships and so on—about the adequacy of the body politic. How capable are we of facing up to, grasping and beginning to handle the fundamental challenges? That makes it absolutely unthinkable that, in whatever way we decide to move forward on Brexit, we do it without seeking the approval and endorsement of the people as a whole. Otherwise, we will be making the decisions on behalf of people who have no confidence in us. That is not a sound basis for the future.
We have an unwritten constitutional tradition in which consensus is very important; we may not talk about consensus but there is an underlying sense that you have to carry the nation as a whole with you in whatever you are doing. From that standpoint, it may well be that we have to face further changes in our own constitutional arrangements, not just in those with Europe. We cannot, however, arrogantly assume that, having almost set out to bewilder and disturb the population about our own capabilities, we can then make the strategic decision on our own. Whatever is recommended—whatever comes out of this—must be put to the British people.
I also believe that—to be true to what I have been talking about—leadership, in its best sense, becomes indispensable. It is not a matter of fixing, or concocting, arrangements and deals; it is a matter of vision, of standing up for what you really believe in and having the vision to portray the challenges, what is necessary to meet them, and the destiny we seek for our country. We do not have that anywhere in our political system at the moment. We must all take that to heart—and until we get that right, our democracy will be in deep trouble. We must rediscover leadership, vision, purpose and principle. We must know what is good and what is wrong.
Compromise of course will be involved. That is not a bad thing: I often reflect that compromise is the moral centre of politics. But we must distinguish the good compromise from the bad compromise—the good one that enables the nation to move forward and the bad one that will set you further back, on the slippery slope to some kind of hellish, nationalistic, myopic, hateful society. We seem to be in danger of making the wrong choice in that context. It is time for leadership, and I hope that we rediscover that leadership before it is too late.
Lord Kerslake (CB)
My Lords, Brexit debates in this House have become a bit like buses—the buses in London at least—if you miss one, there is no great concern because another will be along shortly. I think, however, that in today’s debate we are finally reaching a critical point: there is literally no more road to kick the can down.
When I last spoke on Brexit in this House—on 9 January, just before the first meaningful vote—four things were clear to me. First, the Government’s deal would be defeated heavily in the Commons and deserved to be. Particularly with this deal, it is not the end of Brexit; it does not bring closure on Brexit; it would continue for years to come. It is like the film “Groundhog Day”, but without the laughs. Secondly, despite the preparations that have been referred to, we were not adequately prepared for a no-deal Brexit. The risks if it happened were simply too great to be contemplated. Thirdly, the only way out of the parliamentary impasse was to hold a second referendum. Fourthly, extension of Article 50 beyond 29 March was inevitable. Those were my views on 9 January. On the first three, nothing has happened to change them. On the final one, we have, belatedly, an extension, albeit too short.
Like others in this House, I listened carefully to the Prime Minister’s speech this afternoon. Even with the extension, we are in the extraordinary position of potentially being just weeks away from leaving the EU without having an agreed basis on which to leave. This week, we face the possibility, not the certainty, of a third meaningful vote if the Prime Minister thinks she can win it, and then a series of indicative votes by the Commons on the options were she not to succeed. I laud the intention of those promoting a vote on the options, but I have some doubts that it will secure a clear path ahead in the time available. In these exceptional circumstances, I think that the Civil Service has a duty to the Crown and the country as well as to the Government. It must be allowed to give us its full and unvarnished assessment of the impact of leaving on 12 April without a deal. From what I understand, it would not make pretty reading.
The Government were wrong to seek a short extension and the EU has not given us the time necessary to do justice to the debate on the fundamental options that we need. We need a proper pause to the process to allow the country to reflect on its future choices. This means either securing a long extension or, as I would now favour, revoking Article 50, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, in his Motion. Having to hold elections to the European Parliament would be an inconvenient but small price to pay given the scale of the choices that we are now faced with.
Three words have characterised the recent Brexit debate: humiliation, betrayal and patriotism. There is no doubt in my mind—and, indeed, among the vast majority of the British public—that the Brexit process has been an utter humiliation. The EU has been as united and clear-minded as we have been divided and muddled. When and if the dust settles on all this, we will certainly need a full public inquiry to learn the lessons from this most unhappy period.
Those favouring Brexit have spoken long and loud recently about its betrayal—by the establishment, by Parliament and by the Civil Service. If you started out with the belief, as many Brexiteers appeared to do, that Brexit was going to be an easy and painless process, it is just possible to see how you might come to this view. But it was never going to be easy and hard choices were always going to have to be made—choices that have been consistently ducked rather than debated and decided. It is worth remembering that Ministers strongly supporting Brexit held the key positions in the Government during the period. The Brexit process has their name on it. If the Brexiteers want to find out who is responsible for the current state of affairs, they need only look in the mirror.
For the rest of us, we have lost nearly three years: 1,000 days of our lives that we will never get back. In the circumstances, the public are entitled to have the final say on the way out of this mess. That is why I was glad to go on the march on Saturday.
Finally, I will say a word on patriotism. It is just over 75 years since my father’s Avro Lancaster was shot down over Germany. He was just 18 at the time and spent the rest of the war in a prisoner of war camp. He suffered a back injury that stayed with him for the rest of his life. He was, though, one of the lucky ones. Four of his crew, of similar ages, failed to get out of that plane and were burned alive as it came down. After the war, my father came to understand the damage done to German cities by the Bomber Command raids and dedicated a good part of his life to building links with Germany through town twinning. This is the kind of patriotism that I understand—not the blustering nonsense of some of the ERG—Britain and Europe together, national and international.
Europe is becoming a dangerous place with the rise of militant nationalism. Britain can be part of challenging this or it can contribute to it through its actions. When the debate about borders and backstops has gone, the key test of whether we have got this right is whether those four crew members did not give up their lives too early, for no good reason.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake. It is also a matter of deep regret that we are here yet again debating the same issue, but we are where we are.
We have heard a lot this evening about democracy. Democracy, however, is not fixed in stone. When people vote, they rely on what they are led to believe at the time by politicians making promises and giving reassurances. Election manifestos are never normally sacrosanct. Indeed, much of past manifestos has never materialised.
We have respected and honoured the result of the referendum. Some suggest that we have not; I find that difficult to comprehend. To quote George Orwell,
“all political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome”.
The facts are that the red lines set in the beginning, dictated by the ERG, were and are impossible. The promises of the leave campaign are undeliverable. One million people marched on Saturday for a chance to vote now—now that they know more about what Brexit means—and 5.5 million people have in a matter of days signed a petition asking to cancel Brexit. Our democracy must be able to adapt to these changes.
The Prime Minister, cajoled by the ERG, refuses to consider that the course that we are pursuing may not be the will of the majority now. How can we possibly know that? How can it be anti-democratic to ask people’s view? If the Prime Minister’s deal is what people want, why not prove it? If 17.4 million people wanted a hard Brexit, let us prove it. I find it difficult to understand how the Government can insist that the British people cannot change their mind after two or three years but Parliament can be asked to change its mind in two or three weeks, as the Prime Minister puts her deal to MPs again and again. It is time to face reality. Government and Parliament have not been able to find a way forward to implement the referendum result, and no deal must not be allowed to happen by default. However, sadly, I struggle to see that this threat has actually gone, notwithstanding the Prime Minister’s welcome words at the Dispatch Box earlier today.
On 12 April the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement and political declaration will most likely not have passed. She will have a choice: she can stick to her sacred duty to deliver Brexit and be consistent with her statements that “no deal is better than a bad deal”; she can ask for a further extension, and thus have to fight EU elections; or she can revoke Article 50. I cannot be confident she will choose the latter course. Parliament may not even be sitting, so what would stop us leaving with no deal?
I cannot share the sentiments of my noble friend Lord Lilley, whose reassurances are of no more comfort to me than those about the easiest trade deal in history we were going to enjoy; about the rolling over of the 40 deals we already have with other countries, ready to go by 28 March—or about the ability to have our cake and eat it. All the reassurances so far given by the Brexiteers have proven false. It is simply not safe to ignore the TUC, the CBI and businesses large and small across the country—or indeed our obligations under the Good Friday agreement—and suggest that leaving without a deal is somehow okay.
We need to find another way forward, and, as my noble friend Lord Bridges of Headley has said, this is not the time for party politics. To quote John F Kennedy:
“Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past—let us accept our own responsibility for the future”.
We do not want a Tory or Labour answer. We want a better answer than we have had so far. That, as my noble friend Lord Hailsham and other noble Lords have wisely said, would suggest to us that we need some kind of Government of national unity to see us through this Brexit situation.
The Prime Minister has even said that she has tried to work across the House to find an alternative way forward. That has simply not happened. There have been no free tests of the opinion of the country’s elected representatives. The assertions that other options have been rejected are not right. Whipped votes are not an indication of parliamentary views.
Time is short, but Back-Benchers across Parliament ideally need to work together in the national interest to unscramble the Brexit mess. Indeed, Brexit is rather like trying to get an egg out of an omelette: you may get some egg back, but it will be broken. We must rise to the challenge that the current crisis is causing. I respect the fact that many noble Lords are extremely reticent about the idea of going back to the people—I am myself—but this started with the people. Maybe we need to let it end with the people.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I agree with everything the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has said.
While I sympathise with the Prime Minister, like others I was angry at her broadcast from Downing Street on Thursday evening. From the outset she has faced Parliament with a choice between two irreconcilable courses: freedom to make our own trade deals and set our own tariffs on the one hand, and the absence of border controls between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic on the other. At the end of his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, dismissed this problem by saying it would have to be solved and would be. But it has not been solved; hence the need for the backstop, which has been the principal obstacle in the way of the House of Commons agreeing the departure agreement.
Your Lordships’ House has now offered the other place a way of resolving that dilemma through our amendment to the Trade Bill calling for a customs union in a free trade agreement with the European Union. I will not rehearse here the advantages of that course, but I hope that there may be an indicative vote pointing in that direction in the House of Commons this week. In any case, it is a matter for the negotiations on our future relationship. The issue for today is how we escape from the impasse the country is in.
The European Union has now given us a clear choice. One option is for the other place to accept the departure deal, and we are told it must be agreed this week. In that case, the way ahead is straightforward. We have until 22 May to pass the necessary legislation to bring the deal into force. But the Prime Minister has said that she is not in a position to put the deal to the other place this week with any hope of success. She clearly hopes that that position might change, but given the shortage of time ahead of us that prospect must be remote. The alternative, if we are not to leave without a deal on 12 April, is to ask for more time. We could revoke Article 50. That is in our power. However, like the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, I think that unlikely and also wrong in the absence of a further decision by the people.
If the departure agreement is not passed and the UK is granted more time, possibly at the cost of running candidates in the EU parliamentary elections, what would that extra time be for? The EU has ruled out renegotiation of the legal aspects of the departure agreement, and I believe it. It is willing to change the political declaration but will not get down to negotiating the new relationship until the departure agreement is in force. A further delay could not be used for renegotiating the legal aspects of the departure agreement or for starting the negotiations on the new relationship. It could be used for more attempts to win Parliament round to the departure deal, but if that is to be achieved it would be better to do it now than to prolong the uncertainty.
Another purpose for a longer delay would be a further referendum. I have argued the case many times in this House that democracy, properly understood, would give the people the final say on the terms of our departure from the European Union. I do not resile from those arguments today, when that outcome may just possibly be coming into sight.
I have come to think, like others, that the least worst course is for the House of Commons to pass the Prime Minister’s deal this week, for Parliament to pass the necessary legislation by 22 May and for the Government to turn their attention to negotiating the future relationship with the EU under a leadership with fewer red lines than the present one. So, to my surprise, I found myself in a position similar to that of the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Howard of Lympne—although I reached that conclusion by a very different route.
However, if that is not to be achieved and a longer period is to be obtained, I agree that it should be used for the purposes so eloquently described by my noble friend Lord Kerr, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. We should recognise, however, that the outcome of further discussions between the parties can be validated only by a further vote of the people—and it must be clear that if that is the course on which we are to embark, that will be the outcome.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, it is always somewhat daunting to follow a Cabinet Secretary in this House. May I begin by reminding noble Lords of my interests as chairman of the voluntary pension fund of the European Parliament and a number of other jobs in Brussels? The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, has disappeared, but I assure him that I do not subscribe to the calamity and catastrophe scenario. I think that we should stay in the European Union because it is the right thing to do. If we left we would, of course, survive. We are the seventh biggest—or eighth biggest, depending on how you count—economy in the world. There would certainly be difficulties, but they could certainly be overcome. The argument for Europe is not an argument about whether we can get bananas through ports; it is an argument about what is the right place for Britain in the European world.
The right place for Britain is at the heart of Europe, and in the European Union—something, incidentally, that we have never been. I have lived through 25 years in the European Parliament and a subsequent 15 years doing jobs in Brussels. This is my 40th year in Brussels in one capacity or another, and I have never known a full-hearted endorsement of the European Union, save by two people. One was Edward Heath and the second was John Smith. They were the only two party leaders whom I met who were really committed to building the sort of Europe that I want to see. Sadly, John Smith never got the opportunity to do it. I think he would have turned into one of our great Prime Ministers—but let me move on.
I am appalled by the people on the Brexit side who talk about us renouncing our bills. These are debts that we incurred sitting around a table and voting for them. We incurred them by sending some of our brightest and best civil servants to international organisations. Are we seriously suggesting that we are going to say to the British staff in the UN, the WHO, NATO and all the other international institutions that a British Government can turn round and abandon them? Is the Government going to renege on all the promises they made and leave them without a pension? Is this the modern face of Conservatism?
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is not here to hear that, because he needs to hear it. I read in Hansard that Dominic Grieve said:
“I have never felt more ashamed to be a Member of the Conservative party”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/3/19; col. 1123.]
When I hear the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, I feel that way. This is not the party I joined. The party I joined is one that behaves honourably—as, in fairness, does the Labour Party. The Labour Party also behaves honourably: we honour the commitments that we make.
The European Council has not changed its position very much. Its statement says that it,
“agrees to an extension until 22 May 2019, provided the Withdrawal Agreement is approved by the House of Commons next week”—
in other words, by departure day, 29 March. The Council says that, as long as we approve the agreement by the date we set to leave, it will give us an extension—which it has little option but to do—to tidy up the legislative framework. Otherwise, if that does not happen, the European Council,
“expects the United Kingdom to indicate a way forward before”,
12 April.
Not voting on the deal is not going to end the matter. The European Council expects us to indicate a way forward. It does not say, “The House of Commons can have indicative votes and people can say that they do not really count”. We—our Government—have to come to a conclusion and put it forward to Brussels. I suggest to this House that the only logical proposal would be an indefinite extension of Article 50. I do not think that there is a mood to revoke it, but it is no good extending it for a matter of weeks; Europe is about to go into its five-yearly cycle of reconstitution.
There will be no European Parliament after 15 April, until 2 July. Immediately after the European elections in May, the European Council will select a new president to replace Donald Tusk—or perhaps his term will be extended. There will be a new foreign affairs supremo to replace Federica Mogherini—or perhaps she will continue in office. Then every country will be asked to put forward a candidate for commissionership, and all through the autumn the European Parliament will hold hearings on the candidates, asking them what their policies are—probably confirming most of them but, as it likes to do, rejecting a couple of them, because it will want to demonstrate that it has the power to do that.
So do not imagine that we in the United Kingdom can come up with a plan and people will then say, “Oh, that’s good, we’ll drop everything and do that”. Nothing worthwhile will happen in the European Union between roughly 12 April and 31 December. The new Commission will take office on 1 January, so there will be a long interregnum. I suggest that the only way of dealing with that is to have a long extension of Article 50—and the only long extension worth having is, as some of my European colleagues in Brussels have suggested, an indefinite extension, which would take all the pressure off the different dates.
We in the United Kingdom have been very self-indulgent. Our European colleagues are fed up to the back teeth with the Brits. At the last Council meeting, Mrs May did not, shall we say, distinguish herself. There was a feeling at the end of it that people still did not know what exactly Britain wanted. That is why they have offered this little package, which adds up to virtually nothing. So we need a period of reflection, and we probably need a good period to work out exactly what we want. At the end of that period, Article 50 may well be revoked. Many people would like it to be—although, incidentally, some people in Europe would not.
Do not think that the French Government are necessarily unhappy at the prospect of being the only one of the P5 in New York. Do not think that the French diplomatic service is necessarily unhappy at the thought of being able to lead political co-operation, as it did before we joined. There is not unalloyed joy at the idea of keeping Britain in. But our traditional friends—in Scandinavia and the rest of northern Europe, the Dutch and the Danes—badly want us to stay, because we provide a balance. This is all too often forgotten.
Decisions in Europe are made by qualified majority voting, and if Britain and the northern European countries take a position, we can normally form a blocking minority. If we are absent, that can be done only with the assistance of Germany. A German Cabinet Minister once said to me: “When you object to something, you are just a nuisance. When we object to something, our Chancellor’s picture is on the front of every paper with a moustache drawn on her face—so we need Britain there because you are the common-sense country that helps to drive this project forward and keep it on an even and sensible keel”.
For all those reasons, I hope that the other place will come to the conclusion that it wishes an indefinite extension to Article 50. I think that is probably the most sensible option for this country and the best way forward, and I commend it to the House.
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the persuasive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, who of course was a very experienced Member of the European Parliament.
We need to hold our hands up after almost three years and say that we are not ready to leave the EU at the moment, and will not be ready to leave in April or May either. The negotiations have been a shambles and a national humiliation, as many noble Lords have said today.
I said back in December that we needed time as a Parliament and a country to sort ourselves out, to extend or revoke Article 50 and to scrap the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration in their entirety. As the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, said, the EU says that it will not renegotiate the deal. Fair enough—let us look at an entirely different model.
I have been one of the millions of people who have signed the parliamentary petition calling for the revocation of Article 50. We need the time that that will buy us to look at Brexit again and, as a country, work out what we seek before starting negotiations, rather than the other way around.
The May premiership is in its death throes. Colleagues say that she is now irrational and unstable. She should, in my view, resign.
Lord Ricketts (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow what the noble Lord said about Article 50. He and many others have used the word “humiliation”, and I think there is a lot of truth in that. I think we are seen around the continent as a country that has lost its way in a bizarre fashion: a once great nation now caught up in an endless psychodrama. I have sensed that the mood in Europe has hardened against Britain over the past few weeks and months. For much of the negotiation that the Prime Minister conducted, they were prepared to give us the benefit of the doubt. It would be like any other European negotiation: it would be tough, there would be moments of drama but in the end there would be a deal. The Prime Minister would go back and get agreement for it in her Parliament and it would be done.
As the meaningful votes have come one by one and she failed to get agreement, I think the mood has darkened. I think it changed first to incomprehension and now to exasperation—and even to humour. Noble Lords may have seen that the French Europe Minister, Mme Nathalie Loiseau, said that she had renamed her cat Brexit because every time she got up in the morning, the cat mewed furiously to leave the house, but when she opened the front door, it did not want to go out. It then transpired that she may not have a cat at all, but the point is right.
Of course, this is not a laughing matter. The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, is not here, but I shall trample on his place to say that an argument can be made that last week was perhaps the greatest international humiliation for a British Prime Minister since the Suez crisis. Then, noble Lords know well, the Americans put their foot down and declared that we would stop our invasion of Egypt, running a UN Security Council resolution against us and threatening to pull the plug on sterling.
That was a brutal end to British pretensions to great power status but a salutary lesson, which put British foreign policy on to a different basis for the future. Perhaps there will be something salutary about last week, but you have to look quite carefully to find it. We saw the Prime Minister open proceedings with a petulant letter as if, somehow, the Europeans were to blame for the decision she had had to take to delay the date of 29 March. She then went to Brussels, failing entirely to convince her colleagues that she could win a third vote or that she had any kind of plan for what to do if she lost it.
I think that at that point, her colleagues thought: we have to take this over and find a way that the British are unable to find themselves. When can a British Prime Minister have cut such a lamentable figure at an international meeting?
If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, there was more to their deal than he suggests. It was a very clever way to do two things: first, to open up some space in British politics for new thinking to begin to take hold; secondly, to avoid the blame for their having pushed Britain out on 29 March or not allowing it to come up with other options. They avoided the sense that they were dictating to Britain by encouraging us to come up with our own options and have created space.
The contrast between a divided British Government, unable to get beyond the next vote in the House of Commons and a group of very busy and distracted European leaders finding the time to roll up their shirtsleeves and come up with an astute political move to change the dynamics in British politics was remarkable. That is what may be salutary from this. Let us hope that it may be a source of inspiration. We must be under no illusion that this is our last chance to avoid an acrimonious breakdown in our relations with our nearest neighbours, who also happen to be the largest economic bloc in the world and vital partners in our security.
Many noble Lords have drawn attention to the Prime Minister’s words in the other House this afternoon:
“Unless this House agrees to it, no deal will not happen”.
That is very encouraging. Is it really true that there is now zero risk of a crash-out under any circumstances? What if the House of Commons spends the next two weeks in more factional manoeuvring, votes down the Prime Minister’s Bill again and fails to find a majority for anything else? Are we then not still confronted with the cliff edge on 12 April rather than 29 March? If so, there will certainly be no extra time available from the EU. There will be no managed no-deal: the EU will look after its interests and have scant sympathy for the catastrophe that will overtake Britain—not just Britain as a country but the hundreds of thousands of British citizens who have made their life choices to live in the European Union and are still desperately anxious about what the future holds.
I really hope that that will be avoided, for the reasons that most noble Lords have referred to in this debate, and I think that there are signs that the alchemy that the EU began to work at the European summit is having its effect. It is obviously very welcome that MPs will now be holding indicative votes in the other place.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, said, it is pretty extraordinary that within a few days of the point where, up to now, we had been due to leave the European Union, finally, MPs turn their attention for the first time to trying to work out where there may be a majority beyond the Prime Minister’s deal. These are votes that should have happened before Article 50 was ever triggered. I hope that they will come up with a new way forward that will meet what is a very modest test set for us by the European Union,
“to indicate a way forward … for consideration by the European Council”.
I think it means by that not just a process but, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, some sense of direction as to where we want to go, where we might be coming down on the fundamental choice referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, of what future relationship we want with the EU.
I think it may have also expected that that would trigger off a rather wider cross-party consultation than the event at Chequers yesterday. Perhaps that wider cross-party view will begin to emerge if the Letwin amendment passes in the other place this evening.
In any case, I agree with others who have said that we are in such a mess that, rather than trying to ram through the Prime Minister’s unloved deal by just a few votes in a country that is deeply divided, we should have a pause and a rethink. I cannot prove it, but I think something shifted last week. The 1 million people march and the five and a half million people who signed the petition in just the law few days calling for a revocation of Article 50 suggests that something is shifting. Therefore, it is essential to test public opinion again.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is right when he says that we will not resolve this in the next two weeks. These are fundamental issues about our future relationship with the EU, which we have not got near to settling in the last two years; but, it is right that we should embark on that journey and that, when there is a way forward, it should be put to the people in another referendum. I hope the way forward will involve revoking Article 50 to give us time to think this through again. I am persuaded that the very best course for the UK is to stay in the EU, and that there is no other relationship that will bring us anything like the same benefits. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said that he does not think the country is in any mood to revoke Article 50. I think the petition gives a different impression of where the country may be moving. In any case, it is an entirely legitimate, democratic way of proceeding now that everyone in Britain has discovered something of the true costs of separating ourselves from the EU. If the House of Commons prefers a different sort of Brexit based on maintaining the customs union, or the single market, or both, then that too is sufficiently different to require putting it back to the country in a referendum.
I do not believe the EU would be willing to give us an indefinite extension of Article 50, because that just continues the uncertainty for much longer. All other EU countries have issues of their own. If you open a French newspaper, “Crise” is the headline, but it is not referring to Brexit; it is the affront to French sovereignty from the violence around the gilets jaunes demonstrations. Every other European country has its issue.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake: the EU is more than an economic group: it is a community of values, and it is the group of countries with which we share our deepest and most important relationships. I favour revoking Article 50.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to listen to the noble Lord who just spoke, not least because he gave us an insight into Europe, which I do not possess. For nearly 25 years of my life I sat in a marginal seat, and managed to win it for most of those 25 years. When you sit in a marginal seat, you have to listen to the public and to the floating vote, not just the hard core of your constituents.
I want particularly to thank the two Front-Benchers: the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter—she has disappeared, but I gather she will be back in a matter of minutes—and the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who is temporarily absent. It is not just they who have borne the burden; the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition have, too. They were in from day one after the extraordinary referendum result—seats in the north and the south of England voted to leave the EU—so they have had an important role in communicating what your Lordships’ House feels to their Members of Parliament in the other place. They have been given quite a burden, and I thank them for bearing it.
After the referendum, we had the general election. In that election, both parties’ manifestos were quite clear: the referendum result should be implemented. The issue before us this evening is the Prime Minister’s deal, not what is in the political declaration—we know there is some flexibility there—so any talk about a Canada deal or a Norway deal is pretty irrelevant this evening. It does not matter that I voted to remain. That is totally irrelevant. It is irrelevant to every Conservative Member of Parliament, every Labour Member of Parliament, and all the other Members of Parliament in the other place. It is no good people who were elected to represent the people then deciding to abstain. Not a single Member of Parliament will get much thanks from their constituents for abstaining—they are sent there to make a decision one way or another. It is no good a couple of Members of Parliament, in particular, Mr Letwin and Ms Cooper, trying to take the high ground from the Government of the day—what arrogance. I do not think that is acceptable.
I remind myself that all the MPs in the two big parties signed up to the referendum and their manifestos. Maybe the EU is very difficult to work with. My noble friend who spoke earlier is right to point out that we have never really been totally committed to it, other than during the period of just two Prime Ministers. Maybe Mrs May’s agreement on offer is not perfect—I do not think any of us believes it is perfect—but it is all that is on offer today. It is there, it is available and—this is the key point—it creates Brexit. We go back to that referendum and what the people of this country wanted.
I spent this morning in Northampton, where it happened to be press day for photographs of the cricket first 11. They will succeed only if they work as a team. For me, the most important part of this morning’s visit, apart from encouraging the troops, was to listen to our sponsors, large and small. I will now tell your Lordships what three of them said to me, while almost pinning me against the wall: “Michael, speak up for us, please. We need a decision—a deal or no deal. No more indecision. No more putting it off for another day”. I interpret that as no more kicking the can down the road, and no extension of Article 50. “But”, they said, and to me this is the key point, “Unless we get a decision, there will be no further investment”. I come from industry and commerce, and I know that this is absolutely crucial to the future of our country.
I finish on a quote, deliberately from a Labour Prime Minister. A number of my colleagues in the House will know I have a deep interest and involvement with the Indian subcontinent. Over the weekend, I looked up what Clement Attlee said at a difficult time, to create independence for India. A good number of MPs said that it could not be done then, because it was all too difficult and would cause absolute chaos; they said they would not support him. And he said, in winding up his long speech:
“The British Commonwealth of Nations survives today, and has survived through the strain of two great wars, precisely because it is not static, but is constantly developing, and because it has throughout the years steadily changed … My hope is that we may forget past differences and remember only how often and in how many fields of human endeavour Britons … have worked together in harmony.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/7/1947; col. 2462.]
It was a great speech. Churchill was ill at the time, so Macmillan had to respond. He agreed with what Clement had said.
There is a lesson here for all of us. We are not really leaving Europe and our millions of friends there—my second name is Wolfgang, and I feel I am part of the EU. We are Europeans in that sense and will remain so, but we are also an energetic and creative nation, particularly in trade, commerce and industry. We want some freedom to develop that.
I ask every Conservative Member now to support the May agreement—perhaps some will have to bite their tongue. I suggest to those on the Front Bench opposite that every Labour MP should think hard about their constituencies and the people they represent. They should bite their tongues as well. We must remember that, during Harold Wilson’s referendum—while I sat in that marginal seat with a majority of 179—I stood shoulder to shoulder with my next door neighbour, a Labour Member of Parliament, because we both believed in the future of our country. We put that ahead of anything else.
I return to those on both Front Benches—and I am delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, now in her place. I suggest they need to liaise and work more closely together than it appears has been happening on the surface. After tonight’s debate, I hope that those on both Front Benches will communicate to those in the other place and their followers that, although it is not a perfect withdrawal agreement, it opens the crucial gate of Brexit. If we achieve that and allow it to happen, confidence, that very tender plant, will return to our people, our commerce and our industry.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, in February 2003, the march in London was the biggest in history, with 2 million people trying to stop the Iraq war. The Government did not listen and Prime Minister Tony Blair did not listen; what a disastrous decision that was. On Saturday 23 March, I was proud to be among the 1 million people who marched—more than the 700,000 who marched a few months ago. It was peaceful, with families and people of all ages taking part, from all around the country.
The placards were terrific: “Even Arsenal are still in Europe”; “Less Farage, more fromage”; and, “I’m incandescent with rage—but I’m British, so I’m just holding up a sign”. In Parliament Square, we had speeches about the people’s vote. Tom Watson, Labour deputy leader, said we should, “Let the people vote”; and Anna Soubry said,
“put your country first, get into the lobbies and vote for a people’s vote”.
Sadiq Khan, the London mayor, said:
“It’s time to give us, the British people, a final say on Brexit”.
Michael Heseltine lambasted Mrs May for blaming Parliament for what has happened with Brexit. He invoked Winston Churchill, saying:
“I was appalled by Theresa May’s speech on Wednesday evening. It will rank among the biggest affronts on parliamentary democracy in our history”.
Calypso Latham, a 19 year-old science student, said:
“I was too young to vote in the last referendum. It’s going to affect my career with research grants so I definitely wanted to come and protest”.
Aurore Mead, aged 14, said:
“I really wanted to come because it’s a big part of my future and my life”.
In another part of the country, on Saturday morning, Nigel Farage rejoined the march to leave near Nottingham, and there were 200 people present.
Side by side in all this, we have had two petitions. Noble Lords have spoken about one of them: to revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU. At the last count, it had more than 5.5 million signatures and counting; 96% of the signatories are from the UK. But there is also another petition: leave the EU without a deal in March 2019. Guess how many have signed that? Just 550,000 people. Where is 5.5 million and where is 550,000? Will the Government listen? No.
The Prime Minister’s Statement today stated,
“it is with great regret that I have had to conclude that as things stand, there is still not sufficient support in the House to bring back the deal for a third meaningful vote”.
Then she said:
“If we cannot, the Government made a commitment that we would work across the House to find a majority on a way forward”.
That all sounds good. Then she said that,
“the Member for West Dorset seeks to provide for this process by taking control of the Order Paper … an unwelcome precedent to set, which would overturn the balance between our democratic institutions”.
So the Government will oppose that amendment this evening. On the one hand they are saying they will work with the House and on the other saying they will oppose it. Then she said:
“So I cannot commit the Government to delivering the outcome of any votes held by this House”.
Then she stated that:
“The default outcome continues to be to leave with no deal. But this House has previously expressed its opposition to that path, and may very well do so again this week”.
She finally said that:
“The alternative is to pursue a different form of Brexit or a second referendum”.
I cannot go on without quoting Boris Johnson in his article today. He said that Mrs May and the Government had “chickened out” of delivering Brexit. I do not know which world he lives in. He lives in a utopian world where he says you should drop the deal, go back to Brussels and set out the terms—just like that. What have the Government been trying to do for two years? He said:
“Extend the implementation period … if necessary; use it to negotiate a free trade deal; pay the fee; but come out of the EU now—without the backstop. It is time for the PM to channel the spirit of Moses in Exodus, and say to Pharoah in Brussels—let my people go”.
What a load of nonsense.
At the crux of all this is not just a constitutional crisis. We are not just watching a train crash in slow motion. It is not just business, with the CBI and the TUC coming together, terrified of a no-deal Brexit. It is not just the collapse of collective Cabinet responsibility. Just yesterday Minister Mark Field said that he would vote to revoke Article 50 and Chancellor Philip Hammond said that a second Brexit referendum deserved to be considered. That is not just a Cabinet divided or a Conservative Party divided but the Labour Party is divided and Parliament is divided. Families are divided. The UK is divided.
Yet what is really at stake is the democracy of this country. We are told repeatedly that 17.4 million people voted to leave. But they voted to leave by a very narrow 52:48 victory. People forget that in the first nationwide referendum in 1975 on whether to stay in the European Community, the result was—wait for it—17.4 million people voted to remain. The difference was that that 17.4 million was not a narrow victory but a two-thirds majority—not 52:48. At the time of the referendum exactly three years ago, 75% of the people in the other place and over 75% of this House thought that the best thing for the UK was to remain in the European Union, yet now we are being held to ransom by this democratic vote in the referendum three years ago.
At that time, the EU was not an issue. It was not something that people knew much about. I knew a fraction of what I know now. At the top of people’s minds were health, taxes, education and crime, and now, three years later, we know how complicated leaving is. We know the benefits of being in the largest trading bloc in the world. We know how difficult it is to replicate the EU’s 50-plus free trade agreements. We have only six ready to roll over. We know that it has taken two years to negotiate three things—£39 billion, in the context of a £2 trillion economy? I would pay the £8 billion a year that we pay to the EU just for the peace that it has helped bring to Europe.
What about people’s rights, our rights and EU citizens’ rights over here? We cannot use people as bargaining chips. That is a given. Then there is the backstop protecting the Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland border. That was hardly mentioned during the referendum. Now we are told, “These three things have been agreed, it has taken two years, now capitulate and agree to go forward out of the European Union and into a transition period”. But then we will have left the European Union. The backstop will continue. We will still be subject to ECJ rules and we are going into a blindfold Brexit. We still have to negotiate trade, security, a frictionless border, nuclear and so forth, and we know now that in every analysis it is far better for businesses, the economy and citizens, on balance—the EU is not perfect—to remain. Why in the name of democracy are we all being forced to honour the will of the people—the instruction of the people three years ago? It is out of date. It is irrelevant.
The electorate have changed. There are now 2.4 million more youths of voting age who were not old enough to vote three years ago, and 80% want to remain, including two of my children, one who turned 18 in October 2016 and another who turned 18 last week on 21 March. There are 2 million more people of voting age now who can vote. Sadly, on the other side, with a death rate of 600,000, there are probably more than 1 million people who voted to leave who are no longer with us. That means 3 million more. The victory was 17.4 million versus 16.1 million and the youth did not turn out three years ago. They regret it and now they will turn out in force.
Where, then, is the gumption of our MPs? Where has our representative democracy gone? Where are the MPs who are not meant to be delegates? They are not meant to be lemmings. They are meant to vote with their conscience, to do the right thing for what, in their opinion, is in the best interests of Britain and their constituency—not for what is in the best interests of their party, which, sadly, is what the Conservative Party is doing.
The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, spoke about dynamic democracy. When people change their minds, when the facts change, and when people are far more informed, Parliament should do the right thing. The Prime Minister keeps ruling out another Brexit referendum, saying that it would deepen divisions and undermine support for democracy. Brexit supporters say that a second referendum would trigger a major constitutional crisis. What have we got, if not a divided country and a constitutional crisis, right now? Stephen Barclay, the Brexit Secretary, said that if we have indicative votes, which are now being voted on, that could bring about a constitutional collision and increase the risk of a general election.
The polls show that the people have changed their minds: there is an 8%-10% lead for remain. The Prime Minister can go back to Parliament and say, “Please change your mind”—she wants to go back a third time and say, “Change your mind”—and yet the people do not get even one chance to change their mind. That is wrong. If we impose any of this Brexit on people and the people have not had a say, if it is a bad Brexit, for generations from now people will not thank this Parliament. When Parliament and the Government fail, the only sensible thing seems to be to go to the people. We are damaging our constitution. We are damaging our relationship with our biggest trading partner, which makes up two-thirds of our trade. We are damaging our economy. Parliament must now vote for a long extension to Article 50, to which Europe will agree. Then we must put it back to the people, and they must decide whether they want to leave or to remain. That is, today’s people; not yesterday’s people, not an out-of-date electorate.
To conclude, it saddens me that the whole world is looking at this great country with disbelief, saying, “What are you doing? Why are you doing this to yourselves? You don’t have to do this!”. Let us put the “great” back in Great Britain and the “united” back in the United Kingdom, by giving the great British public the final say.
Lord Bowness (Con)
My Lords, I may be alone but I always feel that there is an air of unreality about this present situation—especially given that we in this House are spectators, watching a potential disaster unfold before our eyes. Apart from a few Brexiteer zealots who still believe their own propaganda, we all know that we are participating in a process that will lead to the United Kingdom being politically and economically worse off, as well as in terms of world influence. Sadly, there have been few references to the need for European unity and the part that we could and should play in that. It is even more extraordinary that a Government whose primary task must be to safeguard the nation in the widest possible sense are acting as they are.
However, we are in extraordinary times, and we need extraordinary measures. I hope that, somehow, we will find the political leadership that will honestly address the nation and tell it the problems that we face. Yes, you voted to leave the European Union. Yes, we have done our best to negotiate that in a way that leaves you as well off—or, as the leavers would have you believe, better off—as you were as members of the European Union. But that has not proved possible. There are two reasons for this. First and foremost, there is not a better deal than membership of the European Union. Secondly, in an attempt to meet your wishes, we trapped ourselves in a set of red lines, which rendered our aspirations, which are now set out in the political declaration, impossible to achieve, as those aspirations are largely incompatible with the red lines.
An honest assessment would tell the people that revocation of Article 50 or, at the very least, a long delay, is necessary while we belatedly decide what we want from our relationship with our closest and most important partners. Sadly, I feel that I shall wish on, because there is no evidence of any political leadership prepared to take such steps. The May deal does at least give us a transition period but, if the Government throw away that time in the same way as they have thrown away the time since the referendum, we will be in no better state to decide what we want in December 2020 than we are in March 2019. Such incompetence cannot go on.
Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box in this House and told us that we cannot be kept informed of progress in the negotiations for fear of prejudicing those negotiations. However, this time and for the future, we must decide what we want before we go into those negotiations. This dysfunctional Cabinet and Government have no idea of where we are seeking to end up. Whether it is the May deal, another deal or no deal, we shall still have to have a close relationship with the European Union. What that is has to be established as a matter of urgency, and it will take leadership and not constant capitulation to the ultra-Brexiteer party within the Conservative Party. Until this is resolved, we are only delaying the ultimate disaster to a later date. It cannot go on, and I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that to the House at the conclusion of this debate.
On a previous occasion I asked the Minister a question which he did not answer. If this deal does not go through, what is plan B? I hope that this time it is plain enough to him that the House and the people need to know.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, has just said, and my speech continues from where he left off. It seems to me that plan B is to revoke Article 50 and to put this nightmare behind us, because there is no other credible way to resolve this crisis on terms that are acceptable to the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said that his mentor was Lord Carrington, whom I also held in very high esteem. However, my mentor, and indeed friend, was Roy Jenkins, who always said that in politics the key to success was constantly to argue to solutions, not to conclusions—to get on with it. We now seriously need to get on with it because after two and a half years of this fiasco the country is not prepared to wait much longer. However, whatever we do must be towards a solution, and that solution must actually work rather than being a form of words or a ruse that simply kicks the can down the road.
Although the Prime Minister has exhibited a combination of incompetence and intransigence unmatched in recent times—one can debate whether it goes back to Anthony Eden, Lord North or Charles I, but among our rulers it is almost unmatched—she makes a good point when she says that the only way of stopping no deal, which people do not want and the House of Commons has now voted against twice with big majorities, is to have either a deal or no Brexit. That is correct. She keeps stating it because she thinks that if she forces the House of Commons to vote again and again, ultimately it will vote for her deal. However, there is no sign of that at all, and indeed she is the standing refutation of it, because today, in the extremity of our situation, she could not even come to the House of Commons to propose a third meaningful vote. I say “meaningful”, but the Prime Minister treats the votes as meaningless and hopes that ultimately she will win one and it will become meaningful.
Anyone who was in the Gallery of the House of Commons, as I was earlier, knows that there is no chance whatever of the House of Commons agreeing her deal at a third vote. You just needed to listen to the parliamentary leader of the DUP and a whole group of representatives of the ERG—which I have come to dub the “Economic Ruin Group”—to know that there is no prospect of her deal going through on a third vote, and we are right up against the wire. The House of Commons has, by decisive majorities, twice voted against no deal. Therefore, either there has to be some new deal or there has to be no Brexit. Those are the only options and, if we are to argue to a solution, those are the only potential solutions.
We have heard the mantra from many noble Lords on the other side of the House today that it is unconscionable that we should have no Brexit, but I do not think it is unconscionable at all. Parliament is here to exert its wisdom. As we are a democracy, it would of course then need to submit its judgment to the judgment of the people. That would happen either in a general election or—more likely in the circumstances in which we find ourselves—a referendum. It looks to me, in arguing to solutions, that we will end up with revocation followed by referendum, or a referendum followed by revocation. Those are the only credible solutions. If we get the long extension that may be necessary, we could spend many months getting to that conclusion, but it has been clear for a year that the basic Brexit proposition is imploding. We are a democracy, so there has to be a democratic role beyond simply a parliamentary vote in this process. That is where I believe we will get to.
The problem with the Prime Minister’s deal—the reason that it has gone down twice and will go down a third time—is that it does not remotely deliver the objective that was set out at the beginning: a deep and meaningful partnership with the European Union while leaving it. That was the constant mantra and objective that we heard from the Government Front Bench day after day. It does not remotely do this. It is not even a partnership that lasts beyond 21 months; there is no deal beyond then.
When the Prime Minister made the speech in Lancaster House that set the whole process off, she said:
“We will provide certainty … it is in no one’s interest for there to be a cliff-edge for business or a threat to stability”.
These were the key words on which this whole process was launched and she invoked Article 50:
“Instead I want us to have reached an agreement about our future partnership by the time the two-year Article 50 process has concluded”.
That was the basis on which this whole process started, whereas where we are now is with a withdrawal agreement that simply gets us legally out of the European Union—ostensibly this Friday, but that will be delayed—with no long-term agreement whatever. Indeed, the reason that we need the backstop and all these much-touted alternative arrangements is precisely that we do not have agreement about a future partnership by the time the two-year Article 50 process has concluded.
That is why, in an unprecedented statement, the TUC and the CBI joined forces last week and said:
“Our country is facing a national emergency. Decisions of recent days have caused the risk of no deal to soar … we ask you”—
I remind noble Lords that it is the TUC and the CBI saying this to us,
“to take three steps to protect the jobs, rights and livelihoods of ordinary working people. First, avoiding no deal is paramount … Second, securing an extension has become essential … Third, ‘the current deal or no deal’ must not be the only choice”.
This is the situation we face now.
The reason that it will not be possible to get a majority in the House of Commons for this deal or anything remotely close to it, is that it does not even begin to safeguard the long-term economic or security future of the country. The political declaration is one load of waffle. It is what the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, described when he resigned as a “gangplank into thin air”. It is still a gangplank into thin air. We are being asked to leave all the benefits of the European Union for a mess of pottage. Walter Bagehot once said:
“The cure for admiring the House of Lords is to go and look at it”.
That was deeply unfair; it is a wonderful assembly, and the closer you look at it the more impressive it becomes. But the cure for admiring the political declaration and the withdrawal agreement is indeed to read them.
The political declaration is one of the most threadbare documents ever presented to Parliament on a major policy issue. On these huge issues affecting the whole future of the country, it says, at paragraph 22 that,
“the Parties envisage comprehensive arrangements that will create a free trade area”—
I repeat, “envisage”, with no provisions made whatever. Paragraph 25 says:
“In this context, the United Kingdom will consider aligning”,
with the European Union, “in relevant areas”. “Consider” and “relevant” are totally undefined and there are no follow-up provisions. Paragraph 55 says that,
“the Parties will explore the possibility to facilitate the crossing of their respective borders for legitimate travel”.
That is an astonishing statement. We are just about to leave the European Union on the basis of exploring whether we will agree with the European Union the facilitation of the crossing of our borders for legitimate travel. If we had not become inured to this Brexit catastrophe, anyone reading these documents would think we had taken leave of our senses.
I like paragraph 107 best of all. It says:
“The Parties should consider appropriate arrangements for cooperation on space”.
Where that will lead the negotiations over the few weeks before the Prime Minister brings back the next iteration of her political declaration, I do not know. Who honestly believes that that will lead to a solution?
There will now almost inevitably be a long extension of the Article 50 process. It is vital that we do not exchange the pursuit of one unicorn for the pursuit of another. The idea which is in danger of gaining ground is that the reason why this deal did not work was that the Prime Minister was a singularly inept negotiator and her red lines were singularly intransigent. Well, she was an inept negotiator and her red lines were intransigent but, in my view, there is no other deal that will maintain a deep and special partnership with the European Union that could conceivably be negotiated. The quest for it will simply set us off on another two or two-and-a-half-year search for the Holy Grail that will almost certainly end in further catastrophe, and, of course, completely preoccupy Parliament, the Government, the Civil Service and our national life while it goes on, while we pay virtually no attention to any other public policy issues of great concern to the country.
The loss of trust and faith in politics if we engage in that process will be profound. It might simply lead to Brexit fizzling out without any further democratic process, because of ultimate exhaustion. However, rather than doing that, it would be much better to use the opportunity of the extension to resolve this issue by revoking and having a referendum, or having a referendum and then revoking, rather than searching for the Holy Grail.
I do not want to detain the House longer, so I will simply stress that what is now loosely referred to as “Norway”, and which may be part of the indicative votes in the House of Commons, is something that will disintegrate in the hands of those who seek to negotiate it, as soon as they try to unpack it and turn it into a proposition. There is no common understanding at all of what is in this box marked “Norway” and there is profound misunderstanding about what it contains. In particular, it does not contain a customs union, so it will not be a solution to the problems of Northern Ireland. The things it does contain are things that there will not ultimately be a majority for in the House of Commons, if there is a desire for Brexit at all. It contains no change whatever in freedom of movement and those rules. You just need to read the speeches and comments made by the Norwegian Prime Minister and those who actually know what goes on in Norway to see why it will not be viable.
My strong plea to Members of the House of Commons, who will take these key decisions in coming weeks, is to not exchange one unicorn for another. As the Norwegian Prime Minister put it:
“We do agree with the EU that you cannot be cherry-picking … Norway is outside [the EU], but we are inside the single market ... We do accept that decisions on the four freedoms are done in Brussels”.
The Norwegian MP Heidi Nordby Lunde warned us that,
“the Norwegian option is not an option … The three countries in Efta have to agree on all the regulations coming from the EU, so if one country vetoes something we all have to veto, which means that if the UK enters the Efta platform and starts to veto regulations that we want, this will affect not just the UK but also us as well”.
She went on to warn:
“If, as I understand, UK politicians do not want to be ruled by regulations coming from other countries, why would they accept a country with 38,000 citizens like Liechtenstein being able to veto regulations that the UK wants. That would be the reality”.
As soon as you get into the Norwegian option, you realise that it will crumble in your hands. The right thing is not to proceed in pursuit of unicorns, but instead call a halt to the whole grisly process that we have been going through, and to do it democratically by revoking and then holding a referendum.
When the Prime Minister asked the House of Commons to invoke Article 50, she said:
“At moments such as these—great turning points in our national story—the choices that we make define the character of our nation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/3/17; col. 251.]
The choices we make on behalf of the people in the coming weeks will define the character of our nation. I want it to be defined by putting the people and the national interest first, not pursuing unicorns, and respecting the right of the British people to have good government that looks after their long-term interests.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, always enlivens our debates. I am challenged, and I hope I am not chasing unicorns at this moment. I will proceed as I was, but he has really made me think again.
We are finally close to the brink, and this is a good moment to pause. The cliff edge is in sight, and I am reminded of the old Hoffnung bricklayer’s story, in which our hero meets the barrel of bricks going up and down, and he ultimately receives all the bricks on his head when he hits the bottom. That is the Prime Minister. The bricks of Brexit are still falling, and the damage is still being done. This is no comedy, but it is a joke in a funny way, and a joke it may be for all the 27 EU states, which seem to be at the limit of endurance and good humour. They have shown a remarkable ability to respond, as my noble friends Lord Kerslake and Lord Ricketts have said, to an unprecedented display of political unwisdom. They need us, we need them, and I share their exasperation.
What about this phrase, “Mother of Parliaments”? Do we dare use it any more? I have never rated it highly on overseas visits. Europe has never taken much notice of it, and if you go to Commonwealth Parliaments you will find a semi-circular Chamber. This is one lesson that has been learned. Do not build confrontational Chambers which merely reinforce the two-party system. As we have seen, they can lead the Chamber into stultification or worse.
I am always interested in how others see us. Back in 1972 I persuaded Macmillan Journals to publish a review of the European press so that, as we entered Europe, we would understand more of what the Europeans were saying. However, it was difficult. If it was foggy in the Channel, in those pre-digital days the European press would sometimes never arrive at all. Last Thursday, while the EU was cogitating on the Prime Minister’s latest version of her deal, I quickly scanned the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Le Monde for Brexit. The front-page headline said, “Franz Kafka” in large letters. I thought, “What an appropriate image for Brexit”—until I realised it was about the Leipzig Book Fair. Eventually I found news stories and a disgruntled Bavarian who complained of English arrogance in assuming they were still in charge of a united kingdom.
In Le Monde I found nothing until I got to a full-page spread on China’s overtures to Italy and other EU members. The author seemed genuinely sorry that Brexit was inevitably going to encourage China and everyone else to develop stronger diplomatic and trade relations with the EU.
This leads on to my main point, which is that the powerful centrifugal force of Brexit damages the economic and political health of the separate nations. Brexiteers complain of a growing European unity that I do not see. I see the loss of so many vital ties in security, in health care, in almost every sector of life—ties that are dismissed so often as mere regulations. I see a threat to our own United Kingdom.
Europe is not uniting. Well before the referendum, there were countries expressing discordant voices, not least on the eurozone and on border controls. We were difficult customers. We were given certain privileges and opt-outs—observer status in Schengen and so on—but we were not the only ones. Immigration was always going to be different in different countries because its effects were different, but at least we could all sit down and argue the case. Now we cannot.
I am proud to own an EU passport and to feel that I am an EU citizen, at least for a few more days. I am therefore emotionally encouraged by any further slippage in the timetable that postpones the inevitable and possibly ends up with another referendum. Having said that, I would not vote for a referendum or an Article 50 extension now. We must give Parliament a chance first. I would still prefer that the Government persuade their more eccentric Brexiteers to join them in the lobby and that a deal of some kind go through, because no deal has already been rejected. It is the only amendment that has had such a large majority.
The House of Commons is losing its old discipline, in spite of the Speaker’s valiant efforts. This is, I believe, a genuine reflection of the close voting on Brexit. It has never faced divisions on this scale in our lifetime and it has not experienced such a national confrontation. This is not unique: other European Parliaments have gone into battle, with fisticuffs and even tear gas. We do not see that happening here quite yet. Long before that—even this afternoon—MPs had an opportunity to restore order. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, was so good on this: they need to find a proper consensus, a coalition of the willing who are respected individuals from all parties who can put forward reasonable, so-called indicative amendments that can command a majority. To achieve that—it is no mean task, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—there has to be a compromise that satisfies moderate leavers and remainers alike. It will have to be a customs union or Norway-plus, as described by my noble friend Lord Butler, or at any rate a close association with the EU that also provides the opportunity for free trade agreements. We simply cannot throw away all the advantages offered by EU membership over 40 years. Details have already been worked out in the political declaration, for which we are waiting.
This must be a serious exercise. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, spoke about this. He even mentioned a Government of national unity. Why not? It cannot be designed as a scheme to support the Prime Minister; it has to be a genuine effort by senior parliamentarians to lead where the Prime Minister cannot, and, of course, ultimately to persuade the Government that this is the only way through the mess of successive meaningful votes.
I also believe in the power of prayer. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and I happened to be in Lincoln Cathedral yesterday morning; I think that he believes in it too. I hope that the right reverend Prelate continues to support the power of prayer.
Perhaps I am being optimistic, because policy formed through indicative voting is not yet policy, but this is a time when the whole country will want to will Parliament forward, and forward it must go. The Prime Minister should support this exploratory process because it could yield new elements to support a deal—not her deal, but one that comes from a majority in Parliament.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I was indeed delighted to see the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and his wife in Lincoln Cathedral yesterday. We attended matins together in one of the most glorious of all European buildings. Whenever we talk about Europe, I always think that though my identity might be English and my nationality British, my culture and civilisation are European. We owe so much to the intermingling of those who practised the arts and the crafts through the ages on our wonderful continent.
I do not propose to expand on that, but there is just one thing that I have been asked to say by my noble friend the Duke of Wellington, who unfortunately has had to withdraw from the debate. He wanted to convey his apologies, which I gladly do, and also to say that, imperfect as it might be, he is foursquare behind the deal on offer.
I have been a member of the Conservative Party for 63 years. I joined in a momentous year: 1956. Within a year I held office as a young Conservative chairman and have had some kind of office or position in the party ever since. Politically, I have never felt more depressed. I have never felt more concerned, and, like a right honourable friend of mine in another place, I have at times over the last three years felt ashamed. I am deeply concerned that a group of Conservatives have almost held the country to ransom. I refer to the ERG. They are coming close not just to splitting the party—which of course is less important than the country—but to wreaking real havoc in our nation. I hope that they will draw back now and realise that if they want any sort of Brexit, the one sort currently on offer and on the table is the one that the Prime Minister has put there.
The Prime Minister is a good Christian woman, whom I admire very much. However, I wish that she had been a little more flexible and a little less obdurate, and that when she talked to the nation last week, she had done so not from a lectern but at a table—rather as the Queen does when she gives her Christmas message—and talked to the people. That is what we need. I also thought it a pity that, while I understand why she wanted to talk to certain Members whose transfer of allegiance could be of enormous help to her, the news yesterday and the newspapers this morning were dominated by a certain group of people going to Chequers—as if they mattered more than any others. That was a great pity.
In spite of all that, I hope she gets her deal, but I was in the Gallery of the other place when the Prime Minister made her Statement today, and it does look as though she may not put it to the Commons before, or even on, 29 March. As I understand it, we would then have a period of a fortnight, until 12 April. The sands really are running out. It is the last chance saloon. I very much hope that the time will be used profitably. In a remarkable speech earlier today, my noble friend Lord Bridges made some extremely telling points, but in two weeks we have to be able to convince our friends and neighbours—I use those words deliberately and repeatedly—in the European Union that Parliament is working towards a solution. If her deal has not been accepted, we will have to show that there is a basis for agreement. I sincerely hope that we will.
I have talked in your Lordships’ House before about the creation of a committee of both Houses. There would not be time to create one in the remaining fortnight, but there would be an opportunity, which I commend to my noble friend Lord Callanan. He will be winding up this debate and has exercised enormous patience and good humour over the last two years or more. I put it to him that there would be some merit in putting together the Exiting the European Union Committee, chaired by Mr Hilary Benn, in another place, and your Lordships’ European Union Committee. There is an enormous amount of cross-party experience and ability in those two bodies. It could do no harm for them to have a dialogue and consider the various options that, by then, might have been or could become the subjects of indicative votes. We have to find something around which we can coalesce or, in spite of the Prime Minister’s protestations—which I was glad to hear—there will be a real danger that we crash out.
The only person who has talked with insouciance about that in this debate has been my noble friend Lord Lilley, but most of us, looking at the TUC and the CBI in that remarkable partnership last week, listening to industrialists, farmers and others in the country, know there is enormous concern about the potential damage that could be inflicted in the short term. There is also a degree of national humiliation in this country. People have looked to this country, over the years, as the embodiment of good sense, effective diplomacy and real leadership, and they say, “Where are those now?”. We had a group of French schoolchildren and their teachers in Lincoln Cathedral last Thursday, and I fell to talking to some of them. They were desperately sad that we appear to be moving out, but desperately anxious to maintain the friendships that have, over the last century or more, united our countries since the great entente cordiale of 1904.
It is crucial that we do everything possible to ensure that, by 12 April, we have done enough to convince our European friends and colleagues that we should have more time to arrive at a mutually agreed solution. Some of your Lordships have talked in this debate about a very long extension. I understand the worries about the European parliamentary elections and do not think that, if we were making real progress in our discussions, it would be impossible to ask for an extension of the sort the Prime Minister went to Brussels to ask for last week—until the end of June. It would be possible, I hope, to iron out the heads of agreement that would enable us to proceed, without having to go through all the trouble of participating in European elections. I understand why some people think that that would be breaking faith and would cause more turmoil and upset. Our people are too bitterly divided, at the moment, to do anything that will divide them more.
I was at a function in Lincoln on Friday night and talked to a lot of people, many of whom said, “We are confused. We are frustrated. We are getting angry. You’ve got to deal with this in Parliament and you’ve got to deal with it soon”. There is not much time left but, if the deal goes down or is not brought forward to be voted on, the responsibility bears upon us all in both Houses, but particularly those in the other place, to find a way forward that will not cause undue delay. I believe that your Lordships’ House has so much wisdom within it that the putting-together of those two committees could play a significant part in working towards the conclusion that surely we all want.
Lord Trevethin and Oaksey (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and before him the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. I found myself agreeing with much—not everything, but much—of what they said. I also hope that their prayers prove to be efficacious, because they might be our best bet now.
One of the hazards of speaking late in what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, I think, told us was the 13th debate on this topic is that all one’s good points, if any, have been made by other speakers, and most of the less good, and even the bad, points that I was thinking of making have also been made. So I shall take up one or two of the issues raised, and draw out some out of the threads.
In his powerful speech, with which I disagreed fundamentally, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who may be moving a Motion later on revocation, said that it should be done “democratically” and then we should revoke and then call a referendum. I have great respect for the energy and resolve of the noble Lord, and the high degree of candour with which he has expressed his objectives over the past two or three years. But when he puts to the House the prospect of revoking first and calling a referendum later, he has not, with great respect, paid sufficient attention to the meaning and effect of revocation of the Article 50 notification in the light of the Court of Justice’s decision in Wightman—and, to some extent, the Supreme Court decision in Miller.
First, revoke and then have a referendum is never going to happen, so I will not take up too much of your Lordships’ time with that possibility. It will not happen because, almost certainly, primary legislation would be required before the existing Article 50 notification could be revoked. It is far too late to go into the legal analysis; anyone who is interested will find an excellent paper by Professor Young and Professor Phillipson, which sets out the reasoning in a very erudite way, on the Constitutional Law Association website. I do not think, from conversations I have had outside the Chamber, that any of the very distinguished noble and learned Lords who sit around me would disagree with my proposition.
So primary legislation would be required, and, realistically, there seems no prospect whatever that the House of Commons would think it expedient to try to enact primary legislation that said, in 2019—after the referendum Act, the notification Act of 2017 and the withdrawal Act of 2018—“Do you know what? We did not really mean it at all—we are taking it all back: we are revoking, without consulting the people”. The House of Commons will not do that, because it is the elected House, and it has one eye—possibly both eyes—on the response of the electors to that procedure. I agree entirely with the very powerful points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, who perhaps looks at these issues in a slightly different way from me but who very convincingly explained why it could not possibly be right to decide this issue in Parliament before it was returned to the people—if it has to be returned to the people.
So the revoke first, referendum next solution will not happen in practice. It would in any event—and it may be important for other reasons to appreciate this—be completely inappropriate because of the legal effect of the Court of Justice decision in the Wightman case. As the House knows, the Court of Justice held, in Wightman, that it is possible to unilaterally revoke an Article 50 notification. That came as no surprise at all to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who had predicted that outcome throughout; if I had had a bet with him I would have lost. It did not wholly come as a surprise to me but, nevertheless, there was a very powerful point against the Court of Justice’s conclusion, which, in short, was that Article 50 imposes a stringent two-year time limit—as we all know by now, being in its vice at the moment. It does so in the interests of the member states that continue to be part of the Union, and one can well understand why that is so. If a departing state can unilaterally revoke a notification, it is not easy to see what would stop it tactically revoking a notification towards the end of the two-year period—because the talks had not gone so well and it wanted to buy some more time—and then re-notifying a week, a month or a few months later, thereby converting the two-year limit to a four-year limit, and conceivably doing the same thing at the end of the four-year period. That would make a nonsense of Article 50 and the Court of Justice had to deal with that.
The text of the judgment and the prior opinion of the Advocate-General, read together, do not convey an entirely clear picture of the answer to that point, but, read sensibly, it is reasonably clear what the court is saying. I shall not go into the text, but it is saying, “No, a tactical revocation of an Article 50 notification is inappropriate and unlawful. We the CJEU will not permit that”. It has to be done in accordance with the constitutional requirements of the departing state, pursuant to a democratic process and, according to the Advocate-General, in good faith. What one probably gets from that is that a revocation followed by a later notification would be treated by the Court of Justice as ineffective so far as the later notification was concerned. In short, a revocation will be final and determinative, on the state of EU law at the moment. Accordingly, “revoke first, referendum second” would not be conducive to the maintenance of trust in democracy in this country, because the post-revocation referendum would not be advisory or mandatory; it would be a rubber-stamp referendum, and the people would not like that at all. I mention those points because I have been looking at the European case law.
I shall close my observations in this way. Like, I should think, other Members of the House, I spent quite a lot of the weekend watching elected politicians on television ducking, diving, weaving and dissembling to answer good questions put to them by Mr Marr and others. It was a very depressing sight. We the country, and within the country Parliament, are in big trouble now; I think that everyone who has spoken in this debate recognises that. The crisis will get worse fast unless elected politicians in particular start talking straight about the options and how they are to be dealt with.
Let me not be partisan. The ultra-Brexiteers in the Commons should stop engaging in covert manoeuvres in the hope that they will lead to an inadvertent no-deal Brexit. I say respectfully that the Prime Minister should stop saying, “To be completely clear” and then saying something that is as clear as mud. That is not convincing. She should try to be a little clearer about what she is seeking to do. The remainers—just to be even-handed about this—should stop using language in a way that is reminiscent of the Ministry of Truth in 1984.
I shall not go back into the terminology of the “people’s vote”—we have all enjoyed analysing that concept; I want to talk about a different concept that has been gaining currency during the past couple of weeks and was discussed on television yesterday. It is a so-called “confirmatory referendum”, referred to obliquely by various representatives of the Opposition. I listened carefully and I think that the proposal is that the Prime Minister’s deal, which is so widely derided, would be voted through, but only on condition that it is subject to a “confirmatory referendum”. Such a referendum, it is suggested, would consist of a—rather displeasing to some—binary choice: vote for the Prime Minister’s deal, which has been voted down twice by the House of Commons by enormous majorities and suffers from many defects which have been discussed today and on other occasions, or vote for remain. That is, to borrow from an observation made by one speaker on the other side of this Chamber today, a choice between a dead parrot which has ceased to be—the Prime Minister’s deal, which no one wants—and remain. That structuring of the referendal question simply will not do, because it disenfranchises a large number of voters in this country. Something else must be structured if there is to be a referendum. I have not yet heard the question satisfactorily defined, and we are running out of time.
The people may not have known what they were voting for, but they will know if they are being lied to. We and all elected representatives need to start talking straightforwardly to them.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, scratched this evening has slightly shot my fox since he is a very easy person to follow. The noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, is not such an easy person to follow, because he expressed a great deal of good sense. I agree with him about the sequencing of revoke and having a referendum—you cannot do it that way round. My view is that a referendum is desirable and necessary, and I would also like to see it made mandatory so that we do not get into an argument about a neverendum.
The seemingly unending series of debates in this House on Brexit is often criticised by quite a few of the speakers, including some this evening. It is said that the options before us do not change much. I believe this is a worthwhile debate, because the context in which those options are being examined and the urgency of reaching general conclusions both change. Never could one say that more forcefully than this evening—following last week’s European Council meeting, we really are up against it now. I am not criticising this debate at all.
It needs to be recognised that the risk of a no deal exit has not disappeared. The cliff edge has been postponed from 29 March to either 12 April or 22 May, and the agreement being sought for the statutory instrument which I am glad to hear is coming forward will bring that into our domestic law as well as international law. Both Houses have said extremely forcefully that no deal must be taken off the table—it must not be an option—and I find it pretty regrettable that the Government keep referring to it as the default option instead of saying how and by what policy course they will prevent it happening. There are any number of ways they can do that, but you will never hear the Prime Minister saying how she will prevent it happening, except by telling people to vote for her deal.
How is it best done? There is of course the option the Prime Minister continually produces—approving the deal she concluded last November—and she seems absolutely determined to pursue that to the exclusion of all else, unpromising though the prospects of getting an agreement from the other place may be. The legal clarifications which have now been formalised by the European Council are welcome, but do not seem to me—as a non-lawyer, at any rate—to alter the realities of the Irish backstop. They also do not alter the fact that this is actually quite a poor deal which promises years of uncertainty, arduous negotiation and, let us face it, divisions within the Government’s camp as to what they want to negotiate for our future relationship. The idea that the civil war now raging will suddenly be calmed by leaving and then opening the negotiations for the future relationship defies all belief.
It would surely be better to look seriously at all alternatives now, having got rid of those disastrous red lines on the customs union and the single market, and to ask the EU for a longer extension than 30 June—not indefinite, of course—in which we could hope to lay the foundations for what is to follow. Such an extension would have the added benefit of providing enough time and space to consult the electorate—which, as I said at the outset, I believe is the right thing to do. So I hope that that is where we will end up in the course of the next two weeks. I hope that the Prime Minister will carry out the will of the other place if it is so expressed, go back and ask for that reasonably lengthy extension, and make it clear that its purpose is to set out on a new course, not the old one.
How should we deal with the complication of the European Parliament elections in May? I have to say that I am a bit distressed that the EU 27 have made our participation in those elections such a central element in their determination of the duration of any Article 50 extension. There are a number of ways of getting round this problem that could be used without treaty change, using the inherent powers in Article 50 to organise an orderly and stable exit. It is a pity that that has not been given more space. It has certainly been lurking in the drawers of the Council, the Commission and the Parliament, but they have opted for a more forceful approach.
However, someone like myself, who believes that Britain’s place—indeed, Britain’s interest—is to remain a full member of the European Union, cannot possibly recoil from the possibility of having European elections in May, if only because if we have a referendum and vote to remain, that is what we will have to have done. We will need Members of the European Parliament. I hope that a way will be found of dealing with this issue without too much drama, and that if necessary we will have those elections.
I very much welcome the fact that we now know, as a result of an Answer given on 19 March to a Written Question of mine, that what the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, said on 27 February was misleading the House. They said that the legislation to hold European Parliament elections no longer existed— well, it does exist, as that nice little Written Answer says. I would be grateful if the Minister would now tell the House that that is the position.
These are some of the messages that I would like the other place to take very seriously when it returns, with added urgency, to this whole issue later this week, and considers the options facing the country. For far too long there has been absolute stasis in the handling of this matter. It is now time to break out of the rut that the Government have got into, to abandon attempts to run down the clock—which can only now end in disruption and lasting damage to the economy—and to set out on a new and more promising course, mandated by Parliament.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Hannay, who was an extremely distinguished UK representative in Brussels.
As tail-end Charlie, I can be pretty brief. I was struck by a remark made by my noble friend Lord Hennessy. He asked: what have we done to ourselves to find ourselves in this present position? I suggest that part of the answer is that we have lost touch with ordinary working people. Part of that is that we have ignored their real concerns, including those about the scale of immigration to our country, but also many other things, including housing and education. Worse than that, they feel that we have condescended to them: that we know best and they should know better.
Immigration is only one issue, but it was undoubtedly a major factor in the referendum, and it will be a critical factor when the public come to judge the outcome. It is also an important element in two of the future courses proposed, an element that is often distorted. The first concerns Norway. There, my fox has also been shot by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. The Norway model provides no useful benefit in terms of immigration. Any measures are limited in scope and duration. They must be reviewed by a Joint Committee with a view to abolition and there is a risk of retaliatory measures, so they have never been used, never will be used and are no use to us.
The second aspect concerns Article 50. Some people have made the extraordinary claim that we could control EU migration if we only adopted Belgian-type measures. These turn out to be measures designed to deal with benefit tourism. Belgium has issued eviction notices to a couple of thousand people a year, but no one knows whether they left or whether they have come back. For the UK, that is completely irrelevant. We have 2 million EU citizens here and they arrive in their tens of thousands every year. It is absolutely unfeasible and in any case irrelevant to bring that argument.
The only honest conclusion—I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, was avoiding it—is that reverting to EU membership means continuing with immigration that we cannot ourselves control. Noble Lords may not think that that matters, but that is the fact of the matter and we should accept it. We should not try to deceive the public on this matter, which is of greater concern to them than to many Members of this House.
This brings me to the Government’s deal. It is a deal that should give us some control over immigration. Unfortunately, the subsequent White Paper has produced proposals for post-Brexit immigration which are dreadful. In the medium term, as I have mentioned before, they are much more likely to add to net migration than reduce it. Beyond that, more generally, we would be tied into the EU with no voice, no vote and no sure means of escape. We would face years of trade negotiations with virtually no cards in our hand, as I think my noble friend Lord Hannay was implying.
What an astonishing outcome for a country with our history of influence and achievement. However, I think we may find that the EU has overplayed its hand, and I rather hope that, as a result, this deal will not go through.
Lastly, where can we go from here? The referendum indeed gave a clear instruction, as the Government had requested. If a different path is now chosen, there will have to be another referendum and, as the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, pointed out, the question has to include whether we wish to leave entirely. That would mean that, at the end of a second referendum, there would no longer be an argument about people not understanding what was involved, et cetera—they have been hearing about it for two years, they are fed up with it—but they will have reached a view and we should not condescend to them. If we find that the vote goes the same way, as I believe it might, so be it. I think almost anyone would accept that second referendum result. Equally, I would accept a second referendum result that went in the opposite direction.
Let us be frank. The reputation of Parliament is at rock bottom. To seek to override purely by legislation a referendum that Parliament itself called would be a body blow to the institutions of our government and it must not happen.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I intend to be relatively brief. I hope I will be, not just because it is getting late, or because I have nothing new to say—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, teased me for saying that in our last debate—but because a lot has changed. It would take me a very long time to get out of my system what I really feel about the incompetent and partisan way that this Government have behaved in the last three years—with their red lines, their appeal only to leave voters, and their prioritising of unity within the Tory party, which does not seem to have been a great success. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, who said that all of this has brought us to a state of national humiliation. We are in big trouble, as the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, said.
One reason that I do not want to go on at too much length is because I agree with so many who spoke earlier in this debate, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Kerr, Lord Lord Hannay, Lord Kerslake and Lord Ricketts, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. I was struck particularly by the mention of patriotism and of the colleagues of the father of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake. It reminded me of the 97 year-old veteran who was at the march on Saturday. If I recall correctly, one of his tasks in the war was digging people out of the bomb-hit city of Coventry, but his conclusion from his wartime experience and the medals that he was awarded was to say “never again”. We must have the European Union to build peace, security and prosperity.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, that fear of splitting the Conservative Party has been the guiding force over the last three years. Obviously, not being in the Tory party, I can only empathise, rather than share the pain that must be felt by relatively reasonable people within that party. The complete loss of Cabinet collective responsibility has been the most dismaying. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, rightly highlighted the existence of a party within a party—the ERG. Obviously, if we had a decent electoral system, those people would have to stand under their own banner and not that of the Conservative Party.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, highlighted, Saturday was a great day. It was good-humoured and well behaved; there was not a single incident that required the attention of the police, just like in October. Those commentators who said the mood was slightly different from that in October were probably right. It was very serious and determined, as well as enjoyable.
I was interested to hear Mark Field MP, who is a Minister, say that he could envisage supporting the revocation of Article 50. Perhaps that has to do with the high level of support in his constituency for the petition. Cleverer people than I have analysed those figures for all the constituencies; no doubt, there will be some very thoughtful MPs looking at those figures. In many cases, the number of those who signed the petition is greater than the majority that MPs enjoy.
The Prime Minister is showing contempt for both people and Parliament. She keeps invoking the will of the people but refuses to check whether, nearly three years on, with 1 million people marching, 5.5 million people petitioning to revoke Article 50, and polls showing a majority support for remain, their views have evolved. She allows herself so many bites at the cherry but she will not allow voters a single reassessment, which is quite arrogant. She also said she will take no notice of indicative votes, which continues her high-handed attitude towards the House of Commons. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and as my noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham both stressed that the 2016 referendum result is not a mandate for what is happening now on Brexit. No one could possibly have wanted to arrive in this situation. It should not be a problem to ask voters whether this still represents their views. Surely the people’s vote has to be between whatever deal MPs agree and remain. To those who say that no deal would need to be on the ballot paper, I ask this: what is no deal? What does it consist of? How do you describe it? I really do not think that that is a runner.
If Brexiters are so sure that leave would still win—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, that if it did, that would be the end of it, perhaps for a generation—they should have no problem holding another referendum. What are they afraid of? We need a long enough extension of Article 50—for four or five months, say—to allow a people’s vote.
I believe that a lot of leave voters were protesting against the system in 2016, and most of that protest had nothing whatever to do with the EU. I do not deny that immigration was a factor, although three years on it has become less of a factor. But I say to the noble Lord, Lord Green, that any consideration of continuing free movement must be looked at in the round, along with the fact that British citizens are being denied free movement and the opportunities they expected to have, particularly young people and those who wanted to retire to, for example, France or Spain. It is a two-way street and we need to look at it entirely in the round, as well as reflecting the huge contribution that EU citizens make to this country, not just economically but socially and culturally.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, that we need to focus on post Brexit, but we might define that term differently. I mean that, even if it is only clinging on to nurse for fear of something worse, we should remain in the EU; I think he means we should exit and then deal with all the other problems. There are so many crucial needs in this country. One of the tragedies of the past three years is how all our energy, capacity and thinking have been taken up by Brexit. I feel that myself. When I left the European Parliament, I was really hoping to do things other than EU affairs—I do have other interests, as it happens—but this has been a straitjacket from which it has been difficult to escape. But of course we will have less money to pursue those other things, whether it is social care, decent housing, better skills training or youth services. Talk to anybody in the area of knife crime and you will learn that it is not just the police but the lack of money for schools and youth services which is totally undermining the ability to deal with that terrible problem. By post Brexit, therefore, I mean once the country has liberated itself from this disastrous exercise.
I apologise that I have not been as brief as I thought I would be. I am grateful that the Prime Minister confirmed that the extension knocks out the 29 March date. She may be right that there would be legal confusion about the UK’s ability to implement EU law, but we would still be in the EU because of the European Council decision on the extension. Can the Minister confirm that in fact the repeal of the European Communities Act under Section 1 of the EU withdrawal Act has not been brought into force yet, the same as the repeal of the European Parliamentary Elections Act? An SI is needed for that, and that SI has not gone through, and so the European Communities Act is still in force.
I am also pleased that the Prime Minister’s announcement today, on 25 March, marks the anniversary of the treaty of Rome. There seems to be something significant about this coincidence. Can the Minister clarify the categorisation of the European Council decision as “international law”? Surely it is EU law, unless I have missed something.
Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has not in fact ruled out no deal. I am afraid that that is an illustration of her tendency to be not entirely straight and somewhat manipulative. On one side, she said that no deal had been ruled out but on the other that it had not. She said, “Let me be clear”, then was nothing of the sort. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, needs to clarify whether she really meant that no deal could be chosen only by an affirmative process.
The noble Lords, Lord Kerslake and Lord Cormack, reminded us that no deal would have a catastrophic effect. One thinks particularly of people with serious medical conditions such as epilepsy or cancer or who are having dialysis, who are terrified. You see this all the time on social media. Some of them are unable to get their supplies now. What will happen is frightening. It is unbelievable that any Government would impose this fear and anxiety on their citizens.
Lord Lilley
Did the noble Baroness not hear me read out the assurance from the Department of Health that there would be no interruption of supplies? Why is she indulging in this disgraceful scaremongering of vulnerable people?
Baroness Ludford
I follow people who report their own experience of going to the pharmacist and finding already that they cannot get their supplies. I am sorry, but whatever assurances the Government give, I am personally at the point where I believe the individual patients rather than the Government.
We need a longer extension to be able to hold a people’s vote. If we have to participate in European elections, that is fine with these Benches. I would not be entirely surprised if some legal political fix will eventually be found because everyone is ignoring the opinion from the European Parliament legal service that says that we must hold European Parliament elections but if we do not it will not invalidate the legality of the new European Parliament. That seems a straw in the wind that might point to a different solution. I look forward to the Minister’s answers.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, nothing makes me prouder of being a Member of your Lordships’ House than sitting through a debate like this. Although we are, as the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, said, spectators at the moment, the wisdom, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, strength of opinion and experience shown in a debate like this is extraordinary and something to be proud of. We also learned one or two things. I am not sure that I will get used to thinking of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, as a national treasure. I still think of Dame Vera Lynn as the original national treasure. I can think hard about that, and I did not know that the middle name of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, was Wolfgang, so one learns a lot in these debates.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, knows how much I admire him, even though I do not agree with the conclusion of his speech. I was particularly struck by the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle. She reminded us of the risks to which Members of Parliament, particularly female Members, have been exposed—and not just by this issue but by another that is taking place at the moment, about which nobody can be the slightest bit proud. I wish her well with her three candles project, which sounds a tremendous way of trying to heal some of these divisions, as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury told us would be necessary on a previous occasion.
I will come to what I take from the debate so far, but I first want to deal with the legal issues that have arisen. Noble Lords know that I turn up at these debates for that reason. We have not had many but I want to refer to a couple. We have had no change, which we had all been expecting, in the legal issues relating to the backstop. We have had no further opinion from the Attorney-General. We have had no change, as we know, to the withdrawal agreement. It is clear that there will be no change to the part of the withdrawal agreement that says that the backstop will continue unless and until there is a new agreement. That has not changed at all. Maybe we will come back to that at a later stage.
There has been a suggestion—I think the only person who mentioned it in this debate was the noble Baroness, Lady Deech—that Article 62 of the Vienna convention on the interpretation of treaties is a way out of the problem. I fundamentally, seriously and critically disagree with that. From a letter in the Times, I know—rather to my surprise, because I admire him very much—that it has the support of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I am sorry that he is not in his place, because he could jump up and tell me why I am wrong. He will have to do that on a later occasion. However, I have been back to the treaty and I do think he is wrong. The treaty says clearly that a fundamental change in the circumstances existing at the time of a treaty’s conclusion, and which was not foreseen by the parties, can lead to its termination. I do not see how one can possibly say that a failure to agree a deal is something that is not foreseen; obviously, that is what we have been debating for some time. That does not seem to be an answer to the conundrum that has been put forward.
One question that was raised, and which might be relevant, was whether international law trumps national law. Several noble Lords raised it, and it is referred to in the Prime Minister’s Statement. I notice that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, in his place, so he can at least whisper the correct answer to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who is winding up this debate. My understanding is this. It is rather as though one is a member of a club. If the club’s rules say that you are no longer a member, or it decides that you are no longer a member, you can say as much as you like that you continue to be a member, but you are not. I think that that is what is going on. Whether it is right to describe that as international law trumping national law, I am not sure, but I am clear in my own mind that because the European Union has now said that the leaving date has changed, it has changed. Until that date we will continue to be a member and after that date, we will not be. The fact that there is little legal discussion in this debate probably indicates how peripheral these issues have been, compared with what your Lordships have really been considering today, with the wisdom, insight and perception that your Lordships show on these occasions.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
If the noble Lord’s club analogy is correct, why do we have to pass a statutory instrument at all?
Lord Goldsmith
It is to change the club’s rules. In this case, Parliament is the club. I was just trying to explain how I see the situation. I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, rising to his feet and gladly give way to him.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I think that there has been some discussion about this. The situation is that the EU is in charge of the treaty. Therefore, if we are not out of the treaty, we remain members as a result of the treaty of the European Union. However, the treaty by itself was not the whole story, because we had to pass an Act of Parliament to make the treaty work in the United Kingdom. If, as has happened, the EU has extended the date so far as the treaty is concerned, in order to make our law conform with the way the treaty works, the statutory instrument is required. Otherwise, there would be a discontinuity between the treaty on the one hand and the initial law on the other.
Lord Goldsmith
I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Lord has said. I see that the noble and learned Lord, the Advocate-General, has come to sit next to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, to put him straight on all of this.
Let us move on quickly to the things that matter more than that. The issue is what the country is now faced with. In that debate we are now really a spectator, as has been said. At this stage, we are watching as the House of Commons considers what to do. We may well find that, through the mechanism of indicative votes—personally, it is what I hope we will see—it will now consider all the possible alternative routes for this country. As has been said by a number of your Lordships, we are reaching that point at a very late stage and, as has also been said, that is as a result of the obduracy of the Prime Minister. One has to respect her stamina and perseverance but, as already raised in this debate, the fact remains that there are people whose voices have not been heard by the Prime Minister. It was remarkable to watch on the television yesterday who was turning up at Chequers. I admire their motorcars, and there were two exceptional ones that I envied, but it was surprising for the people of this country to see that this is how their future is being decided—by private discussions with just a small group of people.
Now, I hope that that will not happen and that the House of Commons will take charge of the situation. I have no doubt that it will take into account many of the points that your Lordships have discussed today. I am glad that there was a reference during our debate to the position of young people. I have seen the benefits of Erasmus in my own family, and I saw the young people during the march protesting about their lack of voice.
I think that only the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, referred to the contribution that the European Union has made to peace and security in Europe. I was struck by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, at Saturday’s march and I am sorry that he is not in his place. This was powerful stuff. He has said it before in this House, although perhaps not in those words. As I recall, he said that being alone was not Churchill’s wish or hope; it was his fear. Peace and security is a very important matter which no doubt the House of Commons will take into account when it considers where we go from here.
Inevitably, your Lordships have talked about the legitimacy of a referendum. Again, it is for the House of Commons to consider in its indicative votes whether that is a way forward. I myself have never understood the objections to a further referendum on democratic grounds. I appreciate that people who thought they had achieved a particular result the first time round do not want to see it rerun. However, regarding legitimacy, in an earlier debate in this House—I do not which one it was; it might have been the first debate but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Newby, can tell me—the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, used the colourful if slightly whimsical example of his maiden aunts being invited to make a choice on the basis of inadequate information. I therefore agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, who asked why this would be undemocratic.
As a result of what the European Council said, there has also been much discussion about the need to hold further European elections. If that is the case, it will be, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, said, inconvenient—one could perhaps put it more strongly than that—but I find it difficult to describe it as undemocratic to ask people to vote in an election. That is perhaps why the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, referred to the need to give people the final say. However, that is not for us to decide today. Looking at the annunciator, I see that there is a Division in the Commons. Maybe I should sit down before we find out what is going to happen over the next few days. Arguments were powerfully put by my noble friend Lord Adonis. I am not sure that I agree with the sequencing that he has in mind but that was not the fullness of his observation.
In an earlier debate, I drew an analogy with the play “Waiting for Godot”. At that stage, we thought that there would be a further opinion or a further amendment to the legal position that would cause us to reconsider what we had been saying about that. I quoted the Irish critic who had referred to “Waiting for Godot” as,
“a play in which nothing happens, twice”.
I hope that we are not going to see nothing happening three or four times.
We have to move on for the sake of the country, and it is now to the other place that we must look to get the guidance and establish the direction in which the country will be going. That is what I look forward to seeing at the end of this evening when the House of Commons decides about the procedure, and during the rest of this week, when it makes its decisions on the votes.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, today’s debate has allowed us the opportunity to explore the recent developments in relation to our exit from the EU. I am yet again grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken for their insight and contributions, even if one may say we did not hear much that was new or original. Indeed, noble Lords will not hear much that is new or original from me, but I will seek to address as many of the key points arising from the debate as I can while conscious of the late hour.
It is worth saying again that the experience and expertise demonstrated by noble Lords today is consistent with the valuable contributions this House has made to the process of the UK leaving the EU. I thought the debate started off very well and I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle spoke some wise words in calling for a calm, civilised debate. I am pleased to say that everybody in this House certainly abided by her instructions. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, spoke extremely well on the subject of reconciliation and compromise from his personal experience and provided sound advice to both Houses as we go forward in this discussion. I pay tribute to many other contributions, from all sides of the House, including about the work of our Select Committees. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, gave some powerful examples of the excellent work of those committees.
Over the past couple of weeks, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has shared his excellent analogy of feeling as though in a holding pattern somewhere above Aylesbury. I know that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who actually represents Aylesbury, will tell you that there are no finer patches in the country. Indeed, I noticed at the weekend that he took to the airwaves to make it clear that he has no plans to move from that lovely patch of England to a more well-known address in London. I hope the noble and learned Lord will not mind if I take his analogy a little further and say that the pilot has now identified a runway and that now is the moment of decision for the other place as to where we land.
The legally binding assurances secured by the Prime Minister mean that, in the unlikely event that the backstop is ever used, it will only be temporary, and that the UK and the EU will begin work immediately to replace the backstop with alternative arrangements by the end of December 2020. As my noble friend the Leader of the House set out earlier today, the European Council also agreed that if there is a successful vote on the withdrawal agreement this week, the date of our departure could be extended to 22 May to allow time for our Parliament to agree and ratify the deal.
However, should Parliament not agree a deal this week, the European Council has agreed to extend Article 50 until 12 April, which would then become the point at which we either leave with no deal or present an alternative plan. The Government’s position is clear that the best way in which to leave the European Union is in a smooth and orderly manner, by supporting the negotiated withdrawal agreement. The point was powerfully made by my noble friends Lord Bridges, Lord Howell and Lord Cormack, as well as, somewhat surprisingly, by the noble Lord, Lord Soley, and perhaps slightly reluctantly by my noble friend Lord Lilley and the noble Lord, Lord Butler.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and others talked about extending Article 50. Our agreement with the EU provides for two possible durations, which I have just outlined. Either of these scenarios would require a change in our domestic legislation to reflect the new date.
I can confirm that the Government have today laid a draft statutory instrument under the EU withdrawal Act that provides for both of these possible agreed extensions. This will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure, so it will be debated in each House and must come into force by 11 pm on Friday 29 March. As my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal confirmed earlier, in this House, that debate will take place on Wednesday, so we have it all to look forward to again.
In response to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, this is to make sure that our domestic statute book reflects the extension of Article 50, which is already legally binding in international law. Not having this instrument in place would cause serious problems and uncertainty regarding the domestic statute book from 11 pm on 29 March. A large volume of EU exit legislation preparing the statute book for the moment that EU law ceases to apply has been extensively debated in this House and is due to enter into force on exit day, which is currently defined in the withdrawal Act as 29 March at 11 pm.
These regulations are necessary to bring domestic law in line with the agreement at the international level. Without this instrument, there would be a clash in domestic law, because contradictory provisions would apply to both EU rules and new domestic rules simultaneously. It is therefore vital that the instrument is approved by Parliament so that we can ensure that the statute book accurately reflects that the UK will remain a member state until at least 11 pm on 12 April.
Lord Adonis
The Minister has made a very important statement. Are we to understand that, if the third meaningful vote does not take place tomorrow, the statutory instrument changing the exit date to 12 April will be laid on Wednesday? In what circumstances will we debate a 22 May extension rather than a 12 April extension?
Lord Callanan
The statutory instrument has already been laid. It reflects the decision of the European Council, so both potential dates are included as options, depending on whether the meaningful vote is approved—not necessarily tomorrow but this week. That was the decision laid down by the Council and agreed to by the Prime Minister.
In response to the questions asked by my noble friend Lord Hailsham and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, no deal remains the legal default at 11 pm on 12 April, if that is where we end up. The Prime Minister was simply stating that Parliament is likely to intervene to prevent no deal, if a deal has not been agreed by then. This is in line with her comments on 26 February, when she told the House of Commons:
“So the United Kingdom will only leave without a deal on 29 March if there is explicit consent in this House for that outcome”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/19; col. 166.]
Viscount Hailsham
Is my noble friend saying that, in order to secure a no-deal Brexit, the House of Commons has to approve that affirmatively?
Lord Callanan
I do not want to go further than the comments of the Prime Minister which I have just quoted. This is in line with her comments on 26 February, when she said:
“So the United Kingdom will only leave without a deal on 29 March if there is explicit consent in this House for that outcome”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/19; col. 166.]
I will reply to my noble friend Lord Balfe, who called for an indefinite extension to Article 50. I am afraid to tell him that that is not possible. Any extension has to have an end date. As he will know from European law, Article 50 is a mechanism for leaving the EU, and an indefinite extension is, of course, not leaving.
Many noble Lords spoke about revoking Article 50 and mentioned the online petition and the march that we saw at the weekend. I noticed that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, spoke approvingly of both, but carefully avoided committing her party and saying whether Labour is actually in favour of either of those options. Indeed, if she carries on sitting on the fence, she might end up with spelks in her posterior. There is no doubt that there are clear and strongly held views on both sides of the debate. That has been clear since the referendum, when the largest democratic exercise in our history took place, with 17.4 million people voting to leave—as noble Lords are no doubt tired of me saying.
My old sparring partner, the House’s resident heckler, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, talked about the impressive march and petition. They were indeed impressive. Let me say, however, that we govern this country by the ballot box and by this Parliament and not by numbers on demonstrations, or indeed by internet polls. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, was very careful not to mention either—because, of course, he was a member of the Blair Government when we had a similar, and even bigger, demonstration against the Iraq war and by the Countryside Alliance—and we all know what happened as a result of those demonstrations.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, slightly bizarrely called on us to revoke Article 50 and then to hold a referendum. I agree with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, made on this. It seems slightly strange. If we do that, what are we going to hold a referendum on? Is he seriously saying that we could revoke—in other words, tell the EU unconditionally that we are going to stay as members and then maybe, possibly, decide that we are going to leave again? I think that that was possibly one of the more ridiculous of his strange ideas.
The Government have long been clear that failing to deliver on that vote would, in our view, be a failure of our democracy. On this point I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. In response to my noble friend Lord Hailsham, it remains a matter of firm policy that this Government will not be revoking Article 50 because to do so would contradict the result of the first people’s vote, which we are committed to respecting. This Government are committed to delivering on the result of that referendum and leaving in a smooth and orderly way.
I was particularly struck by the interesting and insightful speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham. She referred, for noble Lords who did not hear her, to her sadomasochistic tendencies. Now, before noble Lords get too excited, she was referring to a forthcoming book, which we will all read with great interest, on the history of European referenda, and how she thought referenda were a device for demagogues and dictators and were always a bad idea, but maybe we should have just one more of them, so bad are they. Of course, ignoring referendum results is a common feature of the European politics that she studies so closely.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, spoke about the European Parliament elections, a subject very familiar to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and of course myself. The Prime Minister has been clear that, should there be a further extension to Article 50 beyond 22 May, that would mean participation in the European elections. As she has said before, it is our firm belief that it would be wrong to ask the people of the United Kingdom, three years after voting to leave the EU, to then vote in the European elections.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Why do the Government think it is a particular burden to undertake European elections? Is it not a positive exercise in democracy that the Minister should welcome for a number of reasons? Will he confirm that it would in fact be possible for Peers to participate in those elections?
Lord Callanan
I think I answered the first point in my statement, but I think it is possible for Peers to participate. A number of Peers have been Members of the European Parliament, but of course they need to suspend their membership of this House while they are in the European Parliament. As we do not want it to happen, we do not need to speculate further about that.
In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, about amendments in the Commons, I think he spoke approvingly of some of the amendments in tonight’s House of Commons vote. I assume that he was not so approving of the one last week in which they voted decisively against a further people’s vote.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
Since the Minister has just commented on the European Parliament, could he please answer the question I asked about the way that he misled the House previously and said that there was no way on the statute book by which we could carry out the European elections, which turns out to be untrue, and which has been corrected by him in a written reply of 19 March? There is no impediment other than the unwillingness of the Government to use the laws that remain in force.
Lord Callanan
As the noble Lord has correctly observed, I have answered that question in a written response to him. Anybody who is interested can read that response.
In response to the second question from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, we cannot commit the Government to delivering the outcome of any vote held in the House of Commons, but the Prime Minister has been clear that we are committed to engaging constructively in the process and aiding the House. In the other place this evening, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has confirmed that the Government will find time later in the week to facilitate the process if the amendment in the name of my right honourable friend the Member for West Dorset is in fact not approved.
I am grateful as always for the many contributions made in the debate. The Government are focused on finding a way for the other place to support the deal so that we can leave the EU in a smooth and orderly manner. As the Prime Minister set out, the negotiated deal before the other place seeks to deliver on the referendum, retain trust in our democracy and respect the concerns of those who voted to remain. If the other place supports that deal, we can end the uncertainty and the divisive debate, and move forward to a new future outside the EU. That is what the Government are committed to doing. I beg to move.
Brexit: Article 50
Lord Adonis
That this House calls upon Her Majesty’s Government to revoke the notification of 29 March 2017 in accordance with Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister’s response was almost enough to provoke me into making a further speech, particularly his remark that the proposal to revoke is one of my more ridiculous ideas. The last idea that I set forward to the House that he greeted as ridiculous was that we would not be leaving the European Union on 29 March 2019, so this is a sure sign that it will come to pass. However, I do not believe that we should embark on such a momentous debate at 10.16 pm, so I will not be proceeding with the Motion this evening.